Document date: 00/00/0000

# DOCID-32989520

## Page 1

File #:

Released under the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of

1992 (44 USC 2107 Note). Case#:NW

65994 Date: 11-01-2021

62-110-2986

Serial Scope:

1 thr 8, 11

---

## Page 2

• 0÷9 (Rey. 8i16-79)

TRANSMIT VIA: /AIRTEL

CLASSIFICATION:

UNCLAS

DATE: _ 5/13/93

FROM: DIRECTOR, FBI (624-2-2036360 sell

SAC, HOUSTON (62A-HQ-1036360)

SENATE SPICY COMMYTTEE ON POW/MIA AFFAIRS_ 227-0-52

PoN MiA MAttER

SENTE SElEEt COMMiTTEE

62-2986%

P SHED BLE TO PA SEA, MR de a 1073/ captioned

captioned as above. File number 66-2170 has been changed into

62A-HQ-1036360:

Enclosed for the Houston Field Office (HO) are the

original files:

185A-121 and 265-MM-50339.

Ho files were reviewed by the Civil Discovery Review

Unit (CDRU), Legal Counsel Division (LCD), for documents

responsive to the above-captioned Congressional Request.

determined that the files contained no relevant material.

Any questions regarding this matter should be directed

to Paralegal Specialist JAMES B. STROUD, CDRU, LCD, on extension

Enclosure glo

62-2986-11

PONS RICO

FOIMS.

MANUAL

_ INDEXED.

SERIALIZED -

I FILED SE

MAY 1 7 1993

FOr HOUSTON

& NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 2

---

## Page 3

0-9 (Rey. 8-16-79)

TRANSMIT VIA: AIRTEL

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLAS

-

DATE:

5/13/93

FROM: DIRECTOR, FBI (62A-HQ-1036360)

TO:

SAC, HOUSTON (62A-HQ-1036360)

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON POW/MIA AFFAIRS

ReHOairtels to Director, FBI dated 9/22/92, captioned

MUSHTAQ AHMED DIWAN; POW/MIA FRAUD MATTERS, and 10/8/92,

captioned as above.

File number 66-2170 has been changed into

62A-HQ-1036360.

Enclosed for the Houston Field Office (HO) are the

original files:

185A-121 and 265-MM-50339.

Ho files were reviewed by the Civil Discovery Review

Legal Counsel Division (LCD),

for documents

responsive to the above captioned congressional Request CDRU

determined that the files contained no relevant material.

Any questions regarding this matter should be directed

to Paralegal Specialist JAMES B. STROUD, CDRU, LCD, on extension

3595.

Enclosure

672986-11

I SEARCHED

FOIMS

MANUAL

SERIALIZED

WAY 1 7 1993

FBI - HOUSTON

NW 65994- Docld:32989520 Page 3

---

## Page 4

Routing Slip

0-7 (Rev. 7-i1-75)

TO: SAC: -

1 Albany

Albuquerque

Alexandria

Anchornge

Atlanta

Baltimore

Binningham

Boston

Buffalo

Butle

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbia

Dallas

Denver

Detroit

El Paso

Honolulu

(Copies to: Offici

, Ilouston

Indiapolis

Jackson

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Knoxville

Las-Vogas

Little Rock

Los Angeles

Louisville

Memphis

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Mobile

Newark

New Haven

New Orleans

New York City

Norfolk

• Oklahoma City

J Unalla

7 Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Portland

Richmond

Sacramento.

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

San Antonio

San Diego

San Frecisco

San Juan

Savannah

Seattle

Springfield

Tampa

Washington Field

Quantico

TO LEGAT:

Bemi

Bonn

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

Caracas

Hong Kong

London

Madrid

Manila

Mexico City

] Ottawa

Paris

Rome

Tel Aviv

Tokyo

RE: TESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT TO

Date

December 5, 1,975

THE DIRECTOR--

DEPUTY ASSOCTATE

RECTOR

JAMES B. ADAMS

BEFORE DIE SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE "ON*

12/2/75

62-2986

Relention

For appropriate

[j For information

optional

action

→ Surep, by

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

conceal all

sources, La paraphrase contents.

Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA

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.

1-96-

UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT

• ASAL

SEARCHED.

FRIZORD

INDEXED a

DEC3

1975

Bufile

Urfile.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 4

erst

---

## Page 5

Vol. 15

Ohe Quiteà Statre Senate

Report of Proceedinge

Hearing held before

Saleci Commitias to Study Governmental. Orerations

With Respect to Intelligence Activities

INTELLIGINCE INVESTIGATION

Tiosday, December 2, 1975

• Washington, D. C.

!.

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20008

(202) 544-6000

-NW-65994_Docld:32989520 Page 5

---

## Page 6

WARD

PAUL

first

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; MI.. W. Raymond Wannall, Assistant

Director, Intélligence Division, responsible for internal

security and foreign counterintelligence investigations; Mr.

John A. Mintz, Assistant Diréctor, 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; Mi. Edward P. Grigal!

Unit Chief, supervises subversive informants; Joseph G. Kalier,

Assistant Section Chief, Civil Rights Section, Gener.: Ins'-

gative Division.

Gentlemen, will you all rise and be sworn.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 6

..

---

## Page 7

shin' 16

1901

2

3

4

5

6

.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

vi

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

• Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about tó 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.

Mr. Schackelford. I do.

MI. Newman. I do.

Mr. Grigalus. I do.

Mr. Kelley. I do.

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

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

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

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

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

the members of the Committee to return from the floor.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Senator Tower. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Wannall, according to data, informants provide 83

percent of your intelligence information.

Now, will you provide the Committee with some information

on the criteria for the selection of informants?

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 7

---

## Page 8

• 19'02

Phonc (Arca 202) 544•6000

1

2

3

6

7

9

10

1]

.12

• 13

14

15

16

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

18

19

20

21

22

TESTIMONY OF W. RAYMOND WANNALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION •

ACCOMPANIED BY: JAMES B. ADAMS,. ASSISTANT TO THE

DIRECTOR-DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) :

JOIN A. MINTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGAL COUNSEL

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

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

ASSISTANT TO SECTIÓN

I CHIEF; EDWARD P. GRIGALUS, UNIT

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

CIVIL RIGITS SECTION, GENERAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION

Mr. Wannall.

Mr. Chairman, that is not FBI data that you

have quoted. That was prepared by the General Accounting

office.

Senator Tower.

That is GAO.

Mr. Wannall. Based on a sampling of about 93 cases.

Senator Tower.

Would that appear to be a fairly accurate

figure.

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

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

we do get the principal portion of our information from live

sources.

Senator Tower. It would be a relatively. high percert..

then?

24

25

Mr. Wannall. I would say yes. And your ques!

criteria?

NVV 65994. Doeld:32989520-Page-8.

---

## Page 9

..

smn

18

1903

phono (Arca 202) 544-6000

• 2

3

4

5

6

8

9

•10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2.2

23

• 24

25

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 9

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 tò 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, ör is it the same, or what?

---

## Page 10

4)

Smn 19

• 1904

phono (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

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 indiviaual, 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 65994 Docid:32989520 Page 10

---

## Page 11

. smn

20

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1905

2

4.

