## Page 1

Vol.

20

Ohe Quited Statra Srnate

copys

Report of Proceedings

Hearing held before

Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations

With Respect to Intelligence Activities

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

-

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Washington, D. C.

-

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003

(202) 544-6000

105-5525

SEAROWED

- INDEXED.

SERIALIZED.

FILED

JAN

21976

TEP-SAN ANTONE

6

---

## Page 2

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

PONENT

STATEMENT OF:

PAGE

3

4

5

6

The Honorable Clarence M.

Kelley,

Direcotor, Federal Bureau of Inve-

stigation

2451

8

9

10

1]

1

2

1

.3

14

15

16

17

1

L8

20

21

22

23

24

25

---

## Page 3

AHW/ smn1

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

WARD & PAUL

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2447

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

--

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

---

United States Senate,

Select Committee to Study Governmental

Operations with Respect to

Intelligence Activities,

Washington, D. C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10

o'clock a.m., in Room 318, Russell Senate Office Building,

the honorable Frank Church (Chairman of the Committee)

presiding.

Present: Senators Church (presiding), Hart of Michigan,

Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Baker, Goldwater and

Mathias.

Also present: William G. Miller, Staff Director; Frederick

A. 0. Schwarz, Jr., Chief Counsel; Curtis R. Smothers, Minority

Counsel; Paul Michel, Joseph diGenova, Barbara Banoff, Frederick

Baron, Mark Gitenstein, Loch Johnson, David Bushong, Charles

Lombard, John Bayly, Charles Kirbow, Michael Madigan, Bob

Kelley, John Elliff, Elliot Maxwell, Andy Postal, Pat Shea,

Michael Epstein and Burt Wides, Professional Staff Members.

The Chairman. The Committee's witness this morning is

---

## Page 4

smin: 2

2448

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the Honorable Clarence M.. Kelley, the Director of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Kelley was appointed Director in July of 1973 in a

troubled time for the FBI. His experience as an innovative

law enforcement administrator in charge of the Kansas City

Police Department for over ten years, and his previous work as

a Special Agent of the FBI have made him uniquely qualified

to lead the Bureau.

The Select Committee is grateful for the cooperation

extended by Director Kelley in the course of its inquiry over

the past months. The Committee is also impressed by the

openness of the FBI's witnesses before this Committee, and

their willingness to consider the need for legislation to

clarify the Bureau's intelligence responsibility.

It is important to remember from the outset that this

Committee is examining only a small portion of the FBI's

activities. Our hearings have concentrated on FBI domestic

intelligence operations. We have consistently expressed our

admiration and support for the Bureau's criminal investigative

and law enforcement work, and we recognize the vital importance

of counterespionage in the modern world. But domestic

intelligence has raised many difficult questions.

The Committee has also concentrated on the past rather

than on present FBI activities. The abuses brought to light

in our hearings occurred years and even decades before Director

---

## Page 5

]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kelley took charge.

The Staff has advised the Committee that under Director

Kelley the FBI has taken significant steps to rethink previous

policies and to establish new safeguards against abuse. The

FBI is now placing greater emphasis on foreign related intelli-

gence operations, and less on purely domestic surveillance.

The FBI is working more closely with the Justice Department in

developing policies and standards for intelligence. These

are welcome developments.

Nevertheless, many important issues remain unresolved.

Therefore, we have invited Director Kelley to share with the

Committee his views on some of the considerations the Congress

should take into account in thinking about the future of

FBI intelligence. Among these

issues are whether FBI surveil-

lance should extend beyond the investigation of persons

likely to commit specific crimes; whether there should be

outside supervision or approval before the FBI conducts certain

types of investigations or uses certain surveillance techniques;

whether foreign related intelligence activities should be

strictly separated from the FBI's domestic law enforcement

functions, and what should be done to the information already

in the FBI files and that which may go into those files in

the future.

The Committee looks forward to a constructive exchange

of views with Director Kelley this morning, with Attorney

---

## Page 6

smn .4

2450.

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

& PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

General Levi tomorrow, and with both the FBI and the Justice

Department in the next months as the Committee considers

recommendations that will strengthen the American people's

confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That

confidence is vital for the effective enforcement of Federal

law and for the security of the nation against foreign

espionage.

Director Kelley, we are pleased to welcome you, and if

you would have a prepared statement you would like to lead off

with, please proceed.

---

## Page 7

smn 5

1

2

4

5

6

WARD

PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2451

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLARENCE M. KELLEY,

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. Kelley. Thank you very much, Senator Church and

gentlemen.

I welcome the interest which this Committee has shown in

the FBI and most particularly in our operations in the intelli-

gence and internal security fields.

I share your high regard for the rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Throughout my

35 year career in law enforcement you will find the same insis-

tence, as has been expressed by this Committee, upon programs

of law enforcement that are themselves fully consistent with

law.

I also have strongly supported the concept of legislative

oversight. In fact, at the time my appointment as Director of

the FBI and was being considered by the Senate Judiciary

Committee two and one half years ago, I told the members of

that Committee of my firm belief in Congressional oversight.

This Committee has completed the most exhaustive study

of our intelligence and security operations that has ever been

undertaken by anyone outside the FBI other than the present

Attorney General. At the outset, we pledged our fullest

cooperation and promised to be as candid and forthright as

possible in responding to your questions and complying with your

requests.

---

## Page 8

sin

1

2

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I believe we have lived up to those promises.

The members and staff of this Committee have had unprece-

dented access to FBI information.

You have talked to the personnel who conduct security-type

investigations and who are personally involved in every facet

of our day-to-day intelligence operations.

You have attended numerous briefings by FBI officials who

have sought to familiarize the Committee and its staff with

all major areas of our activities and operations in the national

security and intelligence fields.

In brief, you have had firsthand examination of these

matters that is unmatched at any time in the history of the

Congress.

As this Committee has stated, these hearings have, of

necessity, forcused largely on certain errors and abuses. I

credit this Committee for its forthright recognition that the

hearings do not give a full or balanced account of the FBI's

record of performance.

It is perhaps in the nature of such hearings to focus

on abuses to the exclusion of positive accomplishments of the

organization.

The Counterintelligence Programs which have received the

lion's share of public attention and critical comment constituted

an infinitesimal portion of our overall work.

A Justice Department Committee which was formed last year

---

## Page 9

smn 7

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2453

1

2

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's Counterintelligence

Programs has reported that in the five basic ones it found

3,247 Counterintelligence Programs were submitted to FBI

Headquarters

from 1956 to 1971. Of this total, 2,370,

less than three fourths, were approved.

I repeat, the vast majority of those 3,247 proposals were

being devised, considered, and many were rejected, in an era

when the FBI was handling an average of 700,000 investigative

matters per year.

Nonetheless, the criticism which has been expressed

regarding the Counterintelligence Programs is most legitimate

and understandable.

The question might well be asked what I had in mind when

I stated last year that for the FBI to have done less than it

did under the circumstances then existing would have been an

abdication of its responsibilities to the American people..

What I said then, in 1974, and what I believe today, is

that the FBI employees involved in these programs did what they

felt was expected of them by the President, the Attorney General,

the Congress, and the people of the United States.

Bomb explosions rocked public and private offices and

buildings; rioters led by revolutionary extremists laid seige

to military, industrial, and educational facilities; and

killings, maimings, and other atrocities accompanied such

acts of violence from New England to California.

---

## Page 10

smn 8

2454

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The victims of these

acts were human beings, men, women,

and children. As is the case in time of peril, whether real or

perceived, they looked to their Government, their elected and

appointed leadership, and to the FBI and other law enforcement

agencies to protect their lives, their property, and their

rights.

There were many calls for action from Members of Congress

and others, but few guidelines were furnished. The FBI and other

law enforcement agencies were besieged by demands, impatient

demands, for immediate action.

FBI employees recognized the danger; felt they had a

responsibility to respond; and in good faith initiated actions

designed to counter conspiratorial efforts of self-proclaimed

revolutionary groups, and to neutralize violent activities.

In the development and execution of these programs,

mistakes of judgment admittedly were made.

Our concern over whatever abuses occurred in the Counter-

intelligence Programs, and there were some substantial ones,

should not obscure the underlying purpose of those programs.

We must recognize that situations have occurred in the

past and will arise in the future where the Government may well

be expected to depart from its traditional role, in the FBI's

case, as an investigative and intelligence-gathering

agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet

an imminent threat to human life or property.

---

## Page 11

smn 9.

2455

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

In short, if we learn a murder or bombing is to be carried

out now, can we truly meet our responsibilities by investigating

only after the crime has occurred, or should we have the

ability to prevent? I refer to those instances where there is

a strong sense of urgency because of an imminent threat to

human life.

Where there exists the potential to penetrate and disrupt,

the Congress must consider the question of whether of not such

preventive action should be available to the FBI.

These matters are currently being addressed by a task

force in the Justice Department, including the FBI,

and I am confident that Departmental guidelines and controls can

be developed in cooperation with pertinent Committees of Congress

to insure that such measures are used in an entirely responsible

manner.

Probably the most important question here today is what

assurances I can give that the errors and abuses which arose

under the Counterintelligence Programs will not occur again?

First, let me assure the Committee that some very sub-

stantial changes have been made in key areas of the FBI'S

methods of operations since I took the oath of office as

Director on July 9, 1973.

Today we place a high premium on openness, openness

both within and without the service.

I have instituted a program of open, frank discussion

---

## Page 12

smn 10 :

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2456

1

2

3

4

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in the decision-making process which insures that no future

program or major policy decision will ever be adopted without a

full and critical review of its propriety.

Participatory management has become a fact in the FBI.

I have made it known throughout our Headquarters and

Field Divisions that I welcome all employees, regardless of

position or degree of experience, to contribute their thoughts

and suggestions, and to voice whatever criticisms or

reservations they may have concerning any area of our operations.

The ultimate decisions in the Bureau are mine, and I take

full responsibility for them. My goal is to achieve maximum

critical analysis among our personnel without in any manner

weakening or undermining our basic command structure.

The results of this program have been most beneficial, to

me personally, to the FBI's disciplined performance, and to

the morale of our employees.

In addition, since some of the mistakes of the past

were occasioned by direct orders from higher authorities outside

the FBI, we have welcomed Attorney General Edward Levi's

guidance, counsel, and his continuous availability, in his

own words, "as a 'lightning rod' to deflect improper requests."

Within days after taking office, Attorney General Levi

instructed that I immediately report to him any requests

or practices which, in my judgment, were improper or which,

considering the context of the request, I believed presented

---

## Page 13

smnll

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2457

the appearances of impropriety.

I am pleased to report to this Committee as I have to the

Attorney General that during my nearly two and one half years as

Director under two Presidents and three Attorneys General, no

one has approached me or made overtures, directly or otherwise,

to use the FBI for partisan political or other improper

purposes.

I can assure you that I would not for a moment consider

honoring any such request.

I can assure you, too, in my administration of the FBI

I routinely bring to the attention of the Attorney General and

the Deputy Attorney General major policy questions, including

those which arise in my continuing review of our operations and

practices. These are discussed openly and candidly in order

that the Attorney General can exercise his responsibilities

over the FBI.

I am convinced that the basic structure of the FBI today

is sound. But it would be a mistake to think that integrity

can be assured only through institutional means.

Integrity is a human quality. It depends upon the

character of the person who occupies the office of the

Director and every member of the FBI under him.

I am proud of the 19,000 men and women with whom it is

my honor to serve today. Their dedication, their professionalism

their standards, and the self-discipline which they personally

---

## Page 14

smn 12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2458

1

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

demand of themselves and expect of their associates are the

nation's ultimate assurance of proper and responsible conduct

at all times by the FBI.

The Congress and the members of this Committee in

particular have gained a great insight into the problems

confronting the FBI in the security and intelligence fields,

problems which all too often we have left to resolve without

sufficient guidance from the Executive Branch of the Congress

itself.

As in all human endeavors, errors of judgment have been

made. But no one who is looking for the cause of our

failures should confine his search solely to the FBI, or even

to the Executive Branch.

The Congress itself has long possessed the mechanism for

FBI oversight; yet, seldom has it been exercised.

An initial step was taken in the Senate in 1973 when the

Committee on the Judiciary established a Subcommittee on FBI

Oversight. Hearings had been commenced, and we were fully

committed to maximum participation with the members of that

Subcommittee.

I laud their efforts. However, those efforts are of very

recent origin in terms of the FBI's history.

One of the greatest benefits of the study this Committee

has made is the expert knowledge you have gained of the complex

problems confronting the FBI. But I respectfully submit that

---

## Page 15

2459

smn 13

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

those benefits are wasted if they do not lead to the next step,

a step that I believe is absolutely essential, a legislative

charter, expressing Congressional determination of intelligence

jurisdiction for the FBI.

Action to resolve the problems confronting us in the

security and intelligence fields is urgently needed; and it

must be undertaken in a forthright manner. Neither the Congress

nor the public can afford to look the other way, leaving it to

the FBI to do what must be done, as too often has occurred in

the past.

This means too that Congress must assume a continuing role

not in the initial decision-making process but in the review of

our performance.

I would caution against a too-ready reliance upon the

courts to do our tough thinking for us. Some proposals that

have been advanced during these hearings would extend the role

of the courts into the early stages of the investigative

process and, thereby, would take over what historically have

been Executive Branch decisions.

I frankly feel that such a trend, if unchecked, would

seriously undermine the independence of the Judiciary and cast

them in a role not contemplated by the authors of our

Constitution. Judicial review cannot be a substitute for Con-

gressional oversight or Executive decision.

The FBI urgently needs a clear and workable determination

---

## Page 16

sIn 14

-50

1

2

WARD

& PAUL

First

Street,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2460

of our jurisdiction in the intelligence field, a jurisdictional

statement that the Congress finds to be responsive to both

the will and the needs of the American people.

Senators, first and foremost, I am a police officer, a

career police officer. In my police experience, the must

frustrating of all problems that I have discovered facing

law enforcement in this country, Federal, state, and local, is

when demands are made of them to perform their traditional

role as protector of life and property without clear and

understandable legal bases to do so.

I recognize that the formulation of such a legislative

charter will be a most precise and demanding task.

It must be sufficiently flexible that it does not stifle

the FBI's effectiveness

in combating the growing incidence

of crime and violence across the United States. That charter

must clearly address the demonstrated problems of the past;

yet, it must amply recognize the fact that times change and

so also do the nature and thrust of our criminal and subversive

challenges.

The fact that the Department of Justice has commenced

the formulation of operational guidelines governing our

intelligence activities does not in any manner diminish the need

for legislation. The responsibility for conferring juris-

diction resides with the Congress.

In this regard, I am troubled by some proposals which

---

## Page 17

smn 15

2461

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

question the need for intelligence gathering, suggesting that

information needed for the prevention of violence can be

acquired in the normal course of criminal investigations.

As a practical matter, the line between intelligence

work and regular criminal investigations is often difficult

to describe. What begins as an intelligence investigation may

well end in arrest and prosecution of the subject. But there

are some fundamental differences between these investigations

that should be recognized, differences in scope, in objective

and in the time of initiation. In the usual criminal case, a

crime has occurred and it remains only for the Government to

identify the perpetrator and to collect sufficient evidence

for prosecution. Since the investigation normally follows

the elements of the crime, the scope of the inquiry is

limited and fairly well defined.

By contrast, intelligence work involves the gathering of

information, not necessarily evidence. The purpose may well be

not to prosecute, but to thwart crime or to insure that the

Government: has enough information to meet any future crisis

or emergency. The inquiry is necessarily broad because it

must tell us not only the nature of the threat, but also whether

the threat is imminent, the persons involved, and the

means by which the threat will be carried out. The ability

of the Government to prevent criminal acts is dependent on

our anticipation of those criminal acts. Anticipation,

---

## Page 18

smn 16

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2462

2

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in turn, is dependent on advance information, that is, intelli-

gence.

Certainly, reasonable people can differ on these issues.

Given the opportunity, I am confident that the continuing need

for intelligence work can be documented to the full satisfaction

of the Congress. We recognize that what is at stake here is not

the interests of the FBI, but rather the interests of every

citizen of this country. We recognize also that the resolution

of these matters will demand extensive and thoughtful

deliberation by the Congress. To this end, I pledge the

complete cooperation of the Bureau with this Committee or

its successors in this important task.

In any event, you have my unqualified assurance as

Director that we will carry out both the letter and the spirit

of such legislation as the Congress may enact.

That is the substance of my prepared statement.

I would also like to say extemporaneously that I note

that on this panel are some gentlemen who were on the Judiciary

Committee which heard my testimony at the time I was presented

to them for candidacy as Director of the FBI. At that time

I took very seriously the charge which may possibly result

in the deliberation of this Committee and of the full Senate.

I have been well aware of the problems of the FBI since that

time. I have also been well aware of the capabilities of

the FBI to discharge those responsibilities. I don't take

---

## Page 19

LYUJ

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

them lightly. I am of sufficient experience and age that I

have pledged myself to do what is good and proper. I say this

not as a self-serving statement but in order that we might

place in context my position within the FBI. I could seek

sanctuary and perhaps a safe sanctuary by saying during the

period these things occurred I was with the local police

department in Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to that time,

however, I was in the FBI.

During the time I was with the FBI, during the time I

was with the police department, I continued throughout that

period a close acquaintance with and a strong affection for

the FBI.

I only want to point out that based on those years, based

on those observations, we have here a very fine and very

sensitive and a very capable organization. I feel that there

is much that can still be done. I know that we are not without

fault. I know that from those experiences I have had. We

will not be completely without fault in the future. But I

assure you that we look upon this inquiry, we look upon any

mandate which you may feel you have, that you should look at

this is good and proper, and we do not intend -- I only want

to place in your thinking the fact that you have here a

matchless organization, one which I continue to say was

not motivated in some of these instances, and in most of

them, and I cannot justify some, that the motivation was of the

---

## Page 20

smn 18 -

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2464

1

2

3

4

5

6

best. I am not pleading, as does a defense attorney. I am

only putting in your thinking my objective observations as

a citizen who is somewhat concerned about the future of this

organization. It is too precious for us to have it in

a condition of jeopardy.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Director Kelley.

I want to turn first to Senator Hart who won't be able

to remain through the whole morning. I think he has one

question he would like to ask.

8

9

end t. 1 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

---

## Page 21

WARD: GSH

IA OpEn

2/1°35

Phone (Area 202)

2465

1

2

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Hart of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mathias and I have Judiciary Committee hearings at 10:30.

Iahve several questions, and I'm sure they'll be

covered by others, but the ones that I have is a result of

reading your testimony and listening to it this morning, and

it relates to your comment at the foot of page 10 and at the

top of 11.

There you are indicating that you caution us about

extending the court's role in the early stages of investigations

suggesting that this might take us beyound the role comtemplated

for the courts under the Constutution.

Now as you have said, aside from the so-called national

security wiretap problem, the main focus of our discussions

and concern has been on the possibility reguiring court

approval for the use of informants, informants directed to

penetrate and report on some group.

And one of the witnesses yesterday, Professor Dorsen,

pointed our that really those

informants are the most pervasive

type of an eavesdropping device. It is a human device. It's

really, an informant is really more intrusive on my privacy

than a bug or a tap because he can follow me anywhere. He

can ask me questions to get information the government would

like to have.

Now we certainly involve the courts in approval of the

wiretaps for physical searches with the intent of the drafters

---

## Page 22

Phone (Area

544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

5

6.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2466

of the Constitution to have a neutral third party magistrate

screen use of certain investigative techniques. And the

informant is such a technique. He functions sort of like a

general warrant, and I don't see why requiring court approval

would violate the role envisaged for the courts.

And as I leave, I would like to get your reactions to

my feelings.

Mr. Kelley. I do not feel that there is any use of the

informant in intrusion, which is to this extent objectionable.

It has of course been approved, the concept of the informant,

by numerous court decisions.

Let us go down not to the moral connotation of the use

of the informant.

I think, as in many cases, that is a matter of balance.

You have only very few ways of solving crimes. You have

basically in the use of the informant, I think, the protection

of the right of the victin to be victimized. You have within

the Constitution certain grants that are under ordinary

circumstances abrogation of rights. The right of search and

seizure, which, of course, can't be unreasonable, but none-

theless, you have the right.

I think that were we to lose the right of the informant,

we would lose to a great measure our capability of doing our

job.

