Document date: 00/00/0000
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

File #:

62-HQ-116395

Serial Scope:

1236X-1239x1239+2,1240x, 1St NR 1240x1,

1241

E. Kerrede

Haaaaabrasier Reccada

Leapier Bee

95÷992

1te Ta0 2a50 Kebel.

NW BST10- DOGLa: 2969560-Fage-1

---

## Page 2

For. 0/2:86)

TO :

1.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TING SLIP

DIVISION

NAME

Paul Daly, FBI

BUILDING

ROOM

3.

_SIGNATURE

APPROVAL

_ SEE ME

_RECOMMENDATION

ANSWER OR ACKNOWL-

EDGE ON OR BEFORE

PREPARE REPLY FOR

[ THE SIGNATURE OF

REMARKS

COMMENT

NECESSARY ACTION

] NOTE AND RETURN

_ CALL HE

_PER CONVERSATION

[ AS REQUESTED

_NOTE AND FILE

[YOUR INFORMATION

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

BE VERSE I SEALEW

FROM:

NAME

Mark L, Wolf

-Special Asst, to the

Attorney General

BUILDING & ROOM

EXT.

DATE

12/30

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 2

---

## Page 3

] nü

CONIENI

2

STATEMENT OF:

PAGE

-—

Радс 2527

JLOLOS GUWilD Bhü dU idtu

MIUn GULE MONGULON TIE dU MEECES

5

8

10

1

2

. .

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEE

EREIN GINC ASSIFIE

Wno 1 po0i av

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

62-116-395-1244

ENCLOSURE

289

HUAHAN

rage

---

## Page 4

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

1

2

3

Thursday, December 11, 1975

5

.8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

United States Senate,

Select Comnittee 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, Senator

Frank Church (Chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Church (presiding), Mathias, Morgan,

Mondale, Baker, Hart of Michigail, Hart of Colorado and Schweiker..

Also present: William Miller, Staff Director; Frederick

A.0. Schwarz, JI., Chief Counsel; Curtis Smothers, Minority

Counsel.

14211

I ReaId: 32282560

Page 4

---

## Page 5

404T

2

3

. 4

5

6

7

8

9

. 10

11

: 12

13

14

15

• 16

'17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

:25

The Chairman. Our witness this morning is the llonorable

Edward H. Levi, Attorney General of the United States. Mr.

Levi has appeare before this Committee on previous occasions

and this Committee was nost happy to welcone him back again

this morning.

He has been asked to testify today about the future of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and especially its

domestic intelligence operations.

This morning's hearing marks both an end and a beginning

for the Select Committee. It is the end of a series of hearings

on domestic intelligence which began in Septenber with an

examination of the so-called "Huston Plan." Those original

hearings explored the relationship of the White House to the

FBI and other intelligence agencies in the developnent of a

specific plan for using illegal techniques against

domestic'

groups.

At that time the Committee learned the details of FBI

black bag jobs against domestic targets which continued at least

until 1963.

He learned of a "do not file" procedure in the

FBI for destroying the records of these operations and the Com-

mittee was told that the FBI expanded its intelligence

investigations along the lines of the lluston Plan, even after

the President withdrew his approval.

Our next hearings in this area dealt with improper

NH 55110 DocId:32989568-Page 5

---

## Page 6

2525

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

activities that overlapped foreign and domestic intelligence

operations. The Director of the National Security Agency.:

*.

testified that the sophisticated surveillange operations.of

that agency had been targeted

against the international

communications of American citizens for domestic intelligence

purposes,

This was done in direct cooperation with the FBI,.

which supplied names of citizens for the NSA watchlisi.

Present and former FBI officials also testified that until

1966 the Bureau undertook programs for illegally opening the

mail of innocent citizens in the search for espionage agents

and foreign intelligence. The FBI used the CIA's mail

opening

program after 1966 for domestic intelligence purposes,

again sending over lists of names of American citizens ho

were to be watched.

The Committée's recent hearings on the FBI itself have

raised some of the most fundamental questions that any denocracy

must face.

We have placed on the record deeply disturbing

information about the FBI'S COINTELPRO activities over a period

of fifteen years; the attempts to discredit DI. Martin Iuther

King, JI., the broad

surveillance of law-abiding citizens

anâ lawful activities, the practices of infiltration and dis-

ruption by informants, and the

political use of FBI resources

by Presidents of both parties.

The Committee's work in this area has been aided

sub-

stantially by the cooperation of the Justice Department. I

WW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 6

---

## Page 7

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

would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Attorney General, to

express the appreciation of the entire Conmittee and the

staff for your assistance in making available the materials

needed for this investigation. Our experience has demonstrated

that the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers has

enough flexibility to allow close cooperation between the

Congress and the Executive in a matter of the greatest public

concern.

While our investigation is coming to an end, the task

of making constructive recommendations is beginning. Ne

have heard this week from former officials and from Director

Kelley.

we are exploring a wide range of proposals, including

those being developed by the Justice Department. And we

look forward to working closely with you on these issues.

One of the best statements of the problems we confront .

was made last summer by Philip Kurland, Professor of

Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Professor

Kurland spoke of the threats to an open, democratic society

from what he called the perversion of our intelligence agencies

into political police forces.

He rejected the proposition

that we should be satisfied that these agencies will exercise

self-restraint. Professor Kurland did not deny the importance

of the individual qualities of the officeholder. But he

stressed the greater importance of confining our intelligence

and counter-intelligence agencies to the limited functions they

NW 55110

Docid: 32989560

Page 7

---

## Page 8

5

2526-A

1

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

were created to deal with.

The crucial responsibility lies with the Congress. "If

oversight by Congress is not to be the answer," Professor

Kurland declared, "it

is hard to conceive of an answer."

The

essentíal requirement for Congressional oversight is information

about intelligence operations, and the greatest harrier is

Executive secrecy. Consequently, Professor furland and others

have urged that we establish procedures which reguire the

Executive to provide this information to the Congress. This

may be the only way to insure the responsibility of the

Executive Branch to the people through the congress.

Therefore, we especially hope that you, Mr. Attorney

General, can help this Cormittee and the Congress develo?

not only standards for the FBI, but also procedures for

effective Congressional oversight to assure regular account-

ability.

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 8

---

## Page 9

.1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

• 24

:25

SEATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD I. LEVI, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Attorney General Levi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairnan.

Before I begin, let me say that I don't suppose that your

statement is meant to indicate that I am committed to agree

with my friend, professor Kurland, who may not be wrong as

often as many people are but occasionally is not correct.

The Chairman. No, it was

only meant that I agree with

him.

Attorney General Lavi. Then I hope the matter can be

explored more in depth.

Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman, I think that's one of the

most graceful declarations of independence I have ever heard.

Attorney General Levi. ir. Chairman, the Comittee has.

asked me to talk with you today about the future of the

T'ederal Bureau of Investigation. I thought it might be helpful

if I outline quite briefly some of the points I vould like

to make, some of the problems I, think ought to be considered,

and some of the steps we have taken.

The first point is that the statutory base for the

operations of the Bureau cannot be said to be fully satisfactory

The basic statutory provision is 23 USC 533 which provides

that the Attorney General may appoint officials "(1) to detect

and prosecute crimes against the United States; (2) to assist

in the protection of the President; and (3) to conduct such

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 3

---

## Page 10

• 1

2.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

.15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

*

investigations regarding official matters under the control

•of the Department of justice and the Depariment of State

as may be directed. by the Attorney General." There are other

statutes, such as the Congressional Assassination, Kunapping

and Assault Act, which vest in the bureau special responsibilities

to investigate criminal violations. In addition, there are

Executive orders and Presidential statements or directives

which place investigatory responsivilities upon the Bureau.

A number of questions are often asked about this statutory

base. It has the virtue of simplicity, but the Executive orders

which deal with government

employee

investigations are compli-

cated anû confusing, anû Presidential memoranda, or, perhaps,

oral

instructions from a

President may be difficult to collate.

I think it is important, in any case, to separate out the kinds

of questions which are asked about the Bureau's authority base..

Some questions are constitutional in nature, relating to the

inherent power of the President; others go to the interpretation

of the statutes and the relationship between the statutes and

Presidential directives; others go to the failure of

the statutes to define sufficiently the areas of the Bureau's

jurisdiction or to spell out sufficiently - and this is

partly constitutional - the means and methods which the

Bureau is permitted to use in carrying out its assigned tasks.

The second point, related to the first, is à continuing

discussion of the role of the Bureau in intelligence investigation:

NW 55210 Do27d:32989560

Page 10

---

## Page 11

2529

8

]

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

or domestic security investigations.

The argument is sometines

made that the Bureau's proper role, at least in purely

domestic matters, should be limited to investigations of

committed crimes. The basic statute for the Bureau is broader

than this, as have been Executive orders and Presidential

mandates to the Bureau. The basic

statute is broader since it

refers to investigations regarding official matters under the

control of the Department of Justice and the Department of

State

as may be directed by the Atiorney General. A disparity

is sometimes seen among the different roles of the Bureau

in crime detection, in on-going donestic security matters,

and in foreign intelligence or foreign counter-intelligence

matters. In recent days a statement by then Attorney General

Harlan Fiske Stone, who reorganized the Bureau and chose J.

Edgar Hoover as its director, has been quoted as a relevant

warning.

Stone warned, "there is alvays the possibility that a

secret police may become a menace to free government and free

institutions, because it carries with it the possibility

of abuses of power which are not

always quickly apprehended

or understood. It is important that its activities be

strictly limited to the performance of those functions for

which it was created and that its agents themselves be not

above the law or beyond its reach.

The Bureau of Investigation

is not concerned with political or other opinions of individuals.

55-11-0

-DocId 32989560 Page 11

---

## Page 12

25.30

1

2

3

21445

5

6

• 07

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

• 20

21

22

23

84

25

It is concerned only with their conduct and then only with such

conduct as is forbidden by the laws of the United States.

¡hen a police system passes beyond these limits, it is dangerous

to the proper administration of justice and to human liberty,

which it should be our first concern to cherish."

I should

like to suggest that Stone's warning always

must be considered relevant to the proper conduct of the

Bureau's duties, but it does not necessarily follow that

domestic security investigations are, therefore, outside the

Bureau's proper functions.

The detection of crime in some

areas

requires preparation and at least some knowledge of what

is likely to be going on. What is at issue, I think, is the

proper scope, the means and methods used, the attention paid

to conduct and not views, and the closeness of the relationship

of the conduct and

that which is forbidden by the laws of

the United States:

Third, I realize that some proposals, since I was

asked about this when I last appeared before this Committee,

might separate out in some fashion domestic and foreign

intelligence functions from the FBI or from one another within

the

FBI. This is, of course, an issue to be looked at. I

assume it is recognized that there may be some relationship

between that intelligence which is involved in foreign counter-

intelligence work. One may lead to the other. And there may

be a relationship between foreign counter-intelligence

and

NY 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 12

---

## Page 13

10

2531

I 1..

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

2,3

24

25

foreign intelligence. If the work were separated out into

different agencies, I do not know if the decision about when an

investigation should pass from one agency to. another alvays

could be nade easily. Horeover,. even so, information presumably

would pass from one agency to the other. I know that one

consideration has been that it might be decided that information

collected by some permitted means in intelligence investigations

under some circumstances should not be used in criminal

prosecutions. But if there is an exchange of information,

this must always be a consideration, whether there are separate

agencies or not, and the basic question then is one of use

and not organization. The more active concern, I believe, is

that there is a risk that conduct proper for one area may be

improper for another, and that the combination can work a

contamination. My view on this is that in any case we must

decide what conduct is appropriate and is inappropriate. for each

of the areas, and we must take steps to make sure that proper

conduct is lived up to. My hope is that the fact that the FBI

has criminal investigative responsibilities, which nust be

conducted within the confines of constitutional protections

strictly enforced by the courts, gives the organization an

awareness of the interests of individual liberties that might

hemissing in an agency devoted solely to intelligence work.

I knot the argument can be run the other. way. I believe the

dangers are greater is there is separation.

NW

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 13

---

## Page 14

2532

ghs 10

: 1

2

3

4

6

7

8.

-9

•10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

• 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Fourth, there is a question as to the proper role of the

FBI in crime prevention and whether or not it should be con-

sidered authorized to take steps under some circumstances to

reduce the likelihood that crimes will be committed or that

serious injury to persons or property will occur.

Preventive

action has raised serious questions and these

must be dealt with. I suppose an initial question is whether

it should be allowed at all. Yet I believe under special

circumstances and with proper controls most would believe this

to be a proper function.

Fifth, the problem of proper controls, supervision and

accountability is all-embracing. By statute the Federal Bureau

of Investigation is in the Department of Justice, and also by

statute the Attorney General is the head of the Department of

Justice.

The history is mixed, of course, and we all have a

tendency to over-simplify, but it is a fair statement that

there have been times in the past when the supervision by

Attorneys General, granted that the Bureau must have consider-

able autonomy, has been sporadic, practically nonexistent, or

ineffective.

I hope that is not the

case now. The responsibility is a

heavy one. But in any event the problem of proper controls,

supervision and accountability goes beyond the Director of

the Bureau and the Attorney, General. I have already mentioned

that in my view the statutory base for the operations of the.

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 14

---

## Page 15

2533

•: 1

2

4

5.

: 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

Bureau cannot be said to be fully satisfactory. I think that

better controls and performance can be achieved through

statutory means, executive orders, guidelines, and reporting

to appropriate congressional committees.

Sixth, before I come to a resume of some of the steps

which have been taken, let me say I know we all realize that

in the past there have been grave abuses. I am uncomfortable

with a kind of writing of history, however, which sees it only

in terms of the abuses and not in terms of past and present

strength. It is very difficult to be fair to the past in

which many institutions of government carried a share of

responsibility. But more than unfairness is involved, if we

are not careful, we will turn to solutions of the moment which

a better reading of history might indicate are not the best

solutions.

I know we must seize the. moment, if I may use such a

phrase in this setting. I know also that this comnittee

realizes that a very important agency with dedicated, highly

professional, greatly disciplined government servants is

involved. The importance is to

the

security and domestic

tranquility of the United States.

Stone's warning was given

in an act of creation. He was proud of his creation. In spite

of the abuses, there is a proper place for pride. I take it

our mutual work 'should be to nurture that pride and the condi-

tions which justify it.

, NW

55110

DooId: 32989560 Page 15

---

## Page 16

3

2534÷2535.:

1

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

2,3

.24

25

I turn now to a review of some of the steps which have

been taken or are in progress.

We have tried most diligently,

under safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals and

with an: awareness of the unfairness of instant history to give

a great deal of information to congressional committees.

Attorney General Saxbe made public and Deputy Attorney

General Silberman and Director Kelley testified about the so-

called COINTELPRO. When the FBI discovered evidence of

several more COINTELPRO projects after I became Attorney.

General, these were revealed. One of my first acts as Attorney

General, my third week in office, was to testify before a

congressional committee about possible incidents of political

misuse of the FBI by the White House in the past and about the

nature of FBI file-keeping systems, particularly the files kept

by Director Hoover in his office suite.

Director Kelley has spoken publicly and before congres-

sional committees about incidents in the past in which FBI

agents engaged in break-ins to gather or photograph physical

evidence in intelligence investigations. On a number of occa

sions, most recently in testimony before this committee, I

have described the history of the use of electronic surveil-

lance by the FBI. We have welcomed such opportunities.

On February 26, 1975, I instructed Director Kelley to

report to me any requests made of the Bureau or practices

within the Bureau which he deems improper or which present the

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 16

---

## Page 17

10-4

2536

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

• 20

21

22

23

24

25

appearance of impropriety. On February 28, 1975, Director

Kelley ordered FBI personnel to report such requests or

practices. to him. In July 1975, I reaffirmed my February

directive and also asked for a report of all sensitive investi

gative practices.

The Director promptly complied. Director Kelley has

regularly provided information on conduct by Bureau agents and

programs underway within the Bureau that could raise questions.

These matters have been reviewed and discussed with the

Department so that a consistent and appropriate policy can be

achieved.

This is a continuing process. I do not assert that we are

aware of everything about. the Bureau, Nor da I suggest. that..

we ought to know everything. Appropriate communication,

consultation and supervision at this level have to be selective

make this point, which I think may sound disconcerting, not

in any way to minimize the responsibility of the Bureau to keep

the Department informed nor to minimize the Department's duty

to find out.

Rather I want to be realistic about a learning

and organization problem which requires realism if it is to ba

understood and perfected.

with respect to possible legislation, the Department has

in preparation various drafts of possible bills which may be

of assistance in the area of what is now warrantless electionic

surveillance. Although obtaining a judicial warrant does not

•NW 55110

" DocId: 32989560 Page 17

---

## Page 18

- 5

125371

cape

: 1.

2

3

1

. 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

]

.4

15

:."

16

17

18

1.9

20

21

22

23

884

25

automatically eradicate the possibility of abuse, it is

perceived to be an important safeguard of individual privacy.

interests, and we are exploring, as we said we would do,

various possibilities and alternatives.

NW 55110

DocId: 32969560

Page 18

---

## Page 19

a8/smnl

2

25,38

2

3

4

•5

6

8

9

: 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

25

Finally, a committee within the Department of Justice,

chaired by Mary Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the

Office of Legal Counsel, and composed of representatives of

my office, the Criminal and Civil Rights Divisions, the Office

of Policy and Planning, and the FBI, has been working for

eight months reviewing FBI procedures in many areas and drafting

guidelines to govern those procedures in the future. The Com-

mittee has produced draft guidelines covering White House

inquiries, congressional and judicial staff appointment investi-

gations, unsolicited mail, and domestic security investigations.

It is currently at work on guidelines covering countérespionage

investigations and will later consider the use of informants,

the employee loyalty program, organized crime intelligence

investigations, criminal investigations, and other aspects of

FBI practice. The Committee's work has been extensive and timet

consuming. It has

involved not only questions of proper safeguardi

but also of efficiency in the proper functioning of the Bureau.

It has been an effort to translate into words the complicated

and important mechanisms for controlling the FBI. I hope the

Committee's efforts at articulation will be of use to this Commit-

tee and others as it considers drafting legislation.

You have received copies of the latest drafts of the

guidelines that have been substantially completed by the

Committee. These guidelines do not yet represent Department

policy. There is disagreement within the Department on some

NW

55110

Dbold: 32989560 Page 19

---

## Page 20

smn

2539

147819911

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

aspects of these guidelines. I have disagreed with the Committee

recommendations from time to time, and the FBI has raised

substantial questions about other recommendations, particularly

with respect to the treatment of unsolicited mail. Some of the

proposals in the guidelines could be promulgated as departmental

regulations. Congress may feel some ought to be enacted into

statutory law. Ohter provisions would require implementation by

executive order.

I would be glad to discuss these draft guidelines with you

in detail in response to your questions, but a brief discussion

of the guidelines on domestic security may be useful at the

outset.

The guidelines begin by attempting.to impose some order

and definiteness to the domestic security field. To begin with

these guidelines do not deal with FBI efforts to counteract

the work of foreign intelligence services operating within the

United States.

Standards for determining when there is foreign

involvement sufficient to place a subject in the category of

foreign counterintelligence investigation are now being

debated within the guidelines committee.

The domestic security

guidelines also are not meant to cover security or background

investigacions of federal appointees or investigations of

ordinary crimes. Under the draft guidelines, domestic

security investigations are only to be authorized when there

is a likelihood that the activities of individuals of groups

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 20

---

## Page 21

3

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

.10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2.4

.25

2'540

involve or will involve the use of force or violence in violation

of Federal law. Domestic security investigations are to be

limited to activities of individuals or groups intended to

accomplish one of five purposes: overthrowing the government

of the United States or of a State; interfering with the

activities within the United States of foreign governments or

their representatives; influencing government policies by

interfering by force or violence with government functions

or interstate commerce; depriving individuals of their civil .

rights; and creating domestic violence or rioting when such

violence or rioting would necessitate as a countermeasure the

use of Federal armed forces.

There is also a provision for

limited investigation when there is a clear and immediate

threat of domestic violence which is likely to result in a

request by a state for Federal armed assistance:

Currently there is no procedure requiring the review

outside the FBI of all domestic intelligence investigations

conducted by the

FBI, though the FBI has a long-standing

policy of reporting its investigative findings to the

Criminal Division. Under the draft guidelines there would be

a comprehensive program of reporting to the Attorney General or

his designee of all preliminary and full domestic intelligence

investigations. The Attorney

• General would be required

under the draft guidelines

to put a stop to any full investiga

tion whose justification did not meet an established standard.

- NW 55210

DocId: 32929560

Page 21

---

## Page 22

smn

4

.. 2541

1

2

3

4

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

•18

20

21

22

23

24

25

The standard would be that there must be specific and articulable

facts giving reason to believe that the individual or group

under investigation

is engaged in the activities I have just

listed.

Another feature of the draft guidelines is to place strict

controls upon the use of any technigue by the FBI which goes

beyond the gathering of information. COINTELPRO was the name

given the use of some such techniques. As I have said

before, some of the activities in COINTELPRO were outrageous and

the others were foolish. Nonetheless, there may be circum-

stances involving an immediate risk to human life or to

extraordinarily important government functions that could only be

countered

I by some sort of preventive action. The guidelines

require that any such preventive action proposal be submitted

to the Attorney General. He could authorize the preventive

action only when there is probable cause to believe that the

violence is imminent and when

such measures are necessary to

minimize the danger to life or property. The preventive action

would in all cases have to be. nonviolent: The Attorney General

would be required to report to Congress periodically and no

less often than once a year on the use of preventive action by

the FBI.

I make no claim that during this rather difficult but

interesting and, I must trust, promising period,, we have

achieved all that might have been possible.

In many ways the

NW 55110

i DocId: 32989560 Page 22

---

## Page 23

smn

5

;

2542

2

3

4

5

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

.15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

•24

25

work has been disappointingly slow. But I do think we have

made advances in nurturing and helping to improve a structure

which will be supportive of the best efforts of the men and women

in the Department of Justice and in the Federal Bureau of Inves-

tigation. No procedures are fail-safe against abuse. The best

protection remains the quality and professionalism of the

members of the Bureau and of the Department.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, MI. Attorney, General.

It's a very helpful statément, and does summarize the efforts

that you are making to give greater, put greater order into

the work of the FBI.

One thing that leaves me somewhat baffled is the .

difference between domestic security action, for which you have

set forth the proposed guidelines, which seem to me to be

good ones, and what you call preventive action. You state

in your statement at page 12 and the top of page 13, after you

criticize the COINTELPRO program, which this Committee has

explored in some detail, you say "Nonetheless, there may be

circumstances involving an immediate risk to human life or

to extraordinarily important government functions that coudd

only be countered by some sort of preventive action."

In that case, why can't the preventive action take the

form of an arrest if there are circumstances involving immediate

risk to human life or to extraordinarily important government

functions?

55110

or degen

DocId: 32989560 Page 23

---

## Page 24

smn

6

2543.

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Attorney General Levi. If it can, then that would have

to be done because the guidelines specifically require that

the preventive action is necessary and it can't otherwise be

handled.

Now, one can think of incidents -

The Chairman. Can you give us some incidents?

Attorney General Levi. If there is the likelihood of a

violent confrontation between two marching groups on a state

capitol, it is conceivable that blocking off some streets, or

directing signs to some other direction in an emergency

situation of that kind might be useful, and I take it that

is a preventive action, and I would not think unusual, by the

way, for people who are properly trained in work of that kind.

The Chairman.

That is a good kind of preventive action.

