Document date: 00/00/0000

## Page 1

File #:

66-mm-3346

Serial Scope:

1-17,19-27,

30-32

Released under the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992

44 USC 2107 Note]. Case#: NW 65360

Date: 12-05-2022

NW 65360-Doeld:32989820-Page-1-

---

## Page 2

Routing Slip

FD-4 (Rev. 4-20-81)

Date

6/8/83

To: D Director

AHt.:

• SAC

ASAC

5-Supv.

At Bevera

FILE #

Title

Agent

SSS

Rotor

#

Steno

Typist

M .

RE:

Room

• Acknowledge

• Assign I Reassign

• Bring file

• Call me

• Correct

• Deadline

Delinquent

• Discontinue

• Expedite

• File

• For Information

• Handle

• Initial & return

• Leads need attention

• Open case

• Prepare lead cards

• Prepare tickler

• Recharge file J serial

• Send to

• Return assignment card

• Return file O serial

• Return with action taken

• Return with explanation

• Search and return

• See me

• Type

The following file(s) have been retained in

SAC Safe for some period of time; however, space

is now at a premium. File(s) are being returned

to appropriate supervisor for review and for

determination as to whether file may be destroyed,

placed in closed files, or in Supervisor's safe,

if one available

/ed

Per

Settles instructions

rever, enclosed to be filed

& ADMIN

i FCI safe

DESK I INDICES changed

Tlantes

accordinglly

A SAC

Nettles

- See reverse side

Fot an

MANTAINI

safe

MAINTAINED

AS TOP SERIAL

: NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 2

---

## Page 3

vZ CZ CHQ01.66.

RR PH MA

DE HQ #0166 2302222

I ZiNy leEEe

R 1TZ2A3Z AUG 84

IM, DIRECTOR FBI

TO FEI MIAMI ROUTINE

Tol'

PERSONAL

FBI, PHILADELPHIAT

ATTN: _SSRA KLAUS ROIR

231?

GROANIZED OR IME, REGION TRAINING CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 25-27.

1984, BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLYANIA.

RE BUREAU TELETYPE GO ALBANY, AUGUST 15, Ü 185-10148

REBYTEL INITED VARIOUS EAST COAST FIELD DiVISIONS TO SEND

#NIZED CRIME SUPERVISORS AND.

AGENTS ASSIGNED TO ORGANIZED

MATTERS TO ABOVE TRAINING CONFERÊNCE: 4571

TIMARY THRUST®

OF THIS CONFERENCE WILL BE THE ICN ÄND NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS.

INNIES' OF IHE FACT THAT THE MIAMI DIVISION MAS VARIOUS

MEMEERS OF EAST COAST LON FAMILIES RESIDING WITHIN THEIR

DIVISIONAND THE GEOGRAPHI OLE SUORIDA PLAYS IN THE

6-3

3346232

SEARCHED

SERIALIZED

AUG 1 7 1984

NW 66360 Docld:32989820 Page 3

---

## Page 4

WIGE TO DE HO BIGG UNCASE FI

MARCOTICS TRAFFICKING AFFECFING THE EAST COAST, MIAMI IS

RECUE STED TO DESIGNATE AITENDEES TO ABOVE CONFERE NEE THE

NUMBER OF AGENTS AITENDING THIS CONFERENCE IS BEING LEFT TO .

THE DISCRETION OF SAC MIAMI.

SSRA KLAUS ROHR, ALLENTOWN RA, SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE

NAMES OF ATTENDEES TO THIS TRAINING CONFERENCE. I

BT

HO Í66

pin.

44-3317

183-100911

1

Lift!

63709222 MM2/RM TKS

NW 65360-Docld: Docld:32989820 Page:

---

## Page 5

Routina Slip

0-71

(Copies to Offices Checkr

12-17-73)

TO:

L Albany

- Houston

Laj Oklahoma Cily

Albuquerque

! Indismapolis

17 Omaha

Alexandria

I dack son

I Philadelphia

Anchorage

Allanta

Jacksonville

It cois

Kansas City

Pilshurah

Baltimore

Knoxville

I Portland

Birmingham

Las Vegas

Boston

2 Richmond

Littie Rock

Buffalo

Los Angeles

Sacraments

Si. Louis

Rutte

Louisville

1 Salt Lake City

Charlotte

Memphis

San Anton:

Chicago

Miami

San Diogo

Cincinnati

Milweukee

San Franciseo

@eveland

Minncapolis

San Juan

Columbia

Mobilo

I Savannah

Dallas

Newark

i Spattle

j Denver

New Haven

-I Springheld

TO LEGAT:

53 Rin

Prasilia

"Barnes Aires

i"wracus

¿ London

25 adrid

1 малій

Mexico City

J Ottawa

Paris

Roine

j Singapore

Tel Aviv

j Tolsyo

paynit

New Oricans

Tampa

'as<)

New York City

Washingon Field

Monoli

Norfolk

= Quantico

as directors appearance before

house

sut committe on appsopsiations.

DIRECTORS CAPPEARANCE BEFORE

SENATE SELECT

CONTREE ON INIBUZIGENCE ACTIVITIES, (2/44)

DECEMBER 10, 1975

66-3242

Retention

For appropriate

CJ for information a optional

DJ action

C Surep, by

C The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future report,

sources, (l paraphrase contents.

Enclosed are corrected pages from report. of SA

dated

Remorks:

concoal all

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

Enclosed for each Office and Legat is

one copy of the transcript of questions which

were asked Mr. Kelley during captioned appearance,

along with Mr. Kelley's answers

- to those questions.

SEARCHED Li

¡SERIALIZED

_ INDEXED

_FILED

JAN 2 11/0

En c. (1)

Bufile

Urfile

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 5

---

## Page 6

Vol. 20

Ohe Unitra Statee Gruate

Report of Proceedings.

Hearing held before

Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations

With Respect to Incelligence Activities

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

Washington, D. C.

SEARCHED.

SERIALIZED_

-242

NDEXED

JAN 2 15/0

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003

(202) 544-6000

166-3346-31

NEW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 6

---

## Page 7

stre

!

1

2

3

4

5

6

MOMENT

STATEMENT OF :

The Honorable Clarence M. Kelley,

Direcotor, Federal Bureau of Inve-

stigation

-..

WARD & PAUL

i

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 7

PAGE

2451

---

## Page 8

8

AHW/ smnl

Phona (Area 202) 544-6000

2447

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

Wednesday, December 10, 1975

---

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

United States Senate,

Select Committee to Study Governmental

Operations with Respect to

Intelligence Activities,

Washington, D. C.

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

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

the honorable Frank Church (Chairman of the Committee)

presiding.

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

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

Mathias.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Epstein and Burt Wides,

Professional Staff Members.

The Chairman. The Committee's witness this morning is

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 8

---

## Page 9

smn" 2

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

2448

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

Bureau of Investigation.

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

troubled time for the FBI. His experience as an innovative

law enforcement administrator in charge of the Kansas City

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

a Special Agent of the FBI have made him uniquely qualified

to lead the Bureau.

The Select Committee is grateful for the cooperation

extended by Director Kelley in the course of its inquiry over

the past months. The Committee is also impressed by the

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

their willingness to consider the need for legislation to

clarify the Bureau's intelligence responsibility.

It is important to remember from the outset that this

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

activities. Our hearings have concentrated on FBI domestic

intelligence operations. We have consistently expressed our

admiration and support for the Bureau's criminal investigative

and law enforcement work, and we recognize the vital importance

of counterespionage in the modern world. But domestic

intelligence has raised many difficult questions.

The Committee has also concentrated on the past rather

than on present FBI activities. The abuses brought to light

in our hearings occurred years and even decades before Director

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 9

---

## Page 10

9-----

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

• PAUL

S.E.,

• Washington, D.C. 20003

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kelley took charge.

The Staff has advised the Committee that under Director

Kelley the FBI has taken significant steps to rethink previous

policies and to establish new safeguards against abuse.. The

FBI is now placing greater emphasis on foreign related intelli-

gence operations, and less on purely domestic surveillance.

The FBI is working more closely with the Justice Department in

developing policies and standards for intelligence. These

are welcome developments.

Nevertheless, many important issues remain unresolved.

Therefore, we have invited Director Kelley to share with the

Committee his views on some of the considerations the Congress

should take into account in thinking about the future of

FBI intelligence. Among these issues are whether FBI surveil-

lance should extend beyond the investigation of persons

likely to commit specific crimes; whether there should be

outside supervision or approval before the FBI conducts certain

types of investigations or uses certain surveillance techniques;

whether foreign related intelligence activities should be

strictly separated from the FBI's domestic law enforcement

functions, and what should be done to the information already

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

the future.

The Committee looks forward to a constructive exchange

of views with Director Kelley this morning, with Attorney

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 10

---

## Page 11

smn 4

2450.

4

5

6

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

Department in the next months as the Committee considers

recommendations that will strengthen the American people's

confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

That

confidence is vital for the effective enforcement of Federal

law and for the security of the nation against foreign

espionage.

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

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

with, please proceed.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:3298h820 Page 11

---

## Page 12

smn 5

2451

1

2

3

4

5

6

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLARENCE M. KELLEY,

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

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

gentlemen.

I welcome the interest which this Committee has shown in

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

gence and internal security fields.

I share your high regard for the rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Throughout my

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

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

of law enforcement that are themselves fully consistent with

law.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I also have strongly supported the concept of legislative

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

of

the FBI and was being considered by the Senate Judiciary

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

that Committee of my firm belief in Congressional oversight.

This Committee has completed the most exhaustive study

of our intelligence and security operations that has ever been

undertaken by anyone outside the FBI other than the present

Attorney General. At the outset, we pledged our fullest

cooperation and promised to be as candid and forthright as

possible in responding to your questions and complying with your

requests.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 12

===--

---

## Page 13

---

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I believe we have lived up to those promises.

The members and staff of this Committee have had unprece-

dented access to FBI information.

You have talked to the personnel who conduct security-type

investigations and who are personally involved in every facet

of our day-to-day intelligence operations.

You have attended numerous briefings by FBI officials who

have sought to familiarize the Committee and its staff with

all major areas of our activities and operations in the national

security and intelligence fields.

In brief, you have had firsthand examination of these

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

Congress.

As this Committee has stated, these hearings have, of

necessity, forcused largely on certain errors and abuses. I

credit this Committee for its forthright recognition that the

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

record of performance.

It is perhaps in the nature of such hearings to focus

on abuses to the exclusion of positive accomplishments of the

organization.

The Counterintelligence Programs which have received the

lion's share of public attention and critical comment constituted

an infinitesimal portion of our overall work.

A Justice Department Committee which was formed last year

• NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 13

---

## Page 14

smn 7

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2453

2

3

4

5

6

7.

8.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 14

to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's Counterintelligence

Programs has reported that in the five basic ones it- found

3,247 Counterintelligence Programs were submitted to FBI

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

less than three fourths, were approved.

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

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

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

matters per year.

Nonetheless, the criticism which has been expressed

regarding the Counterintelligence Programs is most legitimate

and understandable.

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

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

did under the circumstances then existing would have been an

abdication of its responsibilities to the American people..

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

that the FBI employees involved in these programs did what they

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

the Congress, and the people of the United States.

Bomb explosions rocked public and private offices and

buildings; rioters led by revolutionary extremists laid seige

to military, industrial, and educational facilities; and

killings, maimings, and other atrocities accompanied such

acts of violence from New England to California.

---

## Page 15

smn 8

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

8

• 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2454

The victims of these acts were human beings, men, women,

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

perceived, they looked to their Government, their elected and

appointed leadership, and to the FBI and other law enforcement

agencies to protect their lives, their property, and their

rights.

There were many calls for action from Members of Congress

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

law enforcement agencies were besieged by demands, impatient

demands, for immediate action.

FBI employees recognized the danger; felt they had a

responsibility to respond; and in good faith initiated actions

designed to counter conspiratorial efforts of self-proclaimed

revolutionary groups, and to neutralize violent activities.

In the development and execution of these programs,

mistakes of judgment admittedly were made.

Our concern over whatever abuses occurred in the Counter-

intelligence Programs, and there were some substantial ones,

should not obscure the underlying purpose of those programs.

We must recognize that situations have occurred in the

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

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

case, as an investigative and intelligence-gathering

agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet

an imminent threat to human life

or property.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 15

---

## Page 16

smn 9

2455

1

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 16

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

out now, can we truly meet our responsibilities by investigating

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

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

a strong sense of urgency because of an imminent threat to

human life.

Where there exists the potential to penetrate and disrupt,

the Congress must consider the question of whether 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 I can give that the errors and abuses which arose

under the Counterintelligence Programs will not occur again?

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

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

methods of operations since I took the oath of office as

Director on July 9, 1973.

Today we place a high premium on openness, openness

both within and without the service.

I have instituted a program of open, frank discussion

---

## Page 17

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2,5

2456

in the decision-making process which insures that no future

program or major policy decision will ever be adopted without a

full and critical review of its propriety.

Participatory management has become a fact in the FBI.

I have made it known throughout our Headquarters and

Field Divisions that I welcome all employees, regardless of

position or degree of experience, to contribute their thoughts

and suggestions, and to voice whatever criticisms or

reservations they may have concerning any area of our operations.

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

full responsibility for them. My goal is to achieve maximum

critical analysis among our personnel without in any manner

weakening or undermining our basic command structure.

The results of this program have been most beneficial, to

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

the morale of our employees.

In addition, since some of the mistakes of the past

were occasioned by direct orders from higher authorities outside

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

guidance, counsel, and his continuous availability, in his

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

Within days after taking office, Attorney General Levi

instructed that I immediately report to him any requests

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

considering the context of the request, I believed presented

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 17

---

## Page 18

smnll

2457

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 18

the appearances of impropriety.

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

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

Director under two Presidents and three Attorneys General, no

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

to use the FBI for partisan political or other improper

purposes.

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

honoring any such request.

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

I routinely bring to the attention of the Attorney General and

the Deputy Attorney General major policy questions, including

those which arise in my continuing review of our operations

and

practices: These are discussed openly and candidly in order

that the Attorney General can exercise his responsibilities

over the FBI.

I am convinced that the basic structure of the. FBI today

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

can be assured only through institutional means.

Integrity is a human quality. It depends upon the

character of the person who occupies the office of the

Director and every member of the FBI under him.

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

my honor to serve today. Their dedication, their professionalism,

their standards, and the self-discipline which they personally

---

## Page 19

smn 12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2.

3

4

5

• 6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2458

demand of themselves and expect of their associates are the

nation's ultimate assurance of proper and responsible conduct

at all times by the FBI.

The Congress and the members of this Committee in

particular have gained a great insight into. the problems

confronting the FBI in the security and intelligence fields,

problems which all too often we have left to resolve without

sufficient guidance from the Executive Branch or the Congress

itself.

As in all human endeavors, errors of juagment have been

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

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

to the Executive Branch.

The Congress itself has long possessed the mechanism for

FBI oversight; yet, seldom has it been exercised.

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

Committee on the Judiciary established a Subcormittee on FBI

Oversight. Hearings had been commenced, and we were fully

committed to maximum participation with the members of that

Subcommittee.

I laud their efforts.

However, those efforts are of very

recent origin in terms of the FBI's history.

One of the greatest benefits of the study this Committee

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

problems confronting the FBI. But I respectfully submit that

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 19

---

## Page 20

2459

smn 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

a step that I believe is absolutely essential, a legislative

charter, expressing Congressional determination of intelligence

jurisdiction for the FBI.

Action to resolve the problems confronting us in the

security and intelligence fields is urgently needed; and it

must be undertaken in a forthright manner. Neither the Congress

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

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

the past.

This means too that Congress must assume a continuing role

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

our performance.

I would caution against a too-ready reliance upon the

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

have been advanced during these hearings would extend the role

of the courts into the early stages of the investigative

process and, thereby, would take over what historically have

been Executive Branch decisions.

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

seriously undermine the independence of the Judiciary and cast

them in a role not contemplated by the authors of our

Constitution. Judicial review cannot be a substitute for Con-

gressional oversight or Executive decision.

The FBI urgently needs a clear and workable determination

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 20

---

## Page 21

14

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2460

of our jurisdiction in the intelligence field, a jurisdictional

statement that the Congress finds to be responsive to both

the will and the needs of the American people.

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

career police officer. In my police experience, the must

frustrating of all problems that I have discovered facing

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

when demands are made of them to perform their traditional

role as protector of life and property without clear and

understandable legal bases to do so.

I recognize that the formulation of such a legislative

charter will be a most precise and demanding task.

It must be sufficiently flexible that it does not stifle

the FBI's effectiveness in combating the growing incidence

of crime and violence across

the United States. That charter

must clearly address the demonstrated problems of the past;

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

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

challenges.

The fact that the Department of Justice has commenced

the formulation of operational guidelines governing our

intelligence activities does not in any manner diminish the need

for legislation. The responsibility for conferring juris-

diction resides with the Congress.

In this regard, I am troubled by some proposals which

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 21

---

## Page 22

smn 15

2461

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

question the need for intelligence gathering, suggesting that

information needed for the prevention of violence can be

acquired in the normal course of criminal investigations.

As a practical matter, the line between intelligence

work and regular criminal investigations is often difficult

to describe. What begins as an intelligence investigation may

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

are some fundamental differences between these investigations

that should be recognized, differences in scope, in objective

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

crime has occurred and it remains only for the Government to

identify the perpetrator and to collect sufficient evidence

for prosecution. Since the investigation normally follows

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

limited and fairly well defined.

By contrast, intelligence work involves the gathering of

information, not necessarily evidence. The purpose may well be

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

Government has enough information to meet any future crisis

or emergency. The inquiry is necessarily broad because it

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

the threat is imminent, the persons involved, and the

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

of the Government to prevent criminal acts is dependent on

our anticipation of those criminal acts. Anticipation,

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 22

---

## Page 23

smn 16

2462

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 23

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

gence.

Certainly, reasonable people can differ on these issues.

Given the opportunity, I am confident that the continuing need

for intelligence work can be documented to the full satisfaction

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

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

citizen of this country. We recognize also that the resolution

of these matters will demand extensive and thoughtful

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

complete cooperation of the Bureau with this Committee or

its successors in this important task.

In any event, you have my unqualified assurance as

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

of such legislation as the Congress may enact.

That is the substance of my prepared statement.

-

I would also like to say extemporaneously that I note

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

Committee which heard my testimony at the time I was presented

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

I took very seriously the charge which may possibly result

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

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

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

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

---

## Page 24

L4UJ

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

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

sanctuary and perhaps a safe sanctuary by saying during the

period these things occurred I was with the local police

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

however, I was in the FBI.

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

was with the police department, I continued throughout that

period a close acquaintance with and a strong affection for

the FBI.

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

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

sensitive and a very capable organization. I feel that there

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

matchless organization, one which I continue to say was

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

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 24

---

## Page 25

2464

1

2

3

4

5

6

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

only putting in your thinking my objective observations as

a citizen who is somewhat concerned about the future of this

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

a condition of jeopardy.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Director Kelley.

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

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

question he would like to ask.

8

9

end t. 1 10

11

•

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 25

---

## Page 26

WARD: GSH

'IA Open

.2/10/75

Phone (Area 202)

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2465

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

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

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

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

reading your testimony and listening to it this morning, and

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

top of 11.

There you are indicating that you caution us about

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

suggesting that this might take us beyound the role comtemplated

for the courts under the Constutution.

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

security wiretap problem, the main focus of our discussions

and concern has been on the possibility requiring court

approval for the use of informants, informants directed to

penetrate and report on some group.

And one of the witnesses yesterday, Professor Dorsen,

pointed our that really those informants are the most pervasive

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

really, an informant is really more intrusive on my privacy

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

can ask me questions to get information the government would

like to have.

Now we certainly involve the courts in approval of the

wiretaps for physical searches with the intent of the drafters

NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 26

---

## Page 27

2466

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:329$9820 Page 27

of the Constitution to have a neutral third party magistrate

screen use of certain investigative techniques. And the

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

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

would violate the role envisaged for the courts.

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

my feelings.

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

informant in intrusion, which is to this extent objectionable.

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

by numerous court decisions.

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

of the informant.

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

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

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

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

the Constitution certain grants that are under ordinary

circumstances abrogation of rights. The right of search and

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

theless, you have the right.

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

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

job.

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

---

## Page 28

2467

Phone (Area

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

1

2,

3

5

6

8

9.

10

11

12

13

1'4

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

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

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

that is by virtue of the benefits must be counted.

We don't like to use it. We don't like the problems that

are attendant. We take great care.

Now you say about the court having possibility taking

jurisdiction over them and guiding. I think that possibly we

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

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

have to follow it all the way through?

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

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

given for each contact?

There are a great many problems insofar as administration

of it.

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

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

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

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

is going to happen no matter what you do.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, I appreciate your

reaction.

I was not suggesting that there is consideration here to

24

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

25

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 28

---

## Page 29

2468

1

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

third party making a judgment as to whether the intrusion is

warranted by the particular circumstance. But I do understand

your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hart.

(Senator Hart leaves the hearing room.)

The Chairman. Senator Baker, do you have questions?

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

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

organization and I personally regret that the organization is

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

it is, along with other agencies and departments of the

government.

I think you probably would agree with me that even though

that is extraordinarily unpleasant and in many respects

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

us an indication of our future direction and the opportunity,

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

the government itself.

With that hopeful note, would you be agreeable then to

volunteering for me any suggestions you have on how to improve

the responsiveness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or

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

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

and

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 29

---

## Page 30

2469

gsh

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

FBI.

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 30

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

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

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

essential, I believe,

essential oversight responsibility to

see that these functions, these delicate functions are being

undertaken properly?

And before you answer, let me tell you two or three things

I am concerned about.

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

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

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

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

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

additional importance that requires it to have closer supervision

and scrutiny by us.

At the same time I rather doubt that we can become

involved in the daily relationship between you and the Attorney!

General.

Therefore, I tend to believe that the Attorney General

needs to be more directly involved in the operations of the

I would appreciate any comments on that.

Second, I rather believe that major decisions of the

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

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

---

## Page 31

2470

WARD & PAUL

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

I9

20

21

22

23

24

25

look at these decisions and the process by which they were

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

services diligently.

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

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

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

departed and in other cases you have conflicts.

How would you suggest then that you improve the quality

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

increase the opportunity for oversight of the Congress of the

United States? What other suggestions do you have for improving

the level of law enforcement in the essential activity that

is required?

Mr. Kelley. I would possibly be repetitious in answering

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

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

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

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

great attention should be paid in choosing the man who will

properly acquit himself.

I feel that the Judiciary Comnittee, at least in going

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

necessary that care be taken that his philosophy, his means

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

toward consulting with other members of the official family,

NW 65360 Docld:329$9820 Page 31

---

## Page 32

..-.

2471

WARD

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

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

carefully.

I think further that he should be responsible for those

matters which indicate impropriety or illegality.

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

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

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

for the Justice Department, for

the Executive Branch?

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

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

Mr. Kelley. Jurisdictionally, to the Attorney General,

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

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

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

Attorney General.

Senator Baker. Do you have any problems with the idea

of the President of the United States calling the Director of

the FBI and asking for performance of a particular task?

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

the relationship between the FBI Director and the President

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

through the Attorney General?

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

25

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 32

of the cases conduited through the Attorney General. There

---

## Page 33

Phone (Area

544-6000

2472

]

2

3

4

5

WARD & PAUL

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16.

17

18

19

• 20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32949820 Page 33

has been traditionally some acceptance of the fact that if

the President wants to

see and talk with the Director, he

may do so, call him directly.

It has been my practice in such an event to thereafter

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

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

was revealed in full to them.

Senator Baker. I suppose we could pass a statute that

says the President has to go

through the Attorney General,

although I rather suspect it would be a little presumptuous.

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

for the pursuit of effective oversight on the part of the

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

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

the Attorney General given to a Director of the FBI?

Do you think that these things need to be handled in

a more formal way?

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

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

documented. This is

• protection as well as a clarification

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

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

tion.

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

can be worked very easily.

---

## Page 34

2473

1

3

4

5

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

believe, has already established some sort of agency or

function within the Department that is serving as the equivalent,

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

including the FBI.

Are you familiar with the steps that Mr. Levi has

taken in that respect?

I think he calls it the Office of

Professional Responsibility.

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

Senator Baker. Do you have any comment on that? Will

you give us any observations as to whether you think that

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

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

relationship to it in the future?

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

extent an oversight within the Department of Justice under the

Attorney General.

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

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

subscribe.

Senator Baker.

How would you feel about extending that

concept of government-wide operation, a national Inspector

General who is involved with an oversight of all of the

agencies of government as they interface with the Constitutionally

protected rights of the individual citizen? Would you care

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 34

---

## Page 35

2474

44-6000

.?

4

5

6

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

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

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

it and let us know what you think about it?

Mr. Kelley. I will..

Senator Baker. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much.

8

• 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989320 Page 35

The Chairman. Senator Huddleston.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

this inquiry occurred, indicating that the people within the

Bureau felt like they were doing what was expected of them

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

the people of the United States.

Does not this suggest that there has been a reaction

there to prevailing attitudes that might have existed in the

country because of certain circumstances rather than any

clear and specific direct instructions that might have been

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

is it possible in developing this charter, this guideline,

to provide for that kind of specific instruction?

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

logically be incorporated and that -

Senator Huddleston. You can see there would be a continuing

---

## Page 36

44•6000

ah

Phone (Area 20

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2475

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

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

Mr. Kelley. Senator, I don't contemplate it might be

a continuing danger, but it certainly would be. a very acceptable

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

to arise, know what we can do.

Senator Huddleston.

Well, in pursuing the area which

Senator Hart was discussing, that is whether or not we can

provide sufficient guidelines would replace a decision by the

court in determining what action might be proper and specific -

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

provide the restrictions and guidelines and the various

techniques that might be used?

For instance, supposing we do establish the fact, as

has already been done, that informants are necessary and

desirable. Hos do we keep that informant operating within the

proper limits so that he in fact is not violating individual

rights?

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

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

that there is no infringement of rights.

Senator Huddleston. But

this is an aware we've gotten

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

particular action was necessary, that there was a present

threat that some intelligence programs should be initiated, but

NW 65360 Docld:3293,9820 Page 36

---

## Page 37

2476

544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

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

necessary to have addressed the original threat.

How do we keep within the proper balance there?

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

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

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

There's the possibility of criminal prosecution against him.

This is one which I think might flow if he counsels

the informant.

Now insofar as his inability to control the informant,

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

still supervisory control over that agent and over that

informant by insisting that control is exercised on a continuing

basis.

Senator Huddleston. It brings up an interesting point

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

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

else.

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

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

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

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

22

by the FBI.

23

24

25

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

our attention should either be handled by us or the proper

authority.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 37

---

## Page 38

2477

1

2

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

Phone (Area

past.

4

5

End 2

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

• 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

to but I would think your statement is proper.

Senator Huadleston. Well, we certainly have evidence

of unlawful activity taking place in various projects that

have been undertaken, which certainly were not brought to

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

The question that I'm really concerned about is as

we attempt to draw a guideline and charters that would give

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

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

of those actions to keep them from going beyond what

was intended to begin with?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 38

---

## Page 39

AHW/ smnl

t. 3

2478

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

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

Senator Huddleston. Not only informants but the agents

themselves as they go into surveillance, wiretaps, or whatever

intelligence gathering techniques.

The original thrust of my question was, even though we

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

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

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

of the rights.

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

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

out that the association to, the relationship between the

informant and his agent handler is a very confidential one,

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

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

because thereby you do have a destruction of that relationship.

Insofar as the activities of agents, informants or others

which may_be illegal, we have on many occasions learned of

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

prosecuted ourselves, through the reporting of it to the

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

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

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

Inspection Division, which reviews this type of activity, and

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 39

---

## Page 40

smn 2

2479

WARD & PAUL

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1:9

20

21

22

23

24

25

pursue it to the point of prosecution.

Senator Huddleston. But it could be helped by periodic

review.

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

activities of our 59 offices through that same Inspection

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

as other matters.

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

difference in the approaches when gathering intelligence, in

gathering evidence after a crime has been committed.

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

attempt to separate these

functions within the Agency, in the

departments, for instance, with not having a nixing of

gathering intelligence and gathering evidence? Are the techniques

definable and different?:

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

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

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

a very fine association whereby the intelligence, stemming as

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

Senator Huddleston. Now, another area, the FBI furnishes

information to numerous government agencies.

Is this properly restricted and controlled at the present

time in your judgment as to just who can ask the FBI for

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 40

---

## Page 41

'smn 5

2480

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

to do specific things?

Could there be some clearcut understanding as to whether

or not the Director would be obligated to undertake any such

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

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

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

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

a letter so requesting.

This has come up before during the Watergate hearings, as

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

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

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

Senator Huddleston. Just one more question about

techniques, aside from the guidelines of authority on broad

projects undertaken.

Would it be feasible from time to time in a Congressional

oversight committee, would be able to discuss with the Department,

with the Bureau various techniques so that they could have

some input as to whether or not these actions are consistent

with the overall guidelines, to start with, and consistent

with the very protections?

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

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

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 41

---

## Page 42

smn 3

2481

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

probably even more importantly, what restrictions can be put

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

the FBI?

......

Mr. Kelley. I think so, Senator.

Senator Huddleston. You think there are proper restrictions

now?

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 42

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

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

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

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

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

that at least to us we are satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. You're confident that the information

your agency supplies is not being misused, to the detriment

of the rights of any individuals.

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

do myself. I would say that I am satisfied.

Senator Huddleston. I was wondering whether some

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

who specifically can request, what limits ought to be placed

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

get it.

Mr. Kelley • Yes.

Senator Huddleston. I have some concern about the fact

that in intelligence gathering, you gather, you are just

---

## Page 43

smn 4

2482

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

bound to gather a great

deal of information about some

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

gence gathering is concerned, but might be in some way embarras-

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

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

file that is really initiated for a purpose,

for a specific

purpose unrelated to this information.

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

doing that?

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

guidelines or rules or anything else to purge material which

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

able.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Senator Huddleston. And how about the length of time

that these files are kept in the agency?

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

too.

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 43

Senator Huddleston. I think that might be done.

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

speak, it certainly would be very difficult to prevent the

President of the United States from calling up the head of

the FBI or anyone else and discussing any law enforcement

problem he might so desire, and perhaps even give direction

to the agency.

But how about that? What about White House personnel

---

## Page 44

smn 6

2483

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 44

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

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

exchange our opinions and get accomplished what you want to

accomplish and what I want to accomplish.

Senator Huddleston. I feel that is an important aspect

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

direction for all the guidelines and to the types of projects

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

things as how intelligence is to be collected, how evidence

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

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

again for the Bureau to assume that it has total instruction

and total permission to move in a certain direction and go

beyond what is intended or what was authorized.

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

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater?

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

electronic surveillance of DI. King, several tapes of

specific conversations, and later a composite King tape were

produced.

Are these tapes still in the possession of the FBI?

MI. Kelley. Yes, sir.

Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by you?

Mr. Kelley. No, sir.

Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by any of your

---

## Page 45

2484

1

2

3

4

5

6

staff, to your knowledge?

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

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

this particular section. There has been no review of them

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

Senator Goldwater. Would these tapes be available to

the Committee if the Committee felt they would like to hear

them?

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

be a discussion of this in an executive session.

The Chairman. I might say in that connection that the

Committee staff gave some consideration to this matter and

decided that it would compound the original error for the

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

further invasion of privacy, and so the staff refrained from

insisting on obtaining the tapes, believing that it was

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

what. we needed to know about the king case.

So the staff did refrain, and for that reason the issue

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

before the Senator.

Senator Goldwater. I realize that's a prerogative of

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

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

NW 65360

Pocld:32989820 Page 45

---

## Page 46

smn 8

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2485

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

or whether there was, in effect, some reason. Again, I am

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

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

decided on it.

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

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

Attorney General.

Senator Goldwater. I see.

Now, are these tapes and other products of surveillance

routinely retained even after an individual ceased to be a

target of inquiry?

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

Senator Goldwater. Ten years.

Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir.

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

to the Bureau of retaining such information?

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

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

occasions where we think that matters might come up within

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

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

we would be guided by guidelines.

Senator Goldwater. Is it your view that legitimate

25

NW 65360 Docld:329%9820 Page 46

law enforcement needs should outweigh privacy considerations

---

## Page 47

san 9

2486

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

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

the clear guidelines on the destruction of these materials

when the investigation purposes for which they were collected

have been served?

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

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

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

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

you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Mondale?

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

most crucial question before the Congress is to accept the

invitation of the FBI to draw Congressionally imposed lines,

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

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

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

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

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

criminal law enforcement. He said that never again will we

go beyond the authority imposed upon us to get into political

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

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

draw the guidelines in a way that your activities are

restricted to the enforcement of the law, investigations of

NW 65360 Docld:3298,9820 Page 47

Thank

---

## Page 48

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

2487

crime, investigations of conspiracies to commit crime rather

than to leave this very difficult to define and control area

of political ideas?

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

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

I feel that certainly we should be vested and should continue

in the field of criminal investigations as an investigatory

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

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

foreign.