Now I'm not arguing with you, senator, that it is not an

---

## Page 23

WARD & PAUL

1

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2467

unusual procedure. I'm not even going to say that it is not

an intrusion, because it is. But it has to be one I think

that is by virtue of the benefits must be counted.

We don't like to use it.

We don't like the problems that

are attendant. We take great care.

Now you say about the court having possibility taking

jurisdiction over them and guiding. I think that possibly we

could present the matter to the court but what are they going

to do insofar as monitoring their effort? Are they going to

have to follow it all the way through?

Also, there is, of course, urgency in the other contacts.

Must the court be contacted for each and approval of the court

given for each contact?

There are a great many problens insofar as administration

of it.

I frankly feel, and again, all I can do is give you my

idea - I frankly feel that there is a satisfactory control over

the informants as we now exercise it today. Yes, there are

going to be some who will get beyond our control, but this

is going to happen no matter what you do.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, I appreciate your

reaction.

I was not suggesting that there is consideration here to

prohibit informants. I was reflecting a view that I felt and

hold that the use of an informant does require some balance, as

---

## Page 24

2468

544-6

000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you yourself said, and I would be more comfortable with a

third party making a judgment as to whether the intrusion is

warranted by the particular circumstance. But I do understand

your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hart.

(Senator Hart leaves the hearing room.)

The Chairman. Senator Baker, do you have questions?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Kelley, I have a great respect for you and your

organization and I personally regret that the organization is

in political distress, but we've both got to recognize that

it is, along with other agencies and departments of the

government.

I think you probably would agree with me that even though

that is extraordinarily unpleasant and in many respects

unfortunate, that it also has a plus side. That is, it gives

us an indication of our future direction and the opportunity,

at least, to improve the level of competency and service of

the government itself.

With that hopeful

note, would you be agreeable then to

volunteering for me any suggestions you have on how to improve

the responsiveness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or

indeed, for any other law enforcement agencies of the government,

to the Congress, to the Attorney General, to the President, and

---

## Page 25

2469

gsh

Phone (Area 202544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

beyond that, would you give me any suggestions you have on

how you would provide the methods, the access, the documents,

the records, the authority, for the Congress to perform its

essential, I believe,

essential oversight responsibility to

see that these functions, these delicate functions are being

undertaken properly?

And before you answer, let me tell you two or three thing$

I am concerned about.

It hasn't been long ago that the FBI Director was not

even confirmed by the Senate of the United States. I believe

you are the first one to be confirmed by the Senate of the

United States. I think that is a movement in the right

direction. I think the FBI has taken on a stature that, an

additional importance that requires it to have closer supervision

and scrutiny by us.

At the same time I rather doubt that we can become

involved in the daily relationship between you and the Attorney

General.

Therefore, I tend to believe that the Attorney General

needs to be more directly involved in the operations of the

FBI.

I would appreciate any comments on that.

Second, I rather believe that major decisions of the

intelligence community and the FBI ought to be in writing, so

that the Congress can, if it needs to in the future, take a

---

## Page 26

2470

2057619-601

44-6000

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

look at these decisions and the process by which they were

made to decide that you are or you are not performing your

services diligently.

I don't think you can have oversight unless you have

access to records, and in many cases records don't exist

and in some cases the people who made those decisions are now

departed and in other cases you have conflicts.

How would you suggest then that you improve the quality

of service of your agency? How would you propose that you

increase the opportunity for oversight of the Congress of the

United States? What other suggestions do you have for improving

the level of law enforcement in the essential activity that

is required?

Mr. Kelley. I would possibly be repetitious in answering

this Senator, but I get a great deal of pleasure from telling

what I think is necessary and what I hope that I have followed,

one which is beyond my control, but which I think is very

important is that the position of Director, the one to which

great attention should be paid in choosing the man who will

properly acquit himself.

I feel that the Judiciary Committee, at least in going

over me, did a pretty good job. I feel that it is most

necessary that care be taken that his philosophy, his means

of management, his facility to adapt to change, his tendency

toward consulting with other members of the official family,

---

## Page 27

WARD & PAUL

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-

2471

that he be willing to, for example, go through oversight with

no reticence, and that I think that he should be chosen very

carefully.

I think further that he should be responsible for those

matters which indicate impropriety or illegality.

Senator Baker. Could you stop for just a second? Who

does he work for? Does the Director, in your view, work for

the President of the United States, for the Attorney General,

for the Justice Department, for the Executive Branch?

Who does the executive of the FBI, the Director of the

FBI, be responsible to, who should he be responsible to?

Mr. Kelley. Jurisdictionally, to the Attorney General,

but I think this is such an important field of influence that

it is not at all unlikely that we can expand it to the

judiciary, the legislative, and of course, we are under the

Attorney General.

Senator Baker. Do you have any problems with the idea

of the President of the United States calling the Director of

the FBI and asking for performance of a particular task?

Does that give you any difficulty? Or do you think that

the relationship between the FBI Director and the President

is such that that is desirable, or should it be conduited

through the Ittorney General?

Mr. Kelley. I think it should be in the great majority

of the cases conduited through the Attorney General. There

---

## Page 28

Phone (Area

544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2472

has been traditionally some acceptance of the fact that if

the President wants to see and talk with the Director, he

may do so, call him directly.

It has been my practice in such an event to thereafter

report to the Attorney General, whoever it might be, that I

have been called over and I discussed and was told. And this

was revealed in full to them.

Senator Baker. I suppose we could pass a statute that

says the President has to go through the Attorney General,

although I rather suspect it would be a little presumptuous.

But to go the next step, do you think it is necessary

for the pursuit of effective oversight on the part of the

Congress, to have some sort of document written, or at least

some sort of account of a Presidential order or an order of

the Attorney General given to a Director of the FBI?

Do you think that these things need to be handled in

a more formal way?

Mr. Kelley. Personally, it would be my practice in

the event I receive such an order, to request that it be

documented. This is a protection as well as a clarification

as to whether or not it should be placed as part of legislation.

I frankly would like to reserve that for some more considera-

tion.

I don't know whether it would be, but I think that it

can be worked very easily.

---

## Page 29

2473

gst 9

First Street,

S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Baker. Mr. Kelley, Attorney General Levi, I

believe, has already established some sort of agency or

function within the Department that is serving as the equivalent,

I suppose, of an Inspector General of the Justice Department,

including the FBI.

Are you familiar with the steps that Mr. Levi has

taken in that respect?

I think he calls it the Office of

Professional Responsibility.

Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir, I'm familiar with it.

Senator Baker.

Do you have any conment on that? will

you give us any observations

as to whether you think that

will be useful, helpful, or whether it will not be useful or

helpful, how it affects the FBI, how you visualize your

relationship to it in the future?

Mr. Kelley. I don't object to this, which is to some

extent an oversight within the Department of Justice under the

Attorney General.

Frankly, it just came out. I have not considered it

completely, but to the general concept, yes, I very definitely

subscribe.

Senator Baker.

How would you feel about extending that

concept of government-wide operation, a national Inspector

General who is involved with an oversight of all of the

agencies of government as they interface with the Constitutionall

protected rights of the individual citizen?

would you care

---

## Page 30

544-6000

g5hl0

1

2

4

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., WashIngton, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2474

to comment on that, or would you rather save that for a while?

Mr. Kelley. I would like to reserve that one.

Senator Baker. I'm not surprised. Would you think about

it and let us know what you think about it?

Mr. Kelley. I will.

Senator Baker. All right.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much.

The Chairman. Senator Huddleston.

Senator Huddleston. Thank: you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kelley, you describe on page 4 the conditions that

existed when much of the abuse that we have talked about during

this inguiry occurred, indicating that the people within the

Bureau felt like they were doing what was expected of them

by the President, by the Attorney General, the Congress and

the people of the United States.

Does not this suggest that there has been a reaction

there to prevailing attitudes that might have existed in the

country because of certain circumstances rather than any

clear and specific direct instructions that might have been

received from proper authorities? And if that is the case,

is it possible in developing this charter, this guideline,

to provide for that kind of specific instruction?

Mr. Kelley. I think so, yes. I think that they can

logically be incorporated and that --

Senator Huddleston. You can see there would be a continuir

---

## Page 31

Phone (Area

ah fl

44-6000

2475

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

danger if any agency is left to simply react to whatever the

attitudes may be.at a specific time in this country because

Mr. Kelley.

Senator, I don't contenplate it might be

a continuing danger, but it certainly would be a very acceptahle

guidepost whereby we can, in the event such a need seems

to arise, know what we can do.

Senator Huddleston.

Well, in pursuing the area which

Senator llart was discussing, that is whether of not we can

provide sufficient guidelines

would replace a decision by the

court in determining what action might be proper and specific -

ally in protecting individual's rights, can't we also

provide the restrictions and guidelines and the various

techniques that might be used?

For instance, supposing we do establish the fact, as

has already been done, that informants are necessary and

desirable. Ilo do we keep that informant operating within the

proper limits so that he in fact is not violating individual

rights?

Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, much of the reliance must

be placed on the agent and the supervision of the EBI to assure

that there is no infringement of rights.

Senator Huddleston. But this is an aware we've gotten

into some difficulty in the past. We have assumed that the

particular action was necessary, that there was a present

threat that some intelligence programs should be initiated, but

---

## Page 32

Phone (Area

--ha12

544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2476

in many cases it has gone beyond what would appear to have been

necessary to have addressed the original threat.

How do we keep within the proper balance there?

Mc. Kelley. Well, actually, it's just about like any

other offense. It is an invasion of the other individual's

right and it is by an officer and an FBI agent is an officer.

There's the possibility of criminal prosecution against him.

This is one which I think might flow if he counsels

the informant.

Now insofar as his inability to control the informant,

I don't suppose that would warrant prosecution, but there is

still supervisory control over that agent and over that

informant by insisting that control is exercised on a continuing

basis.

Senator Huddleston. It brings up an interesting point

as to whether or not a law enforcenent agency ought to be

very alert to any law violations of its own members or anyone

else.

If a ihite House official asks the FBI or someone to do

something unlawful, the question seems to me to occur as to

whether of not that is not a violation that should be reported

by the FBI.

Mr. Kelley. I think that any violation which comes to

our attention should either be handled by us or the proper

authority.

---

## Page 33

+4-6000

98h21 3

End 2

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2477

Senator Huddleston. But that hasn't been the case in the

past.

Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't know what you're referring

to but I would think your statement is proper.

Senator Huddleston. Well, we certainly have evidence

of unlawful activity taking place in various projects that

have been undertaken, which certainly were not brought to

light willingly by the FBI or by other law enforcement agencies!

The question that I'n really concerned about is as

we attempt to traw a guideline and charters that would give

the Agency the best flexibility that they may need, a wide

range of threats, how do we control what happens within each

of those actions to keep them from going beyond what

was intended to begin with?

---

## Page 34

AHW/ smnl

t. 3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2478

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Kelley. You're still speaking of informants.

Senator Huddleston. Not only informants but the agents

themselves as they go into surveillance, wiretaps, or whatever

intelligence gathering techniques.

The original thrust of my question was, even though we

may be able to provide guidelines of a broad nature, how do

we control the techniques that might be used, that in themselves

might be used, that in themselves might be a serious violation

of the rights.

Mr. Kelley. Well, first, I don't know whether it's

germane to your question but I do feel that it should be pointed

out that the association to, the relationship between the

informant and his agent handler is a very confidential one,

and I doubt very seriously whether we could have any guide-

lines, where there might be an extension of any monitors here

because thereby you do have a destruction of that relationship.

Insofar as the activities of agents, informants or others

which may_be illegal, we have on many occasions learned of

violations of the law on the part of informants, and either

prosecuted ourselves, through the reporting of it to the

United States Attorney, or turned it over to the local authority

We have done this on many a time, many occasions. Insofar

as our own personnel, we have an internal organization, the

Inspection Division, which reviews this type of activity, and

if there be any violation, yes, no question about it, we would

---

## Page 35

smn 2

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-

2479

pursue it to the point of prosecution.

Senator Huddleston. But it could be helped by periodic

review.

MI. Kelley. We do, on an annual basis, review the

activities of our 59 offices through that same Inspection

Division, and they have a clear charge to go over this as well

as other matters.

Senator Huddleston. Mr. Kelley, you pointed. out the

difference in the approaches when gathering intelligence, in

gathering evidence after a crime has been committed.

Would there be any advantage, or would it be feasible to

attempt to separate these functions within the Agency, in the

departments, for instance, with not having a nixing of

gathering intelligence and gathering evidence? Are the technique

definable and different?:

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I think they are compatible. I

see no objection to the way that they are now being handled

on a management basis. I think, as a matter of fact, it is

a very fine association whereby the intelligence, stemming as

it does from a substantive violation, is a natural complement.

Senator Huddleston. Now, another area, the FBI furnishes

information to numerous government agencies.

Is this properly restricted and controlled at the present

time in your judgment

as to just who can ask the FBI for

information, what kind of information they can ask for, and

---

## Page 36

smn 5

2480

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

who might also be inclined to call the Director and ask him

to do specific things?

Could there be some clearcut understanding as to whether

or not the Director would be obligated to undertake any such

project, that just anybody at the White House might suggest?

Mr. Kelley. It's very clear to me that any request must

come from Mr. Buchen's office, and that it be, in any case,

wherein it is a request for action, that it be followed with

a letter so requesting.

This has come up before during the Watergate hearings, as

I think it has been placed very vividly in our minds, in

take care that you just don't follow the request of some

underling who does not truly reflect the desire of the President.

Senator Huddleston. Just one more question about

techniques, aside from the guidelines of authority on broad

projects undertaken.

Would it be feasible from time to time in a Congressional

oversight committee, would be able to discuss with the Department

with the Bureau various techniques so that they could have

some input as to whether of not these actions are consistent

with the overall guidelines, to start with, and consistent

with the very protections?

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I have already said to the

översight committee of the Senate that so far as I can now

see, the only thing that would be withheld is the identity of

---

## Page 37

'smn 3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2481

probably even more importantly, what restrictions can be put

on the use of that information once it has been supplied by

the FBI?

Mr. Kelley. I think so, Senator.

Senator Huddleston. You think there are proper restrictions

now?

Mr. Kelley. I don't know that we can ourselves judge

in all cases whether or not there is good and sufficient reason

for an Agency to inquiry. I think that there should be a

very close delineation by the agencies as to what they're

going to ask for, but I think that we do have sufficient rules

that at least to us we are satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. You're confident that the information

your agency supplies is not being misused, to the detriment

of the rights of any individuals.

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I'm only confident in what I

do myself. I would say that I am satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. I was wondering whether some

inclusion ought to be made in whatever charter is made as to

who specifically can request, what limits ought to be placed

on what the request, and what they can do with it after they

get it.

Mr. Kelley. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. I have some concern about the fact

that in intelligence gathering, you gather, you are just

---

## Page 38

smn 4

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2482

bound to gather a great deal of information about some

individual that is useless as far as the intent of the intelli-

gence gathering is concerned, but might be in some way embarrast

sing or harmful to the individual, whether or not there's any

effort to separate this kind of information out of a person's

file that is really initiated for a purpose, for a specific

purpose unrelated to this information.

Is there any effort, or could any direction be given to

doing that?

Mr. Kelley. We would be very happy to work under the

guidelines or rules or anything else to purge material which

is extraneous, irrelevant, or for any other reason objection-

able.

Senator Huddleston. And how about the length of time

that these files are kept in the agency?

Mr. Kelley. We are willing to work within that framework,

too.

Senator Huddleston. I think that might be done.

Now, I think in developing the chain of command, so to

speak, it certainly would be very difficult to prevent the

President of the United States from calling up the head of

the FBI or anyone else and discussing any law enforcement

problem he might so desire, and perhaps even give direction

to the agency.

But how about that? What about White House personnel

---

## Page 39

smn 6.

2483

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

informants. We'll discuss techniques, we'll discuss our

present activities. I think this is the only way that we can

exchange our opinions and get accomplished what you want to

accomplish and what I want to accomplish.

Senator Huddleston. I feel that is an important aspect

of it because even though you have a charter which gives broad

direction for all the guidelines and to the types of projects

that enter into it, if we don't get down to specifics, such

things as how intelligence is to be collected, how evidence

is to be collected, what is done after it is collected, this

type of thing, it seems to me we are leaving a wide gap

again for the Bureau to assume that it has total instruction

and total permission to move in a certain direction and go

beyond what is intended or what was authorized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Director.

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater?

Senator Goldwater. MI. Kelley, as part of the FBI

electronic surveillance of DI. King, several tapes of

specific conversations, and later a composite King tape were

produced.

Are these tapes still in the possession of the FBI?

MI. Kelley. Yes, sir.

Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by you?

Mr. Kelley. No, sir.

Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by any of your

---

## Page 40

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2484

staff, to your knowledge?

MI. Kelley. Senator, I think that they have been reviewed.

I know that at least some have reviewed it within the area of

this particular section. There has been no review of them

since I came to the FBI, I can tell you that.

Senator Goldwater. Would these tapes be available to

the Committee if the Committee felt they would like to hear

them?

Mr. Kelley. This, Senator Goldwater, is a matter which is

of, as I said before, some delicacy, and there would have to

be a discussion of this in an executive session.

The Chairman. I might say in that connection that the

Committee staff gave some consideration to this matter and

decided that it would compound the original error for the

staff to review the tapes, because that would be a still

further invasion of privacy, and

so the staff refrained from

insisting on obtaining the tapes, believing that it was

unnecessary, and quite possibly improper, in order to get at

what we needed to know about the king case.

So the staff did refrain, and

for that reason the issue

never came to a head. I just wanted to lay that information

before the Senator.

Senator Goldwater. I realize that's a prerogative of

the staff, but it's also the prerogative of the Committee if,

and I'm not advocating it, if we wanted to hear them to

---

## Page 41

smn 8

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2485

1

2

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ourselves whether Mr. Hoover was off on a wild goose chase

or whether there was,

in effect, some reason. Again, I am

not advocating it, I am merely asking a question. They would

be available if the Committee took a vote to hear them and

decided on it.

Mr. Kelley. I don't think it would be within my juris-

diction to respond to this, Senator. It would have to be the

Attorney General.

Senator Goldwater. I see.

Now, are these tapes and other products of surveillance

routinely retained even after an individual ceased to be a

target of inquiry?

Mr. Kelley. They are retained usually for ten years.

Senator Goldwater. Ten years.

Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir.

Senator Goldwater. What is the future value, if any,

to the Bureau of retaining such information?

Mr. Kelley. If there be guidelines that set out a

destruction or erasure, we will abide by it. We will, on those

occasions where we think that matters might come up within

that period of time which may need the retention of them, we

will express our opinion at that time, but other than that

we would be guided by guidelines.

Senator Goldwater. Is it your view that legitimate

law enforcement needs should outweigh privacy considerations

---

## Page 42

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2486

with respect to retention of such information, or do we need

the clear guidelines on the destruction of these materials

when the investigation purposes for which they were collected

have been served?

Mr. Kelley. We feel that there should be a good close

look at the retention of material, and we would of course like

to have an input. But we welcome consideration of this.

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Mondale?

Senator Mondale. Mr. Director, it seems to me that the

most crucial question before the Congress is to accept the

invitation of the FBI to draw Congressionally imposed lines,

limits of authority so the FBI will know clearly what you can

and cannot do, so you will not be subject to later judgments,

and the question is, where should that line be drawn?

As you know, in 1924 when the FBI was created, and

MI. Stone later became the Chief Justice, he drew the line at

criminal law enforcement. He said that never again will we

go beyond the authority imposed upon us to get into political

ideas. We will stay in the area of law enforcement.

Would you not think it makes a good deal of sense to

draw the guidelines in a way that your activities are

restricted to the enforcement of the law, investigations of

---

## Page 43

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2487

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

crime, investigations of conspiracies to commit crime rather

than to leave this very difficult to define and control area

of political ideas?

Mr. Kelley. I don't know whether I understand your last

statement of involving the area of political ideas. I say that

I feel that certainly we should be vested and should continue

in the field of criminal investigations as an investigatory

objective. These are conclusions, of course, which are based

on statutes in the so-called security field, national or

foreign.

These are criminal violations. I feel that they should

be in tandem. I feel, having worked many years in this

atmosphere, that you have more ears and eyes and you have

more personnel working together, covering the same fields..

I do not think there should be a separation of the intelligence

matters, because it is a concomitant. It naturally flows

from the investigation of the security matters and the

criminal.