Suppose that there were two caravans instead of two

marching groups; and that you had reason to believe that they

were headed toward one another and there would be a violent

confrontation once they met. Would permissible preventive

action in those circumstances permit putting sand in the

gas tanks of the automobiles so that neither caravan could.

move?

25

I have to

ask that kind of a question after what we found

out that the FBI was up to in the COINTELPRO program.

Attorney General Levi.

The answer is no. Certainly

there's no intention, the guidelines do not spell out, and we

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 24

---

## Page 25

smn.7

25•44

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

• 11

12

'13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

• 22

23

184

25

have had discussions about that, what kind of precise

preventive action might be possible or might not be possible

under special circumstances.

The Chairman. This is all very vague, and suppose you

had reason to believe that a prominent figure of some kind in

a movement was about to or of a mind to incite his followers

to violence. Then in that case could you undertake to give

_him a drug that would prevent him from speaking for three

• weeks?

Attorney General Levi: No, of course not, but I have to

add that what the guidelines do say is that the Attorney

General has to give permission, not only does he have to give

permission, but he will have to report to the Congress, and

since quite naturally this Committee believes that reports

to the Congress are the most important thing that any agency

can do, then it seems to me you must also agree that that is

some safeguard.

The Chairman. Well, that depends upon your view as to the

kind of Committee that can do the job of surveillance.

Attorney, General Levi. Well, I don't think -- this really

was my suggestion before. It takes a combination of control,

and what we have attempted to do here is to have a guideline

which strictly limits -- maybe it should limit more, preventive

action, but admits that there is an area for it. Now, maybe

we should not admit.

*NW 55110

pocId: 32989560 Page 25

---

## Page 26

sma

2545

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

LIL:

SSE

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Chairman. Why couldn't you do it this way, Mr.

Secretary? Why couldn't you say that when preventive action is

necessary, it must be open and public kind of action.

Attorney General Levi. I don't think that telling people

The Chairman. Now, understand what I mean. You gave an

open, public way of preventing two groups from meeting and

clashing. Well, when that is the case, the means used

are

likely to be reasonable ones. But when there are. secret methods

"Of preventive action undertaken, that's when you get into

potential problems, real troubles that we have seen.

Attorney General Levi. Well, we have to take that through

may very well be that no secret ones at least beyond the

immediate moment of doing would be required. It may be that.

one can put it that way, but I think one of the virtues of

guidelines should be that they are sufficiently.realistic.so.

that they don't have to be violated under emergency

circumstances.

There is a question, then, of how detailed one can make

them, but it may be that the line about secrecy beyond a

certain point would be good.

I should also say that the Privacy Act would itself

prohibit dissemination of lies' and deception, I think, to a

considerable extent, if one goes back to the old COINTELPRO.

So I think we are in somewhat of a different statutory situatior

for the moment anyway. But we have tried, in the guidelines,

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 26

---

## Page 27

9

25,46

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

.22

24

25

in any event, to very much limit the field.

Now, whether we have limited it enough, I'm not sure.

The Chairman. Did you say that with respect to the domestic

security activities of the FBI, that before such a project is

undertaken, the Attorney General must give his consent or

that he might be informed of prospective ongoing projects

in order that he can call a given project that he doesn't find

fully justified to a halt?

I didn't quite understand your question.

Attorney General Levi: Well, he has to give, he has to

be informed of, I think, all of the investigations. He can

terminate them all. The problem is whether he -- he doesn't

have to authorize the full investigation, but he has to be

informed about it and he can terminate it.

The Chairman. Now, well, you have to authorize wiretaps

and electronic devices in such cases. Why shouldn't - why

wouldn't it be well for the Attorney General to authorize the

initiation of programs in this particular field, new investi-

gatory programs?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I'm trying to protect, if

not myself, at least my successors. I'm not sure that it makes

much difference. It makes some difference. If the Attorney

General has to authorize all full investigations, he will have

quite a lot of work to do. If he has to authorize all of

the preliminary investigations, his desk is going to be covered

NN 55110

Doold: 32989560

Fage 27

---

## Page 28

3n

10

2547

1

3

4

5

6

•8

•9

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

•19

20

21

28

23

24

25

with a great many things which he doesn't know a great deal

about.

The Chairman. Don't you think there should be some outside

check in this area, particularly where we are not dealing with

criminal law enforcement as such, but we are dealing with

potential violence and you

referred to as surveillance of

citizens and groups of citizens for purposes of domestic

security. That's a pretty fuzzy field, and we have seen how

great the abuses were for a long period of time, and don't you

think there should be some outside check, perhaps not with

every case, the Attorney General himself, but some outside

check on the agency in this general field to be sure that they

are

following these guidelines?

Attorney General Levi: But I've already said that I

think that there ought to be reports

to Congress. I don't

want to word the scope of the domestic security investigations,

however, quite the way you have worded them, because these

guidelines which could be in part put into statute, strictly

limit them. They limit them to where there is a likelihood

for preliminary investigations that the activities of

individuals and groups involved would use force and violence

in violation of laws in particular areas.

And that is for 90 days, and then perhaps another 90 days,

and the kind of investigation which can be done in a

preliminary investigation is also restricted. When you go

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 28

---

## Page 29

5

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KIV

55110

25,48

beyond that to the full investigation, then we really have the

stop and frisk standard, so that we really have come, I think,

as close as is feasible. And maybe it is too restrictive; in

any event, as close as is feasible to the violation of law

kind of penumbra, so that it would seem to me that that was.

some safeguard.

Now, whether that is sufficient, I don't suppose anything

is fully sufficient, but I would assume that in addition,

there can be reports to Congress, and there will have to be

reports to the Attorney General, and I would think that that

and the lessons of history would provide quite a lot of safe-

guards. If the suggestion is that one

should go to a Commission

or to a court, I must say that I have grave doubts as to whethe

that is the proper solution, but if that were the case, it woula

be a statutory matter, and I would hope that my participation

in making that decision would not be viewed as having as

heavy responsibilities as those who would have to vote for it.

The Chairman. Don't you think, given the past history

you have referred to, that it might be a very good idea to

take these guidelines which represent to me a good faith

effort on your part to bring order into this general ahaos,

take these guidelines and wiite them into the law?

DocId: 32989560

Page 29

---

## Page 30

ARRIS: mlO

CE 12/21

13-1

1

202)

2

3

4

5

6

2549,

Attorney General Levi. I think that undoubtedly parts of

the guidelines should be made statutory. I think that the

problem is, and I am sorry for this, is that it has taken so

long to draft these guidelines, although I think it has been

an

extraordinary effort. And the way the guidelines are written

one has to -- at least it is better to see them all at once

because they do relate to each other. But there may not be

time for that.

As I said, I know we have to seize the moment, but I do

not know how long the moment is. In any event, I agree that

part of the guidelines, at least, ought to be in statutory

fOIm.

WarO

8

9

• 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

.23

24

The Chairman. Well, at the moment, this committee is.

until February 29th, 1976. And we would solicit from you as

much cooperation as I know you will give, based upon your

willingness in the past, to see what kind of recommendations

the committee can make, because clearly the FBI does need a

generic statute which it has lacked through the years and that

would be the appropriate place foi guidelines at this time.

Senator Hart, do you have questions?

Senator Hart (Michigan). Mr. Attorney General, good

morning.

First, for a number of years in the Judiciary Committee,

we have been huffing and puffing with a whole line of Attorneys

General in an effort to catch them, and it is against that long

NW 55110

DodId: 32989560 Page 30

---

## Page 31

-2

• 2550

1

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

132

23

24

2.5

period of effort that I want this morning to first of all thank

you for developing to the degree. that you now have, exactly the

kind of thing we have been talking about. And even as we on

the committee in those days were urging guidelines

and while we

might not have sounded we understood how incredibly difficult

it is to put down in black and white, chapter and verse, how

you respond in a whole variety of problems:

And for the first time, the Attorney General has come in

with a very solid piece of work that all of us appreciate.

Now in your statement, you indicate that you are working

on guidelines as they

relate specifically to informants and

you relate that to the Department's general guidelines on

intelligence that permit the use of this. Now yesterday, as

you know, we discussed with the FBI Director, the possibility

of getting judicial approval for informants by you.

I think all of us understand the importance in an investi-

gation of informants. But we have heard some stories, some

hair raising stories about the way that can be abused, that

technique can be abused. And I, and I am sure others, suggested

that informants are an extremely intrusive form of eavesdropping

in terms of what can be reported.

I know that the

Supreme Court has not said that informants

are unconstitutional per se under the fourth and first amend-

ments, unless you get a court warrant, but that does not prevent

Congress from requiring that : kind of procedure, in order

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 31

---

## Page 32

10-3

2551

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1?

13

14

15

16

1'7

18

19

20

21

2.2

23

2.4

25

NW 55110

to fully safeguard the rights of privacy and expression. Now

what are your thoughts on such a requirement, the requirement

of a neutral, detached third party, rather than the investigating

branch of the government deciding when to use targeted infor

mants?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I am sorry to say, Senator

Hart, that I do not think that the suggestion on balance is a

good one. And that does not mean that I have a better sugges-

tion. There is no doubt that informants or paid informants

can be misused, because there is an area where, if that. is

done, the courts can step in; and one can have guidelines ar

statutory restrictions on that if you think of, again,

reporting.

But the notion that a court would have to authorize the

use of each informant and how the informant was to be used,

continue to pass on that, I think would make for mal-

administration. It would impose an enormous burden on the

court, and while I think we always keep looking these days for

a third impartial objective person, I do not really believe

that it can be the court.

Now one could think of a board or a committee. After all,

the Congress set up, I think, a subversive activities board,

did you not?

So I suppose you might set up an informers per-

i mission board. But my impression is that you would not get

very good people to be on that board and that it would not

DocId: 32989560 Page 32

---

## Page 33

2552

really provide the kind of knowledgable review that you would

$

2

3

4

: 5

6.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

. 14

15

16

17

18

19

2.0

21

22

:23

24

25

want.

So I recognize the problem and I recognize why one might

turn to that suggested solution. I do not want to take away

from your time, but it is

sort of interesting that special

devices and protections were developed for electronic surveil

lance because they were said to be different from the use of

informants. And now we are running the argument in the other

direction and saying well, they are even more dangerous than

electronic surveillance because you have the human ear right

there.

So it is just an interesting point.

Senator Hart (Michigan). Well, maybe in defense of our

earlier attitude, we did not know about the abuse with respect

to the human technique, the number of occasions on which it

has

been used.

Attorney General Levi. I rather think that the fourth

amendment knew more about that than it did about electronic

surveillance.

Senator Hart (Michigan).

The fourth amendment drafters

did. But people around now --

Attorney General Levi. I feel for the objective, but I

do not think - I just think it would not work.

Senator Hart (Michigan) •

We are agreed that it is a

difficult balance. The national security concern here and the

WW 35110

DocId: 32989560 Page 33

---

## Page 34

2553

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

. 18

19

20

21

22

23

24:

25

individual's civil liberties here -- and to balance these

claims is tough. You say you think the court is inappropriate.

Attorney General Levi. I think that would be a mistake.

I think it would also be a mistake to have the court pass on

the activities of the agents, of the Bureau's own agents who

have ears and listen and so on.

I think we have to trust

someone.

Senator Hart (Michigan). But is the Director of the FBI

the fellow to trust?

Attorney General Levi. He is certainly one of the persons

that has to be trusted very much, and he has to be put in a

position where it is known that he is being trusted and what

his obligations are.

And I think if the congressional mandate and the guide-

lines and whatever else are clear enough, I have enough faith

in human nature to think that that would be abided by. I do

not think the history of the abuses shows that that kind of a

thing really was abused. There was not that kind of spelling

out.

There was not that kind of direction. There were

directions in the other way really; so that I do not think the

problem - while I do not mean to minimize the prior abuses

which were terrible - but I do not think the problem requires

the solution of the interposition at every stage.

Senator Hart (Michigan). If we leave the discretion with

the Director of the Bureau, you would agree that there should

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 34

---

## Page 35

- 6

. 1

3

.4

5

7

8

9

10

11

•12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

25

2554-2555

be

a-- we always use the word effective even though we cannot

define how you make it effective - an effective system under

which somebody other than the Bureau's Director would be

reviewing the decisions he is making, as he affects this

balance.

• Attorney General Levi. I think there have to be frequent

reviews and I think one has to have a situation in the

Department of Justice where the Attorney General or his

designee can be in a position to make that review and I think

one also would hope and require that there be adequate presen-

tation to congressional committees.

You do not want to impose

so many duties on the Attorney General so that he is -- so

that he loses some sense of distance and objectivity on the

Bureau.

That is one reason I said one has to realize that there

is not full knowledge and they are different offices. But I

do think the Attorney General, I hope, is some protection and

the Department is and congressional committees would be too.

Senator Hart (Michigan).

The earlier hearings, which

reviewed some of the excesses, found some citing in the FBI

handbook regulations which directs field offices and their

informants to find out and report all contacts and cooperation

between a group under investigation and other groups, even if

the other groups are

not suspected of being either extremists

or subversives.

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 35

---

## Page 36

110-8

2557

1

2

LAI

° En

6

7

8

9

.3

5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

:23

24

25

NW 55110

I would think that part of the investigation would be to put

that down. And that is really what you are talking about. And

I do not know that one should want to limit that.

Senator Hart (Michigan).

-well, maybe there is not any.

happy solution to this, but we would be doing would be

reporting on first amendment activities of the other groups

that would not be eligible to be targeted.

-

Attorney General Levi. I think the report should not be

on that. It should be rather on the effort of the group

properly being investigated to gain control. And we do have a

problem as to what one does with the dissemination or keeping

of information, and the guidelines attempt to address that

question, whether they have done so sufficiently or not.

One reason the guidelines are not all finished, when one

gets to the counter or foreign intelligence guidelines and has

to deal with organizations which are under active collaboration

with foreign governments, and the question is whether they have

extended their influence in such a way as to impose a real

threat of force and violence, I do not know how effectively

one can impose restrictions.

We try to do it. The proposed guidelines have not been

worked out. One has to remember that if one goes back to the

period when I was first in the Department of Justice, there was

considerable concern as to the ability of the Japanese and the

Nazis to gain control beyond those agencies which were clearly

DocId: 32989560

Page 36

---

## Page 37

9

2558

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

•9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

116

17

18

19

20

21

22

:23

25

collaborating with them into other agencies. And I just do not

know that I want to say to the United States government that

that is the kind of information that you may not get.

The Chairman. Senator Mathias?

Senator Mathias. If Senator Hart has any question which

follows right along at this point, I would be glad to yield.

Senator Hart (Michigan). No.

Senator Mathias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

join with Senator Hart in thanking the Attorney General for

all the help he gives to this committee. Whether we call on

him for philosophical treatises or for practical advice, he is

always available. I think that is a very real contribution.

And the way in which he helps us leads me almost to regret that

I did not go to the University of Chicago law school.

Attorney General Levi.

Senator, you are going to go far.

Senator Mathias. You have talked a little about the

Smith Act, and about the seditious conspiracy clause in connec-

tion with the responsibilities of the FBI. And I wonder if you

think there is sort of a dated aspect to these.

Attorney General Levi. Oh, of course there is and I want

to say that when one talks about the looseness of the guide-

lines, one ought to read the statutes which came out of

Congress. That is why I say that it is sort of amusing as we

go around flattering each other, we all bear -- I mean all of

the institutions bear responsibility.

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 37

---

## Page 38

mont

4023

587-5000

#10-10

2559

1

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

ipe 3

22

23

24

2.5

WW 55110

Senator Mathias. I could not agree with you more, and I

think I have said repeatedly that I think a lot of the problems

that are dumped in the courts and a lot of the burdens that the

courts bear have begun right, here on Capitol Hill because we.

have not carefully sculpted the laws to make it clear what the

legislative intent was. And in fact, perhaps they have been

carefully sculpted to obscure the legislative intent in some

_cases. And the courts then are left with the burden of finally

administering the law rather than either the legislature

prescribing it, or the executive enforcing it.

Attorney General Levi. Not only that, you draft:

statutes that quite clearly say one thing, the Attorney:

General is then asked for his opinion which he is required to

give,as to what it means to a government department. He gives

it. Another House of this Congress then proceeds to make

motions to hola

the man in contempt for following the opinion

of the Attorney General. And Professor Kurland, my good friend,

says do not listen to the Attorney General, he is only a

lawyer.

There is a responsibility in Congress for having statutes

clear and for abiding by what they say, and if they do not like

them, change them. I agree with you.

PocId: 32989560 Page 38

---

## Page 39

ARBIS: cab

2560

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Mathias. I would hope that with

all the admonitions

that we are giving to other people these days that we take that

one ourselves, that the laws need to be more carefully written.

Attorney General Levi. Yes,

it is easier to see abuses

by others, I know.

Senator Mathias. Let me say that I think we need some help

in this endeavor, that there are many cases in which the actions

taken by Congress are criticized later when the errors might

have been avoided by some cooperative action in the process.

Attorney General Levi. I meant that to be clear when I

was referring to all parts of the government.

Senator Mathias. But, specifically in relation to the

seditious corspiracy laws in the Smith Act, the courts

have

talked about the advocacy provisions of the law so strictly as

to require incitement of imminent lawless action as a test and

that I think does

really date these acts.

.: Attorney General. Levi. I think so. And while I want

to say that in the guidelines we tried to emphasize that there

is a question. of how much one ought to spell out the nature

of the evidence, in part, because I think that even spelling

it out might have a chilling effect.

Senator Mathias. Now you have lead me right to my next

question, which is

whether we should but any limitations on

the type:

of information that is to be gathered in a purely

domestic intelligence investigation.

NW

55110

DOcId: 32989560

Page 39

---

## Page 40

2561

2

4

5

6

÷7

8

• 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

.??

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

Attorney General Levi. Well it may be that one has to

try one's hand at drafting them. I have.

Senator Mathias. It is a tough one, I think, but we have

seen as a result of this investigation family matters, is that

proper? Can you prescribe it in a general way that sexual

activities, purely legal activities, but perhaps not within the

mainstream of what most Americans are thinking of doing, per-

sonal relationships, all of this kind of thing --

Attorney General Levi. Well, one can try. What we did

was, as I say, to provide a very tough and maybe too tough

standard, because it is specific. And articulable facts,

giving reason to believe that an individual is engaged

in

activities described in the paragraph which is force and violence

to do the following things.

Now, that may

be too restrictive. Now, if

one starts to

say what kind of things can one look at which might suggest and

lead you to see these things, I do not know. And I suppose

we all have to admit that public attitudes about activities and

therefore maybe the activities themselves mean different things

at different times.

And maybe one has to have a different set of rules created

from time to time and one of the notions of the guideline would

be, I think, to do that.

I am not in favor of Congress every year deciding whether

it is against homosexuality or particular other aberrant sexual

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 40

---

## Page 41

?

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2.0

21

22

23

24

• 25

NW 55110

2562

conduct.

And therefore this can be included or not included as the

winds blow. I think that would be probably not legislatively

very desirable.

Senator Mathias. Let us suppose, however, just for the

sake of discussion that these activities are the proper scope

of a domestic intelligence investigation and that that investi-

gation is conducted and its object is obtained and the investi-

gation is closed, then what should happen to this material,

given the infinite capacity of the government today to store

and retrieve information?

Attorney General Levi. Well, the guidelines attempt to

..go in the direction that after a period of time that material

should be done away with.

Senator, you have often posed questions for me to. think

about and this is another one that I think we ought to think

about together: that is the destruction of information.. It

is also the destruction of evidence which might be used to show

abuses by the Bureau.

SO

Senator Mathias. If'I knew the answer I would not ask

the question.

Attorney General Levi. If I knew the answer I would give

it.

But, I am saying, because I think it is a very important

DocId: 32989560 Page 41

---

## Page 42

4

2,563

iSr.

".

1

2

5

4.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

'I7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24.

25

question

Senator Mathias. I think what you suggest is a very per-

tinent, very current. consideration, that

if you destroy all the

files, you can do more than all

the perfumes of Arabie in washing

out the blood.

Attorney General Levi. The guidelines do move in that

direction. There is an argument about the time for the destruc

tion. of information.

Senator Mathias. There is a concurrent question: if files

are retained for any period of time, are they open for the pur-

pose of name checks during that period, which is a related

but really a separate question, for background checks, for

employment checks, that kind of thing.

Attorney General Levi. Well you could have selective

sealing of files and I suppose selective destruction of items.

But it is a very difficult thing.

Senator Mathias. I would like to explore briefly your

thoughts on a subject we have discussed with other witnesses

at some length.. And that is whether you believe that a

warrant requirement for beginning a domestic intelligence

investigation would meet the standards inthe Fourth Amendment

•if it required less. than probable cause for the issuance of

a warrant, probable cause to believe that a crime has been or

was about to ocçur.

Attorney General Levi. I think the question really

• NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 42

---

## Page 43

• 2564

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

•13

14

15

1.6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

would be what the warrant would enable the obtainer to do.

Under the guidelines,. just opening a preliminary investiga-

tion, what can. be done is not very much. It is so much less

than a full investigation.

So, I think I would turn the

question around.

I think the court would really wonder why you want the

warrant. And it certainly. would clog the courts.

Senator Mathias. The intrusion of an informant, for

example, into a political discussion,.or any other activities

is a much greater intrusion than a bug or a wiretap in that

same conversation.

Now, would. this be, would the placement of an informant

be that kind. of activity?

Attorney General Levi. Well, you see, the preliminary

investigation does not really allow new informants, so, as I

say, it is quite limited:

And. I did-respond that. I understand. there is a problem

about the human. ear, the human. eye, which we discussed last

that

time. But, I doubt when you are. going for a warrant that in

each one. of those cases is feasible:

And I think we have to be grown up enough not to feel that

we

always have to go to the courts. .Now, that may make us feel

that there is a lack of protection. But I think a greater

protection is to' curtail the scope of the investigations to

make

sure that they are held to a high standard and to control

AW 55110

DocId: 32959560 Fage 43

---

## Page 44

, 256,5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

•10

11

13

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

dissemination of the information.

Senator Mathias. Well, E

think that is the proper test:

whether you can embark. upon what are obviously immature reactions

to events.

I do not. think the. Fourth. Amendment itself is subject to

a test of maturity or immaturity,.but -

Attorney General Levi. No, I do not think the Fourth

Amendment requires a warrant.

But I understand the argument that it is better, it is

sometimes better. to put a man on the moon,. because he will know

more than a machire. So you are saying the same thing in

terms of informers.

Senator. Mathias. Finally, let me just return to the Smith

Act for a minute, which, as I understand it, requires incitement

imminent action. to overthrow the government by violence.

If a domestic intelligence

investigation can begin with

far less, only a theoretical advocacy of some 'change -

Attorney General. Levi. I do not think it should begin with

theoretical advocacy of. change.

Now, if you asked me whether it ever does, my answer is

I do not know. But I do not think it should begin with that.

Senator. Mathias. Well, I think that between those two

positions, there is a danger of First Amendment violations. And

I like your position.. I am not arguing with you -

Attorney General. Levi. Well, we wrote this domestic

NW 55110

DocId: 32959560 Page 44

---

## Page 45

2566

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

• 23

24

25

security investigation guideline because I was disturbed by

the prior draft as not being tough enough and I think that I

may now have come out with something that is too restrictive.

am not sure. And this is a proper process of discussion

and back and forth, not only here but with the Bureau and I

hope that one can get something from it that is useful.

Senator Mathias. Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Senator Mondale.

Senator Mondale: Thank. you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Levi, I think the most faithful question that this

Committee, our Congress and our government must face is whether

we are going. to step beyond the Stone line permitting investi-

gative agencies to go beyond matters of law enforcement, matters

of so-called "internal security."