These are criminal violations. I feel that they should

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

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

more personnel working together, covering the same fields..

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

matters, because it is a concomitant. It naturally flows

from the investigation of the security matters and the

criminal.

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

this, that the Bureau of investigation is not concerned

with political or other opinions of individuals. It is

concerned only with such conduct as is forbidden by the laws

of the United States. When the police system goes beyond

these limits, it is dangerous to proper administration of

justice and human liberty.

NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 48

---

## Page 49

"...

smn 11

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2488

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Do you object to that definition?

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

sophisticated and we

have added to the so-called policeman's

area of concern some

matters which were probably not as important

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

touch with the security investigations and the gathering of

intelligence is something which has proved to be at times

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

productive procedure.

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

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

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

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

at that point it becomes so difficult to guarantee, and in

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

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

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

meaningful oversight on a function as nebulous as the one

you've just defined.

If the FBI possesses the authority. to investigate

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

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

seen how that definition can be stretched to include practi-

cally everybody, including moderate civil rights leaders,

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

NW 65360 Docid: 32989820 Page 49

---

## Page 50

smn 12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2489

1

that would provide any basis for oversight?

2

3

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

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

4

do something that some politician tried to pressure you into

5

doing?

6

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

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

8

criticized for doing that which today is construed as very

9

acceptable.

10

Senator Mondale.

Correct. And I have great sympathy

11

for the predicament the FBI finds itself in.

12

Mr. Kelley. And the Director.

13

Senator Mondale. And the Director especially, and that is

14

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

15

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

16|

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

possible to define them, and the FBI is inevitably going

to

23

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

24

you should have done.

25

Don't you fear that?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 50

---

## Page 51

smn 13

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2490

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

great lesson by virtue of Watergate, the revelations that have

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

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

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

that I think the Bureau

is a matchless organization, and they

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

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

organization, people of the other ethnic backgrounds than we

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

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

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

because we must equate this with the need

and with our

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

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

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

guidelines.

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

there is a better trained or higher professionally qualified

law enforcement organization in the world than the FBI. I

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

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

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

are subject to and in fact you leave the criminal field, you

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

NW 65360 Docid:32989820 Page 51

---

## Page 52

smn 14

2491

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

great controversy exists, and where you are almost inevitably

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

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

into trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant.

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

think we've made a good start.

Senator Mondale. In your speech in Montreal on August

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

of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them.

which liberties did you have in mind?

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

understood many, many times.

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

clear it up.

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

of the approach which the courts historically have used in

resolving most issues of Constitutional importance, and its

recognition that rights are not susceptible to absolute

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 52

---

## Page 53

2492

smn 15

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 53

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

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

does not prohibit searches and

seizures. I mention, it only

refers to those that are unreasonable.

I came from the police fiedd. What is more restrictive

to more people than traffic regulation? But what would be

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

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

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

rights.

Some may construe this as an extravagant statement. If it

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

has to be a balance.

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

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

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

have to give up some tights.

Which rights would you have us

give up?

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

have the right for search and seizure.

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

ment right.

Mr. Kelley. Oh, no not the right.

Senator Mondale.

What right do you have in mind?

Mr. Kelley. The right to be free from search and seizure.

---

## Page 54

smn 16

2493

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

under court warrant.

• Did you mean to go beyond that?

Mr. Kelley. That's right.

Senator Mondale. That you should be able to go beyond

that?

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

go beyond a Constitutional right guarantee.

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

that sentence might have been inartful in your speech?

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

made a mistake, because I should never make a statement which

yes, it was inartful.

Senator Mondale. I think I know about your record in

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

saying something different, that it was taken to mean something

different than I think you intended:

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

enforcement powers, the rights of individuals is determined

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

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

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

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

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 54

---

## Page 55

smn 17

2494

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

end t. 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MW 65360 Docld:3299820 Page 55

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

I have to admit that maybe I made a mistake.

Senator Mondale. What you are saying in effect is that

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

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

law.

You meant that.

Mr. Kelley. Indeed, yes, sir.

Senator Mondale.

All right.

Thank you.

-

---

## Page 56

WARD: GSH

CIA Open

12/30/75

Tape 4

Phone (Area 202)

2495

2

3

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:3298(820 Page 56

The Chairman. Senator Hart.

Senator of Colorado. Mr. Kelley, in response to

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

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

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

Congress, lay down guidelines that would not unreasonably

hamper you from investigations of crime control in the

country.

But I think implicit in his question was also an area

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

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

from political pressure, the misuse of the Bureau by political

figures, particularly in the White House?

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

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

Gray was under great pressure from the White House to use

the facilities of the Bureau and their capabilities to accomplish

some plititcal end.

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

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

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

What kindof restrictions can we lay down to protect you

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

coin, if you would.

Mr. Kelley. I would welcome any guidelines which would

---

## Page 57

2496

Phone (Area

1

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

20

• 21

22

23

24

25

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

that would be splendid. I have not reviewed the guidelines

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

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

consideration of such directives.

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

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

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

a problem for the people that preceded you?

Mr. Kelley. J. think so.

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

Congress ought to address?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

Senator Hart of Colorado. The Committee received a

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

Assistant Attorney General asking our cooperation in carrying

out the investigation or their efforts to review the investi-

gation conducted by the FBI into the death of Martin Luther

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

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

for our transcripts, the testimony before the Conmittee, all

material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates

to DI. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

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

ment asking this Comnittee for FBI files?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 57

---

## Page 58

- cana

2497

(Area

203y3a04

44-6000

3

2

4

5

6

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

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

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

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

material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates

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

I repeat the question. Why is the Justice Department

asking this Cormittee for material provided to us by the

FBI?

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

i9

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

just ask --

(Pause)

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

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

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

don't know why.

Senator Hart of Colorado. So there's nothing you

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

Mr. Kelley. That's right.

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

an official of the Justice Department would ask this Committee

for your records?

Mr. Kelley. No, sir.

Senator llart of Colorado. You released a statement on

November the 18th of '74 regarding the FBI's. counter-intelligence

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 58

---

## Page 59

'544-6000

1

Phone (Arda

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2498

program and you said you made a detailed study of COINTELPRO

activities and reached the following conclusions, and I quote:

"The purpose of these counter-intelligence programs was

to prevent dangerously and potentially deadly acts against

individuals, organizations and institutions both public

and private

across the United States."

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

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

occasions he planned violent acts against black people in

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

FBI actually prevented violence from taking place.

How does his testimony square with your statement that

-

I have quoted?

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

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

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

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

and that type of thing has been substantiated.

Senator Hart of Colorado. You're saying the testimony

he gave us under oath was not accurate?

Mr. Kelley. Right.

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

and I quote: "I want to assure you that Director Hoover did

not conceal from superior authorities the fact that the FBI

was engaged in neutralizing and disruptive tactics against

NW 65360 Docld:32929820 Page 59

---

## Page 60

2499

-600

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 2

1

3

4

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

revolutionary and violence-prone groups.

Now the Committee has received testimony that the New

Left COINTELPRO programs was not in fact told to higher

authorities, the Attorney Gereral and Congress.

Do you have any information in this regard?

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

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

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

information flowing upward through the chain of command to

Director Hoover's superiors:

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

to substantiate that with documentation?

Senator Hart of Colorado. Sure.

Mr.. Kelley: Or respond to it.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Dorector Kelley, just in

passing, do you agree with the statement made by President

Ford that those responsible for harassing and trying to destroy

DI. King should be brought to justice.

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

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

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

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

to do it and those who are responsible.

I: took the responsibility for any such program and I

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989320 Page 60

---

## Page 61

2500

1

(Area

Phone

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

accordance with what they think is proper and may even have

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

responsibility.

I think that it should rest on those who instructed that

that be done.

Senator Hart of Colorado. But you agree that the people

who give the orders should be brought to justice.

Mr. Kelley. I do.

The Chairman. Aren't they all dead?

Ar. Kelley. No.

The Chairman. Not quite?

Mr. Kelley. Not quite.

Senator Hart of Colorado.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

Director Kelley, in the Committee's review of the

COINTELPRO program and other political involvenents of the

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

basic questions.

Since the investigation is over insofar as the Committee

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

the future, what I would think would be our constructive

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

we learned in that investigation.

And one thing that we have learned is that Presidents of

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989320 Page 61

---

## Page 62

, "

2501

-6000

"SE

Phone (Area 20

7

1

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

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

obtain for them certain kinds of information by exercising the

necessary surveillance to obtain. and to have a purely

political character, that they simply wanted to have for their

own personal purposes.

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

function of the FBI,, and you agree.

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

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

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

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

I will resign. But that puts a

very hard burden on any man

serving in your position, particularly if the President puts

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

even invents some excuse. It is alvays easy for him to say,

you know, I an considering Senator White for an important

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

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

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

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

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

been doing lately.

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

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

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

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

_ NW 65360 Docld:32984820 Page 62

---

## Page 63

2502

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to your current policy is politically embarrassing to you and

you want to get something on him.:

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

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

your office and the FBI from political exploitation in this

basic charter that we write.

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

or two of mine. I would like your response.

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

either by the President or by the Attorney General should be

transmitted in vriting and should clearly state the objective

and purpose of the request and that the FBI would maintain

those written orders and that furthermore they would be

available to any oversight committee of the Congress. If the

joint conmittee on intelligence is established, that committee

would have access to such a file.

So that the committee itself would be satisfied that

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

unlawful.

What would you think of writing a provision of that kind

into a charter for the FBI?

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

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

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

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

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 63

---

## Page 64

2503

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

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

contemplation of this there would be some that will say yes

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

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

do that.

Now as to the availability to any oversight committee

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

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

for something of high confidentiality that the President might

put in writing such as some national or foreign security

matter.

I would like to have such a consideration be given a

great deal of thought and that the oversight committee reviev

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

present a problem.

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

thing except the identity of the informants to the oversight

committee. I welcome that.

The Chairman. Well, that has been of course the way we

proceeded with this Committee. It has worked pretty well,

I think.

Now Senator Goldwater brought up a question on the

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

If these tapes do not contain any evidence that needs

to be preserved for ongoing criminal investigations, and since

25

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

NW 65360 Docld:3298,9820 Page 64

---

## Page 65

2504-2505

Phone (Area 2025 544-6000

10

1

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 65

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

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

the FBI to remove from its

files so much of this information

that is has collected that

it is no longer needed or may never

have connected the person with any criminal activity? And

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

year after year.

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

not the problem, then what is? thy are these tapes still down

there at the FBI?

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

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

question and why right now are they maintained? Since we

do maintain everything since the inquiry has started and until

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

I would say that this is a proper area for guidelines

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

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

might be some areas wherein that the subject of the investigation

himself may want them retained because it shows his innocence.

I think you have to deliberate this very carefully, but

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

rules.

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

thousands of investigations every year on possible appointees

---

## Page 66

2506

g

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

ever see an FBI agent is when he comes around and flashes his

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

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

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

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

is about the extent of it.

Then when this file is completed and the person involved

is either appointed or not appointed, what happens to that

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

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

neighborhoods and talk to everybody who might have known him.

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

Mr. Kelley. We have some capability of destroying some

files and they are rather lengthy insofar as retention. He

have some archival rules which govern the retention of mateial

and is developed in cases involving certain members of the

Executive Branch of the government.

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

for consideration of legislation.

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

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

is being spent by the FBI just in conducting these thousands

of routine investigations on possible Presidential appointments

25

to Federal offices?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 66

---

## Page 67

2507

1

Phone (Area

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

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

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

3.

4

for the investigation of Federal appointees --

The Chairman. Yes. Plus, you know, plus any other

5

information that would indicate to us what proportion of the

6

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

activity.

8

•9.

10

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

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

approximate expense.

11

12

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

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

13

14

15

16

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

of such investigations each year?

You know, I don't expect you to jo back 20 of 25 years,

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

17

18

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

reach of these investigations may be.

19

Mx. Kelley. Through '70?

20

21

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

The other matter that is connected to this same subject

22

that I would like your best judgment on is whether these

23

24

investigations could not be limited to offices of sensitivity.

That is to say where legitimate national security interest might

25

be involved so that there is a reason to make a close check on

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 67

---

## Page 68

2508

544-6000

In 13

phono (Area

WARD & PAUL

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

past associations, attitudes and expressions of belief.

I have often wondered whether we couldn't eliminate

routine Federal offices

that are not particularly sensitive

in the national security sense

from the reach of these FBI

checks.

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

wish you would include the offices that are now covered by

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

Federal bureaucracy this extends.

Could you do that?

Mr. Kelley. Yes,

sir.

The Chairnan. Fine.

No: there is a vote.

The vote alrays comes just at

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

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

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

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

to be tied up on the floor with votes..

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

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

way you have cooperated with the Committee in the course of

its investigation during the past months.

Mr. Kelley. Thank you.

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

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 68

of the work of the Committee we can write a generic law for

---

## Page 69

=.t...

de..

2509

1

95-l4

(Area

2

End tape 45

4

5

6

the FBI that will help

to remedy many of the problems

We'll

encounter in the future.

Thank you.

WARD & PAUL

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

• 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

L. NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 69

---

## Page 70

-..

AHW/ smnl

5428000

202)

(Area

phone

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

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

20

21

22

23

24

2510

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

On page 5 of your statement -

Mr. Kelley. What?

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

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

to question about what you said. "We must recognize that

situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the

future where the Government may well be expected to depart from

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

and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps

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

property."

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

kind of situation?

And can you give some concrete examples under your general

principles statement?

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

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

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

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

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

so therefore you must take some steps to meet that imminent

threat to human life or property.

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

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 70

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

---

## Page 71

2511

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

i9

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

Is that the presumption?

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

can extent it.

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

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

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

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

not taken any overt acts in perpetration of this.

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

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

human life or property?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

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

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

is not by definition any threat to life or property.

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

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

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

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

they have been acted upon.

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

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

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 71

---

## Page 72

smn 3

2512

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

kill me, that just means one thing.

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

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

on the basis of experience that you cannot detect a possible

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

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

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

the Attorney General. We do not subscribe to the idea that

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

judicial review, the capability of determining, but we do

think that we should report it and thereafter see what can

be done.

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

our discussion the standard on page 5.

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

MI. Kelley. Yes.

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

threat.

MI. Kelley. An imminent possible threat.

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

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

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

prevent the person from carrying out his activities, other

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

in mind?

_ NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 72.

---

## Page 73

Smn 4

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

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

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10!

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23.

24

25

2513

Mr. Kelley. Removing him from his position or whatever

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

impossible as possible to perpetuate this thing.

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

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

Mr. Schwarz. Isolate him in some fashion.

MI. Kelley. In some fashion perhaps.

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

an investigation into a domestic group, could you live with

a standard which said you would have to have an immediate

threat that someone was likely to commit a serious federal

crime involving violence?

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

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

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

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

what you think would be an acceptable standard.

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

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

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

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

to do anything except put him under arrest of anything.

Mr. Schwarz. Of course, of course.

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

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

_ NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 73

---

## Page 74

2514

544-6

phono cares 202) 514 do

WARD & PAUL

410 Fin? street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22.

22

24

25

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

of an investigation into a domestic group.

Is it basically consistent with practicality to make the

test immediate threat of a serious Federal crime involving

violence?

Mr. Kelley. To open a domestic security case.

MI. Schwarz. Yes.

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

activity, in effect. We certainly have terrorist activities

under our jurisdiction as a threat against the United States.

Mr. Schwarz. Now, are there other circumstances where

it is justifiable to open an investigation of the domestic

group where you do not have an immediate threat of serious

federal crime involving violence?

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

they have been well defined as to what is the possible

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

discussing that, we have been discussing particular instances,

but there are other criteria that are used, yes.

Mr. Schwarz. What would the other criteria be?

Mr. Kelley. Well, the possible statutory violations

over which we have jurisdiction are, generally speaking, the

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

intelligence investigations which should, of course, be of

short duration. If there is no showing of this into action

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 74

---

## Page 75

2515

or a viable intent.

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

intelligence investigation?

Mr. Kelley.. By intelligence investigation, yes, you

are looking to prevent.

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

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

with an intent to take an issue?

Mr. Kelley. And the capability.

Mr. Schwarz. And the capability.

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

I appreciate very much your time.

Mr. Kelley. That's all right.

Mr. Schwarz. Assuming a legitimate investigation has

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

mate for the FBI, in addition to obtaining information that

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

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

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

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

political views of a person on the other?

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

many of our problems and perhaps the guidelines can define

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

within the determination of the deviations possibly of sex

NW 65360 Docld:32980820 Page 75

---

## Page 76

2516

202)

(Area

Phone

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

some view that advocates violence or the overthrow of the

government.

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

views?

Mr. Kelley. What?

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

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

or advocants of overthrow?

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

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

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

a member of some other organization.

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

sex life information, might be relevant? I suppose anything

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

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

justifiable to collect that kind of information on American

citizens who are not suspected of having committed crimes?

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

included in some reports as a result of the requirement that

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

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

NW 65360 Docid:32989820 Page 76

---

## Page 77

s mn8

2517

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

& PAUL

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as a determination by guidelines that might be prepared later,

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

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

object to anything reasonable in that regard.

Mr. Schwarz. I just have one final question.

Taking the current manual and trying to understand its

applicability laid against the facts in the Martin Luther King

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

open investigations of the infiltration of non-subversive

groups, and the first sentence reads: "When information is

received indicating that a subversive group is seeking to

systematically infiltrate and control a non-subversive group

or organization, an investigation can be opened."

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

in opening the investigation of the Southern Christian Leadership

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

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

Mr. Kelley. We are interested in the infiltration of

clearly subversive groups into non-subversive groups inasmuch

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

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

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

benefit of the country.

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

under that standard, the SCLC investigation could still be

_ NW 65360 Docid: 32989820 Page 77

---

## Page 78

smng

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

2518

opened today?

Mr. Kelley. I think so.

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

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

of the standards for initially opening an investigation of a

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

gation goes beyond the initial target group to individuals

or people who come into contact with it?

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

If

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

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

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

of them without any basis for doing so other than that they

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

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

Mr. Schwarz. Thank you very much.

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

inquiry, Mr. Kelley.

I think that the questions of the Chief Counsel was

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

talk about the difficulty of setting out the line between

intelligence gathering and law enforcement kinds of functions.

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

indeed, the Bureau's organizational scheme reflects is!

::.

!

to distinguish some of this has been made.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 78

---

## Page 79

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

is

20

21

22

23.

24

25

2519

Putting aside for one moment the counterespionage

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

Domestic Intelligence, is it your view that the retention of

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

law enforcement position?

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

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

of criminal investigatory activities and experiences which

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

ful not only in gathering knowledge and experience, it also

enters into this field, a person with a broad understanding

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

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

of an operation.

I subscribe to the present system heartily.

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

if within the Bureau guidelines were established that

effectively limited access or controlled dissemination of

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

situation where the intelligence product is critical to assist

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

that there should be access to it.

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

intelligence product and preventing the kind of murky crossing

of lines there with the information legitimately needed for

NW 65360 Docld:32982820 Page 79

---

## Page 80

smn 11

2520

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23.

24

25

law enforcement?

Mr. Kelley. There

is always a problem when there is wide

dissemination, because that just numerically increases-the

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

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

to review the dissemination rules to make them subject to

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

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

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

the investigation now being conducted by the Justice Department

regarding the improper actions on the COINTELPRO, and the

King case in particular.

As we look at allegations of impropriety by your personnel

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

insight into the procedure the Bureau would normally follow.

What does the Bureau do when you get an allegation that

an agent or administrative official in the Bureau has behaved

improperly?

Is an investigation conducted internally, or is it

routinely referred to the Justice Department?

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

procedure as a result of the establishment of the Council for

Professional Responsibility. At present it would be in the

great majority of the cases turned over to our Investigative

Division for investigation. There might, on some unusual

NW 65360 Docld:32989320 Page 80

---

## Page 81

smn 12

2521

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23.

24

25

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

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

handled internally at present.

Mr. Smothers. Would these internal determinations be

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

step?

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

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

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

Justice involved in the police determinations?

For instance, what if the Attorney General disagreed with

the assertion that only the higher up officials who ordered

the action against King should be the subject of investigation

and maybe prosecution?

How does the interplay work there between you and Justice?

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

activities which we construe as improper or possibly. illegal.

There is a possibility that the Department, having been advised

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

investigating, and this is something that we feel is a

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

have within our own organization sufficient capability to

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

independently of us.

Mr. Smothers. Thank you.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 81

---

## Page 82

snn 13

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2522

2

3

4

5

6

That is all I have.

Mr. Schwarz. Thank you.

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

subject to the call of the Chair.)

10

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989)320 Page 82

---

## Page 83

VZCZCHOOM41

PP MM

00841 9520935

P 0114447 FTB EA

FM PIPECTOT FBI

TO FBI MIAMI PRIOPITY

LEGAL ATTACHE MEXICO CITY PRIOPITY

(g175)

846-33460

VISIT OF CE'ATE SELECT COMMITICE ON IUTELLIGTNCE (SSCI) STAFF

TO MIAMI FIELD OFFICE AND LEGAT MEXICO CITY REGAPDING APUG

ENFOFCEMEHT AGENCY (DIA).

THE SSCI IS CONDUCTING A STUDY OF THE DIA IN CONNECTION

WITH THE COMMITTEE'S POLE IN OVTESIGHT OF CEPTAIN POPTIONS OF

DEA SUPGET. POIMARILY, THI COMMITTEE IS INIEPESTED IN

DETTPMINING THE POLE OF THE DEA I!' THE INTOLLICENCE COMMUNITY.

SSCI CHAI"MAY BIPCH BAYH HAS DEQUESTED THE FBI TO ASSIST TH

THE COMMITTFE'S STUDY BY PROVIDING BRIEFINGS TO STAFF MEMBEPS

DEGAPDIUG FBI/DEA RELATIONSHIPS. I HAVE AGREED TO ASSIST THE

COMMITIRE IN IIS STUDY. AS SUCH, YOU APT TO PROVIDE BRIEFINGS

TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF REGARDING OUP PELATIONSHIPC WITH DEA.

66-37746-30

SEARCHED.

SERIALIZED _ FILED.

ASAL.

FREMANDY

FEB 2 1 1980

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 83

COLINSIC

EDI-MIAMI

3AL 101

---

## Page 84

PAGE TWO DE HO GRAI UNCLAS

THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO LIKE IIS STAFF MEMBERS TO BE

GENEPALLY BRIEFTO ON THE MIAMI FITLE OFFICE FOI PROGRAM.

THEY ARE PPIMAPILY INTERSSTES IN THE PRIORITIES AND FCI

THOTATS I" MIAMI, THE STAFF IS ALSO INTEDESTED IN ACQUIDING

INFOSMATIO" FIGAPDING THE POLE A"D FUNCTIONS OF OUP

LFCAT I" MEXICO CITY. ACCORDI"GLY, BE PREPAREO TO PROVIDE

A BOIEFING O! THOSE MATTERS.

FOR YOUR INFORMATIO", THE STAFT MEMBERS WHO WILL BE

ITAVELINE TO YOUP FACILITITS ARE DENNIS P. SHAPON

THOMAS CONNOLLY. AFPANGEMONTS ALPTADY HAVE BEE!' MADE TO

HAVT TH MIAMI FIELD OFFICE BRIEF ASSOS. SHAPD! AVA

CONNOLLY O" FEERHADY 27, 1907, AT 2:30 P.M. THY COMMITTEE

HAS BEEN ADVISE? THAI WILLIAMS. NETILES, ASAC MIAMI, WILL

CONCUCT THE PRIEFING.

IT IS OUP INDEPSTANDING THAT THE STATE REPAMMENT HAS

CAELID THE U.S. TMBASCY I" MEXICO CITY TO ATVICT THEM OF

THE STAFT MEMBERS VISIT TO DEA AND FBI PERSONTL. THE

COMMITICE INDICATE? IT MOULD LIKE TO VISIT WITH OUP LEGAT

THE MORMING OF FEBUAPY 23, OP SOMETIME ON TEBPUARY 25, 1980.

LECAT MEXICO CITY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR BRIEFINGS ON ONE

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 84

---

## Page 85

p.'

PAGE THEE DE HO DA41 UNCLAS

OF THOSE TWO TATES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAI LEGAT MEXICO CITY

CONTACT "HARD HEATH, PEGIONAL DIPECTOP, DIA, MEXICO CITY,

WHO IS COODINATING DEA'S MEETINGS WITH STAFF IN ORDER IC

ADDANGE A DATE AND TIME FOR BRITFING. FBI HEADQUARTERS WILL

"OTIFY COMMITTEE THAI INFOPMATIO" REGARDING FBI BRIEFING

SHOULD BE OBTAI'ED BY THEY THOUGH DEA.

FO= YOUT APDITIONAL INFORMATION, STAFF MEMPERE WILL DE

ACCOMPANIES BY DAVID MELOGIC, COGDESSIO AL AFFAIRS OFFICE,

TEA. ME. MELOCIO, HOMEVER, WILL NOT ATIONS FRI BOISFINGS.

BOTH STAFF PERSONS ART OLTADED TO SECTIVE CLASGIFTES

INFO MATION UP TO TOP SEOPET. WHILE YOU SHOULD RESPOWD

FULLY, YOU ENCULD NOT DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF ONGOING

INFOOMANIS.?

CUTEL. DESULIC OF BRIFFIME TO PEACH FBI HEADQUARTEPS DY

TOB THE PAY AFTER SCHEDULED BIFFING.

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE GA-LING THIS MATTER SHOULD ?T

DITIOTEN TO SA CHRISTOPHEC MAZTELLA! LEGAL LIAISON/

CONGRESSID'AL ATTAINS W"II, FOI HEADQUAPIERS, ENTENCIO!:

4510.

3T

704:1

0522043zmM-1

"BRIS!"

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 85

---

## Page 86

E PINK COPY,

• WAITE COPY

[GUED GIPY

VZCZCKe 0041

•PP MM

DE. HO P041

4530055

P 2114447 FEB 80

FM RIPECTOR FBI

TO FBI MIAMI PFIORITY.

LEGAL ATTACHE. MEXICO CITY PRIOPITY

RT

MINCLAS

VISIT OF SENATE SELECT COMMITIRE ON INTELLIGENCE (SSCI) STAFF

TO MIAMI FIOLE OFFICE AND LEGAT MEXICO CITY REGARDING DRUG

CAFOFCEMEYT AGENCY (DEA).

THE. SCI IS CONDUCTILG A STUDY OF. THE DEA IN CO HECTION

WITH THE COMMITTER'S POLE IN OVERGIGHT OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF

REA BUDGET. PRIMARILY, THE COMMITTEE IS INTRRESTED IT.

DETEFMINING THE POLE OF THE DEA I! THE INTELLICENCE COMMUNITY.

SSCI CHAIMAN BIPCH BẠYN HAS PRQUESTED THE FBI TO ASSIST IN

THE CONMITTEE'S STUDY BY POVIDING BRIFFINGS TO STAFT, MEMBERS

FGAPDING FBI/REA PELATIONSHIPS. I HAVE AGDEFS TO ASSIST THE.

COMMITTRE IN ITS STUDY. AS SUCH; YOU ARE TO PROVIDE 39IEFINGS

TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF REGARDIVE OUP PELATIONSHIPS WITH DEA.

66-3346-30

SEARC

BEHALKED

RADEKEN

FILED

FEB 2 1 1980

PUL-MIAMI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 86

---

## Page 87

tigh

PAGE TIO DE HO OO4I INCLAS

THE COMMITTE WOULE ALSO LIKE ITS STATF MEMBERS TO BE

GENEPALLY BRIEFED ON THE MIAMI TITLO OFFICE FCI PROGRAM.

THEY ARE PRIMARILY INTEPESIED IN THE PRIORITITS AND TOI

THREATS IN MIAMI. THE STAFF IS ALSO INTEFESID IN ACOUTPING

IMFOPMATION TEGARDING. THE

FOLE AND FUNCTIONS OF OUR

LEGAT IN MEXICO CITY. AGCORDINGLY, BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE

A BRIEFING ON THOSE MATTERS.

FOP YOUR INFORMATION, THE STAFF MEMBEPS WHO WILL BE

TPAVELING TO YOUR FACILITIFS ARE DENNIS P. SHARON AND

THOMAS CON'OLLY: APPANGEMENTS ALPEADY. HAVE BEEN MADE TO

HAVE THE MIAMI FIELD OFFICE BRIEF. MESSRS. SHARON AND

CONNOLLY Of FEBRUARY 27, 1980, AT 2:30'P.M. THE COMMITTEE

HAS BEEN ARVISED THAT. WILLIAM F. NETTLES, ASAC MIAMI, WILL

CONDUCT THE. BRIEFING.

IT IS QUR INDERSTANDING THAT THE STATE BEPARIMENT HAS

CABLED THE U.S, EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY TO ADVISE THEM OF

THE STAFF MEMBERS VISIT TO DEA AND FBI PERSONNEL. THE.

COMMITTEE INDICATED IT WOULD LIKE TO VISIT WITH OUP LEGAT

ON THE MOPNING OF FEBRUARY 23, OR SOMETIME ON FEBRUARY 25, 1980.

LEGAT MEXICO CITY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR BPIEFINGS ON ONE

• NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 87

---

## Page 88

PAGE THREE DE HO BA41 UNCLAS

OF THOSE

TWO DATES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAI LEGAT MEXICO CITY

CONTACI EDWAPD HEATH, PEGIONAL CIPECTOR, DEA, MEXICO GITY,

WHO IS COORDINATING DEA'S MEETINGS. WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO

ARRANGE A DATE AND TIME FOP BRIEFING. FEI HEARQUARIERS WILL

NOTIFY COMMITTES THAT INFOPMATION PEGARDING FBI BRIEFING

SHOULD BE OBTAINED BY THEM THROUGH DEA.

FOP YOUP ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, STAFF MEMBERS ILL BE

ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID MELOGIC, CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE,

DEA. MO. MFLOCIO, HOWEVER, WILL NOT ATTEND FEI BRIEFINGS.

BOTH STAFF PERSONS ARE CLEANED TO RECEIVE CLASSIFIED

INFOOMATION UP TO TOP SECRET. WHILF. YOU SHOULD PESPOD

FILLY, YOU SHOULD NOT DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF ONEDING

• INVESTIGATIONS OR PROVIDE INFOPMATION WHICH WILL COMPROMISE

INFO MANIS.D

SUTEL RESULTS OF BRIFFING TO PEACH FBI HEADQUARTERS BY

SOP THE DAY AFTER SCHEDULSD BRIEFING.

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE PEGAPDING THIS MATTER SHOULD BE

DIFESTED TO SA CHRISTOPHER MAZTELLA! LEGAL LIAISON

COMCOESSIONAL AFFAIRS UNIT, FEI HEADQUARTERO, EXTENSTON 4510.

BI .

0941

0522043zmm-1

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 88

---

## Page 89

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

42P

FBI

Date: JANUARY 9, 1976

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

NITEL

(Priority)

TO:

DIRECTOR (62-116395) - D<S

FROM: SAC, MIAMI (66-3346)

SENSTUDY 75.

RE MIAMI NITEL 1/8/76.

FORMER AGENI JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY WAS RECONIACTED 1/9/76

REGARDING THE ADVISABILITY OF HIS CALLING LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION

SHOULD HE BE CONTACTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE. QUIGLEY AGREED

IO CALL ME AND OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD HE BE CONTACTED.

END

JLM:mjs

(1)

**.

66-3346-775

Approved;

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 89

Sent

Per

U.S.Government Government Printing Office: 1972-455-574

---

## Page 90

NR011 MM CODE

4:32PM NITEL JANUARY 9, 1976 JWB

TO DIRECTOR (62-116395)

FROM MIAMI (66-3346)

SENSTUDY 75.

•RE MIAMI NITEL JANUARY 8, 1976.

FORMER AGENT JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY WAS RECONTACTED JANUARY 9, 1976

REGARDING THE ADVISABILITY OF HIS CALLING LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION

SHOULD HE BE CONTACTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE. QUIGLEY AGREED

TO CALL ME AND OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD HE BE CONTACTED.

END.

666-3346-7

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 90

---

## Page 91

FD I

Rev. 5-22-64)

i: =

3

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

FBI

Date: JANUARY 8, 1976

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

NITEL

(Priority)

TO:

DIRECIOR, FBI (62-116395)

FROM: SAC, MIAMI (66-3346)

SENSTUDY 75.

RE BUTEL CALL TO DALLAS, 1/6/76, AND DALLAS TELCALL TO

MIAMI, 1/7/76, RE FORMER AGENT JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY.