Senator Mondale. Mr. Kelley, what Mr. Stone said was

this, that the Bureau of investigation is not concerned

with political or other opinions of individuals. It is

concerned only with such conduct as is forbidden by the laws

of the United States. When the police system goes beyond

these limits, it is dangerous to proper administration of

justice and human liberty.

---

## Page 44

smn 11

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2488

2

3

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Do you object to that definition?

Mr. Kelley. I think that life has become much more

sophisticated and we have added to the so-called policeman's

area of concern some matters which were probably not as important

at that time. I think that the fact that the FBI has been in

touch with the security investigations and the gathering of

intelligence is something which has proved to be at times

troublesome and given us great concern, but it is a viable,

productive procedure.

I don't know what Mr. Stone was thinking of entirely

of this course, but I can tell you about the procedure today.

Senator Mondale. You see, I think you recognize, if

that further step is taken, as you're recommending here, that

at that point it becomes

so difficult to guarantee, and in

fact, in my opinion, impossible to guarantee that we won't

see a recurrence of some of the abuses that we've seen in

the past, and I don't know how you establish any kind of

meaningful oversight on a function as nebulous as the one

you've just defined.

If the FBI possesses the authority to investigate

ideas that they consider to be threats to this nation's

security, particularly in the light of the record that we have

seen how that definition can be stretched to include practi-

cally everybody, including moderate civil rights leaders,

war dissenters and so on, how on earth can standards be develope

---

## Page 45

smn 12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2489

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that would provide any basis for oversight?

How can you, from among other things, be protected from

criticism later on that you exceeded your authority or didn't

do something that some politician tried to pressure you into

doing?

Mr. Kelley. It might well be, Senator, that ten years

from now a Director of the FBI will be seated here and will be

criticized for doing that which today is construed as very

acceptable.

Senator Mondale. Correct. And I have great sympathy

for the predicament the FBI finds itself in.

Mr. Kelley. And the Director.

Senator Mondale. And the Director especially, and that is

why I think it's in the interest of the FBI to get these lines

as sharply defined as possible, so that when you are pressured

to do things, or when, after the fact, people with good 20/20

hindsight can criticize you or the Bureau, that you can say

well, here are the standards that you gave us, and they specific-

ally say this, and that is your answer. We have to live by

the law. If we don't define it specifically, it seems to me

that these excesses could reoccur, because I don't think it's

possible to define them, and the FBI is inevitably going to

be kicked back and forth, depending on personal notions of what

you should have done.

Don't you fear that?

---

## Page 46

smn 13

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2490

MI. Kelley. Not too much, Senator. I think we learned a

great lesson by virtue of Watergate, the revelations that have

come up as a result of this Committee's inquiries, the fact

that I think that we have a different type of spirit today

in the Bureau, the fact that, as I said before. you came in,

that I think the Bureau is a matchless organization, and they

are eager to do that which is vital and proper, and the fact

that we are getting a number of very fine young people in the

organization, people of the other ethnic backgrounds than we

had years ago. I think there is a greater understanding in

the Bureau today of what is the proper type of conduct.

We may not be able to project this on all occasions,

because we must equate this with the need and with our

experience, but if the precise guidelines be the goal, you're

going to have trouble. If, on the other hand, there be a

flexibility, I think that we can work very well within those

guidelines.

Senator Mondale. I think, as you know, I don't think

there is a better trained or higher professionally qualified

law enforcement organization in the world than the FBI. I

think we all agree it is superb. But the problem has been,

from time to time, that when you go beyond the area of

enforcing the law into the area of political ideas, that you

are subject to and in fact you leave the criminal

• Field, you

get into politics. And that is where, it seems to me, that the

---

## Page 47

smn 14

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2491

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

great controversy exists, and where you are almost inevitably

going to be subjected to fierce criticism in the future, no

matter how you do it. Once you get into politics, you get

into trouble.

MI. Kelley. I agree to that, and I point out that in almost

every branch of the government and in every part, as a matter

of fact, every segment of our society, there are some who deviate

from the normal course. I feel that within the Bureau there is

less likelihood of this to happen, and I think that working

with you we can at least make some achievements that will be

significant.

Now, whether it be lasting, I don't think so, but I

think we've made a good start.

Senator Mondale. In your speech in Montreal on August

9th, you said we must be willing to surrender a small measure

of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them.

Which liberties did you have in mind?

Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, this speech has been mis-

understood many, many times.

Senator Mondale. Well, I want you to have a chance to

clear it up.

Mr. Kelley. All that was intended here was a restatement

of the approach which the courts historically have used in

resolving most issues of Constitutional importance, and its

recognition that rights are not susceptible to absolute

---

## Page 48

smn 15°

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2492

protection. It's a matter of balance. Even in the Fourth

Amendment, for example, which protects the right of privacy, it

does not prohibit searches and seizures.

I mention, it only

refers to those that are unreasonable.

I came from the police fiedd. What is more restrictive

to more people than traffic regulation? But what would be

more chaotic is of you did not have traffic regulation. We

do have to , in order to love in the complexities and

intricacies of today's life, have to give up some of our

rights.

Some may construe this as an extravagant statement. If it

is os, I wish to say that I only was pointing out that there

has to be a balance.

Senator Mondale. So that when you say we have to give

up some liberties, or as you just said, some rights, what you

mean -- let me ask. Let me scratch: that and ask again, you

have to give up some tights.

Which rights would you have us

give up?

Mr. Kelly. Well, under the Fourth Amendment you would

have the right for search and seizure.

Senator Mondale. You wouldn't give up the Fourth Amend-

ment right.

Mr. Kelley. Oh, no not the right.

Senator Mondale. What right do you have in mind?

Mr.

Kelley.

The right to be free from search and seizure

---

## Page 49

smn 16

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2493

Senator Mondale. There's no such right in the Consti-

tution. You can have such seizures, but they must be reasonable,

under court warrant.

• Did you mean to go beyond that?

Mr. Kelley. That's right.

Senator Mondale. That you should be able to go beyond

that?

MI. Kelley. No, no. I do not mean that we should ever

go beyond a Constitutional right guarantee.

Senator Mondale. Well, would you say, Mr. Kelley, that

that sentence might have been inartful in your speech?

Mr. Kelley. I said that if it was misunderstood, I

made a mistake, because I should never make a

statement which

yes, it was inartful.

Senator Mondale. I think I know about your record in

law enforcement well enough to tell you that I think you were

saying something different, that it was taken to mean something

different than I think you intended.

What you are saying is that in the exercise of your law

enforcement powers, the rights of individuals is determined

by the laws and the courts, but the courts, in the handling

of those issues, have to balance rights and other values.

That's what you're essentially saying, is that correct?

MI. Kelley. Senator, I ought to have you write my

speeches so that I don't have any misunderstandings. I didn't

---

## Page 50

smn 1.7

2494

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

understand that to be at the time anything that was unusual.

I have to admit that maybe I made a mistake.

Senator Mondale. What you are saying in effect is that

in effect, the rights: of the American people can be determined

not by the Director of the FBI but by the courts and by the

law.

end t. 3

You meant that.

Mr. Kelley. Indeed, yes, sir.

Senator Mondale.

All right.

Thank you.

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

---

## Page 51

WARD: GSH

12/ 80/15

Tape 4

2495

1

2

3

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Chairman. Senator Hart.

Senator of Colorado. Mr. Kelley, in response to

a question by Senaot Mondale, one of his first questions about

laying down guidelines, it seems to me what you were saying was

we could work together. That is to say the Bureau and the

Congress, lay down guidelines that would not unreasonably

hamper you from investigations of crime control in the

country.

But I think implicit in his question was also an area

that you didn't respond to, and that is how do you, what kind

of guidelines do you lay down to protect you and the Bureau

from political pressure, the misuse of the Bureau by political

figures, particularly in the White House?

And we've had indications that at least two of your

predecessors, if not more, obviously were corrupted and Mr.

Gray was under great pressure from the White House to use

the facilities of the Bureau and their capabilities to accomplish

some plititcal end.

Well, it seems to me you were arguing in favor of fewer

restrictions so you could get on with your job, but that is

not what Senator Mondale and the rest of us are interested in.

What kindof restrictions can we lay down to protect you

from political pressures? I'd be interested in that sign of the

coin, if you would.

Mr. Kelley. I would welcome any guidelines which would

---

## Page 52

2496

gs

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

protect me or any successor from this type of thing. I think

that would be splendid. I have not reviewed the guidelines

as prepared to the present date by the Department. It might

be that they are well defined in there. But I welcome any

consideration of such directives.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think this is a problen?

Mr. Kelley. No, sir, not with me.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think that it has been

a problem for the people that preceded you?

Mr. Kelley. I. think so.

Senator Hart of Colorado. And that's a problem the

Congress ought to address?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Senator Hart of Colorado. The Committee received a

letter from the Department of Justice a couple of days, the

Assistant Attorney General asking our cooperation in carrying

out the investigation or their efforts to review the investi-

gation conducted by the FBI into the death of Martin Luther

King, JI., in order to determine whether that investigation

should be re-opened. They asked our cooperation, they asked

for our transcripts, the testimony before the Conmittee, all

material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates

to Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

I guess my question is this: Why is the Justice Depart-

ment asking this Comnittee for rBI files?

---

## Page 53

Phone (Area

TSA

544

3

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

w.---

2497

Mr. Kelley. I don't think they're asking for files.

I think they're asking for what testimony was given by

witnesses whose testimony has not been given up. I don't know.

Senator Hart of Colorado. I'll quote it. "And all

material provided to the Comnittee by the FBI which relates

to DI. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference."

I repeat the question. Why is the Justice Department

asking this Conmittee for material provided to us by the

FBI?

Mr. Kelley. Frankly, I don't know. Do you mind if I

just ask --

(Pause)

Mr. Kelley. I am informed, and I knew this one.

Everything that was sent to you was sent through then. Did

they have a copy also? Yes, they had a retained copy. I

don't know why.

Senator lart of Colorado. So there's nothing you

provided us that's not available to the Justice Department?

Mr. Kelley. That's right.

Senator Hart of Colorado. And you can't account for why

an official of the Justice Department would ask this Committee

for your records?

Mr. Kelley.

No, sir.

Senator Ilart of Colorado. You released a statement on

November the 18th of '74

regarding the FBI's counter-intelligence

---

## Page 54

Phone (Area 20:

-sa

544-6000

2498

4

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

program and you said you made a detailed study of COINTELPRO

activities and reached the following conclusions, and I quote:

"The purpose

of these counter-intelligence programs was

to prevent dangerously and potentially deadly acts against

individuals, organizations

and institutions both public

and private

across the United States."

Now we had an FBI informant in the other day before this

Committee and he stated he told the FBI on a number of

occasions he planned violent acts against black people in

groups. And yet, he said few, if any, instances in which the

FBI actually prevented violence from taking place.

How does his testimony square with your statement that

I have quoted?

Mr. Kelley. It doesn't, and I don't know if any of

his statements contrary to what we have said is the truth.

We don't subscribe to what he said. We have checked into it

and we know of no instances where, for example, 15 minutes

and that type of thing has been substantiated.

Senator llart of Colorado. You're saying the testimony

he gave us under oath was not accurate?

Mr. Kelley. Right.

Senator Hart of Colorado. You also said in that statement,

and I quote:

"I want to assure you that Director Hoover did

not conceal from superior authorities the fact that the FBI

was engaged in neutralizing and disruptive tactics against

---

## Page 55

(Area

202)

544-6

gạh 5

2499

2

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

revolutionary and violence-prone groups.

Now the Committee has received testimony that the New

Left COINTELPRO programs was not in fact told to higher

authorities, the Attorney Gereral and Congress.

Do you have any information in this regard?

I know in that statement you cite onw or two instances,

but in terms of the bulk of COINTEL programs, the record

seems to date at least to be clear that there was not systematic

information flowing upward through the chain of command to

Director Hoover's superiors?

Mr. Kelley. May I ask that I be given the opportunity

to substantiate that with documentation?

Senator Hart of Colorado. Sure.

Mr. Kelley: Or respond to it.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Dorector Kelley, just in

passing, do you agree with the statement made by President

Ford that those responsible for harassing and trying to destroy

Dr. King should be brought to justice.

Mr. Kelley. Those who directly responsible and upon whose orders

the activities were taken responsible. I don't know if he intended to say

that, but if he did not, I would say that it would be more proper. Insofar

as my own opinion is concerned, that it be centered on those who said

to do it and those who

are responsible.

I took the responsibility for any such program and I

don't expect that those under me would be not acting in

---

## Page 56

Phone (Area 20

-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2500

accordance with what they think is proper and may even have

some reservation, but they do it on my orders. I accept that

responsibility.

I think that it should rest on those who instructed that

that be done.

Senator Hart of Colorado. But you agree that the people

who give the orders should be brought to justice.

Mr.. Kelley. I do.

The Chairman. Aren't they all dead?

Mr. Kelley. No.

The Chairman. Not quite?

Mr. Kelley. Not quite.

Senator Hart of Colorado. That's all, Ir. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

Director Kelley, in the Comnittee's review of the

COINTELPRO program and other political involvements of the

FBI, it seems to me that we have encountered two or three

basic questions.

Since the investigation is over insofar as the Committee

is concerned, we're now turning our attention to remedies for

the future, what I would think would be our constructive

legislative work, it is very inportant that we focus on what

we learned in that investigation.

And one thing that ve have learned is that Presidents of

the United States have from time to time ordered the FBI to

---

## Page 57

2501

Phone

(Area

202780.8

5000

410

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

obtain for them certain kinds of information by exercising the

necessary surveillance to obtain and to have a purely

political character, that they simply wanted to have for their

own personal purposes.

I think that you would agree that that is not a proper

function of the FBI, and you agree.

Yet it's awfully difficult for anyone in the FBI,

including the Director, to turn down a President of the United

States if he receives a direct order from the President. It

is always possible, of course, to say no, and if you insist,

I will resign. But that puts a very hard burden on any man

serving in your position, particularly if the President puts

a good face on the request and makes it sound plausible or

even invents some excuse. It is always easy for hin to say,

you know, I an considering Senator White for an important

position in my administration, and I need to know more about

his activities, particularly of late. I've had some cause

for concern and I want to be certain that there is nothing in

his record that would later embarrass me, and I just want you

to keep careful track of him and report to me on what he's

been doing lately.

It's difficult for you to say back to the President, Mr.

President, that's a very questionable activity for the FbI,

and I frankly don't believe that you've given me the real

reason why you want this man followed. I think his opposition

---

## Page 58

Phone (Area

nsla

544-6000

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-...

2502

to your current policy is politically embarrassing to you and

you want to get something on him.:

I mean, you know, the Director can hardly talk back that

way, and I'm wondering what we could do in the way of protecting

your office and the FBI from political exploitation in this

basic charter that we write.

Now, I want your suggestions, but let's begin with one

or two of mine. I would like your response.

If we were to write into the law that any order given you

either by the President or by the Attorney General should be

transmitted in writing

and should clearly state the objective

and purpose of the request and that the FBI would maintain

those written orders and that furthermore they would be

available to any oversight committee of the Congress. If the

joint cormittee on intelligence is established, that comnittee

would have access to such a file.

So that the committee itself would be satisfied that

orders were not being given to the FBI that were improper or

unlawful.

What would you think of writing a provision of that kind

into a charter for the FBI?

Mr. Kelley. I would say writing into the law any order

issued by. the President that is a request for action by the

Attorney General should be in writing, is certainly, in my

opinion, is a very plausible solution. I'm sure that in

---

## Page 59

2503

43!89

"none (

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

contemplation of this there would be some that will say yes

of some that will say no, but I think we could define an

area where you are trying to cure the abuses and we could

do that.

Now as to the availability to any oversight committee

of Congress, I would say generally that I certainly would have

no objection to this, but I again, there may be some request

for something of high confidentiality that the President might

put in writing such as some national or foreign security

matter.

I would like to have such a consideration be given a

great deal of thought and that the oversight committee review

be conditioned with that possibility. I don't think it would

present a problem.

I have said previously that I feel I can discuss every-

thing except the identity of the informants to the oversight

committee. I welcome that.

The Chairman.

Well, that has been of course the way we

proceeded with this Committee. It has worked pretty well,

I think.

Now Senator Goldwater brought up a question on the

Martin Luther king tapes. I would like to pursue that question.

If these tapes do not contain any evidence that needs

to be preserved for ongoing criminal investigations, and since

DI. King has long since been violently removed from the scene,

---

## Page 60

2504-2505

Phone (Area 202] 544-6000

19

1

3

4

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

why are they preserved? Why aren't they simply destroyed?

Is there a problem that we can help through new law to enable

the FBI to remove from its files so much of this information

that is has collected that it is no longer needed or may never

have connected the person with any criminal activity? And

yet, all of that information just stays there in the files

year after year.

what can we do? How can a law be changed? If that's

not the problem, then what is?

Why are these tapes still down

there at the FBI?

Mr. Kelley. Hell, of course, we do have the rule that

they are maintained ten years. Now why the rule is your

question and why right now are they maintained? Since we

do maintain everything since the inquiry has started and until

that's lifted, we can't destroy anything.

I would say that this is a proper area for guidelines

or legislation and again, as I have said, there should be

some flexibility and I know that's a broad statement but there

might he some areas wherein that the subject of the investigation

himself may want them retained because it shows his innocence.

I think you have to deliberate this very carefully, but

it can he done and we are willing to be guided by those

rules.

The Chairman. Let ne ask you this. The FBI is conducting

thousands of investigations every year on possible appointees

---

## Page 61

2506

9

Phone (Area

544-6000

1

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to Federal positions. As a natter of fact, the only time I

ever

see

an FBI agent is when he comes around and flashes his

badge and asks

me a question or two about what I know of Mr.

so and so, who's being considered for an executive office.

And we have a very brief conversation in which I tell him that

as

far as I know, he's a loyal and patriotic citizen, and that

is about the extent of it.

Then when this file is completed and the person involved

is either appointed or not appointed, what happens to that

file? I know it's full of all kinds of gossip because it is

in the nature of the investigation to go out to his old

neighborhoods and talk to everybody who might have known him.

What happens to the file? Is that just retained forever?

Mr. Kelley.

We have some capability of destroying some

files and they are rather lengthy insofar as retention. We

have some archival rules which govern the retention of mateial

and is developed in cases involving certain members of the

Executive Branch of the government.

I see no reason why this would not be a proper area

for consideration of legislation.

The Chairman. Can you give me any idea of how much --

do you have records that would tell us how much time and moncy

is being spent by the FBI just in conducting these thousands

of routine investigations on possible Presidential appointments

to Federal offices?

---

## Page 62

2507

Phone (Area

544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Kelley. I feel confident we can get it. I do not

have it now, but if you would like to have the annual cost

for the investigation of rederal appointees -

The Chairman. Yes.

Plus, you know, plus any other

information that would indicate to us what proportion of the

time and effort of the FBI was absorbed in this kind of

activity.

Mr. Kelley. I can tell you it is relatively small, but

I can get you, I think, the exact amount of time and the

approximate expense.

The Chairman. I wish you would do that because this is

a matter we need more information about. And when you supply

that data to the Committee, would you also supply the number

of such investigations each year?

You know, I don't expect you to go back 20 or 25 years,

but give us a good idea of the last few years. For example,

enough to give us an idea of how much time and how broad the

reach of these investigations may be.

Mr. Kelley. Through '70?

The Chairman. That would be sufficient, I would think.

The other matter that is connected to this same subject

that I would like your best judgment on is whether these

investigations could not be linited to offices of sensitivity.

That is to say where legitimate national security interest night

be involved so that there is

a reason to make a close check

on

---

## Page 63

2508

Phone (Area

ế 13

544.6000

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

past associations, attitudes and expressions of belief.

I have often wondered whether we couldn't eliminate

routine Federal offices that are not particularly sensitive

in the national security sense from the reach of these FBI

checks.

And so when you respond to the series of questions, I

wish you would include the offices that are now covered by

such checks and give us an idea of how far down into the

Federal bureaucracy this extends.

Could you do that?

Mr. Kelley.

yes, sir.

The Chairnan. Fine.

No! there is a vote.

The vote always comes just at

the wrong time, but Mr. Schwarz wants to ask you some additional

questions for the record, and there may be other questions:

too that would be posed by the staff, after which I will as!

Mr. Schwarz to adjourn the hearings. It looks like we're going

to be tied up on the floor with votes.