5

6

$

WARD

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

8

9

10

11

'12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

especially the

Supreme Court in the Newark County Case, that

the very difficulty of penetrating an ongoing operation, that

an informant himself can engage in criminal activity, but

because there is lacking this criminal intent to violate a

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

If we have a situation where we felt that an informant

has to become involved in some activity in order to protect

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

States Attorney or to the Attorney General to try to make sure

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

informants.

Senator Tower. But you do use these informants and do

instruct them to spread dissension among certain groups that

they are informing on, do you not?

MI. Adams. We did when we had the COINTELPRO program$,

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

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

in effect at the time.

We heard the term States Rights used

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

Rock situation the President of the United States, in sending

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

enforcement.

We must have local law enforcement, to use the

troops only as a last resort.

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

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 11

---

## Page 12

1.906

mn

• 20003

]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

• 12.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

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-

23

trated as anyone else was, and when we got information. from

24

25

someone like Mr. Rowe, good information, reliable information,

and it was passed on to those who had the responsibility to

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 12

---

## Page 13

smn 22

190.7

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

::.4

5

6

8

.10

11

WARD & PAUL

13

14

15

16

19

20

21

22

24

25

do something about it, it was not always acted upon, as hé

indicated.

Senator Tower. None of these cases, then, there was

adequate evidence of conspiracy to give you jurisdiction to

act?

Mr: Adams. The Departmental rules at that time, and still

require Departmental approval

where you have a conspiracy.

Under 241, it takes two or more persons acting together.. You

can have a mob scene, and you can have blacks and whites

belting each other, but unless you can show that those that

initiated the action acted in concert in a conspiracy, you have.

no violation.

Congress recognized this, and it wasn't until 1968

that they came along and added Section 245 to the civil rights

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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 13

---

## Page 14

1908

SMin 23

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11.

12

13

•14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2.2

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 Conmunist 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 valia

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. llart?

Senator lart 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 14

---

## Page 15

41

phono (Ares 202) 544-6000

smn .24

1

2

1909

WARD & PAUL.

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

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

'16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

statute.

Mr. Adams. I agree, Senator.

Senator Hart of Michigan.' Why don't you try to shut that

stuff off. by simply telling the agent, or your informant?

Mr. Adams: Here is the problem that you have with that.

When you're looking' at an organization, do you report only the

violent statements made by the group or do you also show that

you may have one or two violent individuals, but you have

some of these church groups that were mentioned, and others,

that the whole intent of the group is not in violation of the

statutes. You have to report the good, the favorable along

with the unfavorable, and this is a problem. We wind up with

information in our files. We are accused of being vacuum

cleaners, and you are a vacuum cleaner. If you want to know the

real purpose.of an organization, do you only report the

violent statements made and the fact that it is by. a small

minority, or do you also show the broad base of the organization

and what it really is?

And within that is where we have to have the guidelines

we have talked about before.

We have to narrow down, because

we recognize that we do wind up with too much information in

our files.

• Senator llart 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 15

---

## Page 16

• smn

25

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

1910 •

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

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

21

25

FBI?

WARD & PAUL

Now, sonieone 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 16

---

## Page 17

smn: 26

Phono (Arca 202) 544.6000

1911

]

2

3

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator lart 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 violence or disruption of a 100a1

town meeting, when a controversial social issue might result

in disruption. It might be by hecklers rather than those holding

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 17

---

## Page 18

'smn

27

544-6000

Phono (Arca 202)

1912

]

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

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 llart 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 18

---

## Page 19

28

.1913

phone (Arca 202) 544-5000

3

end 5

case.

Our problém is where we have a demonstration and we have

to make a, judgment call as to whether it is one that clearly

Eits the criteria of enabling us to monitor the activities, and

that's where I think most of our disagreements fall.

5

6

7

WARD & PAUL

10

.1

2

1

.3

4

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

1

6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23.

24

25

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 19

---

## Page 20

TARRIS : GSII

Sen. Sel. CIA

12/2/85

Tape

Phone (Area 202)

2

.1914

4

5

6

.....

8

9

10

11

12

13

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

1-5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator lart 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 or 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

AB from nearby town councils. There was also informat:.

NW 65994 Docld: 32989520 Page 20

---

## Page 21

1915

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7.

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 i

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.

How do we get into all of that?

Mr. 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 bethe Daily World, .

which was the east coast communist newspaper that made conments

about it. They formed an organizational meeting. He took

a quick look at it. The case apparently was opened in May .28,

1969 and closed June 5 saying there was no problem with this

organization.

Now the problem we get into is if we take a quick 100k

and get .out, fine. We've had cases, though, where we have

stayed in too long. When you!re dealing vith security i is Jilla

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 21

---

## Page 22

•gsh

3

Phone (Arca 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

sovict 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 netvorks, 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. Folloving that there

were several national conferences involving all the groups

and individuals interested in unconditional amnesty.

Now parenthetically, while unconditional amnesty is

not against -- while unconditional amnesty is not yet the law..

we agreed that advocating it is not against the

law either.

Mr. Adams. That's right:

Sonator llart of Michigan. Some of the sponsors vurr

umbrella organizations involving about 50 diverse group.

the country.

rbI informants provided advance i'"!ir

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 22

---

## Page 23

gst 1

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

]

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

.16

17

18

19.

20.

21

1917

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 libertics and human

rights groups, G.I. rights spokesmen, parents of men killed

in Vietnan, wives of ex-patriates in Canada, experts on draft

counselling, religious groups interested in peace issues;

delegates from student organizations, and aides of louse and

Senate members, drafting legislation on amnesty.

The informant apparently was attending in his solc as

a member of a group under investigation as allegedly subversive

and it described the topics of the workshop.

Ironically, the Bureau office report before them noted

that in view of the location of the conference at a theological

seminary, the FBI would use restraint and limit its coverage.

to informant reports.

Now this isn't five or ten years ago. This is last

fall. And this is a conference of people who have the point

of view that I share, that the sooner we have unconditional

amnesty, the better for the soul of the country.

Now what reason is it for a vacuum cleaner approach on

•a thing like that? Don't these instances illustrate how broad

23

informant intelligence really is, that wouid cause these groups

24

in that setting having contact with other groups, all and

25

everybody is drawn into the vacuum and many names go into the

NW 65994 Docid: 32989520 Page 23

---

## Page 24

9sh 5-

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

19.18

5

6

WARD

. 20003

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

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 llart, that was a case that was

opened on Novenher 14. and closed November 20, and the information

which caused us to he interested in it were really.two particular

items.

One was that a member

of the steering committee there,

was a three man steering committce, and one of those members

of the national conference was in fact a national officer

of the WVAW in whom we had suggested before we did. have a

legitimate investigative interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Hell, I would almost say so what

at that point.

Mi. Hannall. The second report we had was that the

WVAW would actively participate in an attempt to pack the

conference to take it over. And the third report ve had --

Senator liart of Michigan. And incidentally, all of the

information that your Buffalo informant had given you with

respect to the goals and aims of the VAlV 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 infornant, but even there we did. recei..

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 24

---

## Page 25

gsh

. 6

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1919

]

2

4

5

6

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

from that informant information which I considered to be:

significant.