I CONTACTED QUIGLEY TELEPHINICALLY 1/8/76. HE SIATED HE

HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO GRANT INTERVIEWS TO IV, AUTHORS,

PUBLISHERS, ETC., ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND HAS REFUSED IN

EVERY INSTANCE. HE SAID HE WILL COOPERATE WITH THE SENATE

COMMITTEE AT LEAST TO THE INITIAL EXTENT OF DETERMINING WHAT

INFORMATION IS DESIRED OF HIM IN ORDER THAT HE CAN DECIDE

WHETHER HE WILL NEED PRIVATE LEGAL COUNSEL. QUIGLEY SAID HE

IS RELUCTANT TO TAKE ANY INITIATIVE WHATSOEVER IN THIS MATTER

AND SUGGESTED FBI OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL CONTACT HIM AS TO

ANY DIRECTION OR ADVICE CONSIDERED NECESSARY. HIS OVER-ALL

VIEW IS THAT THE SENATE COMMITTEE EFFORTS ARE DESTRUCTIVE AS

PERTAIN TO FBI AND HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE A PARTY TO THE

66-3346

JLM: mjs|

(1)

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 91

Sent

66-3346-76

30

_ M

Per

IB

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1972 - 455-574

---

## Page 92

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TWO

COMMITTEE'S APPARENT OBJECTIVES. HE SAID HE WILL RECEIVE ANY

COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO CONTACIS HIM, BUI HE WILL NOI JAKE ANY

INITIATIVE.

THE FOLLOWING IS QUIGLEY'S ADDRESS: JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY,

THE FOUNIAIN, API. 107, 4120 IIVOLI COURI, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA,

PHONE: (305) 967-7610.

ANY CONTACI BY PHONE SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00

ANY MORNING IN THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS.

END

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 92

Sent

_ M

Per

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1972 - 455-574

---

## Page 93

• NR006 MM CODE

3:30PM NITEL JANUARY 8, 1976 JWB

TO DIRECTOR (62-116395)

FROM MIAMI (66-3346) 2P

SENSTUDY 75.

RE BUTEL CALL TO DALLAS, JANUARY 6, 1976, AND DALLAS TELCALL TO

MIAMI, JANUARY 7, 1976, RE FORMER AGENT JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY.

I CONTACTED QUIGELY IELEPHONICALLY JANUARY 8, 1976. HE STATED HE.

HAS BEEN REQUESTED TÓ GRANT INTERVIEWS IO IV, AUTHORS,

PUBLISHERS, ETC., ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND HAS REFUSED IN.

EVERY INSTANCE. HE SAID HE WILL COOPERATE WITH THE SENATE

COMMITTEE AT LEAST TO THE INITIAL EXTENT OF DETERMINING WHAT

INFORMATION IS DESIRED OF HIM IN ORDER THAT HE CAN DECIDE

WHETHER HE WILL NEED PRIVAT LEGAL COUNSEL. QUIGLEY SAID HE

IS RELUCTANT TO TAKE ANY INITIATIVE WHATSOEVER IN THIS MATTER

AND SUGGESTED FBI OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL CONTACT HIM AS TO

ANY DIRECTION OR ADVICE CONSIDERED NECESSARY. HIS OVER-ALL

VIEW IS THAT THE SENATE COMMITTEE EFFORTS ARE DESTRUCTIVE AS

PERTAIN TO FBI AND HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE A PARTY TO THE

COMMITTEE'S APPARENT OBJECTIVES. HE SAID HE WILL RECEIVE ANY

COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO CONTACIS HIM, BUT HE WILL NOT TAKE ANY •

INITIATIVE.

END PAGE ONE

11 66-3346-26

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 93

---

## Page 94

PAGE TWQ (MM 66-3346)

THE FOLLOWING IS QUIGLEY"S ADDRESS: JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY,

THE FOUNTAIN, APT. 107, 4120 TIVOLI COURT, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA,

PHONE: (305) 967-7610.

ANY CONTACT BY PHONE SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN 8:30 AND

9:00

ANY MORNING IN THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS.

END.

CBL FBIHQ TU

----------

...-

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 94

---

## Page 95

Routing Slip

0-1 (Rov. 12

TO: SAC:

Alhany

Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchornge

Atlonta

Baltimore

Birmingham

Boston

Buffalo

Butte

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

Honolulu

(Copies to Offices Checked)

TO LEGAT:

Houston

Indianapolis

Jackson

Jacksonville

Konsas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

MiamI

Mil waukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

Norfolk

= (klahoma City

• Omicha

3 Philadelphia

/ Phonix

] Pittsburgh

1 Portland

¡ Richmond

] Sacramento

] St. Louis

J Salt Lake City

San Antonio

| San Diego

¡ San Francisco

San Juan

I Savannah

] Seattle

] Springfield

Tamp a

Washington Field

] Quantico

Bonn

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manil a

Mexico City

Ottawa

Rome

Singapore

Tel Aviv

Tokyo

1/5/76

RE: DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE

Date

ON ONE LENGENE ACTIVETTETT 6060-3346-38

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIMEARCHED

DECEMBER 10, 1975

SERAL: MOS

Retention

For appropriate

€ 19/6

For information EJ optional Ej action

I surep,

I The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future ribst Nitamonceal

l all

sources, C] paraphrase contents.

Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

Remarks: By routing slip dated 12/30/75 and

captioned as above, all SACs and Legats were

furnished a copy of the transcript of Mr.

Kelley's 12/10/75 appearance before the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Activities. Although the data contained in

the transcript may be made available to news

media representatives, used in answering

questions received from citizens, and other-

wise treated as being of a public-source nature,

the transcript itself should not be reproduced

for, or given to, anyone outside the FBI.

Enc.

Bufile

Urfile

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 95

---

## Page 96

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 96

---

## Page 97

NROSO WA PLAIN

E3GPN NITEL 12/15/75 GHS

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR

DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, DECE BER 10, 1975

A COPY OF THE STATEMENT I DELIVERED SEFORE THE SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES TODAY HAS BREN

SENT ALL OFFICES. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, INERE- FOLLOWS A

SYNOPSIZED ACCOUNT OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF THE COMMITTEE'S.

QUESTIONS TO ME, TOGETHER WITH MY RESPONSES:

CI) REGARDING FRI INFORMANIS, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED

WHETHER COURT APPROVAL SHOULD' BE REQUIRED FOR FEI USE OF

INFORMANTS IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ORCANIZATIONS MY RESPONSE

WAS THAT THE CONTROLS WHICH EXIST

TODAY OVER USE OF INFOF.MANTS

ARE SATISFACTORY); HOW CAN FBI KEEP INFORMANTS OPERATING

WITHIN PROPER LIMITS SO THEY DO NOT INVADE RIGHIS OF OTHER

• PERSONS (HY RESPONSE WAS THAT RELIANCE HUST BE PLACED ON THE

INDIVIDUAL AGENTS HANDLING INFORMANIS AND THOSE SUPERVISING

THE AGENTS' WORK, THAT INFORMANTS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW CAN BE

3

ages

11ol5

1060-3346-2-

A INDE

DEC 1 0 1975

FBI-MIAN

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 97

---

## Page 98

PAGE TWO

PROSÉCUTÉD -- AS CAN ANY AGENT WHO COUNSELS AN INFORMANT IO

COMMIT VIOLATIONS).; AND DID 'FORMER KLAN INFORMANT GARY ROVE

TESTIFY ACCURATELY WHEN HE TOLD THE COMMIFTEE ON DECEMBER 2.

THAT HE INFORMED FBI OF PLANNED ACTS OF VIOLENCE EUT FBI

DID NOT ACT TO PREVENT THEM MY RESPONSE WAS THAT ROVE'S

TESTIMONY WAS NOT 'ACCURATE).

(2)

IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPROPER

• CONDUCT BY FBI EMPLOYEES; I STATED THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF

LAW BY FBI PERSONNEL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. BY THE FBI OR

OTHER, APPROPRIATE AGENCY; THAT. THE INSPECTION DIVISION HAS •

CONDUCTED INQUIRIES REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCI;

THAT AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HAS JUST

BEEN'

ESTABLISHED IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE WILL. ADVISE

THAT OFFICE OF OUR MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS OF DEPAPIMENTAL: PERSONNEL,

INCLUDING FBI EMPLOYEES, FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW, REGULATIONS,

OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT; THAT I WOULD RESERVE COMMENT

REGARDING POSSIBLE CREATION OF A NATIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL

•TO CONSIDER MATTERS OF MISCONDUCI BY EMPLOYEES OF ANY FEDERAL

AGENCY.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 98

---

## Page 99

PAGE THREE

(3). IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING HARASSMENT. OF.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., Í STATED THAT, THE PERSONS WHO ISSUED

THE ORDERS WHICH RESULTED IN SUCH HARASSMENT SHOULD' FACE THE

RESPONSIBILITY FOR'IT, RATHER THAN THOSE UNDER THEM WHO CARRIED

OUT SUCH ORDERS IN GOOD FAITH; THAI THE FBI STILL HAS RECORDINGS

RESULTING FROM ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES OF KING; THAI WE RETAIN

RECORDINGS FOR TEN YEARS BUT WE ALSO HAVE AGREED TO A REGUEST

FROM THE SENATE

NOT TO DESTROY INFORMATION IN OUP FILES WHILE

CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES ARE BEING CONDUCTED; THAT I HAVE NOT

REVIEWED THE KING TAPES; THAT IF THE COMMITTEE REQUESTED 10

REVIEW THE KING TAPES, THE PEQUEST WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(4) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING WHETHER IT WOULD

BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO SEPARATE THE FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE

RESPONSIBILITIES AND. OUR INTELLIGENCE FUNCTIONS, I STATED

THAT WE HAVE FOUND THE TWO AREAS TO BE COMPATIBLE, AND I •

FEEL THE FBI IS DOING A. SPLENDID JOB IN BÓTH AREAS,

(5) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY

OF CONTROLS ON REQUESTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND FROM OTHER

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR FBI INVESTICATIONS OR FOR INFORMATION

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 99

---

## Page 100

PAGE FOUR

FROM OUR FILES, I STATED THAT WHEN SUCH REQUESTS ARE MADE

OPALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN WRITING; THAT WE WOULD

WELCOME ANY LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES. THE CONGRESS FEELS WOULD

PROTECT THE FBI FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTISAN MISUSE.

A FULL. TRANSCRIPI OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WILL BE

FURNISHED TO EACH, OFFICE AS SOON AS IT IS AVAILABLE.

ALL LEGATS. ADVISED SEPARATELY.

END

FBI MM SAK AACK OXX ACK FOR 1 TEL 'CLR AND TU

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 100

---

## Page 101

NROSE WA PLAIN '-

830PM NITEL 12/10/75 GHS

TO ALL SAGS

FROM DIRECIOR

DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, DECEIBER 10, 1975

A COPY OF THE STATEMENT I DELIVERED BEFORE THE SENATE

SELECI COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES TODAY HAS BEEN

SENT ALL OFFICES- FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THERE FOLLOWS A

SYNOPSIZED ACCOUNT OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF THE COMMITTEE*S

QUESTIONS TO ME, TOGÜTHER WITH MY RESPONSES:

(1) REGARDING FBI INFORMANTS, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED

WHETHER COURT APPROVAL SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR FBI USE OF

INFORMANTS IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS (MY RESPONSE

WAS IHAT IHE CONTROLS WHICH EXIST TODAY OVER USE OF INFORMANIS

ARE SATISFACIORY); HOW CAN FBI KEEP INFORMANIS OPERATING

WITHIN PROPER LINIIS SO THEY DO NOT INVADE RIGHTS OF OTHER

PERSONS (HY RESPONSE WAS THAT RELIANCE MUSI BE PLACED ON THE

INDIVIDUAL AGENTS HANDLING INFORMANIS AND THOSE SUPERVISING

THE AGENIS WORK, THAT INFORMANIS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW GAN BE

24

66-33466

: 791 1975

_Fe-lared

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 101

---

## Page 102

PAGE TWO

PROSECUTED - AS CAN ANY AGENT WHO COUNSELS AN INFORMANT TO

COMMIT VIGLATIONS) ; AND DID FORMER KLAN INFORMANT GARY ROWE

TESTIFY ACCURATELY WHEN HE TOLD THE COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 2

THAT ME INFORMED FBI OF PLANNED ACTS OF VIOLENCE BUT FBI

DID NOT ACT TO PREVENT THEM MY RESPONSE WAS THAT ROWES

TESTIMONY WAS NOT ACCURATE) *

(2) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPROPER

CONDUCT BY FBI ENPLOYEES, I STATED THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF

LAW BY FBI PERSONNEL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI OR

OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCY; THAT THE INSPECIION DIVISION HAS

CONDUCTED INQUIRIES REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCI;

THAT AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HAS JUST

BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE WILL ADVISE

THAT OFFICE OF OUR MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS OF DEPARIMENTAL PERSONNEL,

INCLUDING FBI EMPLOYEES, FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW, REGULATIONS,

OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT; THAT I WOULD RESERVE COMMENT

REGARDING POSSIBLE CREATION OF A NATIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL

TO CONSIDER MATTERS OF MISCONDUCI BY EMPLOYEES OF ANY FEDERAL

AGENCY,

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 102

---

## Page 103

PAGE THREE

(3) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING HARASSMENT OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., I STATED THAI THE PERSONS WHO ISSUED

THE ORDERS WHICH RESULTED IN SUCH HARASSMENT SHOULD FACE THE

RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, RATHER THAN THOSE UNDER THEM WHO CARRIED

OUT SUCH ORDERS IN GOOD FAITH; THAI THE FBI STILL HAS RECORDINGS

RESULTING FROM ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES OF KING; THAT WE RETAIN

RECORDINGS FOR TEN YEARS BUT WE ALSO HAVE AGREED TO A REQUEST

FROM THE SENATE NOT TO DESTROY INFORMATION IN OUR FILES WHILE

CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES ARE BEING CONDUCTED; TRAT I HAVE NOT •

REVIEWED THE KING TAPES; THAT IF THE COMMITTEE REQUESTED TO

REVIEW THE KING TAPES, THE REQUEST WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL*

(4) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING WHETHER IT WOULD

BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO SEPARATE THE FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE

RESPONSIBILITIES AND OUR INTELLIGENCE FUNCTIONS, I STATED

THAT WE HAVE, FOUND THE TWO AREAS TO BE COMPATIBLE, AND I

FEEL THE FBI IS DOING A SPLENDID JOB IN BOTH AREAS.

(5) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY

OF CONTROLS ON REQUESIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND FROM OTHER

GOVERNMENI AGENCIES FOR FBI INVESTIGATIONS OR FOR INFORMATION

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 103

---

## Page 104

PAGE FOUR

PROM OUR FILES, I STATED THAT WHEN SUCH REQUESIS ARE MADE

ORALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN WRITING; THAT WE WOULD

VELCOME ANY LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES THE CONGRESS FEELS WOULD

PROTECT THE FBI FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTISAN MISUSE,

A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WILL BE

FURNISHED TO EACH OFFIGE AS SOON AS IT IS AVAILABLE.

ALL LEGATS ADVISED SEPARATELY.

END

FEL MM SAK AACK OXX ACK FOR 1 TEL

CLR

AND TU

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 104

---

## Page 105

Routing Slip

12-17-731

(Copies to

es Checkeu)

TO: SAC:

Ibal

Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchorage

Abanta

Baltinore

Birmingham

Boston

Buffalo

Bulle

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit.

El Paso

Honolulu

Houston

Indianapolis

Jackson

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

= Norfolk

• Oklahona City

_ Omaha

= Philanolphia

I Phoenix

Pittsburgh

• Portlanu

1 Richmond

Sacramento

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

TO LEGAT:

F Beirut

J ben

1 Bour

Ersilin

Bu los Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

I Madrid

.J Manila

-] Mexico Gity

J Outawa

3 Paris

J Kons

¡ Singapore

Tel Aviv

= Springfield

= dont on Prole

Date

11/21/75

RE:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

(3/15)

66-3346

Retention

For infomation optional t act appopriate

C] Surep, by

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

sources, [ paraphrase contents.

Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

Remarks:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of

an article by Mr. William Safire entitled

"Mr.

Church's

Cover-Up" that appeared in the

November

20

1975, issue of "The New York Tines.'

#3

66-3346-

#5-

En c.

LUVE:: 1375

Bufil

po

inte

NW 65360 V

Jocld SzJoyo20 Page 105

ASACNA

---

## Page 106

Mr. Church's Cover-Up

The committee is not asking embar-

By William Safire

rassing questions even when answers

are

WASHINGON, Nov. 19--Or: Oct. 10,

1963, the then-Actorney Coneral of the

United States put his personal signa-

ture on a document that launched and

legitimatized one of the most horren-

dous abuses of Federal police power in

this century.

In Senator Frank Church's subcom-

mittee hearing room this week, the

authorized

wiretapping

and

subse-

quent unauthorized bugging and

at-

tempted blackmailing of Martin Luther

King Jr. is being gingerly examined,

with the

"investigation" conducted in

such

a way as not to unduly em-

barrass officiais of the Kennedy or

Johnson Administrations.

With great care, the committee has

focused on the F.B.I. Yesterday, when

the committee counsel first set forth

the result of shuffling through press

clips, it seemed as it no Justice De-

partment had existed in 1962; today.

an F.B.I. witness pointed out that it

Was Robert Kennedy who authorized

the wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the

President of the United States and the

Astorney General specificaily discussed

why

their concern of Communist influence

with Dr. King."

But the Church committce showed

no zest for getting further to the Ken-

mitted

nedy loot of this precedent to Water-

gate eavesdropping. It Senator Church

were wiling to let the chips fall where

they may, he would call some know-

edgeable

witnesses into the glare of

the camera lights and ask them some

questions that have gone unasked for

thirtsen years.

For exampie, he could call Nicholas

Katzenbach, .

Atiomey Genural Ken-

redy's deputy and successor, and ask

1. What is knows of the Kennedy de-

cision to wiretay Dr. King. Who at

justice concurred in the recommenda-

tion? How does the F.B.I. Know they

President was consulted or informed?

After 14r. Katzenbach assumed of-

fice, and the wiretapping continued,

he was toid by angry newsmen that

the F.B.I. was leaking scurrilous

in-

formation about Dr. King. Why did ha

wait for four months, and for a thou

sand telephonic intercaptions. to dis+

continue the officially approved rap?

Of course, this sort di testimony

would erode Senator Church's political

base. That is why we do not see for-

Iner Assistant F.B.I. director Cartha

(Bake)

Deloack,

lyndon

Johnson's

personal contace with the F.B.I. in the

witness chair.

iViat did President

Johnson inow about the character-

assassination ploi and schen did he

" now

it? What

convisations tock

pIece Dotween Nir. Deloach and Presi-

dont Johncon on the tarning

of Dr.

King, or about the lise de the F.B.I. in

My other intrusions into the lives of

NW 65360 Döcld:32989820 Page 1023 up.

F.B.I.

man

blurt out an-episode about newsmen

who were weritapping in 1962 with

the apparent knowledge of Attornel

General Kennedy. The too-willing wit

ness was promptly shooshed into st

would be developed only in executive

Church committee is vividly shown by

the handling of the buggings at the

1964 Republican and Democratic con-

ESSAY

ventions which were ordered by Lyn-

don Johnson. Such invasions of politi-

cal headquarters were worse than the

crime committed at Watergate, since

they involved the use of the 'F.B.I.,

but the Church investigators seem to

be determined not to probe too deeply.

same opportunity to publicly tell their

ward to tell us all about it?

ment to Democrats,

But that would cause embarrass.

Senator

Church wants to embarrass profes-

sional

employees

of

investigatory

agencies only. A new sense of Con-

gressional decorum exists,

far from

management of NBC News gave press

credentials to L.B.J.'s spies at the 1964

convention, everybody blushes demure-

ly--and

nobody

demands

to know!

which network executive made what!

decision under what pressure.

I have been haranguing pations

readers for years about the double

standard applied to Democralic and

Republican political crimes, and had

hoved the day would come when the

hardball precedents set by the Ken-

nedy and Johnson nuch would be laid

before the public in damning dotail.

Obviously, Democrat Frank Church

is nol the man to do if. His. jowl-

shakine indignation is all too solec-

ive: the trail of high-level responsi-

bility for the crimes commitied against

Dr. King and others is evidently going

to de allowed to cool.

Pity. You'd think tin after all sie

nation has been thronen

#1

the past

rew years, our political leader muld

have learned that i

vas thing that

bringe you down is the dor a ecrore

66-3346-222

mg.

1uva- 1975

toth

THE NEW YORK TIMES

THURSDAY,

NOVEMBER

205h, 1975

PAGE C-41

---

## Page 107

Routing Slip

0-7 (Rev. T~11-7

TC: SAC:

Albany

Albuquer ge

Alexandria

Anchorage

Allanta

Baltimore

Binningham

Boston

Buffalo

Butte

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

¡ Honolulu

(Copios to Offices Checkeit:

J,Ilouston

Indianapolis

eJack son

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

•Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orl cans

New York City

Norfolk

] Oklahoma City

Omaha

Philadelphia

Phocnix

Pittsburgh

Portl and

Richmond •

Sacramento

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

Seattle

TO LEGAT:

Bern

Bonn

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

Ottawa

Paris

Roine

Tel Aviv.

Tokyo

Springfield

Tamp a

Washington Field

Quantico

Dato December 5, 1975

RE: TESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR--

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES B. ADAMS

BEFORE

• THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

12/2/75

Retention

[ For inforation = optional

at appropriate

[ Surep, by

[ The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future report, L conceal ali

sources, E] paraphrase contents.

• Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

Remarks:

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

excerpts of Mr. Adams' testimony.

Attached for your information and

assistance, is the complete transcript of

above-referenced testimony

66-3346-

UNEDITED

TRANSCRIPTS

CARCHED

IND210.

SERIALIZEO

Dzo

Enc. (1)

Butile

Urfile

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 10g

8 19/5

FBI-MIAMI

---

## Page 108

Vol. 15

The Anitro Statra Sruate

Report of Proceedings

Hearing held before

Salec: Connittoo to Study Governmantal. Operations

With Respect to Intelligence Activities

INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

Mesday, Dacember 2, 1975

Washington, D. C.

!

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003

(202) 544-6000

106-3346-21

SELECHED.

Dã8 § 1975

FBI-WAivil

- NW 65360_Docld:32989820 Page 108

---

## Page 109

WARD

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

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23

24

25

Senator Tower.. The next witnesses to appear before the

Committee

are Mr. James Adams, Assistant to the Director-

Deputy Associate Director, Investigation, responsible for all

investigative operations; Mr. W. Raymond Wannall, Assistant

Director, Intelligence Division, responsible for internal

security and foreign counterintelligence investigations; Mr.

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

Joseph G. Deegan, Section Chief, extremist investigations;

Mr. Robert I. Schackelford, Section Chief, subversive

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

Chief, Supervises extremist informants; Mr. Edward P. Grigal-

Unit Chief, supervises subversive

informants; Joseph G. alicy,

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

gative Division.

Gentlemen, will you all rise and be sworn.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 109

---

## Page 110

Shin 16

1901

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1Y

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give

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

but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Adams. I do.

Mr. Wannall.

I do.

Mr. Mintz.

I do.

Mr. Deegan. I do.

Mx. Schackelford. I do.

Mr. Newman. I do.

Mr. Grigalus. I do.

Mr. Kelley. I do.

Senator Tower. It is intended that. MI. Wannall will be

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

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

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

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

the members of the Committee to return from the floor.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Senator Tower. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Wannall, according to data, informants provide 83

percent of your intelligence information.

Now, will you provide the Committee with some information

on the criteria for the selection of informants?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 110

---

## Page 111

• 1902

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

1

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

.12

13

14

15

16

TESTIMONY OF W. RAYMOND WANNALI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

ACCOMPANIED BY: JAMES B. ADAMS, ASSISTANT TO THE

DIRECTOR-DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) ;

• JOHN A. MINTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGAL COUNSEL

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

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

ASSISTANT TO SECTION CHIEF; EDWARD P. GRIGALUS, UNIT

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

CIVIL RIGHTS SECTION, GENERAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION

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

have quoted. That was prepared by the General Accounting

office.

Senator Tower. That is

GAO.

MI. Wannall. Based on a sampling of about 93 cases.

Senator Tower.

Would that appear to be a fairly accurate

figure.

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

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

we do get the principal portion of our information from live

sources.

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

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Tower. It would be a relatively high percert.".

then?

Mr. Wannall.

I would say yes. And your quest

criteria?

.

NW-65360-Dog|d;32989820-Page-111.

---

## Page 112

smn 18

1903

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

3

4

5

6

7

8°

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16.

17

18

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

19

20

21

2.2

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 112.

Senator Tower. What criteria do you use in the selection

of informants?

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

In

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

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

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

of criteria.

If you're talking about our internal security

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

that a preliminary inquiry be conducted which would consist

principally of checks of our headquarters indices, our field

office indices,

checks with other informants who are operating

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

local police departments.

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

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

would interview the individual in order to make a determination

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

in discharging its responsibilities. in that. field.

Following that, assuming that the answer is positive, we

would conduct a rather in depth investigation for the purpose

of. further attempting to establish credibility and reliability.

Senator. Tower. How. does the Bureau. distinguish between

the use of informants for law enforcement as opposed to

intelligence. collection?

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

---

## Page 113

Smn 19

•1904

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

Street,

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

24

25

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

the use of informants on criminal matters since he is over

the operational division on that.

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

that a criminal informant in a law enforcement function, you

are trying to develop evidence which will be admissible in

court for prosecution, whereas with intelligence, the informant

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

just for purposes of pure intelligence.

The difficulty in both is retaining the confidentiality

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

through use of the informant, obtain evidence which could be

used independently of the testimony of the informant so that

he can continue operating as a criminal informant.

Senator Tower. Are these informants ever authorized to

function as provocateurs?

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

tions against using informants as provocateurs. This gets

into that delicate area of entrapment which has been addressed

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

courts that providing an individual has a willingness to engage

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

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

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

avoid this. Even the law has recognized that informants can

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 113

---

## Page 114

. smn 20

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1905

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

2

3

especially the

supreme Court in the Newark County Case, that

the very difficulty of penetrating an ongoing operation, that

an informant himself can engage in criminal activity, but

5

because there is lacking this criminal intent to violate a

6

7

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

If we have

a situation where we felt that an informant

8

has to become involved in some activity in order to protect

9

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

10

States Attorney or to the Attorney General to try to make sure

1l. we are not stepping out of bounds insofar as the use of our

12

informants.

13

14

Senator Tower. But you do use these informants and do

instruct them to spread dissension among certain groups that

15

they are informing on, do you not?

16

Mr. Adams. We did when we had the COINTELPRO program$,

17

18

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

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

19

20

in effect at the time. We heard the term States Rights used

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

21

Rock situation the President of the United States, in sending

22

23

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

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

24

troops only as a last resort.

25

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

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 114

---

## Page 115

1906

544-

202)

(Area

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to preserve the respective roles in law enforcement. You have

historical problems with the Klan coming along. We had

situations where the FBI and the Federal Government was almost

powerless to act. We had local law enforcement officers in

some

areas participating in Klan violence.

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

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

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

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

reported to the police departments in every instance. We

also knew that in certain instances the information, upon being

received, was not being acted upon. We also disseminated

simultaneously through letterhead memoranda to the Department

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

position where we had no authority in the absence of instruction

from the Department of Justice, to make an arrest.

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

evidence of a conspiracy, and it ultimately resulted in

a situation where the Department called in United States

Marshals who do have authority similar to local law enforcement

officials.

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

trated as anyone else was, and when we got information from

someone like Mr. Rowe, good information, reliable information,

and it was passed on to those who had the responsibility to

NW 65360 Docld:32089820 Page 115

---

## Page 116

smn 22

190.7

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

do something about it, it was not always acted upon, as he

indicated.

Senator Tower. None of these cases, then, there was

adequate evidence of conspiracy to give you jurisdiction to

5

6

act?

8

9

.10

11

1?

13

14

15

16

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

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr: Adams. The Departmental rules at that time, and still

require Departmental approval where you have a conspiracy.

Under 241, it takes two or more persons acting together.. You

can have a mob scene, and you can have blacks and whites

belting each other, but unless you can show that those that

initiated the action acted in concert in a conspiracy, you have.

no violation.

Congress recognized this, and it wasn't until 1968

that they came along and added Section 245 to the civil rights

statúte, which added punitive measures against an individual

that didn't have to be a conspiracy. But this was a problem

that the whole country was grappling with: the President of

the United States, Attorney General. We were in a situation

where we had rank lawlessness taking place, as you know from

a memorandum we sent you that we sent to the Attorney General.

The accomplishments we were able to obtain in preventing

violence, and in neutralizing the klan -- and that was one

of the reasons.

Senator Tower. What was the Bureau's purpose in con-

tinuing or urging the continued surveillance of the Vietnam

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 116

---

## Page 117

1908

snin 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2.2

G

23

24

25

Veterans Against the War?

Was there a legitimate law enforcement purpose, or was

the

intent to halter political expression?

Mr. Adams. We had information on the Vietnam Veterans

Against the War that indicated that there were subversive

groups involved. They were going to North Vietnam and meeting.

with the Communist forces. They were going to Paris, attending.

meetings paid for and sponsored by the Communist Party, the

International Communist Party. We feel that we.had a very valid

basis to direct our attention to the VAW.

It started out, of course, with Gus Hall in 1967, who was

head of the Communist Party, USA, and the comments he made,

and what it finally boiled down to was a situation where it

split off into the Revolutionary Union, which was a Maost

group, and the hard-line Communist group, and at that point

factionalism developed in many of the chapters, and they closed

those chapters because there was no longer any intent to follow

the national organization.

But we had a valid basis for investigating it, and we

investigated chapters to determine if there was affiliation

and subservience to the national office.

Senator Tower. Mr. Hart?

Senator Hart of Michigan. But in the process of chasing

after the Veterans Against the War, you got a lot of information

that clearly has no rclationship to any Federal criminal

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 117

---

## Page 118

smn 24

1909

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

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

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

statute.

Mr. Adams. I agree, senator.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Why don't you try to shut that

stuff off.by simply telling the agent, or your informant?

Mr. Adams:

Here is the problem that you have with that.

When you're looking at an organization, do you report only the

violent statements made by the group or do you also show that

you may have one or two violent individuals, but you have

some of these church group's that were mentioned, and others,

that the whole intent of the group is not in violation of the

statutes. You have to report the good, the favorable along

with the unfavorable, and this is a problem. We wind up with

information in our files. We are accused of being vacuum

cleaners, and you are a vacuum cleaner. If you want to know the

real purpose of an organization, do you only report the

violent statements made and the fact that it is by. a small

minority, or do you also show the broad base of the organization

and what it really is?

And within that is where we have to have the guidelines

we have talked about before.

We have to narrow down, because

we recognize that we do wind up with too much information in

our files.

• Senator Hart of Michigan. But in that vacuuming process:

you are feeding into Departmental files the names of people

who

are, who

have been engaged in basic First Amendment

NW 65360_ Docld:32989820 Page 118

---

## Page 119

smn 25'

1910.

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

5

6

exercises, and this is what hangs some of us up.

Mr. Adams. It hangs me up. But in the same files I

imagine every one of you has been interviewed by the FBI, either

asking you about the qualifications of some other Senator

being considered for a Presidential appointment, being inter-

viewed concerning some friend who is applying for a job.

Were you embarrassed to have that in the files of the

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

•13

14

15

16

17

18

•• 19

20

• 21

FBI?

2'3

2.1

25

Now, someone can say, as reported at our last session, that

this is an indication, the mere fact that we have a name in our

files has an onerous impression, a chilling effect. I agree.

It can have, if someone wants to distort what we have in our

files, but if they recognize that we interviewed you because

of considering. a man for the Supreme Court of the United

States, and that isn't distorted or improperly used, I don't

see where any harm is served by having that in our files.

'Senator Hart. of Michigan. But if. I am. Reverend. Smith

and. the vacuum. cleaner. picked up the fact.that.I.was.helping

the veterans,. Vietnam Veterans Against. the War, and two years

later a name check. is. asked. on Reverend Smith and. all your

file shows. is that he was. associated. two years ago. with a group

that was sufficient enough, held sufficient doubtful. patriotism

to justify turning loose a lot of your energy in pursuit on

them --

MI. Adams. This is a problem.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 119

---

## Page 120

smn

26

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1911

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Hart of Michigan.

This is what should require

us to rethink this whole business.

Mr. Adams. Absolutely.

And this is what I hope the guidelines committees as well

as the Congressional input are going to address themselves to.

Senator Hart of Michigan. We've talked about a wide range

of groups which the Bureau can and has had informant penetration

and report on. Your manual, the Bureau manual's definition

of when an extremist or security investigation may be under-

taken refers to groups whose activity either involves violation

of certain specified laws, or which may result in the violation

of such law, and when such an investigation is opened, then

informants may be used.

Another guideline says that domestic intelligence

investigations now must be predicated on criminal violations.

The agent need only cite a statute suggesting an investigation

relevant to a potential violation. Even now, with an improved,

upgraded effort to avoid some of these problems, we are back

again in a world of possible violations or activities which

may result in illegal acts.

Now, any constitutionally protected exercise of the

right to demonstrate, to assemble, to protest, to petition,

conceivably may result in violonce or disruption of a local

town meeting, when a controversial social issue might result

in disruption. It might be by hecklers rather than those holding

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 120

---

## Page 121

smn

27

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1912

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

23

24

25

the meeting.

