ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON MR. JOHN D. MARKS' SECOND RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO DCI MARGINAL COMMENTS
Originator: CIA
From: LAPHAM, ANTHONY, GC
To: DCI
Document date: 04/20/1977
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

4-00000

104-10106-10025

• :

2022 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

SEU

RETURN TO CHA

(Bretoreund Uco Ony.

Da Me Ranavo

OGC 77-2530

20 April 1977

MEMORANDUM FOR:

VIA:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Director of Central Intelligence

Deputy Director of Central Intelligence

Anthony A. Lapham

General Counsel

Additional Comment on Mr. John D. Marks' Second

Recommendation in Response to DCI Marginal

Comments

Inspector General Memorandum dated 17 March 1977

entitled "Request for Guidance on Six Recommendations

Made by Mr. John D. Marks at the DCI's Confirmation

Hearings" (First three pages, annotated by the DCI,

attached)

1. Action Requested:

None.

2. Background:

Mr. Marks' second recommendation was that the DCI should make

available to appropriate police agencies all intelligence it possesses on Cuban

terrorism. Mr. Marks more particularly noted that CIA had turned down a

request by the Dade County (Miami) police for the names of Cubans who

had been trained by the CIA in the use of explosives. This is not entirely

accurate. The Dade County Police, pursuant to its investigation of the murder

of Johnny Roselli, had not requested the names of Cuban terrorists, but rather

the names of Cubans and others who may have been associated with Mr. Roselli

during the period of the Agency's involvement with him in the early 1960's.

The specific questions are included as Attachment A.

..

SCA306:

Al. Mai

---

## Page 2

14-00000

• c.

SO T

The Office of General Counsel made two points with regard to

Mr. Marks' comment on the Roselli case. First, in a letter dated 14 October 1976,

the Agency had sought the guidance of the Attorrey General to determine whether

it could legally provide the requested information. Along with this letter, we

forwarded to the Attorney General, for whatever action he deemed appropriate,

all relevant information from Agency files which we judged could be forwarded

to the Dade County police without jeopardizing sources or methods. Second,

the Office of General Counsel noted that the remaining information which was

requested, relating to former or current agents of the Agency, still required

protection. Your marginal comment asks whether we are not straining the

concept of protection of sources when we protect those who are not now

intelligence sources and whether we are protecting them from prosecution

for terrorist activity today.

After referent memorandum was sent to you, the Attorney General

refined an earlier opinion from former Assistant Attorney General Antonin

Scalia. The Department of Justice now concludes that, to the extent Agency

information either does not involve U.S. persons or falls within one of

seven exceptions to the general prohibition against collection of information

concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons, such information can be

provided to local police authorities. It is significant, however, that the

Attorney General in his 23 March letter to you (Attachment B) expressly

included the following language:

In addition to the facts above, the Office of Legal Counsel

has pointed out that Executive Order 11905 does not require CIA

to respond to Dade County. Indeed, the responsibility of the

Director of Central Intelligence to protect sources and methods

of intelligence, established by statute, 50 U.S.C. $403(g), and

E.O. 11905, Section 3(d) (vii), is authority for him to withhold

such information from local law enforcement officials if he

believes its disclosure would threaten the security of intelli-

gence sources or methods. (Emphasis added)

In light of the Attorney General's opinion, those offices holding

the relevant files are now reviewing them to confirm that the information

originally selected for passage to Dade County law enforcement officials

is responsive and complete.

-2-

---

## Page 3

4-00000

€ 2513

By way of a more specific response to your marginal comment, we

would submit that the principle of protection of intelligence sources not only

requires that we protect those who are willing to collaborate with the U.s.

Government while they are so engaged, but also that we protect the fact of

such association after their immediate use to the Agency is over. Not only

would it be cynical in the extreme to ask persons, particularly foreign

nationals, to risk their lives and property on our behalf, assuring them

that the relationship would develop in an atmosphere of complete confi-

dentiality and then betray their trust, it would be self-defeating. Only

the firmest assurance that the Agency can and will protect intelligence

sources allows for recruitment of new sources and the continued collaboration

of existing sources. Any perceived weakening of the Agency's commitment

could have serious adverse consequences.