The Buffalo chapter of the WVAW was the regional office

covering New York and northern New Jersey: It was one of the

five nost 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

WAll to the revolutionary union. There vere some individuals

in the chapter or

the regional conference who were not in

agreement with us, but Mr. Adams has addressed himself to the

interest of the revolutionary union.

so all of the information that we had on the VAiv dia

nọt come from that source but even that particular source did

give us information which we considered to be of some

significance in our appraisal of the need foi continuing the

investigation of that particular chapter of the VAW.

Senator llart 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 night be taken over by the VAW

when the subject matter is how and by what means shall we

seck to achieve unconditional amnesty? What threat?

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 25

---

## Page 26

gsh

Phone (Arca 202) 544-6000

1920

1

3

4

5

6

PAUL

WARD

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

8

9

• 10

11

•12

13

1.4.

15

16

17

18

19

20.

21

• 22

23

24

• 25

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 26

Mr. Wannall. Our interest, of course, was the VAl

influence on a particular meeting, if you ever happened to be

holding a mecting, or whatever subject it was.

Senator llart of Nichigan. What if it was a meeting to

seck to maké more.effective the food stamp system in this

country?

• Mi..

Wannall.

Well, of course there had been

some

organizations.

Senator llart of Michigan. Nould the same logic folion?

Mr. Wannail. I think that if we found that if the

Communist Party USA was going to take over the mecting and

use it as a front for its own purposes, there would. be a logic

in doing that: You have a whole scope here 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 outrid i fi

mecting and the fact that in the period of some ai.

---

## Page 27

jöil.e

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1y21

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

discontinued any further interest.

Senator Hart of Michigan. Heli, 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-tleaged

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 to obtain a warrant before you turn joose 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.

ought to

Now that's a concern for first Amenament rights that

• hearten all the civil libertarians.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520. Page 27

---

## Page 28

g.sn 9:

Phono (Area 202) 544•6000

WARD & PAUL

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

'13

14

15.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19.22

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 probäble 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 párticular

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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 28

---

## Page 29

a sh

10

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

WARD & PAUL

4.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

17

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 Ecom him that he as à Communist Party member, even

thöugh in an informat 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 lart 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 65994-Docld:32989520 Page 29

---

## Page 30

•gsh

11

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

1924

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PAUL

12

• 13

End Tape 614

Begin Tape IP

16

17

18

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

• 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 headquärters for use as

an informant. He is someone who is under current consideration.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 30

---

## Page 31

• gsh 12

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

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

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

1925

On some occasions that person will have been developed to a

point where he is in fact furnishing information and we are

engaged in checking upon his reliability.

In some instances he may be paid for information furnished,

but it has not gotten to the point yet where we have satisfied

ourselves that he meets all of our criteria. When he does,.

the field must submit its recommendations to headquarters, and

headquarters will pass upon whether that individual is an

approved FBI informant.

Senator Schweiker.

So it's really the first step of.

being an informant, I guess.

Mr. Wannall.. It is a preliminary step, one of the

preliminary steps.

Senator Schweiker. In the Rowe case, in :the Rowe

testimony that we just heard, what was the rationale again

for not intervening when violence was known?

I know we asked you several times but I'm still having

trouble understanding what the rationale, Mr. Wannall, was

in not intervening in the Rove 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 65994 Docld:32/89520 Page 31

---

## Page 32

gsh

13:

1926

2

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

•22

23

24

25.

NW 65994_Docld:32989520 Page 32

problem today, we are an investigative agency.: We do not

have police powers like the United States marshalls do.

About 1795, I

guess, or sone period like that, marshalls have

had the authörity 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 üs maintain

the role of an investigative agency. We were to report on

activities to furnish the information to the local police,

who had an obligation to, act. We furnished it to the Department

of Justice.

In those areas where the local police did not act, it

resulted finally in the Attorney General sending 500

United

States marshalls down to guarantee the safety of people who

were trying to march in protest of their civil rights. .

This was an extraordinary measure because it came at a

time of civil righs versus federal rights, and yet there was

a breakdown in law enforcement in certain areas of the country.

This doesn't mean to indict all law enforcement agencies

in itself at the time either because many of them did act

upon the information that was furnished to them. But we

have no authority to make an arrest on the spot because we

would not have had evidence that there was a conspiracy

available. We can do absolutely nothing in that regard.

In Little Rock, the decision was made, for instance, that

if any arrests need to be made, the Army should make them and

---

## Page 33

•gsh 1:4

Phono (Area 202) 584-6000

WARD & PAUL

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

]

-2

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

1-9

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, lit. 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 tö 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 advanceu

confrontation, shouldn't we have som here a coordinated program

that when you go up the ladder of cow and in the FBI, that

on an imnediate'and fairly contemporary basis, that kind of

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 33

---

## Page 34

gsh' 15

phona (Area 202) 544-6000

1928

1

'2

- 4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

,

8

9

• 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

.22

23

24

25

help can be sought instantly as opposed to waiting until it

gets

to a Boston state?

I realize it's a departure from the past. I'm not

saying it isn't.. But it seems. to

me. we need a better remedy

than. we have.

MI. Adams, Well, fortunatelyr.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'a 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 sai that in advance of the

raid someone in the Department had even acknowledged the fact

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 34

---

## Page 35

- gsh 16

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000.

WARD & PAUL

2

4

5.

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

•1.?

18

19

20

21

.. 22

23

1929

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 madé.

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 Mr. Hardy's statement to the effect that

there was someone in the Department there is perfectly true.

Senator Schweiker. That responsibility rests with who

under your procedures?

Mr. Wannall. We investigate decisions on making arrests,

when they should be made, and decisions with regard to

prosecutions are inade either.by the United States attorneys

or by Federals in the Department.

Mi. Adams. At this time that particular case did have

a departmental attorney on the scene ::ause there are questions

24

of conspiracy.

conspiracy is a toug! siolation to prove and

25

sometimes a question of do you have the added value of catching

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 35

---

## Page 36

• gsh 17

phona (Aros 202) 544-6000

19:30

2

WARD. & PAUL

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

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

dry run.

That's getting pretty close to conspiracy, it seems to

me. They had a dry run and they could have arrested them on

the dry run.

I'd like to know why they didn't arrest them on the dry

run. Who was this Department of Justice official who made

that decision?

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 on so indicate that 70

percent of the new members of the Kla:, that year were FBI

informants.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 36

---

## Page 37

gsh

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

3

4

5

6

WARD

& PAUL

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

8.

9

10

• 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

. 23

24

25

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 domestic informants and potential informants

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 ve tried to reconstruct as to the actual.

number of Klan informants in relation to Klan members was around

6 percent, I think, after we had read

some of the testimony.

Now the problem we had on the Klan is the Klan had a

group called the Action Group. This was the group that you

remember from Mr. Rove's testimony, that he was left. af-

ter the meeting.

He attended the open meetings and heard

all of the hurrahs and this type of thing from information,

but he never knew what was going on because each one had an

action group that went out and considered themselves in the

missionary field.

Theirs was the violence.

In order to penetrate those, it takes, you have to direct

as many informants as you possibly can against it, Bear in

mind that I think the newspapers, the President and Congress

and

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 37

---

## Page 38

gsh

19

Phona (Area 202) 544-6000

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

2

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

• 22

23

24

25

1932

everyone is concerned about the murder of the civil rights

workers, the linio Kent sase, the Viola Liuzzo case, the

bombings of the church in Birmingham. We were faced with one

tremendous problem at that time.