Does this mean that the Bureau should investigate all

groups organizing or participating in such a meeting because

they may result in violence, disruption?

Mr. Adams. No, sir.

Senator Hart of Michigan.

Isn't that how you justify

spying on almost every aspect of the peace movement?

Mr. Adams.

No, sir. When we monitor demonstrations, we

monitor demonstrations where we have an indication that the

demonstration itself is sponsored by a group that we have an

investigative interest in, a valid investigative interest in,

or where members of one of these groups are participating where

there is a potential that they might change the peaceful

nature of the demonstration.

But this is our closest question of trying to draw

guidelines to avoid getting into an area of infringing on the

First Amendment rights of people, yet at the same time being

aware of groups such as we have had in greater numbers in the

past than we do at the present time, But we have had periods

where the demonstrations have been rather severe, and the

courts have said that the FBI has a right, and indeed a duty,

to keep itself informed with respect to the possible commission

of crime. It is not obliged to wear blinders until it may be

too late for prevention.

And that's a good statement if applied in a clearcut

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 121

---

## Page 122

smn

28

phone (Area 202) 544-5000

1913

end 5

case. Our problem is where we have a demonstration and we have

to make a judgment call as to whether it is one that clearly

fits the criteria of enabling us to monitor the activities, and

that's where' I think most of our disagreements: fail.

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

11

1

2

1

3

1

4

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

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 122

---

## Page 123

HARRIS: GSII

sen. Sel. CIA

12/2/85

Tape

1914

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

410 First Street, S.E., Washington,

D.C. 20003

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Hart of Michigan. Let's assume that the rule

for opening an investigation on a group is narrowly drawn. The

Bureau manual states that informants investigating a subversive

organization should not only report on what that group is

doing but should look at and report on activities in which

the group is participating.

There is a

section 87B3 dealing with reporting: on

connections with other groups. That section says that the

field office shall "determine and report on any. significant

connection of cooperation with non-subversive groups." Any

significant connection or cooperation with non-subversive

groups.

Now let's look at this in practice. In the spring of

1969 there was a rather heated national debate over the

installation of the anti-ballistic missile system. Some of us

remember that. An FBI informant and two FBI confidential

sources reported on the plan's participants and activities

of the Washington Area Citizens Coalition Against the ABM,

particularly in open public debate in a high school auditorium,

which included speakers from the Defense Department for the

ABM and a scientist

and defense analyst against the ABM.

The informants reported on the planning for the meeting,

the distribution of materials to churches and schools,

participation by local clergy, plans to seek resolution on i

ABM from ncarby town councils. There was also informati.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 123

---

## Page 124

1915

Phone (Area 202/ 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

WARD & PAUL

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

plans for a subsequent town meeting in Washington with the

names of local political leaders who would attend.

Now the information, the informant information came as

part of an investigation of an allegedly subversive. group

participating in that coalition. Yet the infornation dealt

with all aspects and all participants. The reports on the

plans for the meeting and on the meeting itself were disseminated

to the Statc Department, to military intelligence, and to the

White House.

Ilow do we get into all of that?

Mx. Adams. Well -

Senator llart of Michigan. Or if you were to

rerun it,

would you do it again?

Mr. Adams.

Well, not in 1975, compared to what 1969

was.

The problem we had at the time was where we had an

informant who had reported that this group, this meeting was

going to take place and it was going to be the Daily world,

which was the east coast communist newspaper that made conments

about it. They formed an organizational meeting. We took

a quick look at it. The case apparently was opened in May 28,

1969 and closed June 5 saying there was no problem with this

organization.

Now the problen we get into is if we take a quick look

and get out, fine. We've had cases, though, where we have

stayed in too long. When you're dealing with security i is

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 124

---

## Page 125

•gshi

3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

3.

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

•19;6

soviet espionage where they can put one person in this country

and they supported him with total resources of the Soviet

Union, false identification, all the money he needs, comnuni-

cations networks, satellite assistance, and everything, and

you're working with a paucity of information.

The same problem exists to a

certain extent in domestic

security. You don't have a lot of black and white situations.

So someone reports something to you which you feel, you take

a quick look at and there's nothing to it, and I think that's

what they did.

Senator: Hart of Michigan. You said that was '69. Let

me bring you up to date, closer. to current, a current place

on the calendar.

This one is the fall

of last year, 1975. President

Ford announced his new program with respect to amnesty, as

he described it, for draft resistors. Following that there

were several national conferences involving all the groups

and individuals interested in unconditional amnesty.

Now parenthetically, while unconditional amnesty is

not against -- while unconditional amnesty is not yet the law,

we afreed that advocating it is not against the law either.

Mr. Adams. That's right.

schator llart of Michigan. Some of the sponsors vor.

umbrella organizations involving about 50 diverse.

"ind

the country. FBI informants provided advance i..i.!ir

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 125

---

## Page 126

gsh 1

1917

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

.16

17

18

19

20.

21

plans for the meeting and apparently attended and reported on

the conference.

The Bureau's own reports described the

participants

as

having. represented diverse' perspectives on

the issue of amnesty, including civil liberties and human

rights groups, G.I. rights

spokesmen, parents of men killed

in Vietnam, wives of ex-patriates in Canada, experts on draft

counselling, religious groups interested in peace issues,

delegates

from student organizations, and aides of House and

Senate members, drafting legislation on amnesty.

The informant apparently was attending in his role as

a member of a group under investigation as allegedly subversive

and it described the topics of the workshop.

Ironically, the Bureau office report before them noted

that in vier of the location of the conference at a theological

seminary, the FBI would use restraint and limit its coverage..

to informant reports.

Now this isn't five or ten years ago. This is last

fall. And this is a conference of people who have the point

of view that I share, that the sooner we have unconditional

amnesty, the better for the soul of the country.

22

Now what reason is it for a vacuum cleaner approach on

a thing like that? Don't these instances illustrate how broad

23

24

informant intelligence really is, that would cause these groups

in that setting having contact with other groups, all and

25

everybody is drawn into the vacuum and many names go into the

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 126

---

## Page 127

•

9sh 5

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

19:18

1

?

4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

: 20

21

22

23

24°

25

Bureau files.

Is this what we want?

Mr. Adams.

I'll let Mr. Wannall address himself to this.

He is particular knowledgeable as to this operation.

Mr. Wannall. Senator Hart, that was

a case that was

opened on Novenher 14. and closed November 20, and the information

which caused us to be interested in it vere really two particular

items.

One was that a member of the steering committee there,

was a three man steering committee, and one of those members

of the national conference was in fact a national officer

of the VVAN in whom we had suggested before we did. have a

legitimate investigative interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Nell, I would almost say so

what

at that point.

Mr. Wannall. The second report we had was that the

VVAW would actively participate in an'attempt to pack the

conference to take it over. And the third report we had -

Senator Hart of Michigan. And incidentally, all of the

information that your Buffalo informant had given you with

respect to the goals and aims of the VVAW gave You a list of

goals which were completely within Constitutionally protected

objectives. There wasn't a single

item out of that VAN that

jeopardizes the security of this country at all.

Mr. Wannall. Well, of course, ve did not rely entirely

on the Buffalo infonnant, but even there we did.

recei.

NW 65360 Docid:32989820 Page 127

--.a

!

---

## Page 128

gsh 6

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1919

]

2

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

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

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

from that informant information which I considered to be

significant.

The Buffalo chapter of the WAW was the regional office

covering New York and northern New Jersey. It was one of the

five most active VAN chapters' in the country and at a

national conference, or at the regional conference, this

informant reported information back to us that an attendee

at the conference announced that he had run guns into Cuba

prior to the Castro take-over. He himself said that he during

the Cuban crisis had been under 24 hour suveillance. There

was also discussion at the conference of subjugating the

WAW to the revolutionary union. There were some individuals

in the chapter or the regional conference who were not in

agreenent with us, but Mc. Adams has addressed himself to the

interest of the revolutionary union.

So all of the information that we had on the VAW did

not come froin that source but even that particular source did

give us information which we considered to be of some

significance in our appraisal of the need for continuing the

investigation of that particular chapter of the VAw.

Senator Hart of Michigan. But does it give you the

right or does it create the need to go to a conference, even

if it is a conference that might be taken over by the VAW

when the subject matter is how and by what means shall we

seek to achieve unconditional amnesty? What threat?

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 128

---

## Page 129

gsh

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

7

19:20

2

3

4

5

6

Mr. Wannall. Our interest, of course, was the VAl

influence on a particular meeting, if you ever happened to be

holding a meeting, or whatever subject it was.

Senator llart of Michigan. What if it was a meeting to

seek to make more effective the food stamp system in this

country?

&PAUL

8

9

• 10

11

12

13.

1'4:

15

16

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

18

19

20.

21

22

23

24

• 25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 129

Wannall.

Well,: of course there had been some

organizations.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Would the same logic follow?

Mr. Wannall. I think that if we found that if the

Communist Party USA was going to take over the meeting and

use it as

front for its own purposes, there would be a logic

in doing that.

You have a whole scope hore and it's a matter.

of where you do and where

you don't, and hopefully, as we've

said before, we will have some guidance, not only from this

committce but from the guidelines that are being developed.

But within the rationale of what we're doing today, I was

explaining to you our interest not in going to this thing and

not gathering everything there was about it.

In fact, only one individual attended and reported to us,

and that was the person who had, who was not developed for

this reason; an informant who had been reporting on other

matters for some period of time.

And as soon as we got the report of the outree ci fli

meeting and the fact that in the period of some i

---

## Page 130

gond

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1Y21

& PAUL

1

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discontinued any further interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Hell, my time has expired

but even this brief exchange, I think, indicates that if we

really want to control the dangers to our society of using

informants to gather domestic political intelligence, we have

to restrict sharply domestic intelligence investigations. And

that gets us into what I would like to raise with you when

my turn comes around again, and that's the use of warrants,

obliging the Bureau to obtain a warrant before a full-fledged

informant can be directed by the Bureau against a group or

individuals.

I know you have objections to that and I would like. to

review that with you.

Senator Mondale, Pursue that question.

Senator Hart of Michigan. I am talking now about an

obligation so obtain a warrant before you turn loose a full-

fledged informant. I'm not talking about tipsters that run

into you or you run into, or who walk in as information sources.

The Bureau has raised

some objections in this memorandum to the

Committee. The Bureau argues that such a warrant requirement

might be unconstitutional because it would violate the First

Amendment rights of FBI informants to communicate with their

government.

Now that's a concern for First Amendment rights that

ought to

• hearten all the civil libertarians.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 130

---

## Page 131

gsh" 9

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1922

1

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

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

But why would that vary, why would a warrant requirement

raise a serious constitutional question?

Mr. Adams: Well, for one thing it's the practicability

of it or the impacticability of getting a warrant which:

ordinarily involves probable cause to: show that a crime has

been or is about to be committed.

In the intelligence field we are not dealing necessarily

with an imminent criminal action. We're dealing with activities

such as with the Socialist Workers Party, which we have

discussed before, where they say publicly we're not. to engage

in any violent activity today, but we guarantee you we still

subscribe to the tenets of communism and that when the time

is ripe, we're going to rise up and help overthrow the United

States.

Well, now, you can't show probable cause if they're about

to do it because they're telling you they're not

going to do it

and you know they're not going to do it at this particular

moment.

It's just the mixture somewhat of trying to mix in a

criminal procedure with an intelligence gathering function, and

we can't find any practical way of doing it. We have a particular

organization. We may have an informant that not only belongs

to the communist Party, but belongs to several other organization:

and as part of his function he may be sent out by the Communist

Party to try to infiltrate one of these clean organizations.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 131

---

## Page 132

ash 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

I tood

2

5

6

7

8

WARD & PAUL

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We don't have probable cause for him to target

against

that organization, but yet we should be able to receive informa.

tion from him that he as

a Communist Party member, even

though in an informant status, is going to that organization

and don't worry about it. We're making no headway on it.

It's just from our standpoint the possibility of informants,

the Supreme Court has held that informants per se do not

violate the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments. They have

recognized the necessity that the government has to have

individuals who will assist them in carrying out their

governmental duties.

Senator llart of Michigan. I'm not sure I've heard anything

yet in response to the constitutional question, the very

practical question that you addressed.

Quickly, you are right that the court has said that the

use of the informant per se is not a violation of constitutional

rights of the subject under investigation. But Congress

can prescribe sone safeguards, some rules and some standards,

just as we have with respect to your use of electronic

surveillance, and could do it with respect to informants.

That's quite different from saying that the warrant

procedure itself would be unconstitutional.

But with respect to the fact that you couldn't show

probable cause, and therefore; you couldn't get a warrant,

therefore you oppose the proposal to require you to get a

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 132

---

## Page 133

gsh

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

11

1924

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

PAUL

12

WARD

•13

End Tape 614

Begin Tape p

16

17

18

• 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

warrant.

It seems to beg the question.

Assuming that you say that since we use informants and

investigate groups which may only engage in lawful activities

but which might engage in activities that can result in

violence or illegal acts, and you can't use the warrant, but

Congress could say that the use of informants is subject to

such abuse and poses such a threat to legitimate activity,

including the willingness of people to assemble and discuss

the anti-ballistic missilé system, and we don't want you to

use them unless you have indication of criminal activity or

unless you present your request to a magistrate. in the same.

fashion as you are required to do with respect to, in most

cases, to wiretap.

This is an option available to congress:

Senator Tower. Senator Schweiker.

Senator Schweiker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wannall, what's the difference between a potential

security informant and a security informant?

Mr. Wannall. I mentioned earlier, Senator Schweiker,

that in developing an informant we do a preliminary check on

him before talking with him and then we do a further in-depth

background check.

A potential security informant is someone who is under

consideration before he is approved by headquarters for use as

an informant. He is someone who is under current consideration.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 133

---

## Page 134

gsh

12

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1925

On some occasions that person will have been developed to a

point where he is in fact furnishing information and we are

engaged in checking upon his reliability.

In some instances he may be paid for information furnished,

but it has not gotten to the point yet where we have satisfied

ourselves that he meets all of our criteria. When he does,

the field must submit its recommendations to headguarters, and

headquarters will pass upon whether that individual is an

approved FBI informant.

Senator Schweiker. So it's really the first step of

being an informant, I guess,

Mr. Wannall. It is a preliminary step, one of the

preliminary steps.

Senator Schweiker. In the Rowe case, in :the Rowe

testimony that we just heard, what was the rationale again

for not intervening when violence was known?

I know we asked you several times but I'm still having

trouble understanding what the rationale, Mr. Wannall, was

in not intervening in the Rowe situation when violence was

known.

Mr. Wannall. Senator Schiveiker, Mr. Adams did address

himself to that. If you have no objection, I'll ask him to

answer that.

Senator Schweiker. All. right.

Mr. Adams.

The problem we had at the time, and it's the

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 134

---

## Page 135

gsh 13:

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1926

i ....

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

2

3

.4

5

6

7

8

• 9

10

11

.12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

-22

23

24

25

problem today, we are an investigative agency. We do not

have police powers like the United States marshalls do.

About 1795, I.

guess, or some period like that, marshalls have

had the authority that almost, borders on what a sheriff, has.

We are the investigative agency of the Department of Justice

and during

these times the Department of Justice had us maintain

the role of an investigative agency. We were to report on

activities to furnish the information to the local police,

who had an obligation to act. We furnished it to the Department

of Justice.

In those areas where the local police did not act, it

resulted finally in the Attorney General sending 500 United

States marshalls down to guarantee the safety of people who

were trying to march in protest

of their civil rights.

This was an extraordinary measure because it came at a

time of civil righs versus federal rights, and yet there was

a breakdown in law enforcement in certain areas of the country.

This doesn't mean to indict all law enforcement agencies

in itself at the time either because many of them did act

upon the information that was furnished to them. But we

have no authority to make an arrest on the spot because we

would not have had evidence that there was

a.conspiracy

available. We can do absolutely nothing in that regard.

In Little Rock, the decision was made, for instance, that

if any arrests need to be made, the Army should make them and

-NW 65360_ Docld:32989820 Page 135

---

## Page 136

gsh 14

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

& PAUL

WARD

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

1

•2

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

•16

17

18

19

20

21

• 22

23

24

25

• 1927

next to the Army, the United States marshalls should make them,

not the FBI, even though we developed the violations.

And over the years, as

you know, at the time there were many

questions raised. Why doesn't the FBI stop this?

why don't

you do something about it?.

Well, we took the other route and effectively destroyed

the Klan as far as committing acts of violence, and of course

we exceeded statutory guidelines in that area.

Senator Schweiker. What would be wrong, just following

up your point there, Mr. Adams, with setting up a program

sincé it's obvious to me that a lot of informers are going to:

have pre-knowledge of violence of using U.S. marshalls on some

kind of a long-range basis to prevent violence?

Mr. Adams. We do. We have them in Boston in connection

with the busing incident. We are investigating the violations

under the Civil Rights Act. But the marshalls are in Boston,

they are in Louisville, I believe at the same time, and this

is the approach, that the Federal government finally recognized,

was the solution to the problem where you had to have added

Federal import.

Senator Schweiker. But instead of waiting until it

gets to a Boston state, which is obviously a pretty advanced

confrontation, shouldn't we have som

wiere a coordinated program

that when you go up the ladder of co and in the FBI, that

on an innediate'and fairly contemporary basis, that kind of

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 136

---

## Page 137

gsh 15

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1928

1

•2

3

4

5

6

8

WARD & PAUL

• 10

11

12

13

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

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

. 22

23

24

25

help can be sought instantly as opposed to waiting until it

gets

to a Boston state?

I realize it's a departture from the past. I'm not

saying it isn't

But. it seems. to

me. we need a better remedy

than. we have.

Mr. Adams.

Well, fortunately we're at a time where

conditions have subsided in the country, even from the '60s

and the '70s and periods -- or '50s and '60s.: We report to the

Department of Justice on potential troublespots around the

country as we learn of them

so that the Department will be

aware of them. The planning for Boston, for instance, took

place a year in advance with state officials, city officials,

the Department of Justice and the FBI sitting down together

saying, how are we going to protect the situation in Boston?

I think we've learned a lot from the days back in the

early '60s.

But the government had no mechanics which protected

people at that time.

Senator Schweiker. I'd like to go, if I may, to the

Robert Hardy case. I know he

is not a witness but he

was a witness before the llouse. But since this affects my

state, I'd like to ask Mr. Wannall. Mr. Hardy, of course, was

the FBI informer who ultimately led and planned and organized

a raid on the Camden draft board. An according to Mr. Hardy's

testimony before our Committee, he sa:: that in advance of the

raid someone in the Department had even acknowledged the fact

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 137

---

## Page 138

1929

gsh 16

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

:

& PAUL

WARD

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

"1.7

18

19

20

21

..22

that they had all the information they needed to clamp down

on the conspiracy and could arrest people at that point in time,

and yet no arrests were made.

Why, Mr. Wannall, was

this true?

Mr. Wannall. Well, I can answer that based oniy on the

material that I have reviewed, Senator Schweiker. It was not

a case handled in my division but I think I can answer your.

question.

There was, in fact, a representative of the Department

of Justice on the spot counselling and advising continuously!

as that case progressed as to what point the arrest should be

made and we were being guided by those to our mentors, the

ones who

are responsible for making decisions of that sort..

So I think that M.. Hardy's statement to the effect that

there was someone in the Department there is perfectly true.

Senator Schweiker. That responsibility rests with whio

under your procedures?

Mr. Wannall. We investigate decisions on making arrests,

when they should be made, and dccisions with regard to

prosecutions are made either by the United States attorneys

or by Federals in the Department.

Mr. Adams. At this time that particular case did have

23

a departmental attorney on the scene Mause there are questions

24

of conspiracy.

conspiracy is a tough riolation to prove and

25

sometimes a question of do you have the added value of catching

NW 65360 Docld:32949820 Page 138

---

## Page 139

gsh 17

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

19:30

2

3

4

5

6

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23.

24

25

someone in the commission of the crime as further proof,

rather than relying on one informant and some circumstantial

evidence to prove the violation.

Senator Schweiker.

well, in this case, though, they

even had a dry run. They could have arrested them on the

diy run.

That's getting pretty close to conspiracy, it seems to

me.

They had a dry run and they could have arrested them on

the dry run.

I'd like to know why they didn't arrest them on the dry

run. Who was this Department of Justice official who made

that decision?

Mr. Adams. Guy Goodwin was the Department official.

Senator Schweiker. Next I'd like to ask back in 1965,

during the height of the effort to destroy the Klan, as you

put it a few moments ago, I believe the FBI has released

figures that we had something like 2,000 informers of some

kind or another infiltrating the Klan out of roughly 10,000

estimated membership.

I believe these are either FBI figures or estimates.

That would mean that one out of every five members of the klan

at that point was an informant paid by the government.

And I believe the figure goes or

=o indicate that 70

percent of the new members of the Kla:, that year were FBI

informants.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 139

---

## Page 140

gsh

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000"

& PAUL

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

• 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Isn't this an awfully overwhelming quantity of people.

to put in an effort such as that? I'm not criticizing that

you shouldn't have informants in the klan and know what's

going on for violence, but it seems to me that this is the

tail wagging the dog.

For example, today we supposedly have only 1594 total:

informants for both donestic informants and potential infoxmants

and thät here we had 2,000 just in the Klan alone.

Mr. Adams. Well, this number 2,000 did include all

racial matters, informants at that particular time, and I

think the figures we tried to reconstruct as to the actual

number of Klan infornants in relation to Klan members was around

percent, I think, after we had read some of the testimony.

Now the problem we had on the Klan is the Klan had

group called the Action Group. This was the group that you

remember from Mr. Rowe's testimony, that he was left af-

ter the meeting.

He attended the open meetings and heard

all of the hurrahs and this type of thing from information,

but he never knew what was going on because each one had an

action group that went out and considered themselves in the

missionary field.

Theirs was the violence.

In order to penetrate those, it takes, you have to direct

24

as many informants as you possibly can against it. Bear in

25. mind that I think the newspapers, the President and Congress and

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 140

---

## Page 141

gsh 19

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

]

2

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

• 22

23

24

25

1932

everyone is concerned about the murder of the civil rights

workers, the Linio Kent sase, the Viola Lluzzo case, the

bombings of the church in Birmingham. We were faced with one

tremendous problem at that time.

Senator Schweiker.

I acknowledge that.

Mr. Adams.

Our only approach was through informants

and through the use of informants we solved these cases, the

ones that were solved. Some of the bombing cases we have

never solved. They are extremely difficult.

These informants, as we told the Attorney General, and

as we told the President, that we had moved informants like

Mr. Rowe up to the top leadership. He was the bodyguard to the

head man. He was in a position where he could forewarn us

of violence, could help us on cases that had transpired, and

yet we knew and conceived that this could continue forever

unless we can create enough disruption that these members

will

realize that if I go out and murder three civil rights workers,

even though the sheriff and other law enforcement officers are

in on it, if that were the case and with some of them it was

the case, that I would be caught. And that's what we did and

that's why violence stopped, was because the Klan was insecure

and just like you say, 20

percent, they thought 50 percent of

their members ultimately were klan members and they didn't

dare engage in these acts of violence because they knew they

couldn't control the conspiracy any longer.

NW 65360 Docld:3298$820 Page 141

-

---

## Page 142

gsh 20

1933

Phone (Aroa 202)

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Senator Schweiker.

My time is expired.

I just have

one quick question..

Is it correct that in 1971 we're using around 6500

informers for black ghetto situations?

..

Mr. Adams. I'm not sure if that's the year.

We did

have one year, where we had a number like that which probably

had been around 6000, and that was the time when the cities

were being burned, Detroit, Washington, areas like this.. We

were given a mandate to know what the situation is, where is

violence going to break out, what next?

They weren't informants like an individual penctrating

an organization. They were listening posts in the community

that would help tell us that we have a group here that's getting

ready to start another fire-fight or something.

Senator Tower. At this point, there are three more

Senators remaining for questioning. If we can try to get

everything in in the first round, we will not have a second

round

and I think we can finish around 1:00, and we can. go

on

and

terminate the proceedings.

However, If anyone feels that they have another question

that they want to return to, we can come back here by 2:00.

Senator Mondale?

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

record is now fairly clear that when the FBI operates in the

NW 65360 36c/d52889828 Page ls investigating, it may be the best professional

---

## Page 143

gsh 21

Phone (Area 202) 544-601

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1934:

organization of its kind in the world. And when the FBI acts

in the field of political ideas, it has bungled its job, it

has interfered with the civil liberties,

and finally, in the

last month or two, through its public disclosures, heaped

shame upon itself and really led toward an undermining of

the crucial public confidence in an essential law enforcement

agency of this country..

In a real sense, history has repeated itself because

it

was precisely that problem that led to the creation of the FBI

in 1924.

In World War I, the Bureau of Investigation strayed from

its law enforcement functions and became an arbiter and

protector of political ideas. And through the interference

of civil liberties and Palmer Raids and the rest, the public

became so offended that later through Mr. Justice Stone and •

Mr. Hoover, the FBI was created. And the first statement

by Mr. Stone was that never again will this Justice Department

get involved in political ideas.

And yet here we are again looking at a record where with

Martin Luther King, with anti-war resistors, with - we even

had testimony this morning of meetings with the Council of

Churches.

Secretly we are investigating this vague, ill-defined,

impossible to define idea of investigating dangerous ideas.

It seems to be the basis of the strategy that people

can't protect themselves, that you sonehow need to use the

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 143

---

## Page 144

gsh 22

Phone (Area 202) 584-6000

1935

1

3

4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

• 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

tools of law enforcement to protect people from subversive

or dangerous: ideas, which I find strange and quite profoundly

at odds with the philosophy of American government.

I started

in politics years ago and the first thing we

had to do was to get the communists out of our parts and out.

of the union.

we did a very fine job. As far as I know, and

I'm beginning to wonder, but as far as I know, we had no help

from the FBI or the CIA. We just ramned them out of the meetings

on the grounds that they weren't Democrats and they weren't

good union leaders when we didn't want anything to do with them.

And yet, we see

time, and time again that we're going.to

protect the blacks from

Martin Luther King because he's

dangerous, that we've going to protect veterans from whatever

it is, and we're going to protect the Council of Churches

from the veterans, and so on, and it just gets so gummy and

confused and ill-defined and dangerous, that don't you agree

with me that we have to control this, to restrain it, so that

precisely what is expected of the FBI is known by you, by the

public, and that you can justify your actions when we ask

you?

Mr. Adams. I agree with that, Senator, and I would like !

to point out that when the Attorney General made his statement

Mr. Hoover subscribes to it, we follied that policy for about

ten years until the President of the

wited States said that

we should investigate the Nazi Party.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 144

---

## Page 145

gsh

23

Phone. (Area 202) 544-6000

& PAUL

WARD

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

•10

11

12•

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.9

20

21

22

23

24

25

1936

I for one feel that we should investigate the Nazi Party.

I feel that our investigation of the Nazi Party resulted in

the fact that in World War II, as contrasted with World War I,

there wasn't one single incident of foreign directed sabotage

which took place in the United States.

Senator Mondale. And under the criminal law you could

have investigated these issues of sabotage.

Isn't sabotage a crime?•

Mr. Adams.

Sabotage is a crime.

Senator Mondale. Could you have investigated that?

Mr. Adams. After it happened.

Senator Mondale. You see, every, time we get involved

in political ideas, you defend yourself on the basis of

crimes that could have been comnitted. It's very interesting.

In my opinion, you have to stand here if you're going to

continue what you're now doing and as I understand it, you

still insist that you did the right thing with the Vietnam

Veterans Against the War, and investigating the Council of

Churches, and this can still go on. This can still go on under

your interpretation of your present powers, what you try to

justify on the grounds of your law enforcement activitics

in terms of criminal matters.

Mr. Adams.

The law does not say we have to wait. until

we have been murdcred before we can --

Senator Mondale. Absolutely, but that's the field of

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 145

---

## Page 146

9sh

24

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

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

1.

2

3

4

5

6

: 7

8:

.9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

23

24

25

1937.

law again. You're. trying to defend apples with oranges.

the law. You can do that.

That's

Mx. Adams. That's right, but how do you find out which

of the 20,000 Bund members might have been a saboteur.. You

don't have probable cause to investigate anyone, but you can

direct an intelligence

operation against the German-American

Bund, the same thing we did after Congress said --

Senator Mondale, Couldn't you get a warrant for that?

Why did you object to going to court for authority for that?

Mr. Adams.

Because we don't have probable cause to

go against an individual and the law doesn't provide for

probable cause to investigate an organization.

There were activities which did take place, like one time

they outlined the Conmunist Party --

Senator Mondale. What I don't understand is why it

wouldn't be better for the FBI for us to define authority

that you could use in the kind of Bonn situation where under

court authority you can investigate where there is probable

cause or reasonable cause to suspect sabotage and the rest.

Wouldn't that make a lot more sense than just making these

decisions on your own?

Mr. Adams. We have expressed complete concurrence in

that. We feel that we're going to gimpeat to death in the

next 100 years, you're damned if you , and damned if you

don't

if ve don't have a

delineation of our responsibility

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 146

---

## Page 147

gsh

25

1938

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23

25

in this area. But I won't agree with you, Senator, that we

have bungled the intelligence operations in the United States.

I agree with you that we have made some mistakes. Mt. Kelley.

has set a pattern of being as forthright as any Director of the

FBI in acknowledging mistakes that. had been made, but I think

that as you said, and I believe Senator Tower said, and

Senator Church, that we have to watch these hearings because

of the necessity that we

must concentrate on these areas of

abuse. We must not lose sight of the

overall law enforcement and intelligence community, and I

still feel that this is the freest country in the world.

I've travelled much, as I'm sure you have, and I know we have

made some mistakes, but I feel that the people in the United

States are less chilled by the mistakes we have made than they

are by the fact that there are 20,000 murders a year in the

United states and they can't walk out of their houses at night

and feel safe.

Senator Mondale. That's correct, and isn't that an

argument then, Mr. Adams, for strengthening our powers to go

after those who commit crimes rather than strengthening or

continuing a policy which we now see undermines the public

confidence you need to do your job.

Mr. Adams. Absolutely.

The mistakes we have made are

what have brought on this embarrassment to us.

I'm not blaming the Committee. I'm saying we made some

NW 65360 Docld:32939820 Page 147

---

## Page 148

gsh

26

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1939

2

3

4

5

6

mistakes and in doing so this is what has hurt the FBI. But

at the same time I don't feel that a balanced picture comes

out, as you have said yourselves, because of the necessity

of

zercing in on abuses.

I think that we have done one tremendous job. I think

the accomplishments in the klan was the finest hour of the

FBI and yet, I'm. sure in dealing with the Klan that we made

some mistakes. But I just don't agree with bungling.

End Tape 7 8

9

10

11

12

WARD

13

14

15

16

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

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 148

---

## Page 149

SHARRIS/smnl

t. 8

1940

•WARO & PAUL

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

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Mondale. I don't want to argue over terms, but

I think I sense an agreement that the FBI has gotten into trouble

over it in the political idea trouble, and that that's where we

need to have new legal standards.

Mr. Adams. Yes, I agree with that.

Senator Tower. Senator Huddleston.

Senator Huddleston.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Adams, these two instances we have studied at some

length seems to have been an

inclination on the part of

the Bureau to establish, a notion about an individual or a group

which seems to be very hard to ever change or dislodge. In

the case of Dr. King, where the supposition was that he was

being influenced by Communist individuals, extensive investi-

gation was made, surveillance, reports came back indicating that

this in fact was untrue, and directions continued to go out

to intensify the investigation. There never seemed to be a

willingness on the part of the Bureau to accept its own facts.

Ms. Cook testified this morning that something similar

to that happened with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, that

every piece of information that she supplied to the Bureau

seemed to indicate that the Bureau was. not correct in its

assumption that this organization planned to commit violence,

or that it was being manipulated, and yet you seemed to insist

that this investigation go on, and tis information was used

against the individuals.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 149

---

## Page 150

smn 2

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1941

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.4

15

i6

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23

24

'25

Now, are there instances where the Bureau has admitted that

its first assumptions were wrong and they have changed their

course?

Mr. Adams, We have admitted that. We have also shown

from one of the cases that Senator Hart brought up, that after

five days we closed the case: We were told something by an

individual that there was

a concern of an adverse influence

in it, and we looked into it.

On the Martin Luther King

situation there was no testimony to the effect that we just

dragged on and on, or admitted that we dragged on and on and

on, ad infinitum. The wiretaps on Martin Luther King were

all approved by the Attorney General. Microphones on Martin

Luther King were approved by another Attorney General. This

wasn't the FBI, and the reason they were approved was that

there was a basis to continue the investigation up to a point.

What I testified to was that we were improper in discreditir

DI. King, but it's just like --

Senator Huddleston. The Committee has before it memoranda

written by high officials of the Bureau indicating that the

information they were receiving from the field, from these

surveillance methods, did not confirm what their supposition

was.

Mr. Adams. That

memorandum was not on Dr. King. That

was on another individual that I thi. somehow got mixed up

in the discussion, one where the issus was can we make people

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 150

---

## Page 151

LUIG

smn 3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

•5

6

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

20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19°

20

21

22

23

24

25

prove they aren't a Communist before we will agree not to

investigate them.