But before I leave I want to thank you for your testimony,

lix. Kelley, and to express my appreciation to you for the

way you have cooperated with the Committee in the course of

its investigation during the past months.

Mr. Kelley. Thank you.

The Chairman. And I hope, as you do, that as a result

of the work of the Committee

we can write a generic law for

---

## Page 64

-.

2509

544-6000

2

End Lape 1 3

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

5

the FBI that will help to remedy many of the problems we'll

encounter in the future.

Thank you.

---

## Page 65

AHW/smnl

t.

Phone (Aroa 202) 544-6008

2510

1

2

3

4

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Kelley, I'll try to be very brief.

On page 5 of your statement --

Mr. Kelley. What?

Mr. Schwarz. On page 5 of your statement, the third

full paragraph, you said the following, and I would like then

to question about what you said.

"We must recognize that

situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the

future where the Government may well be expected to depart from

its traditional role, in the FBI's case, as an investigative

and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps

which are needed to meet an imminent threat to human life or

property."

kind of situation?

Now, by that you mean to take what kind of steps in what

And can you give some concrete examples under your general

principles statement?

Mr. Kelley. I think that Mr. Adams addressed himself to

that the other day, where you have an extremist who is an

employee at the waterworks, and he makes a statement that he's

going to do something which is devastating to the city, and you

have no way to attack this under the ordinary procedures, and

so therefore you must take some steps to meet that imminent

threat to human life or property.

Mr. Schwarz. So let us take that case as a test of the

principle. You are saying the extremist has said he is going

---

## Page 66

2511

. 2

Phone (Area 202) 544-6

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to do something to the waterworks, poison it or something, and

he is on the way down there with the poison in his car.

Is that the presumption?

Mr. Kelley. We hadn't gone that far, but all right, you

can extent it.

Mr. Schwarz. All right, now, in that case you have the

traditional law enforcement tool, which is the power of arrest.

Mr. Kelley. Not under probable cause where he has not

gone down there. The hypothetical we gave was one where he had

not taken any overt acts in perpetration of this.

Mr. Schwarz. Well, if he hasn't taken any overt acts,

are you then in what you would call in imminent threat of

human life or property?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Mr. Schwarz. How so? Unless he has taken an overt act

to buy the poison of to get in the car with the poison, there

is not by definition any threat to life or property.

Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwarz, I've been around in this business

a long time. I've heard a number of threats which were issued,

and they thereafter materialized into actions. I don't think --

take these threats as being empty ones, because so many times

they have been acted upon.

I was criticized one time when there was a threat made to

kill me, and it was said later on, it's not rhetoric, it's

not rhetoric to me, because when they say they're going to

---

## Page 67

smn

3

2512

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

kill me, that just means one thing.

Mr. Schwarz. But I'm not disagreeing with you.

Mr. Kelley. But you are disagreeing with me. You're saying

on the basis of experience that you cannot detect a possible

threat. That's the whole area of concern that we have here, where

we don't lose the capability of doing something. We don't

say we should initiate ourselves. We say that we should go to

the Attorney General.

We do not subscribe to the idea that

we should act independently because maybe we don't have the

judicial review, the capability of determining, but we do

think that we should report it and thereafter see what can

be done.

MI. Schwarz. Well, have you changed in the course of

our discussion the standard on page 5.

On page 5 you're talking about an imminent threat.

Mr. Kelley. Yes.

Mr. Schwarz. And I hear you now as saying a possible

threat.

Mr. Kelley. An imminent possible threat.

Mr. Schwarz. An imminent possible threat. All right.

Now, would a fair standard for either action, other than

arrest, I don't know what you have in mind, but something to

prevent the person from carrying out his activities, other

than arrest, for instance, what is an example of what you have

in mind?

---

## Page 68

Smn 4

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2513

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Kelley. Removing him from his position or whatever

is necessary in order to make it impossible or at least as

impossible as possible to perpetuate this thing.

Mr. Schwarz. You mean have him lose his job or --

Mr. Kelley. I don't know what it would be.

Mr. Schwarz. Isolate him in some fashion.

Mr. Kelley. In some fashion perhaps.

Mr. Schwarz. Now, for such activity and for opening

an investigation into a domestic group, could you live with

a standard which said you would have to have an immediate

threat that someone was likely to commit a serious federal

crime involving violence?

Mr. Kelley. I think that this thing could be worked out

so that there could be an adequate basis for an evaluation.

Mx. Schwarz. So those words, without trying to commit

you entirely to them, do not seem to you to depart far from

what you think would be an acceptable standard.

Mr. Kelley. Well, an imminent, immediate threat might

be, by virtue of the word "immediate" that he's going to

do it the next minute. In that case it may be necessary for

you to, not with the presence of the possibility, not able

to do anything except put him under arrest or anything.

Mr. Schwarz. Of course, of course.

And nobody would at all disagree with that kind of action.

Mr. Kelley. I don't think they would either.

---

## Page 69

2514

sinn &

Phone (Area 202) 544-6

1

2

3

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

22

24

25

Mr. Schwarz. But on the question, let's take the opening

of an investigation into a domestic group.

Is it basically consistent with practicality to make the

test immediate threat of a

serious Federal crime involving

violence?

Mr.Kelley. To open a domestic security case.

Mr. Schwarz. Yes.

MI. Kelley. It appears to me that this is a terrorist

activity, in effect. We certainly have terrorist activities

under our jurisdiction as a threat against the United States.

MI. Schwarz. Now, are there other circumstances where

it is justifiable to open an investigation of the domestic

group where you do not have an immediate threat of serious

federal crime involving violence?

MI. Kelley. Oh, I think there are other criteria, and

they have been well defined as to what is the possible

opening, the basis for a possible opening. We haven't been

discussing that, we have been discussing particular instances,

but there are other criteria that are used, yes.

Mr. Schwarz. What would the other criteria be?

Mr. Kelley. Well, the possible statutory violations

over which we have jurisdiction are, generally speaking, the

most used of thebasis, and then you have, of course, some

intelligence investigations which should, of course, be of

short duration. If there

is no showing of this into action

---

## Page 70

2515

Phone

• (Area

202)

20003

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

or a viable intent.

Mr. Schwarz. So that's what you're looking for in the

intelligence investigation?

Mr. Kelley. By intelligence investigation, yes, you

are looking to prevent.

Mr. Schwarz. And what you are looking to prevent, and

what you're looking to find is a likelihood of action combined

with an intent to take an issue?

Mr. Kelley. And the capability.

Mr. Schwarz. And the capability.

All right. I just have two other lines, Mr. Kelley, and

I appreciate very much your time.

Mr. Kelley. That's all right.

Mr. Schwarz. Assuming a legitimate investigation has

been started into a domestic intelligence matter, is it legiti-

mate for the FBI, in addition to obtaining information that

relates to what we've just been talking about, the likelihood

of violent action, is it also legitimate for the FBI to

collect, A, retain, B, disseminate, C, information concerning

let's say the sex life of a person on the one hand, and the

political views of a person on the other?

Mr. Kelley. I think, Mr. Schwarz, that this is just what

many of our problems and perhaps the guidelines can define

this type of thing. I think probably you will agree that

within the determination of the deviations possibly of sex

---

## Page 71

smn 7

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2516

lives, there might be something that is relevant. I would say

ordinarily it's not. And so far as political views, yes, I

think that this could be, if he is espousing some cause or

some view that advocates violence or the overthrow of the

government.

Mr. Schwarz. Would those be the two limits on political

views?

Mr. Kelley. What?

Mr. Schwarz. Would those be the only limits on political

views that you think are okay to collect, advocants of violence

or advocants of overthrow?

Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't think because he's a Democrat

or a Republican it would be anything that would be damaging,

but it might on the other hand counter the report that he's

a member of some other organization.

MI. Schwarz. Is the standard you used on collection of

sex life information, might be relevant? I suppose anything

might be relevant, but don't you think that as a function of

balance, it has to have a high degree of relevance before it's

justifiable to collect that kind of information on American

citizens who are not suspected of having committed crimes?

Mr. Kelley. Insofar as doing it presently, it has been

included in some reports as a result of the requirement that

that is what is required by our rules, that when a person

reports something to us, we do a report of the complaint. Insofa

---

## Page 72

s mn8

2517

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

: 4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as a determination by guidelines that might be prepared later,

I think that we can certainly deliberate on this to see whether

or not this is something we should retain, and we would not

object to anything reasonable in that regard.

Mt. Schwarz. I just have one final question.

Taking the current manual and trying to understand its

applicability laid against the facts in the Martin Luther King

case, under Section 87 there is a -- permission is granted to

open investigations of the infiltration of non-subversive

groups, and the first sentence reads:

"When information is

received indicating that a subversive group is seeking to

systematically infiltrate and control a non-subversive group

or organization, an investigation can be opened."

Now, I take it that is the same standard that was used

in opening the investigation of the Southern Christian Leadership

Conference in the 1960s, so that invéstigation could still be

open today under the FBI manual, the current FBI manual.

Mr. Kelley. We are interested in the infiltration of

clearly subversive groups into non-subversive groups inasmuch

as this is a ploy that is used many times, and having infil-

trated, they then get control, and they have a self-laundered

organization which they can use, and not, certainly, to the

benefit of the country.

Mr. Schwarz. But is the answer to my question yes, that

under that standard, the SCLC investigation could still be

---

## Page 73

smn9

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2518

1

2

5

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

opened today?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Mr. Schwarz. All right, then, just one final question.

Do you agree that special care needs to be taken not only

of the standards for initially opening an investigation of a

group, but perhaps extra care needs to be taken when the investi-

gation goes beyond the initial target group to individuals

or people who come into contact with it?

Mr. Kelley. I don't know if I agree with that entirely. If

you mean that we go into the non-subversive group, that we

then investigate people in that non-subversive group, not the

infiltrators, but the non, that we conduct a lengthy investigation

of them without any basis

for doing so other than that they

are in an infiltrated group, I would likely have said -- but

off the top of my head I would say probably that's not necessary.

Mr. Schwarz. Thank you very much.

Mr. Smothers. Just a couple of very brief lines of

inquiry, Mr. Kelley.

I think that the questions of the Chief Counsel was

raising is one that goes further into your statement, when you

talk about the difficulty of setting out the line between

intelligence gathering and law enforcement kinds of functions.

Nevertheless, though, I think that you have made an effort,

indeed, the Bureau's organizational scheme reflects ! !:

to distinguish some of this has been made.

---

## Page 74

smn 10.

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2519

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Putting aside for one moment the counterespionage

effort, and looking strictly at what we have been calling the

Domestic Intelligence, is it your view that the retention of

this function in the Bureau is critical to the Bureau's

law enforcement position?

Mr. Kelley. My personal opinion is that the Bureau does

a splendid job in this area. I feel further that the background

of criminal investigatory activities and experiences which

all counterintelligence people have is very helpful. It is help-

ful not only in gathering knowledge and experience, it also

enters into this field, a person with a broad understanding

of the rights and privileges, and you don't have so much that

spy type, that cloak and dagger, that very, very secret type

of an operation.

I subscribe to the present system heartily.

Mr. Smothers. Would it be of assistance to your mission

if within the Bureau guidelines were established that

effectively limited access or controlled dissemination of

the intelligence product? In other words, if we had a

situation where the intelligence product is critical to assist

the law enforcement effort, I don't think there's any question

that there should be access to it.

Isn't our problem one of controlling the use of that

intelligence product and preventing the kind of murky crossing

of lines there with the information legitimately needed for

---

## Page 75

smn 1I

2520

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

law enforcement?

Mr. Kelley. There is always a problem when there is wide

dissemination, because that just numerically increases-the

possibility of misuse, abuse or slander, libel, or anything

of that matter, and I think that it would be well worthwhile

to review the dissemination rules to make them subject to

close guidance in the guidelines that we're speaking of.

Mr. Smothers. Let me just raise one final area with you.

We talked a little bit about, or a question was raised about

the investigation now being conducted by the Justice Department

regarding the improper actions on the COINTELPRO, and the

King case in particular.

As we look at allegations of impropriety by your personnel!

I think it would be helpful for our record here to have some

insight into the procedure the Bureau would normally follow.

What does the Bureau do when you get an allegation that

an agent or administrative official in the Bureau has behaved

improperly?

Is an investigation conducted internally, or is it

routinely referred to the Justice Department?

Mr. Kelley. There may be a revision in this type of

procedure as a result of the establishment of the Council for

Professional Responsibility. At present it would be in the

great majority of the cases turned over to our Investigative

Division for investigation. There might, on some unusual

---

## Page 76

smn 12

2521

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

occasion, be a designation of a special task force made up,

perhaps, of division heads. That is most unlikely, but it is

handled internally at present.

Mr. Smothers. Would these internal determinations be

reviewed by Justice, or do you think that is a necessary

step?

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23.

24

25

I guess what we are searching for here is, first of all,

I think you answered that, well, to what extent does the

Bureau police itself, and then secondly, is the Department of

Justice involved in the police determinations?

For instance, what if the Attorney General disagreed with

the assertion that only the higher up officials who ordered

the action against King should be the subject of investigation

and maybe prosecution?

How does the interplay work there between you and Justice?

Mr. Kelley. We do report to the Attorney General those

activities which we construe as improper or possibly illegal.

There is a possibility that the Department, having been advised

of the situation, might take it on their own to do their own

investigating, and this is something that we feel is a

decision to be made only rather rarely, because we feel we

have within our own organization sufficient capability to

handle that. But we do not protest it. It is handled

independently of us.

Mr. Smothers. Thank you.

---

## Page 77

snn 13"

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2522

2

3

That is all I have.

Mr. Schwarz. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:12 o'clock p.m., the Committee recessed

subject to the call of the Chair.)

--.

5

6

7

8

9

10

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

25

---

## Page 78

Routing Slip

0-7 (Rov. 12-17-73)

TO: SAC:

Albany

COOL

Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchorage

Atlanta

Baltimore

Birmingham

Boston

Buffalo

Butte

3 Charlotte

Chicago

= Cincinnati

Clevoland

1 Columbia

Dallas

Denver

i Betroit

El Poso

Honolula

(Copies to Offices Ch

d)

E] Houston

Indianapolis

= Jackson

-i lacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

| Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

100

New York City

Norfolk

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittshurgh

Portland

Richmond

Sacramento

St.

louis

Salt Lake City

S: Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

Seattle

Springfield

Tamp a

Washington Field

Quantico

TO LEGAT:

Ca Beirut.

Bern

Bonn

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

Ottawa

Paris

Rome

Singapore

Tel Aviv

Tokyo

12/30/75

Date

RE:

RECTORS APPEARANCE BEFORE SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,

DECEMBER 10, 1975

105-5575

Retention

For appropriate

C.] For information

•*7 optional

_ action

CJ Surep, by

= The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future report, Lug conceal all

sources, C7 Paraphrase contents.

•[= Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

Remarks:

ReButel to all SACs and Legats, 12/10/75.

Enclosed for each Office and Legat is

le copy of the transcript of questions which

ire asked Mr. Kelley during captioned appearance,

ong with Mr. Kelley's answers to those questions.

105-5525

SEA:

WOEXED,

SERIALICED

AN 41970

FDI-SAL ANTON

Enc. (1)

Bufile

Urfile

---

## Page 79

Routing Slip

0-7 (Roy.

12-17-731

TO: SAC:

Albany

Albuquerque

Airsindria

Anchorage

Ailanta

Buttmore

Binninghan

Boston

Butlala

Butte

Charlotte

*! Chicago

Cincinnati

÷==1

Cloveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Fal Dotroit

E: Paso

Honolul

(Copies to Offices Checked)

TO LEGAT:

J Houston

2 Indenapolis

fuck son

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Litile Rock

= Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Mniwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

E New York City

Norfolk

[7 Oklahoma City

7 maha

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pitisburgh

Portland

• Richmond

Sacramento

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

Sun Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Ju:n

Savannah

Seattle

Springfield

Tunp a

Washington Field

Quantico

1 Bem

Bonn

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

1 Caracas

- Hong Kong

• L on don

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

Ottawa

J00I

Paris

Rome

] Singapore

Tel Aviv

[J Tokyo

RE:

DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE

Date

1/5/76

BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

DECEMBER 10, 1975

105-5575-

Retontion

For appropriate

V For information a optional

El action

7 Surep AN 7 - 1976

I The enclosed is for your information. Il used in i futuRE SAN ANTONI

" Ey concent all

sources, lad paraphrase contents.

2 Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

datod

Remarks:

By routing slip dated 12/30/75 and

captioned as above, all SACs and Legats were

furnished a copy of the transcript of Mr.

Kelley's 12/10/75 appearance before the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Activities.

Although the data contained in

the transcript may be made available to news

media representatives, used in answering

questions received from citizens, and other-

wise treated as being of a public-source nature,

the transcript itself should not be reproduced

for, or given to, anyone outside the FBI.

Enc.

Butile

Urfile

---

## Page 80

routing Slip.

1-7 (Rov. 12-1.

"O: SAC:

iLU

Albany

JULI

Alhuquerque

Alexandria

Anchorage

Allanta

Baltimore

Binningham

IL 11

Boston

3

Buffalo

Butte

Charlotte

ILL

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

•] Honolulu

(Copies to Offices Checked)

Mouston

Indianapolis

Jack son

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

Norfolk

C Oklahoma City

- 0m2h1

Philadelphia

7 Phoenix

] Pittsburgh

Portland

Richmond

Sacramento

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

Seattle

Springfield

Tampa

Washington Field

Quantico

TO LEGAT:

Beirut

Bern

Bonn

Brasilia

Buchos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

Ottawa

Paris

Rume

7 Singapore

Tel Aviv

December

5, 1975

ETESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR--

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES B. ADAMS

BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

12/2/75

- For information

Retention

For appropriate

= optional

= Surep, by .

I The enclosed is for your information. If used in a fulure report,

C] conceal all

sources, C paraphrase contents.

J Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

emark s:

Re Bureau R/S of 12/4/75 and 12/5/75 which

provided unedited transcripts of Mr.

Adams'

testinony.

Attached for your information and retention

four video tape cassettes of Mr. Adams'

above-referenced testimony which you may wish

to show to your employees.

These tapes are for

the exclusive viewing of FBI personnel only,

due to restrictions imposed on their use by the

Public Broadcasting Corporati

пС.

ufile

rille

103 5501g

---

## Page 81

(Copies to Offices Checked)

Routing Slip

-

TO: SAC:

Albany

Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchorage

Atlanta

Baltimore

Rinninghan:

Boston

Buffalo

Bulle

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

Honolulu

TO LEGAT:

MInuston

Indianapolis

Jack son

Jacksonville

Krnsas

City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

Norfolk

w Oklahoma City

Omaha

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Piusburgh

Portland

Richmond

Sacramento

St.

Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San

Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

Scaltle

Springfield

Tamp a

Washington Field

Quantico

Bem

BonD

Crasilia

Buenos Aires

Carcas

long Kong

London

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

Ottawa

Paris

Rome

Tel Aviv

Tokyo

Dute December 5, 1975

RE: TESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR--

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES B. ADAMS

BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

12/2/75

Retention

For appropriate

C] For information

may optional

Ca action

I Surep, by

wy The enclosed is for your infonnation. If used in a future report, lay conceal all

sources, Ly paraphrase contents.

c Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA -

dated

Remarks:

Re Bureau R/S of 12/4/75 which provided

excerpts of Mr. Adams' testimony.

Attached for your information and

assis-referenced testimony. 105-5575-92

assistance, is the complete transcript of

chile,

Wesler

---

## Page 82

Vol. 15

Chr Quiteò Statra Sruate

Report of Proceedings

Hearing held before

saleci Conmittes to Study Governmantal. Operationg

With Respect to Intolligence Activities

INTELLIGINCE INVESTIGATION

Mesday, Dacember 2, 1975

Washington, D. C

Chills

Wester

WARD & PAUL

F. Thef

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003

(202) 544-6000

105-5575-9

SACKE

---

## Page 83

WARD &

PAUL

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Tower.. The next witnesses to appear before the

Committee are Mr. James Adams, Assistant to the Director-

Deputy Associate Director, Investigation, responsible for all

investigative operations; Mr. W. Raymond Wannall, Assistant

Director, Intelligence Division, responsible for internal

security and foreign counterintelligence investigations; Mr.