Senator Schweiker.

I acknowledge that.

MI. 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 forwarn 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 38

---

## Page 39

gsh 20

1933

Phono (Aroa 202)

410 First Streat, 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

23

Senator Schweiker.

My time is expired. I just have

one quick guestion..

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?

24

Senator Mondale.

Mr. Adams, it seems to me that the

record is now fairly clear that when the FBI operates in the

NW 6599436d3989528 pagine investigating, it may be the best professional

---

## Page 40

gsh

2.1

Phone (Aroa 2021 544-6000

'..

410 First Street, S.E. Washington, O.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

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

ha's interfered with the civil liberties, and finally, in the

last month or two, through its public disclosures, heaped

shame upon itself and really led toward an undermining of

the crucial public confidence in an essential law enforcement

agency of this country.

In a real sense, history has repeated itself because it

was precisely that problem that led to the creation of the FBI

in 1921.

In World War I, the Bureau of Investigation strayed from

its law enforcement functions and became an arbiter and

protector of political ideas. And through the interference

of. civil liberties and Palmer Raids and

the rest, the public

became so offended that later through Mr. Justice Stone and :

Mr. Hoover, the FBI was created. And the first statement

by Mr. Stone was that never again will this Justice Department

get involved in political ideas.

And yet here we are again looking at a record where with

Martin Luther King, with anti-war resistors, with -- we even

had testimony this morning of meetings with the Courcil 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 somehow need to use the

NW 65994 Docld:32949520 Page 40

---

## Page 41

.gsh 22

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

1935

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

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. He 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 véterans 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 yummy 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 i

to point out that when the Attorney General made his statement

Mr. Hoover subscribes to it, we follied that policy for about

ten years until the president of the .ited States said that

we should investigate the wazi Party.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 41

---

## Page 42

23

gsh

phone. (Area 202) 544-60,00"

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

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.

Serator Mondale, You see, every, time we get involved

in political ideas, you defend yourself on the basis of

crimes that could have been comnitted. It's very interesting.

• In my opinion, you have to stand here if you're going to

continue what you're now doing and as. I understand it, you

still insist that you did the right thing with the Vietnam

Veterans Against the War, and investigating the Council of

Churches, and this can still go on: This can still go on under

your interpretation of your present powers, what you try to

justify on the grounds of your law enforcement activitics

in terms of criminal matters.

Mr. Adams. The law does not say we have to vait. until

we have been murdered before we can --

Senator Mondale: Absolutely, but that's the field of

NW 65994 Docld:329$9520 Page 42

---

## Page 43

gsh

24

Phono (Arca 202) 544-6000

]

2

4

5

6

-7

8:

.9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

23

24

25

1937.

law again.

the law. You can do that.

You're. trying to defend apples with oranges.

That.'s

Mr. 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 girl peat to death in the

next 100 years, you're damned if you is, and damned if you

don't

if va don't have a delineation of our responsibility

NW 65994 Docld:32(89520 Page 43

---

## Page 44

. gsh '25

phone (Area 202) 544-6000

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18•

19

20

21

.22

23

24

25

1938

in this area. But I won't agree with you, Senator, that we

have bungled the intelligence operations in the United States.

I

agree with you that we have made some mistakes. Mr. Kelley

has set a pattern of being as forthright as any Director of the

FBI in acknowledging mistakes that. had been made, but I think

that as you said, and I believe Senator Tower said, and

Senator Church, that we

have to watch these hearings because

of the necessity that we

must concentrate on these areas of

abuse. We must not lose

sight of the

overall law enforcement and intelligence community, and I

still feel that this is the freest country in the world.

I've travelled much, as I'm sure you havé, 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 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 44

---

## Page 45

• gsh '26

Phona (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 zeroing 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 78

9

10

11

WARD & PAUL

12

13

14

15

16

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

18

19

20

21

.22

23

24

25

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 45

---

## Page 46

SHARRIS/smnl

t. 8

1940

2

5

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.

MI. Adams•

Yes, I agree with that.

Senator Tower. Senator Huddleston.

Senator Huddleston.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Adams, these two instances we have studied at some

length seems to have been an inclination. on the part of

the Bureau to establish

..a notion about an individual or a group

which seems to be very hard to ever change or dislodge. In

the case of DI. King, where the supposition was that he was

being influenced by Communist individuals, extensive investi-

gation was made, surveillance, reports came back indicating that

this in fact was untrue, and directions continued to go out

to intensify the investigation. There never seemed to be a

willingness on the part of the Bureau to accept its own facts.

Ms. Cook testified this morning that something similar

to that happened with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, that

every piece of information that she supplied to the Bureau

seemed to indicate that the Bureau was, not correct in its

assumption that this organization planned to commit violence,

or that it was being manipulated, and yet you seemed to insist

that this investigation go on, and this information was used

against the individuals.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 46

---

## Page 47

smn

Phono (Arca 202) 544-6000

2

1941

2

3

4

5

6

WARD & PAUL

8

9

10

11

12

13.

1.4

• 25.

D.C. 20003

17

is

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 rot 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 65994-Docld:32989520 Page 47

---

## Page 48

smn 3

Phono (Aroa 202) 584-6000

1

2

4

•5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

25

16

17

18

19°

20

21

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

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 VAW-WSO inasmuch

as she feels in general agreement of the principles of it, and

agreed to cooperate with the FBI in providing information regara-

ing the organization to aid in preventing violent individuals

from associating themselves with the VAW-wSo.

She is most

concerned about efforts.by the Revolutionary Union to take over

the VVAW-WSO, and she is working actively to prevent this..

I think that we have a basis for investigating the VAW-

WSO in certain areas today. In other areas we have stopped

the investigation. They don't agree with these principles

laid down by the --

Senator Huddleston. That report was the basis of your

continuing to pay informants and continuing to utilize that

information against members who certainly had not been involved

in violence, and apparently to get them fired from their job

or whatever?

Mr. Adams. It all gets back to the fact that even in the

criminal law field, you have to detect crime, and you have to

prevent crime, and you can't wait unt: something happens.. The

Attorney General has clearly spoken i that area, and even our

statutory jurisdiction provides that ie don't -

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 48

---

## Page 49

1943

smn 4

- ..

Phone (Aroa 202) 544-6000

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

1

2

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

.22

• 23

24

25

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.

Mr. Adams. We were doing everything we could lawfully

do at the time, and finally the situation was corrected, so that

when the Department, agreeing that we had no further. juris-

diction, could sent the United States Marshal down to perform.

certain law enforcement functions.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 49

---

## Page 50

smn '5

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

1941

4

5

6

WARD

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1'6

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 up this rival organization.

Now, does this not put the Bureau in a position of being

responsible for what actions the rival white hate group might

have indertaken?

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?

Mr. Deegan.. He continued to advi:, us of that organization

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 50

=

---

## Page 51

LY45

- smn. 6

544•60

1.