But the young lady appearing this morning making the

comment that she never knew of anything she told us that

she considers herself a true member of the VVAW-WSO inasmuch

as she feels in general agreement of the principles of it, and

agreed to cooperate with the FBI in providing information regard-

ing the organization to aid in preventing violent individuals

from associating themselves with the VVAW-WSO. She is most

concerned about efforts.by the Revolutionary Union to take over

the VVAW-WSO, and she is working actively to prevent this..

I think that we have a basis for investigating the VAW-

WSO in certain areas today. In other areas we have stopped

the investigation. They don't agree with these principles

laid down by the —-

:

Senator Huddleston. That report was the basis of your

continuing to pay informants and continuing to utilize that

information against members who certainly had not been involved

in violence, and apparently to get them fired from their job

or whatever?

Mr. Adams. It all gets back to the fact that even in the

criminal law field, you have to detect crime, and you have to

prevent crime, and you can't wait until something happens.. The

ist:

Attorney General has clearly spoken i that area, and even our

statutory jurisdiction provides that we don't --

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 151

---

## Page 152

943

smn 4

Phone (Area 202) 544-60

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

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

20

21

.22

• 23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 152

Senator Huddleston.. Well, of course we've had considerable

evidence this morning where no attempt was made to prevent

crime, when you had information that it was going to occur.

But I'm sure there are instances where you have.

Mr. Adams. We disseminated every single item which he

reported to us.

Senator Huddleston.

To a police department which you

knew was an accomplice to the crime.

Mr. Adams. Not necessarily.

Senator Huddleston. Your informant had told you that,

hadn't he?

Mr. Adams. Well, the informant is on one level.

We have

other informants, and we have other information.

Senator Huddleston. Yes, but you were aware that he

had worked with certain members of the Birmingham police in

order to --

Mr. Adams. Yes. He furnished many other instances also.

Senator Huddleston. So you weren't really doing a whole

lot to prevent that incident by telling the people who were

already part of it.

Mx. Adams. We were doing everything we could lawfully

do at the time, and finally the situation was corrected, so that

when the Department, agreeing that we had no further. juris-

diction, could sent the United States Marshal down to perform.

certain law enforcement functions.

---

## Page 153

smn 5

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1944

3

4

5

6

WARD

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Senator Huddleston. Now, the Committee has received

documents which indicated that in one situation the FBI assisted

an informant who had been established in a white hate group

to establish a rival white hate group, and that the Bureau paid

his expenses in setting uf this rival organization.

Now, does this not put the Bureau in a position of being

responsible for what actions the rival white hate group might

have undertaken?

Mr. Adams. I'd like to see if one of the other gentlemen

knows that specific case,

because I don't think we set up a

specific group.

This is Joe Deegan.

Mr. Deegan. Senator, it's my understanding that the

informant we're talking about decided to break off from the

group he was with. He was with the Macon Klan group of

the United Klans of America,

and he decided to break off.

This

was in compliance with our regulations:

His breaking off,

we did not pay him to set up the organization. He did it

on his own.. We paid him for the information he furnished

us concerning the operation.

We did not sponsor the organiza-

tion.

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Huddleston. Concerning the new organization that

he set up, he continued to advise you of the activities of that

organization?

MI. Deegan.. He continued to advi::: us of that organization

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 153

---

## Page 154

1945

smn

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

1.

2

3

4

.5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and other organizations. He would advise us of planned

activities.

Senator Huddleston, The new organization that he formed,

did it operate in a very similar manner to the previous one?

Mr. Deegan. No, it did not, and it did not last that

long..

Senator Hudaleston. There's also evidence of an FBI

informant in the Black Panther Party who had a position of

responsibility within the Party with the knowledge of his

FBI contact of supplying members with weapons

and instructing

them in how to use those weapons. Presumably this was in the

knowledge of the Bureau, and he later became -- came in contact

with the group that was contracting for murder, and he partici-

pated in this group with the knowledge of the FBI agent, and

this group did in fact stalk a victim who was later killed with

the weapon supplied by this individual, presumably all in the

knowledge of the FBI.

How does this square with your enforcement and crime

prevention responsibilities.

Mr. Deegan.. Senator, I'm not familiar with that particula

case. It does not square with our policy in all respects, and

I would have to look at that particular case you're talking

about to give you an answet.

Senator Huddleston. I don't have the documentation on that

particular case, but it brings up the point as to what kind of

NW 65360. Docld:32939820 Page 154

---

## Page 155

smn 7

1946

WARD

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

•17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

control you exercised over this kind of informant in this kind

of an organization and to what extent an effort is made to

prevent these informants from engaging in the kind of thing

that you are supposedly trying to prevent.

MI. Adams. A good example of this was Mr. Rowe, who became

active in an action group, and we told him to get out or

we would no longer use him as an informant, in spite of the

information he had furnished in the past.

We have had cases, Senator, where we have had --

Senator Huddleston. But you also told him to participate

in violent activities.

Mr. Adams. We did not tell him to participate in violent

activities.

Senator Huddleston.

That's what he said..

Mr. Adams. I know that's what he said.. But that's what

lawsuits are. all about, is that there. are. two sides to the

issue, and our agents. handling. this have. advised. us, and I

believe have advised. your staff, that at no time did they

advise him to engage. in violence.

Senator. Huddleston. Just to. do what was necessary to

get the information, I believe maybe might have been his

instructions.

Mr. Adams. I don't think they made any such statement

to him along that line, and we have informants, we have

25

NW.65360 Docld:32989820 Page 155

informants who have gotten involved in the violation of the law,

---

## Page 156

1947

smn 8

Phone (Aros 202) 544-6000

.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

Street,

410 First

1

2

3

4

. 5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

•19

•20

21

22°

23

24

25

and we have immediately converted their status from an informant

to the subject, and have prosecuted I would say, offhand, I

can think of around 20 informants that we have prosecuted for

violating the laws, once it came to our attention, and even

to show you our policy of disseminating information on violence

in this case, during the review of the matter, the agents told

me that they found one case where their agent had been working

24 hours a day, and he was

a little late in disseminating the

information to the police department. No violence.occurred,.

but it showed up in a file review, and he was censured for

his delay in properly notifying local authorities.

So we not only have a policy, I feel that we do follow

reasonable safeguards.in order to carry it out, including periodic

review of all informant. files.

Senator Huddleston. Well, Mr. Rowe's statement is

substantiated to some extent with the acknowledgement by the

agent in charge that if you're going to be a Klansman and you

happen to be with someone and

they decide to do something, that

he couldn't be an angel. These were the words of the agent,.

and be a good informant.. He wouldn't take the lead, but the

implication is that he would have to go along and would have

to be involved if he was going to maintain his credibility.

Mr. Adams.. There's no question but that an informant at

times. will have to be present. during demonstrations, riots,

fistfights that take place, but I believe his statement was

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 156

---

## Page 157

1948

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

PA

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

.23

24

.25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 157

to the effect that

-- and I was sitting in the back of the

room and I don't recall it exactly, but some of them were

beat with chains, and I didn't hear whether he said he beat

someone with a chain or not, but I rather doubt that he did

because it's one thing being present, and it's

another thing

taking

an active part in criminal actions.

Senator Huddleston..

He was close enough to get his

throat cut.

How does the gathering of information -

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias is here, and I think that

we probably should recess a few minutes.

Could we have Senator Mathias' questions and then should

we convene this afternoon?

Senator Huddleston. I'm finished. I just had one more

question.

Senator Tower. Go ahead.

Senator Huddleston. I wanted to ask how the selection of

information about an individual's personal life, social, sex

life and becoming involved in that sex life or social life

is a requirement for law enforcement or crime prevention.

Mr. Adams. Our agent handlers have advised us on Mr.

Rowe, that they gave him no such instruction, they had no

such knowledge concerning it, and I can't see where it would

be.of any value whatsoever.

Senator Huddleston.

You aren't aware of any case where

---

## Page 158

smn 10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1949

PAUL

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

. 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

these instructions were given to an agent or an informant?

MI. Adams.

Io get involved in sexual activity? No, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias.

Senator Mathias.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back very briefly to the Fourth

Amendment considerations in connection with the use of informants

and in posing these questions we're not thinking of the one

time volunteer who walks in to an FBI office and says I have

a story I want to tell you and that's the only time that you

may see him. I'm thinking of the kind of situations in which

there is a more extended relationship which could be of varying

degrees. It might be in one case that the same individual

will have some usefulness in a number of situations. But when

the FBI orders a regular agent to engage in a search, the first

test is a judicial warrant, and what I would life!

to explore

with you is the difference between a one time search which

requires a warrant, and which you get when you make that

search, and a continuous search which uses an informant, or

the case of a continuous search which uses a regular undercover

agent, someone who is totally under your control, and is in a

slightly different category than an informant.

Mr. Adams. Well, we

get there into the fact that the

Supreme Court has still held that the use of informants does

not invade any of these constitutionally protected areas, and.

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 158

---

## Page 159

smn 11"

1950

202) 544-6000

2

"--

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

• 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

if a person wants to tell an informant something that isn't

protected by the Supreme Court.

An actual search for legal evidence, that is a protected

item, but information and the use of informants have been

consistently held as not posing any constitutional problens.

Senator Mathias. I would agree, if you're talking about

the fellow who walks in off the street, as I said earlier,

but is it true that under existing procedures informants are

given background checks?

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.

Senator Mathias. And they are subject to a testing period,

Mr. Adams. That's right, to verify and make sure they

are providing to us reliable information.

Senator Mathias. And during the period that the relation-

ship continues, they are rather closely controlled by the

handling agents.

•Mr. Adams. That's true.

Senator Mathias. So in effect they can come in a very

practical way agents themselves to the FBI.

Mr. Adams.. They can do nothing -

Senator Mathias. Certainly agents in the common law use

of the word.

25.

Mr. Adams. That's right, they can do nothing, and we

instruct our agents that an informant can do nothing that the

agent himself cannot do, and if the agent can work himself into

NW 65360 Docld:82989820 Page 159

---

## Page 160

smn 12

1951

Phone (Aroa 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

WARD

end

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

.15.

16

17

.18

19

.20

21

22.

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docldi&2989820 Page 160

an organization in an undercover capacity, he can sit there and

glean all the information that he wants, and that is not in the

Constitution as a protected area. But we do have this problem.

Senator Mathias. But if a regular agent who is a member

of the FBI attempted to enter these premises, he would require

a warrant?

Mr. Adams.

No, sir, if a regular -- it depends on the

purpose for which he is entering. If a regular agent by

concealing his identity, by - was admitted as a member of the

Communist Party, he can attend Communist Party meetings, and he

can enter the premises, he can enter the building, and there's

no constitutionally invaded area there.

Senator Mathias. And so you feel that anyone who has

a less formal relationship with the Bureau than .a. regular

agent, who can undertake a continuous surveillance operation

as

an undercover.agent.or as an informant.--

Mr. Adams. As long as he commits no illegal acts.

Senator Mathias. Let me ask you.why you feel that it is

impractical to.require. a warrant. since,.as I understand it,

headquarters must approve the use of an informant. Is that

degree of formal action required?

---

## Page 161

HARRIS: GSII

Sen. Sel. CIA

112/2/95

Tapa®

9

1

1

Phone (Area

2

3

4

5

6

1952

• .

Mr. Adams. The main difficulty is the particularity

which has to be shown in obtaining a search warrant. You

have to go after particular evidence. You have to specify

what you're going after, and an informant operates in an

area that you just cannot specify. He doesn't know what's

going. to be discussed at that meeting.

It may be a plot to

blow up the Capitol again of it may be a plot to blow up the

State Department building.

Senator Mathias. If it were a crininal investigation,

you would have little difficulty with probable cause, wouldn't

you?

8

9

• 10

11

12

WARD

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 161

Mr. Adams. We would have difficulty in a warrant to

use someone as an informant in that area because the same

difficulty of particularity exists. We can't specify.

Senator Mathias. I understand the problem because it's

very similar to one that we discussed earlier in connection

say wiretaps on a national security problem.

Mr. Adams. That's it, and there we face the problem of

where the Soviet, an individual identified as a Soviet spy

in a friendly country and they tell us he's been a Soviet spy

there and now

he's coming to the United States, and if we can't

show under a probable cause warrant, if we couldn't show that

he was actually engaging in espionage in the United States,

we couldn't get a wiretap under the probable cause requirements

which have been discussed. If the good fairy didn't drop the

---

## Page 162

gsh ?.

1953

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

•18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

evidence in our hands that this individual is here conducting

espionage, we again would fall short of this, and that's

why we're still groping with it:

Senator Mathias. When you say fall short, you really,

you would be. falling short of the requirements of the Fourth

Amendment.

Mr. Adams.

That's right, except for the fact that the

• President, under this Constitutional powers, to protect this

nation and make sure that it survives first, first of all

national survival, and these are the areas that not only the

President but the Attorney General are concerned in and we're

all hoping that somehow we can reach a legislative middle

ground in here.

Senator Mathias. Which we discussed in the other national

security area as to curtailling a warrant to that particular

need.

Mr. Adams. And if you could get away from probable

cause and get some degree of reasonable cause and get some

method of sealing indefinitely your interest, say, in an

ongoing espionage case and can work out those difficulties,

we may get their yet.

Senator Mathias.

And you don't despair of finding that

middle ground?

Mr. Adams. I don't because I think that today there's

more of an open mind between Congress and the Executive Branch

NW. 65360 Docla/32989820 Page 162

---

## Page 163

gsh 3

1954

WARD

2

3

4.

5

6

8

9

10

•11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

and the FBI and everyone concerning the need to get these

areas resolved.

Senator Mathias.

And you believe that the Department,

if we could come together, would support, would agree to that

kind of a warrant requirement if we could agree on the language?

Mr. Adams.

If we can work out problems and the Attorney

General is personally interested in that also.

Senator Mathias. Do you think that this agreement might

extend to some of those other areas. that we talked about?

Mr. Adams. I think that that would be a nuch greater

difficulty in an area of domestic intelligence informant who

reports on many different operations and different types of

activities that might come up rather than say in a Soviet

espionage or a foreign espionage case where you do have a little

more degree of specificity to deal with.

Senator Mathias. I suggest that we arrange to get

together and try out some drafts with each other, but in the

meantime, of course, there's another alternative and that

would be the use of wiretap procedure by which the Attorney

General must approve a wiretap before it is placed, and the

same general process could be used for informants, since

you come to headquarters any way. :

Mr. Adams.

That could be an alte mitive. I think it

would be a very burdensome alternative i? I think at some

25

point after we attack the major abuses, or what are considered

NW 65360 Docld:g2989820 Page 163

---

## Page 164

gsh 1

1955

PAUL

410 First Street, S.E., Washington,

1

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

25

major abuses of Congress and get over this hurdle, I think

we're still going to have to recognize that heads of agencies

have to accept the responsibility for managing that agency

and we can't just keep pushing every operational problem up

to the top because there just aren't enough hours in the day.

Senator Mathias. But the reason that parallel suggests

itself is of course the fact that the wiretap deals generally

with one level of information in one sense of gathering

information. You hear what you hear from the tap.

Mr. Adams. But you're dealing in a much smaller number

also.

Senator Mathias. Smaller number, but that's all the

more reason. When an informant goes in, he has all of his

senses.

He's gathering all of the information a human being

can acquire from a situation and has access to more information

than the average wiretap.

And it would seem to me that for that reason a parallel

process might be useful and in order.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Mintz pointed out one other main

distinction. to me which I had overlooked fron our prior

discussions, which is the fact that with an informant he is

more in the position of being a concentral monitor in that one

of the two parties to the conversation agrees, such as like

concentral monitoring of telephones and microphones and

anything else versus the wiretap itself where the individual

NW 65360 Docld 32989820 Page 164

---

## Page 165

• gsh 5

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

та соска

WARD

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

• 1956

whose telephone is being tapped is not aware and there is,

and neither of the two parties talking had agreed that their

conversation could be monitored.

Senator Mathias. I find that one difficult to accept.

If I'm the third party overhearing a conversation that is taking

place in a room where I am, and my true character isn't perceived

by the two people who are talking, in effect they haven't

consented to my overhearing my conversation. Then they consent

if they believe that I am their friend or their, a partisan

of theirs.

But if they knew in fact that I was an informant for

someone else, they wouldn't be consenting.

Mr. Adams. Well, that's like I believe Senator. llart

raised earlier, that the courts thus far have made this

distinction with no difficulty, but that doesn't mean that

there may not be some legislative compromise which might be

addressed.

Senator Mathias. Well, I particularly appreciate your

attitude in being willing to work on these problems because

I think that's the most important thing that can evolve from

these heatings, so that we can actually look at the fourth

Amendment as the standard that we have to achieve. But the

way we get there is obviously going to i "

• lot easier if we

can work toward them together.

I just have one final question, is. Chairman, and that

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 165

---

## Page 166

gsh

6

1957

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

Street,

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

25

deals with whether ve shouldn't impose a standard of probable

cause that a crime

has been committed as a means of controlling

the use of informants and the kind of information that they

collect.

Do you feel that this would be too restrictive?

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I do.

When I look at informants and I see that each year

informants provide us, locate 5000 dangerous fugitives, they

provide subjects in 2000 more cases, they recover $86 million

in stolen property and contraband, and that's irrespective

of what we give the local law enforcement and other Federal

agencies, which is almost a comparable figure, we have almost

reached a point in the criminal law where we don't have much

left. And in the intelligence field we still, I think when

we carve all of the problems away, we still have to make sure

that we have the means to gather information which will permit

us to be aware of the identity of individuals and organizations

that are acting to overthrow the government of the United

States. And I think we still have some areas to look hard

at as we have discussed, but I think informants are here to

stay.

They are absolutely essential to law enforcement.

Everyone uses informants. The press has informants, Congress

has informants, you have individuals in your comnunity that

you rely on, not for ulterior purposes, but to let you know'

what's the fecl of the people, am I serving them properly,

NW 65360 Docld|02989820 Page 166

---

## Page 167

gsh

Phona (Area 202) 544-6000

1958

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.

10.

11

12

13

14

15

16

"17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

am I carrying out this?

It's here to say.

It's been here throughout history "•

and there will always be informants. And the thing we want to

avoid is abuses. like provocateurs, criminal activities, and

to ensure that we have safeguards that will prevent that.

. But we do need informants.

Senator lower. Senator Hart, do you have any further

questions?

Senator llart of Michigan. Yes. I ask unanimous request

perhaps with a view to giving balance to the record, the

groups that we have discussed this morning into which the

Bureau has put informants, in popular language, our liberal

groups - I would ask unanimous consent that be printed in

the record, the summary of the opening of the headguarters

file by the Bureau of DI. Carl McIntyre when he announced

that he was organizing a group to counter the American Civil

Liberties Union and other "liberal and communist groups,"

is not a left only pre-occupation. •

Senator Tower. Without objection, so ordered.

(The material referred

to follows:)

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page, 167

---

## Page 168

gsh &

Priona (Area 202) 514-6000

1959

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

WARD

&PAUL

10

11

12

13

Senator Tower. Any more questions?

Then

i the Committee will have an Ixecutive Session this

afternoon in room 3110 in

the Dirksen Building at 3:00, and

I hope everyone will be in attendance.

Tomorrow morning we will hear from Courtney Evans,

Cartha DeLoach.

Tomorrow afternoon, former Attorneys General

Ramsey Clark and

Edward Katzenbach.

The Committee, the hearings are recessed until 10:00

a.m.

tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 1:10 o'clock p.m., the hearing in the

above mentioned matter was concluded, to reconvene on Wednesday

December 3rd, 1975, at 10:00 o'clock a n.)

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

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 168

---

## Page 169

Routing Slip

0-7 (Rov, 7-11-75)

TO: SAC:

Al hany

•Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchorage

Atlanta

Baltimore

Birmingham

Boston

Buffalo

Butte

Charlotle

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

Honolulu

(Copias

Houston

Indianapo)is

Jackson

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

Norfolk

{fices Checkod)

C J Oklahoma City

Omaha

L Philadelphia

• Phocnix

Pittsburgh

Porll and

Richmond

Sacramento

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Juan

Savannah

TO LEGAT:

Ront

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manil a

Mexico City

Oltawa

Paris

Rome

Tel Aviv

→ Tokyo

Washingion Field

Quantico

RE:

Date December 4, 1975

HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE

Retention

For appropriate

• For information I optional

- action

[ Surep, by

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

sources, [ paraphrase contents.

Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

dated

Remarks:

For your assistance in responding to

local press inquiries, attached is a copy of

unedited excerpted remarks by Assistant to the

Director--Deputy Associate Director James B.

Adams while testifying before the Senate Select

Committee on 12/2/75, concerning anti-FBI

allegations made Di Gary rowe,

former FBI

informant.

6633460

sinitian.

Enc. (1)

Bufile

Urfile

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 169

1975

IL.-.

---

## Page 170

EXCERPTS OF REMARKS MADE BY

ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR --

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES B. ADAMS

TESTIFYING BEFORE THE

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

PERTAINING TO THE KU KLUX KLAN,

GARY ROWE, FORMER FBI INFORMANT, AND

PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS OF THE FBI

TO PREVENT VIOLENCE

DECEMBER 2, 1975

660-3346-19

ah..

Lao 8 1975

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 170

---

## Page 171

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

....You do use informants and do instruct them to

spread dissention among certain groups that they are

informing on, do you not?

We did when we had the COINTEL programs which were

discontinued in 1971, and I think the klan is probably one

of the best examples of a situation where the law was

ineffective at the time. We heard the term, State's Rights

used much more than we hear today. We saw with the

Little Rock situation the President of the United States

sending in the troops pointing out the necessity to use

local law enforcement. We must have local law enforcement

use the troops only as a last resort. When you have a

situation like this where you do try to preserve the

respective roles in law enforcement, you have historical

problems.

With the Klan coming along, we had situations where

the FBI and the Federal Government was almost powerless

to act. We had local law enforcement officers in some

areas participating in Klan violence. The incidents

mentioned by Mr. Rowe--everyone of those he saw them from the

lowest level--the informant. He didn't see what action

was taken with that information as he pointed out during

his testimony. Our files show that this information was

reported to the police departments in every instance.

We also know that in certain instances the infor-

mation upon being received was not being acted upon. We

also disseminated simultaneously through letterhead

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 171

---

## Page 172

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

memorandum to the Department of Justice the problem.

And here we were--the FBI--in a position where we had no

authority in the absence of an instruction from the

Department of Justice to make an arrest. Section 241

and 242 don't cover it because you don't have evidence

of a conspiracy. It ultimately resulted in a situation

where the Department called in U. S. Marshals who do have

authority similar to local law enforcement officials.

So historically, in those days, we were just as

frustrated as anyone else was, that when we got information

from someone like Mr. Rowe--good information, reliable

information--and it was passed on to those who had the

responsibility to do something about it, it was not always

acted upon as he indicated.

In none of these cases, then, there was adequate

evidence of conspiracy to give you jurisdiction to act.

The Departmental rules at that time, and still do,

require Departmental approval where you have a conspiracy.

Under 241, it takes two or more persons acting together.

You can have a mob scene and you can have blacks and whites

belting each other, but unless you can show that those that

initiated the action acted in concert, in a conspiracy, you

have no violation.

Congress recognized this and it wasn't until 1968

that they came along and added Section 245 to the Civil

Rights Statute which added punitive measures against an

-2-

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 172

---

## Page 173

QUESTION:

MR ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

individual. There didn't have to be a conspiracy. This

was a problem that the whole country was grappling with--

the President of the United States, Attorneys General--we

were in a situation where we had rank lawlessness taking

place. As you know from the memorandum we sent you that

we sent to the Attorney General the accomplishments we were

able to obtain in preventing violence and in neutralizing

the Klan and that was one of the reasons.

....A local town meeting on a controversial social

issue might result in disruption. It might be by hecklers

rather than by those holding the meeting. Does this

mean that the Bureau should investigate all groups

organizing or participating in such meetings because

they may result in violent government disruption?

No sir, and we don't....

Isn't that how you justify spying on almost every

aspect of the peace movement?

No sir. When we monitor demonstrations, we monitor

demonstrations where we have an indication that the

demonstration itself is sponsored by a group that we have

an investigative interest in, a valid investigative

interest in, or where members of one of these groups are

participating where there is a potential that they might

change the peaceful nature of the demonstration.

This is our closest question of trying to draw

guidelines to avoid getting into an area of infringing

on the lst Amendment right, yet at the same time, being

- 3 -

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 173

---

## Page 174

aware of groups such as we have had in greater numbers

in the past than we do at the present time. We have had

periods where the demonstrations have been rather severe

and the courts have said that the FBI has the right,

and indeed the duty, to keep itself informed with respect

to the possible commission of crime. It is not obliged

to wear blinders until it may be too late for prevention.

Now that's a good statement if applied in a clear-cut

case.

QUESTION:

MR. WANNALI:

MR. ADAMS:

Our problem is where we have a demonstration and

we have to make a judgment call as to whether it is one

that clearly fits the criteria of enabling us to monitor

the activities. That's where I think most of our disagree-

ments fall.

In the Rowe Case, in the Rowe testimony that we just

heard, what was the rationale again for not intervening when

violence was known about. I know we have asked this several

times--I'm still having trouble understanding what the

rationale, Mr. Wannall, was in not intervening in the Rowe

situation when violence was known.

Senator Schweiker, Mr. Adams did address himself to

that and if you have no objections, I'll ask that he be

the one to answer the question.

The problem we had at the time, and it is the problem

today, we are an investigative agency; we do not have

police powers even like the U. S. Marshals do. The Marshals

-4-

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 174

---

## Page 175

since about 1795 I guess, or some period like that, had

authorities that almost border on what a sheriff has. We

are the investigative agency of the Department of Justice,

and during these times the Department of Justice had us

maintain the role of an investigative agency.

We were to report on activities. We furnished the

information to the local police who had an obligation to

act. We furnished it to the Department of Justice in those

areas where the local police did not act. It resulted

finally in the Attorney General sending 500 U. S. Marshals

down to guarantee the safety of people who were trying to

march in protest of their civil rights.

This was an extraordinary measure because it came at

a time of Civil Rights versus Federal Rights and yet there

was a breakdown in law enforcement in certain areas of the

country. This doesn't mean to indict all law enforcement

agencies in the South at the time either, because many of

them did act upon the information that was furnished to

them. But we have no authority to make an arrest on the

spot because we would not have had evidence that was a

conspiracy available. We could do absolutely nothing in

that regard. In Little Rock the decision was made, for

instance, that if any arrests need to be made, the Army

should make them. And next to the Army, the U. S. Marshals

should make them--not the FBI, even though we developed

the violations. We have over the years as you know at the

- 5 -

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 175

---

## Page 176

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR ADAMS:

Time there were many questions raised. Why doesn't the

FBI stop this? Why don't you do something about it? Well,

we took the other route and effectively destroyed the Klan

as far as committing acts of violence and, of course, we

exceeded statutory guidelines in that area.

What would be wrong, just following up on your point

there, Mr. Adams, with setting up a program since it is

obvious to me that a lot of our informers are going to

have preknowledge of violence of using U. S. Marshals on

some kind of long-range basis to prevent violence?

We do. We have them in Boston in connection with

the busing incident. We are investigating the violations

under the Civil Rights Act, but the Marshals are in

Boston. They are in Louisville, I believe, at the same

time and this is the approach that the Federal Government

finally recognized.

On an immediate and fairly contemporary basis that

kind of help can be sought instantly as opposed to waiting

till it gets to a Boston state. I realize a departure from

the past and not saying it isn't, but it seems to me we need

a better remedy than we have.

Well, fortunately we are at a time where conditions have

subsided in the country even from the 60's and the 70's, or

50's and 60's. We report to the Department of Justice on

potential trouble spots around the country as we learn of them

so that the Department will be aware of them. The planning

-6-

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 176

---

## Page 177

QUESTION:

for Boston, for instance, took place a year in advance, with

state officials, city officials, the Department of Justice

and the FBI sitting down together saying "How are we going to

protect the situation in Boston"? I think we have learned a

lot from the days back in the early 60's. But, the Government

had no mechanics which protected people at that time.

Next I would like to ask, back in 1965, I guess during

the height of the effort to destroy the Klans as you put it

a few moments ago, I believe the FBI has released figures that

we had something like 2,000 informers of some kind or another

infiltrating the Klan out of roughly 10,000 estimated member-

ship.

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

That's right.

I believe these are FBI figures or estimates. That would

mean that 1 out of every 5 members of the Klan at that point

was an informant paid by the Government and I believe the

figure goes on to indicate that 70 percent of the new members

in the Klan that year were FBI informants. Isn't that an

awful overwhelming quantity of people to put in an effort such

as that? I'm not criticizing that we shouldn't have informants

in the Klan and know what is going on to revert violence but it

just seems to me that the tail is sort of wagging the dog. For

example today we supposedly have only 1594 total informants,

both domestic informants and potential informants. Yet, here

we have 2,000 in just the Klan alone.

well, this number of 2,000 did include all racial matters

and informants at that particular time and I think the figures

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 177

-7-

---

## Page 178

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

we tried to reconstruct as to the actual number of Klan

informants in relaton to Klan members was around 6 percent, I

think after we had read some of the testimony on it. Isn't that

right, Bill? Now the problem we had on the Klan is the Klan

had a group called the Action Group. This was the group if you

remember from Mr. Rowe's testimony that he was left out of in

the beginning. He attended the open meetings and heard all the

hoorahs and this type of information but he never knew what was

going on because each one had an Action Group that went out and

considered themselves in the missionary field. Theirs was the

violence. In order to penetrate those you have to direct as

many informants as you possibly can against it. Bear in mind

that I think the newspapers, the President, Congress, everyone,

was concerned about the murder of the three civil rights

workers, the Lemul Penn case, the Violet Liuzzo case, the

bombings of the church in Birmingham. We were faced with one

tremendous problem at that time.

I acknowledge that.

Our only approach was through informants. Through the

use of informants we solved these cases. The ones that were

solved. There were some of the bombing cases we never solved.

They're extremely difficult, but, these informants as we told

the Attorney General and as we told the President, we moved

informants like Mr. Rowe up to the top leadership. He was the

bodyguard to the head man. He was in a position where he

could see that this could continue forever unless we could

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 178

- 8-

---

## Page 179

create enough disruption that these members will realize that

if I go out and murder three civil rights, even though the

Sheriff and other law enforcement officers are in on it, if

that were the case, and in some of that was the case, that I

will be caught, and that's what we did, and that's why violence

stopped because the Klan was insecure and just like you say

20 percent, they thought 50 percent of their members ultimately

were Klan members, and they didn't dare engage in these acts of

violence because they knew

they couldn't control the conspiracy

any longer.

QUESTION:

MR ADAMS:

QUESTION:

I just have one quick question. Is it correct that in

1971 we were using around 6500 informers for a black ghetto

situation?

I'm not sure if that's the year. We did have a year

where we had a number like that of around 6000 and that was

the time when the cities were being burned. Detroit, Washington,

areas like this, we were given a mandate to know what the

situation is, where is violence going to break out next. They

weren't informants like an individual that is penetrating an

organization. They were listening posts in the community that

would help tell us that we have another group here that is

getting ready to start another fire fight or something.

... Without going into that subject further of course we

have had considerable evidence this morning where no attempt

was made to prevent crime when you had information that it

was going to occur. I am sure there were instances where

you have.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 179

- 9-

---

## Page 180

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

We disseminated every single item which he reported to us.

To a police department which you knew was an accomplice to

the crime.

Not necessarily knew.

Your informant told you that, hadn't he?

The informant is on one level. We have other informants

and we have other information.

You were aware that he had worked with certain members of

the Birmingham Police in order...

That's right. He furnished many other instances also.

So you really weren't doing a whole lot to prevent that

incident by telling the people who were already a part of it.

We were doing everything

• we could lawfully do at the

time and finally the situation was corrected when the Department

agreeing that we had no further jurisdiction, sent the U.s.

Marshals down to perform certain law enforcement functions.

...This brings up the point as to what kind of control

you can exercise over this kind of informant and to this

kind of organization and to what extent an effort is made to

prevent these informants from engaging in the kind of thing

that you were supposedly trying to prevent.

A good example of this was Mr. Rowe who became active in

an Action Group and we told him to get out or we were no longer

using him as an informant in spite of the information he had

furnished in the past. We have cases, Senator where we have had

But you also told him to participate in violent activities

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 180

-10-

---

## Page 181

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

-

QUESTION:

We did not tell him to participate in violent activities.

That's what he said.

I know that's what he says, but that's what lawsuits

are all about is that there are two sides to issues and our

Agent handlers have advised us, and I believe have advised your

staff members, that at no time did they advise him to engage

in violence.

Just to do what was necessary to get the information.