If we decide that we must, then I am persuaded we should

only do. so based upon unarguable evidence that an exception

is needed and. then to grant such an exception only under the

severest and closely defined standards, and, if possible, under

court supervision.

If we fail to do that, I am convinced that this Committee

has failed and. that. in another. 50 years, there will be hearings

just like this in which the excesses that we have uncovered

will have been repeated.

And, I say that because I think. anything we do has to

stand the test of what we have learned. And what we have

WW. 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 45

---

## Page 46

2567

THIAN TOI SAALOO

: 1

2

5

6

8

9

.10

11

12

13

•14

15

a.C. 203Ú.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

learned is that the power to use the police for politics is

seductive and irresistable one. .No President, no attorney

general can resist it. Few have.

But we have now found that it is not a partisan issue.

The

Presidents of both political parties, a director who served

under Presidents of both political parties, they were absolutely

unable to resist the right to snoop into the private affairs of

Americans not to erforce the law but in order to gain some pol-

itical advantage.

This is, I think if you look at human history, this has

happened everywhere. Which is why we adopted the Bill of Rights.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was set up precisely be-

cause it happened in World War I and we had the scandal of

the Palmer Raids and all the rest.

And when I look at these vaguely defined guidelines, I

have to ask would they stand up under the direct orders to

the contrary from a President of the United States. Would

they stand up in the face of a willful director who is angry

or. hostile or suspicious about some of these political ideas,

the next Martin Luther King.

My feeling is that based upon what we have learned, with-

out any doubt, if you swept

away, as quickly as a sand castle

being overrun by a hurricane, they would mean nothing.

What we decide to do cannot be tested by the words, but

by our notions of how human nature works when empowered in this

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 46

---

## Page 47

2568

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

.15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

way to play god with the American people.

That is the test and it has got to be tested by what

happens when the nation is in frenzy and in fear and it has

got to be tested by what people do when they do not think they

are going to be caught.

And, for that reason; I see the step beyond the 'Stone Step

namely beyond the enforcement of the criminal law, is not a

step forward, but a step off a cliff, right back into the morass

that we find ourselves in today.

If you look at this record, it is a horrible one. I mean

the way Martin Luther King was hounded and harrassed is a

disgrace to every American. That this

country once took all

the Japanese and put them in internment camps we now know is

one of the blackest pages in American history. And it is that

kind of record that whatever we do has to be tested against.

And, I think for that reason we have to draw a line, the

•line that Judge Stone suggested, and if we do grant exceptions,

they have to be specifically and rigidly and unquestionably

drawn, because there is no point in talking about oversight

if the standards are not understandable.

And these laws have to be so clear that the Attorney

General and the director of the FBI would have to say when the

President calls, "I am sorry, Mr. President, but we cannot do

it, it is against the law."

If they are not able to

say that, I am convinced we will

55110

DocId: 32989560 Fage 47

---

## Page 48

1,0

, 2569

1.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

.11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

2.2

23

2,4

25

right back here, someone will, those who follow us, 50 years

from now, holding hearings similar to these.

Would you respond to that?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I think, like the Stone

statement, it is a good admonition. As I tried to say in my

statement, I do not think the Stone standards indicates that

there should not be domestic security investigations because

_the stone standard talks about items within the proper juris-

diction of the Bureau and violations of law and if you are going

to have an investigating agency which

is going to be at all

responsible in those areas, they have to know some things which

are related, closely related to violations of particular kinds

of law.

And I do not believe that the standards that have been

drawn up are as

vague as your statement, perhaps, suggests, be-

cause, when one uses the standard of the stop and frisk case,

that is the standard, very close and perhaps too close.

so, I think in terms of the Stone standard, it probably

meets it.

So. that I am not sure that there is this big gap, because

this says specifically, "specific and articulable facts giving

reason to believe that an individual or individuals acting in

concert are engaged in activities" described' in that paragraph.

Those are activities of force and violence in violation of

criminal statutes.

NW. 55119. DocId: 32989560. Page 48

---

## Page 49

2570

cab

10

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9.

10

11

12

13

So - and I should remind you, as I know I do not have to,

that, as we said before, Congress has passed some rather broad

criminal statutes.

Senator Mondale. Oh, yes.

Attorney General Levi. And the Stone standard is not

very meaningful if you do that.

Senator Mondale. Well, the question now is once we know

_what has happened, and we know the abuse that arises when people

have this unlimited, ill-defined power, what do we do if

possible to try to prevent its recurrence? That is the issue

that faces you. That is the issue that faces me and I am con-

vinced that guidelines written by the executive can be

rewritten by the executive, and if not by you, by those who

follow. And they will mean absolutely nothing against the will

of a willing president, a willing attorney general, or a

willing director, absolutely nothing. because they do not have

the force of law.

15

tape

416

17

18

19

20

:21

22

23

:25

55110

DpoId: 32989560

Page 49

---

## Page 50

11-75

•GIA

7,571,

2

3

5

6

8

9

• 10

11

12

13

14

.I5

•16

17

18

19

20

21

22

.23

25

Attorney General Levi. There's no disagreenent. I don't

think I should apologize for having ventured into the drafting.

into having the guidelines drafted. It seems to me that that.

had to be done. I certainly do not take the position that

parts of them should not be put in statutory form, and I

certainly do not take the position that some of them should not

be put in Executive Order form.

I think we ought to use all the devices, those devices

where more permanence is wanted and those devices where there

might have to be changes from time to time.

Senator Mondale. Now, Mc. Levi, are you persuaded that.

you have personally revieved the specific instances of abuses

by enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI?

Are you

personally confident that your guidelines fit and meet and

prevent a recurrence of those abuses?.

Attorney General Levi. The guidelines are not completed.

Senator Mondale. Io, have you personally looked through

those materials?

Attorney General Levi. At all the abuses?

certainly not.

Senator Mondale. Hell, certainly not, you say iix..

Schlesinger, confronted with a

similar problem, sent a wire to

all of his CIA facilities and said, give us all the examples

"that you know of in which our laws and our authority have been

labused. Have you done anythin like that?

Attorney Ceneral Levi. I have done several things.

SW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 50

---

## Page 51

2

2572

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

•8

9

•10

11

12

13

14

15

• 17

18

19

•20

21

22

': 23

: 704

25

Senator Mondale. Have you done anything like that?

Attorney General Levi. I am trying to answer.

Senator Mondale. All right, proceed.

Attorney General Levi. He have an investigation going on

of the COINTELPRO and COlTIPRO-like activities. He have a

conmunication, several from me to the Director, where he thinks

there is sensitive or irregular materials to call it to my

attention, ile have — so that I think that we have done both

things that were done by lir. Schlesinger.

I assume that Mr. Schlesinger's behavior was purified

the CIA. I really do not now.

Senator Mondale. Well, let us take the most celebrated

case of abuse, Di. King. Has someone in your Department read

the FBI's whole file in this?.

Attorney General Levi. I cannot answer that question.

Three people now are going through the entire file.

Senator Mondale. FBT. file?

Attorney General Levi. Yes.

Senator Mondale. The entire FBI file?

Attorney General Levi. So far as I know, yes.

Senator liondale. Are you sure of that?

Attorney General Levi. So far as I know, yes. If the

question suggests that they cannot get at the file, that is

really not the probler. The problem might be that there are

SO

many files which may be in a variety of other files and

NW 55110

DpaId: 32989560 Page 51

---

## Page 52

3

2573

• 1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

15

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

references that it may be difficult, but there is not a problem

about their getting access to the files, and they tell me they

are doing it. I have not myself done it...

I have some feeling myself that I do not want to read

the Martin Luther King file. I wanted to regard it, in fact,

out of the sense of proprieties and privacy as sealed because

it seems to me that it was appropriate for the sake of the

privacy of DI. King to have that material disposed, and I saw

no point in my personally reading it.

Senator 'londale. In other words, you are of the understand

ing that all of the FBI and other investigative Justice Depart-

ment files of DI. King have been reviewed?

Attorney General Levi. No. I am saying that I was

sufficiently disturbed about it so that I am having them all

reviewed..

Senator Mondale. You said you asked the Director of the

FBI, MI. Kelley, for improprieties. Have you gotten a report

on that?

Attorney Seneral Levi.

We have had some reports on where

he thinks there are sensitive matters.

Senator Mondale. Do you have a complete report on impro-

prieties?

Attorney General Levi. I do not know that I would put it

that way because there is a

problen of what is an impropriety;

where there are sensitive issues which he thinks may raise a

NIC 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 52

---

## Page 53

4

* 2574

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

•9

10

11

12

• 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2,4

2,5

question, my belief is that he now brings them to me.

Senator Ilonnale. What was your request to him?

Attorney seneral Levi.

*Tell, I do not have the precise

statenent.

from him?

senator Mondale. I mean, what were you trying to get

Has that evidence of FBI improprieties? A record

of what had happened?

Attorney General Levi.

mell, there are problems of

misbehavior, of what I would regard as misbehavior, or might

regard as misbehavior, and then one deals with matters of this

kind, it is a

learning process. because the words do not always

carry the same meaning.

I was told when I came to the Department that the comthippo:

project had been completely revieved and exposed. After. I vas in

the Department, I discovered - and I think partly as a result

of miscommunication to the Director - that they had found

other items in the COINTELPRO project, and those vere reported

to this Committee and to other Committees, but the point is

that you might have projects which go beyond the confines of

the ColTel project, which might still involve sinilar behavior.

Senator Mondale. Has it your testimony, if I heard vou

correctly just now, that this Cormittee has received the

reports given you by Director Kelley in response to your reguest?

Attorney General Levi. No, I did not say that. I said

that this Comnittee received, I believe, a letter from me

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page

53

---

## Page 54

• 2575

abidera

.1

2

3

4

5.

6.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

describing the additional COINTELPRO projects.

Senator Mondale. Not just COINTELPRO. As I understand

your statement on page wight, "I instructed Director Kelley to

report to me any requests made of the Bureau or practices

within the Bureau which he deemed improper of which the

appearence of impropriety, and then on February 28 Director

Kelley ordered the FBI personnel report such requests or pract-

ices to him, " and I think you indicated that you have received

some in response to that inquiry.

Attorney General Levi. I say here, The Director promptly

replied he has regularly provided information on programs

underway within the Bureau which could

raise questions.

Senator Mondale. Did you get a report to him in response

to that reguest?

Attorney General Levi. I have gotten reports from him.

That is what this sentence says.

He has provided information

on conduct that could raise

questions.

Senator Mondale. Ordered the FBI personnel to report

such requests or practices to him. Now, has that been done?

Attorney General Levi. Yes, he did report them.

Senator Mondale.

He ordered it. Did herget the report?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I believe he did because I

think that was one of the reasons that that the additional

COINTELPRO items surfaced.

Senator Mondale. Was this just limited to COINTEL?

_TW-55110 DocId:32989560

Page 54

---

## Page 55

, 25,7,6

: 1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

•13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Attorney General Levi. 70.

Senator Mondale. Jow, can we have those reports?

Attorney General Levi. I do not thinl they are very many

of them, but I assume you can have then, the only thing is that

It is hard to, it is a continuing process, and there are - I

would probably not think they would raise questions of misconduct

but more be a matter of sensitive questions..

Senator Mondale. Well, I vould like to have the reports

that cane to Director Kelley in response.

Attorney General Levi. Nell, that I do not know about.

Senator Mondale.. But, I am asking you as the head of the

Justice Department if we could get those reports?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I do not know if you can

or not, but we will certainly consider it.

Senator Mondale. Why not?.

• Attorney General Levi. Because I think that it is one

thing to give reports of that kind in confidence to a Committee

of this lind and another thing to make them public.

Senator londale. The CIA gave theirs to us. Why cannot

you?

21

22

i23

24

25

Attorney General Levi, Well, I am not in the CIA. I

do not care to be. I do not wish to be.

Senator Mondale.

Do you consider that a good answer?

Attorney General Levi.

I - yes, I consider the answer

as good as the question.

TENA

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 55

---

## Page 56

.. 25,77

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24.

25

Senator Mondale. Well, I think that kind of arrogance

is. why we have trouble between the Executive and the Legislative

Branch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I understood Senator Mondale's question to

be whether you would furnish certain documents to the Committee,

not if you wished them to be made public of not that he was

asking that the Committee make them public. I do not know

that we have had any problem in the past with the Department

in getting information of this kind.

Attorney Ceneral Levi. I apologize to Senator Mondale if

I appeared arrogant. I thought that somebody else was appearing

arrogant, but I apologize.

The point is that if you ask agents to report on what they

may think is misconduct, if they think that that is going to

be made public, that would, I believe, to be very chilling.

I, personally, have no reason to not vant to give it to a

Committee if it is to be kept in confidence.

I do not know

-

what the Bureau's position on that would be, and my relationship

with the Bureau is that I like to discuss these matters with

them before giving a definitive answer because I am not that

arrogant.

The Chairman. Well, leaving all personal references aside,

I think that you know that when this Conmittee has asked and

received information in confidence, it has kept the confidence.

Attorney General Levi. And we have tried very hard to give

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 56

---

## Page 57

2578

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you information.

The chairman. So that ought not to be any problem, and

would appreciate your followina un Senator Mondale's request

because I regard it as an important one and not a frivolous

one, and in that connection let me say just before we move on

to fuither questions that sonetime ago, in early August, you

sent a letter to me in which you requested from the Committee --

this seens appropriate now because it is a request in reverse -

you requested of the Committee information that was contained

in our files, transcripts and

testimony which might bear upon

investigations currently being conducted by this Department.

You did not get a written reply to that letter, but, as I think

you will recall, we met shortly later - and I think Judge

Tyler was present, and I was present at the time - aná this

subject was touched upon, and I said that the committee wanted

to cooperate in making available whatever information we could

that would be helpful to the Department and that there would be

a follow-up in which Mr. Schwarz and it. Smothers would

corroborate with representatives of your Department to find

out the best way for proceeding to implement the Justice

Department's request.

Since then you have sent several more letters.

Just

recently ve have received more letters relating to more targeted

matters, including Dr. Martin

Luther king matter and the chilean

matter.

55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 57

---

## Page 58

2579

1

2

3

4

5

6

I simply want

to assure you, as a matter of public record,

that the Comnittee, having considered this earlier request,

is fully willing to cooperate in any way, and we will see to

it that procedures are now worked out so that there will be

no

further delay. Our preoccupation with the assassination

investigation and the issuance of the Committee's report has

prempted our time, but we think that these requests are important

and ve stand ready to work with the Justice Department in making

all relevant infornation available.

Attorney General Levi. I an delighted to have that assur-

•8

9

. 10

• 11

12

13

ance.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24•

25

The Chairman.

Now, Senator Schweiker.

Senator Schweiler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairnan.

Attorney General Levi, I an pleased to see that you have

announced

this week the establishment of the office of

Professional Responsibility to aid in the oversight of the

investigations or allegations of misconduct by different

employees within the hepartment of Justice.

I have been interested in sonething along this line for

some tine, and. I commend you for taking this lead in this area.

I would just like to really asl: you a few questions about the

kind of concept that this is.

Originally, Attorney General Saxbe had sonething that at

one point was labeled the Office of Special Review. I just

wonder briefly how it differs and what the difference might be

W 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 58

---

## Page 59

10

2580

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

17

18

'19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in terns of structure or organization?

Attorney General Levi. Hell, the differences may not de

as great as I thought they were when I drafter out this naw

order, but there are, I think, these differences. In the first

place the counsel will be in the office of Special Responsibility

unlike the person who would be in the office of Special Review.

He is in a position to directly receive complaints, and he is

in a position then to directly either refer them or to make

a recommendation to me about then.

As I read the Office of Special Review, the lolder of that

office would not have baen in a position to

receive conplaints

unless the complaint was given to him by the Attorney Gencral

of the Deputy Attorney General.

"Tow, I thought

that additional channel, while I hope it

will not be the major channel,

was an important thing to keep

open, and, therefore, I wanted

to make that clear. I also

wanted to anbody in this new order the experience that we have

had. "e have called in special groups to do investigating as

we did with the DEA then we organized a special team, and I

wanted to reflect in this order that there would be occasions

when the ordinary investigative practices would not be sufficient.

I wanted to have the Counsel put in the position where he could

recommend that a special kind of review would be necessary through

a different kind of a group, perhans through a group assembled

by him, perhaps going outside of the department.

NW

55110

DocId: 32939560 Page 59

---

## Page 60

5: 11

25.81

1.

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2i

22

• 23

24

25

I think this spells it out better, although my belief now

is that one could have found that probably in the prior order.

..

It was not as clear to me.

Finally, I wanted to be sure that there was a memory .

in the Department and a continuation and a continual review of

practices and procedures and ability to get the material from

any part of the Department. I wanted to spell that out and

frequent reporting, and I also wanted to have an advisory

connittee from the whole Department to this Counsel.

ilor, as I say, as I have thought about it since, I vonder,

is it that different? I think it is different. In some respects

it is stronger, and I felt we should make it stronger.

senator Schweiker. Will this office have the authority

to on into, maybe, a progran review like the to program audit,

or will it be focused on primarily allagations of misconduct

kind of thing or both?

Attorney General Jevi. Mell, I think it will be focused

on allegations of misconduct and on -- it will also focus on

the procedures

and effectiveness of revie, but it is set up

SO

that it can reconmend beyond that, and if it wishes to

recommend for the Department such other kinds of review then

it is within the counsel's prerogative to do that.

Senator Schweiker. Ind what lind of stasfing is anticipated?

Ittorney General Levi.

I anticipate a snall staff because

do not want to build un another burenucracy with a large

NW 55110

DoqId: 32989560

Fage 60

---

## Page 61

I'" 1?

• 2582

..

2

3

4.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

26

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

investigative staff. I think that, by and large, if the Counsel

makes such suggestions we will then have to find out there to

go and how to deal with it. I do not vant to set un another

large investigating staff, which will have to be investigated.

Senator Schweiler. One of the things that came out this

week -- and I am not. sure that this would be subject to this

new committee or office procedure or

not - but there has been

a lot of discussion about the personal files of Mr. Hoover that

Helen fanty had, and I would just like to read one paragraph

Exom the latest issue of "rine" magazine that seems to show

a little bit of twist, if I understood it, because up until

now, as I understood it, there were mainly personal files that

Miss Ganty

went through.

This latest edition says, "Before secretary Ganty could

100k at Hr. Hoover's office, the files, the most sensitive

papers were carried off in an FBI truck to lest Virginia's

Blue Mountain Ridge Club, a Shennandoah Mountain hideaway used

Sy innermost FBI officials for regular poker games. the CIA

and other cronies. The papers were burned in the club's

large fireplace. Precisely who ordered this destruction and

carried it out has not been disclosed. The three-story

club worth. $300,000, was burned down in a fire of unknown cause

December 23rd. ilo evidence o€

arson has heen discovered."

I quess my question here - and maybe you have this under

investigation, I do not know, but this indicates to me, if it

"INW

55110

DooId: 32969560 Page 61

---

## Page 62

13

2583

2

. 5

4

5

6

5

is true, and I do not Inoi if it is true at all, some

FBI

participation in terns of separating out so that even Miss

ranty could not see

some of these files, and obviously somebody

had to make a decision, and obviously if the story is accurate,

they

were destroyed. Can you shed any light on that, or is

this sonething that the Office of Professional Conduct would

be looking into or not?

1

3

15

6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 62

---

## Page 63

≤S: m10

12/11

6-1

1

2

3

, 2584

5

6

8

9

10

1.23

13

14

15

16

;

22

24

25

Attorney General Levi. I have asked the Criminal Division

to investigate any and all of the items relating to the Depart-

ment of Justice which have come before this

committee. And, of

course, one reason that they are rather anxious to get

this

material, and this certainly will be part of it.

Senator Schweiker. Can you give us any indication whether

that account is accurate at this point or not?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I really cannot because I

have to say that it does not

- it does not conform to my

memory of the documents

that I have seen. But I cannot really

answer that question.

Senator Schweiker. On the matter of the office of Pro-

fessional Conduct, will it have the right to go in anywhere it

feels it should go in terms of pursuing its job, as I under-

stood what you said? In other words, following an investiga-

tion, within the Department anywhere in the field so that it

should pursue it subject to what restrictions in that aspect?

Attorney General Levi. I think it will. not be subject to

restraints. I think it may have to be subject to negotiation.

Senator Schweiker. And it would have access to all of

the material in its original form if need be?

Attorney General Levi. I think the negotiation might be

whether, if need be. I can understand that there might be

some sensitive information which there would be resistance to

giving and so on. But I think that anything it needed it

INW

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 63

---

## Page 64

2,585

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

-33.

12

13

14

1:5

16

17

18

:

20

21

22

83

24

25

would get.

Senator Schweiker. Would material such as their reports,

would you envision that a new joint committee of Congress

charged with overseeing intelligence activities might have

access to that information or not?

'Attorney General Levi. Well, I think that is going to be

dependent - that is a touchy subject because if it is going to

be public, then the way the material is obtained and the way it

is written about will be in a certain way. If it is going to

be kept confidential, and we know it is going to be confiden-

tial, then there are less problems,

I. am not sure.

Senator Schweiker. So as far as you are concerned, that

is open to negotiation at this point in terms of working some-

thing out that would meet the guidelines you have in mind?

.. Attorney General Levi. Well, I"think so. There is no

joint committee at present, and of course, that is one of the

problems. Certainly one would hope that a reasonable exposure

to what was being done would be available. But I do not

really believe -- I do not really think that it is appropriate

for a joint committee to be on töp of exploring the files of

the Bureau.

Now I know there is a great difference of opinion between

some members of the committee at least on that. I think that

is close to the line of managing the Bureau and I think its

management really is not a legislative function. But certainly

MA. 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 64

---

## Page 65

3

1

2

3

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

• 20

•21

22

.23

24

25

, 25,86

to be advised, to have that kind of appropriate oversight to be

helpful on that, I think would be fine.

The Chairman. Would the Senator yield?

Of course it is not an appropriate function of the Congress

to mandate the. FBI or to second guess their investigation of

ongoing cases. But assuredly, it is part of the responsibility

of the Congress to investigate wrongdoing and if we have reason

to believe that there is wrongdoing, within the Bureau, it may

be necessary to get to the raw files in order to ascertain

that.

And that - if that does not go to the heart of the

oversight function, I do not know what does.

Attorney General Levi.

Well it is like many of the ques-

tions that we have discussed earlier. One has to be very

sensitive to the limitations because if you have an open

investigation and there is the possibility of any political

influence, either to act or not act, then I get very upset at

the notion of those going to a congressional committee.

And I think everyone can understand that kind of problem."

So it has to be balanced.

Senator Schweiker. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I can.

understand protecting informants and protecting raw files. I

think that is legitimate.

That is

something that we would have

a responsibility in the Congress to do. But I do have trouble,

assuming that can be worked out, and I think that is a very

important point, particularly from the administration of the

55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 65

---

## Page 66

2587,

1

2

3.

5

8

10

11

12

13

15

16

1?

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Department of Justice and the FBI. But assuming that can be

worked out, I do not see how you can possibly be protected; that

what we just saw happen in the last 30 years will not happen

again, and that your inspection force will work, or that any

oversight committee will work unless we do have that kind of

prerogative.

On the basis that I outlined, it just seems to me we are

sort of deluding ourselves in view of what has happened, not to

have that access, first for you, but secondarily for some

responsible element of the congress that would be guided by

certain restrictions protecting that.