2

3

• 4

.5

6

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

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 Huddleston. There's also evidence of an FBI

informant in the Black Panther, Party who had a position of

responsibility within the Party with the knowledge of his

FBI contact of supplying members with weapons and instructing

them in how to use those weapons.. Presumably this was in the'

knowledge of the

Bureau, and he later became - came in contact

with the group. that was contracting for murder, and he partici-

pated in this group with the knowledge of the FBI agent, and

this group did in fact stalk a victim who was later killed with

the weapon supplied by this individual, presumably all in the

knowledge of the FBI.

How does this square with your enforcement and crime

prevention responsibilities.

Mr. Deegan.. Senator, I'm not familiar with that particular

case.. It does not square with our policy in all respects, and

I would have to look at that particular case you're talking

about to give you an answer.

Senator Huddleston: I don't have the documentation on that

particular case, but it brings up the point as to what kind of

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 51

---

## Page 52

smn

7

1946

Phono (Aroa 202) 544-6000

WARD & PAUL

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

2

3

5

8

9

10

.I1

12

13

14

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 enyaging in the kind of thing

that you are supposedly trying to prevent.

Mr. 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

informants who have gotten involved in the violation of the law,

25

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 52

---

## Page 53

1947

smn

8

Prono (Aros 202) 544-6000

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

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 65994 Docld: 32989520 Page 53

---

## Page 54

1948

amng

phone (Area 202) 514-60

2

3

4

5

6

7

• 8

• 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

• 24

. 25

to the effect that - and I was sitting in the back of the

room and I don't recall it exactly, but some of them were

beat with chains, and I didn't hear whether he said he beat

someone with a chain or not, but I rather doubt that he did

because it's one thing being present, and it's

another thing

taking an active part in criminal actions.

Senator Huddleston.. He was close enough to get his

throat cut.

How does the gathering of information --

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias is here, and I think that

we probably should recess a few minutes.

Could we have Senator Mathias' questions and then should

we convene this afternoon?

Senator Huddleston. I'm finished. I just had one more

question.

Senator Tower. Go ahead.

Senator Huddleston. I wanted to ask how the selection of

information about an individual's personal life, social, sex

life and becoming involved in that sex life of 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 instriction, they had no

such knowledge concerning it, and I can': see where it would

be.of any value whatsoever.

Senator Huddleston. You aren't aware of any case where

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 54

---

## Page 55

i

Smn

10

Phone (Area 202) 544.6000

WARD

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

• 11

12

13

14

• 15

16

•17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

25

1949

these instructions were given to an agent or an informant?

Mr. Adams. To get involved in sexual activity? No, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Tower. Senator Mathias.

Senator Mathias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

. *

I would like to come back very briefly to the Fourth

Amendment considerations in connection with the use of informants

and in posing these questions we're not thinking of the one

time volunteer who walks in to an FBI office and says I have

a. story I want to tell you and that's the only time that you

may see him. I'm thinking of the kind of situations in which

there is a more extended relationship which could be of varying

degrees. It might be in one case that the same individual

will' have some usefulness in a number of situations. But when

the FBI orders a regular agent to engage in a search, the first

test is a judicial warrant, and what I would like

to explore

with you is the difference between a one time search which

requires a warrant, and which you get when you make that

search, and a continuous search which uses an informant, or

the case of a continuous search which uses a regular undercover

agent, someone who is totally under your control, and is in a

slightly different category than an informant.

Mr. Adams. Well, we get there into the fact that the

Supreme Court has still held that the use of informants does

not invade any of these constitutionally protected areas, and

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 55

---

## Page 56

smn il

1950

Arca

.2

3

4

5

6

8°

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

'18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

25

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.

MX. 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.

MI. Adams.. They can do nothing -

Senator Mathias. Certainly agents in the common law use

of the word.

Mr. Adams. That's right, they can do nothing, and we

instruct out agents that an informant can do nothing that the

agent himself cannot do, and if the agent can work himself into

NW 65994 Docid:82989520 Page 56

---

## Page 57

1951

smn 12

Phono (Area 202) 544-6000

1

2

4

5

6

WARD&

end

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

.15

16

17

.18

19

.20

21

22.

23

24

25

NW 65994 Docldl32989520 Page 57

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 inember

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. --

MI. 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,

headguarters must approve the use of an informant. Is that

degree of formal action required?

• •

---

## Page 58

HARRIS: GSH

Sen. Sel. CIA

112/2/575

Tapa

1

1

phona (Aroa

2

1952

4

5

6

Mx. 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

13

14

15

16

•17

18

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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65994 Doclc#32989520 Page 58

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 59

(Aroa:

544.6000

gsh ?.

• 1953

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

il

12

13

14

'15

16

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 midale

ground in here.

Senator Mathias. Which we discussed in the other national

security area as to curtailling a warrant to that particular

need.

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

• 18

19

20

21

22

:23

24

25

Mr. Adams. And if you could get away from probable

cause and get some degree of reasonable cause and get some

method of sealing indefinitely your interest, say, in an

ongoing espionage case and can work out those difficulties,

we may get their yet.

Senator Mathias. And you don't despair of finding that

midale ground?

Mr. Adams. I don't becausc I think that today there's

more of an open mind between Congress and the Executive Branch

NW. 65994 • Docldk32989520 Page 59'*

---

## Page 60

1954

gsh

3

Phone (Area 202) 544-6000

WARD

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

1

2

3

4.

5

6

7

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 night

extend to some of those other areas. that we talked about?

Mr. Adams. I think that that would be a nuch greater

difficulty in an area of domestic intelligence informant who

reports on many different operations and different types of

activities that might come up rather than say in a Soviet

espionage or a foreign espionage case where you do have a little

more degree of specificity to deal with.

Senator Mathias. I suggest that we arrange to get

together and try out some drafts with each other, but in the

meantime, of course, there's another alternative and that

would be the use

of wiretap procedure by which the Attorney

General must approve a wiretap before it is placed, 'and the

same general process could be used for informants, since

you come to headquarters any way.

25

Mr. Adams.

That could be an alted tive. I think it

would be a very burdensome alternative i I think at some

•point after we attack the major abuses, or what are considered

NW 65994 Docldig2989520 Page 60

---

## Page 61

gsh 1

1955

2

3

5

6

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

i 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

alsó.

Senator Mathias. Smaller nunber, 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 seen 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 wirctap itself where the individual

NW 65994 Dockd 32989520 Page 61

---

## Page 62

• gsh 5

..•

• 1956

2

whose telephone is being tapped is not aware and there is,

and neither of the two parties talking had agreed that their

3

conversation could be monitored. '

4

5

6

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

9

if they believe that I am their friend or their, a partisan

10

of theirs.

1]

But if they knew in fact that I was an informant for

12

13

141

15

16

17

someone else, they wouldn't be consenting.

Mr. Adams. Well, that's like I believe Senator, Hart

raised earlier, that the courts thus far have made this

distinction with no difficulty, but that doesn't mean that

, there may not be some logislative compromise which might be

addressed.

18

Washington, D.C. 20003

S.E.,

19

Senator Mathias. Well, I particularly appreciate your

attitude in being willing to work on these problems because

20

I think that's the most important thing that can evolve from

21

these hearings, so that we can actually look at the fourth

22

Anendment as the standard that we have to achieve. But the

23:

way. we, get there is obviously going to i"' lot easier if we

24

can work toward them together.