John A. Mintz, Assistant Director, Legal Counsel Division:

Joseph G. Deegan, Section Chief, extremist investigations;

Mr. Robert L. Schackelford, Section Chief, subversive

investigations; Mr. Homer A. Newman, JI., Assistant to Section

Chief, supervises extremist informants; Mr. Edward P. Grigal!

Unit Chief, supervises subversive informants; Joseph G. Felici

Assistant Section Chief, Civil Rights Section, Gener.: Int":

gative Division.

Gentlemen, will you all rise and be sworn.

---

## Page 84

- •

Sain 16

1901

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give

before this Comnittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Adams. I do.

Mr. Wannall. I do.

Mr. Mintz. I do.

Mr. Deegan. I do.

Mr. Schackelford. I do.

Mr. Newman.

I do.

Mr. Grigalus. I do.

Mr. Kelley. I do.

Senator Tower, It is intended that Mr. Wannall will be

the principal witness, and we will call on others as questioning

might require, and I would direct each of you when you do

respond, to identify yourselves, please, for the record.

I think that we will spend just a few more minutes to allow

the members of the committee to return from the floor.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Senator Tower.

The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Wannall, according to data, informants provide 83

percent of your intelligence information.

Now, will you provide the Committee with some information

on the critoria for the selection of informants?

---

## Page 85

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1902

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

.12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TESTIMONY OF W. RAYMOND WANNALI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

ACCOMPANIED BY: JAMES B. ADAMS, ASSISTANT TO THE

DIRECTOR-DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) :

JOIN A. MINTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGAL COUNSEL

DIVISION; JOSEPH G. DEEGAN, SECTION CHIEF; ROBERT I.

SCHACKELFORD, SECTION CHIEF; HOMER A. NEWMAN, JR.,

ASSISTANT TO SECTION CHIEF; EDWARD P. GRIGALUS, UNIT

CHIEF; AND JOSEPH G. KELLEY, ASSISTANT SECTION CHIEF,

CIVIL RIGITS SECTION, GENERAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION

Mr. Wannall. Mr. Chairman, that is not FBI data that you

have quoted. That was prepared by the General Accounting

Office.

Senator Tower. That is GAO.

Mr. Wannall. Based on a

sampling of about 93 cases.

Senator Tower. Would that appear to be a fairly accurate

figure.

MI. Wannall. I have not seen any survey which the FBI

itself has conducted that would confirm that, but I think that

we do get the principal portion of our information from live

sources.

Senator Tower. It would be a relatively high percert.

then?

MI. Wannall. I would say yes.

And your ques!

criteria?

---

## Page 86

smn 18

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

25

1903

Senator Tower. What criteria do you use in the selection

of informants?

Mr. Wannall. Well, the criteria vary with the needs.

In

our cases relating to extiemist matters, surely in order to get

an informant who can meld into a group which is engaged in a

criminal type activity, you're going to have a different set

of criteria. If you're talking about our internal security

matters, I think we set rather high standards. We do require

that a preliminary inquiry be conducted which would consist

principally of checks of our headquarters indices, our field

office indices, checks with other informants who are operating

in the same area, and in various established sources such as

local police departments.

Following this, if it appears that the person is the type

who has credibility, can be depended upon to be reliable, we

would interview the individual in order to make a determination

as to whether or not he will be willing to assist the FBI

in discharging its responsibilities in that field.

Following that, assuming that the answer is positive, we

would conduct a rather in depth investigation for the purpose

of further attempting to establish credibility and reliability.

Senator. Tower.

How. does the. Bureau distinguish between

the use of informants for law enforcement as opposed to

intelligence collection?

Is the guidance different, or is it the same, or what?

---

## Page 87

Shin 19

1904

Phone (Area 202) 544-5000

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Wannall. Well, Mr. Adams can probably best address

the use of informants on criminal matters since he is over

the operational division on that.

Mr. Adams. You do have somewhat of a difference in the fact

that a criminal informant in

law enforcement function, you

are trying to develop evidence which will be admissible in

court for prosecution, whereas with intelligence, the informant

alone, your purpose could either be prosecution or it could be

just for purposes of pure intelligence.

The difficulty in both is retaining the confidentiality

of the individual and protecting the individual, and trying to,

through use of the informant, obtain evidence which could be

used independently of the testimony of the informant so that

he can continue operating as a criminal informant.

Senator Tower. Are these informants ever authorized to

function as provocateurs?

Mr. Adams.

No, sir, they're not. We have strict regula-

tions against using informants as provocateurs. This gets

into that delicate area of entrapment which has been addressed

by the courts on many occasions and has been concluded by the

courts that providing an individual has a willingness to engage

in an activity, the government has the right to provide him the

opportunity. This does not mean, of course, that mistakes don't

occur in this area, but we take whatever steps we can to

avoid this. Even the law has recognized that informants can

---

## Page 88

smn 20

1905

!

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

WARD & PAUL

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2.3

24

25

engage in criminal activity, and the courts have held that,

especially the

Supreme Court in the Newark County Case, that

the very difficulty of penetrating an ongoing operation, that

an informant himself can engage in criminal activity, but

because there is lacking this criminal intent to violate a

law, we stay away from that. Our regulations fall short of that.

If we have a situation where we felt that an informant

has to become involved in some activity in order to protect

or conceal his use as an informant, we go right to the United

States

Attorney or to the Attorney General to try to make sure

we are not stepping out of bounds insofar as the use of our

informants.

Senator Tower. But you do use these informants and do

instruct them to spread dissension among certain groups that

they are informing on, do you not?

Mr. Adams. We did when we had the COINTELPRO programs,

which were discontinued in 1971, and I think the Klan is probably

one of the best examples of a situation where the law was

in effect at the time.

We heard the term States Rights used

much more then than we hear it today. We saw in the Little

Rock situation the President of the United States, in sending

in the troops, pointing out the necessity to use local law

enforcement. We must have local law enforcement, to use the

troops only as a last resort.

And then you have a situation like this where you do try

---

## Page 89

ph

one

(Area

202)

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1906

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23|

24

25

to preserve the respective roles in law enforcement. You have

historical problems with the Klan coming along. We had

situations where the FBI and the Federal Government was

almost

powerless to act.

We had local law enforcement officers in

some areas participating in Klan violence.

The instances mentioned by Mr. Rowe, every one of those,

he saw them from the lowest level of the informant. He didn't

see what action was taken with that information, as he pointed

out in his testimony. Our files show that this information was

reported to the police departments in every instance. We

also knew that in certain instances the information, upon being

received, was not being acted upon. We also disseminated

simultaneously through letterhead memoranda to the Department

of Justice the problem, and here, here we were, the FBI, in a

position where we had no authority in the absence of instruction

from the Department of Justice, to make an arrest.

Sections 241 and 242 don't cover it because you don't have

evidence of a conspiracy, and it ultimately resulted in

a situation where the Department called in United States

Marshals who do have authority

similar to local law enforcement

officials.

So, historically, in those days, we were just as frus-

trated as anyone else was, and when we got information from

someone like Mr. Rowe, good information, reliable information,

and it was passed on to those who had the responsibility to

---

## Page 90

smn 22

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1907

do something about it, it was

not always acted upon, as he

indicated.

Senator Tower.

None of these cases, then, there was

adequate evidence of conspiracy to give you jurisdiction to

act?

Mr. Adams.

The Departmental rules at that time, and still

require Departmental approval

where you have a conspiracy.

Under 241, it takes two or more persons acting together.

. You

can have a mob scene, and you can have blacks and whites

belting each other, but unless you can show that those that

initiated the action acted in concert in a conspiracy, you have

no violation.

Congress recognized this, and it wasn't until 1968

that they came along and added Section 245 to the civil rights

statute, which added punitive measures against an individual

that didn't have to be a conspiracy. But this was a problem

that the whole country was grappling with: the President of

the United States, Attorney General. We were in a situation

where we had rank lawlessness taking place, as you know from

a memorandum we sent you that we sent to the Attorney General.

The accomplishments we were able to obtain in preventing

violence, and in neutralizing the Klan -- and that was one

of the reasons.

Senator Tower.

What was the Bureau's purpose in con-

tinuing of urging the continued surveillance of the Vietnam

---

## Page 91

smin 23

1908

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

5.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Veterans Against the War?

Was there a legitimate law enforcement purpose, or was the

intent to halter political expression?

Mr. Adams. We had information on the Vietnam Veterans

Against the War that indicated that there were subversive

groups involved. They were going to North Vietnam and meeting.

with the Communist forces.

They were going to Paris, attending

meetings paid for and sponsored by the Communist Party, the

International Comnunist Party. We feel that we had a very valid

basis to direct our attention to the VVAW.

It started out, of course, with Gus Hall in 1967, who was

head of the Communist Party, USA, and the comments he made,

and what it finally boiled down to was a situation where it

split off into the Revolutionary Union, which was a Maost

group, and the hard-line Communist group, and at that point

factionalism developed in many of the chapters, and they closed

those chapters because there was no longer any intent to follow

the national organization.

But we had a valid basis for investigating it,

and we

investigated chapters to determine if there was affiliation

and subservience to the national office.

Senator Tower. Mr. llart?

Senator llart of Michigan. But in the process of chasing

after the Veterans Against the War, you got a lot of information

that clearly has no relationship to any Federal criminal

---

## Page 92

smn 24

1909

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

statute.

Mr. Adams. I agree, Senator.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Why don't you try to shut that

stuff off by simply telling the

agent, or your informant?

Mr. Adams.

Here is the problem that you have with that.

When you're looking at an organization, do you report only the

violent statements made by the group or do you also show that

you may have one or two violent individuals, but you have

some of these

church groups that were mentioned, and others,

that the whole intent of the group is not in violation of the

statutes. You have to report the good, the favorable along

with the unfavorable, and this is a problem. We wind up with

information in our files. We are accused of being vacuum

cleaners, and you are a vacuum cleaner. If you want to know the

real purpose of

an organization, do you only report the

violent statements made and the fact that it is by a small

minority, or do you also show the broad base of the organization

and what it really is?

And within that is where we have to have the guidelines

we have talked about before.

We have to narrow down, because

we recognize that we do wind up with too much information in

our files.

• Senator Hart of Michigan.

But in that vacuuming process:

you are feeding into Departmental files the names of people

who are, who have been engaged in basic First Amendment

---

## Page 93

sin

25

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

I

2

3

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

• 19

20

21

22

2'3

21

25

1910

exercises, and this is what hangs some of us up.

Mr. Adams.

It hangs me up. But in the same files I

imagine every one of you has been interviewed by the FBI, either

asking you about the qualifications of some other Senator

being considered for a Presidential appointment, being inter-

viewed concerning

some friend who is applying for a job.

Were you embarrassed to have that in the files of the

FBI?

Now, someone can say, as reported at our last session, that

this is an indication, the mere fact that we have a name in our

files has an onerous impression, a chilling effect. I agree.

It can have, if someone wants to distort what we have in our

files, but if they recognize that we interviewed you because

of considering a man for the Supreme Court of the United

States, and that isn't distorted or improperly used, I don't

see. where any harm is served by having that in our files.

Senator Hart. of Michigan. But if I am Reverend. Smith

and. the vacuum cleaner picked up the fact that I was helping

the veterans,. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and two years

later a name check. is asked. on Reverend Smith and. all your

file shows. is that he was associated. two years ago with a group

that was sufficient enough, held sufficient doubtful patriotism

to justify turning loose a lot of your energy in pursuit on

then

Mr. Adams. This is a problem.

---

## Page 94

smn

26

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1911

1

2

4

5

6

410 First Street,

8

9

10

1]

12

1'3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Hart of Michigan. This is what should require

us to rethink this whole business.

Mr. Adams. Absolutely.

And this is

what I hope the guidelines committees as well

as the Congressional input are going to address themselves to.

Senator Haxt of Michigan. We've talked about a wide range

of groups which the Bureau can and has had informant penetration

and report on. Your manual, the Bureau manual's definition

of when an extremist or security investigation may be under-

taken refers to groups whose activity either involves violation

of certain specified laws, or which may result in the violation

of such law, and when such

an investigation is opened, then

informants may be used.

Another guideline says that domestic intelligence

investigations now must be predicated on criminal violations.

The agent need only cite a statute suggesting an investigation

relevant to a potential violation. Even now, with an improved,

upgraded effort to avoid some of these problems, we are back

again in a world of possible violations or activities which

may result in illegal acts.

Now, any constitutionally protected exercise of the

right to demonstrate, to assemble, to protest, to petition,

conceivably may result in violonce or disruption of a local

town meeting, when a controversial social issue might result

in disruption. It might be by hecklers rather than those holding

---

## Page 95

Smn 27

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

24

25

1912

the meeting.

Does this mean that the Bureau should investigate all

groups organizing or participating in such a meeting because

they may result in violence, disruption?

Mr. Adams. No, sir.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Isn't that how you justify

spying on almost every aspect of the peace movement?

Mr. Adams. No, sir. When we monitor demonstrations, we

monitor demonstrations where we have an indication that the

demonstration itself is sponsored by a group that we have an

investigative interest in, a valid investigative interest in,

of where members of one of these groups are participating where

there is a potential that they might change the peaceful

nature of the demonstration.

But this is our closest question of trying to draw

guidelines to avoid getting into an area of infringing on the

First Amendment rights of people, yet at the same time being

aware of groups such as we have had in greater numbers in the

past than we do at the present time. But we have had periods

where the demonstrations

have been rather severe, and the

courts have said that the FBI has a right, and indeed a duty,

to keep itself informed with respect to the possible commission

of crime.

It is not obliged to wear blinders until it may be

too late for prevention.

And that's a good statement if applied in a

clearcut

---

## Page 96

28

1913

Smn

phone (Area 202) 544-5000

2

3

end 5

4

case.

Our problem is where we have a demonstration and we have

to make a judgment call as to whether it is one that clearly

fits the criteria

of enabling us to monitor the activities, and

that's where I think most of our disagreements fall.

5

6

7.

8

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

2

3

14

1

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

20

. 2

24

25

---

## Page 97

TARRIS: GSII

son.. sel. CIA

12/2/875

Tape

WARD & PAUL

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1914

Senator llart of lichigan. Let's assume that the rule

for opening an investigation on a group is narrowly drawn.

The

Bureau manual states that informants investigating a subversive

organization should not only report on what that group is

doing but should look at and report on activities in which

the group is participating.

There is a Section 87B3 dealing with reporting on

connections

with other groups. That section says that the

field office shall "determine and report on any significant

connection or cooperation with non-subversive groups." Any

significant connection or cooperation with non-subversive

groups.

Now let's lo0k at this in practice. In the spring of

1969 there was a rather heated national debate over the

installation of the anti-ballistic missile system. Some of us

remember that. An FBI informant and two FBI confidential

sources reported on the plan's participants and activities

of the Washington Area Citizens Coalition Against the ABM,

particularly in open public debate in"

a high school auditorium,

which included speakers from the Defense Department for the

ABM and a

scientist and defense analyst against the ABM.

The informants reported on the planning for the meeting,

the distribution of materials to churches and schools,.

participation by local clergy, plans to seek resolution on !:

ABM from nearby town councils. There was also informat:

---

## Page 98

1915

Phone (Area 2022544-6000

410 First Street,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

plans for a

subsequent town meeting in Washington with the

names of local political leaders who would attend.

Now the information, the informant information came as

part of an investigation of an allegedly subversive group

participating in that coalition. Yet the information dealt

with all aspects and all participants. The reports on the

plans for the meeting and on the meeting itself were disseminated

to the State Department, to military intelligence, and to the

White House.

Ilow do we get into all of that?

Mr. Adams. Well -

Senator Hart of Michigan. Or if you were to rerun it,

would you do it again?

Mr. Adans. Well, not in 1975, compared to what 1969

was. The problem we had at the time was where we had an

informant who had reported that this group, this meeting was

going to take place and it was going to be the Daily world,

which was the east coast communist newspaper that made conments

about it. They formed an organizational meeting. We took

a quick look at it. The case apparently was opened in May 28,

1969 and closed June 5 saying

there was no problem with this

organization.

Now the problem we get into is if we take a quick look

and get out, fine. We've had cases, though, where we have

stayed in too long. When you're dealing with security :: is

---

## Page 99

gsh

3

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street,

S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

*19;6

Soviet espionage where they can put one

person in this country

and they supported him with total resources of the Soviet

Union, false identification, all

the money he needs, comnuni-

cations

networks, satellite assistance, and everything, and

you're working with a paucity of information.

The same

problem exists to a certain extent in domestic

security. You don't have a lot of black and white situations.

So someone reports something to you which you feel, you take

a quick lo0k at and there's nothing to it, and I think that's

what they did.

Senator Hart of Michigan. You said that was '69. Let

me bring you up to date, closer to current, a current place

on the calendar.

This one is the fall of last year, 1975. President

Ford announced his new program with respect to amnesty, as

he described it, for draft resistors. Following that there

were several national conferences involving all the groups

and individuals interested in unconditional amnesty.

Now parenthetically, while unconditional amnesty is

not against - while unconditional amnesty is not yet the law,

we agreed that advocating it is not against the

law either.

Mr. Adams. That's right.

Sonator Hart of Michigan. Some of the sponsors ver

umbrella organizations involving about 50 diverse ramp:

the country.

FBI informants providod advance ii...'ir

---

## Page 100

gsh

Phone (Area 202) 544-5000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1917

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

plans for the meeting and apparently attended and reported on

the conference.

The Bureau's own reports described the

participants as having represented diverse perspectives on

the issue of amnesty, including civil liberties and human

rights groups, G.I. rights spokesmen, parents of men killed

in Vietnam, wives of ex-patriates in Canada, experts on draft

counselling, religious groups interested in peace issues,

delegates

Exom student organizations, and

aides of llouse and

Senate members, drafting legislation on amnesty.

The informant apparently was attending in his role as

a

member of a

group under investigation as allegedly subversive

and it described the topics of the workshop.

Ironically, the Bureau office report before them noted

that in view of the location of the conference at a theological

seminary, the FBI would use restraint and limit its

coverage

to informant reports.

Now this isn't five or ten years ago. This is last

fall. And this is a conference of people who have the point

of view that I share, that the sooner we have unconditional

amnesty, the better for the soul of the country.

Now what reason is it for a vacuum cleaner approach on

a thing like that?

Don't these instances illustrate how broad

informant intelligence really is, that wouid cause these groups

in that setting having contact with other groups, all and

everybody is drawn into the vacuum and many names go into the

---

## Page 101

95h 5

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1918

2

3

4

5

6

Washington, D.C. 20003

vi

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

24

25

Bureau files.

Is this what we want?

Mr. Adams. I'll let Mr. Wannall address himself to this.

He is particular knowledgeable as to this operation.

Mr. Wannall. Senator Mart, that was a case that was

opened on Novenher 14 and closed November 20, and the information

which caused us to be interested in it were really two particular

items. One was

that a member. of the steering committce there,

was

three man

steering committce, and one of

those members

of the national conference was in fact a national officer

of the VVAW in whom we had suggested before we did have a

legitimate investigative interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, I would almost say so

what

at that point.

Mx.. Wannall. The second report we had was that the

VVAW would actively participate in an attempt to pack the

conference to take it over. And the third report we had -

Senator Hart of Michigan. And incidentally, all of the

information that your Buffalo informant had given you with

respect to the goals and aims of the VAW gave you a list of

goals which were completely within Constitutionally protected

objectives.

There wasn't a single item out of that VAW that

jeopardizes the security of this country at all.

ME.

Wannall. Well, of course, we did not rely entirely

on the Buffalo infornant, but even there we did

recei

--

---

## Page 102

gsh 6

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000.

1919

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

fron that informant information which I considered to be

significant.

The Buffalo chapter of the WAW was the regional office

covering New York and northern New Jersey. It was one of the

five most active VAW chapters in the country and at a

national conference, or at the regional conference, this

informant reported information back to us that an attendee

at the conference announced that he had run guns into Cuba

prior to the Castro take-over. He himself said that he during

the Cuban crisis had been under 24 hour suveillance. There

was also discussion at the conference of subjugating the

VAW to the revolutionary union. There were some individuals

in the chapter of the regional conference who were not in

agreenent with us, but Mc. Adams has addressed himself to the

interest of the revolutionary union.

So all of the information that we had on the VAN did

not come from that source but even that particular source did

give us information which we considered to be of some

significance in our appraisal of the need for continuing the

investigation of that particular chapter of the VAw.