Attorney General Levi. My only suggestion is that it may

be that the Attorney General should be able to see things which

the congressional committee ought not to see. And I just think

we have to think that through. There are stages. They are.

all problems of privacy. They are all problems of exposing

individuals to obloquy. I think we have to take all that into

consideration.

Senator Schweiker.

That is all I have.

The Chairman. If we had not had access to the raw files,

we would never have discovered the FBI's plan to discredit

Mr. King and pick his successor. And you recognize the

responsibility of this committee and we have worked out pro-

cedures which have enabled us to reach this basic evidence in

ways that did not raveal informants of did not reveal agents.

WN 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 66

---

## Page 67

2588

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

And. I think the guidelines of that kind could be worked out

between a permanent oversight committee and then Attorney

Generals so that the committee could get its job done. So I

really do not believe that the problem is insuperable, and the

fact that we have been able to get to the raw files when we

needed to demonstrates that it can be done.

Senator Hart?

Senator Hart (Colorado). Mr. Attorney General, I would .

like to pursue this last question one minute further, and that

has to do with raw, files. It is my understanding that in the

recent GAO inquiry into Bureau activities that they worked

almost exclusively, if not totally exclusively, from Bureau or

Departmental

summaries. Is that correct, in their investiga-

tion?

20

21

23

24.

25

Attorney General Levi. Well, that is what I understand.

Senator Hart (Colorado). And what you are saying here

today is that in the future, if there is established an over-

sight, a permanent oversight congressional committee, that

your recommendation would be that raw files reporting under

some restrictions would be available; that it would be the

same guidelines and the same kinds of investigation that the

GAO does.

Attorney General Levi. • I did not mean to assert that it

would have to be based on summaries. No, I did not. I just

think we have a problem as to the proprieties of what the

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 67

---

## Page 68

- 6

"2589

1

3

4

5

•6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

joint committee - if there is a joint comnittee - would want,

and what we should appropriately give.

I have to say that there might be a temptation on the

part of our Department of Justice to give more than it wanted

to, and in later years that might be a problem. So one has to

balance that.

Your committee, this committee did not ask for all of the

King files.

And I rather suspect that this committee had the

same, to some

extent at least, the same feelings of sensitivity

and propriety which I had when I said I did not want to look at

them because there are materials there which I really think

should be regarded as secret. And that is the kind of problem

one has to get into.

Senator Hart (Colorado), But as a basic proposition, you

are willing to go beyond that to some degree?

Attorney General Levi. Yes, I am. Of course the Bureau

might not like the idea.

Senator Hart (Colorado). Oh, I am sure they will not.

Yesterday I asked Director Kelley about the letter we

received from one of your assistants, Mr. Pottinger, in connec-

tion with investigation of the King case internally. And he

asked us fox FBI records and documents, all materials was I

think the phrase he used. The Director seemed somewhat

puzzled by that; but I guess my question is: why is the

Justice Department contacting this committee for FBI records?

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page

68

---

## Page 69

-7

2590.

1

3

4

5

..57

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

17

18

19

20

•22

23

24

25

Attorney General Levi.

Well, I cannot imagine why, unless

you were given the only copies.

Senator Hart (Colorado). I would be surprised if that

happened.

Attorney General Levi. But. if the suggestion is that he

can only get them that way, and not directly from the Bureau,

I think that is really incorrect because it just happens that I

have specifically asked Mr. Pottinger whether he had access to

all the materials and he said yes. But it may be that our form

of record keeping is such that you have things where we do not

know where the copies are, and you have a great deal of material.

Senator Hart (Colorado) • But you

have no doubt that you

will get

everything the FBI has on this matter?

Attorney General Levi. I have no doubt that people

investigating it for me will get everything the FBI knows that

it has.

As you know, it is possible that there are materials in

other files somewhere.

Senator Hart (Colorado).

Well, I am talking about

conscious withholding.

Attorney General Levi.

I do not believe there will be

conscious withholding.

Senator Hart (Colorado). If or when you depart from the

Department of Justice, will you do so with any degree of fear

of an overly independent FBI in the future? Leaving aside the

INW 55110

DboId: 32969560 Page 69

---

## Page 70

"2591

2

3

4

5

6

NARO

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1?

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

question of the relationship that exists now, but is it a matter

of concern to you about your successors;, that the Bureau is

too

independent of the Attorney General?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I have already said that I

think that there is a certain amount of distance and indepen-

dence. It is probably desirable. But, of course I am concerned.

of course I am concerned. I am concerned not only about the

future but today.

Senator Hart (Colorado). And therefore you

would suggest

that congress ought to also be concerned about that?

Attorney General Levi. I have said so. I agree.

Senator Hart (Colorado).

In connection with these guide-

lines that we are talking about, as you know one of the very

puzzling areas that this committee is in is the Huston Plan,

Operation CHAOS and so on, back in the '60s and early '70s;

the tendency on the part of both the Department and the Bureau

and many in the White House to fear that domestic protest

groups, particularly in connection with matters of race or

the Vietnam War, had

some outside or foreign domination or

guidance or direction or support.

What, do you think these guidelines should say for the

future about separating genuine domestic, domestically :

oriented and controlled protest that is legitimate and consti-

tutional, from the kind of official gorernmental harrassment

that did in fact go on with very, very little substantial

55110

DoqId: 32989560 Page 70

---

## Page 71

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

I0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

. 22

23

24

25

2592.

support for the proposition that it was foreign dominated? What

can be done about that in the future?

Attorney General Levi. It is terribly difficult for the

very reason of your last phrase, in which you correctly empha-

sized that we do not have the guidelines on the foreign dominated

organizations: The question is how closa one can come to

barring evidence of that domination when the purpose of the.

investigation in some sense has to be to obtain that very data.

So I suppose that one would try to do is to use some kind of a

likely standard or something of that sort as one

approaches it

and then a reason to believe or some such thing which we have

come to temporarily on the domestic security ones, the stop

and

frisk standard which is a pretty stringent standard for inves-

tigation.

But I think there is a problem.

Senator Hart (Colorado). But not with judicial approval;

I think that is your strong recommendation?

Attorney General Levi. I do not whether it is strong or

not.

Senator Hart (Colorado). It is consistent.

Attorney General Levi. I just do not think that is the

most desirable path. I think it puts an enormous burden on

the court. I do not know how the court will exercise it. i

doubt if it is the best way. But it may be one way.

• Senator Hart (Colorado). In a hypothetical situation,

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 71

---

## Page 72

-10

'2593

1

2

3

4

5

6

WAtO

FAUL

8

9

10

I1

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

where you as the ultimate decision maker as to whether a wire-

tap should be implanted and surveillance, all of it, and the

rights of the individual who would be jeopardized, the consti-

tutional rights of that individual or that group would be

jeopardized by the proposed surveillance, wiretapping or what-

ever, what would be your own personal judgment on that where

there was an absolutely even question; there was no question

constitutional rights would infringed upon or even violated,

and yet the balancing consideration was that there might be

some evidence of criminal

activity or subversion or whatever?

Would you come down on the individual or group's side, or

the other way?

Attorney General Levi. Well,

I must believe that

there

is a misunderstanding between us

because I do not authorize

anything where I think there is a violation of constitutional

rights. So I think I must be misunderstanding.

Senator Hart (Colorado). Well, I am trying to get inside.

the mind of an individual who is going to have this authority;

that you do not want an officer of the court to have, about what

outweights what, where you do not know what information you are

looking for, and the Bureau agent is recommending a wiretap or

a mail search and he is just saying I think there may be some

evidence here that we might need, and so on and so forth.

So I have to put it in a hypothetical --

Attorney General Levi. You see --

MN 55110 • DocId: 32989560

Page 72

---

## Page 73

-11

2594

]

2

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2?

23

24

25

Senator Hart (Colorado). Do you resolve differences in

favor of the individual?

Attorney General Levi. I do want to say something about

the hypothetical. In this first place, under Title III, the

wiretaps is judicious and the legislation that we are drafting

on electronic surveillance which is not a Title III matter, we

are suggesting because of reasons which I think I stated. before

"to the committee, our judicial approval.

As to

mail openings, it seems to me that, at the present

time at least, that would require a warrant so that--

Senator Hart (Colorado). Well, I am talking about a

national security area where there is no judicial --

Attorney General Levi. I do not know of any national

security authorization. I do not. want to get into that area.

But I do not know of a present authorization which would permit

me to, without a warrant, authorize the opening of mail. So I

think one has to weigh: the individual rights very seriously and

obviously give them emphasis. But I do not like to be

suggesting by my answer that in those particular hypotheticals

that the decision would be made without - or could be made or

would be made without judicial review because I think in those

particular examples there would be a warrant -- there would

have to be a warrant.

Senator Hart (Colorado).

Well, I am talking about the

area where there are no warrants. But I cannot frame the

NYW

55110

DooId: 32989560 Page 73

---

## Page 74

3-12

2595°

1

2

3

4

5

6

•8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

tape

616

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2.5.

NW 55110

hypothetical clearly enough.

• Attorney General Levi. Well, it has been framed in terms

of the use of informants; and where I do not think there should

be a warrant, and there is not a warrant, as far as I know, and

there does not have to be, in terms of constitutional require-

ments, at least at the present time. I think one does have to

be very sensitive. I think Stone was correct and if you are

_going to have an agency of this kind, and it is going to

survive with the proper discipline and so on, it has to be

extremely sensitive to individual rights.

The Chairman.

Senator Hart, do you have further questions?

Senator Hart (Michigan). Yes, Mr. Chairman, on specifics

really.

On this business of congressional oversight, we have been

going back and forth with you and with others earlier on the

standards and guidelines of investigations.

DpaId: 32989560 Page 74

---

## Page 75

11-75

7-7

2596

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

24

25

This morning you indicated that sone of the guidelines

might well be in statute and others in regulation, and you

suggested Executive Orders, and that gets to the point that

even in the area where statutory definition of guidelines is

appropriate, no matter how skilled the drafter, it will leave

unanswered certain thinas. So, it also will have to be imple-.

manted by departmental orders and guidelines, making even more

explicit the dos and donts and safeguards.

Should not those regulations, which you or you and the

Bureau or the Bureau issue to implement or elaborate on whatever

we do by statute, be subject to debate and approval, at least

by the oversight Conmittee, which everybody assumes we will

have, if not by the Congress?

Is not that really the starting

point for a useful oversight?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I think a useful oversight

can involve debate and, hopefully, it will involve approval,.

but, if you mean by that, formal approval ly a cormittee as

new form of additional legislation, I think it raises Constitu

tional questions, and I really do not know why one would want

to raise those questions because it does not seem to me essential.

Senator Mart. (Michigan) Mell, it nay be unconstitutional tp

require the elections cormission to come in and tell us what they

propose to do to inplement the rules of criminal procedure.

Attorney General Levi. Hell, Senator lart, I had been

asked ho: Constitutional I an in various ways, and I think the

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 75

---

## Page 76

2

2597

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

i6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Constitution applies and should be follower, and I think there

is a Constitutional question. It may be we shoulà changé the

Constitution and have a form of subsequent legislation through

Congressional committees.

I think there is a problem. There is an abuse. I haypen

to think that the affirmative action legislation, if you

trace affirmative action legislation by the congress to

Executive Orders and then to the Labor Department, you have a

horror story. It happens to be a horror story that sone people

like, but I regard it as a horror story hecause the deviations

are quite great.

So, it is possihle that here, if you have very general

legislation and then you have Executive Diders and then, you

have other orders, the deviation may be very great, and I

understand the problem, and I would hope that an oversight

Committee could 100k at it, but to have the oversight committee

then have a veto power or a new subsequent enactment power

seems to me to be a strange creation of a sub-house of, I do

not know what, the Congress, and I regard it as probably not

legislation, but rather an executive function.

If it is going to be legislation, I think it should be

legislation.

Senator liart. (Michigan) I am not wise, but I am wise enough

not to pursue a Constitutional issue with you. I am almost tempted

to

have you ask the Department and the bureau who does those

WW 55110

DaeId: 32989560

Page 76

---

## Page 77

2598

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

•10

11

12

4

15

16

17.

18

19

20

• 21

22

23

24

25

55110

things to give us a memo on why it might be unconstitutional

with respect to

the point I an suggesting, reviewing and

approving guidelines, interpreting statutory direction with

respect to the bureau, but not unconstitutional for us to

claim, as ive do and have, the right to veto rules of criminal

procedure, but the Director has been burdened enough.

Attorney General Levi. He could put it back and require

enactment. You could have a procedure in which after the

statute, the regulations mould he put before the congress and

require enactment in order to be effective.

Senator Mart. (Michigan) That would certainly be oversight.

This follows up an earlier point of discussion. When we do pass

statute, we can see how the courts and the agencies are applying

them because of the agencies'

actions and. the courts' decisions

are publir. It would not really affect safeguards in this area,

require that the oversight committee be able to see the kind of

documentation that had been given to you, or if it is a case

of going to a court, seeking a warrant, that underlying material

really would be the best basis for an oversight Committee making

the judgnent as to whether the Attorney General appropriately

was supplying what was intended.

Do you agree that oversight, how the statute or your

guidelines or others' guidelines requires that kind of access?

I know this looks way down the road.

, Attorney General Levi. Yes, I think it does. Hell, the

DocId: 32989560 Page 77

---

## Page 78

. 2599

1

2

3

• 4

5

6

to +1 074-76-9815

8

9•

10

11

12

13

14

15

.16

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23

24

25

facts of life are that you cannot look much because you will

not have the time, and the facts of life are that at least

I do not think it is good administration to have Congressional

investigators plowing through an agency. So I think one has

to

think about. those questions.

I do believe that with proper safeguards of confidentiality

a Committee could get such material.

Senator Hart. (Michigan) As my question implied, it would seem

to me that unless we knew the kind of argument and evidence that

an Attorney General is finding adequate to meet that standara,

we would not know whether our standards were-

Attorney General Levi. That is right. There might be

some problems.. Every once in awhile there is something of

such sensitivity that it might be in a special category, I

am sure.

•Senator Hart. (Michigan) On the matter of electronic surve-

illance you sais some weeks

ago the standards to be used with a

citizen, with an American citizen, would be, would depend on

where he is here or overseas. Perhaps that does not fairly

summarize what you said.

Attorney General Levi. No, it dones not.

Senator Hart. (Michigan) All right. I will be a little

bit nore fair. You said the different standards would apply

when the citizen was an agent of a foreign power, which is what

you said. Is it your view that the same standard which really

55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 78

---

## Page 79

• 2600

2

3

5

9

10

11

. 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

25

is to say does the Fourth Amendment apply equally to an American

citizen, whether he is operating

at home or abroad, in terms of

the electronic surveillance. that can be used by our Government,

of at the request of our Government?

attorney General Levi. I do not think it is absolutely

clear, but my answer would he

yes, but I do not think it is

clear in the decisions.

Senator Hart. (Michigan) What are the present policies

regarding dissemination of the product of electronic surveillande

when it is targeted on an enbassy of a foreign diplomat, but

the device picts up non-criminal communications as to Americans?

Specifically,

suppose an American is talking on the phone to

an embassy of a liddle fastern countru, and he is discussing

plans for political activities to lobby Congress for support

of action which he and other Americans plan. They might even

be discussing legislative plans of senators to disagree with

the Administration.

If you have a national security tap on an embassy and

pick up that conversation, is that fair game for sending to the

White louse simply because the tap was legal?

Attorney General Levi.

The answer is no.

Senator llart. (Michigan) on

the natter of future deterrence

of unauthorized activity, ve have heen talling what should he

Hauthorized and how to set un procedures. io nuiter bos brilliantli

ve draft our statutes and quidclines, the problem of human

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 79

---

## Page 80

2601

2

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22

frailty vill be there. The best systen sill not elininate

temptation or occasional succunbing to temptation

or transgression. Should there be specific crininal penaltios

for government officers ho tale or approve unauthorised action

in this area?

Ittorney General Levi. In the areas of what?

Senator Mart. (lichigan) Government official who ignores,

averts, or violates a guideline.

Ittorney General Levi. Well, there are all kinds of

penalties now, and all kinds of threats, of damage suits, and

whatnot. I think it is a question of how serious the violation

is, how villful it is. I think I would have to know more

about it..

Senator Hart. (Michigan) Would a good stiff penalty on

the books serve as a deterrent for possible abuse?

Attorney General Levi. It depends upon the lind of abuse

one is talking about, and, as I indicated before, the privacy

statute in itself imposes penalties nov.. If we are talling

about the grosser acts of some Presidents, let us say, or

others naking illegal, unauthorized operations or uses, well,

I

do not know what the

penalty would be on the president, and

someho: or other I have a feeling that I an not sure that is

23

where a great penalty would make a difference.

24

Senator Hart. ("lichigan) het us loo! at it from the

25

point of view of the follow wose privacy has been invaded,

ANW 55110

|DocId: 32989560 Page 80

---

## Page 81

2602

2

3

•4

•5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and violations notrithstanding, statutory or guideline rule,

should he be given standing to sue for damares?

Ittornay Genoral Levi. Jell, as to whether he has standins

and should be able to sue, there the conduct is illicit, there

is no doubt that there will be suits. there are suits.

Senator Mart. (Michigan) But my notes say that the court

has held that unless you can show specific damages, which is

a tough thing under the first Anendment, that you are baried?

fron challenging investigntion.

Attorney General levi. But I think that there is not,

really is not any real damage. I am not sure that damages should

ba given. I really do not think that is the way one can -

Senator lart. (Michigan) low about standing to seek an

injunction? Tyen though there is not reason for damages?

Attorney General Levi.

An injunction so that the court

would be operating that segment? I would thin: that would be

another problem as to the senasation of povers, really; an

injunction related to that particular person mayhe.

I do not

thin' a class action telling the Departnent of Justice that

they coils never use this, that or the other device toward

this group --

senator llart, (lichigan) Well, there is nothing novel

about seeking injunctions against the Ittorney General or

othar.

departments from doing sonething, so I am curious about

what we do about soneone who is being tailed.

NW 55110

Dodid: 32989560

Page 81

---

## Page 82

3

* *2503

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

.. 19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

55110

Attorney General Levi. Mell, I thought that you were

thinking about not the problen of danages so much, as to the

problem of controls on the operation of the Department, and

I was looking at it from that standpoint. I think there is

a problen about damages. There is a problem about the rights.

of people who may have been injured and ether they should

be notified, and I, frankly, do not

know the answer to that

_question..

Senator lart. (llichigan) and you do not know the

answer vet on that one?

Attorney General Levi. I think it is a very mixed question,

and it may be that they should be notified. I do not know how

they would be notified, what the basis would be. It is not

something which I care to express myself.

Senator Mart. (Michigan) Well, the mechanics of notifying

somebody whose mail has been opened, that is not complicated.

Attorney General Levi. I am not talking about nail openings.

I am talking about such things as in the COITELPRo, possibly.

Senator Hart. (Michigan) Let me read you the full question

to make sure we have covered this. I really thought that you

had under study methods which might ressond to the abuses

in terns of, at least alerting American citizens whose privacy

had been invaded upon.

•Attorney General Levi. "a do, but I an just saying that

I do not know what the

ansver is.

cId: 32989560 Page 82

---

## Page 83

AMARIL

2604

1

2

3

4

5

•8

9

•10

11

12

13

14

I5

16

17

18

19

20

• 21

22

23

24

25

NW 55110

Senator Hart. (Michigan)

You are studying and seeking

the right ansier?

Attorney General Levi.

les.

Senator liart. (lichigan)

Hell, why is there a problen?

Thy is the search for the right answer so complicated in terms

of those to have the sulject of coltrel files? now, maybe

they will read about it through these hearings, but there are

a whole slew of then.

Attorney General bevi. There

has been a lot of rearing

about it. There are Frecdon of Information Act requests which,

obviously, reflect a knowledge on the part of sone people, but

all I an really saving is that that is one of those natters

which I think one has to explore. the first reaction, and.

certainly my reaction, is that in some way they should be

notified. then I come to the question of how do ve knot tho

they are. Suppose nothing actually occurred. Is then the

person to be notified? Or suppose it is the kind of case where

if the person is notified, there night be embarrassment to the

person, whic is conceivable, and so on?

Is it appropriate

fOr

the Departnent, itself, to make a tentative judgment as to

whether there was any injury or not, or is that inappropriate?

There are lots of questions in there, and my own inclination

that they should he notified in some way, but I thin': it is

"orti? sone thought.

Senator Mart. (lichigan) And that thought is being given?

DocId: 32989560

Page 83

---

## Page 84

•, 10

SIOna (Aru: 202) 506-E000

• 2605

1

Attorney

coneral Levi. Oh, yes.

2

Senator Mart. (lichigan). So that Martin Iuther King,

Who would have known about a lot of things that were going on,

4

and a lot of people those names will never surface in connection

5

with this Cormittee, who have had similar - well, not sinilar,

• 6

but experiences which might very well give rise to a clain.

8

9

How soon do you have to be able to figure out what, if anything,

the Department's obligation is toward them?

Attorney General Levi. Senator, I really do not know.

10

I have called together a groun on that, in fact, two groups.

11

I think whatever ansver is given by the Department may well have

12

to be the same answer that is given by other parts of the

13

Government. That seens to me to require some further discussion

14

no one has To Try tO Ton

,as i sa!, Lie consequences

15

To notify a person that he or she was the

subject of cOllIeupro

16

at this time manz years later may actually cause, perhaps, it is

17 !'strange to thin!: this, but it might actually cause embarrassment

18

19

to that person no: who would rather not know it, and if they

had no consequence, it it had no consequence, is that a good

20

thing to do?

21

wet me tell you, I jas told when I cane down to. the Depart-

22

ment -I do not know if you believe this or not - but I vas

23

24

he recipient of a COntIERO letter, but nore recentli, since

have ordered a ravior of all the ColIniPPo files, I have had

25

this letter confirmed to me.

WW, 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 84

---

## Page 85

11

"'hono (Area 202) 544-6000

3

7

2606

when I was President of the university of Chicago, apparent

Il an anonymous letter vas written, I gather, claining that

some professor vas a cormunist, an? I do not knor what was

supposed to follow fron that, but, in any evant, there was

and I do not know whether the letter was anonymous, but it

probahly was.

If I got the letter, I would have thrown it arat. It would

have har no consequence, and I have no recollaction of it. "Tos,

if thore is such a letter and persons exisi, then notification

of that person, is that desirable?

I just do not lno:.

WART

PAUL

5

6

7

8

9

•10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

.23

24

25

INM

55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 85

---

## Page 86

is:mlo

12/11

-1

2607

1

2

5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INW 55110

Senator Hart (Michigan). I would suggest that the Depart-

ment ought not make the judgment as to whether, to use your

expression, it had no consequence to the subject. I think that

that would be a decision that more correctly should be made by

the subject in his mind, and not the Department of Justice, as

you go through that file.

I would hope there could be a resolution of which you

would say to be the right answer.

Attorney General Levi. I have thought of suggesting the

Congress establish some kind of a claims division. But, in any

event, it is something we are thinking about.

Senacor Hart (Michigan). Well, I hope we can come out of

this with some teeth in what we do because you suggest perhaps

criminal penalties would not be very effective, and you

describe the difficulties that attach to civil remedies, and

you suggest that no matter how carefully drafted --

Attorney General Levi. Well, there are civil penalties

now, but I hate to think that, if guidelines are drafted and

is a violation of one of the guidelines, that the consequence

is a criminal penalty. Somehow of other that seems to me

an inappropriate way.

Senator Hart (Michigan). It would not be a criminal

penality unless the person knowingly took action in violation

of the guidelines. And if you are paid by the taxpayer, why

should you not be subject to sanctions of that kind?