25

NW. 65994 Dockd:32989520 Page 62

I just have one final question, is. Chairman, and that

---

## Page 63

gsh

1957

WARD

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

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1'5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

24

• 25

deals with whether we shouldn't impose a standard of probable

cause that a crime has been committed as a means of controlling

the use of informants and the kind of information that they

collect.

Do you feel that this would be too restrictive?

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I do. •

When I 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 65994 Docld 32989520 Page 63

---

## Page 64

gsh

-

phona (Area 202) 544-6000

1958

1

2

3

4

5

6

Street,

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

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 llart, do you have any further

questions?

Senator llart of Michigan: Yes. I ask unaninous request

perhaps with a view to giving balance to the record, the

groups that we have discussed this morning into which the

Burcau 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 Dr. Carl McIntyre when he announced

that he was organizing a group to counter the American Civil

Liberties Union and other "liberal and communist groups,"

is not a left only pre-occupation. •

Senator Tower. Without objection, so ordered.

• (The material referred to follows:)

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 64

---

## Page 65

gsh 8

1959

2

4

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

Senator Tower.. Any more questions?

Then the Committee will have an Executive Session this .

afternoon in Room 3110 in the Dirksen Building at 3:00, and

I hope everyone will be in attendance.

Tomorrow morning we will 'hear from Courtney Evans,

Cartha DeLoach. Tomorrow afternoon, former Attorneys General

Ramsey Clark and Edward Katzenbach.

The Committee, the hearings are recessed until 10:00

a.m. tomorrow morning.

(hereupon, 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.nn.)

WA

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

15

16

17.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NW 65994_ Docld:32989520 Page 65

---

## Page 66

NROLS WA PLAIN

6:31PMMIILL 10/9/75 GHS

TO ALL SAÜS

FROM DINECTOR

INTERVILOS OF FBI EMPLOYEES/BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

BY MEHORANDUM TO ALL EMPLOYEES DATED. MAY 28, 1975;

CAPTIONED "INTERVIEWS OF FBI EMPLOYEES,". ALL EMPLOYEES WERE

ADVISED OF THE NECESSITY OF SECU ING FBI HEADQUARTERS APPROVAL

PRIOR TO SUBWITIING TO INTERVIEWS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF CON-

GRESSIONAL .COMMITTEES. THE NECESSITY OF SECURING THIS AP-

PROVAL IS FROMPTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENI ALL. EMPLOYEES

HAVE SIGNED.

YOU WERE ADVISED THAT CONGRESSIONAL. STAFF MEMBERS

WERE CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS OF FORMER AND/OR CURRENT EMPLOYEES

, AND THAT THIS BUREẠU HAD PLEDGED IIS COOPERATION WITH CON

GRESS. OUT COOPERAIIVE EFFORTS, OF COURSE, MUST BE CONSISTENT

wITH BURLAU PROCEDURES:

RECENILY, HE HAVE HAD ATTEMPTS BY CONGRESSIONAL

COMMITTEN STAFF MEMBERS TO INTERVIEW CURRENT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT.

• PRIOR

CONTACI WITH FBI HEADQUARTERS., YOU ARE AGAIN REMINDED

Astr

62-2986-7

EARCH

ERIANT

A FILED

OCT

9 1975

FBI in. HOUSTON

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 66

---

## Page 67

• PAGE TwO

•THAT, IF A REFRESENTATIVE OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE SHOULD

CONTACT A BUREAU EMPLOYEE, THAI EMPLOYEE SHOULD DECLINE TO.

RESPOND TO QUESTIONS POSED' TO HIM AND ADVISE THE CONGRES-

SIONAL STAFF MEMBER OF IHE NECESSITY OF RECEIVING FBI

HEADQUARTERS APPROVAL BEFORE RESPÖNDING TO QUESTIONS.

END

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 67

---

## Page 68

NROSS WA PLAIN

6:31 PMNITAL 19/9/73 GHS •

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR

INTERVIENS O* FBI EMPLOYEES BY CONGRESSIONAL COMNITTEES

BY MEGORANDUM TO ALL EMPLOYEES DATED MAY 28, 1975,

CAPTIONED "INTERVIEWS OF FBI EMPLOYEES," ALL EMPLOYEES WERE

ADVISED OF THE NECESSITY OF SECU ING FBI HEADQUARTERS APPROVAL :

PRIOR TO SUAMITTING TO INTERVIEWS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF CON

GRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. THE NECESSITY OF SECURING THIS AP-

PROVAL IS PROMPTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ALL EMPLOYEES

HAVE SIGNED.

•YOU WERE ADVISED THAT CONGRESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS

WERE CONDUCTING INTERVIEVS OF FORMER AND/OR CURRENT EMPLOYEES

AND IHAT THIS BUREAU HAD PLEDGED ITS COOPERATION WITH CON

GRESS. OUR COOPERATIVE EFFORTS, OF COURSE; MUST BE CONSISTENT

WITH BUREAU PROCEDURES:

RECCUTLY, WE HAVE HAD ATTENFTS BY CONGRESSIONAL

COMMITTEE SIAFT MEMBERS TO INTERVIEW CURRENT EMPLOYEES. WITHOUT

PRIOR CONTACT WITH FBI HEADQUARTERE. YOU ARE AGAIN REMINDED

986

SEARCHED

INDEXED.

SERLALIZED

OCT

9 1975

FBI - HOUSTON

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 68

---

## Page 69

PAGE •TWO

THAT IF À REMXESENTATIVE OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE SHOULD

CONTACI A BURÉAU EMPLOYEE, THAT EMPLOYEE SHOULD DECLINE TO.

RESPOND IO QUESTIONS POSED TO HIM AND ADVISE THE CONGRES-

SIONAL STAFF MEMBER OF THE NECESSITY OF RECZIVING FBI

HEADQUARIERS APPROVAL BEFORE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS.

END

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 69

---

## Page 70

NRD35

COD2

3:33 PM S/HIS' NITEL AJN

TO ALL SACS

FROM JIALCTOR

(62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

SENSTUSY

REBUTOL MAY 2, 1975..

PURPOSES OF INSTANI TELETYPE: ARE TO. (1) REITERATE THAT

FBI MAS

PLEDGED FULL COOPERATION WITH THE SENATE-SELECT.

COMMITTES (SSC) AND WISHES TO ASSIST AND FACILITATE ANY.

INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE SSC WITH RESPECT TO THE FBI;

AND (2) SET FORTH NEW PROCEDURE RELATING TO SSC 'STAFF

INTERVILWS OF CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

FOR INFORMATIIN OF THOSE OFFICES WHICH HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY

HAD CURMENI 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

INTERVIE BY THE SSC SIAFF.: INSTRUCIIONS ARE ISSUED. FOR. THE

FIELD SAFICE TO CONTACT THE FORMER EMPLOYEE TO ALERT HIM AS TO

POSSIBLE INICKVIEW, REMIND HIM OF HIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

WITA THE BUREAU ANE SUGGEST THAT IF HE IS CONTACTED FOR

ASAG

22-2986-6

SEARCHEDDY!