Senator Hart of Michigan.

But does it give you the

Iight of does it create the need to go to a conference, even

if it is a conference that might be taken over by the VAW

when the subject matter

is how and by what means shall we

seck to achieve unconditional amnesty? What threat?

---

## Page 103

gs)

7

1920

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

• 10

11

12

13

1:4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Wannall. Our interest, of course, was the VAl

influence on a particular meeting, if you ever happened to be

holding a mecting, or whatever subject it was.

Senator Hart of Michigan. What if it was a meeting to

seck to make more effective the food stamp system in this

country?

Mi. Wannall.

Well, of course there

had been some

organizations.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Nould the same logic follow?

Mr. Wannall. I think that if we found that if the

Communist Party USA was going to take over the meeting and

use it as

a front for its own purposes, there would be a logic

in doing that. You

have a whole scope hore and it's a matter

of where you do and where you don't, and hopefully, as we've

said before, we will have

some guidance, not only from this

committee but from the quidelines that are being developed.

But within the rationale of what we're doing today, I was

explaining to you our interest not in going to this thing and

not gathering everything there was about it.

In fact, only one individual attended and reported to

us,

and that was the person who had, who was not developed for

this reason; an informant who had been reporting on other

matters for some period of time.

And as soon as we got the report of the outerue tr

meeting and the fact that in the period of some

---

## Page 104

gain

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discontinued any further interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, my time has expired

but even this brief exchange, I think, indicates that if we

really want to control the dangers to our society of using

informants to gather domestic political intelligence, we have

to restrict sharply domestic intelligence investigations. And

that gets us into what I would like to raise with you when

my turn comes around again, and that's the use of warrants,

obliging the Bureau to obtain a warrant before a full-fledged

informant can be directed by the Bureau against a group or

individuals.

I know you have objections to that and I would like to

review that with you.

Senator Mondale, pursue that question.

Senator Hart of Michiyan. I am talking now about an

obligation so obtain a warrant before you turn jloose a full-

fledged informant. I'm not talking about tipsters that run

into you or you run into, or who walk in as information sources!

The Bureau has raised some objections in this memorandum to the

Committee. The Bureau argues that such a warrant requirement

might be unconstitutional because it would violate the First

Amendment rights of FBI informants to comnunicate with their

government.

Now that's a concern for First Amendment rights that

ought to

hearten all the civil libertarians.

---

## Page 105

gsh.9

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1922

420 First Street, S.E., Washington,

D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

But why would that vary, why would a warrant requirement

raise a serious constitutional question?

Mr. Adams. Well, for one thing it's the practicability

of it or the impacticability of getting a warrant which:

ordinarily involves probable cause to show that a crime has

been or is about to be committed.

In the intelligence field we are not dealing necessarily

with an imminent criminal action. We're dealing with activities

such as with the Socialist Workers Party, which we have

discussed before, where they say publicly we're not to engage

in any violent activity today, but we guarantee you we still

subscribe to the tenets of communism and that when the time

is ripe, we're going to rise up and help overthrow the United

States.

Well, now, you can't show probable cause if they're about

to do it because they're telling you they're not going to do it

and you know they're not going to do it at this particular

moment.

It's just the mixture somewhat of trying to mix in a

criminal procedure with

an intelligence gathering function, and

we can't find any practical way of doing it. We have a particular

organization.

We may have

an informant that not only belongs

to the connunist Party, but belongs to several other organization:

and as part of his function he may be sent out by the Communist

Party to try to infiltrate one of these clean organizations.

---

## Page 106

ash 1d

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We don't have probable cause for him

to target

against

that organization, but yet we should be able to receive informa-

tion

from him that he as

a Communist Party member, even

though in an informant status, is going to that organization

and don't worry about it. We're making no headway on it.

It's just from our standpoint the possibility of informants,

the Supreme Court has held that informants per se do not

violate the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments. They have

recognized the necessity that the government has to have

individuals who will assist them in carrying out their

governmental duties.

Senator Ilart of Michigan.

I'm not sure I've

heard anything

yet in response to the constitutional question, the very

practical question that you addressed.

Quickly, you are right that the court has said that the

use of the informant per

se is

not a violation of constitutional

rights of the subject under investigation. But Congress

can prescribe sone safeguards, some rules and some standards,

just as we have with respect to your use of electronic

surveillance, and could do it with respect to informants.

That's quite different from saying that the warrant

procedure itself would be unconstitutional.

But with respect to the fact that you couldn't show

probable cause, and therefore, you couldn't get a warrant,

therefore you oppose the proposal to require you to get a

---

## Page 107

gsh

11

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

& PAUL

WARD

12

13

End

Tape

674

Begin Tape p

16

17

18

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1924

warrant. It seems to beg the question.

Assuming that you say that since we use informants and

investigate groups which may only engage in lawful activities

but which might engage in activities that can result in

violence or illegal acts, and you can't use the warrant, but

Congress could say that the use of informants is subject to

such abuse and poses such a threat to legitimate activity,

including the willingness of people to assemble and discuss

the anti-ballistic missile system, and we don't want you to

use them unless

you have indication of criminal activity or

unless you present your request to a magistrate in the same.

fashion as you are required to do with respect to, in most

cases, to wiretap.

This is an option available to congress.

Senator Tower. Senator Schweiker.

Senator Schweiker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wannall, what's the difference between a potential

security informant and a security informant?

Mx. Wannall. I mentioned earlier, Senator Schweiker,

that in developing an informant we do a preliminary check on

him before talking with him and then we do a further in-depth

background check.

A potential security informant is someone who is under

consideration before

he is approved by headquarters for use as

an informant. He is someone who is under current consideration.

---

## Page 108

g.sh

12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

WARD &

First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1925

On some occasions that person will have been developed to a

point where he is in fact

furnishing information and we are

engaged in checking upon his reliability.

In some instances he may be paid for information furnished,

but it has not gotten to the point yet where we have satisfied

ourselves that he meets all of our criteria. When he does,

the field must submit its recommendations to headquarters, and

headquarters will pass upon whether that individual is an

approved FBI informant.

Senator Schweiker. So it's really the first step of

being an informant, I guess.

Mr. Wannall. It is a preliminary step, one of the

preliminary steps.

Senator Schweiker. In the Rowe case, in the Rowe

testimony that we just heard, what was the rationale again

for not intervening when violence was known?

I know we asked you several times but I'm still having

trouble understanding what the rationale, Mr. Wannall, was

in not intervening in the Rowe

situation when violence was

known.

Mr. Wannall. Senator Schreiker, Mr. Adams did address

himself to that. If you have no objection, I'll ask him to

answer that.

Senator Schweiker. All. right.

Mr. Adams.

The problem we had at the time, and it's the

---

## Page 109

gsh i3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1926

1

2

5

6

....

...-

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

problem today, we are an investigative agency. We do not

have police powers like the United States marshalls do.

About 1795, I guess, or some period like that, marshalls have

had the authority that almost borders on what a sheriff has.

We are the investigative agency of the Department of Justice

and during these times the Department of Justice had us maintain

the role of an investigative agency, We were to report on

activities to furnish the information to the local police,

who had an obligation to act. We furnished it to the Department

of Justice.

In those areas where the local police did not act, it

resulted finally in the Attorney General sending 500 United

States marshalls down to guarantee the safety of people who

were trying to march in protest of their civil rights.

This was an extraordinary measure because it came at a

time of civil righs versus federal rights, and yet there was

a breakdown in law enforcement in certain areas of the country.

This doesn't mean to indict all law enforcement agencies

in itself at the time either because many of them did act

upon the information that was furnished to them. But we

have

no authority to make an arrest on the spot because we

would not have had evidence that there was

a.conspiracy

available.

We can do absolutely nothing in that regard.

In little Rock, the decision was made, for instance, that

if any arrests need to be made, the Army should make them and

---

## Page 110

g 5h

14.

1927

Phone (Ared 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

420 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

next to the Army, the United States marshalls should make them,

not the FBI, even though we developed the violations.

And over the years, as you know, at the time there were many

questions raised.

Why doesn't the FBI stop this?

Why don't

you do something about it?

Well, we took the other route and effectively destroyed

the Klan as far as committing acts of violence, and of course

we exceeded statutory guidelines in that area.

Senator Schweiker. What would be wrong, just following

up your point there, Mr. Adams, with setting up a program

sincé it's obvious to me that a lot of informers are going

to

have pre-knowledge of violence of using U.S. marshalls on some

kind of a long-range basis to prevent violence?

Mr. Adams. We do. We have them in Boston in connection

with the busing

incident. We are investigating the violations

under the Civil Rights Act. But the marshalls are in boston,

they are in Louisville, I believe at the same time, and this

is the approach, that the federal government finally recognized,

was the solution to the problem where you had to have added

Federal import.

Senator Schweiker. But instead of waiting until it

gets to a Boston state, which is obviously a pretty advanced

confrontation, shouldn't we have somere a coordinated program

that when you go up the ladder of co and in the FBI, that

on an innediate'and fairly contemporary basis, that kind of

---

## Page 111

igsh '15

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1Y28

1

2

WARD & PAUL

D.C.

20003

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

help can be sought instantly as opposed to waiting until it

gets to a Boston

state?

I realize it's a departure from the past. I'm not

saying it isn't. But it seems. to me we need a better remedy

than we have.

Mx. Adams.

Well, fortunately, we're at a time where

conditions have subsided in the country, even from the '60s

and the '70s and periods -- or '50s and '60s. We report to the

Department of Justice on potential troublespots around the

country as we learn of them

so that the Department will be

aware of them. The planning for Boston, for instance, took

place a year in advance with state officials, city officials,

the Department of Justice and the FBI sitting down together

saying, how are we going to protect the situation in Boston?

I think we've learned a lot from the days back in the

early '60s. But the government had no

mechanics which protected

people at that time.

Senator Schweiker. I'd like to go, if I may, to the

Robert llardy case. I know he is not a witness but he

was

a witness before the llouse. But since this affects my

state, I'd like to ask Mc. Wannall. Mr. Hardy, of course, was

the FBI informer who ultimately led and planned and organized

a raid on the Canden draft board. An according to Mr. Hardy's

testimony before our Committee, he s:.: that in advance of the

raid someone in the Department had even acknowledged the fact

---

## Page 112

gsh 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1929

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

410 First Street, S.E., Washington,

D.C. 20003

18

19

20

21

•22

23

24

25

that they had all the information they needed to clamp down

on the conspiracy and could arrest people at that point in time,

and yet no arrests were

made.

Why, Mr. Wannall, was

this true?

Mr. Wannall. Well,

I can

answer that based oniy on

• the

material that I have reviewed, Senator Schweiker.

It was not

a case handled in my division but I think I can answer your.

question.

There was, in fact, a representative of the Department

of Justice on the spot counselling and advising continuously

as that case progressed as to what point the arrest should be

made and we were being guided by those to our nentors, the

ones who are responsible for making decisions of that sort.

So I think that Mr. Hardy's statement to the effect that

there was someone in the Department there is perfectly true.

Senator Schweiker. That responsibility rests with who

under your procedures?

Mr. Wannall. We investigate decisions on making arrests,

when they should be made, and decisions with regard to

prosecutions are made either by the United States attorneys

or by Federals in the Department.

Mr. Adams. At this time that particular case did have

a departmental attorney on the scene A ause there are questions

bf conspiracy. Conspiracy is a

tough: riolation to prove and

sometimes a question of do you have the added value of catching

---

## Page 113

gsh 17

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

420 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1930

someone in the commission of the crime as further proof,

rather than relying on one informant and some circumstantial

evidence to prove the violation.

Senator Schweiker.

Well, in this case, though, they

even had a dry run. They could have arrested them on the

dry run.

That's getting pretty close to conspiracy, it seems to

me. They had a dry run and they could have arrested them on

the dry run.

I'd like to know why they didn't arrest them on the dry

run.

Who

was this Department of Justice official who made

that decision?

Mx. Adams. Guy Goodwin was the Department official.

Senator Schweiker. Next I'd like to ask back in 1965,

during the height of the effort to destroy the Klan, as you

put it a few moments ago, I believe the FBI has released

figures that we had something like 2,000 informers of some

kind or another infiltrating the Klan out of roughly 10,000

estimated membership.

I believe these are either FBI figures or estimates.

That would nean that one out of every five members of the klan

at that point was an informant paid by the government.

And I believe the figure goes or o indicate that 70

percent of the new members of the kla: that year were FBI

informants.

---

## Page 114

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

410 First Streer, S.E., Washington, O.C. 20003

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Isn't this an awfully overwhelming quantity of people

to put in an effort such as that? I'm not criticizing that

you shouldn't have informants in the Klan and know what's

going on for violence, but it seems to me that this is the

tail wagging the dog.

FOL

example, today we supposedly have only 1594 total

informants for both domestic informants and potential informants

and that here

we had 2,000 just in the Klan alone.

Mr. Adams. Well, this number 2,000 did include all

racial matters, informants at that particular time, and I

think the figures we tried to reconstruct as to the actual

number of Klan infornants in relation to klan members was around

percent, I think, after we had read some of the testimony.

Now the problem we had on the Klan is the Klan had a

group called the Action Group. This was the group that you

remember from Mr. Rowe's

testimony, that he was left af-

ter the meeting.

He attended the open meetings and heard

all of the hurrahs and this type of thing from information,

but he never knew what was going on because each one had an

action group that went out and considered themselves in the

missionary field.

Theirs was the violence.

In order to penetrate those, it takes, you have to direct

as many informants as you possibly can against it, Bear in

mind that I think the newspapers, the President and Congress

and

---

## Page 115

gsh 19

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

& PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

23

24

25

1932

everyone is concerned about the murder of the civil rights

workers, the Linio Kent sase, the Viola Liuzzo case, the

bombings of the church in Birmingham. We were faced with one

tremendous problem at that time.

Senator Schweiker. I acknowledge that.

Mr. Adams.

Our only approach was through informants

and through the use of informants we solved these cases, the

ones that were solved. Some of the bombing cases we have

never solved. They are extremely difficult.

These informants, as we told the Attorney General, and

as we told the president, that we had moved informants like

Mr. Rowe up to the top leadership. He was the bodyguard to the

head

man. He was in a position where he could forewarn us

of violence, could help us on cases that had transpired, and

yet we knew and conceived that this could continue forever

unless we can create enough disruption that these members will

realize that if I go out and murder three civil rights workers,

even though the sheriff and other law enforcement officers are

in on it, if that were the case and with some of them it was

the case, that I would be caught. And that's what we did and

that's why violence stopped, was because the Klan was insecure

and just like you say, 20 percent, they thought 50 percent of

their members ultimately were klan members and they didn't

dare engage in these acts of violence because they knew they

couldn't control the conspiracy any longer.

---

## Page 116

gsh 20

1933

Phone (Area 202)

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Senator Schweiker. My time is expired. I just have

one quick question.

Is it correct that in 1971 we're using around 6500

informers for black ghetto situations?

Mr. Adams. I'm not sure if that's the year.

We did

have one year where we had a number like that which probably

had been around 6000, and that was the time when the cities

were being burned, Detroit, Washington, areas like this. We

were given a mandate to know what the situation is, where is

violence going to break out, what next?

They weren't informants like an individual penctrating

an organization. They were listening posts in the community

that would help tell us that we have a group here that's getting

ready to start another fire-fight or something.

Senator Tower. At this point, there

are three more

Senators remaining for questioning. If we can try to get

everything in in the first round, we will not have a second

round and I think we can finish around 1:00, and we can. go

on and terminate the proceedings.

However,

If anyone feels that they have another question

that they want to return to, we can come back here by 2:00.

Senator Mondale?

Senator Mondale. Mr. Adams, it seems to me that the

record is now fairly clear that when the FBI operates in the

invastiaating; it may be the best professional

---

## Page 117

gsh 21

phone (Area 202) 584-6000

1934

4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

!

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

-22

23

24

25

organization of its kind in the world. And when the FBI acts

in the field of political ideas, it has bungled its job, it

has interfered with the civil liberties, and finally, in the

last month or two, through its public disclosures, heaped

shame upon itself and really led toward an undermining of

the crucial public confidence in an essential law enforcement

agency of this country.

In a real sense, history has repeated itself because it

was precisely that problem that led to the creation of the FBI

in 1921.

In World War I, the Bureau of Investigation strayed from

its law enforcement functions and became an arbiter and

protector of political ideas. And through the interference

of civil liberties and Palmer Raids and the rest, the public

became so offended that later through Mr. Justice Stone and •

Mr. Hoover, the FBI was created. And the first statement

by Mr. Stone was that never again will this Justice Department

get involved in political ideas.

And yet here we are again looking at a record where with

Martin Luther King, with anti-war resistors, with -- we even

had testimony this morning of meetings with the Council of

Churches.

Secretly we are investigating this vague, ill-defined,

impossible to define idea of investigating dangerous ideas.

It seems to be the basis of the strategy that people

can't protect themselves, that you sonehow need to use the

---

## Page 118

gst 22

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

410 First Street, S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 29003

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1935

tools of law enforcement to protect people from subversive

or dangerous: ideas, which I find strange and quite profoundly

at odds with the philosophy of American government.

I started in politics years ago and the first thing we

had to do was to get the communists out of our parts and out.

of the union. We did a very fine job. As far as I know, and

I'm beginning to wonder, but as far as I know, we had no help

from the FBI or the CIA. We just ramned them out of the meetings

on the grounds that they weren't Democrats and they weren't

good union leaders when we didn't want anything to do with them.

And yet, we see time and time again that we're going to

protect the blacks from Martin Luther King because he's

dangerous, that we've going to protect veterans from whatever

it is, and we're going to protect the Council of Churches

from the veterans, and so on, and it just gets

so gummy and

confused and ill-defined and dangerous, that don't you agree

with me that we have to control this, to restrain it, so that

precisely what is expected of the FBI is known by you, by the

public, and that you can justify your actions when we ask

you?

MI. Adams. I agree with that, Senator, and I would like

to point out that when the Attorney General made his statement

Mr. Hoover subscribes

to it,

we follied that policy for about

ten years until the President of the

ited States said that

we should investigate the Nazi Part:.

---

## Page 119

gsh

Phone. (Area 202) 544-6000

23

1936

1

2

WARD

& PAUL

5.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I for one feel that we should investigate the Nazi Party.

I feel that our investigation of the Nazi Party resulted in

the fact that in World War II, as contrasted with World War I,

there wasn't one single incident of foreign directed sabotage

which took place in the United States.

Senator Mondale. And under the criminal law you could

have investigated these issues of sabotage.

Isn't sabotage a crime?

Mr. Adams.

Sabotage is a crime.

Senator Mondale. Could you have investigated that?

Mr. Adams.

After it happened.

Senator Mondale. You see, every time we get involved

in political ideas, you defend yourself on the basis of

crimes that could have been comnitted. It's very interesting.

In my opinion, you have to stand here if you're going to

continue what you're now doing and as I understand it, you

still insist that you did the right thing with the Vietnam

Veterans Against the War, and investigating the Council of

Churches, and this can still go on. This can still go on under

your interpretation of your present powers, what you try to

justify on the grounds of your law enforcement activitics

in terms of criminal matters.

Mr. Adams.

The law does not say we have to vait. until

we have been murdered before

we can-

Senator Mondale. Absolutely, but that's the field of

---

## Page 120

gsh

phone (Ares 202) 544-6000

24

1937

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

law again. You're trying to defend apples with oranges.

That's

the law. You can do that.

Mr. Adams.

That's right, but how do you find out which

of the 20,000 Bund members

might have been

saboteur. You

don't have probable cause to investigate anyone, but you can

direct an intelligence operation against the

German-American

Bund, the same thing we did after Congress said --

Senator Mondale. Couldn't you get a warrant for that?

Why did you object to going to court for authority for that?:

Mr. Adams. Because we don't have probable cause to

go against an individual and the law doesn't provide for

probable cause to investigate an organization.

There were activities which did take place, like one time

they outlined the Communist Party --

Senator Mondale. What I don't understand is why it

wouldn't be better for the FBI for us to define authority

that you could use in the kind of Bonn situation where under

court authority you can investigate where there is probable

cause or reasonable cause to suspect sabotage and the rest.

Wouldn't that make a lot more sense than just making these

decisions on your own?

MI. Adams.