PocId: 32989560 Page 86

---

## Page 87

-2

2608

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12.

13

14

15

16

'17

18

19

21

22

24

25

Attorney General Levi. I do not really see why payment

by the taxpayer --

Senator Hart (Michigan). Well, why should you not be

subject to sanctions if you knowing break the rule?

Attorney General Levi. I think my problem is that I think

you have problems of discipline in any organization, and I think

one ought to be careful not to cover the field of administra-

tive. discipline in a government with criminal penalities which

I think is self-defeating. So, that is the only reason.

The Chairman. Just two subjects, MI. Attorney General,

and then I am finished, and I will conclude the hearing..

Yesterday I asked Director Kelley about the amount of

time and money and general imposition on the overall resources

of the FBI that was represented in the many investigations they

routinely make that deal with appointees or nominees, and

people being considered for federal employment: And he said he

would supply those figures and give us some idea of how much of

the workload this represented.

It is my understanding that the FBI does these investiga-

tions only fox sensitive civilian. jobs, and wherever a name

check digs up information from FBI files indicating a possible

security risk. In other words, the FBI name check is there if

there is an allegation in the FBI files that a person might

have once been associated with a subversive or extremist

organization or something like that, or if the position to

NW 55110|| DocId: DocId:32989560

Page 87

---

## Page 88

2609

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

'17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.25

which the nominee is to be appointed is regarded as sensitive.

Then the FBI does the investigation of the nominee. Otherwise,

it is done by the Civil Service Commission.

I am wondering if when it comes to guidelines, that.not

ought to be a good place to look pretty carefully to see how

much of this is really necessary. My impression in the past

has been that there are many FBI checks being done for posi-

tions that could not possibly be regarded as sensitive as far

as national security is concerned, and maybe we just have over-

done this back in the period when we were terribly frightened,

in the McCarthy years, and it has never been looked at

sufficiently since to see if it still is all that necessary.

Attorney General Levi. Well, I agree and a good place to

begin is with the executive order that has been modified many

times on suitability for employment.

The Chairman. I do not know whether it is feasible to try

to legislate here, or whether there could be a way that legi-

slation might be helpful as a part of the basic or generic FBI

law that we hope to draw up concerning this phase of the FBI's

activities. But I wish you would give some thought to that!

would you please?

Attorney General Levi. Surely.

The Chairman. The other matter that

I want to deal with

is that time and time again in our investigation of the intelli

gence agencies, including the intelligence aspect of the FBI's

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 . Page 88

---

## Page 89

59-4

S02Y522-6066

2610

2

4

5

6

'8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

work and the counterintelligence aspects, we are up against

the problem of accountability. And with the FBI, of course, we

have had the additional question of the president putting the

agency to his personal or political use; and a difficulty which

I think Senator Mondale rightly referred to - the difficulty,

no matter what the regulations may be, and even perhaps.

contrary to positions of the law, of refusing to do the presi-

dent's bidding. You know, the order of the president of the

desire of the president can be easily rationalized or some kind

of plausible excuse can be given for it that it sounds like it

might fall within the purview of the law.

And neither an attorney general or a director of the FBI

is in very much of a position to argue with the president. And

then there is a feeling of who is going to find about it any-

way.

I asked Director Kelley yesterday if he thought that

orders should be transmitted to him from the president through

the attorney general; and secondly, it orders are transmitted

to him to undertake an investigation. in which the president has

expressed some interest, they ought to come in writing, and a

permanent file be kept so that the accountability is there.

for review of a congressional committee or for whatever.

He said that he thought that such directives should be in

writing and that a

file, a permanent. file of them should be kept.

I would like to ask you how you would respond to those

NW

55110

Pocid: 32989560

Page 89

---

## Page 90

310-5

thona (Ares 202) 574-5000

2611

1

2

3

4

•5

6

8

I0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

questions. And I put the questions in this order: first, do

you think that if the president wants the FBI to go out and make

an investigation for him and report back to him, that that

order should be transmitted through the attorney general? And

secondly, whether you think orders of that character coming

from the president should take the form of a written order and

permanently maintained in the files. of the Bureau?

Attorney General Levi. Well, I think the orders probably

should be written. Now as to the first part of your question,

the hypothetical case might be that the president has decided

that he wishes to appoint a certain person to the cabinet and

he wishes a full field investigation. Under the guidelines,

the president, the counsel to the president of associate

counsel could ask the Bureau to do that.

I would think, unless there is some particular reason,

that the attorney general should

!, be notified as to what is

going on. I think any suggestion of any other kind of investi-

gation of an organization or something of that sort, which I

thought you were suggesting, should not come from the president

to the director, in any case, and if it did come, it certainly

should come in writing and the attorney general should be

notified.

I certainly do not want to say that the president cannot

speak to anybody he wants to speak to and there is no reason

why he should not be talking to

members of the Department of

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 90

---

## Page 91

15-5

181002924÷500

2612

WARD

PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Justice. I do think it is a desirable thing when that occurs,

unless it is discussing the criminal activity of the attorney

general, that the attorney general be notified.

Now I think in fact, at the present time, and I maybe I

would be the last one to know, but I think the communications

are through the attorney general, except for the kind of inves-

tigations for appointments which might or might not come to me.

The Chairman. But it is possible that that too might

-

be the subject of that kind of procedure, the very kind you have

outlined can be the subject of a statute. And if it were, do

you think the president would be bound by it?

Attorney General Levi. Oh, he might not be, but in fact

he would, I would think; wish to. adhere to it and it would

make it easier for others to suggest that there was kind of a .

propriety about it.

The Chairman.

Before you leave, and I want to express the

gratitude of the committee for your testimony today and for

your continued cooperation in this joint endeavor, but I also

want to say that Mike Shaheen, who has been the liaison with

the committee staff, has done an excellent piece of work and

the staff wishes. for me to express its appreciation to him.

Attorney General Levi. I would thank the committee and

thank you, and I hope that -- you can tell Senator Mondale that

I am not half as arrogant as he thinks I am.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Levi.

MW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 91

---

## Page 92

10-7

5añ-6000

abe

,2,67.3

8

2

(Whereupon, at 1:00 o'clock p.m., the Committee adjourned,

subject to the call of the Chair.)

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

•16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2.4

25

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page

52

---

## Page 93

T

'O

OPTIONAL FORM NO, 10

MAY 1962 EDITION

GSA FPAIR (41 CFO) 101-11.6

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

: Mr. J. B. Adam:

FROM : Legal Counse

SUBJEC

SENSTUDY 75.

1 - Mr. Mintz

1 - Mr. Wannall

1 - MI. Cregar

DATE: 1/2/76

1 - Mr.

Hotis

1 - Mr. Daly

Assoc. Dir..

Dep. AD Adm. _

Dop. AD Inv. _

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst.-

Ext. Affairs _

Files & Com. -

Gon. Inv. _

Ident. -

Inspection it

Intell. La

Labora

Loga

Plan.

val. -

DO,

Training

Telophone Rm. -

Diroctor Sec'y -

award this a copy of the testimony of the Attorney.

Kevi before the Senate Select Committee on

The attached

Capity

RECOMMENDATION:

For record purposes.

HDR-16

ALLINFORMATION CONTAINED

Enclosure

N

RECEI

ST-114) ;

b2-14545--1241

15 JAN 9 1976

ENCLOSURE

LEGAL

116391

/

8 4/

lad 411)

IN 1(5 1976

NW 5514010 DocId: 32989560

Buy US Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

---

## Page 94

MI.

Wannall

W

Cregar

HOUSTUDY

75

1

• MI. J.

B.

dams

1 - MT.

J. A. Mintz

1

. * Mt. J. Cochran

1 - MI. H. N. Bassett

1/2/76

1. - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. W. Q. Gregar

1 - Mc. S. F. Phillips

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

Legal Counsel to MI. J. B. Adams memorandum 12/30/75

reported intention of House Select Committee on Intelligence

(HSC) to take depositions from former FBI Special Agents (SAS)

Joseph William Magee and Joseph. Lep Gormley concerning

U. S. Recording Company purchases made by the FBI.

Pursuant to' Recommendations 2 and 3 of the above-

referred-to menorandum, addresses and telephone numbers were

obtained from the personnel files and furnished to Supervisor

P. V. Daly of the Legal Counsel Division on the morning of

1/2/76 so that he might orally advise the HSC of the current

whereabouts of Magee and Gormley. Prior to furnishing of

information to Daly, Supervisor S. F. Phillips of the

Superate s

Senstudy 75 Project had telephone conversations with both

Magee and Gormley, also on the morning of 1/2/76, for the

purpose of alerting them to the HSC literest and

with the

suggestion that, if they are contacted, they might call the

Legal Counsel Division for further assistance. Both indicated

that they would take such action and expressed appreciation

for being alerted in advance.

In addition, Magee advised of

certain information which is being recorded hereinafter for

information purposes.

6.2116

3951

Magee advised that on a Fridey, about 9/18/75, he

was telephonically contacted by a Mike lipstein of the Senate

Seleet. Committee on Intelligence (SSC) who indicated a desire

to talk to him immediately. Magee Cold Epstein that he was

10 .

RDEDI

62-116464

62-116395 (Senstudy 75)

18. JAN. 26.46%0.

- 67-123249 (Personnel File Former SA Joseph William agee)

- 67-129682 (Personnel File Former SA Joseph Leo Gormley)

1 ÷ 67=

(Personnel File Former SA William C. Sullivan)

CONTINUED - OVER

SFP: 1hb

84 JANg 1976)

NW

55110• DocId: 32989560 Page 94

---

## Page 95

Memnrandum to Mir. W. R. Wannall

Re:

Houstudy 75

62-116464

quite busy and would not be able to see him immediately.

The only information Ipstein gave as to the reason for

wanting to interview Magee was to get information about the

carly organization of the FBI Laboratory. There Followed

some further telephone calls between the two but they never

and asked lagee to appear for interview Tuesday, 1/6/76.

The only information lipstein gave as to the subject matter

of the interview was that it would be about the operations

of the Bureau. lagee agreed to appearing for the interview.

It was explained to Magee that the same procedure

relative to an SSC interview would apply as that for one of

the HSC, and it was suggested that immediately aiter completing

the conversation with Phillips, Magee telephone the Legal

Counsel Division for further information, particularly as

to waiver of the confidentiality agreement he has with the

Bureau.

Magee said that he would immediately call

Fix. Mintz' office.

As a matter of interest, Magee also advised that,

when he was first contacted by lipstein September last, he

asked Ipstein where the latter had gotten his name and

Epstein said it was from Bill Sullivan. Magee then told

then atte shit gott

Phillips that he could just not understand some of the things

which he has been learning about Sullivan and he expressed

dismay at some publicized reports that Sullivan had been

derogathay

tir. Milliam D. Ruckelshaus Was named to succeed him,

Sullivan contacted Magee. Sullivan told Magee that

hes

Sullivan, fully intended to becone FBI Director and that,

CONTINUED - OVEN

- 2 ro

NW

55110 DocId:32989560 Page 95

---

## Page 96

Memorandum to Mr.

W. R. Wannall

Re: Houstudy 75

62-116464

as east to anted ane eat he ten to serve

Magee's remarks was that he thought Sullivan was talking

rather wildly in making such a job offer to him and that

this applied as well to the idea of Sullivan becoming FBI

Director.

RECOUMDIDATION:

ilone. For information and record purposes.

• 3 m

NW 55110 DooId: 32969560 Page 96

---

## Page 97

4-528

- NGONTAINED

+2-116-395-1250X

CHANGED TO

62-116464-268X2

FEB 18 1976

Cano, hond

Page 97

---

## Page 98

1 - MI.

A. Mintz

1 - Mr.

W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. J. G. Deegan

1 - Mr.

W. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. S. J.Miller

December 31, 1975

The Attorney General

Director,

U. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITIFE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES (SSC)

Enclosed is the original of a memorandum, with

attachment, reporting the results of an interview of FBI

Special Agent Neil P. Shanahan by SSC Staff Members. Also

enclosed is a copy of the memorandum, with attachment, for

forwarding to Mr. James A. Wilderotter, Assoclate Counsel

to the President.

Enclosures (4)

HERE:

62-116395

I - The Deputy Attorney General

Attention: Michael E. Shaheen, Jr.

Special Counsel for

Intelligence Coordination

1 - 67- (Personnel File SA Neil P. Shanahan)

SJM: 1hb/hb

(10)

REESE (: 114-350-123982

ST 115:

E JA: 25 1873

Assoc. Dir.

Dep, AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. _

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst.-

Ext. Affairs .

com

Files & Com. _

Gen. Inv. _

Ident. _

Inspection _

Intell.

Laboratory c

Plan. & Eval. -

Spec. inv. - g

Training -

Legal Coun..

Telophone Rm. -

Director Sec'y -

MAIL ROOM

AW 8541d A Not Pa 187989560

ni:.

TELETYPE UNIT O

Page 98

GPO: 1975 0 - 569-920

---

## Page 99

62-116395

1 - Ms.

A. Mintz

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. J. G. Deegan

1 - Mi. W. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. S. J. Miller

Decenber 31, 1975

U. S. SENATE SELECT COLAIETTEE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAL, OPERATIONS WITH!

RESPECT 10 INTCILIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

AS: INTERVICU OF TOI SPECIAL ACENT (SA)

ICIL I. SHANTARAN BY SSC STAFT LINDERS

1975, of it a on no concera by it syde on Noverher 21,

Shanahan's report of the results of the interview

is contained in a menorandum dated lovember 26, 1975, a

copy of which is attached.

Enclosure

1 - 67- (Personnel File SA Neil P. Shanahan)

SJM: 1hz/hb

/CONTAIED:

(9)

NOTE:

The IM setting out Shanahan's report of the

interview was furnished the Bureau by Philadelphia airtel

11/26/75 captioned "Senstudy 75."

NIX

Assoc. Dir. -

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. -

Asst. Dir.:

Admin..

Comp. System

Ext. Affairs —

Files & Com. _

Gen. Inv.-

Ident. -

Inspection -

Intell. _

Laboratory -

Plan. & Eval. -

6: 0

SIM

Training

Legal Cour. _

Telephone Rm. -

Director Sec'y —

MAIL ROOM L

55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 99

TELETYPE UNT 1116375-12391 o-censo

---

## Page 100

Patron?

In Reply, Please Refer to

File No.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

• FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 26, 1975

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAI

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

RE: GARY THOMAS ROWE

At 11:00 a.M., November 21, 1975, Special Agent

NEIL P. SHANAHAN of the Philadelphia

Division of the FBI

was interviawed under oath by two staff members of the

above styled committee in the Old Senate Office

Building

in Washington, D.C.

Present during the interview and

doing most of the questioning was Mr. POBERT KEILT, and

MI. JOIN BAYLY, who identified themselves as staff

members of the

Senate Select Cormittee (SSC,.

prior to any questioning, it was explained by

Mr. ROBERT KELLY that SA SHANAHAN would be testifying

voluntarily and that he had a right to be represented by

counsel if he so desired. Also prior to any questioning,

Mr. KELLY explained that he had previously interviewed

GARY THOMAS ROWE, a former confidential informant. Lof the.

FBI and would be asking questions prompted by information

furnished to him by Mr. ROWE.

Informative nature, such as when SA SHANARAN handled

MI. ROWE, and the general dates of Mr. SHANAHAN'S

• employment and assignments with the FBI, certain specific

areas were covered and recalled by SA SHANAlIAN as follows:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

EREIN SUNCLASSIRIE

ATE A DOO BY SALACMRU

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions

of the FBI.

It is the property oi the FBI and is loaned to

your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed

outside your agency.

14035110 DocId:32989560

Page 100

+62+16-395-123982

---

## Page 101

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL,

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENÇE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

A question was asked concerning activities

•taken by SA SHANAHAN upon receipt of information from

MI. ROWE that the Ku Klux Klan was going to immediatelY

engage in some form of violent activity. SA SHANAHAN

responded that upon receipt of such information, it was

immediately Iported to his superiors, and evaluateá to

determine what immediate action, such as dissemination

to local authorities, etc., was required. A question

was asked in this area directly on the issue of wether

anyone in the FBI instructed Mr. ROME to engage in any

violent activities.

SHANAHIAN responded that at no

time did he, or anyone else to his knowleâge, instruct

Mr. ROVE to engage in any violent activity.

In fact,

he was often instructed to avoia engaging in violent

activity.

At one point in the interview, Mr. JOHN BAYLY

asked questions concerning whether SA SHANAHAN could

express his opinion as to the morality or ethics involved

in certain activities which Mi. POWE had reported.that he

had engaged in.

This question was re-phrased several times

by Mx.

BAYLY because of SA SHANAHAN's repeated statements

that he did not understand the extent of the information

sought by Mr. BAYLY.

Another critical area questioning dealt with

a statement made by Mr. ROWE that at some time auring

the trials of three members of the ku klux klan, for

killing Mrs. VIOLA LIUZZO, he had advised Mir. JOHN DOAR,

Assistant Attorney General; that they had been introducing

testimony from one MI. LEROY MOTON, who was identifying

himself under oath as the man present in the automobile

with Mrs. LIUZZO when she was shot. Mr. ROWE had advised

Mr. DOAR that Mr. MOTON was not the same man who was in

the auto with MIs. LIUZZO when she was shot. In response

02-

NW 55110 -Doald: 32989560

Page 101

---

## Page 102

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

to these questions, Mr. SHANAHAN testified that Mr. ROWE

had at some point during these trial proceedings, seen

either in person or a photograph in the newspaper of

MI. LEROY MOTON, and had advised Mr. SHANAHAN that this

man was not the same man he had seen riding in the car

with Mrs. LIUZZO. At the next opportunity, Mr. SHANAHAN

contacted Mr. JOHN DOAR and had Mr. ROWE relate to Mr.

DOAR his opinion concerning the identity of LEROY MOTON

as the man present in the car with LIUZZO. Mr. SHANAHAN

further testified that he did not know what, if any,

impression this had on Mr. DOAR and the further content

of the trial.

At a point the interview appeared to be over

and Mr. KELLY and Mr. SHANAHAN conversed off the record,

during which conversation Mr. KELLY related that Mr. ROWE

had currently had some difficulties with Mr. DOAR and the

Department of Justice after the FBI had relocated him in

another part of the country and that some of the statements

being made by Mr. ROWE concerned his treatment by the

Department of Justice after he was no longer under FBI

control.

GARY THOMAS ROWE received a written agreement signed by

Attorney General NICHOLAS D. KATZENBACH, which outlined

what agreement would exist between Mr. ROWE and the

Department of Justice. Mr. KELLY asked Mr. SHANAHAN to

go back on the record

and relate this under oath, which

was done.

Mr. SHANAHAN testified only that he had been

present during negotiations between Mr. ROWE and Mr.

DOAR about this agreement and had seen the agreement

furnished to Mr. ROWE prior to Mr. ROWE's testimony during

• Federal trial in Montgomery, Alabama.

-3*-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 102

---

## Page 103

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

BEFORE COMPLETING.

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

FROM:

TO:

Intelligence Community Staff

ATTN: Central Index

FBI

SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees

PROVIDED (check

appropriate

"How peein met met teensitted.

If a document was made available

note.)

DOCUMENT

BRIEFING. 8 INTERVIEW

TESTIMONY

OTHER

2. DATE PROVIDED

12/31/75

3. TO

WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term;

add specific names if appropriate)

SSO

the

The Attorney General with a copy for forwarding to

the White House

HSC

4. IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data

interviewee,

for.documents; give name or

identification number of briefer,

testifier and subject)

Memorandum reporting results of an interview by SSC Staff Members

of incumbent SA Neil P. Shanahan

5. IN

RESPONSE TO (list date and item

number if in response to formal request, other-

state verbal request of (name), initiative, subpoena, etc.)

NA

6. CLASSIFICATION OF

INFORMATION (enter

U, C, S, TS or

Codeword)

U

7. KEY

used

(enter

the appropriate key words from the list provided separately; if key words not listed are

underline

for

emphasis)

Information handling

ALLIE UNMATION CONTAINED

Intelligence collection

DATE 12-00

8. SUMMARY (see

side before completing this item)

Interviewed regarding his handling of the former confidential

informant, Gary Thomas Rowe. The questions were prompted by

information furnished by Mr. Rowe.

62-116395

2MK: Frak

(4)

ORIGINAL. VIA LIAISON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX

IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75

TREAT AS YELLOW

INTA

3791(6-75)

55110 DooId: 32989560 Page 103

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

G2+116385-12-3912

---

## Page 104

1

1

J. A. Mintz

M.

W. R. Wannall

Mr.

J. G. Deegan

1

- Mr. W. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. S. J. Miller

December 31, 1975

The Attorney General

Director

FBI

U.

S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

ALLINFOR AMON CONTANED

Enclosed to the original of a memorandum, with

attachment, concerning an interview of FBI Special Agent

Garry G. Lash by SSC Staff Members.

Also enclosed is a

copy of the memorandum, with attachment, for forvarding

to lix. James A. Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the

President.

Enclosures (4)

62-716395

ST. 115

I - The Deputy Attorney Ceneral

REC-511

Attention; Michael I. Shaheen, Jr.

Special Counsel for

+2-111-575-1239X

Intelligence Coordination

5 JAN AÜ i073

1 - 67- (Personnel File SA Garry G. Lash)

SJM: 1hb |hb

(10)

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. _

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst. -

Ext. Affairs -

Files & Com. -

Gen. Inv. -

Ident.-

Inspection -

Intell. -

Laboratory

Plan. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training

Legal Coun.

Telephone Rm. _

com

K

NW8541

DocId: 32989560

1.

TELETYPE UNIT /

Page 104

GPO: 1975 0 - 569-920

---

## Page 105

:*

1 - Ma

.

A. Mintz

1 - Mr.

'W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. J. G. Deegan

1 - Mr. W. 0. Cregar

1 ~ Mr. S. J. Miller

62-116395

December 31, 1975

U. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAI OPERATIONS WIMI

RESPECT 70 INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

RE: INTERVIEW DE FOI SPECIAL, AGENI (SA)

GARRZ G. LASH BY SSC STAFF MEMBERS

The following concerns an interview on

November 20, 1975, of FDI SA Garzy G. Lash by SSC Staff

Members

Lash's report of the results of the interview

Is contained in a memorandum dated November 26, 1975, a

copy of which is attached.

Inclosure

1 - 6751 Personnel File SA Garry A NORMATION CONTAINED

SJM: 1hb|hb

DATE LESTONEY SLAURA

DATE 1EBAO

SA Lash furnished the IHM setting out the results

No the sc Altery Euroy airtel 11/26175 captioned "Senstudy 75."

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. —

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst. -

Ext. Affairs -

Files & Com. -

Gen. Inv. _

Ident. -

Inspection.

Intell. -

Laboratory

Plon, & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training -

Legal Coun. -

Telephone Rm. -

Director See'y _

MAIL ROOM L

NW 55110 DooId: 32989560 Page 105

---

## Page 106

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

In Reply, Please Refer to

File No.

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

RE: INTERVIEW OF FBI SPECIAL

AGENT GARRY G. LASH BY

SSC STAFF MEMBERS

ANDREW POSTAL AND JEFF KAYDEN

ON NOVEMBER 20, 1975

Interview of Special Agent LASH by SSC Staff

committee members was conducted in sol office space.

The interview lasted from approximately 11:15 AM until

1:15 PM.

Prior to the interview SA LASH was advised of

the identity of the interviewers and that he

was free to

exercise his rights at any time as guaranteed by the

United States Constitution.