Measured against the need to protect even yesterday's sources

is the fact that, in the instant case, we have no information which bears on

the Roselli murder. Moreover, the Agency is in no way standing between

the police and the Cuban community; the police are free to question whomever

they wish and to enlist FBI assistance. The Agency is not protecting any

individual against prosecution; indeed, we are unaware that there are as

yet any prosecution targets.

For your information, I have included a representative sample

of the types of information we wish to protect.

- Question 2 ii requests all information on Edward Morgan,

a D.C. attorney who has reportedly represented Black, Shimon,

Roselli and Maheu.

The Office of Security notes that "most, if not all, of the

information in our files on Morgan would have no pertinence to

the police investigation. The only item of possible significance

is the fact that Morgan was formerly Roselli's lawyer and there-

fore may have been informed by Roselli of his participation at

the behest of the Agency in efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro.

This information is already in the public domain and would add

nothing to the knowledge already held by the Dade County

authorities."

- 3-

STORETI

---

## Page 4

4-00000

05027

The Office of Security goes on to say that in the 1951

period, Mr. Morgan was associated with the Agency in a covert

capacity and used as a "cut out" on certain matters of interest to

the Directorate of Operations. Security's reluctance to release

information on Morgan is not due to a desire to hide any material

facts from the Dade County authorities, but rather derives from

their responsibility to protect the identities of individuals who

have cooperated with the Agency to avoid damage to the careers

of such persons.

27116-4

-- Question 3 viii asks whether the police can talk to the

current (Chief of Station in Miami, The Directorate of Opera-

tions would respond in the negative in order to protect the

identity and cover of this individual who has been in Miami less

than a year. This is not an effort to hobble the police inves-

tigation because for the past several years the Miami Station) 16-4

has been proscribed from using contacts within Cuban exile

organizations for purposes of monitoring the activities of the

Cuban exile community. The Miami Station is primarily tar-

jetted against those Caribbean areas where there are no Agency

stations and it has no charter for domestic activities.

-- Question l iv asks for all Agency information about Jose

De La Torriente (shot to death in his home in Miami on 12 April

1974). Most of our information is of a general character and

would be known to the police who investigated his death. What

is sensitive and has never been disclosed is that in October 1970,

in resporse to a request from President Nixon, Director Richard

Helms directed the DDP to establish a covert funding channel to

provide financial support to the Cuban exile group headed by

Torriente. The objective was to provide funds to assist

this group in carrying out raids in Cuba. A total of $250,000

was authorized in FY 1971 and 1972 for this purpose, with a

total of $226,000 actually being expended.

-- Question I viii seeks the identity and whereabouts of

AM/LASH. This man was a contact of CIA over a five-year period,

support for his activities being terminated in 1965 for security

reasons. The intention was to use him to develop a coup against

the Castro regime; the Church Committee describes the Agency's

relationship with the man in the Interim Report on Alleged

Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. He was arrested

in Cuba in 1966 and served ten years of a 30-year term. He

3/10

-4-

S

---

## Page 5

14-00000

is reportedly now out of prison on parole. Furnishing his

true identity to the Dade County police would jeopardize

his safety, risking publication and a clear connection

between his cryptonym (which appears in Senate reports) and

his true identity. Not only does the man's incarceration and his

present parole status in Cuba make it unlikely that he was in-

volved in anything of interest to the Dade County police, but

he provides a classic example of an individual whose identity

and association with the Agercy should be protected.

A final and perhaps more subtle problem arises when, as here,

the Agency is asked if it has any information about "A, " "B," and "C." We

may have no information on "A" and unclassified information on "B, " but

"C" may be an agent whose relationship with the Agency should be kept

secret. If the Agency states in its response, we have no information on

"A," we know the following about "B" but cannot comment on "C," we have,

in effect, established a pattern of response which would reveal the very

information we wished to protect, hence, we are sometimes required to

respond with "no comment" to questions about "A," "B" and "C."