We have expressed complete concurrence in

that. We feel that we're going to gist peat to death in the

next 100 years, you're danned if you s, and damned if you

don't

if va don't have a delineation of our responsibility

---

## Page 121

gsh 25

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1938

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in this area.

But I

won't agree with you, Senator, that we

have bungled

the intelligence operations in the United States.

I agree with you that we have made some mistakes. Mr. Kelley

has set a pattern of being as forthright as any Director of the

FBI in acknowledging mistakes that. had been made, but I think

that as

you

said, and I believe Senator Tower said, and

Senator Church, that we have to watch these hearings because

of the necessity that we must concentrate on these areas of

abuse. We must not lose sight of the

overall law enforcement and intelligence community, and I

still feel that this is the freest country in the world.

I've travelled much, as I'm sure you have, and I know we have

made some mistakes, but I feel that the people in the United

States are less chilled by the mistakes we have made than they

are by the fact that there are 20,000 murders a year in the

United States and they can't walk out of their houses at night

and feel

safe.

Senator Mondale. That's correct, and isn't that an

argument then, MI. Adams, for

strengthening our powers to go

after those who commit crimes rather than strengthening or

continuing a policy which we now see undermines the public

confidence you need to do your job.

Mr. Adams. Absolutely. The mistakes we have made are

what have brought on this embarrassment to us.

I'm not blaming

the Committee. I'm saying we made some

---

## Page 122

gsh 26

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

End Tape 78

WARD & PAUL

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1.6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

24

1939

mistakes and in doing so this is what has hurt the FBI. But

at the same time I don't feel that a balanced picture comes

out, as

of zercing in on abuses.

you have said yourselves, because of the necessity

I think that we have done one tremendous job. I think

the accomplishments in the klan was the finest hour of the

IBI and yet, I'm sure in dealing with the Klan that we made

-some mistakes.

But I just don't agree with bungling.

---

## Page 123

HARRIS/ smnl

t.

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1940

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

•15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Mondale. I don't want to argue over terms, but

I think I sense an agreement that the FBI has gotten into trouble

over it in the political

idea

trouble, and that that's where we

need to have new legal

standards.

Mr. Adams. Yes, I agree with that.

Senator Tower.

Senator Huddleston.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Adams, these two instances we have studied at. some

length seems to have been an

inclination on the part of

the

Bureau to establish, a notion about an individual or a group

which seems to be very hard to ever change or dislodge. In

the case of DI. King, where the supposition was that he was

being influenced by Communist individuals, extensive investi-

gation was made, surveillance, reports came back indicating that

this in fact was untrue, and directions continued to go out

to intensify the investigation. There never seemed to be a

willingness on the part of the Bureau to accept its own facts.

Ms. Cook testified this morning that something similar

to that happened with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War,

that

every piece of information that she supplied to the Bureau

seemed to indicate that the Bureau was not correct in its

assumption that this organization planned to commit violence,

or that it was being manipulated, and yet you seemed to insist

that this investigation go on, and ts information was used

against the individuals.

---

## Page 124

smn

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23

24

25

1941

Now, are there instances where the Bureau has admitted that

its first assumptions were wrong and they have changed their

course?

Mr. Adams. We have admitted that. We have also shown

from one of the cases that Senator Hart brought up, that after

five days we closed the case. We were told something by an

individual that there was

a concern of an adverse influence

in it, and we looked into it. On the Martin Luther King

situation there was no testimony to the effect that we just

dragged on and on, or admitted that we dragged on and on and

on, ad infinitum. The wiretaps on Martin Luther King were

all approved by the Attorney General. Microphones on Martin

Luther King were approved by another Attorney General. This

wasn't the FBI, and the reason they were approved was that

there was a basis to continue the investigation up to a point.

What I testified to was that we were improper in discreditir

DI. King, but it's just like --

Senator Huddleston. The Committee has before it memoranda

written by high officials of the Bureau indicating that the

information they were receiving from the field, from these

surveillance methods, did not confirm what their supposition

was.

Mr. Adams. That

memorandum was

not on Di. King. That

was on another individual that I thi:. somehow got mixed up

in the discussion, one where the issue was can we make people

---

## Page 125

smn 3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000"

1

2

3

4

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

prove they aren't a Communist before we will agree not to

investigate them.

But the young lady appearing this morning making the

comment that she never knew of anything she told us that

she considers herself a

true member of the VVAW-WSO inasmuch

as she feels in general agreement of the principles of it, and

agreed to cooperate with the FBI in providing information regard-

ing the organization to aid in preventing violent individuals

from associating themselves with the VVAW-WSO. She is most

concerned about efforts.by the Revolutionary Union to take over

the VVAW-WSO, and she is working actively to prevent this..

I think that we have a basis for investigating the VAW-

WSO in certain areas today. In other areas we have stopped

the investigation.

They don't agree with these principles

laid down by the --

Senator Huddleston. That report was the basis of your

continuing to pay informants and continuing to utilize that

information against members who certainly had not been involved

in violence, and apparently to get them fired from their job

or whatever?

Mr. Adams. It all gets back to the fact that even in the

criminal law field, you have to detect crime, and you have to

prevent crime, and you can't wait unt:! something happens.

The

Attorney General has clearly spoken : that area, and even our

statutory jurisdiction provides that we don't -

---

## Page 126

1943

smn 4

Phone (Area 202) 544-5000

2

3

.4

5

6

7

8

9

WARD & PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, O.C. 20003

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

•23

24

25

Senator Huddleston.

Well, of course we've had considerable

evidence this morning where no attempt was made to prevent

crime, when you had information that it was going to occur.

But I'm sure there are instances where you have.

MI. Adams. We disseminated every single item which he

reported to us.

Senator Huddleston.

To a police department which you

knew was an accomplice to the crime.

MI. Adams. Not necessarily.

Senator Huddleston. Your informant had told you that,

hadn't he?

Mr. Adams. Well, the informant is on one level.

We have

other informants, and we have other information.

Senator Huddleston. Yes, but you were aware that he

had worked with certain members of the Birmingham police in

order to --

Mr. Adams. Yes.

He furnished many other instances also.

Senator Huddleston. So you weren't really doing a whole

lot to prevent that incident by telling the people who were

already part of it.

Mr. Adams.

We were doing everything we could lawfully

do at the time, and finally the situation was corrected, so that

when the Department, agreeing that we had no further juris-

diction, could sent the United

States Marshal down to perform

certain law enforcement functions.

---

## Page 127

smn 5

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

PAUL

First

Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1944

Senator Huddleston. Now, the Committee has received

documents which indicated that in one situation the FBI assisted

an informant who had been established in a white hate group

to establish a rival white hate group, and that the Bureau paid

his expenses in setting up this rival organization.

Now, does this not put the Bureau in a position of being

responsible for what

actions the rival white hate group might

have undertaken?

Mr. Adams. I'd like to see if one of the other gentlemen

knows that specific case,

because I don't think we set up a

specific group.

This is Joe Deegan.

Mx. Deegan. Senator, it's my understanding that the

informant we're talking about decided to break off from the

group he was with. He was with the Macon Klan group of

the United Klans of America, and he decided to break off.

This

was in compliance with our regulations. His breaking off,

we did not pay him to set up the organization. He did it

on his own.

We paid him for the information he furnished

us concerning the operation.

We did not sponsor the organiza-

tion.

Senator Huddleston.

Concerning the new organization that

he set up, he continued to advise you of the activities of that

organization?

Mr. Deegan.

He continued to advi:: us of that organization

---

## Page 128

smn 6

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

1

3

5

6

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1Y45

and other organizations.

He would advise us of planned

activities.

Senator Huddleston. The new organization that he formed,

did it operate in a very similar manner to the previous one?

Mt. Deegan. No, it did not, and it did not last that

long.

Senator Huddleston. There's also evidence of an FBI

informant in the Black Panther Party who had a position of

responsibility within the Party with the knowledge of his

FBI contact of supplying members with weapons and instructing

them in how to use those weapons. Presumably this was in the

knowledge of the Bureau, and he later became -- came in contact

with the group that was contracting for murder, and he partici-

pated in this group with the knowledge of the FBI agent, and

this group did in fact stalk a victim who was later killed with

the weapon supplied by this individual, presumably all in the

knowledge of the FBI.

How does this square with your enforcement and crime

prevention responsibilities.

Mr. Deegan.. Senator, I'm not familiar with that particulax

case. It does not square with our policy in all respects, and

I would have to look at that particular case you're talking

about to give you an answer.

Senator Huddleston. I don't have the documentation on that

particular case, but it brings up the point as to what kind of

---

## Page 129

Smn

7

1946

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

$

!

410

Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

..

14

15

16

-17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

control you exercised over this kind of informant in this kind

of an organization and to what extent an effort is made to

prevent these informants from engaging in the kind of thing

that you are supposedly trying to prevent.

M. Adams. A good example of this was Mr. Rowe, who became

active in an action group, and we told him to get out or

we would no longer use him as an informant, in spite of the

information he had furnished in the past.

We have had cases, Senator, where we have had -

Senator Huddleston. But you also told him to participate

in violent activities.

MI. Adams. We did not tell him to participate in violent

activities.

Senator Huddleston. That's what he said.

Mr. Adams. I know that's what he said. But that's what

lawsuits are. all about, is that there are two sides to the

issue, and our agents. handling. this have advised. us, and I

believe have advised. your staff, that at no time did they

advise him to engage in violence.

Senator. Huddleston. Just to do what was necessary to

get the information, I believe maybe might have been his

instructions.

Mr. Adams. I don't think they made any such statement

to him along that line, and we have informants, we have

informants who have gotten involved in the violation of the law!

---

## Page 130

SMn

8

1947

Phone (Ares 202) 544-6000

Street,

Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

•16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and we have immediately converted their status from an informant

to the subject, and have prosecuted I would say, offhand, I

can think of around 20 informants that we have prosecuted for

violating the laws, once it came to our attention, and even

to show you our policy of disseminating information on violence

in this case, during the review of the matter, the agents told

me that they found one case where their agent had been working

24 hours a day, and he was a little late in disseminating the

information to the police department. No violence occurred,.

but it showed up in a file review, and he was censured for

his delay in properly notifying local authorities.

So we not only have a policy, I feel that we do follow

reasonable safeguards. in order to carry it out, including periodic

review of all informant files. .

Senator Huddleston. Well, Mr. Rowe's statement is

substantiated to some extent with the acknowledgement by the

agent in charge that if you're going to be a Klansman and you

happen to be with someone and they decide to do something, that

he couldn't be an angel. These were the words of the agent,.

and be a good informant.. He wouldn't take the lead, but the

implication is that he would have to go along and would have

to be involved if he was going to maintain his credibility.

Mr. Adams. There's no question but that an informant at

times will have to be present during demonstrations, riots,

fistfights that take place, but I believe his statement was

---

## Page 131

1948

mn

2

4

5

6

8

WARD

PAUL

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to the effect that - and I was sitting in the back of the

room and I don't recall it exactly, but some of them were

beat with chains, and I didn't hear whether he said he beat

someone with a chain or not, but I rather doubt that he did

because it's one thing being present, and it's another thing

taking an active part in criminal actions.

Senator Huddleston.

He was close enough to get his

throat cut.

How does the gathering of information --

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias is here, and I think that

we probably should recess a few minutes.

Could we have Senator Mathias' questions and then should

we convene this afternoon?

Senator Huddleston. I'm finished. I just had one more

question.

Senator Tower. Go ahead.

Senator Huddleston. I wanted to ask how the selection of

information about an individual's personal life, social, sex

life and becoming involved in that sex life or social life

is a requirement for law enforcement or crime prevention.

Mr. Adams. Our agent handlers have advised us on Mr.

Rowe, that they gave him no such instruction, they had no

such knowledge concerning it, and I can': see where it would

be of any value whatsoever.

Senator Huddleston.

You axen't aware of any case where

---

## Page 132

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544.6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1949

these instructions were given to an agent or an informant?

Mr. Adams. To get involved in sexual activity? No, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias.

Senator Mathias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back very briefly to the fourth

Amendment considerations in connection with the use of informants

and in posing these questions we're not thinking of the one

time volunteer who walks in to an FBI office and says I have

a story I want to tell you and that's the only time that you

may see him. I'm thinking of the kind of situations in which

there is a more extended relationship which could be of varying

degrees. It might be in one case that

the same individual

will have some usefulness in a number of situations. But when

the FBI orders a regular agent to engage in a search, the first

test is a judicial warrant, and what I would like

' to explore

with you is the difference between a one time search which

requires a warrant, and which you get when you make that

search, and a continuous search which uses an informant, or

the case of a continuous search which uses a regular undercover

agent, someone who is totally under your control, and is in a

slightly different category than an informant.

Mr. Adams.

Well, we

get there into the fact that the

Supreme Court has still held that the use of informants does

not invade any of these constitutionally protected areas, and

---

## Page 133

simn 11

First

str

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

25

1950

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

if a person wants to tell an informant something that isn't

protected by the Supreme Court.

An actual search for legal evidence, that is a protected

item, but information and the use of informants have been

consistently held as not posing any constitutional problems.

Senator Mathias. I would agree, if you're talking about

the fellow who walks in off the street, as I said earlier,

but is it true that under existing procedures informants are

given background checks?

MI. Adams. Yes, sir.

Senator Mathias. And they are subject to a testing period.

Mr. Adams. That's right, to verify and make sure they

are providing to us reliable information.

Senator Mathias. And during the period that the relation-

ship continues, they are rather closely controlled by the

handling agents.

Mr. Adams. That's true.

Senator Mathias. So in effect they can come in a very

practical way agents themselves to the FBI.

Mr. Adams.. They can do nothing --

Senator Mathias.

Certainly agents in the common law use

of the word.

Mr. Adams. That's right, they can do nothing, and we

instruct our agents that an informant can do nothing that the

agent himself cannot do, and if the agent can work himself into

---

## Page 134

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000"

WARD

UL

end

smr 12

1951

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

.18

19

.20

21

22.

23

24

25

an organization in an undercover capacity, he can sit there and

glean all the information that he wants, and that is not in the

Constitution as a protected area. But we do have this problem.

Senator Mathias. But if a regular agent who is a member

of the FBI attempted to enter these premises, he would reguire

a warrant?

MI. Adams. No, sir, if a regular - it depends on the

purpose for which he is entering. If a regular agent by

concealing his identity, by -- was admitted as a member of the

Communist Party, he can attend Communist Party meetings, and he

can enter the premises,

he can enter the building, and there's

no constitutionally invaded area there.

Senator Mathias. And so you feel that anyone who has

a less formal relationship with the Bureau than a regular

agent, who can undertake a continuous surveillance operation

as an undercover.agent.or as an informant.-

Mr. Adams. As long as he commits no illegal acts.

Senator Mathias. Let me ask you why you feel that it is

impractical to require a warrant since, as I understand it.

headquarters must approve the use of an informant. Is that

degree of formal action required?

---

## Page 135

ARRIS: GSHI

en. Sel. CIA

2/2/85

Taper

: 9

202)

phone (Area

2

1952

WARD &

S. E., Washington,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Adams. The main difficulty is the particularity

which has to be shown in obtaining a search warrant. You

have to go after particular evidence. You have to specify

what you're going after, and an informant operates in an

that you just cannot specify.

He doesn't know what's

going. to be discussed at that meeting. It may be a plot to

blow up the Capitol again or it may be a plot to blow up the

State Department building.

Senator Mathias. If it were a crininal investigation,

you would have little difficulty with probable cause, wouldn't

you?

Mr. Adams.

We would have difficulty in a warrant to

someone as an informant in that area because the same

difficulty of particularity exists. We can't specify.

Senator Mathias. I understand the problem because it's

very similar to one that we discussed earlier in connection

say wiretaps on a national security problem.

Mr. Adams. That's it, and there we face the problem of

where the Soviet, an individual identified as a soviet spy

in a friendly country and they tell us he's been a Soviet spy

there and now he's coming to the United States, and if we can't

show under a probable cause warrant, if we couldn't show that

he was actually engaging in espionage in the United States,

we couldn't get a wiretap under the probable cause requirements

which have been discussed. If the good fairy didn't drop the

---

## Page 136

95h

1953

evidence in our hands that this individual is here conducting

espionage, we again would fall short of this, and that's

why we're still groping with it.

Senator Mathias.

When you say fall short, you really,

you would be falling short of the requirements of the Fourth

Amendment.

Mr. Adams. That's right, except for the fact that the

President, under this Constitutional powers, to protect this

nation and make sure that it survives first, first of all

national survival, and these are the areas that not only the

President but the Attorney General are concerned in and we're

all hoping that somehow we can reach a legislative middle

ground in hore.

Senator Mathias. Which we discussed in the other national

security area as to curtailling a warrant to that particular

need.

Street,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Adams. And if you could get away from probable

cause and get some degree of reasonable cause and get some

method of sealing indefinitely your interest, say, in an

ongoing espionage case and can work out those difficulties,

we may get their yet.

Senator Mathias. And you don't despair of finding that

middle ground?

Mr. Adams. I don't because I think that today there's

more of an open mind between Congress and the Executive Branch

---

## Page 137

9sh

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

3-

WARD

& PAUL

1

2

3

4.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1954

and the FBI and everyone concerning the need to get these

areas resolved.

Senator Mathias. And you believe that the Department,

if we could come together, would

support, would agree to that

kind of a warrant requirement if we could agree on the language?

Mr. Adams. If we can work out problems and the Attorney

General is personally interested in that also.

Senator Mathias. Do you think that this agreement night

extend to some of those other areas that we talked about?

Mr. Adams. I think'

that that would be a nuch greater

difficulty in an area of domestic intelligence informant who

reports on many different operations and different types of

activities that might come up rather than say in a Soviet

espionage or a foreign espionage case where you do have a little

more degree of specificity to deal with.

Senator Mathias. I suggest that we arrange to get

together and try out some drafts with each other, but in the

meantime, of course, there's another alternative and that

would be the use of wiretap procedure by which the Attorney

General must approve a wiretap before it is placed, and the

same general process could be used for informants, since

you come to headquarters any way.

Mr. Adams.

That could be an alte itive. I think it

would be a very burdensome alternative

" I think at some

point after we attack the major abuses, or what are considered

---

## Page 138

gsh

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1955

major abuses of Congress and get over this hurdle, I think

we're still going to have to recognize that heads of agencies

have to accept the responsibility for managing that agency

and we can't just keep pushing every operational problem up

to the top because there just aren't enough hours in the day.

Senator Mathias. But the reason that parallel suggests

itself is of course the fact that the wiretap deals generally

with one level of information in one sense of gathering

information. You hear what you hear from the tap.

Mr. Adams.

But you're dealing in a much smaller number

also.

Senator Mathias. Smaller number, but that's all the

more reason. When an informant goes in, he has all of his

senses.

He's gathering all of the information a human being

can acquire from a situation and has access to more information

than the average

wiretap.

And it would seem to me that for that reason a parallel

process might be useful and in order.

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Mintz pointed out one other main

distinction. to me which

I had overlooked fron our prior

discussions, which is the fact that with an informant he is

more in the position of being a concentral monitor in that one

of the two parties to the conversation agices,

such as like

concentral monitoring of telephones and microphones and

anything else

versus

the wirctap

itself where the individual

---

## Page 139

5

1956

Phono (Area 202)

544-6000

WARD &

PAUL

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

whose telephone is being tapped is not aware and there is,

and neither of the two parties talking had agreed

that their

conversation could be monitored.

Senator Mathias. I find that one difficult to accept.

If I'm the third party overhearing a conversation that is taking

place in a room where I am, and my true character isn't perceived

by the two people who are talking, in effect they haven't

consented to my overhearing my conversation. Then they consent

if they believe that I am their friend or their, a partisan

of theirs.

But if they knew in fact that I was an informant for

someone else, they wouldn't be consenting.

Mr. Adams. Well, that's like I believe Senator Hart

raised earlier, that the courts thus far have made this

distinction with no difficulty, but that doesn't mean that

there may not be some legislative compromise which might be

addressed.

Senator Mathias. Well, I particularly appreciate your

attitude in being willing to work on these problems because

I think that's the most important thing that can evolve from

these hearings, so that we can actually look at the lourth

Amendment as the standard that we have to achieve. But the

way we get there is obviously going to

1 lot easier if we

can work toward them together.

I just have one final question, 'is. Chairman, and that

---

## Page 140

g5b

6

1957

1

2

3

5

6

WARD

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

deals with whether we shouldn't impose a standard of probable

cause that a crime has been committed as a means of controlling

the use of informants and the kind of information that they

collect.