SA LASH was advised that he

had the right to have an attorney present and the right

to have a United States Senator present. SA LASH waived

both of these rights. He was also advised that the scope

of the inquiry would

concern the handling of MARY JO COOK,

a former FBI informant, exclusively.

A court reporter was present who dictated into

a cassette recording machine during the interview.

SA LASH was not sworn.

As follows are the questions directed to SA LASH

and the answers that he provided according to the best

recollection of SA LASH:

NEW FORISTCNICHHANSD

Ar: 11:3-00

one won"

SPEARIN

190/ 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 106

"1239X

---

## Page 107

;

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES

ANDREW POSTAL

SA LASH, what is your present employment?

SA LASH

Special Agent of the FBI

POSTAL

Where are you assigned?

LASH

Buffalo, New York

POSTAL

Were you assigned there during the summer

of 1973?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Yes

Did you specialize in any type of

investigations?

Yes, Internal Security investigations

Did you have occasion to recruit

Mary Jo Cook as an informant in an

organization known as Vietnam Veterans

Against the War (VVAW) (Characterization

of which is contained in appendix hereto)?

Yes

Would you state why the Buffalo Chapter

of the VVAW was being investigated

by the FBI?

I do not feel that I can answer this

question within the scope of the current

interview.

Who was your supervisor at the time

you handled Mary Jo Cook?

Francis Jenkins

Who was your SAC at the time?

Richard Ash

Would you describe for us the methods

of recruiting Mary Jo cook.

Upon discovering that Mary Jo Cook had

attended some meetings of the Buffalo

Chapter of the VAW, I interviewed her

concerning her attendance and indicated

to her that I wished her to become an

informant for the FBI.

-2 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 107

---

## Page 108

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

Specifically, what instructions did you

give her?

LASH

I told her to become a member of the

Buffalo Chapter of the VVAW in order

that she might gather information

concerning violent or radical activities

engaged in by the organization.

POSTAL

What specific area was Miss Cook assigned

to work in?

LASH

Initially she became a member of the

women's group of the VAW.

POSTAL

Was this group of the VAW engaged in

any specific type of activity at the time?

LASH

I believe at this point in time they

were trying to develop various

programs they could implement in the future.

POSTAL

Did you tell her she was to obtain

background information concerning

individuals in the group?

LASH

I told her to obtain information concerning

members of the VAW.

POSTAL

LASH

What do you mean by "a member?"

The VAW did not have membership cards

as such, however, I considered a

person who attends meetings of the Chapter

or gives financial or other support to be

a member of the organization.

POSTAL

What type of background information dia

she obtain?

LASH

She obtained physical descriptions and

other types of background information

such as residences or employment which

would

allow me to differentiate between

that individual and other individuals

in the Buffalo area.

- 3-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 108

---

## Page 109

:

;

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

JEFF KAYDEN

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Did you have her provide any other

information concerning individuals

in the organization?

I asked her to identify those individuals

who had a capability of engaging

radical or violent activities.

What is the difference between violent

and radical activities?

Radical activities that are not violent

are those which are illegal or infringe

upon the rights of other citizens.

Did you have another Agent present with

you when you recruited Mary Jo Cook?

Yes, I dia.

For what reason?

It is a FBI regulation that two Agents

be present during initial interviews

with female informants.

Did this Agent become a handling Agent

of Mary Jo Cook?

No, he did not.

He was merely present

during the initial interview.

When did you first contact Mary Jo Cook?

June, 1973

Did Mary Jo Cook attend meetings of the

VVAW with her boyfriend, whose name we

shall not mention?

I believe she did.

Did she and her boyfriend ever give

joint

reports?

I can not discuss that matter within

the scope of this inquiry.

- 4-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 109

---

## Page 110

LASH

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 110

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

Miss Cook stated that the objectives of

the VVAW were as follows:

To end the war in Viet Nam, to obtain

better veteran's benefits, to upgrade

bad conduct discharges, to obtain

drug treatment for veterans. Is this

I believe they embraced those objectives

but they also had others.

What were the other objectives?

As she described them, the destruction of

U. S. imperialism and

the replacement of

our form of

government

with a socialist

government, probably modeled after the

government of Red China.

Did the VVAW ever engage in violent

activities?

Yes.

Could you cite some examples?

The first meeting she attended, for

example, concerned the planning of a

disruption of a U. S. Marine Corps

Armed Forces Day display in Buffalo.

other occasions actions were planned

which were illegal and disruptive.

Can you gi: any examples of violent

activities by individual members?

I recall on one occasion several members

in this organization told Miss Cook

that they felt the actions of an individual

who was arrested for a bombing on

University of Michigan campus

which resulted in

leath, were justified for political purposes.

Do you know of any violent activities

that VAW members actually engaged in

since the foregoing could possibly be

rhetoric?

On several occasions members of the

- 5 -

---

## Page 111

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

VVAW have physically assualted members

of other

subversive groups in the Buffalo area.

Miss Cook has indicated that you told

her that you were interested in attempts.

by other groups to take over the VAW.

Did this ever happen?

According to information provided by

Miss Cook,

the Revolutionary Unior

(Characterization of which is contained

in appendix hereto) was attempting to

take over the VVAW. I was interested

in this.

What is the Revolutionary Union?

The Revolutionary Union is a Maoist

subversive group.

Was the Revolutionary Union attempting

to take over the Buffalo Chapter?

According to Miss Cook, they were trying

to take over chapters in several areas

of the country and she said that they were

taking over the New York City chapter,

however, I cannot recall specific attempts

to take over the Buffalo chapter while

I was handling Miss Cook.

Did the Revolutionary Union ever take

over the VAW?

I cannot answer that within the scope

of this inquiry.

Did you consider the VVAW to be a

subversive organization?

Yes

Do you know anything about "Cointelpro"?

I cannot answer that within the scope

of this inquiry.

- 6 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 111

---

## Page 112

:

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

Did you ever use information provided

by Mary Jo Cook In any cointelpro-type

activities such as getting members of

VVAW fired from their jobs or telling

the parents of members?

No I did not.

Did you ever take any actions against

Mary Jo Cook

or her family?

No I did not.

Did you ever

engage in any disruptive

or neutralizing action against the

organization?

I engaged in no disruptive activities,

however, if I learned that the organization

as planning something Illegal + woul

lent the local authonities and sufficien

police officers would appear at the scene to

prevent trouble. I feel this neutralized any

planned illegality by the VAW.

Did Miss Cook ever provide you with

mailing lists of the organization?

Miss Cook provided me with any number of

lists, whether they were described as

mailing lists or membership lists, I

cannot recall.

Did she ever provide you with any

contribution lists of the organization?

Not that I can recall.

Did you ever tell her that you were

interested in determining if the

organization was receiving funds from

foreign sources.

I cannot specifically recall telling

her that.

Would you be interested in knowing

if the VVAW was receiving funds from

foreign sources?

- 7-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 112 .

---

## Page 113

LASH

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 113

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

Yes I would.

Did you ever find out that the VAW

was getting funds from foreign sources?

No.

What did you do with the names that

were contained on these lists?

I would review the lists to determine

if there was anything significant

contained in them and a great deal of

them I would do nothing with and merely

return the lists to Miss Cook. She

provided me with a lot of material that

I had no interest in.

Did she ever provide you with a

defense pamphlet?

Not that I can recall

Did she ever give you any informatior

concerning VAW defense strategles?

I believe she gave me material such

as reprints of articles from "Psychology

Today'

and from a magazine called,

"Counter Spy" and other information of

that nature.

Did she tell you that she was working

with the Attica Defense Committee?

Yes

What is the Attica Defense Committee?

It is an umbrella-type organization

in which individuals who are interested

in defending Attica prisoners as well

as individuals seeking their own ends

have gotten together.

Did Miss

Cook ever indicate that the

VVAW was a conduit of mail between

the Attica Defense Committee and prisoners

in order to get letters in and out of

Jail?

I don't recall her saying that.

=8_

---

## Page 114

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

Did she ever talk about courtroom

tactics or witnesses to be used

by the Attica Defense Committee?

Not that I can recall

Did you ever give any information she

provided to the Attica prosecutors?

None whatsoever

Did you ever give any kind of information

regarding the Attica Defense Committee

to others outside the FBI?

I would pass on information concerning

demonstrations, rallies, etc. to the

local authorities.

Did she ever talk about demonstrations

in the courtroom itself?

Not that I can recall.

Did she ever provide logistical

type information concerning Attica

demonstrations?

Yes, on one occasion she was even

a "parade marshal" at a demonstration.

Was there ever any violence at Attica

Defense Committee Demonstrations?

On one occasion another group which was

marching in a demonstration planned

to march out of the parade and trash

the Chase Manhattan Bank in Buffalo

provoking the police.

This information

was brought to the attention of the police

and it did not occur.

And as I recall,

I also told Mary Jo Cook about this

plan and might have prevented it from

happening.

Are any of the individuals who are actually

connected with the defense of the Attica

prisoners known to be violence-prone

individuals?

- 9-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 114

---

## Page 115

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES

LASH

I cannot answer that within the scope

of this inquiry

POSTAL

What was the method of her providing

you with reports?

LASH

She would provide me with information

not to vating an save here avo

POSTAL

Did these reports contain background

information regarding individuals?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Yes

What type of background information?

The same type I described before, physical

data, place of employment, residence, etc.

POSTAL

Did she give you follow-up data on this

background information?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Yes. If a person changed his residence

or employment she would tell me.

Did she make conclusions in her reports?

She reported information factually,

however, I believe she did make conclusions

regarding the propensity for violence

for individuals in the organization.

Miss Cook indicated that after a while

she began to give you reports wherein

several meetings would be reported in

one report if these meetings concerned

a central theme. Is this true?

As best I can recall, Miss Cook gave me

reports on each individual meeting she

attended.

Dou do tues indicate to Miss cook that

I specific questions for her from

Washington?

I cannot recall saying that.

- 10 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 115

---

## Page 116

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

She stated that on occasion you provided

her with a list of questions

• which she

said came from Washington and sometimes

she did not understand the questions.

LASH

On occasion I would ask her questions

about the organization. I never gaV€

her any list of questions that I saic

came from Washington.

On several

occasions I told her, in response to

her questions, that the information she

provided was

sometimes sent to Washington

since it pertained to VVAW nationally.

I pointed out that this should calm

her fears that the FBI might be

getting information from informants who

are not telling the true story about

the VAW.

I also pointed out to her

that her

information being accurate

would in fact offset any mis-information

that might come from another informant.

POSTAL

Did Miss Cook ever provide out of town

reports?

LASH

Yes. Miss Cook traveled to other cities

and provided reports on activities in

these cities.

POSTAL

Was she provided with the names of Agents

and telephone numbers in these other cities.

LASH

POSTAL

Yes she was.

Was this so she could report to these

other Agents?

LASH

No. She was given the number for

emergency purposes only, to be utilized

if she found out something that requirec

immediate attention or if she suffered

some personal emergency such as an

automobile accident, etc.

POSTAL

During her trips to other cities and

attendance at conventions, did she

obtain any documents for the FBI?

LASH

Yes.

- 11 -

Aw 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 116

---

## Page 117

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

What was the nature of these documents?

Any number of documents and handouts were

provided to the attendees at conventions.

Some of these were pamphlets describing

VVAW activities, copies of VAW newspapers

flyers concerning demonstrations and activities

in other VVAW chapters, etc.

What was the method of payment for Miss Cook's

Miss Cook was paid on a COD basis for

information provided.

Was she paid a salary?

No

What determined the amount that she was

paid monthly?

She was paid on a monthly basis COD for

information provided. Inasmuch as she

provided a good deal of information every

month, she was usually paid the maximum

amount permitted by FBI Headquarters,

therefore monthly payments often totaled

similar amounts.

Was she instructed to pay income tax?

She was advised to treat all money

she received from the Bureau as income

and to pay appropriate taxes.

Was she given any instructions on how

to report her income from the FBI?

POSTAL

have instructed her to report it as

miscellaneous income or income from

self-employment, something of that nature.

Were these instructions to conceal the

fact that she was receiving money from

confidential FBI funds?

- 12 -

RN 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 117

---

## Page 118

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

LASH

No. This would have been to conceal

the fact that she was an FBI informant.

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Did you get Mary Jo Cook a job?

I aided her in finding employment.

What were the circumstances?

Miss Cook indicated that she was being

for being a

This is a Marxist term for anyone

being supported by their parent:

or Welfare, etc.

She indicated that

it would be necessary for her to find,

and I contacted a social

acquaintance of mine who is employed

by a Buffalo area bank, who advised that

the bank is always looking for tellers.

I advised Miss Cook to go to the bank.

She did and she got a job as a teller.

POSTAL

Did Mary Jo Cook feel she was an

Agent Provocateur?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

No. On the contrary, I feel if anything

she was a non-provocateur since I

instructed her to act in such a way as to

prevent any violent or illegal act that might

be discussed in her presence.

I think she

understood this and acted in this way.

Why did Mary Jo Cook act as an informant?

Mary Jo Cook was an actual member of the

VVAW as well as being an informant for the

FBI eeling th

FBI. She reconciled this in her mind

by feeling that she was providing

the FBI with information

that was objective

and true about the organization, as well as

preventing violent individuals from taking

over the group.

What percentage of the group did you feel

was violence prone?

I do not think I can answer that.

- 13 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 118

---

## Page 119

:

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

You cannot give some approximation?

LASH

According to Miss Cook there were

individuals who were not interested at all

in violence, as well as individuals who were

interested in taking up the gun anc

fighting in the streets as a defensive

more were anted have at the more 20n

interested in initiating violence themselves

to bring about their political goals.

What percentage of the group each of

these factions represented, I cannot say.

KAYDEN

Could you indicate: the number of

violent activities that the VVAW was

involved in during the period you

handled Mary Jo Cook?

LASH

KAYDEN

LASH

KAYDEN

I cannot recall.

Was it 2 or 25?

Between 2 and 25.

Mary Jo Cook indicated that the VVAW members

were the most loving and good people she

has ever met. Did she ever indicate that

to you?

LASH

KAYDEN

Yes.

Ten he dicated hat the 20

acts of violence.

LASH

I do not mean to be facetious, but

a chen can to very into to

i be apare of nethe in notonce.

- 14 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 119

---

## Page 120

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

POSTAL

Miss Cook indicates that she felt

there were other informants in the

group. Did you ever discuss other

Informants with her?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

On one occasion an individual came to Buffalo

from another part of New York state

who was suspected of being an informant.

The group wanted to take action against him,

however Mary Jo Cook told them they

should take no action, but rather should

check with VVAW members in his home area to

determine if he was an informant.

I believe at the time it was necessary

for me to ask her about this situation

immediately after it happened and she

therefore suspected we had other

informants in the organization.

Did you indicate to her that if she

were to quit you would put other informants

in the organization who would possibly

not be as truthful about the VAW

as she was?

Yes. I believe I did indicate this to her.

Why did she quit?

Because she indicated that she was having

nightmares and suffering actual physical

afflictions due to her fears of being

discovered as an informant.

She has indicated that she has had

long political discussions with you

where

you disagreed with her on

political issues.

Is this correct?

Yes, this is correct.

What prompted these discussions?

She indicated on many occasions that

member of the VVAW she was only

hearing political perspective from the

far left. She asked that I present

her with an alternative perspective

which I attempted to do. 1 attempted

to point out that there are two sides

- 15 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 120

---

## Page 121

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

LASH

to every question. For example,

(Cont.)

I recall on one occasion she was told

by the VVAW that Bethlehem Steel in

the Buffalo area had permitted a worker

to die rather than shut down a blast

furnace after a worker had fallen

down into the furnace area.

I checked

on this and told her that the true story

was that the worker had had a fatal heart

attack before falling into the dangerous

area and that immediately after his fall

everything was shut down for his rescue.

POSTAL

Did she indicate to you that she was

especially concerned about the atrocities

at Attica Prison?

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Yes, she did.

Did you ever indicate to her that you

talked to someone who had been there

and said there were no atrocities?

I indicated to her that I had talked

to a physician who had been there

after the rebellion had been put down

who had told me that the individuals

he treated had been injured during the

period the prison was in the hands of

the rebellious inmates and not during'

the suppression of the riot.

Did she ever discuss political parties

with you?

The only thing I can recall is her telling

me that at some time in the future the

VVAW will be a grassroots socialist party

in the United States.

Did she mention an individual named

Martin Solestry (PH)?

Do you mean Martin Sostre?

Who is he?

He is a prison inmate I believe in

Auburn Prison.

- 16 -

WW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 121

---

## Page 122

UNITED STATES SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

POSTAL

LASH

Is there a Martin Sostre Defense Committee?

I believe so.

Did she ever give you any information

about the Martin Sostre Defense Committee?

No

When she wanted to quit did you try to

keep her as an informant?

On several occasions I convinced

her that she should remain an informant

but at the time of our last contact I

felt that she had truly made up her mind

and I made no further attempt to convince

her to remain an informant.

Did it bother you that she was reporting

to you on the political activities of these

individuals?

Is it Bureau policy that informants report

on political activity?

I don't feel that I can answer either of

these questions within the scope of the

inquiry.

_ 17 -

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 122

---

## Page 123

APPENDIX

VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR/

WINTER SOLDIER ORGANIZATION

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in

1967 by Vietnam veterans to protest United States involve-

ment in the war in Southeast Asia (changed name to Vietnam

Veterans Against the War/Winter Soldier Organization (VVAW/

WSO) in 1973 to include non-veterans as members), has spon

sored numerous anti-government demonstrations,

some resulting

The VAW/WSO National Office (NO) and some key

chapters are infiltrated and influenced by the militant Revolu-

another group of war veterans.

Maoist oriented NO, which promotes education of the membership

in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doctrine and directs the organization

into political growth along the same lines, has at WAW/wso

National Steering Committee Meetings (NSCM), in 1974, portrayed

VVAW/WSO as a mass anti-imperialist organization and

a vanguard

of the revolution eventually created by the masses.

VVAW/WSO leaders voted at the December, 1974 NSCM to

align al woo with the RU, which organization follows a strict

Maoist line designed to bring about violent revolution in the

United States.

130092222286y

APPENDIX

Here Wrist.

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 123

---

## Page 124

APPENDIX

REVOLUTIONARY UNION

The Revolutionary Union (RU), Lounded in early

1968 in the. San Francisco Bay area, is a militant semi-

covert Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization

ideologically oriented towards the People's Republic of

China and the teachings of Chairman MAO Tse-tung. Its

objectives as set forth in its theoretical publication,

"The Red Papers,"

the fostering of revolutionary working class unity and

leadership in struggle, and the formation of a communist

party based on Marxism-Leninism-MAO Tse-tung thought, leading

to the overthrow of the United States Government by force

and violence.

Members of the RU have been identified as

collecting weapons while engaging in firearms and guerrilla

warfare training.

As of July,

1974, RU national headguarters

was located in Maywood, Illinois.

1...

APPENDIX

.- 19 -

NW 55110. DocIa:32989560 Pade Pade'12.

*=,

---

## Page 125

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

BEFORE COMPLETING.

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

FROM:

TO:

Intelligence Conmunity Staff

ATTN: Central Index

FBI

SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees

1. HOW

PROVIDED (check

appropriate term.

for

review but not transmitted, so

note..)

If a document was made available

DOCUMENT

BRIEFING X INTERVIEW TESTIMONY. I

ÖTHER

2. DATE PROVIDED

12/31/75

3. TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate)

The Attorney General with a copy for forwarding to the

SSC

White House

HSC

4.

IDENTIFICATION (provide

descriptive data for documents; five name or identification number of briefer,

interviewee, testifier and subject)

Memorandum reporting the results of an interview by SSC Staff

Members of incumbent SA Garry G. Lash

RESPONSE

TO (list

date and item

number if in

response to

formal request, other-

wise

verbal request

of (name), initiative, subpoena, etc.)

6. CLASSIFICATION

OF

INFORMATION (enter

U,

C,

S, T'S or

Codeword)

NA

used underline for emphasis;

the appropriate key words from the list provided separately; if key words not listed

are

* CONTAINED

Information handling

Intelligence collection

ALL IS

DATE A DO

8. SUMMARY (see reverse side before completing this item)

Interviewed regarding his handling of the former confidential

informant, Mary Jo Cook, in connection with her membership in

the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

62-116395

EMK: Emk

(4)

ORIGINAL. VIA LIAISON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX

IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75

TREAT AS YELLOW

62116395

-123%

CLASSIFY AS

379| (6-75)

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 125

---

## Page 126

OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10

MAY 1962 EDITION

GSA FPMR (41 CFRI 101-11.8

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

Assoc. Dir:

Dep. AD Adm

Dap. AD Ir

Asse. DIr.:

REC

TO

: MI. J.

Adams

DATE: 12/31/75

FROM : Legal C

unsel file

Ext. Affairs

Files & Com. -

Gon. Inv.

Ident.

Inspection

Intoll.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

SUBJECT:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELLIGENCE ACHNVITIES

REQUEST BY JACKALULLER FOR

COPIES OF DOCUMENTS

Where to

raining

Telephone Rm. -

• Director Soc'y.

At 9:25 a.m. on December 31, 1975, Jack Fuller, Spectal

Assistant to the Attorney General, telephonically requested assistance in

locating copies of three documents previously sent to the Attorney General

by the Director. Mr. Fuller said that he is compiling for the Attorney

General materials relevant to questions that were asked by the Senate

Select Committee concerning reports made by the Director to the Attorney

General regarding sensitive matters in response to'the Attorney General"

instructions that such reports should be made to him by the Director.

The documents are not readily available to Fuller in the Department

due to difficulties in locating them in their filing system and he only had

the following general descriptions of the documents:

1. Memorandum from the Director to the Attorney, General

dated June 4, 1975, captioned "'John Caputo and Others, Bribery";

2. A memorandum from the Director to the Attorney General dated

November 21, 1975, concerning allegations that an FBI Agent was in violation

of the gun control statutes in the Baltimore, Maryland, area;

3. A memorandum from the Director to the Attorney General

dated July 22, 1975, which concerned Communications Intelligence

Programs. This memorandum was referred to in a subsequent

communication dated September 3, 1975.

REC-51

022314.5395

1 - Mr. Wannall

1 - Mr. Walsh

1 - Mr. Cleveland

1 - Mr. Mintz

Eh. Mr. Day

GiarCIOU

1976

62-416395

1239

JAM:mfd

(5) •

84

CONTINUED - OVER

NW

5516i0108

2061976 Bey US Sawings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

---

## Page 127

Memorandum to Mr. Adams

Re: Senate Select Committee

Item 1 appears to be a matter that was handled by the Special

Investigative Division; item & was handled by the Administrative Division;

and item 3 appears to be a matter concerning the Intelligence Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the concerned divisions identify the requested documents

and furnish Legal Counsel a copy of each for transmission to Jack Fuller

by close of business December 31, 1975.

Debor for.

to her

ті то

when about to

Masteras delivere

13/30/33

to Fallen

God aton

-2-

WW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 127

---

## Page 128

OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10

MAY 1982 EDITION

GSA FPAIR 641 CER) 101-11.6.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. ADvAdm.

Dep. AD I

Admin.

Comp. Syst. _

i mr. Moore 1р

FROM : J. H. Campbel

Vietn

Ext. Affairs

DATE:

12/30/75

Files & Com.

below

-Gen. Inv..

Ident.

Inspection

Intell.