I do not think they made any such statement to him

along that line either and we have informants who have gotten

involved in the violation of a law and we have immediately

converted their status from an informant to the subject and

have prosecuted I would say off hand, I can think of around

20 informants that we have prosecuted for violating the laws

once it came to our attention and even to show you our policy

of disseminating information on violence in this case during

the review of the matter the Agents have told me that they

found one case where an Agent had been working 24 hours a

day and he was a little late in disseminating the information

to the police department. No violence occurred but it showed

up in a file review and he was censured for his delay in

properly notifying local authorities. So we not only

have a policy, I feel that we do follow reasonable safeguards

in order to carry it out, including periodic review of all

informant files.

Mr. Rowe's statement is substantiated to some extent with

an acknowledgment by the Agent in Charge that if he were going

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 181

-11-

---

## Page 182

MR. ADAMS:

QUESTION:

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

to be a Klansman and he happened to be with someone and they

decided to do something, he couldn't be. an angel. These are

words of the Agent. And be a good informant. He wouldn't

take the lead but the implication is that he would have

to go along or would have to be involved if he was going

to maintain his liability as a ---

There is no question that an informant at times will

have to be present during demonstrations, riots, fistfights

that take place but I believe his statement was to the

effect that, and I was sitting in the back of the room and I do

not recall it exactly, but that some of them were beat with

chains and I did not hear whether he said he beat someone with

a chain or not but I rather doubt that he did, because it is

one thing being present, it is another thing taking an

active part in a criminal action.

It's true. He was close enought to get his throat cut

apparently.

How does the collection of information about an

individual's personal life, social, sex life and becoming

involved in that sex life or social life is a requirement for

law enforcement or crime prevention.

Our Agent handlers have advised us on Mr. Rowe that

they gave him no such instruction, they had no such knowledge

concerning it and I can't see where it would be of any

value whatsoever.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 182

-12-

---

## Page 183

QUESTION:

MR. ADAMS:

You don't know of any such case where these instructions

were given to an Agent or an informant?

To get involved in sexual activity? No Sir.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 183

-13-

---

## Page 184

FD-36 (Rev/{5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

FBI

Date:

SEPTEMBER 12, 1975

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

NITEL

(Priority)

10:

DIRECTOR (62-116395) MER

FROM: SAC, MIAMI (66-3346)

SENSTUDY 75

REMYTEL SEPTEMBER 10, 1975.

THOMAS MCANDREWS ADVISED THE MIAMI OFFICE HE IS DEPARTING

THIS DATE FOR WASHINGION, D. C., AS HE HAS BEEN CALLED IO

TESTIFY. FURNISHED FOR INFO.

END

JLM:mjs

(1)

Berrakel,

Ellader:

sit late in 05 59

710.

Approved:

NW 65360 pocld:32989820 Page 184

Special Agent in Charge

Sent

9%

66-3346-177

por bah

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1972 - 455-574

---

## Page 185

for

NR 018 MM CODE

9: D2 PM NITEL SEPTEMBER 12, 1975 MRW

TO

DIRECTOR

(62-116395)

FROM MIAMI

(56-3346)

ONE PAGE

SENSTUDY 75

REMYTEL SEPTEMBER 10, 1975.

THOMAS MCANDREWS ADVISED THE MIAMI OFFICE HE IS DEPARTING

THIS DATE FOR WASHINGION, D.C., AS HE HAS BEEN

CALLED

TESTIFY. FURNISHED FOR INFO.

END

IMA ACK FOR ONE AND FBHQ CLR

TH

Прой-і--

66-3346-17

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 185

---

## Page 186

(dev. 5-22-64)

4

FBI

Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 1975

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

NITEL

(Priority)

TO:

DIRECTOR (62-116395) ~ 156

FROM: SAC, MIAMI (66-3346)

1P

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL SEPTEMBER 5, 1975.

THOMAS MC ANDREWS AND FREDERICK F. FOX WERE CONTACTED BY

SAC SEPTEMBER 9, 1975. ADDRESSES SET FORTH IN RETEL FOR EACH

ARE CORRECT.

MC ANDREWS STATED HIS KNOWLEDGE IS INDIRECT AND DIMMED

BY APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN YEARS. THE AGENI HANDLING Z COVERAGE

AI WFO WHILE MC ANDREWS WAS SAC IS NOW DEAD. MC ANDREWS

PROTESTED THAI BUREAU FILES SHOULD BE BY FAR MORE ACCURATE

AND COMPLETE THAN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND MEMORY.

FOX STATED HE WOULD NOTIFY FBI, MIAMI, SHOULD HE BE

CONTACTED.

END

JLM:mjs

(1)

hisueй..

66-3346-16

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 186

Sent

U.S.Government Printing Office: 1972 - 455-574

---

## Page 187

NRCO4 OM CODE

6:01 PM NITEL SEPTEMBER 1D, 1975 MRW

TO DIRECTOR (62-116395)

FROM MIAMI (66-3346)

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL SEPTEMBER 5, 1975.

THOMAS MC ANDREWS AND FREDERICK F. FOX WERE CONTACTED BY

SAC SEPTEMBER 9, 1975. ADDRESSES SET FORTH IN RETEL FOR EACH

ARE CORRECT.

MC ANDREWS STATED HIS KNOWLEDGE IS INDIRECT AND DIMMED

BY APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN YEARS. THE AGENT HANDLING Z COVERAGE

AT WO WHILE MC ANDREWS WAS SAC IS NOW DEAD. MC ANDREWS

PROTESTED THAI BUREAU FILES SHOULD BE BY FAR MORE ACCURATE

AND COMPLETE THAN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND MEMORY.

FOX STATED HE WOULD NOTIFY FBI, MIAMI, SHOULD HE BE

CONTACTED.

END

PLS ACK FOR 4

LSG FBIHQ ACK FOR FOUR AND HOLD FOR TWO

Lith :

Filod... MS.

66-3346-16

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 187

---

## Page 188

NR 030 WA CODE

5:53PM NITEL 9/5/75 PMJ

TO ALEXANDRIA

BOSTON

DALLAS

JACKSON

LOS ANGELES

NEW YORK

PHILADELPHIA

SAN DIEGO

SEATTLE

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 75

BALTIMORE

CHICAGO

EL PASO

JACKSONVILLE

MEMPHIS

OKLAHOMA CITY

PHOENIX

SAN FRANCISCO

BIRMINGHAM

CINCINNATI

INDIANAPOLIS

LOUISVILLE

MIAMI

OMAHA

ST. LOUIS

SAVANNAH

REBUTELS MAY 2, 1975, AND SEPTEMBER 4, 1975.

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC) HAS REQUESTED WHEREABOUTS

OF A NUMBER OF FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES INDICATING THEY MAY BE

INTERVIEWED BY THE SSC STAFF. LISTED BELOW, BY FIELD OFFICE

TERRITORY, ARE THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES AND THEIR LAST KNOWN

ADDRESSES AS CONTAINED IN BUREAU FILES.

66-3346-15

SEARCHED,

SERIALIZED AL FILED.

1:7

SEP 5 1975

FBI-MIAN

ASAC AiM

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 188

---

## Page 189

PAGE TWO

INFORMATION FROM SSC INDICATES NAMES OF FORMER SA'S

LITRENTO

AND STEWARI DEVELOPED AS HAVING BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR

SUPERVISING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE FBI AND CIA CONCERNING

MAIL OPENING ACTIVITIES. ALL OTHERS IN LIST BELOW WERE EITHER

SAC, ASAC, OR BOTH, DURING PERIOD 1959 - 1966 IN ONE OR MORE

OF THE FOLLOWING OFFICES: BOSION, DETROIT, LOS ANGELES, MIAMI,

NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE, AND WASHINGTON FIELD. THEY

PRESUMABLY ARE ALSO KNOWLEDGEABLE CONCERNING MAIL OPENINGS.

EACH OF THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES IS TO BE IMMEDIATELY

CONTACTED AND ALERTED THAT HE MIGHT BE APPROACHED BY THE SSC

STAFF FOR INTERVIEW. THE FORMER EMPLOYEE MAY, AFTER BEING

CONTACTED BY SSC STAFF, CONTACT BUREAU'S LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION

BY COLLECT CALL FOR FULL INFORMATION TO ASSIST HIM INCLUDING

OBLIGATIONS AS TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED AS

FBI EMPLOYEE. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT BUREAU'S OFFER OF

ASSISTANCE IS NOT INTENDED IO IMPEDE SSC WORK, BUT IS DONE

AS COOPERATIVE GESTURE AND TO SAFEGUARD SENSITIVE BUREAU

INFORMATION•

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 189

---

## Page 190

PAGE THREE

CONTACTS WITH THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES TO BE HANDLED

PERSONALLY BY SAC OR ASAC. IN EVENT THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE

FOR JUST CAUSE, TO BE HANDLED BY A SENIOR SUPERVISOR.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONTACI, RESULIS SHOULD BE FURNISHED

BUREAU BY NITEL IN ABOVE CAPTION, BRIEFLY INCLUDING REACTION

OF FORMER EMPLOYEES CONTACTED. • IF A FORMER EMPLOYEE NO

LONGER IN YOUR TERRITORY OR TEMPORARILY AWAY, SET OUT LEAD IO

OTHER OFFICE IMMEDIATELY WITH COPY TO FBIHQ.

ALEXANDRIA:

W. DONALD STEWART, CRYSTAL HOUSE I, APARIMENT 2D2, ARLINGION,

VIRGINIA.

JAMES HO GALE, 3307 ROCKY MOUNT ROAD, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

THOMAS E BISHOP, 8820 STARK ROAD, ANNANDALE, VIRGINIA

BALTIMORE:

ANTHONY P. LITRENIO, 2810 STONYBROOK DRIVE, BOWIE, MARYLAND

PAUL O'CONNELL, JR., 2417 STRAITON DRIVE, POTOMAC, MARYLAND

DONALD E. RONEY, 131 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE, WINDSOR HILLS,

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

VICTOR TURYN, 2645 TURF VALLEY ROAD, ELLICOTT CITY,

MARYLAND

DONALD W. MORLEY, BOX 222, NEW MARKET, MARYLAND

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 190

---

## Page 191

PAGE FOUR

BIRMINGHAM:

BOSTON:

CHICAGO:

MARI, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

CINCINNATI :

DALLAS:

EL PASO:

INDIANAPOLIS:

INDIANA

JACKSON:

MISSISSIPPI

JOHN DAVID POPE, JR., 221 REMINGION ROAD, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

LEO L. LAUGHLIN, 9 EVERETT AVENUE, WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETIS

EDWARD J. POWERS, 10 COLONIAL DRIVE, BEDFORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

J•F. DESMOND, 185 FRANKLIN STREET, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

MARLIN W. JOHNSON, CANTEEN CORPORATION, THE MERCHANDISE

HARVEY G. FOSTER, 1012 SOUTH HAMLIN, PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS

PAUL FIELDS, 2677 CYCLORAMA DRIVE, CINCINNATI, OHIO

HARRY J. MORGAN, 5314 ELMCREST LANE, CINCINNATI, OHIO

PAUL HO STODDARD, 3014 CHATTERION DRIVE, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS

KENNETH E. COMMONS, 2458 DOUGLAS DRIVE, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS

KARL W. DISSLY, POST OFFICE BOX 9762, EL PASO, TEXAS

DILLARD W. HOWELL, 6413 CARDINAL LANE, INDIANAPOLIS,

ALLAN GILLIES , 8228 HOOVER LANE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

WILLIAMS W. BURKE, UR., 1847 AZTEC DRIVE, JACKSON,

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 191

---

## Page 192

PAGE FIVE

JACKSONVILLE:

DONALD K. BROWN, 826 BROOKMONT AVENUE, EAST JACKSONVILLE,

FLORIDA

WILLIAM M. ALEXANDER, 4857 WATER OAK LANE, JACKSONVILLE,

FLORIDA

LOUISVILLE:

BERNARD C. BROWN, 2381 NEWMARKET DRIVE, N.E., LOUISVILLE,

KENTUCKY

LOS ANGELES:

WILLIAM G. SIMON, 2075 LOMBARDY ROAD, SAN MARINO,

CALIFORNIA

WESLEY G. GRAPP, 4240 BON HOMME ROAD, WOODLAND HILLS,

CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD C. LARSON, 4232 ABBINGION COURT, WESTLAKE VILLAGE,

CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH K. PONDER, 3719 CARRIAGE HOUSE COURT, ALEXANDRIA,

VIRGINIA. BUSINESS ADDRESS: 3030 SOUTH RED HILL AVENUE,

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

MEMPHIS :

E. HUGO WINTERROWD, 155D NORTH PARKWAY, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

MIAMI:

FLORIDA.

(813) 2612496

THOMAS MC ANDREWS, 324 NEAPOLITAN WAY, NAPLES, FLORIDA

•FREDERICK F. FOX, 11450 W. BISCAYNE CANAL ROAD, MIAMI,

893-7743

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 192

---

## Page 193

PAGE SIX

NEW YORK:

JOSEPH L. SCHMIT, 656 HUNT LANE, MANHASSET, NEW YORK

HENRY A. FITZGIBBON, 76 EASTON ROAD, BRONXVILLE, NEW YORK

OKLAHOMA CITY:

JAMES I. MORELAND, 108 FERN DRIVE, POTEAU, OKLAHOMA

LEE 0. TEAGUE, 25D1 N.W. 121ST STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY,

OKLAHOMA

OMAHA :

JOHN F. CALLAGHAN, IOWA LAW ENFORCEMENI ACADEMY,

CAMP DODGE, POST OFFICE BOX 130, JOHNSTON, IOWA

PHILADELPHIA:

RICHARD J. BAKER; 219 JEFFREY LANE, NEWION SQUARE,

PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN F. MALONE, 25 GARFIELD AVENUE, CARBONDALE, PENNSYLVANIA

PHOENIX:

PALMER M. BAKEN, JR., 3832 EAST YUCCA STREET, PHOENIX,

ARIZONA

ST. LOUIS:

THOMAS J. GEARTY, 6630 CLAYTON ROAD NR. 105, RICHMOND HEIGHIS,

MISSOURI

WESLEY I. WHALEY, 286 GREEN TRAILS DRIVE, CHESTERFIELD,

MISSOURI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 193

---

## Page 194

PAGE SEVEN

SAN DIEGO:

FRANK L. PRICE, 2785 TOKALON STREEI, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO:

CURTIS O. LYNUM, 644 EAST HILLSDALE BOULEVARD, SAN MATEO,

CALIFORNIA

HAROLD E. WELBORN, 13067 LA VISTA COURT, SARATOGA,

CALIFORNIA

SAVANNAH:

TROY COLEMAN, 36 CROMWELL ROAD, WILMINGTON, PARK, SAVANNAH,

GEORGIA

JOSEPH D. PURVIS, 721 DANCY AVENUE, SAVANNAH,. GEORGIA

SEATTLE:

LELAND V. BOARDMAN, ROUTE 3, BOX 268, SEQUIM, WASHINGION

RICHARD D. AUERBACH, P.O. BOX 1768, SEATTLE, WASHINGION

JAMES E. MILNES, 4317 - 50TH AVENUE, N.E., SEATTLE,

WASHINGION

PAUL R. BIBLER, 15134 - 38TH AVENUE, N.E., SEATTLE,

WASHINGTON

END

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 194

---

## Page 195

AR 030 WA CODE

5:53PM NITEL 9/5/75 PUJ

TO ALEXANDRIA

BALTIMORE

• BOSTON

CHICAGO

DALLAS

EL PASO

JACKSON

JACKSONVILLE

LOS ANGELES

VEMPHIS

NEW YORK

OKLAHOMA CITY

PHILADELPHIA

PHOENIX

SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO

BIRMINGHAM

CINCINNATI

INDIANAPOLIS

LOUISVILLE

ME A MI

OMAHA

ST • LOUIS

SAVANNAH

SEATTLE

FROM DIRECIOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTELS MAY 2, 1975, AND SEPTEIBER 4, 1975€

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSE) HAS REQUESTED WHEREABOUTS

OF A NUMBER OF FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES INDICATING THEY MAY BE

INTERVIEVED BY THE SSC STAFF, LISTED BELOW, BY FIELD OFFICE

TERRITORY, ARE THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES AND THEIR LAST KNOWN

ADDRESSES AS CONIAINED IN BUREAU FILES.

66-3346-15

SEP 5 1975

FBI-MIAMI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 195

---

## Page 196

PAGE TWO

INFORMATION FROM SSC INDICATES NAMES OF FORMER SA*S

LITRENTO AND STEVART DEVELOPED AS HAVING BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR

SUPER VESING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE FBI AND CIA CONCERNING

HAIL OPENING ACTIVITIES, ALL OTHERS IN LIST BELOW VERE EITHER

SAC, ASAC, OR BOTH, DURING PERIOD 1959 - 1966 IN ONE OR WORE

OR THE FOLLOVING OFFICES: BOSTON, DETROIT, LOS ANGELES, MIANI,

NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE, AND WASHINGTON FIELD. THEY

PRESUNAELY ARE ALSO KNOULEDGEABLE CONCERNING MÄIL OPENINGS.

EACH OF THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES IS

TO BE IMMEDIAIELY

CONTACIED AND ALERTED THAT HE MIGHT BE APPROACHED BY THE SSC

STAFF FOR INTERVIEW. THE FORMER EMPLOYEE MAY, AFTER BEING

CONTACIED BY SSC STAFT, CONTACT BUREAU"S' LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION

BY COLLECT CALL FOR FULL INFORMATION TO ASSIST HIM INCLUDING

OBLIGATIONS AS TO CONFIDENTIALITY. OF. INFORMATION ACQUIRED AS

PBI EMPLOYEE. IT IS EVPHASIZED THAT BUREAU*S OFFER OF

ASSISTANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPEDE SSC WORK, BUT IS DONE

AS COOPERATIVE GESTURE AND TO SAFEGUARD SENSITIVE BUREAU

INFORMATION.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 196

---

## Page 197

PAGE THREE

CONTACTS WITH THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES TO BE HANDLED

PERSOMALLY BY SAC OR ASAC. IN EVENT THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE

FOR JUST CAUSE, IO BE HANDLED BY A SENIOR SUPERVISOR,

INMEDIATELY AFTER CONTACI, RESULTS SHOULD BE FURNISHED

BUREAU BY NITEL IN ABOVE CAPTION, BRIEFLY INCLUDING REACTION

OF FORMER ENPLOYEES CONTACTED. IF A FORMER EMPLOYEE NO

LONGER IN YOUR TERRITORY OR TENPORARILY AVAY, SET OUT LEAD TO

OTHER OFFICE INMEDIATELY WITH COPY TO FBIHQ.

ALEXANDRIA:

No DONALD STEWART, CRYSTAL HOUSE I, APARTIENT 202, ARLINGION,

VIRGINIA-

JAMES HE GALE, 3307 ROGKY MOUNT ROAD, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

THOMAS E BISHOP, 8820 STARK ROAD, ANNANDALE, VIRGINIA

BALTIVORE:

ANTHONY PO LITRENIO, 2810 STONYBROOK DRIVE, BOVIE, MARYLAND

PAUL O'CONNELL, URA, 2417 STRATTON DRIVE, POIOMAC, MARYLAND

DOWALD E. RONEY, 131 CAIBRIDGE DRIVE, WINDSOR HILLS,

VILMINGTON, DELAWARE

VICTOR TURYN, 2645 TURF VALLEY ROAD, ELLICOTI CITY,

MARYLAND

DONALD V. PORLEY, BOX 222, NEW MARKET, MARYLAND

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 197

minisatis

---

## Page 198

PAGE FOUR

BIRGING HAM!

BOSTONS

CHICAGO:

MARI, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

CINCINNATIS

DALLAS:

EL PASO:

INDIANAPOLISS

INDIANA

JACKSON:

MISSISSIPPI

JOHN DAVID POPE, JR., 221 REMINGION ROAD, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

LEO L, LAUGHLIN, 9 EVERETT AVENUE, WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

EDUARD dO POVERS, 10 COLONIAL DRIVE, BEDFORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

SaF. DESKOND, 185 FRANKLIN STREET, BOSTON, NASSACHUSETTS

MARLIN WE JOHNSON, CANTEEN CORPORATION, THE MERCHAIDISE

HARVEY G. FOSTER, 1012 SOUTH HAMLIN, PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS

PAUL FIELDS, 2677 CYCLORAMA DRIVE, CINGINNATI, OHIO

HARRY J. MORGANY 5304 ELMOREST LANE, CINCINNATI, OHIO

PAUL HO STODDARD, 3014 CHATTERTON DRIVE, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS

KENETH EX COMMONS, 2458 DOUGLAS DRIVE, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS

KARL, HE DISSLY, POST OFFICE BOX 9762, EL PASO, TEXAS

DILLARD W. HOWELL, 6413 CARDINAL LANE, INDIANAPOLIS,

ALLAN GILLIES, 8228 HOOVER LANE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

WILLIAMS W. BURKE, JR=, 1847 AZTEE DRIVE, JACKSON,

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 198

---

## Page 199

PAGE FIVE

JACKSONVILLE:

DONALD M+ BROUN, 326 BROOKBONT AVENUE, EASI JACKSONVILLE,

FLORIDA

VILLIAN DE ALEXANDER, 4857 VATER OAN LANE, JACHSONVILLE,

FLORIDA

LOUISVILLE:

BERNARD C. BROWN, 2301 NEUMARKET DRIVE, N.E., LOUISVILLE,

KENTUCKY

LOS ANGELES:

WILLIAM G. SINON, 2075 LOPBARDY ROAD, SAN NARINO,

CALIFORNIA

WESLEY G. GRAPP, 4240 BON HOMME ROAD, WOODLAND HILLS,

CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD GA LARSON, 4232 ABBINGION COURI, WESTLAKE VILLAGE,

CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH K. PONDER, 3719 CARRIAGE HOUSE COURI, ALEXANDRIA,

VARGINIA, BUSINESS ADDRESS: 3030 SOUTH RED HILL AVENUE,

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

NEMPHIS"

E. HUGO WINTERROUD, IS50 NORTH PARKVAY, VENPHIS, TENNESSEE

MIANI:

THOMAS MC ANDREUS, 324 NEAPOLITAN WAY, NAPLES, FLORIDA

FREDERICK F• FOX, 11450 U. BISCAYUE CANAL ROAD, MIAMI,

FLORIDA

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 199

---

## Page 200

PAGE SIX

NEW YORKE

JOSEPH LA SCHMIT, 65G HUNT LANE, MANHASSET, NEW YORK

HENRY A FITZGIBBON, 76 EASTON ROAD, BRONXVILLE, NEW YORK

OKLAHOMA CITY:

JAlES I A PORELAND, 108 FERN DRIVE, POTEAU, OKLAHOMA

LEE O• TEAGUE, 2501 Nelle 121ST STREET, OKLAHONA CITY,

OKLAHOMA

ONAHA:

JOHN FA CALLAGHAN, IOWA LAW EUFORCEUENE ACADEMY,

CAMP DODGE, POST OFFICE BOX 130, JOHNSEON, IOWA

PHILADELPHIA!

RICHARD J* BAKER, 219 JEFFREY LANE, NEUION SQUARE,

PENNSYL VANIA

JOHN DO MALONE, 25 GARFIELD AVENUE, CARBONDALE, PENNSVLVANIA

PHOENIX:

PALMER Me BAKEl, JRay 3832 EAST YUCCA STREET, PHOENIX,

ARIZONA

ST - LOUIS:

THOMAS d. GEARTY, 6630 CLAYTON ROAD NR= 105, RICHUOND HEIGHIS,

MISSOURI

WESLEY T. WHALEY, 286 GREEN IRAILS DRIVE, CHESTERFIELD,

MISSOURI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 200

---

## Page 201

PAGE SEVEN

SAN DIEGO:

FRAIK Le PRIGE, 2705 TOKALON STREET, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO:

CURTIS DE LYNUM, EA4 EASI HILLSDALE BOULEVARD, SAN MATEO,

CALIFORNIA

HAROLD E, WELBORN, 13067 LA VISTA COURT, SARAIOGA,

CALIFORNIA

SAVANNAH:

TROY COLEMAN, 36 CROWVELL ROAD, WILMINGTON PARK, SAVANNAH,

GEORGIA

JOSEPH D. PURVIS, 721 DANCY AVENUE, SAVANNAR, GEORGIA

SEATTLE:

LELAND V. BOARDMAN, ROUTE 3y BOX 2G8, SEQUIM, WASHINGION

RICHARD D& AUERBACH, P.O, BOX 1768, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

JAMES EN MILNES, 4317 - 50TH AVENUE, N-E*, SEATTLE,

WASHINGION

PAUL RA BIELER, 1515A - 3B9H AVENUE, laRo SEATTLE

WASHINGION

END

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 201

---

## Page 202

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

TELETYPE

Via

FBI

Date:

CODED

(Type in plaintext or code)

URGENT

(Priority)

9/8/75

TO:

DIRECTOR, FBI (62-116395) - VLN

ATTENTION: INTD, W.O. CREGAR

FROM:

MTAMI (66-3346) (RUC) 2P

SENSTUDY 75, BUDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1975

RE BUREAU TELETYPE SEPTEMBER 5, 1975.

ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1975, SUPERVISOR JOSEPH C. BALL AND SA

RAYMOND I. O'KELLY MET WITH WALTER J. LAUGHEED, ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR, AND ROBERT WENNERHOLM, LEGAL COUNSEL, DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARIMENT (DCPSD), AT THE DCPSD.

THESE TVO OFFICIALS WERE ADVISED OF THE REQUEST TO THE

FBI BY THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC), FOR ACCESS TO

ALL MEMORANDA AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH RELATE TO ELECTRONIC

SURVEILLANCE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING BY STATE AND LOCAT,

AGENCIES.

INFORMATION IN MIAMI AIRTEL MAY 23, 1966, CAPTIONED

"MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., SECURITY MATTER - C" WAS ORALLY

что.

0266-3346

RORLO/Kr

(1) 12)

Approved:

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 202

Sent

66-3346-14

339р

_M

Per ALS

* U, S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING

OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 203

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TWO

FURNISHED AND THEY WERE ASKED WHETHER THE DCPSD HAS ANY

OBJECTION TO THE FBI RELEASING TO SSC THE MATERIAL EMANATING

FROM DCPSD AND CONTAINED IN THIS AIRTEL WHICH WOULD DISCLOSE

THE DCPSD USED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES IN THEIR COVERAGE

OF KING.

LAUGHEED ADVISED THE DCPSD HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE FBI

RELEASING THIS INFORMATION TO THE SSC. HE SAID THEY WOULD

HAVE TO SEARCH THEIR RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHAT INFORMATION

THEY HAVE ON KING AND THAT ANY REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION

BY SSC WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE FORM OF A SUBPOENA.

E. WILSON PURDY, DIRECTOR, DCPSD, WHO IS ON VACATION,

WAS INITIALLY CONTACTED IN THIS MATTER BY SAC JULIUS L.

MATTSON AND MADE AWARE OF THE REQUEST BY SSC.

Approved:

-

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 203

Sent

_M Per -

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 204

NR011 MM CODE

3:39PM URGENT SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 JGS

TO DIRECIOR (62-116395)

FROM MIAMI (66-3346) (RUC)

ATIN: INTD, W.O. CREGAR

SENSTUDY 75, BUDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1975

RE BUREAU TELETYPE SEPTEMBER 5, 1975.

ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1975, SUPERVISOR JOSEPH C. BALL AND SA

BANWOO KELLY MET WITH WALTER J. LAUGHEED, ASSISTANI

DIRECTOR, AND ROBERT WENNERHOLM, LEGAL COUNSEL, DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARIMENI (DOPSD), AT THE DOPSD.

THESE TWO OFFICIALS WERE ADVISED OF THE REQUEST TO THE

FBI BY THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC), FOR ACCESS TO

ALL MEMORANDA AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH RELATE TO ELECTRONIC

SURVEILLANCE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES.

INFORMATION IN MIAMI AIRTEL MAY 23, 1966, CAPTIONED

"MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., SECURITY MATTER-C" WAS ORALLY

FURNISTED AND THEY WERE ASKED WIETHER TTE DOPSD HAS ANY

OBJECTION TO THE FBI RELEASING TO SSC THE MATERIAL EMANATING

FROO DOPSD AND CONTAINED IN THIS AIRTEL WHICH WOULD DISCLOSE

THE DCPSD USED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES IN THEIR COVERAGE

OF KING.

END PAGE ONE

66-3346-114

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 204

---

## Page 205

PAGE: TWO MM. 66-3346

LAUGHEED ADVISED THE DOPSD HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE FBI

RELEASING THIS INFORMATION TO THE SSC. HE SAID THEY WOULD

HAVE TO SEARCH THEIR RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHAT INFORMATION

THEY HAVE ON KING AND THAT ANY REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION

BY SSC WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE FORM OF A SUBPOENA.

E. WILSON PURDY, DIRECTOR, DOPSD, WHO IS ON VACATION,

WAS INITIALLY CONTACTED IN THIS MATTER BY SAC JULIUS L.

MATISON AND MADE AWARE OF THE REQUEST BY SSC.

END

FBI WA VLN

/ NW 65360 Docid:32989820 Page 205

---

## Page 206

NRO12 WA CODE

258PM URGENT 9-5-75 VLN

TO MIAMI•

NEW YORK

FROM DIRZOTOR

66-334645-116395)

SENSTUDY 75, BUDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1975.

REMMAIRTEL MAY 23, 1966, NYAIRTELS MAY 18, 1965, MAY 28,

1965, AND NYLET JULY 29, 1965, ALL CAPTIONED " MARTIN LUTHER

KING, JR:, SECURITY MATTER - C," MIAMI FILE 100-15079,

NEW YORK FILE 100-136585.

THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC) HAS REQUESTED ACCESS TO

ALL MEMORANDA AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH RELATE TO ELECTRONIC

SURVEILLANCE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING BY STATE AND LOCAL

AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENIS.

REFERENCED COMMUNICATIONS INDICATE THAT THE DADE COUNTY

SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND THE THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT USED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT IN THEIR

COVERAGE OF DR. KING.

IN ORDER FOR FBIHQ TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE SSC REQUEST

IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR MIAMI AND NEW YORK TO CONTACI APPRO-

x4646

Suppresen

55346-1

SEARCHED

SERIALIZED 21C4 FILED_D2

SÉP 5 1975

FBI-MIAMI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 206

---

## Page 207

PAGE TWO

PRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE DADE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ADVISE THEM OF THE SSC

REQUEST. SECURE THEIR COMMENTS RELATIVE TO: WHETHER

THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTION IO OUR RELEASING TO SSC THE MATERIAL

FROM THEM CONTAINED IN REFERENCED COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH WOULD

DISCLOSE THAT THEY USED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES IN THEIR

COVERAGE OF KING. THEY SHOULD BE APPRISED OF THE FACT

EVEN IF FBIHQ DOES NOT VOLUNTARILY SUPPLY REQUESTED

INFORMATION, SSC MAY SUBPOENA FBI RECORDS.

EXPEDITE AND SUBMIT BY TELETYPE. IN THE ABOVE CAPTION,

ATTENTION INTD, W. O. CREGAR, BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 8,

1975.

END

FBI MM CIR

MRCI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 207

---

## Page 208

NRO12 WA CODE

258PM URGENT 9-5-75 VLN

TO MIAMI

NEW YORK

FROM DIRECIOR (62-116395)

SENSTUDY 75, BUDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1975.

REMMAIRTEL MAY 23, 1966, NYAIRTELS MAY 18, 1965, MAY 28,

1965, AND NLET JULY 29, 1965, ALL CAPTIONED " MARTIN LUTHER

KING, JR., SECURITY MATTER - C," MIAMI FILE 100-15679,

NEW YORK FILE 106- 136585*

THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC) HAS REQUESTED ACCESS TO

ALL MEMORANDA AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH RELATE IO ELECIRONIC

SURVEILLANCE OF DR MARTIN LUTHER KING BY STATE AND LOCAL

AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENTS.

REFERENCED COMMUNICATIONS INDICATE THAT THE DADE COUNTY

SHERIFF*S OFFICE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND THE THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE

DEPARIMENT USED ELECIRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT IN THEIR

COVERAGE OF DR: KING.

IN ORDER FOR FBIHO TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND IO THE SSC REQUEST

IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR MIAMI AND NEW YORK TO CONTACT APPRO-

66-3346-132

/port.chct.

_INDEXED-

SENIALIZIO MAL FILED DORY

SEP 5 1975

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 208

---

## Page 209

PAGE TWO

FRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE DADE COUNTY SHERIFF®S OFFICE AND THE

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARIMENT AND ADVISE THEM OF THE SSC

RECUESI. SECURE THEIR COMMENTS RELATIVE TO: WHETHER

THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO OUR RELEASING TO SSC THE MATERIAL

FROM THEM CONTAINED IN REFERENGED COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH WOULD

DISCLOSE THAI THEY USED ELECIRONIC SURVEILLANCES IN THEIR

COVERAGE OF KING. THEY SHOULD BE APPRISED OF THE FACT

EVEN IF FBINO DOES NOT VOLUNTARILY SUPPLY REQUESTED

INFORMATION, SSG MAY SUBPOENA FBI RECORDS.

