LETTER TO LOUIS STOKES
Agency: CIA
Originator: CIA
To: STOKES, LOUIS
Document date: 08/23/0000
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

104-10145-10418

(CONFIDENTIAL

DRAFT

copn hand carried to

Ading Leg. Counscl

OGC (Rininger)

SAIDDCI

ADDO.

20A SESA:

."cordn:

Honorable Louis Stokes, Chairman

Select Committee on Assassinations

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Subsequent to our telephone conversation on 16 August, at

which time you informed me that subpoenas had been voted by the Committee

for four items of information, the matter has been the subject of exchanges

between your representatives

and mine. I assume that you are now aware

that one of the items had been reviewed by one of your staff representatives

the morning of the day before you told me the subpoena was voted. Another

was for a paper that cannot be located, relating to a file that had been

reviewed by your representatives. I assume these do not pose a question.

The other two items, the subject of this letter, appear to have developed

into a different problem.

One of these two remaining items deals with a history of the

Mexico City Station, covering the period 1947 to 1969. That history

contains only a few pages of reference to the five day visit of Lee Harvey

Oswald to Mexico City (and that is described incorrectly), and to

related subsequent events. This material has been reviewed by your

representatives.

Other than these few references the balance of the history

08

deals with operational and management developments over a [22]year

22321

CONFIDENTIAL

RETURN TO CIA

Background Use Only

Do Not Reproduce

31g0

---

## Page 2

14-00000

:

...

GONFIDENTIAL

listend%

period unrelated to the objective of your inquiry. In its entirety it

constitutes a highly sensitive collection of information that should

receive the most restricted handling.

The other item has to do with the so-called 201 file of a Cuban

citizen, and a Covert Action operation in which she featured as one of

those affected by it. The activity transcends the time period of the death

of President Kennedy, its results evidencing themselves subsequently

over the ensuing year and more. The nature of that operation has been

described to MI. Blakey and Mr. Cornwell. It is of an unusually sensitive

nature, with ramifications well beyond the subject of your inquiry.

We engaged in discussions with Mr. Cornwell, trying in good

faith to arrive at a procedure whereby your staff could have access to

relevant materials, and at the same time limit the unnecessary exposure

of unrelated sensitive operational activity. At his request, we took

sections of the history designated by him and made them available for

review, with knowledgeable officers present to discuss with him questions

that may arise. Similarly, at Mr. Cornwell's directions, we provided the

material from the 201 file of the individual of interest to your Committee

for the period I September 1963 through 31 January 1964. Mr. Cornwell

was able to review these various materials only hurriedly on 18 August,

to be reviewed further by him on his return from Dallas. The 201 file

in question was made available for review by your investigators.

CONFIOENTTAL

2

---

## Page 3

CONFIBENTIAL

On 22 August Mi. Blakey came to review these materials but

declined to review the history, insisting that he should

see it all. Further,

MI. Blakey rejected the principle of any limitation on his

review of the

201 file of the person in whom your Committee is interested. He also

insisted on seeing the separate operational files

as well, although

advised that the activity was unusually sensitive and unrelated. In

essence, this negated the progress made to date. In fact, we understand

Mr. Blakey is indicating that the Committee plans to go ahead with

its subpoenas.

I believe that you will recall that unusual access was extended to

your Committee, specifically reserving, however, the question of special

handling of material depending on their bearing on the authorized study

and investigation, and on considerations of sensitivity. We were unaware that

there was any problem different from any number of daily working problems

encountered in this inquiry, until your subpoena. In fact, as noted, on

two of the issues addressed by the subpoena your representatives had

reviewed available material. Subsequent to that, the rather detailed

exchanges between your representatives and mine had appeared to have

been entered into in good faith, and we had proceeded accordingly.

At this point please be advised of the sensitivity that bears on the handling

of this material, if you have not been so advised previously by your staff.

3

KOOMASENTAL

---

## Page 4

14-00000

:..

'CONFIDENTIAL"

Further, please be advised of my view that except as noted above, they

do not appear germane to your authorization.

I trust that we will have the opportunity to discuss this candidly

rather than under the conditions resulting from the subpoenas voted

by your Committee. Please let me know when you return to Washington

so we can discuss further how we might handle the matter.

Sincerely,

AG/GO00K1

ASTOCHOSE

CONFIDENTIAL

---