SUBJECT: DIRECTOR

KELLEY'S APPEARANCE

pote

Laboratory

Legal Coun. -

Plan. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. _

BEFORE

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

Training -

Telephone Rm. -

ON INDELUIGENCE ACTIVITIESLLINFORE TICH CONTAINE

Director See'y —

DECEMBER 10, 1975

DARE 123-001 BY SP LAUMRU

For record purposes, attached are (1) a copy of

the prepared statement which Mr. Kelley read at

• the outset

of his December 10 appearance before the Select Committee

on Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate and/

(2. a transcript of the questions which were asked Mr. Kelley

by the committee members, together with Mr. Kelley's responbes

to those questions.

On December 10, each Field Office and Legal Attache

was sent a copy of Mr. Kelley's prepared statement.

of the transcript of the questions and answers is being sent

to cach field office and leyal attache today 2-1452-18387

ST. 115,

RECOMMENDATION:

7. JAN EE 1876

For information and record purposes.

Enclosures (2)

ENCL BEHIND

67-116395

2474-

1 - Mr. Callahan - Enclosure

- Mr. Jenkins - Enclosure

Fries anties

- Mr. Adams - Enclosure

- Each Assistant Director -

Enclosure (Sent direct)

9,2499 also

(-'GWG: jam (19)

ann

IN 2 8 1978

Ww 5588808 DocTa: 32989Buy U.S, Savings Bonds Regularly

fi

2.50%

5- woc

---

## Page 129

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535

FOR RELEASE

10 A.M., EST

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1975

STATEMENT OF

CLARENCE M. KELLEY

DIRECTOR

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

1 30 6/12 ALRu

BEFORE THE

SELECI COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

U. S. SENATE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

DECEMBER 10, 1975

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 129

62-116-385-12388

---

## Page 130

I welcome the interest which this Committee

has shown in the FBI and most particularly in our

operations in the intelligence 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 insistence, 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 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

NW 55110 DooId: 32989560 Page 130

suit anth

---

## Page 131

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.

I believe we have lived up to those promises.

The members and staff of this Committee have

had unprecedented 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 a 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, focused 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.

- 2 -

55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 131

---

## Page 132

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 over-

all work.

:

A Justice Department Committee which was formed

last year to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's

• Counterintelligence Programs has reported that in the

five basic ones it found 3,247 Counterintelligence proposals

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.

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 132

-3 -

---

## Page 133

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 siege to military, industrial, and

educational facilities; and killings, maimings, and

other atrocities accompanied such acts of violence

from New England to California.

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,

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 133

- 4

---

## Page 134

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 Counterintelligence 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 investi-

gative and intelligence-gathering agency - and take

affirmative steps which are needed to meet

an imminent

threat to human life or property.

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 óccurred, or

should we have the ability to prevent? I refer to those

instances where there is a strong sense of urgency becausé

of an imminent threat to human life.

Where there

exists the potential to penetrate

and disrupt, the Congress must consider the question of

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page

• 134

= 5 =

---

## Page 135

whether or 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 can I 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 substantial 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 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.

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560 Page 135

- 6

---

## Page 136

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 an 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

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 136

---

## Page 137

requests or practices which, in my judgment, were improper

or which, considering the context of the request, I believed

presented the appearance 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

Director and every member of the FBI under him.

- 8-

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 137

---

## Page 138

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 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 been left to resolve

without

sufficient guidance from the Executive Branch.or

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 Comnittee on the Judiciary established

a. Subcommittee on FBI Oversight. Hearings had been

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 138

---

## Page 139

*

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 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

not 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

NW 55110 DooId: 32989560

Page

• 139

---

## Page 140

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 cas't them in a role not contemplated by the authors

of our Constitution. Judicial review cannot be a

substitute for Congressional oversight or Executive

decision.

The FBI urgently needs a clear and workable

determination 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 most frustrating of all problems that I have discovered

facing law enforcement in this country -- Federal, state, or

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.

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 140

- 11 -

---

## Page 141

It must be sufficiently flexible that it

does not stifle FBI 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 jurisdiction resides with the Congress.

In this regard, I am troubled by some proposals

which 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.

there are some fundamental differences between these

But

- 12 -

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

. Page 141

---

## Page 142

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 rather

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 unlawful acts. Anticipation,

in turn, is dependent on advance information - that

is intelligence.

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

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 142

- 13 -

---

## Page 143

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 successor 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.

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 143

- 14 .

---

## Page 144

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

DEC 3 0 1975

TO :

almer/ Larsor

Paul, Dal'

PHEROM:

Hornblower

Assistant Special Counsel for

Intelligence Coordination

SUBJECTS/

FBI Materials that Treasury Department Intends to Transmit

Eo SSC, Subject to DOJ Approval

Mike Shaheen recommended that you review these FBI documents

before we authorize Treasury to release them to the senate Select

Committee. - Mike and I don't see any problem in releasing them.

If you agree, could you send them back to this office at your :

earliest convenience?

ATE. TBIT TORTATION CORTUAINED

DA 11300 ASPSALA/RE

INCL BEHIND FILE

REC-511

62-116395-1238

EX 103

5 JAN " 1976

CC :

Paul Daly

5-

SER JAN 9

NW "55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 144

---

## Page 145

DEC 3 01975

Donat

Paul

say

Bomblower

оловод стод 1 понад о

unliloanse Coordinatio

S3HT60Z*

Make Shaneer

reconsandal that jot review those fat documenta

befate Mu Authorite trenousY

to zolease than to the Begate Select

Comitten.

take and

I don't, soe est probin la mojaasing tradi;

IL 70U

thon brol to this office

at y0ut

2azilast

conter1:a001

ALL FBI IT CALIASTOL CONTAINED

1238

vaal Dady

NW. 55110 DoeId: 32989560

•Page 145

---

## Page 146

2 = Mr.

J. A. Mintz

(1 - Mr. J. B. Hotis)

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. W. D. Cregar

Hampton

1 - MI. R. December 29, 1975

The Attorney General

Director,

FBI

U. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

Reference is nade to SSC letter dated December 8,

1975, containing a request for access to certain FBI materials

regarding FBI

investigation of lobbying activities in 1961

and 1962.

Enclosed herewith for your approval and forvarding

to the SSE is the original of a memorandum which is our comple

response to the above request. Also enclosed for your

records is a copy of this memorandum.

Enclosures (2)

62-116395

U

I - The Deputy Attorney General

Attention: Michael E. Shaheen, Jr:

Special Counsel for

RDH:mjg/ 1b lab

(9)

Intelligence Coordination

3I 115

62-116372

-12374.

=

5 JAN 2: 1878

=

NIW

Assoe. Dir.

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. -

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syste

Ext. Affairs

Files & Come

Gen. Inv. -

Ident. -

Inspection

Intell..

Laboratory

Plon. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training -

Legal Coun.

Telephone Rm. -

Director Sec y

MAIL ROOM

84 JAN 28

1976

989560 Page 146

"ENCLOSURE IN BULKY BOOM"

com

TELETYPE UNIT C

Calm

5-11

GPO: 1975 0 - 569-920

---

## Page 147

62-116395

2 - MI.

A. Mintz

(1 - Mr. J. B. Hotis)

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. W. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. R. D. Hampton

December 20g

1975-

U. S. SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE TO

STUDY COVERNIENTAL, OPERATIONS vITH

RESPECI TO INIELLIGENCE ACZIVIZIES (SSC)

ALL A FORMATION GONIA NED

Reference is nade to SSC letter dated December 8,

1975, corraining a request for access to certain FBI

materials regarding FBI investigation of lobbying aetivitles

in 1951 and 1962.

In accordance with established procodures, cho

FBI file concerning the above has been revieved and

the

pertinent material has been extracted. In ordes to make

our response meaningful, the references to our technical

coverage of foreign diplonetic establisments have been left

in the excised documents. It is noted these documents are

classified. Therefore, their contonts should not be disclosed

or reléased to the news nedia vithout prior IBI authority.

These documents are presently available at FBI Headquarters

for revier by authorized SSd Scaff Members.

It should be noted that the documents mentioned

above are FBI letters to the Attorney General. The infor

mation contained in these letters vas in all instances also

fumished in substantially the same form to the Assistant

Attorneys General of both the Criminal Vivision and the

Internal Security Division of the lepartuent of Justice.

Assoc. Dir..

Dep. AD Adm. -

1 - The Attorney General

Dep. AD Inv. -

Asst. Dir.:

Admin. -

RDH:mjg/1hb /hI, ORIGINAL, AND ONE COPY TO AG

Comp. Syst. —

Ext. Affairs -

Files & Com. -

NOTE :

The SSC is also requesting documents regarding this

in matter from the Department of Justice. Therefore, FBI response

Inspection -

to this request was coordinated with Steve Blackhurst of the

Intell. =

Laboratory -

- Department. A copy of referenced SSC request is attached.

Plan. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training -

Legal Coun.

Telephone Rm. -

Director Sec"y -

MAIL ROOM

TELETYPE UNIT

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 147

12-116-373

PO : 1975 0 - 569-920

123731

---

## Page 148

115060

Aurance Copy.

FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO, CHAIRMAN

JOHN G. JAWER, TEXAS, VICE CHAIRMAN

PHILIP A. HATIT, MICH.

HOWAR N. BAKER, IN TENN.

WALTER F. MONDALE, MINN.

¡ÁRRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ.

WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, KY.

CHARLES MG C. MATHIAS, JR., MD.

ROBERT MORGAN, N.C.

RICHARD 5. SCHWEIKER, PA.

GARY HART, COLO.

WILLIAM G. MILLER, STAFF DIRECTOR

FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JH., CHIEF COUNSEL

CURTIS R. SMOTHERS, MINORITY COUNSEL

United States Senate

SELECT COMMITTEE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(PURSUANT TO S. RES. 21, 94TH CONGRESS!

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

December 8, 1975

Michael E. Shahuen, JI.,

Esq.

Special Counsel for Intelligence joordination

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

U. S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C 20530

Dear Mike:

o1n9084066106

HEREINISANG

LASSIFICA

DATE N

BY

The Select Committee requests that limited staff

access

be provided to all materials in the possession of

the FBI and the Justice Department reflecting the dissemi-

nation of information by the FBI fron the wiretaps authoriz-

ed by Attorney Ceneral Robert Kennedy in connection with

the investigation of lobbying activities in 1961 and 1962.

The procedures will be the same. as those used for staff

access to similar materials

pertaining to the so-called

"17 wiretaps" under the Nixon Administration.

This reruest should be handled on a priority basis

and expedited accordingly.

Sincerely,

let

to AC I-DAG

RD.M: mig: 1/23/15 Enc.a

John T. Ellitt

Director

Domestic Intelligence Task Force

CC:

Mr.

Paul Dalyw

"NW 55110

ENCLOSI: 62-116395-1237X1

---

## Page 149

5-140 (Rev. 1-21-74) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535

Addressee:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ULTR

Memo I Report dated _ 12/23/75

Caption o Sume ENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.

12/8/75 request - lobbying activities in

1961 and 1962

Originating Office:

Delivered by

0. Stassino S Date: -

1/1/76

Title:

Clak

Return this receipt to the Intelligence Division, FBI

ALLE.":

+2 1163957123741

NW-55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 149

---

## Page 150

NOTE: SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE.

BEFORE COMPLETING.

TO:

Intelligence Community Staff

ATTN: Central Index

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

FROM:

FBI

SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees

1. HOW PROVIDED (check appropriate term.

If a document was made available

for review

but not transmitted, so note.)

XI DOCUMENT|

BRIEFING

INTERVIEW

I TESTIMONY

LOTHER

FOR REVIEW

3. TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate

term;

add specific names if appropriate)

2. DATE PROVIDED

12/29/75

SSC

1 HSC

4.

IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for documents; five name or identification number of briefer,

interviewec,

testifier and subject)

Memorandum

BEspate verbal request ar (names,

number

state verbal

infiative,

-subpoena,

o tormal request.

6.

CLASSIFICATION OF

INFORMATION (enter

U, C, S.

T'S or

Codeword)

SSC letter 12/8/75

U

KEY WORDS (enter

used

underline

the appropriate

for

key words from the list provided separately;

if key words not listed are

emphasis)

Surveillance, electronic

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

BE 153-00 SPRAIRL

8. SUMMARY (sce roverse side before completing this item)

Available for review by appropriate SSC Staff Members at FBIHQ

materials regarding FBI investigation of lobbying activities

in 1961 and 1962.

62-116395

FVK: Emk

(4)

ORIGINAL, VIA LIAISON TO CENTRAL, COMMUNITY INDEX

IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75

TREAT AS YELLOW

3791 16-758

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Lage

150

CLASSIFY

62+16-395-123741

---

## Page 151

Hr. J. A. Mintz

1

(1 - Mr. J. B. Hotis)

- Mr.

W. R. Wannall

1

-

W.

0. Cregar

1 - Mr. H. W. Porter

The Attorney General

Director, FBI

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAI, OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

December 29, 1975

ALLED. ATION CONTAINED

2 BY SODALMIRU

Reference is made to a letter from the SSC dated

November 21, 1975, requesting delivery of materials pertaining

to authorization and purpose of certain electronic

surveillances, and to our memoranda of December 1,

8, 15,

and 19, which respond to Items I through 30 of the November 21

as they pertain to telephone surveillances.

Enclosed for your approval and forwarding to

the SSC is the original of a memorandum which responds

Items I through 3, and 7 through 8, of the November 21

SSC letter.

Item 4, deals with Martin I. King, JX., and

this information has been furnished previously to the

SSC.

We are assembling material in reponse to Items 5 and 6.

Response

to Item 9 was included in our memorandum of

December 15,, 1975, under Item 19.

A copy of this memorandum is being furnished l

for your records.

Enclosures (2)

Rats +2-116-355-44237X

62-116395

HIT TO

5 JAI SU 1376

1 - The

Deputy

Attorney General

Attention:

Michael E. Shaheen, Jr:

Special Counsel for

Intelligence Coordination :

Assoc. Dir..

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. -

Asst. Dir.:

Admin. -

Comp. Syst.

Ext. Affairs

Files & Com. -

Gen. Inv.

Ident.

Inspection

Intell.

Laboratory

Plan. & Eval.

Spec. Inv.

Training

Legal Coun.

Telephone Rm. -

HWP :en .!.

(9)

ROOM

IN B0c194

39989560

TELETYPE UNIT

Page 151

SEE NOTE PAGE TWO

ipil

GPO: 1975 0 - 569-920

---

## Page 152

The Attorney General

ДОТЕ :

SSC letter of lovember 21, asked for material

relating to authorizations

and purpose ot st telephone and

9 microphone surveillances.

Ic have furnished informatior

relating to the telcphone surveillances by memoranda of

December I, 8, 1J, and 19.

This memorandum responds to

Itens 1 through 3, and 7 through 8, of that portion of the

SSC letter dealing with microphone surveillances.

We have

responded to Iten 4, relating to King, in previous memoranda

to the SSC. We are assenbling data relating to Items 5 and

& and will respond on completion ot this ettort.

Iten 9

was included in our memorandum of December 15, 1975, under

Item 19-

- 2 .

EW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 152

---

## Page 153

J. A. Mintz

(1 - Mr. J. B. Hotis)

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr.

w. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. H. W. Porter

62-116395

Docerber 29, 1975

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITIE

TO STUDY, COVERNNENTAI OPERATIONS

WITH RESPECT TO INPEIIIGENCE ACTIVIVIES (SSC)

RE: REQUEST PERTAIVINE TO AUTHORIZATION

AND PURPOSE OF ELECIRONIC SURVEITLANCES

CONDUCIED BY THE FBI

Reference is made to the SSC letter of lovember 21,

1975, requesting delivery of naterials pertaining to the

authorization and purpose of certain electronic surveillances

conducted by the FBI.

The SSC letter of Novenbor 21 referenced a summary

chart prepared by the FBI showing electronic surveillances

conducted by the FBI since 1960.

This chart was furnished

to the SSC by letter of October 23, 1975,

This memorandun effects delivery of documents

responsive to Itens 1 through 3, and 7 through & of the

November 21 SSC letter, specifically that portion of the

letter dealing with microphone surveillances. those items

are as follows:

Iten 1 - Nation of Islan, 1960 through 1965 (Boston,

Kansas City, Detroit, Buffalo and Seattle) •

Iten 2 - Elijah Kuhamnad, 1961 through 1965.

Item 3 - National States Rights Party, 1962.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

BREI SUNGLASSTIE

ATE 122-00 BY SP2AAMIRU

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. AD AdHWP :en en

Dep. AD Inv. (8)

Asst, Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst.

Ext. Affairs

Files & Com.

Gen. Inv. -

Ident.

Inspection.

Intell. -

Laboratory

Plan. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training -

Legal Coun. _

Telephone Rm. —

Director Sec'y -

MAIL ROOM I

NW 55110 DocId 32989560

Tsum62-116-355-12374

Page 153

---

## Page 154

REQUEST PEFFAINING TO AUTHORIZATION

AND PURPOSE OF FICTRONIC SURVEILLANCES

CONDUCTED BY THE PAI

Itan 7 - Students for a Donocratle Soclety, 1969.

Item'& - Black Panther Party, 1970.

Item 4 relates to hartin Luther wing; vI.

Informa-

tion dealing with electronie survelllance of king nas been

furnished previously to the SSc in connection sith a

-separate Inquiry,

Information dealing with Items 5 and 6 is being

assembled and will be furnished as soon as posslble»

Response to Item 9 vas handled in our nemorandun 0f

Decenber

15, 1975, under Item 19.

1 - The Attorney General

BREW

4400100

---

## Page 155

5-140 (Rev. 1-21-74) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535

Addressee:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

• Report dated 12/29/75

senate select committee (SSC). Re: Request

Caption of Document: pertaining to Authorization & Pur

pose of Electronic Surveillances Conducted by

FBI. (SSC letter 11/21/75, Items 1-3, 7-8)

Originating Office:

1/9/76

Title:

Return this receipt to the Intelligence Division, FBI

ALL INFCRMATION CONTANES

Is *

NW 55110

Doold: 32989560 Page 155

ENCLOSUM

62-116-395-1237)

---

## Page 156

E:

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

BEFORE COMPLETING.

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

TO :

Intelligence Community Staff

FROM:

ATIN: Central Index

FBI

SUBJECI: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees

HOW PROVIDED (check appropriate term.

If a document was made available

for review but not transmitted, so note.)

X: DOCUMENT |

BRIEFING•

INTERVIEW.

TESTIMONY

OTHER

2. DATE

PROVIDED

12/29/75

3. TO WHOM PROYIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate)

SSC

4.

HSC

IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for documents;

give name or identification number of briefer,

interviewee, testifier and subject)

Memorandum and enclosures

5.

7.

RESPONSE TO (list dale and item number if in response to formal request, other-

state verbal request of (name), initiative,

subpoena, etc.)

6. CLASSIFICATION OF

INFORMATION (enter

U, C.

S, TS or

Codeword)

SSC letter 11/21/75, items 1-3 and 7-8

U

WORDS (enter

underline

the appropriate key words from

the listfroMe@ReRATaGlyCONTerNadds not listed

emphasis)

HEREINS MOLISSFALMS

are

Surveillance,

electronic

8. SUMMARY (see reverse side before completing this item)

Effecting delivery of authorization and purpose of electronic

surveillances conducted by the FBI on Nation. of Islan, 1960-65;

Elijah Muhammad, 1961-65; National States Rights Party, 1962;

Students for a Democratic Society, 1969; Black Panther

Party,

1970.

62-116395

FUK: Fork

(4)

ORIGINAL VIA LIAISON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX

IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75

379 | 66-751

NW 55110 DOOId: 32989560

TREAT AS YELLOW

5.98

Page

156

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

62116395-12374

---

## Page 157

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

12-29-75

TO :

John

Negat

•Assistant Director

Federal pureau of Investigation

FROM:

SI.

Steven K. Blackhurst

Assistant Special Counsel for

intelligence Coordination

SUBJECT:

Senate Select Committee Request Dated December 23, 1975

Attached is a letter from the Senate Select Committee dated

/December 23, 1975, which requests FBI materials relating to Sam

A. Jaffe. Please

arrange an appropriate response.

• CATIO: CONTARIED

DAM /13006/SPSALMRU

Bes 62-116-385-1287

E1100

5 JAN 7 1976

CC :

Paul Daly

ENCLOSURI

BICEA

4 JAN 90

NW

55110

11976/1/158

DId: 32989560

Page 157

---

## Page 158

"FRANK CHURCH, IDATIO, CHAIRMAN "

JOHN G. TOWER, TEXAS, VICE CHAIRMAN

"'HILIP A. MART, MICH.

VIALTER F. MONDALE, MINN

HOWARD H. BAKER, JR.. TENN.

BARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ.

WALTER D. HUDDLESTON. AT. →

CHARLES MC 5.. MATHIAS, JR., MD.

HODERT MORGAN, 'N.C.

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.

GARY HART, COLO.

WILLIÃN G. MILLER, STAFF DiRECTOR

FREDERICK 1. O. SCHNARZ, JR., CHIEF COUNSEL

'CURTIS R. SMOTHERS, MINORITY COUNSEL

SInited States Denote

SELECT COMMITTEE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(PURSUANT TO S. RES, 21, 8ITH CONGRESS)

WASHINGTON, D.G. 20510

December 23, 1975

Michael E. Shaheen, Esq.

Special Counsel for Intelligence Coordination

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

20530

ALL INFORIATION CONTAINED

VATE VES 80ASSF

Dear Mr. Shaheen:

In connection with the Committee's investigation,

I am writing to request delivery to the Committee of

the following materials:

All recoras, Illes, documents 01

other materials relating to Sam A.

Jaffe, presently residing at

6510 Bradley, Blva., Bethesda, Md.

Sincerely,

RK Kelli

John Elliff)

Domestic Intelligence

CC :

John Hotis

Office of Congressional Affairs

Federal Bureau of Investigation

DEC &B 1y75

100/

ENCLOSUNG

62 115-385-1237

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 158

---

## Page 159

Mr. J. A. Mintz

(1 - Mr. J. B. Hotis)

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. W. 0. Cregar

1 - Mr. A. W. Porter

The Attorney General

Director, FBI

1102

ST. 115

REC-51

+1113-583-12367

UNITED STARTS

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAI OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

January T, 1976

Reference is made to a letter, with attachment, from

the SSC dated December 16, 1975, requesting delivery of certain

materials dealing with authorization and purpose of telephone

and microphone surveillances directed at American citizens or

resident aliens during the period 1973 through 1975.

Enclosed for your approval and forwarding to the

SSc is the original of a memorandum which responds to

Paragraph 3 of the December 16 letter, and Items 1 through 4

of the attachment.

your records.

Enclosures (2)

A copy of this memorandum is being furnished for

MOR16

AL. INFORMATION CONTAINLO

GRENISUNCLADSIFIE

TE 11- 3.00 51 SPLALNIRL

62-116395

I - The Deputy Attorney General

Attention: Michael E. Shaheen, Jr.

Special Counsel for

Intelligence Coordination

HWP :en li

(9)

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. AD Adm. -

Dep. AD Inv. -

Asst. Dir.:

Admin.

Comp. Syst.-

ENCH FEULED FILE

n!!

з вісла:

Ext. Affairs -

Files & Com. _

Gen. Inv. -

Ident. -

Inspection

Intell.

Laboratory _

Plon. & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Training

Legal Coun.

Telephone Rm. -

TEFAN DON-989560

FEETYSE UNIT L

SEE NOTE PAGE 2

!!"