-INDEXED

SERIALIZED

I FILED

1.7

4 1975

5

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 70

---

## Page 71

PAGE THO

INTLiVIEW, ME WAY CONTACT THE LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY

COLLECT CALL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. IN THE USUAL CASE,

AS CIRCUMSTANCES' UNFOLD, THE FORMER EMPLOYEE IS TOLDED

THAI HE HAS A RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THAT THE, BUREAU

CANNOT PROVIDE SAME; (2) THAT THE BUREAU HAS WAIVED THE

CONFIDENTTALITY 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, INCLÜDING FOREIGN INTELLiGENCE

AGENCIES, OR INFORMATION 'FROM SUCH AGENCIES; AND (D.). ADVERSELY.

AFFECT

ONGOING BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS.

HERETONORE, BUREAU HAS OFFERED INTERVIEWEES CONSULTATION

PRIVILIGES WHEREBY, A BUREAU SUPERVISOR WOULD BE AVAILABLE*

NEARBY, ALTHOUGH NOT ACIUALLY AT INTERVIEW, SO INTERVIEWEE

MIGHT CONSULT WITH HIM SHOULD QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO PARAMETERS

OF INTERVIEW OR PRIVILEGED AREAS. THE CONSULTANI DID NOT ACT

AS: A LEGAL ADVISOR.

LILCTIVE INMEDIATELY, BUREAU WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 71

---

## Page 72

PAGE IH

-IE

ON-INE-SCENE PERSONNEL FOR CONSULTATIIN PURPOSES TO ASSIST

EITHER, CURRENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES. PROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWEES

SHOULD BL TOLD THAT, IF THEY DESIRE ASSISTANCE OF THIS NATURE

DURING AN INTERVIEW, THEY MAY CONTACI EITHER PERSONALLY. (IF.

INTERVIEO IS IN WASHINGTON; D. CO) OR BY COLLECT, CALL, THE

ASSISTANI DIRECTOR OF THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, MR. WOR

WAiWALL, On, IN HIS ABSENCE, SECTI N CHIEF WOO. CREGAR:

THIS CHANGE IN PROCEDURE SHOULD NOI BE CONSTRUED AS

LESSENING THE ASSISTANCE WE ARE FURNISHING TO CURRENT AND

PORMER EMPLOYEES.

FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I AM WORKING WITH THE

DEPARTMENI IN EXPLORING AVENUES TO ARRANGE LEGAL REPRESENTATION,

WHZ NECESSARY; FOR CURRENI AND FORMER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT

EXPENSO TO THEM. YOU WILL. BE KEPT ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENTS

IN THIS KEGARD•

END . .

REC FBI NO BAJ CLR

NW 65994. Docld:32989520 Page 72

---

## Page 73

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

PERSONAL ATTENTION

MEMORANDUM 35-75

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGION, D.C. 20535

August 12, 1975

MEMORANDUM TO ALL SPECIAL AGENTS IN CHARGE:

(A). INTERVIEWS OF FBI EMPLOYEES BY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF

MEMBERS -- In accordance with a recently adopted suggestion, you

are to insure that all new employees who enter on duty in your field.

office are fully apprised of the contents of the Memorandum to All

Employees, dated May 28, 1975, dealing with captioned matter. This

should be done at the time they execute the FBI Employment Agreement,

FD-291, regarding the unauthorized disclosure of information.

This practice can, of course, be discontinued upon the

completion of the inquiry thät Congress has instituted.

02-2986-

HDEXED...

EMIALIZES. CET FILED.

AUG1 4 1975

FEI-HOUSION

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 73

---

## Page 74

NRO22 WA CODE

• 1:05 PM NITEL 6-13-75 VLJ.

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECIOR (62-116464)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

HOUSTUDY 75•

REBUTELS MAY 2, 20, 1975, TSENSTUDY 75.*

BUFILE 62-116464 AND CODE NAME HOUSTUDY 75" DESIGNATED.

FOR ALL MATTERS RELATING TO HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY

GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

AND BUREAU'S HANDLING OF MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. USE

•THIS FILE NUMBER AND CAPTION FOR MATTERS RELATING TO HOUSE

COMMITTEE AS SEPARATE FROM SENSTUDY 7S FOR MATTERS RELATING

TO SENATE COMMITTEE.

END

HO FBI KIM CLR

1-62 new

62-2986-4

SEARCHED

INDEXED

SERLALIZED (

" FILED.

JUN 1 3 1975

FBI - HOUSTON

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 74.

---

## Page 75

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

1-75

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WASHINGTON, D.G. 20535

May 28, 1975

MEMORANDUM TO ALL EMPLOYEES

RE: INTERVIEWS OF FBIEMPLOYEES

All employees are advised that Congress is conducting

an inquiry into activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Congressional staff members are conducting interviews of former

and current FBI employees. This Bureau has pledged its cooperation

with the Congress.

You are reminded of the FBI Employment Agreement

(copy attached) with which you agreed to comply during your employment

in the FBI and following termination of such employment.

Also, you are reminded of Title 28, Code of Federal

Regulations, Section 16.22 (copy attached), which reads as follows:

"No employee or former employee of the Department of

Justice shall, in response to a demand of a court or other authority,

produce any material contained in the files of the Department or disclose

any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department,

or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of

the performance of his official duties or because of his official status

without prior approval of the appropriate Department official or the

Attorney General in accordance with Section 16.24."

Also, you are reminded of Department of Justice Order

• Number 116-56, dated May 15, 1956, (copy attached) which, among

other things, requires an employee upon the completion of his testimony

to prepare a memorandum outlining his testimony.

62-2986-3

Our cooperative efforts, of course, must be consistent

with the above cited authority. Therefore, if you are contacted for

purpose of interview or testimony you are to request approval as

required by the Employment Agreement and await authorization before

furnishing information, testimony, or record materiALDy INDEXED-

- FILED 15

Enclosures (3)

cintellany

6 1975

Clarence M. Keley

-MOUSIUN

Directort

Bear

NW 65994-Docld:32989520 Page 75

---

## Page 76

FD-291 (Rev. 11-1-73)

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

As consideration for employment in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United

States Department, of Justice, and as a condition for continued employment, I hereby declare

that I intend to be governed by and I will comply with the following provisions:

(1) That I am hereby advised and I understand that Federal law such as

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793, 794, and 798; Order of the

President of the United States (Executive Order 11652); and regulations

issued by the Attorney General of the United States (28 Code of Federal

Regulations, Sections 16.21 through 16.26) prohibit loss, misuse, or un-

authorized disclosure or production of national security information; other

classified information and other nonclassified information in the files of

the FBI;

(2) I understand that unauthorized disclosure of information in the files

of the fBl or information I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could

result in impairment of national security, place human life in jeopardy, or

result in the denial of due process to a person or persons who are subjects

of an FBI investigation, or prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its

responsibilities. I understand the need for this secrecy agreement; there-

fore, as consideration for employment I agree that I will never divulge,

publish, or reveal either by word or conduct, or by other means disclose to

any unauthorized recipient without official written authorization by the

Director of the FBI or his delegate, any information from the investigatory

files of the FBI or any information relating to material contained in the files,

or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as a part of the

performance of my official duties or because of my official status. The burden

is on me to determine, prior to disclosure, whether information may be disclosed

and in this regard I agree to request approval of the Director of the FBI in.each

such instance by presenting the full text of my proposed disclosure in writing to

the Director of the FBI at least thirty. (30) days prior to disclosure. I understand

that this agreement is.not intended to apply to information which has been placed

in the public domain or to prevent me from writing or speaking about the FBI but

it is intended to prevent disclosure of information where disclosure would be

contrary to law, regulation or public policy. I agree the Director of the FBI is

in a better position than I to make that determination;

(3). I agree that all information acquired by me in connection with my official

duties with the FBl and all official material to which I have access remains

the property of the United States of America, and I will surrender upon demand

by the Director of the FBI or his delegate, or upon separation from the FBI, any

material relating to such information or property in my possession;

(4) That I understand unauthorized disclosure may be a violation of Federal

law and prosecuted as a criminal offense and in addition to this agreement may

be enforced by means of an injunction or other civil remedy.