EXPEDITE AND SUBMIT BY TELETYPE IN THE ABOVE CAPTION,*

ATTENTION INTD, NO De GREGAR, BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 8,

1975.

END

FBI MM CUR

MRO

---

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 209

---

## Page 210

NR033 WA CODE

4:47PM 9/4/75 NITEL AJN

TO ALL' SACS

FROM DIRECIOR

(627116395)

PERSONAL ATTENT

SE NSTUDY, 15

REBUTEL MAY 2, 1975.

PURPOSES OF INSTANT TELETYPE ARE TO (1) REITERATE THAT

FBI HAS PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE (SSC) AND WISHES TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY

• INVESTIGATIONS UNDERIAKEN BY THE SSC WITH RESPECI TO THE FBI;

AND (2) SET FORTH NEW PROCEDURE RELATING TO SSC STAFF

INTERVIEWS OF CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

FOR INFORMATION OF THOSE OFFICES WHICH HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY

HAD CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES IN IIS TERRITOY INTERVIEWED

BY THE SSC, THE BUREAU FREQUENTLY LEARNS FROM THE SSC OR

OTHERWISE THAT FORMER EMPLOYEES ARE BEING • CONSIDERED FOR

INTERVIEW BY THE SSC STAFF. INSTRUCTIONS ARE ISSUED FOR THE

FIELD OFFICE TO CONTACT THE. FORMER EMPLOYEE TO ALERT HIM AS TO

POSSIBLE INTERVIEW, REMIND HIM OF HIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

WITH THE BUREAU AND SUGGEST THAT

IF HE IS CONTACTED FOR

2.

7

66-3346-12

5 tho

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 210

9

10.

SEP 4

FBI-MIAMI

1975

---

## Page 211

PAGE TWO

INTERVIEW, HE MAY CONTACT THE LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY

COLLECI CALL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. IN THE USUAL CASE,

AS CIRCUMSTANCES UNFOLD,, THE FORMER EMPLOYEE IS TOLD(1)

THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THAT THE BUREAU

CANNOT PROVIDE SAME; (2) THAT THE BUREAU HAS WAIVED THE

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERVIEW WITHIN SPECIFIED

PARAMETERS; AND (3) THAT THERE ARE FOUR PRIVILEGED AREAS IN •

WHICH HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTION. THESE AREAS •

ARE RELATING TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY (A) IDENTIFY BUREAU

SOURCES; (B) REVEAL SENSITIVE METHODS/TECHNIQUES; (C) REVEAL

IDENTITIES OF THIRD AGENCIES, INCLUDING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

AGENCIES, OR INFORMATION FROM SUCH AGENCIES; AND (D) ADVERSELY

AFFECT ONGOING BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS.

• HERETOFORE, BUREAU HAS OFFERED INTERVIEWEES CONSULTATION

PRIVILEGES WHEREBY A BUREAU SUPERVISOR WOULD BE AVAILABLE

NEARBY, ALTHOUGH NOI ACTUALLY AT INTERVIEW, SO INTERVIÈWEE

MIGHT CONSULT WITH HIM SHOULD QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO PARAMETERS

OF INTERVIEW OR PRIVILEGED AREAS. THE CONSULTANT DID NOT ACT

AS A LEGAL ADVISOR.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, BUREAU WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 211

---

## Page 212

PAGE THREE

ON-THE- SCENE PERSONNEL FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES TO ASSIST

EITHER CURRENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES. PROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWEES

SHOULD BE TOLD THAT, IF THEY DESIRE ASSISTANCE OF. THIS NATURE

DURING AN INTERVIEW, THEY MAY CONTACT EITHER PERSONALLY (IF

INTERVIEW IS IN WASHINGTON, D. C.) OR BY COLLECT CALL, THE

ASSISTANI DIRECIOR OF THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION,.

MR. W. R.

WANNALL, OR, IN HIS ABSENCE, SECTION CHIEF W. O. CREGAR.

THIS CHANGE IN PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS

LESSENING THE ASSISTANCE WE ARE FURNISHING TO CURRENT AND

FORMER EMPLOYEES.

-

FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I AM WORKING WITH THE

DEPARTMENT IN EXPLORING AVENUES IO ARRANGE LEGAL REPRESENTATION,

WHEN NECESSARY, FOR CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT

EXPENSE TO THEM. YOU WILL BE KEPT ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENIS

IN THIS REGARD.

END •

FBI MM CLR MRW

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 212

---

## Page 213

NR033 WA CODE

4:47PM 9/4/75 NITEL AJN

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR

(62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL MAY 2, 1975.

PURPOSES OF INSTANT TELETYPE ARE TO (1) REITERATE THAT

FBI HAS PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE (SSC) AND WISHES TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY

INVESTIGATIONS UNDERIAKEN BY THE SSC WITH RESPECT TO THE FBI;

AND (2) SET FORTH NEW PROCEDURE RELATING TO SSC STAFF

INTERVIEWS OF CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

FOR INFORMATION OF THOSE OFFICES WHICH HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY

HAD CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES IN ITS TERRITOY INTERVIEWED

BY THE SSC, THE BUREAU FREQUENTLY LEARNS FROM THE SSC OR

OTHERWISE THAT FORMER EMPLOYEES ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR

INTERVIEW BY THE SSC STAFF. INSTRUCIIONS ARE ISSUED FOR THE

FIELD OFFICE TO CONTACT THE FORMER EMPLOYEE TO ALERT HIM AS TO

POSSIBLE INTERVIEV, REMIND HID OF HIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENI

WITH THE BUREAU AND SUGGEST THAI IF HE IS CONTACTED FOR .

66-3346-12

ISEARCHED.

LINDEXED

SEP A

1975

FBI-ArAMI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 213

---

## Page 214

• *

PAGE TWO

INTERVIEU, ME MAY CONTACT THE LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY

COLLECI CALL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. IN THE USUAL CASE,

AS GIRCUMSIANCES UNFOLD, THE FORMER EMPLOYEE IS TOLDCI)

THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THAT THE BUREAU

CANNOT PROVIDE SAME; (2) THAT THE BUREAU HAS WAIVED THE

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERVIEW WITHIN SPECIFIED

PARAMETERS; AND (3) THAT THERE ARE FOUR PRIVILEGED AREAS IN

WHICH HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER QUESTION. THESE AREAS

ARE RELATING TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY (A) IDENTIFY BUREAU

SOURCES; (B) REVEAL SENSITIVE METHODS/TECHNIQUES;, (C) REVEAL

IDENTITIES OF THIRD AGENCIES, INCLUDING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

AGENCIES, OR INFORMATION FROM SUCH AGENCIES; AND (D) ADVERSELY

AFFECT ONGOING BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS.

HERETOFORE, BUREAU HAS OFFERED INTERVIEVEES CONSULTATION

PRIVILEGES WHEREBY A BUREAU SUPERVISOR WOULD BE AVAILABLE

NEARBY, ALTOUGH NOT ACTUALLY AT INTERVIEV, SO INTERVIEVEE

MIGHT CONSULT WITH HIM SHOULD QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO PARAMETERS

OF INTERVIEW OR PRIVILEGED AREAS. THE CONSULTANT DID NOT ACT

AS A LEGAL ADVISOR.

EFFECI IVS INMEDIATELY, BUREAU WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 214

---

## Page 215

PAGE THREE

ON-THE-SCENE PERSONNEL FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES TO ASSISI

EITHER CURRENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES. PROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWEES

SHOULD BE TOLD THAT, IF THEY DESIRE ASSISTANCE OF THIS NATURE

DURING AN INTERVIEV, THEY MAY CONTACI EITHER PERSONALLY CIF

INTERVIEW IS IN WASHINGTON, DO CO) OR BY COLLECI CALL, THE

ASSISTANI DIRECTOR OF THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, MR. W. Re

WANNALL, OR, IN HIS ABSENCE, SECTION CHIEF W. O. CREGAR.

THIS CHANGE IN PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS

LESSENING THE ASSISTANCE WE, ARE FURNISHING TO CURRENT AND

FORMER EMPLOYEES.

FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I AM WORKING WITH THE

DEPARIMENT IN EXPLORING AVENUES IO ARRANGE LEGAL REPRESENTATION,

WHEN NECESSARY, FOR CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT

EXPENSE TO THEM. YOU WILL BE KEPT ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENIS

IN THIS REGARD.

END

FBI MM CLR MRW

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 215

---

## Page 216

FD-36 (Rex, 5-22-64)

110

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

FBI

Date:

AUGUST 28, 1975

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

IMMEDIATE

(Priority)

TO: DIRECTOR (62-116395)

FROM: SAC, MIAMI

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL 8-26-75.

FORMER MIAMI ASAC FREDERICK F. FOX CONTACTED 8-27-75

PER INSTRUCTION.

FOX'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN BUREAU

RECORDS IO 11450 WESI BISCAYNE CANAL ROAD, MIAMI 33161.

END

+54120011

Flowe

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 216

Sent

66-3346-11

10 Pm Per.

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1972-455-574

---

## Page 217

NRGO1 MY CODE

15:13PM IMMEDIATE AUGUST 23, 1975 JUB

TO DIRECTOR (62-116395)

FROM MIAMI

SENSTUDY 75

REBUTEL AUGUST 26, 1975.

FORMER MIAMI ASAC FREDERICK F. FOX CONTACTED AUGUST 27, 1975

PER INSTRUCTION:

FOX'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS SHOULD BE CORRECTED. IN BUREAU

RECORDS TO 11450 WEST BISCAYNE CANAL ROAD, MIAMI 33161.

END.

VN FBIHO CLR

Facialed

,. Flica.

66-3346-11

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 217

---

## Page 218

NR309 WA CODE

3:30PM NITEL S-26-75 LXS

TO ALEANY

EALT IMORE

MIANI

PHILADELPRIA

TAMPA

FROM DIRECT

662-1

16395)

PERSONAL

TENTION

SE NS TObY

3346* (/15)

RESUTEL MAY 2, 1975•

INCUIRIES MADE OF BUREAU SY, SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE (SSC)

CONCERNING DELOW-LISTED FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES SUGGESTS THEY MAY

PE INTERVIEWED BY SSC STAFF. WHILE SUBJECT .OF INTERVIEWS HAS

NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY SSC, INTERVIELS WILL LIKELY PERTAIN,TO

THESE

ORMER E"PLOYEES" DUTIES WHILE IN THE INTERNAL SECURITY

AND /OR SUS VERSIVE. CONTROL SECTIONS AND MAY ALSO RELATE TO THE

FORMER BUREAU'S INVESTIGATIONS OF MARTIN' LUTHER'

KING, JR:,

COMMUNIST INFLUENCES IN RACIAL MATTERS AND RELATED MATTERS:

SIT OUT BELOW ARE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSIS OF THESE FORMER BUREAU

66-3346-10

SEARCHED

_FILED

AUG 2: 6 1975

FBI-MI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 218

---

## Page 219

1.

PACE TWO

EMPLOYEES.

EACH OF THESE FORKER EMPLOYES IS TO BE IMEDIATELY

CONTACIED AND ALERTED THAT KE MIGHT BE APPROACHED BY THE SSC

STAFF• THEY SHOULD BE TOLD THAT IN THE EVENT THEY ARE

INTERVITWED AND DURING COURSE OR SAME, QUESTIONS ARE ASKED.

WHICH RELATE TO SENSITIVE BUREAU OPERATIONS (SOURCES, METHODS

AND TECHNIQUES, ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, AND THIRD AGENCY RULE,

INCLUDING IDENTITIES OF FORSION INTELLIGENCZ AGENCIES', THEY

HAY REQUEST AN FEI AGENT 3E PRESENT. BUREAU WILL'PROVIDE

AGENT ON REQUEST OF INTERVIEWEE. ' AS A PRELUDE TO INTERVIEL,

THE FORMER IMPLOYEE MAY, AFTER BEING CONTACTED BY SSC. STAFF,

CONTACT DURZAU'S LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY COLLECT CALL FOR

FULL INTORUATION TO ASSIST HIM, INCLUDING OELIGATIONS AS TO

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED AS FBI EMPLOYEE. IT

IS ENPHASIZED IHAT BUREAU'S OFFER OF ASSISTANCE IS NOT

INTENDED TO IMPEDE SSC WORK BUT IS DONE AS COOPERATIVI GESTURE

AND TO SAFEGUARD SENSITIVE BUREAU INFORMATION. CONTACIS WITH

THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES TO BE HANDLED PERSONALLY BY SAC, OR

ASAC.' IN EVENT THIS NOT FEASIBLE, FOR JUST CAUSE, TO BE

HANDLED BY A SENIOR SUPERVISOR.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 219

---

## Page 220

PAGE THREE

IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONTACI, RESULTS SHOULD BE FURNISHED

: BUREAU BY TELETYPE IN ABOVE CAPTION. IF A FORMER EMPLOYEE NO

• LONGER 'IN YOUR TERRITORY OR TEMPORARILY AWAK, SET OUT LEAD TO

OTHER. OFFICE INMEDIATELY WITH COPY TO FBI HEADQUARIERS..

ALEANY: JOHN H. KLEINKAUF, 1153 CULLEN AVENUE, SCHENECTADY,

NEW YORK: 123G9; EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND SAFETY?

UNION COLLEGE, SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12308.

BALTIMORE: JAMES F.

BLAID, 4310 ROSEDALE AVENUE, BETHESDA,

MARYLAND 220140

MIAMI: FREDERICK F. FOX, 1450 WEST BISCAYNE CANAL ROAD

MIANI, FLORIDA 33161.

PHILADELPHIA: RS. KÄTHLEEN LOGAN, SPOUSE OF SA RICHARD E.

LOGAN, ASSIGNED PHILADELPHIA OFFICE. •

•TAMPA: PAUL L. COX, U.S.N.A.I.O., P..O. BOX 1418,

SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33579.

SEST INFORMATION BUREAU HAS CONCERNING. COX"S WHEREABOUTS

IS THAT HE IS CURRENTLY ON A LENGTHLY TRIP WITH A MOTOR TRAILER

THROUGH CANADA AND THE MID-WEST. INDICATED ADDRESS BELIEVED TO

BE A TRAILER COURT CONTACI POINT FOR SAILING PURPOSES. BUREAU

' DOES NOT DESIRE EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION IO LOCATE COX AND

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 220

---

## Page 221

PACE FOUR

SUGGESTS FEASIEILITY OF LEAVING SOME MESSAGE THROUGH THE

INDICATED ADDRESS OR SORT MEANS OF FORUARDING A COMPUNICATION

TO COX SO HE MIGHI CONTACT YOU? OFFICE

•OW RITURN TO AREA O?.

SOONER.. TAMPA'S REPLY TO BUREAU SHOULD SET OUT WHAT ARRÄNGEMENTS

FOR POSSIBLE CONTACT HAVE SEEM PERFECIED.

END

FBI TIM JWB CLR

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 221

---

## Page 222

NROGS WA CODE

3:30PM NITEL 826-75 LXS

TO ALBANY

BALTIMORE

MIAMI

PHILADELPHIA

TAMPA

FROM DIRECTOR (68-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUDY 75

REBUIEL MAY 2, 1975.

INQUIRIES MADE. OF BUREAU BY SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE (SSC>

CONCERNING BELOW-LISTED FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES SUGGESTS THEY MAY

BE INTERVIEVED BY SSC STAFF, WHILE SUBJECT OF INTERVIEUS HAS

NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY SSC, INTERVIEUS VILL LIKELY PERTAIN IO

THESE ORMER EMPLOYEES* DUTIES WHILE IN THE INTERNAL SECURITY

AND/OR SUBVERSIVE CONTROL SECTIONS AND MAY ALSO RELATE TO THE

FORMER BUREAU*S INVESTIGATIONS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR+,

COMMUNIST INFLUENCES IN RACIAL MATTERS AND RELATED MATTERS•

SET OUT BELOW ARE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES OF THESE FORMER BUREAU

66-3346-10

NUG 2: 6 1975

FBI-M

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 222

---

## Page 223

PAGE TWO

EMPLOYEES,

EACH OF THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES IS TO BE IMVEDIATELY

CONTACTED AND ALERTED THAT HE MIGHT BE APPROACHED BY THE SSC

STAFF, THEY SHOULD BE TOLD THAT IN THE EVENT THEY ARE

INTERVIEWED AND DURING COURSE OF SAME, QUESTIONS ARE ASKED

WHICH RELATE TO SENSITIVE

BUREAU OPERATIONS (SOURCES, METHODS

AND TECHNIQUES, ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, AND THIRD AGENCY RULE;

INCLUDING IDENTITIES OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENGIES), THEY

MAY REQUEST AN FBI AGENT BE PRESENT. BUREAU WILL PROVIDE

AGENT ON REQUEST OF INTERVIEVEE• AS A PRELUDE TO INTERVIEW,

THE FORMER EMPLOYEE MAY, AFTER BEING CONTACTED BY SSC SIAFF,

CONTACI BUREAU'S LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY COLLECT CALL FOR

FULL INFORMATION TO ASSIST HIM, INCLUDING OBLIGATIONS AS TO

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED AS FBI EMPLOYEE, IT

IS EMPHASIZED THAT BUREAU'S OFFER OF ASSISTANCE IS NOT

INTENDED TO IMPEDE SSC WORK BUT IS DONE AS COOPERATIVE GESTURE

AND TO SAFEGUARD SENSITIVE BUREAU INFORMATION. CONTACTS WITH

THESE FORMER EMPLOYEES TO BE HANDLED PERSONALLY BY SAC OR

ASAC. IN EVENT THIS NOT FEASIBLE FOR JUST CAUSE, TO BE

HANDLED BY A SENIOR SUPERVISOR •

NV 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 223

---

## Page 224

PAGE THREE®

IIMEDIATELY AFTER CONTACT, RESULTS SHOULD BE FURNISHED

BUREAU BY TELETYPE IN ABOVE CAPTION. IF A FORMER EMPLOYEE NO

LONGER IN YOUR TERRITORY OR TEMPORARILY AWAY, SET OUT LEAD TO

OTHER OFFICE IMMEDIATELY WITH COPY TO FBI HEADQUARTERS,

• ALBANY: JOHN He KLEINKAUF, 1153 CULLEN AVENUE, SCHENECIADY,

NEW YORK 12369; EMPLOYED AS DIRECIOR OF SECURITY AND SAFETY,

UNION COLLEGE, SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12308-

BALTIMORE: JAMES F, BLAND, 4310 ROSEDALE AVENUE, BETHESDA,

MARYLAND 20014.

MIAMI: FREDERICK F. FOX, 1450 WEST BISCAYNE CANAL ROAD,

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33161.

PHILADELPHIA: HRS, KATHLEEN LOGAN, SPOUSE OF SA RICHARD E.

LOGAN, ASSIGNED PHILADELPHIA OFFICE.

TAMPA: PAUL Le COX, US. NaAaI. Do, P. 0. BOX 1418,

SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33578*

• BEST INFORMATION BUREAU HAS CONCERNING COX"S WHEREABOUIS

IS THAT HE IS CURRENTLY ON A LENGTHLY TRIP WITH A MOTOR TRAILER

IHROUGH CANADA AND THE MID-WEST. INDICATED ADDRESS BELIEVED TO

BE A TRAILER COURT CONTACT POINT FOR MAILING PURPOSES, BUREAU

DOES NOT DESIRE EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION TO LOCATE COX AND

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 224

---

## Page 225

PAGE FOUR

SUGGESIS FEASIBILITY OF LEAVING SOME MESSAGE IHROUGH THE

INDICATED ADDRESS OR SOME MEANS OF FORWARDING A COMMUNICATION

TO COX SO HE MIGHT CONTACT YOUR OFFICE ON RETURN TO AREA OR

SOONER• TAMPA*S REPLY TO BUREAU SHOULD SET OUT WHAT ARRANGEMENTS

FOR POSSIBLE CONTACT HAVE BEEN PERFECTED.

•END

PBI MI JUB CLR

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 225

---

## Page 226

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

245

Transmit the following in

TELETYPE

Via

FBI.

Date:

6/24/75

CODED

(Type in plaintext or code)

URGENT

(Priority)

TO:

DIRECTOR, FBI (62-116395)

ATTENTION: SA W.O. CREGAR

FROM:

SAC, MANX (66-3316) (70g)

P SECRET

SENSTUDY 1975; BUDED JUNE 24, 1975

DOWNGRADED TO

SECRET

Per

Date_

Coole

RE BUREAU TELETYPE JUNE 18, 1975, AS ABOVE.

THE FILES OF THE MIAMI OFFICE CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING

INFORMATION ON "MAIL SURVEILLANCE" BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE

FBI FROM JANUARY 1, 1960 TO THE PRESENT TIME.

(1) MAIL OPENING OR MAIL INTERCEPT.

ON JANUARY 2, 1963, MIAMI BEGAN SCREENING AIRMAIL TO

CUBA

EMANATING FROM PUERTO RICO IN CONNECTION WITH THE

CASE CAPTIONED, "PENETRATE, ESPIONAGE - CUBA, " BUFILE 65-

67842, OFFICE OF ORIGIN SAN JUAN 65-398, MIAMI 65-2940/

0+66-3346

RLO/kr

Price i e?

sortetsein

el"

6/75

Approved:

M/P3

Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 226

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

66-3346-9

---

## Page 227

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via.

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TWO

TP ARCHE

ON FEBRUARY 11, 1963, MIAMI BEGAN SCREENING SUCH MAIL

EMANATING FROM MIAMI IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE CAPTIONED,

"FOXTROT, ESPIONAGE - CUBA," BUFILE 65-67951, OFFICE OF

ORIGIN MIAMI 65-2945.

IN ORDER TO FACILITATE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION

ON THE SCREENING OF THIS MAIL, MIAMI OPENED A SEPARATE FILE

CAPTIONED, "JOE SURVEY, ESPIONAGE - CUBA," MIAMI 65-2959, AND

THIS SOURCE WAS ASSIGNED SYMBOL NUMBER CSMM 921-S.

THE PURPOSE OF THE JOE SURVEY WAS TO LOCATE CLANDESTINE

COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH THE USE OF CERTAIN INDICATORS AND

DROP ADDRESSES ON MAIL TO CUBA, AND TO IDENTIFY THE

COMMUNICATION AS BEING ONE DIRECTED BY AN ILLEGAL AGENT

THROUGH ITS CONTENTS AND WRITING CHRACTERISTICS.

THIS MAIL WAS INTERCEPTED IN A ROOM FORMERLY OCCUPIED

BY THE POSTAL INSPECTORS AT THE BISCAYNE ANNEX POST OFFICE,

MIAMI. POSTAL EMPLOYEES WOULD BRING THE APPROPRIATE MAIL

BAGS TO THIS ROOM, WHERE MIAMI AGENTS WOULD REVIEW IT,

LOOKING FOR SOME 50 DROP ADDRESSES IN CUBA, REBIND THE MAIL

IN BUNDLES, AND PLACE IT BACK IN THE MAIL BAGS.

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 227

-

Sent

_ M

Per _

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 228

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI.

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE THREE

TOP SEERHT

THIS MAIL CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF LETTERS CONTAINING

PERSONAL, CORRESPONDENCE WITH SOME 12,000 TO 20,000 LETTERS

BEING REVIEWED DAILY.

THE JOE SURVEY ENDED ON JULY 21, 1966. THE NUMBER

OF AGENTS UTILIZED RANGED FROM FOUR TO TWENTY DEPENDING ON

THE AMOUNT OF MAIL AND WHETHER A SPECIAL SEARCH WAS NEEDED

BASED ON INFORMATION FROM BUREAU SOURCE SIX. .. AGENT TIME

SPENT HAS APPROXIMATELY 60 MAN HOURS A WEEK.

AGENTS REVIEWING THIS MAIL WERE FROM THE SECURITY

SQUAD AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL AGENTS INTERCEPTED MAIL

AT BISCAYNE ANNEX AT VARIOUS TIMES DURING THE PERIOD OF

THE SURVEY:

JOHN BARRON; EDWARD J. DAHL; GEORGE E. DAVIS, JR.,;

WILLIAM E. DOWLING; JAMES H. DOWNING; WILLIAM MAYO DREW,

JR.; ARNOLD C. DUQUETTE; ROBERT JAMES DWYER; CHARLES W.

EDMISTON; THOMAS ERRION; MAURICE F. 'FARABEE; LAWRENCE

FELDHAUS; CLARENCE P. GRAHAM; ERNEST HARRISON; JAMES D.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

• NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 228

-

Sent

_M

Per _

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 229

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via _

-

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE FOUR

4

HAYES; JAMES C. HOLMES; MELVIN C. JENSEN; SAMUEL W. JONES;

. JOSEPH P. MC CANN; JOHN E. MC HUGH; JOHN J. MATTIMORE;

JOHN C. MENTON; PETER J. NERO; JAMES J. O'CONNOR; RAYMOND L.

•O'KELLY; EUGENE L. PAYNE; LEON PRIOR; LEMAN L. STAFFORD, JR.;

WILLIAM W. STEVENS; ROBERT G. STRONG; EDWIN L. SWEET.

WHEN A DROP ADDRESS WAS NOTED ON AN ENVELOPE, THIS

PIECE OF MAIL WAS HAND CARRIED AND LATER SENT BY MAIL,

PURSUANT TO BUREAU INSTRUCTIONS, IO THE FBI LABORATORY FOR

EXAMINATION FOR SECRET WRITING AND MICRODOTS. IN EACH CASE,

AFTER THE LETTER WAS EXAMINED, IT WAS THEN PLACED BACK IN

THE NORMAL FLOW OF MAIL AT BISCAYNE ANNEX DESTINED FOR

CUBA.

AUTHORITY TO HAND DELIVER LETTERS TO THE LABORATORY

CAME FROM BUREAU SUPERVISORS WILLIAM A. BRANNIGAN, OTHO EZELL,

AND INSPECTOR DON MOORE.

DURING THE PERIOD THE JOE SURVEY WAS IN EFFECT,

APPROXIMATELY 4,00 LETTERS WERE OPENED EITHER BY THE

FBI LABORATORY OR THE MIAMI OFFICE, RELATING TO CUBAN

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 229

-

Sent

_M

Per

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 230

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE FIVE

INTELLIGENCE MATTERS. OF THIS AMOUNT, THERE WERE 50 LETTERS

IN 1963 AND 10 LETTERS IN 1964, WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO

CONTAIN SECRET INK MESSAGES, EITHER ON THE LETTER OR ON THE

ENVELOPE.

THE MAIL INTERCEPTED AT BISCAYNE ANNEX WHICH HAS

OPENED AT THE MIAMI OFFICE WAS OPENED IN A SPECIAL CHAMFERING

ROOM BY THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL AGENTS:

JAMES D. HAYES, WILLIAM E. DOWLING, WILLIAM W. STEVENS,

GEORGE E. DAVIS, JR., WILLIAM G. FRIEDEMANN.

THOSE LETTERS OPENED AT THE MIAMI OFFICE WHICH WERE IN

THE SPANISH LANGUAGE WERE TRANSLATED BY MRS. SOPHIA Y.

SALIBA AND MISS ELEANORE M. SCHOENBERGER.

(2) MAIL COVERS PHYSICALLY CONDUCTED BY FBI EMPLOYEES.

THERE WERE NO KNOWN INSTANCES WHERE MIAMI FBI EMPLOYEES

PHYSICALLY CONDUCTED A MAIL COVER ALONE OR IN COOPERATION

WITH POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN AS INCIDENTAL TO

THE REVIEW OF MAIL IN THE JOE SURVEY.

Approved: —

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 230

-

Sent

M

Per

#U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 231

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE SIX

TOP SHOREL

(3) DOCUMENTS AND MEMORANDA ON MAIL OPENINGS, INTERCEPIS

15 AND COVERS IDEVTIFXED ABOVE.

PENETRATE, ESPIONAGE - CUBA: PENETRATE WAS THE BUREAU

CODE NAME FOR A CUBAN INTELLIGENCE AGENT IN PUERTO RICO.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE DISSEMINATED UNDER

THE ABOVE CAPTION:

BUREAU AIRTEL IO SAN JUAN, OCTOBER 29, 1962, REQUESTING

SAN JUAN CONSIDER FEASIBILITY OF CHECKING. MAIL COMING

FROM PUERTO RICO TO CUBA.

BUREAU. AIRTEL TO SAN JUAN, NOVEMBER 3, 1962, CONCERNING

BUREAU DECISION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE CHECKING OF THIS

MAIL.

SAN JUAN TELETYPE TO BUREAU, NOVEMBER 2, 1962, CONCERNING

A WATCH LIST OF SUSPECTED MAIL GOING TO CUBA.

BUREAU RADIOGRAM TO SAN JUAN, NOVEMBER 7, 1962, REQUESTING

MIAMI TO CONTACT POST OFFICE ON FEASIBILITY OF CHECKING MAIL

FROM PUERTO, TO CUBA VIA MIAMI.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 231

Sent

_M Per.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 232

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE

i SEVEN

SAN JUAN TELETYPE TO BUREAU, NOVEMBER 10, 1962,

REQUESTING MIAMI TO DETERMINE FROM POST OFFICE THE NUMBER

OF MAIL DISPATCHES FROM MIAMI TO CUBA.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI NOVEMBER 8, 1962, ON DESIRABILITY

OF AGENTS RATHER THAN POSTAL EMPLOYEES CHECKING THIS MAIL.

PANI AIRTEL TO BURBAU, NOVMBER 13, 1962, RBQUESTING

BUREAU TO• CONTACT CHIEF POSTAL INSPECTOR, WASHINGTON,

D.C., ON CHECKING MAIL AT MIAMI.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO SAN JUAN, NOVEMBER 21, 1962, ADVISING

FBI LABORATORY SHOULD PROCESS ANY LETTERS SENT BY PENETRATE

FROM PUERTO RICO TO CUBA.

SAN JUAN TELETYPE TO BUREAU, NOVEMBER 23, 1962, ON

TRANSPORTING SUSPECTED MAIL VIA THE AIRLINES.

BUA IRTEL TO SAN JUAN DECEMBER 4, 1962, ON BUREAU CONTACT

WITH CHIEF POSTAL INSPECTOR H.B. MONTAGUE.

BUREAU TELETYPE TO MIAMI DECEMBER 10, 1962, ON

MIAMI AGENTS PERSONALLY HANDLING SCREENING OF MAIL.

Approved: —

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 232

Sent

Per

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 233

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE EIGHT

TOP STOREr

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU, DECEMBER 13, 1962, ON CONTACT

WITH POSTAL INSPECTOR E.M. CAMPBELL ON METHOD OF SCREENING

THIS MAIL.

NEW YORK AIRTEL TO BUREAU DECEMBER 12, 1962, ON SIGNIFICANT

CLANDESTINE INDICATORS WHEN REVIEWING THIS MAIL.

SAN JUAN AIRTEL TO MIAMI DECEMBER 13, 1962, ON METHOD

PENETRATE USED TO SIGNIFY INVISIBLE WRITING IN A LETTER.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI DECEMBER 21, 1962, AUTHORIZING

MIAMI TO SCREEN MAIL FROM PUERTO RICO TO CUBA. ALSO AUTHORIZ-

ING SPECIAL AGENIS GEORGE E. DAVIS, JR., AND WILLIAM G. FRIEDE-

MANN TO HANDLE INITIAL INSPECTION OF COMMUNICATIONS BEFORE

STRY NO PEE LABORATORY AND SETS OUT NIHOD OF TRASHTAL

TO LABORATORY.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU DECEMBER 28, 1962, ON MIAMI

ARRANGEMENTS WITH LOCAL POSTAL AUTHORITIES TO IMPLEMENT

SCREENING SURVEY.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 233

-

Sent

_M Per

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 234

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE NINE

тор 5OCA

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI, JANUARY 3, 1963, REQUESTING

NAMES OF MIAMI AGENTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED SPECIALIZED TRAINING

IN PROCESSING MAIL.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JANUARY 7, 1963, ON MIAMI

AGENTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED CHAMFERING TRAINING.

SAN JUAN TELETYPE TO BUREAU JANUARY 10, 1963, WITH NEW

DROP ADDRESSES IN CUBA FOR MIAMI MAIL PROCESSING.

BUREAU RADIOGRAM TO SAN JUAN JANUARY 24, 1963, ON FBI

LABORATORY PROCESSING SUSPECTED LETTER RECEIVED FROM

MIAMI MAIL SURVEY.

SAN JUAN RADIOGRAM TO MIAMI JANUARY 25, 1963, ON NEW LETTER

DROP OF PENETRATE IN CUBA.

BURIAU RADIOGRAM TO SAN JUAN JANUARY 30, 1963,

AUTHORIZING 30 DAY MAIL COVER ON RIOS MORALES, HIMENEZ VEGA,

AND MUJICA.