Do you feel that this would be too restrictive?

Mr. Adams.

Yes, sir, I do.

When I lo0k at informants and I see that each year

informants provide us, locate 5000 dangerous fugitives, they

provide subjects in 2000 more cases, they recover $86 million

in stolen

property and contraband, and that's irrespective

of what we give the local law enforcement and other Federal

agencies, which is almost a comparable figure, we have almost

reached a point in the criminal law where we don't have much

left. And in the intelligence field we still, I think when

we carve all of the problems away, we still have to make sure

that we have the means to gather information which will permit

us to be aware of the identity of individuals and organizations

that are

acting io overthrow the government of the United

States. And I think we still have some areas to look hard

at as we have

discussed, but I think informants are hexe to

stay. They are absolutely essential to law enforcement.

Everyone uses informants. The press has informants, Congress

has informants, you have individuals in your community that

you rely on, not for ulterior purposes, but to let you know

what's the feel of the people, am I serving them properly,

---

## Page 141

Phona (Area

202)

544-6000

gsh

WARD

5. E., Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1958

am I carrying out this?

It's here to say. It's been here throughout history

and there will always be informants. And the thing we want to

avoid is abuses like provocateurs, criminal activities, and

to ensure that we have safeguards that will prevent that.

But we do need informants.

Senator lower. Senator Hart, do you have any further

questions?

Senator llart of Michigan. Yes. I ask unanimous reguest

perhaps with a view to giving balance to the record, the

groups that we have discussed this morning into which the

Bureau has put informants, in popular language, our liberal

groups - I would ask unanimous consent that be printed in

the record, the summary of the opening of the headquarters

file by the Burcau of Dr. Carl McIntyre when he announced

that he was organizing a group to counter the American Civil

Liberties Union and other "liberal and communist groups,"

is not a left only pre-occupation.

Senator Tower. Without objection,

so ordered.

(The material referred to follows:)

---

## Page 142

Phone (Ares

2021

344-61

WARD

410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

- 9

20

21

22

23

24

1959

Senator Tower. Any more questions?

Then the Committee will have an Executive Session this

afternoon in Room 3110 in the Dirksen Building at

3:00,

and

I hope

everyone will be in

attendance.

Tomorrow morning we will hear from Courtney Evans,

Cartha DeLoach. Tomorrow afternoon, former Attorneys General

Ramsey Clark and Idward Katzenbach.

The Committee, the hearings are recessed until 10:00

a.m. tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon,

at 1:10 o'clock p.m., the hearing in the

above mentioned matter was concluded, to reconvene on Wednesday

December 3Id, 1975, at 10:00 o'clock a.m.)

---

## Page 143

01-5189-801

A ton

niilntt

Tdot ctt

t Thon stS

«tw!.!.....

tielen men

Siin:..

taar !

( Ti-.)

ilo.-=

tawan tieT

---

## Page 144

*No text recognized on this page.*

---

## Page 145

NRO74 WA CODE

10PM NITEL 5-2-75 MSE

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR

(62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 95

CAPTIONED MATTER PERIAINS TO BUREAU'S HANDLING OF REQUESTS

FROM SENATE AND MOUSE SELECT COMMIITEES TO STUDY COVERNMENTAL

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES• IN CONNEC

TION WITH WORK OF THESE COMMITTEES, STAFF MENDERS MAY SEEK

TO INTERVIEW CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

RECENTLY, THE SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE (SSOS STAFF HAS

INTERVIEWED SEVERAL FORMER EMPLOYEES AND IT IS ANTICIPATED

THAT MANY MORE SUCH PERSONNEL WILL BE CONTACTED.

THE FBI HAS PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE COMMITTEE

AND WE WISH TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY INVESTIGATIONS UNDER-

TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THE FEI, HOWEVER, WE

DO HAVE AN OSLIGATION TO INSURE THAT SENSITIVE SOURCES AND

METHODS AND ONGOING SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIONS ARE FULLY

163-5375-10

---

## Page 146

PAGE TWO

PROTECTED, SHOULD ANY FORMER EMPLOVEE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE AND

HAVE ANY QUESTION REGARDING HIS OBLIGATION NOT TO DIVULGE INFOR

MATION OBTAINED BY VIRTUE OF HIS PAST FBI EMPLOYMENT, HE SHOULD

BE INSTRUCIED TO CONTACI LEGAL COUNSEL, FBIHQ, BY COLLECT CALL.

YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES MUST BE IN KEEPING WITH

OUR PLEDE. IT IS BELIEVED SUCH A PROCEDURE WOULD INSURE PROPER

PROTECTION AND ALSO FACILITATE THE WORK OF THE SSC.

THE ABOVE PROCEDURE ALSO APPLIES TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES

OF YOUR OFFICE. HOWEVER, CONTACI WITH THE LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD

BE HANDLED THROUGH THE SAC•

END

---

## Page 147

#5655-501

OMAINY NYS T 181

9261 -D8

35

'0347

-АЗУЗОНІ

GOZITVINIS

YTAISf

+77-77-77

_LIP=TO1

22188

oonoo

606 C21066X00 SI 0R S1 Lono JsadonS Onv My2U0S Zni AJIA

INGH3OGOO MITUILIGOIE CO SIO G0 TIn CAIrDE GeTdBonD Sheissod

03 SV HIH D6276 01 22X07d/2 L30NOaSnd 10V1100 C1 ZOIALO G7AIA

RAI COE CENGSI 2AV BNOILONELST •LOVIS OSS DHE AE AEIAOSLNI

VCD C283CIS6OO ONIDE JAV S2UX076WS CJXMO3 1VKL 251123620

NO 0So ahi nued BuevaT Mananocad ABunS SHe 030 Jhl X8

DRF2IAARIÁI XOLIEREI SAINI CELAOTCS COR2OE CO DIZMANO CUN

ATSNOIAZHG LOI ZAWR HOING SBOIGGO SSOHD 60 NGIIVEZO2AT 4OЛ

•SEDAOTÓNE ICA 22NGO2 CNO INacohC 20 SABIA2BINI

Auvis OSS di Sulivod aucCaOoLd Rad MidOr 1ES Cö) Cro

SIOS 2HI O1 IOEASDE HLIN OSS ENO AC NOXVILICAE SAOILDOIISEAIT

ANV ZIVLITIOVE OUE ASISSG O1 S3HSIM CHV (OSS) 201JI0A0S

10STES ZAWNSO SHI MI MOILVdadOCO Thas Cab0OTd SUA ICS

IVND BIVGBLIRE (1) 05 D26 D6XI2701 InbISHI C0 Sasodahia

•ELST "E AW: TRROGEY

867-88-807,

CL ACnISIaS

NOIINSIEV TUNOGLZa

(569901-39)

80L02FI0 HOL4

SOUS 77V 01

APW TOLIN GLATAS WOSSEC

3000 V0 E202N

---

## Page 148

PPATCIIVE IANPOIMTELY, CURCAN HILL WO LONCCR PROVIOE

1C ^ LDCAL CDV7997.

1OG LON CIC LAVARRENOO SRA CSVEEN O00G7INICC AO COIAGZIAT 6O

Saaarioabd 01 B0 2SIS0 SCCilozro C7OO0G AIh MaI ATIO:CO 149IH

ESNZIACOLI VO ONIAUGONE LE ATTORICE дO0 КоnонI7E сдедам

37667IVAD SE C906r COSIAEOdhe TSChS &ACSSaN S2537IAI8d

NGILVETOGNOO S3009IAODINI O2aGadO SVn 09320S 6020200222

• SHOIIVOIL ZAMI DVIERE ONIOONO IOBES

M7 AOWC&QN IEW HONS WO MOI NI ME SIONET

TIOASE (0) ASEROMh0B1/S0OnI2D BAIIISNOS 765A34 (6) 5208n05

MCERIO AGILDOT OO AM ROINH ACTLEEGONI Oi GMILVTaL GEO

sveod asans •rulieano daneud oe caalnoee dOd ei cHaCTe

AI DUELY (2OOTIAILORhoD S00 Saara Deno CaD Coo EsezidiVErd

ODIDICZOS HINIIN ASIACCIHL CHE NOA CEX02X07 ALETVILAZGILAOS

CIÖ OEAIN COR DOECKE SHE ENAS CED ACANE CCTORd dOnvS

HEJUNG NE LVAD DI: ATCONHOO 7663T CI CHOIS PSUA AN LUIE

CiDUN00 SI SaAOTeNa cSuB02 dne CCTOaID SDONWEENCLTE EV

o2Svo Tonon Shd dd onoidvccand 22ad0na ACa 7700 2027300

AE NOISIAIL MOSIOOO 7OOT OAI LOGIRCO AO PE GNOTAROIAT

PAGE INO

---

## Page 149

PAGE THORT

D'-THE-SORE PEOSONEL TOP CONSULTATIO! PURPOSES TO ASCIST

CITHOE CIRCUT OF C00 87 BIPLOYDESA

PONSPCOTIVE INTERVIEUZES

SOLO O2 TOLO THATLIE THEY DESIRE AGOISTAGOE D7 THIS NATURG

DURING 1Y LUTONVIC!, THEY MAY CO TROT DITHCH PEZOOKALLY CIT

INTE VICIO T: CONINGTON, DO CA DE SY OOLLECT SALL, TYP

• SOUACCHO EEN20S

POR YOUR ARDITIONAL INDORLATIONO TAN DORMING MITH THO

YOU TILL 2E 12PT ADVIGET OF DEVELOP 1D TS

InOHSI! E22A07MS 2802OR C0y G820n0 205 6A.6SS0028 EJM

CLA

TrE

---

## Page 150

NR3S WA CODE

5:05PM 9/4/75 NITEL AJN

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL MAY Z, 1975.

PURPOSES OF INSTANT TELETYPE ARE TO

(1) REITERATE THAT

FBI HAS PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE (SSC) AND WISHES TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY

INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE SSC WITH RESPECT TO THE FBI;

AND (2) SET FORTH NEW PROCEDURE RELATING TO SSC STAFF

INTERVIEWS OF CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

FOR INFORMATION OF THOSE OFFICES WHICH HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY

HAD CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES IN ITS TERRITOY INTERVIEWED

BY THE SSC, THE BUREAU FREQUENTLY LEARNS FROM THE SSC OR

OTHERWISE THAT FORMER EMPLOYEES ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR

INTERVIEW BY THE SSC STAFF. INSTRUCTIONS ARE ISSUED

FOR THe

FIELD OFFICE TO CONTACT THE FORMER EMPLOYEE TO ALERT HIM AS TO

POSSIBLE INTERVIEW, REMIND HIM OF HIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

WITH THE BUREAU AND

SUGGEST THAT IF HE IS CONTACTED FOR

SEARCHED.

-_ INDEXED

SERIALIZED_.. FILED_

SEP 4 - 19

FBI - SAN ANTONIO

153-5575-11

---

## Page 151

PAGE TWO

INTERVIEW, HE MAY CONTACT THE LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY

COLLICT CALL FOR FURTHER INFOSMATION. IN THE USUAL CASE,

AS CIRCUMSTANCES UNFOLD, THE FORMER EMPLOVER IS TOLO(I)

IHAT HE HAS A NIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THAT THE SUREAU

CANNOT PROVIDE SAMES (2) THAT THE BUREAU MAS WAIVED THE

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREENENT FOR THE INTERVIEW WITHIN SPECIFIED

PARAMETERS; AND (3) THAT THERE ARE FOUR PRIVILEGZO AREAS IN

WHICH ME IS NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTION. THESE AREAS

ARE RELATING TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY (A) IDENTIFY SUREAU

SOURCES; (8) REVEAL SONSITIVE METHODS/TECHNIQUES; (C) REVEAL

IDENTITIES OF THIRO AGENCIES, INCLUDING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

ACENCIES, OR INFORMATION FROM SUCH AGENCIESE AND (D) ADVERSELY

AFFECT ONGOING BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS.

HERETOFORE, BUREAU MAS OFFERED INTERVIENEES CONSULTATION

PRIVILEGES WHEREBY A BUREAU SUPERVISOR WOULD BE AVAILABLE

NEARBY, ALTHOUGH NOI ACTUALLY AT INTERVIEW, SO INTERVIENEE

MIGHT CONSULT WITH WIN SHOULD QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO PARAMETERS

OF INTERVIEW OR PRIVILEGED AREAS. THE CONSJLTANT DID NOT ACI

AS A LEGAL ADVISOR.

EFFECTIVE

IMMEDIATELY, BURGAU WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE

---

## Page 152

PAGE THREE

Of-THE-SCENE PERSONNEL FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES TO ASSIST

EITHER CURRENT DE FORMER EMPLOYEES, PROSPECTIVE INTERVIENBES

SHOLLO BE TOLD THAT, IF THEY DESIRE ASSISTANCE OF THIS NATURE

DURING AN INTERVIENS THEY MAY CONTACT EITHER PERSOVALLY CIP

ITERVIEW IS IN WASWINGIONS DO CO) OF BY COLLECT CALL, THE

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, MR. *. B.

WANNALL, OR, IN HIS ABSENCE, SECTION CHIEF WA D. CRECAR.

THIS CHANGE IN PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT SE GONSTRUED AS

LESSENING THE ASSISTANCE WE ARE FURNISHING TO CURRENT AND

FORMER EMPLOYEES.

FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I AX WORKING WITH THE

DEPARIMEVT IN EXPLORING AVENUES TO ARRANGE LEGAL REPRESENTATION,

WHEN NECESSARY, FOR CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYZES WITHOUT

EXPENSE TO THEM. YOU WILL BE KEPT ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENTS .

IN THIS REGARD.

END

* SHP FBI SAN ANTONIO

CLR

TKS

tie the lapore

---

## Page 153

FD-36 (Rev. 2-14-74)-

FBI

Date:

1/23/76

Transmit the following in

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

Via

NITEL

(Precedence)

TO:

DIRECTOR, FBI VETKR

FROM:

SAC, SAN ANTONIO

ATTENTION: INTD, MR. W. O. CREGAR.

SENSTUDY, 1975.

RETELCALL OF MR. SEYMOUR PHILLIPS TO SAC, SAN ANTONIO,

JANUARY 22, 1976, CONCERNING FORMER SPECIAL AGENT EDWIN

DALRYMPALE.

ON JANUARY 22, 1976, I NOTIFIED MR. EDWIN DALRYMPALE,

4211 PRICKLEY PEAR DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731, TELEPHONE

512-345-1479, THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE HAD REQUESTED THE FBI IDENTIFY A REDHEADED

AGENT ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSTON FBI OFFICE AROUND 1963 OR

1964. THE BUREAU HAS ADVISED TWO AGENTS ASSIGNED TO THAT

OFFICE DURING THIS PERIOD WITH RED HAIR, ONE BEING FORMER

SPECIAL AGENT EDWIN DALRYMPALE.

MR. DALRYMPALE WAS ADVISED OF THE INQUIRY BY THIS REP-

RESENTATIVE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND

THAT THE FBI WAS COOPERATING WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WAS

105. 657502

1- SAfile 105- (SENST UDY)

Special Agent in Charge

Sent

---

## Page 154

FD-36 (Rev. 2-14-74)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Precedence)

PAGE TWO.

WAS FURNISHING THE COMMITTEE WITH MR. DALRYMPALE'S NAME

AND ADDRESS.

MR. DALRYMPALE WAS REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF

LEGAL COUNSEL, FBIHQ, BY COLLECT PHONE CALL IN THE EVENT

HE RECEIVES AN INQUIRY FROM A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.

HE WAS REQUESTED TO DETERMINE THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT

WHICH THE COMMITTEE WISHED TO INTERVIEW HIM, FURNISH THIS

INFORMATION TO THE FBI OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN ORDER THAT

AN APPROPRIATE WAIVER COULD BE FURNISHED HIM BY THE FBI

THEREBY PERMITTING HIM TO SUBMIT TO INTERVIEW AND POSSIBLE

SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

MR. DALRYMPALE WAS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THIS INFORMATION

AND STATED HE WOULD KEEP THE FBI ADVISED OF ANY CONTACT

AND REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE.

ABOVE FOR INFORMATION OF THE BUREAU.

END.

Approved:

Sent

-M Per

Special Agent in Charge

---

## Page 155

...

1

. :

.. o

re.?"

..,.-.

iwainn

= ..

n....m

minew. i.!

103-5575-173

---

## Page 156

*No text recognized on this page.*

---

## Page 157

*No text recognized on this page.*

---

## Page 158

TO

FROM

:

PTIONAL FORM NO.

AY 1982 EDITIC

GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

SAfile 105-5575

DATE:

2/5/76

SUBJECT:

SAC W. LEE COLWELL

SENSTUDY 1975

Mr. SEYMOR F. PHILLIPS, FBIHO, telephonically furnished the

following information on 2/5/76:

Former SAC CLARK D. ANDERSON (Retired) was interviewed

earlier this week in Washington, D. C., by members of the Staff of the Senate

Select Committee (SSC). Mr. PHILLIPS stated that upon Mr. ANDERSON'S

return to San Antonio he will contact the office for the purpose of dictating a

letterhead memo for information purposes to be furnished to FBIH&. Mr. PHILLIPS

furnished the following order of how he would like this information recorded and

transmitted:

1. Mr. ANDERSON has already received similar instructions

concerning this matter and will dictate a memo regarding the results of his interview.

2. This information should be recorded in the form of an LHM

with an original and & copies forwarded to FBIH.

The LHM should have the

following two captions centered at the top of the LHM:

a) U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

ACTIVITIES (SSC)

Drop 2 spaces

b) RE: INTERVIEW OF FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT

IN CHARGE CLARK D. ANDERSON BY SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE STAFF MEMBER (or Members as the case may be)

3. Mr. ANDERSON's LHM should be forwarded by cover airtel

to the Attn; of INTD, W. O. CREGAR, SENSTUDY 1975.

105-5575

(2-SA

WLC.pam

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

---

## Page 159

SA 105-5575

Mr. PHILLIPS requested that Mr. ANDERSON include in his

LHM a statement as to whether or not he was placed under oath, advised of his

rights, and if the interview was recorded on a tape recorder or by a stenographer.

Mr. PHILLIPS stated that it would not be necessary for Mr. ANDERSON to dictate

the interview in chronological order. A narrative report as he recalls the

interview will suffice.

In the event I am absent from the office when Mr. ANDERSON

comes in, he should be advised of the above information.

This is for information of the file.

2

---

## Page 160

SAfile 105-5575

SAC W. LEE COLWELL

SENSTUDY 1975

2/5/76

Mr. SEYMOR F. PHILLIPS, FBIHO, telephonieally furnished the

following information on 2/5/76:

Former SAC CLARK D. ANDERSON (Retired) was interviewed

earlier this week in Washington, D. C., by members of the Staff of the Senate

Select Committee (SSC). Mr. PHILLIPS stated that upon Mr. ANDERSON'S

return to San Antonio he will contact the office for the purpose of dictating a

letterhead memo for information purposes to be furnished to FBIHQ. Mr. PHILLIPS

furnished the following order of how he would like this information recorded and

transmitted:

1. Mr. ANDERSON has already received similar instructions

concerning this matter and will dictate a memo regarding the results of his interview.

2. This information should be recorded in the form of an LHM

with an original and 8 copies forwarded to FBIHQ. The LHM should have the

following two captions centered at the top of the LHM:

a) U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

ACTIVITIES (SSC)

Drop 2 spaces

b) RE: INTERVIEW OF FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT

IN CHARGE CLARK D. ANDERSON BY SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE STAFF MEMBER (or Members as the case may be)

3. Mr. ANDERSON's LHM should be forwarded by cover airtel

to the Attn; of INTD, W. O. CREGAR, SENSTUDY 1975.

1i5-5575-

13

(2-SA

WLC:pam

---

## Page 161

SA 105-5575

Mr. PHILLIPS requested that Mr. ANDERSON include in his

LHM a statement as to whether or not he was placed under oath, advised of his

rights, and if the interview was recorded on a tape recorder or by a stenographer.

Mr. PHILLIPS stated that it would not be necessary for Mr. ANDERSON to dictate

the interview in chronological order.

A narrative report as he recalls the

interview will suffice.

In the event I am absent from the office when Mr. ANDERSON

comes in, he should be advised of the above information.

This is for information of the file.

2

---