Quitting fe Repli

Anthony A. Lapham

Attachments

CC:

Mr. Massey, OLC

SA/DO/O

D/IG

D/OS

C/LA/DDO

OGC: EC: bm (20 April 1977)

Distribution:

Original - DCI

1 - DDCI

1 - ER via Exec. Secy

} - INVESTIGATIONS - Roselli, Johnny

1 - EC Signer

1 - Chrono

---

## Page 6

11.4.

Questions from Dade County Detectives

1. They would like to know whatever the Agency knows

about certain Cuban nationals, some deceased and some still alive.

They are as follows:

Ramon Don Estevez Dominquez (deceased by

shooting) - born 2 May 1936 or 5 Feburary 1936; reportedly

a boat manufacturer who was able to go in and out of Cuba

on a regular basis.

ii. Rolando Masferrer Rojas (deceased by bombing) -

born 12 January 1918.

i:. Luciano Nieves (deceased by shooting).

iv. Jose De La Torriente (deceased by shooting).

f. :

v. Jose Quintana - born 3 October 1945; reportedly

a nephew by marriage to Roselli.

: vi. Jaoquin Antonio Cortizo - born 10 January 1945.

vii.

Manola Artimes (the detectives specifically asked

wh-re he is now).

viii. AM/LASH - his identity and present whereabouts.

ix. What are the names of the three Cubans mentioned

in the Roselli testimony? (Two of the three names are in

the 9 December 1970 memorandum discussed in paragraph

four of this memorandum.)

They asked for whatever information the Agency could provide on

the following individuals whose citizenship is unknown but who are probably

U.S. citizens:

i. Fred Black - identified as a lobbyist involved with

Bobby Baker; he reportedly lives in the Watergate Apartments

and is a friend of Mahue, Roselli and Shimon. They wanted to

know if he had any connection with the Castro assassination plots.

ii. Edward Morgan - a D.C. attorney who has reportedly

represented Black, Shimon, Roselli and Mahue.

iii. Joseph Shimon - identified in the Senate Select Committee

Report on Alleged Assassination Plots at page 81 as "a friend of

Roselli and Giancana." They wanted to know if he had any CLA

relationship.

SECRET/SENSITIVE

---

## Page 7

4-00000

3. They asked a number of general questions which are as

follows:

i. Who is the Cuban who provided the speedboat

mentioned in the Senate Select Committee Report?

ii. Who is "B-1" and what is the name of the anti-

Castro group both of which are mentioned on page 89 of

the Repurt?

ill. Did Harvey actually pay Roselli $2, 700 to defray

the Cuban expenses as mentioned on page 84 of the Report?

iv. Why was Roselli approached instead of Giancana

or someone else?

v. Did the Agency do a background check on Roselli

or Giancana and, if so, could they have access to it?

vi. Why was all contact with Roselli stopped in 1965?

vii. Would it be possible for them to talk to the man

or men who served as Chief of Station in Miami during

1960 to 1965? •

vili. Could they talk to the current Chief of Station

in Miami?

IX.

Would it be possible for the detectives to talk

to James P. O'Connell, a retired senior Office of Security

employee?

*. Does CIA have any evidence that the Cuban Intelligence

Service may have been involved in Roselli's death or that

Cuban agents were in the Miami area at the time of his

death?

2

SECRET/SWISHEVE

---

## Page 8

4-00000

EXCONE FREA

MARK'S

COVEST?OM

CELINE" LENSE RED. 98-6666

forum or by a newsman you could reasonably reply to the effect:

CIA has and will continue to cooperate with -

Justice Department and Congressional investiga- -

tions concerning improper activity conducted by

any foreign country in the United States.

(The new DCI should announce) that the Agency

will not tolerate operational activity by the

"friendlies" in the US: and that it will break off.

Riaison and stop all other forms of aid to secret

services which repress human rights.

This second part of the first question is more troublesome

to answer since it involves acmplex issues such as (a) what na-

tional intelligence, national security and diplomatic equities

hang in the balance

• (D) how does one define repression of

human rights and (c) what constitutes proof of human rights

abuse as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations, and which

intelligence community activities should be sacrificed if some

gesture of disapprobation must be made. If pressed by newsmen,

an answer along the following lines might be appropriate:

The United States Government can and should

express itself in favor of human rights in a

variety of ways. Conversely, it can in many ways

show disapproval of countries which violate human

rights. Should national interest and policy reasons

require curtailment of certain foreign liaison acti-

vities conducted by any member of the U.S. Intel-

ligence Community, I would recommend such action.