NEW YORK AIRTEL TO BUREAU JANUARY 30, 1963, SETTING

OUT INDICATORS ON ENVELOPES TO ASSIST MIAMI IN IDENTIFYING

MAIL FROM ILLEGAL AGENTS.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 234

Sent

_M Per -

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 235

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TEN

TOP

SECTEL

BUREAU RADIOGRAM TO SAN JUAN FEBRUARY 14, 1963,

CONTAINING NEW CUBAN DROP ADDRESSES OF PENETRATE.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO SAN JUAN, FEBRUARY 28, 1963, ON

FEASIBILITY OF OBTAINING ACCESS TO CUBAN COURIERS BAGGAGE

OR DIPLOMATIC POUCHES TO DETERMINE CUBAN MAIL DROP IN NEW

YORK CITY.

BUREAU A IRTEL TO MIAMI MARCH 28, 1963, ADVISING NO

SECRET WRITING OR MICRODOTS ON SUSPECTED LETTER SENT TO

LABORATORY.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU MAY 17, 1963, ADVISING THAT MIAMI

IS NOT SCREENING ANY MAIL COMING FROM CUBA.

SAN JUAN LETTER TO BUREAU FEBRUARY 23, 1965, REQUESTING

MIAMI TO EXTEND JOE SURVEY TO COVER INCOMING MAIL FROM CUBA

TO PUERTO RICO AND OUTGOING MAIL PUERTO RICO TO CUBA.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU APRIL 2, 1965, ADVISING THAT

MIAMI POSTAL INSPECTOR E.M. CAMPBELL BELIEVES THAT SCREENING

INCOMING MAIL FROM CUBA FOR PUERTO RICO WOULD PRESENT

SECURITY PROBLEM AND ADD APPROXIMATELY 17,000 PIECES OF

MAIL TO THE SOREENING DAILY.

Approved:

-

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 235

Sent

-M Per .

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 236

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE ELEVEN

TO GREAT!

BURGAU LETTER TO SAN JUAN APRIL 19, 1965, CONCURRSING

WITH MIAMI RECOMMENDATION THAT JOE SURVEY COVERAGE CANNOT

BE SECURELY EXPANDED AT THIS TIME AND INSTRUCTING SAN JUAN

TO SUPPLY MIAMI WITH LIST OF DROP ADDRESSES IN CUBA.

SAN JUAN LETTER TO MIAMI MAY 17, 1965, ADVISING WATCH

LIST OF DROP NAMES AND ADDRESSES IN CUBA NOT BEING FURNISHED

DUE TO LARGE NUMBER OF WATCH LIST.

FOXTROT, ESPIONAGE - CUBA:

FOXTROT WAS THE BUREAU CODE NAME FOR A CUBAN INTELLIGENCE

AGENT IN MIAMI. • INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED ON THE BASIS

OF INFORMATION FROM BURIAU SOURCE 6. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING

DOCUMENTS WERE DISSEMINATED UNDER THE ABOVE CAPTION:

BUREAU AIRTEL TO NEW YORK DECEMBER 12, 1962, ON NEW

NAMES AND ADDRESSES IN CUBA IN THE EVENT MIAMI INSTRUCTED

TO INSTITUTE COVERAGE OF MAIL FROM PUERTO RICO TO CUBA.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 236

Sent

_M Per

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 237

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TWELVE

SECRET

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JANUARY 15, 1963, ADVISING INFORMA-

TION IN BURIAU LET DECEMBER 12, 1962, INCLUDED IN MIAMI MAIL

COVERAGE IN PENETRATE CASE.

MIAMI TELETYPES TO BUREAU JANUARY 25 AND JANUARY 31,

1963, REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO SCREEN MIAMI TO CUBA MAIL,

AND ADVISING THAT MIAMI POSTAL INSPECTOR CAMPBELL ADVISED

ADDITIONAL COVERAGE WOULD CAUSE NO BURDEN OR INTERRUPT POST

OFFICE OPERATIONS.

BUREAU TELETYPE TO MIAMI FEBRUARY 4, 1963, ADVISING

CHIT POSTAL INSPECTOR H.B. MONTAGUE, WASHINGTON, D.C.,

@ VE APPROVAL TO COVERAGE OF MAIL GOING FROM MIAMI TO CUBA.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU FEBRUARY 11, 1963, ADVISING

JOE SURVEY COVERAGE BEGAN FEBRUARY 11, 1963.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU FEBRUARY 12, 1963, ESTIMATING

12,000 PIECES OF MAIL BEING REVIEWED DAILY IN FOXTROT AND

PENETRATE CASES.

Approved: -

-

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 237

Sent

_M

Per -

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 238

FD-36 (Rev, 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

-- - -

PAGE THIRTEEN

TOR

SECRET

BUREAU RADIOGRAM TO MIAMI MARCH 12, 1963, ON FFASIBILITY

OF JOE SURVEY SCREENING MAIL ARRIVING IN MIAMI FROM NEW

YORK CITY FOR A LIMITED PERIOD IN EFFORT TO OBTAIN LETTER

CONTANING PHOTOGRAPH AND MONEY TO BE SINT FOXTROT FROM CUBA,

IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY FOXTROT.

MIAMI TELETYPE TO BUREAU MARCH 13, 1963, ADVISING LOCAL

POSTAL INSPECTOR APPROVED AND REQUESTING CHIEF POSTAL

INSPECTOR MONTAGUE BE CONTACTED FOR OFFICIAL APPROVAL IN

SCREENING NEW YORK MAIL.

BUREAU TELETYPE TO MIAMI MARCH 14, 1963, ADVISING

CLEARANCE OBTAINED FROM MONTAGUE FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD TO

SCREEN THE NEW YORK MAIL.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO NEW YORK, MARCH 13, 1963, ON FEASIBILITY

OF SCREENING MAIL FROM CUBAN MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY FOXTROT.

MIAMI TELETYPE TO BUREAU MARCH 17, 1963, ADVISING THAT

SLIGHTLY OVER ONE MILLION PIECES OF MAIL FROM NEW YORK

AREA BEING REVIEWED DAILY.

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 238

Sent

_M Per -

#U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 239

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE FOURTEEN

про soc

MIAMI TELETYPE TO BUREAU MARCH 15, 1963, ADVISING MAIL

COVER TO BE PLACED ON FOXTROI, UACB; POSTAL, INSPECTORS WILL

PROVIDE THE RETURN ADDRESSES ON THIS MAIL.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI MARCH 28, 1963, ADVISING SECRET

WRITING FOUND ON A LETTER SUBMITTED FROM JOE SURVEY.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU MARCH 25, 1963, INDICATING MAIL

COVER PLACED ON SON OF. FOXTROT, POSTAL INSPECTORS WILL

FURNISH RETURN ADDRESSES.

BUREAU TELETYPE TO MIAMI MARCH 29, 1963, INDICATING

THAT A LETTER CONTAINING SECRET WRITING FROM FOXTROT MAY

HAVE BEEN PROCESSED PRIOR TO ITS RECEIPT BY LABORATORY.

MIAMI AIRTEL, TO BUREAU APRIL 1, 1963, INDICATING

MAIL COVERS ON FOXTROT AND SON OF FOXTROT WERE UNPRODUCTIVE.

MIAMI TELETYPE TO BUREAU APRIL 3, 1963, ADVISING

LETTERS OF FOXTROT WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY OTHER

PERSON OR AGENCY ACCORDING TO POSTAL INSPECTORS.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 239

Sent

_M Per

#U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 240

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI.

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE FIFTEEN

BUREAU TELETYPES APRIL 12 AND APRIL 23, 1963, ADVISING

SECRET WRITING CONTAINED IN A LETTER AND TWO RELIGIOUS

PAMPHLETS SENT BY FOXTROT.

12 MTAMI AIRTEL TO BURDAU APRIL 29, 1963, CONTAINING THE

FIRST OF A SERIES OF WEEKLY SUMMARIES ON THE FOXTROT

INVESTIGATION.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI, MAY 2, 1963, ASKING FEASIBILITY

OF USING MAILS RATHER THAN AGENT PERSONNEL IN SUBMITTING

LETTERS OF FOXTROT TO LABORATORY.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU MAY 6, 1963, ON ARRANGEMENTS

MADE WITH POST OFFICE IN SCREENING MAIL AND RECOMMENDING

AGENT PERSONNEL BE USED IN TRANSMITTING THURSDAY INTERCEPTIONS.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO. MIAMI MAY 16, 1963, ADVISING MIAMI IO

USE THE MAIL IN FORWARDING LETTERS OF FOXTROT TO FBI LABORATORY,

EXCEPT FOR THURSDAY INTERCEPTIONS.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI JUNE 24, 1963, AUTHORIZING 30

DAY MAIL, COVER ON FRANCISCO GUASCH, A SUSPECTED MAIL DROP

OF FOXTROT.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 240

Sent

_M Per

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

1-

---

## Page 241

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

-

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE SIXTEEN

по 500n

BUREAU AIRTEL, TO MIAMI JUNE 27, 1963, ADVISING THAT

SECRET WRITING WAS FOUND ON THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING A LETTER

OF FOXTROT.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JULY 1, 1963, ADVISING MAIL

COVER PLACED ON SUSPECTED MAIL DROP OF FOXTROT IN MIAMI.

BUREAU LETTER TO MIAMI JULY 12, 1963, ADVISING IT WAS

NOT NECESSARY FOR MIAMI TO INFORM BUREAU WHEN INTERCEPTED

LETTERS HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO NORMAL MAIL FLOW AT MIAMI.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI AUGUST 15, 1963, SETTING OUT

GUIDELINES IN DUSCUSSING FOXTROT CASE WITH MIAMI CENTRAL

INTELLIGINCE AGENCY.

MIAMI LETTER TO BUREAU SEPTEMBER 9, 1963, REPORTING

RESULTS OF MAIL COVER ON FRANCISCO GUASCH, WHICH WAS PROVIDED

BY POSTAL INSPECTOR CAMPBELL.

BURÉAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI SEPTEMBER 19, 1963, ON FEASIBILITY

OF CHECKING POST OFFICE BOXES FOR MAIL DROP OF FOXTROT IN

MIAMI®

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 241

-

Sent

_M Per

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 242

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI.

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE SEVENTEEN

TAP-SHeREE

BURIAU AIRTEL, TO MIAMI SEPTEMBER 26, 1963, GIVING

AUTHORITY FOR SIX MONTHS MAIL COVER ON FRANCISCO GUASCH.

BUREAU AIRTEL: TO MIAMI OCTOBER 3, 1963, POINTED OUT

THAT SECRET WRITING WAS FOUND ON TWO SHEETS OF PAPER SUBMITTED

WITH A BLANK LETTER OF FOXTROT.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU OCTOBER 10, 1963, ADVISING THAT

THROUGH ARRANGEMENTS WITH POSTAL, INSPECTOR R.G. WOLF, A

LETTER FROM FOXTROT IN A POST OFFICE BOX USED AS A DROP, WAS

OBTAINED AND FORWARDED TO LABORATORY.

MIAMI AIRIEL TO BUREAU OCTOBER 14, 1963, ADVISING

POSTAL INSPECTOR MADE AVAILABLE ANOTHER LETTER OF FOXTROT

FROM A MAIL-DROP IN MIAMI.

MIAMI LETTER TO BUREAU OCTOBER 21, 1963, WITH RESULTS

OF MAIL COVER ON A SUSPECTED INTELLIGENCE AGENT WHICH WERE

PROVIDED BY POSTAL INSPECTOR SAL DRAGO.

BUREAU AIRTEL, TO MIAMI NOVEMBER 13, 1963, ON ADMINISTRATIVE

HANDLING OF INTERCEPTED MAIL SENT TO FBI LABORATORY.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 242

-

Sent

_M Per

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 243

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE

EIGHTEEN

Red SHeRAT

MIAMI AIRTEL, TO BUREAU DECEMBER 5, 1963, RECOMMENDING

SCREENING OF MAIL FROM MIAMI TO MEXICO, APPROXINATELY

5,000 LETTERS A DAY WOULD BE INVOLVED.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU-NOVEMBER 21, 1963, ADVISING A

MANILA ENVELOPE MAILED FROM NEW YORK CITY INTERCEPTED AND

BELIEVED TO CONTAIN A BOOK AND MONEY FOR FOXTROT.

NEW YORK AIRTEL TO BUREAU NOVEMBER 26, 1963, INDICATING

THAT A PORTION OF THE MONEY FURNISHED TO FOXTROT FOUND IN

AFOREMENTIONED BOOK ORIGINATED FROM SOVIET FUNDS USED IN

THEIR CLANDESTINE OPERATION.

MEMORANDUM OF SA WILLIAM E. DOWLING DATED DECEMBER 2,

1963, CONTAINING COMPILATION OF AGENT TIME SPENT ON FOXTROT

CASE.

BUREAU LETTER TO MIAMI DECEMBER 5, 1963, REQUESTING

APPROPRIATE COVERAGE BY MIAMI OF A POST OFFICE BOX USED AS

A MAIL DROP BY FOXTROT.

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 243

Sent

_M Per -

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 244

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI.

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE NINETEEN

TOP

SECRET

TITAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU DECEABER 14, 1963, ADVISING OF A

LETTER WHICH FOXTROT MAILED AT A MAIL BOX AND WHICH WAS

FURNISHED BY POSTAL INSPECTOR E.M. CAMPBELL.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU DECEMBER 18, 1963, ADVISING

THREE LETTERS WHICH FOXTROT MAILED AT MAIN POST OFFICE

FURNISHED BY POSTAL INSPECTOR CAMPBELL.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JANUARY 27, 1964, RECOMMENDING

THAT CIA AT MEXICO CITY, MEXICO CONTINUE SCREENING MAIL FOR

MEXICO AS SOME OF THIS MAIL MAY BYPASS JOE SURVEY.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU FEBRUARY 3, 1964, ADVISING OF

ARRANGEMENTS - MADE WITH POSTAL INSPECTOR CAMPBELL TO REVIEW

MAIL GOING TO A SUSPECTED DROP ADDRESS OF FOXTROT IN

MIAMI AREA.

MIAMI MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 2, 1964, SUMMARIZING

BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITIES OF FOXTROT THROUGH 1963, INCLUDING

SECRET INK MESSAGES LOCATED IN HIS LETTERS.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JUNE 10, 1964, REINSTITUTING

TEMPORARY SCREENING OF ALL, MAIL FROM NEW YORK, NEW YORK AREA

TO CUBA.

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 244

Sent

-M Per -

# U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 245

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE TWENTY

тор

SECRET

MIAMI MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1964, SUMMARIZING

BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITIES OF FOXTROT IN 1964.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU JANUARY 13, 1965, FORWARDING

A LETTER OF FOXTROT MAILED AT A MAIL BOX AND PROVIDED BY

16

POSTAL INSPECTOR CAMPBELL.

BUREAU AIRTEL TO MIAMI SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, REQUESTING

INTERVIEW. OF FOXTROT BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF LACK OF

INFORMATION INDICATING HE IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN INTELLIGENCE

ACTIVITY AND HOW INFORMATION FROM JOE SURVEY CAN BE USED

DURING INTERVIEW.

MIAMI MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1965, SUMMARIZING

BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITIES OF FOXTROT IN 1965.

MIAMI AIRTEL TO BUREAU OCTOBER 14, 1966, REFLECTING

JOE SURVEY WAS DISCONTINUED ON JULY 21, 1966 AT THE DIRECTION

OF THE BUREAU.

(4) BUREAU ASKED IF MM 890-S RESULTED FROM INTERCEPTION

OF MAIL.

Approved:

-

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 245

Sent

_М Рег

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 246

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

Transmit the following in

Via

-

FBI

Date:

(Type in plaintext or code)

(Priority)

PAGE

TWENTY-ONE

To GHERE

MM 890-S WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE INTERCEPT OF MAIL.

ASTERISK,

THE BUREAU MAY HAVE REFERENCE TO CSMM 809-SÄ MIAMI FILE

134-769, A BUREAU AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY WHICH BEGAN ON MARCH 15,

1962, AND ENDED AUGUST 1, 1966. THIS OPERATION PHOTOGRAPHED

MATERIAL

JFK Act 5 (g) (2) (D)

THROUGH MIAMI VIA PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS.

INFORMATIÓN FROM CSM 809-57 RAS DISSERINA TE UNDER

THE CAPTION, "FOREIGN POLITICAL MATTERS - CUBA," BUFILE

1/ 109-12-210, MIAMI FILE 105-1747.

ASTERISKS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CSMM 809-S# IS NOT BEING

SUBMITTED AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE MAIL EMANATING IN THE

U.S. OR PUERTO RICO.

TOP SECRET, CLASSIFIED BY 7129, XGDS 2 AND 3, INDEFINITE.

Approved:

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 246

Sent

-M Per _

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0 - 346-090 (11)

---

## Page 247

NRO48 WA

CODE

4:38PM IMMEDIATE 6/18/75 GHS

TO NEW YORK

BOSTON

DOWNGRADED TO

- SECRET

MIAMI

Per

Date

SAN FRANCISCO

DETROIT

LOS ANGÈLES

SEATTLE

WFO

FROM DIRECTOR .

T

SECRET

SENSTUDY 1975; BUDED:

JUNE 24, 1975.

THE. FOLLOWING REQUEST FOR INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDRESSED

TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FBIHQ

FROM 'THE SENATE SELECT' COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES: " .

THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS PERTAINING TO THE TECHNIQUE REFERRED TO

AS • NAIL SURVEILLANCE; INCLUDING MAIL COVERS AND OPENING MAIL'

AND THE UTILIZATION OF THIS TECHNIQUE ' IN INTERNAL SECURITY,

INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION, AND/OR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS,

OPENING OR MAIL INTERCEPT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU:

OF INVESTIGATION FROM JANUARY I, 1960, UNTIL THE PRESENT,

PLEASE

itain fell

он тт9 мого

üfA

BU

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 247

66-3346-8

SEARCHED AM

BERIALIZED LE

I Fat

JUN 1 8 1975

MIAM

Coatect SA stepan thomalle

---

## Page 248

PAGE TWO T

sECRET..

STATE THE PHYSICAL LOCATION WHERE THE OPENING OR INTERCEPI WAS

CONDUCTED,. THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE

OPENING OR INTERCEPT, THE TYPE OF MAIL OPENED OR INTERCEPTED,

AND THE PURPOSE OF THE OPENING OR INTERCEPI. (2) FOR ALL

INCIDENTS OF MAIL COVERS. THAT WERE PHYSICALLY CONDUCTED BY FBI

EMPLOYEES, WHETHER 'ALONE OR IN COOPERATION WITH POSTAL SERVICE

EMPLOYEES, FROM JANUARY I, 1960, UNTIL THE PRESENT, PLEASE STATE

THE PHYSICAL LOCATION WHERE THE COVER WAS CONDUCIED, THE NAMES

OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE COVER, THE TYPE Of,

MAIL COVERED, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE COVER.. (3) PLEASE PROVIDE

ALL DOCUMENTS AND MEMORANDA WHICH DISCUSS, REFER, OR RELATE TO

THE ORIGINS, AUTHORIZATIONS, CONDUCT AND TERMINATION OF, AND •

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR, IHE MAIL OPÈNINGS, INTERCEPIS, AND'

COVERS IDENTIFIED ABOVE."" •

EACH OFFICE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REVIEW. ITS FILES FOR ALL

INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, BOSTON,

DETROIT, LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, AND WFQ SHOULD FURNISH INFOR-.

MATION CONCERNING SAM SURVEY. NEW YORK, DETROIT, AND SAN

FRANCISCO SHOULD FURNISH INFORMATION CONCERNING GUS SURVEY.

• NEW YORK AND WFO SHOULD FÜRNISH INFORMATION CONCERNING Z COVERAGE.

• NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 248

---

## Page 249

PAGE THREE

T

0

SECRET

SAN FRANCISCO SHOULD FURNISH INFORMATION CONCERNING CHIPROP

AND CHICLET.

MIAMI SHOULD ADVISE IF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED

FROM MM 89D-S RESULTED FROM INTERCEPT OF MAIL AND IF SO

APPROPRIATE INFORMATION SHOULD BE FURNISHED. • RESULTS SHOULD BE

SUBMITTED BY TELETYPE, ATTENTION OF SAW. O. CREGAR, AND SHOULD

REACH THE BUREAU BY JUNE 24, 1975:

CLASSIFIED BY 3676, XGDS 2 AND 3, INDEFINITE.

END

• NW 65360

Docld:32989820

Page 249

---

## Page 250

1736 1A C003

5:35P: NITEL 5-26-75

PA!:

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOT

<115395)

PERSONAL

ATT

SEUSTUDY

175.

RIGSUT EL

"AY 2, 1975.

IN CONNECTION TITH YORK OF THE SUMATE AND MOUSE SELECT

CO MITIZES, ITS ASPRESENTATIVES COY CONTACT YOUR OFFICE FO?

INFORMATION.

IN ONE RECENT INSTANCE, A MEPRISENTATIVS OF THE SITATE

SELECT CONFITIZE IELEPHONICALLY INQUIRED AS TO IDENTITY OF SAC

IT A PARIICULAT OFFICE DURING 1970.

I# HANDLING SUCH INQUIRIIS INSURE ZJTADLISHINO SOVA FIDIS

OT MEPLESENTATIVE BY SHOU OF CREDENTIALS OU PESSONAL CONTACT 03,

IF IELZPHOHIC CONTACT, SY TELEPHOHING JACK TO COGITIZI.

JOLESS INFOG ATION IS OF A PUBLIC MATURE, AS IN THE INSTANCE

CITE ACOVE, OSTAIN FEINE CLEARANCE PRIOR IO SUPPLYING ANY

I POR CATION. FRIME TUST BS EXPEDITIOUSLY ADVISED OF ALL

INTORTATION FURNISHED.

END

JLE FBI T

AX CLA TKS

66-3346-7

May & 1 1975

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 250

ASKE

---

## Page 251

FD-350 (Rev. 7-16-63)

(Mount Clipping in Space Below)

Senate Committee Rejects Request

By CIA, FBI to Monitor Inquiry

MEN SAUL FRIEDMAN

•Herald Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON. → "The

Select

Senate Committee on. Intelligence

Activities rejected Friday a rather

unusual request by, the ClA and FBI

to monitor the committee's investi-i

gation into the spying operations of

those agencies.

•At

the

same

time,

committeel

chairman Frank Church (D., Idaho)

announced that "the tempo of our

investigation will now be stepped

up" and that staff investigators will

begin questioning witnesses,

within

a few days, about the CIA's "co-

vert" operations here and abroad.

-The committee was created by

the Senate in January. following!

charges and reports that govern

ment, intelligence units and other

agencies

were illegally spying

on:

American citizens. Bút the commit.

fee has been slow in getting off the

ground.

FRIDAY, AT a closed meeting,

Tommittee members cleared away

*some obstacles to an investigation,

Church reported, and "it was decid

ect: thế*

serious investigative work

should go forward:"

Among,

the

problems were

re-

•quests; relayed to the committee by?

the White House and the. Justice

Department, that the CIA and the

FBI be permitted to have monitors

present when one of their agents or

emplopes is questioned:

Church said the agencies suggest-

ed that "the monitors be called ob-

servers."

The

committee

has already

agreed with CIA-FBI requests to

'take such unusual secrecy, measures

that committee and staff members

will be required to withhold infor-

mation from each other as well as

from the public.

The committee balked at the lati

est request, however, because

would have opened the probe to the

agencies undet investigatist and al-

lowea them to possibly intimidate

employes who may wish to giveis

formation about their superiors.

CHURCH SAID the committee,

had unanimously rejected the CEA

FBI

proposal

those

staff 'personnel.

(Indicate page, name of

newspaper, city and state.)

14-A

MIAMI HERALD

MIAMI, FLA.

The first phase of the investiga-

tion. Church said, would go into the

• CIA'S

attempts: to;

leaders.

committee

or- in sworn

tive session, Church said:

Date: 5/10/75

Edition:

Author:

Editor:

Title: SENATE COMMITTEE

REJECTS REQUEST BY

FBI, CIA

Character:

or

Classification:

Submitting Office: MIAMI, FIA.

_ Being Investigated

66-3346-10

'SEARCHED,

SERIALIZE ELLA

MAY 1 3 1975

FBI-MIAMI

NW 65360 Docld:32989820- Page 251•

---

## Page 252

FD-350 (Rev. 7-16-63)

(Mount Clipping in Space Below)

Senate unit

bors CIA, FBI

from probe:

Associated Press

•WASHINGTON

a the senate

Intelligence, Committee has rejected

ás: "unacceptable" a Ford adminis-

tration proposal that CIA and FBi:

monitors be allowed to observe them

questioning of withesses.

Chairman

Frank. Church:

Idaho): said the committee voted

unanimously to -enter

the

active!

phase of the probe and to authorize

him to

-prove necessary:

issue subpoenas it they!

"We 'decided that the serious. in

vestigative

work should now go

stepped up."

He told

a news conference the

committee: will begin.a wide-ranging

review.

of past: and present covert

intelligence activities, including is

sues raised as to.assassinations?!

Church said the request for moni-

tors to sit, in on executive interro

sessions was made-by the

White Flouse; but he thought it had;

been initiated by the CIA:

"The

committee voted unani-

mously to reject the proposal be-

cause we thought there should be

no inhibition or possible inhibition."

of witnesses, Church said.

The initial phase of the investiga

tion— interviews, the taking of

sworn depositions and formal hear

ings will be closed to the public,

Church said.

"The committee will decide later

Wilso pastic he at destigation"

wilfgo public," he added:

NW 65360-Docld:32989820 Page 252

Iridicate page, name o1

newspaper, city and state.

2-A

MIAMI NEWS

MIAMI, FLA.

-

Date: 5-10-75

Edition:

Author:

Editor

ritle: SENATE UNITEBARS

CIA, FBI FROM PROBE.

Character:

or

Classification:

Submitting Office: MIAMI, FIA.

Being Investigated

202346-5

•FARCHED.

SERIALIZED BE FILED._

_INDEXED ALA

MAY 1 3 1975

FBI-MIAMI CA

=

---

## Page 253

in i it in

NRO74 WA CODE

930PM PM NITEL 5-2-75 MSE

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

CAPTIONED MATTER PERTAINS TO BUREAU'S HANDLING OF REQUESTS

FROM SENATE AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEES TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL

OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. IN CONNEC-

TION WITH WORK OF THESE COMMITTEES, SIAFF MEMBERS MAY SEEK

IO INTERVIEW CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

RECENTLY, THE SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE (SSC) STAFF HAS

INTERVIEWED SEVERAL FORMER EMPLOYEES AND IT IS ANTICIPATED

THAT MANY BORE SUCH PERSONNEL WILL BE CONTACTED.

THE FBI HAS PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE COMMITTEE

AND WE WISH TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY INVESTIGATIONS UNDER-

TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THE FBI. HOWEVER, WE

DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO INSURE THAT SENSITIVE SOURCES AND

METHODS AND ONGOING SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIONS ARE FULLY

3

lipa

5 ma

Прав

66-3346-4

SEARCHED

- INDEXED

SERIALIZEDIILA

FILED -

MAY

- 2 1975

457 -MAM

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 253

---

## Page 254

PAGE TWO.

PROTECTED. SHOULD ANY FORMER EMPLOYEE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE AND

HAVE ANY QUESTION REGARDING HIS OBLIGATION NOT TO DIVULGE INFOR-

MATION OBTAINED BY VIRTUE OF HIS PAST FBI EMPLOYMENI, HE SHOULD

BE INSTRUCIED TO CONTACI LEGAL COUNSEL, FBIHQ, BY COLLECI CALL.

YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES MUST BE IN KEEPING WITH

OUR PLEDGE. IT IS BELIEVED SUCH A PROCEDURE WOULD INSURE PROPER

PROTECTION AND ALSO FACILITATE THE WORK OF THE SSC.

THE ABOVE PROCEDURE ALSO APPLIES TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES

OF YOUR OFFICE.

HOWEVER, CONTACI WITH THE LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD

BE HANDLED THROUGH THE SAC.

END

HOLD

FBI MM JES

NW 65360 Docld:32989820

Page 254

---

## Page 255

FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)

9'°

----

Transmit the following in

Via

TELETYPE

FBI

Date:

2,7

MARCH

28,

1975

CODE

(Type in plaintext or code)

AT URGENT

(Priority)

2

TO DIRECTOR

FROM MIAMI

(66-ADM)

ATTENTION: BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING SECTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

RE BUREAU TELETYPE TO ALL SACS, MARCH 24, 1975.

FOLLOWING ARE MIAMI OFFICE STATISTICS SHOWING PERCENTAGES

OF TIME ASSIGNED TO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE (CI) MATTERS AND INTERNAL

SECURITY (IS) MATTERS BY SPECIAL AGENT PERSONNEL:

SACS - 0; ASACS - 0.

SUPERVISORS - CI MATTERS: ONE ASSIGNED 90 PERCENT; ONE

ASSIGNED 5 PERCENT. SI MATTERS: ONE ASSIGNED 50 PERCENT; ONE

ASSIGNED 5 PERCENT.

SPECIAL AGENTS - CI MATTERS: 15 ASSIGNED FULL TIME; TWO

ASSIGNED 50 PERCENT; ONE ASSIGNED 40 PERCENT; ONE ASSIGNED 5

PERCENT. IS MATTERS: TWO ASSIGNED FULL TIME; THREE ASSIGNED

75 PERCENT; ONE ASSIGNED 60 PERCENT; ONE ASSIGNED 50 PERCENT;

ONE ASSIGNED 30 PERCENT; FIVE ASSIGNED 10 PERCENT.

JCB/a1

(1)

Approved: -

Special Agent in Charge

NW 65360 /Docld:32989820 Page 255

Sent

wearche

1.3253

M

CS.

a . S. COVERNMET PROTO C: 130366-3

---

## Page 256

TO

:

FROM :

SUBJECT:

OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10

JULY 1973 EDITION

GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

SAC, MIAMI

SUPERVISOR JOSEPH C. BALI

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

INTELIIGENCE ACTIVITIES

DATE: 3/26/75

Re Miami teletype to Bureau, 3/26/75.

For your information, Supervisor CLYDE GROOVER,

Budget and Accounting Section, Administrative Division,

FBIHQ, advised that for purposes of response to Bureau

teletype of 3/24/75, the following categories should be

included under Internal Security:

3, 14, 61, 98, 100, 117, 157, 163, 170, 174, 176

The following categories should included under

Counterintelligence:

2,

64, 65, 97, 102, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111,

112, 113, 134, 185

In arriving at the statistics set forth in referenced

teletype, the following Agents were included:

Supervisors - CI Matters: SA BALL - Assigned 90%

SA WILSON - Assigned 5%

IS Matters: SA EDDY - Assigned 50%

SA BALL - Assigned 5%

Special Agents - CI Matters: Assigned full time - SA BURGINS

CERVANTES

COCHRANE

DAWSON

DWYER

FARABEE

JCB/al

(7) de

GIBBONS

66-3376-2

SEARCHED

JONES

KISZYNSKI

MARSZALEK

MILLS

: 1975

EB/ MIAMI

ROSS

STEVENS

STICKNEY

WARGER

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

NW 65360 bocld:32989820 Page 256

---

## Page 257

SAS - CI Matters (cont.)

IS Matters

Assigned 50% -- FORRESTER and WALZER

Assigned 40% -- O'KELLY

Assigned 5%

- SITHER

Assigned full time - HOMER MILLER

PETERSON

Assigned 75%

- WINDLAND

MENTON

HEANEY

Assigned 60%

Assigned 50%

Assigned 30%

Assigned 10%

— O'KELLY

- CANNON

- DOWLING

- DOOHER

VAN RHEIN

GUTIERREZ

DREW

KELLOGG

2.

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 257

---

## Page 258

NRO46 WA CODE

8:30 PM NITEL 3-24 - 75 DEB

TO ALL SACS

FOM DIRECIOR

SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES

SENATOR

FRANK CHURCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE SELECT

COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACIIVITIES HAS MADE AN INITIAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

FROM THE FBI. AMONG THE ITEMS REQUESTED IS A BREAKDOWN OF

FIELD AGENT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO INTERNAL SECURITY AND

COUNTERINIELLIGENCE MATTERS..

ACCORDINGLY, WITHIN FOUR EIGHT HOURS EACH SAC SHOULD SUTEL

TO FBIHQ, ATTENTION: BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING SECTION, SETTING FORTH

SEPARATELY THE NUMBER OF SACS, ASACS, SUPERVISORS AND AGENTS ASSIGNED

TO INTERNAL SECURITY AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS. PERCENIAGES

OF AN AGENT'S TIME, WHEN NOT ASSIGNED FULL-TIME TO THESE ACTIVITIES,

SHOULD BE USED IF APPROPRIATE, PARTICULARLY IN THE SUPERVISORY

CATEGORIES. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE BROKEN DOWN SEPARATELY

BETWEEN INTERNAL SECURITY AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE.

YOUR RESPONSE SHOULD

BE LIMITED TO AGENT PERSONNEL ONLY.

END

FBI MM JRS CLR AND TKU

ACK FOR (1)

THANKS

NW 65360 Docld:32989820 Page 258

16-12346-

JEF, MED

SERIALIZED.

A INDEXED K

MAR 2 4 1975

Bail

FBI- MIAMI

Easy

---