Any woc/88

GPO 954-546

---

## Page 160

poo

The Attorney General

NOTE:

16

SSC letter of Decenber X1, 1975, requested

delivery of docunents concerning authorization and

purpose of certain electronic surveillances during

the period 1973 - 1975. In a December 19, 1975

conference with John I. Elliff, Domestic Intelligence

Task Force Director, Ir. Illiff advised Section Chief

17. 0. Cregar and Supervisor H. H. Porter III that our

response would be zuriicient ll linited to AneriCan

citizens only, as opposed to citizens and resident

aliens.

Attached to yellow is a copy of the

December 21 SSC request.

16

INW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page

160

---

## Page 161

Mr. J. A. Mintz

(1 - MI. J. B. Hotis)

1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall

1 - Mr. W. O. Cregar

1 - Mr. H. W. Porter

62-116395

January 7, 1976

UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECI TO INTELIICENCE ACLIVITIRS (SSC)

RE: RIQUEST PIRTAINING TO AUTHORIZATION AND

PURPOSE OF TELEPHONE AND MICROPIONE

SURVEILIANCES DIRECTED AT AMERICAN CITIZENS

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

OR RESIDENT AFIENS DURING THE PERIOD

MEREDIENC

DATE I

00 BY REALMIRA 3973 - 1975

Reference is made to the SSC letter of December 16,

1975, with attachment, requesting delivery of materials pertaining

to the authorization and purpose of certain electronic

surveillances directed at American citizens or resident aliens

during

the period 1973 through 1975.

In a meeting with FBI Intelligence Division representa-

tives on December 19, 1975, Mr. John I. Ellift, Director,

Domestic Intelligence Task Force, advised that in response to

Itens 1 through 4 of the attachment to the Docember 16 letter

it would be sufficient to fumnish materials dealing only with

individuals who had been identified, by current review of recoras,

as being United States citizens.

mak

Paragraph 3 of your December 16 letter roquests all

materials pertaining to any surreptitious entry conducted by

the FBI over the past five years which "was not dircoted at a

non-resident alien in the service of a foreign pover."

interpret this to mean entries directed at resident aliens and/or

United states citizens not in the service of a foreign power.

There were five individual targets of such entries.

Three have

Assoc. Dir.

Dep. AD Adm..

been included in delivery of materials effected by this memorandun

Dep. AD Iny.

Documents concerning authorization and purpose of surveillances

Asst. Dir.:

Admin..

Comp. Syst. -HWP: en eil

Ext. Affairs — 18}

Files & Com. _

Gen. Inv. -

Ident.

Inspection

Intell.

Laboratory

Plon, & Eval. -

Spec. Inv. -

Troining

Legal Coun. -

This document is prepared in response to your request and is not for dissemi

nation outside your Committee.

your Committre and the content may not be disclosed to unauthorized

Its use is limited to official proceedings by!

nel without the express approval of the FBI di

11-57i

works

person ji

Telephone Rm. -

GPO 954-546

TELETYPE UNIT L

Page

161

---

## Page 162

то.

RE:

REQUEST PERTAINING TO AUTHORIZATION AND

PURPOSE OF TELEPHONE AND MICROPHONE

SURVEILLANCES DIRECTED AT AMERICAN CITIZENS

OR RESIDENT ALIENS DURING THE PERIOD

1973 - 1975

regarding the two remaining targets have been furnished in

earlier memoranda. One target was identified as Huey P. Newton

(Item 8, Bureau memorandum of December 8, 1975, responding to

ssc letter of November 21,

1975), and the second target was

the Black Panther Party (Item 8, Bureau memorandum of

December 29, 1975, responding to SSC letter of November 21,

1975) •

1 - The Attorney General

- 2=

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 162

---

## Page 163

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

12-28-75

TO :

John A. Mintz, Assistant Director

Legal Counsel

Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Steven K. Blackhurst

SB

*Ait. Special counsel for Intelligence

Coordination

ALL TEL FORMANICE SONTAINED

SUBJECT:

Senate Select Committee letter dated December 16, 1975

Attached is a letter from the Senate Select Committee

requesting delivery of

certain materials concerning electronic

surveillance and surreptitious entries. Please arrange for an

appropriate response.

My initial view is that the Senate Select Committee should

be given the same excised versions of the authorizing documents

that the House Select Committee was given in response to its re-

quest. I would oppose giving the Senate Select Committee access

to the unexcised version of these documents for security reason

With regard to the November 21 letter referenced in John

Elliff's letter, we propose to give John Elliff access to the

unexcised versions of the documents but would prefer that the

'Senate Select Committee be given delivery of excised versions

only. Elliff's letter appears to accept this arrangement.

With regard to the request for materials concerning any

surreptitious entries, the Senate Select Committee is referring

to what was described

as a surreptitious entry not related to a

microphone surveillance in 1972 against an "Arab Terrorist Acti-

vist". This surreptitious entry was listed on an FBI memorandum

dated November 5, 1975 which was in response to a request from

the House Select Committee

This memorandum was delivered initially

to the Senate Select Committee by mistake.

Because I have not

ASUKE

62-116395=12361

ST. 115.

5 JAN 2? 1276

CC:

Paul Daly

/7/,

RENOWT,

DW.55110.gRocId: 32989560 mage 165-gm

---

## Page 164

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

-2-

seen the miterials requested I do not know what an appropriate

response to this request would be.

NW 55110

DocId:32989560

Page 164

---

## Page 165

Merizzase file

PHAPIX CITIP CH, IDAHO, CHAIAMAY

JOHNA, TOWT?"T4TA3,"CE CHAINMAN

HOWADIO MI. MAKER, IR

WALTERP, MONDALE, MINN.

MALTER D. MUDULÉSTONERY.

DANRY GOLDWATER,AR

CHARLES ÁE G. MATHIAS, JR.,MD,

ROBERT MORGAN, N.C.

„FICHAND S. SCHWEIKER, PA.

олду нАпт, cOLO.

WILLIAM G. MILLER, STAFF DIRECTOR

FREDERICK A, O, SCHWARZ, IR., CHIEF COUNSEL

CURTIS H. SMOTHERS, MINORITY COUNSEL

United Stales Senate

SELECT COMMIT EE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(PURSUANT TO S. NES, 11, MTH CONGRESS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

December 16, 1975

e.01%

illionin's

i1, 2/

Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., Esg.

• Special Counsel for Intelligence Coordination

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

U. S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

ALL INFORMATICH CONTAINED

HEREINIS!"

Dear Mike:

DATE /13-DO BY J

The Select Committee requests delivery of the mate-

rials in the attached list pertaining to the authorization

for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and microphone.

surveillances directed at American citizens pe resident, aliens

during the period 1973-1975.

In the case of surveillances directed at groups or

meetings which included both non-resident aliens in the service

of a foreign power and American citizens or resident aliens,

delivery of the materials is also requested.

-

In addition to the materials listed in thé attach-

ment, the Committee requests all materials pertaining to any

surreptitious entry conducted by the FBI over the past five

years which was not directed at a non-resident alien in the

service of a foreign power.

With respect to this request and the request for

similar materials made in my letter of November 21, 1975, the

names of the targets may be excised. Unexcised versions of

the documents should be made available for access..

Sincerely,

John T. Elliff, Director

Domestic Intelligence Task FOr

Attachment

12-17-75

NW 55110 DocId: 32988560

Page 165

62-116375-12367

---

## Page 166

Request for Access to FBI Materials*

1.

2.

3.

For the period 1973-1975, materials pertaining to the

authorization for and purpose of non-consensual tele-.

phons and microphoné surveillances directed at American

citizens or resident aliens falling in the following

categories:

a.

foreign intelligence agents;

b. foreign intelligence contacts;*

c. foreign intelligence agent suspects;

d. foreign diplomatic officials contact;

e. foreign Intelligence agent's business office.

For the year 1973, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual telephone anâ

microphone surveillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens falling in the following categories:

a. headquarters basic revolutionary group;*

b. pro-palestine group;

c. Arab. terrorist activist;

do propaganda outlet League of

Arab States;

e. West Coast fund-raising for Arab terrorist groups.

For the year 1974, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and

microphone surveillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens falling in the following categories:

a. headquarters basic revolutionary group;*

b. Arab terrorist affiliate;

c. pro-Palestine group;

DEG.

1-3-00

SECKET

Ca-÷9=1256%

NW 55110 Docid: 32989560 Page 166

---

## Page 167

.?.

CRET

4.

,d.. Arab terrorist activist;*

e. propaganda outlet League of Arab States; *

f. Arab terrorist activist affiliate.**

For the year 1975, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and

microphone surveillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens falling in the following categories:

a. Arab terrorist affiliate;*

b. pon-Palestine group;

Arab terrorist activist;

d. propaganda outlet League of Arab States;*

e. coverage, of Arab terrorist activist meeting;**

•f. pro-Chicom propaganda outlet.*

: **

* Summary chart reveals telephone surveillance only.

Summary chart reveals microphone surveillance only.

SEGRET

NW• 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page

167

---

## Page 168

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRiATE

FROM:

TO:

Intelligence Community Staff

ATTN: Central Index

• FBI

SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees

1. HOW

PROVIDED (check appropriate term. If a document was made available

for review but not transmitted, so note.)

DOCUMENT

BRIEFING

INTERVIEW

TESTIMONY

LOTHER

NOTE: SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

BEFORE COMPLETING.

2. DATE PROVIDED

1/7/76

3. TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate)

SSC

HSC

IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for documents; dive name or identification number of briefer,

interviewee,

testifier and subject)

Memorandom and enclosures

5.

wise

RESPONSE

TO (list date

and item number if in

state

verbal request

response

to

forma: request, other-

of (name), initiative,

subpoena, etc.)

6. CLASSIFICATION OF

INFORMATION (enter

U, C, S,

IT'S or

Codeword)

SSC letter 12/16/75

U

7. KEY

(enter

the appropriate key words fron the list provided separately; if key words not listed are

used underline

for emphasis)

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

Surveillance, electronic

DATE F-00 8 22ALMRW

18.

SUMMARY (see reverse side before completing this item)

Materials furnished pertaining to any surreptitious entry

conducted by the FBI over the past five years directed at

resident aliens and/or U.S, Citizers not in the service of a

foreign power. There were five individual targets of such entries.

Also documents concerning authorization and purpose of surveillances

furnished.

62-116395

FVK: Fnk

(4)

ORICINI VIA LIXISON TO CENTRAL COMUNITY INDEX

IN CONNECTION.

WITH SENSTUDY 75

TREAT AS YELLOW

5.00

379| (6-751

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560 Page 168

CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE

62416341-12361

---

## Page 169

5-140 (Rev. 1-21-74) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535

Addresee:

SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE

OLTR

[X LHM

U.s.

Caption of Document:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.

• Report dated _ 1/8/75

12/16/75 request - electronic surveillance

Originating Office:

FBI

Delivered by:

Received by:

Ball loly

_ Date:

1-12-76

Title:

Return this receipt to the

(telligence Division, FBI

bin 1300 rise den

NW 55110 DooTd: 32989560-Page 169-

62: 114-355-12364

---

## Page 170

11 - Mc. J. B. Rosini

Mr.

W. Re

Wannall

- Me.

W. O. Cregar

1 - Ar.

H. W. Porter

The Attosney General

Diractor; FBI

ST. 115

List

REG-ST

UNTIED STAIES SENATE SELECI COMMITTER

TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTEILIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

January 7, 1976

12344

Reference is made to a letter, with attachuent) tron

the ssc dated December 16, 11975, requesting delivery of certair

materials dealing with authorization and purpose of telephore

and microphone surveillances directed at American citizens or

resident aliens during the period 1973 through 1975.

Enclosed for your approval and forwarding to the

SSC is

the original of a memorandum which responde to

Paragraph 3 of the December 16 letter, and Itens 1, through

of the attachment.

your recorda.

. Enclosures (2)

A copy of this memorandum is being furnished for

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEB

DATE 22:3:00 8Y 52232

62-116395

1 - The

Deputy Attorney General

Attention:

Michael E. Shaheen, Jr.

Special Counsel for

Intelligence Coordination

n.th

HWP sen i1:

(9)

Sieg. AD Aam...

..nt. Dirst

Ali, -

¿ong. Sost.

Altairs

SEE NOTI PAGE 2

sighestion

"i ell. .uir..

i :loiarory

•an. da Ero!. -

Space inh. --

Training

1 leshona Rill. -

MAIL ROOM C2

I JAN 28 1976

TELETYPE UNIT LE

1-:17 4e! 59r.

… •

NW 55110

Doeld: 32989560

Page 170

---

## Page 171

The Aitorney General

NOTS:

SSC lottcr of December 24, 1975, requested

delivery of docuents concerning authorization anc

purpose of certain electronic surveillances during

the period 1973 - 1975. In a Decenber 19, 1975

conference with John I. Elliff, Domestic Intelligence

Task Force Nirector, "r. Elliff advised Section Chief

#7. O. Cregar and Supervisor H. W. Porteï III that our

response would be sufficienc if

limited to American

citizons only, as opposed to citizens and resident

aliens.

ibtached to yellow is

copy of the

December: 21 SSC request.

----------

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 171

---

## Page 172

- Mr.".

(1

A. Mintz

- Mr. J. B. Hotis):

1 - Me. F. R. Kannal!

1

- MI.

0. Cregar

1 - Mr.

1. W. Porter

62-116395

January 7, 1976.

UNITED SINTES SINATE SELECT COMMITTEE

TO STUDY GOVERNVIENTAI OPERATIONS WITEL

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)

RE: REQUEST PERIAINING TO AUTHORIZATION AND

PURPOSE OF TIPHONE AND MICROPIONE

SURVEILLANCES DIRECTED AE' AMERICAN: CITIZENS.

OR RESIDENT ALIENS DURING THE PERIOD

1973 - 1975

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

Reference is made to the SSC letter of December

:"16.

1975, with attachment, requesting delivery of materials pertaining

to the authorization and purpose of certain electronic

surveillances directed at American citizens or resident

aliens

during the perlod 1973 through 1975.

In a neoting with FBI Intelligence Divinion representa-

tives or Dacembar 19, 1975, Mr. John I. Illiff, Directos,

Domestic Intelligence Task

force, advised that

in response to

Iters 1 through & of the attachment to the Decenber 16 latter

it would be sufficiont to furnish nateriale dealing only with

indivinuals who had been identified, by current review of records,

as being United States citizens.

Paragraph 3 of your December 16 letter requests a11

interials pertaining to any surreptitious entry conducted by

the FBI over the past five years which "was not directed at a

non-resident allen la the service of a foreign power."

Interpret this to mean entries directed at residant aliens and/or

Uniteú States citizens not in the service of a foreign power.

There were five individual targets of such entries.

Three have

3. Dird bach included in delivory of materials effected by this mamozandum.

Sip. aDin. Documents conceming authorization and purpose of surveillances

¿al, Alíntra

riles & Com..-

•is n. Inv. -.

• ye rit,

•espection

..ell.

• , Darate, y

1, 2n. d Eva!...

Maning

yal Coun.

•ie ginone Rm. .-.

•sitor Sac'y

(8)

This document is propered in response to you request and is not dur is ent

nation mricide your

Commiltee.

Its tse is amated to orficial mournings by,

woer Commite and the content may not be casclosca to unuutho.ied.neig:..

nel wilhow the caress asprovel of the fEl

WaGI

MAIL ROOM CE

404-7

DocId: 32989560

TELETYPE UNIT I

1:: 19359-566.

Page

*142

---

## Page 173

• base.

RT!:

REQUEST PERTAINING TO AUTHORIZATION AND

PURPOSE OF TEJAPIOIS AND MICROPIONE

SURVEILLANCES DIRECTED AI APRICAN CITIZENS

OR RESIDENT ALIENS DURING THIE PERIOD

1973 - 1975

regarding the two remaining targets have been futhished in

earlier memoranda. One target was identified as luey P. Mewton

(Item 8, Bureau memorandum of December 8, 1975, responding to

SSC letter of November 21, 1975), and the second target was

the Black Panther Party (Item &,

Bureau menorandum of

December 29, 1975, responding to SSC letter of November 21,

1975) •

This memorandum effects delivery of docuents

responsive to Paragraph 3 of the December 2t S3C letier, and

to Items. I through 4 of the attachment to the December 21 letter.

1 - The Attorney General

-2.

NW 551I0 Docia:32989560 Page I73"

... an -100001071

... -.-

---

## Page 174

SE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

12-28-75

TO :

John A. Mintz, Assistant Director

Legal Counsel

Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FROM:,

Steven K. Blackhurst

Asst. Special Counsel for Intelligence

Coordination

ALINFORMATION CONTAINED

TATE D/SOO BYSPLALIRU

JUBJECI:

Senate Select Committee letter dated December 16, 1975

Attached is a letter from the Senate Select Committee

requesting delivery of certain materials concerning electronic

surveillance and surreptitious entries. Please arrange for an

appropriate response.

My initial view

is that the Senate Select Committee should

be given the same excised versions of the authorizing aocuments

that the House Select Committee was given in response to its re

quest.

I would oppose giving the Senate Select Comnittee access

to the unexcised version of these documents for security reasons.

With regara to the November 21 letter referenced in Jonn

Elliff's letter, we propose to give John Elliff access to the

• unexcised

versions of the documents but would prefer that the

Senate Select Committee be given delivery of excised versions

only. Elliff's letter appears to accept this arrangement.

With regard to the request for materials concerning any

surreptitious entries, the Senate Select Committee is referring

to what was described

as

a surreptitious entry not related to a

microphone surveillance in 1972 against an

"Arab Terrorist Acii-

dated November 5, 1975 which was in response to a request from

the House Select Committees This memorandum was delivered initially

no tone see cons el

This surreptitious entry was listed on an FBI memorandum

to the Senate Select Committee by mistake. Because I have not

ST. 115

Paul Daly

3

Red so To

377751-

NO 55110

Doold: 32989560

Page 174

---

## Page 175

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENE. AL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

-2-

seen the miterials requested I do not know what an appropriate

response

to this request would be.

i, the

NW 55110 Docial: 32589560-Page-175-

---

## Page 176

ТАнк сті СМАГОЛНО. СМАКАМ

15044 70W99 trist.

FI CHAINMAN

M'NA.

MORTAr. ME.

MANNY GOLOWATAY AR

CHARLISRIEG.MATHIAS.JH..ND.

MICHAND S, SONNLIKER, PA.

WILLIAHAG. MILLER, STAFF DIRECTOR

ALUHCKG, симАн-нснісон

DUNTIS I, SMOTHERS, MINORITY COUNSZI

Minnesse

....

Ensdhm... 1

Crites Stales Senate

SELECT COMMIT FE TO

STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH

RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(PURSUAST TO 5. HES, 21, 4TH CONGHESS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

December 16, 1975

4.15

Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., Esq.

Special Counsel for Intelligence Ccordination

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

U. S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

Dear Mike:

ALL IDFORMATION CONTAINED

ATE 11300 BY

SPALMIRI

The Select Committee requests delivery of the mate-

rials in the attached list pertaining to the authorization

for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and miciaghone

surveillances directed at American citizens or resicent aliers

during the pezica 1973-1975: -

In the case of surveillances directed at groups er

meetings which included both non-resident aliens in the service

of a foreign pover and American citizens of resident aliens,

delivery of the materials is also requested.

In addition to the materials listed in the attach-

ment, the Committee requests all materials pertaining to any

surreptitious entry conducted by the FBI over the past five

years which was not directed at a non-resident alien in the

service of a foreign power.

With respect to this request and the request for

similar materials made in my letter of November 21, 1975, Ene

names of the targets may be excised.

Unexcised

versions or

the documents should be made available for access.

• Sincerely,

cinded it sio

John T. Elliff, Director

Domestic Intelligence Task FoIce:

Attachment

12-17-75

NW 55110 DocId: 32989560

Page 176

1a1en

---

## Page 177

•::.

Request fo= Access to FBI Materials

1. For the period 1973-1975, materials pertaining to the

authorization for and purpose of non-consensual tele-

phons and microphone surveillanses directed.

at American

citizens or resident aliens tailing in the sallowing

categories:

a. foreign intelligence agents;

b. foreign intelligence contacts;*

c. foreign intelligence agent suspects;

d. foreign diplomatic officials contact;

e. foreign intelligence agent's business office.

2.

For the year 1973, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual teiaphone and

microphone survaillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens faliing in the following catégories:

a. headquarters basic revolutionary group;*

b. pro-Palestine group;

c. Arab terrorist activist;

do propaganda outlet League of Arab States:

e. West Coast fund-raising for Arab terrorist groups.

3.

For the year 1974, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and

microphone surveillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens falling in the following categories:

a. headquarters basic revolutionary group;*

b. Arab terrorist affiliate;

c. pro-Palestine group;

BEGLASSERTED YURALNI

NU 55110

Doeld 32989560

Page 177

---

## Page 178

- 2a

4.

d. Arab terrorist activist;

e. propaganda outlet League of Arab States:*

I. Arab terrorist activist affiliate.**

For the year 1975, materials pertaining to the authori-

zation for and purpose of non-consensual telephone and

microphone surveillances directed at American citizens

or resident aliens ialling in the following categories:

a.

Arab terrorist affiliate;*

b. pen-palestine groupt

Arab terrorist activist;

a. propaganda outlet. League of Arab States;*

e. coverage, of Arab terrorist activist meeting; **

I. pro-Chicom propaganda outlet.*

!

Summary chart reveals telephone surveillance only.

Summary chart reveals microphone surveillance only.

SECREN

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 178

---

## Page 179

CLASSIFY AS APPErORIATE

TO:

Intelligence Conmunity Staff

ATIN: Coat-il Index

FROM:

FBI

SUBJECT: Abatract of Information Provided to Select Committees

HOw PROVIDLO rehock eppropriate term.

If a document was. made available

lor review

but not

transmitted, so note.)

X! DOCUMENT

HERIFFING

INTERVIEN

LiESTIMONY!

OTHER

MOTE:

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

BEFORE COMPLETING.

2. DATE PROVIDED

1/7/76

3. 50 WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate termi add specific names if appropriate)

i isc

IGENTIFICATION ipravide descriptive data for documents:

¿ivo name or identification number ai briefer,

interviemec, testilier and subject)

Memorandum and enclosures!

RESPONSE TO /1151 dude and iter. number if in responee

»ise spate verbal request oi (name), initialive, subpoens.

! leonai requere, other-

SSC letter 12/16/75

6. CLASSIFIIATICY OF

u. c.

TS or

Codeword:

U

•N" NORDs ientor the appropriate key words fonm the lise provided separately: !! key wordu not lister are

used underline

for emphusis,

Surveillance, electronic

"zo.

SUMMARY ESEE reverse side before cumpleting this iter)

Materials furnished pertaining to ary surreptitious entry

conducted by the FBI over the past five years directed at

resident aliens and/or U.S. Citizers not in the service of a

roreign power. There were five individual targets of such entries.

Also documents concerning authorization and purpose of surveillances

furnished.

6?-116395

F80:1k

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED

DATE 25SO SEPADIAR

MOTIONINO JTH SENSTUDY 75

3791 16-251

TREAT AS MOLON

CLASSIFY AS AFPROPRIATI

-pay in

NW 55110

Docid: 32989560

Page 179

---

## Page 180

''"*

77-304

5-140 (Rev. 1-21-74) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535

Addressee: -

SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE

ALTR

I Report

dated —

1/8/75

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.

Caution of Document:

12/16/75 request - electronic surveillance

Originating Office:

Delivered by: -

_ Date:.

Received by:

Title:

Return this receip: to the Intelligence Division, F81

.:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEO

DATE:

i...

19917091

NW 55110

DocId: 32989560

Page 180

ist;

---