2. The new DCI should announce that while the

Agency has no legitimate law enforcement nole in the

The CIA last year turned down a request by the Dade

County (Miami police for the names of Cubans who had

been trained by the CIA in the use of explosives.I;

and that the CIA will be committed to stamping out

terrorism and drug-trafficking among its former

employees.

---

## Page 9

14-00000

SUGGESTED HANDLING:

(The discussion below was provided by the Office of the

General Counsel)

Pursuant to statutory authority and Executive Order pro-

visions, the Agency is clearly prohibited from engaging in any

Taw enforcement activity. Furthermore, the Director is obliged

to protect from unauthorized disclosure the identities of his

intelligence sources and the methods by which intelligence is

collected.

Accordingly, the Agency, as a matter of policy,

will consider such requests on an ad hoc basis and respond when-

ever possible. When, however, a question exists, the Agency

seeks a ruling from the Attorney General,

The request from Dade County was not for the names of

Cuban terrorists, per se, but rather, the names of those Cubans

who may have been

associated with Johnny Roselli during the pe-

riod of the Agency's involvement with him in the early nineteen

this

vr

tee on Intelligence which was particularly interested in

Roselli because of his subpoenaed appearance before it. The

names sought by Dade County were, in fact, either former or cur-

stutt rent agents of the Agency Because of our obligation to protect

sources, the DCI sought the advice and guidance of the Attorney

in a letter dated 14 October 1976.

That letter has not

yet been answered.

While the Agency has then not responded

the Dade County Police request, it has not, in fact refused

request, pending Attorney General advice.

In addition, it

should be pointed out that the Agency's complete holdings on

ener

the Roselli matter and the assassination attempt on Castro have

been made available to the FBI and the staff members of the

Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence.

Should this question or a variation on the theme arise in

the future, the following response would seem appropriate:

Jerie

The CIA promptly makes available to the Depart-

ment of Justice or to the FBI directly information

which comes into its possession dealing with the

subject of terrorism. The Agency, and I, personally,

would deplore and regret any incident in which tormer

CIA employees involve themselves in terrorism, drug-

trafficking, or any other illegal act. However,

3

---

## Page 10

14-00000

this Agency has no legal control or law enforce-

ment rights over former employees, who come within

the police jurisdictions of their state and com-

munity and, when appropriate, under the jurisdic-

tion of federal law enforcement agencies.

3.

The new DCI should announce that the CIA

will no longer make covert use of American uni-

versities or academic activities; that the CIA

will stop secretly employing professors to "spot"

foreign students for recruitment as CIA agents

(and hence, become traitors to their own countries);

that all CIA sponsored research on campus will be

identified as such leven if the results must on

occasion remain secret); and that academic exchange

prograns will not be used for cover purposes.

SUGGESTED HANDLING:

This involves sources and methods and could, in some cir-

cumstances, be handled by "no comment"

• It would certainly seem

unnecessary and not useful to volunteer any statements concern-

ing CIA's relationship with academe.

But, should this kind of

question be asked in a responsible forum where a response is. un-

avoidable, the substance of a letter from former Director Bush

to the President of Amherst College might be paraphrased and

drawn upon:

"The Agency has several kinds of relation-

ships with scholars and scholarly institutions.

They include negotiated contracts for scientific

research and development, contracts for social

science research on the many matters that affect

foreign policy, paid and unpaid consultations be-

tween scholars and CIA research analysts, contracts

with individuals who have travelled abroad, and

other similar contracts that help us fulfill our

primary responsibility; i.e., to provide the policy

makers of our government with information and as-

sessments of foreign developments.

"We seek the voluntary and witting cooperation

of individuals who can help the foreign policy pro-

cesses of the United States. Those who help are ex-

pressing a freedom of choice. Occasionally such re-

lationships are confidential at our request, but

more often they are discreet at the scholar's

4

---