I accept the above provisions as conditions for my employment and continued employment

in the FBI. I agree to comply with these provisions both during my employment in the FBI and

following termination of such employment.

(Signature)

(Type or print name)

Witnessed and accepted in behalf of the Director, FBI, on

,19

165994 Bocla329

32989520 Page 16

., by

(Signature)

i .

---

## Page 77

Offire of the Attarney General

Washington, A. 0. 20530

January 18, 1973

ORDER NO.501-73

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 28—JUDICIAL

ADMINISTRATION

Chapter I-Department of Justice

(Order 501-73]

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLO-

SURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMA-

TION

Subpart B-Production or Disclosure

in Response to Subpenas or De-

mands of Courts or Other Authori-

ties

This order delegates to certain De-

partment of Justice offcials the author-

ity to approve the production or dis-

closure of material or information con-

tained in Department files, or informa-

tion or material acquired by a person

while employed by the Department. It

applies where a subpena, order or other

demand oi a court or other authority,

such as an administrative agency, is is-

sued for the production or disclosure of

such information.

By virtue of the authority vested in me

by 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 5 U.S.C. 301,

Subpart B of Part 16 of Chapter I of

Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, is

revised, and its provisions renumbered,

to read as follows:

Subpart B-Production or Disclosuré in Response

to Subpenas or Demands of Courts or Other

Authorities

status.

(b)

For purposes of this subpart, the

term "employee of the Department" in-

cludes all officers and employees of the

United States appointed by, or subject

to the supervision, jurisdiction, or control

of, the Attorney General of the United

States,

including U.s. attorneys,

U.S.

marshals, and members of the staffs of

those onicials.

§ 16.22 Production or disclosure prohib-

ited unless approved by approprinte

Department oflicial.

No employee or former employee of the

Department of Justice shall, in response

to a demand of a court or other au-

thority, produce any material contained

in the files of the Department or disclose

any information relating to material con-

tained in the files of the Department, or

disclose any information or produce any

material acquired as part of the per-

formance of his official duties or because

of his official status without prior ap-

proval of the appropriate Department of-

ficial or the Attorney General in accord-

ance with § 16.24.

§ 16.23 Procedure in the evont of a de-

10.21 Purpose and scope

16.22 Production

or disclosure prohibited

unless approved by appropriate De-

partment official.

16.23 Procedure in the event of a demand

for production or disclosure.

16.24 Final action by the appropriate De-

partment officlal or

the Attorney

Goneral.

6.25 Procedure where a Department decl-

sion concerning & demand is not

made prior to the time a response

to the demand is required.

6.26 Procedure in the event of an adverse

ruling.

AUTHORITY: 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 5 U.S.C.

;01.

iubpart B--Production or Disclosure

in Response to Subpenas or De-

mands of Courts or Other Authori-

mand for production or disclosure.

(a) Whenever a demand is made upon

an employee or former employee of the

Department for the production-of ma-

terial or the disclosure of information

described

in §16.21(a), he shall im-

mediately notify the U.S. attorney for

the district where the issuing authority

is located. The U.S. attorney shall im-

mediately request instructions from the

appropriate Department official, as desig-

nated in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) The Department officials author-

ized to approve production or disclosure

under this subpart are:

(1) In the event that the case or other

matter which gave rise to the demanded

material or information is or, if closed,

was within the cognizance of a division

of the Department, the Assistant At-

§ 16.21 Purpose and scope.

torney General in charge of that divi-

sion. This authority may be redelegated

(a) This subpart sets forth the pro-

to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General.

sedures to be followed when a subpena,

(2) In instances of demands that are

order, or other demand (hereinafter re-

not covered by paragraph (b) (1) of this

ferred to as & "demand") of & court or

section:

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 77

---

## Page 78

reau of Investigation, if the demand is

one made on an employee or former em-

If the court or other authority-declines

ployee of that Bureau for information to stay the'eftect of the demand in re-

or if the demand calls for the production

of material from the files of that Bu sponse to a request made in accordance

reau, and

with § 16.25 pending receipt of Instruc-

(11)

The Director of the Bureau of tions, or if the court or other authority

Prisons, if the demand Is one made on

rules that the demand must be com-

an employee or former employee of that

plled with irrespective of instructlons

Bureau for information or if the de-

mand calls for the productlon of ma-

terial from the files of that Bureau.

(3) In instances of demands that are

not covered by paragraph (b) (1) or (2)

ployee upon whom the demand has been

of this section, the Deputy Attorney

made shall respectfully decline to comply

General.

with the demand. "United States ex rel

(c) Il oral testimony is sought by the Touhy v. Ragen," 340 U.S. 462.

demand, an affidavit, or, if that is not

Dated: January 11, 1973.

feasible, & statement by the party seck-

ing the testimony or his attorney, setting

RICHARD G. KLEINDIENSI,

forth & summary of the testimony de-

Attorney General.

sired, must be furnished for submission

(FR Doc.79-1071 Filed 1-17-73;8:15 aml

by the U.S. attorney to the appropriate

Department official.

8 16.24

Depariment official or the

parime told by the e Apprinto

Gencral.

(a) If the appropriate Department of-

ficial,

designated in

proves a demand for the production o

material or disclosure of information,

he shall so notify the U.S. attorney and

such other persons as circumstances may

(b) If the appropriate Department

in § 16.23 (b),

decides not to approve a demand for the

roduction of material or disclosure o

nformation, he shall Immediately refe

the demand to the Attorney General for

decision. Upon such referral, the Attor-

ney General shall make the final decision

and give notice thereof to the U.S. attor

rey and such other persons as circum-

16.25 Procedure where a Departmen

ecision concerning a demand is no

made prior to the time a response 1o

the demand is required.

If response to the demand is required

before the Instructions from the appro-

priate Department olicial or the Attor

ley General are received, the U.S. attor-

ney or other Department attorney des-

ignated for the purpose shall appear with

the employee or former employee of the

Department upon whom the demand has

een made, and shall furnish the court

or other authority with a copy of the

regulations contained in this subpart and

inform the court or other authority that

the demand has been,

the case

may be,

referred

sens on tas

prompt consideration of the appropriate

Department official and shall respect-

wily request the court or authority to

stay the demand pending receipt of the

requested instructions.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 78

---

## Page 79

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAI

WASHINCION, D. C.

May 15, 1956

ORDER NO. 116-56

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to extend the fullest

possible cooperation to congressional committees requesting information from

departmental files, interviews with department employees, testimony of depart-

ment personnel, or testimony of Federal prisoners. The following procedures

re prescribed in order to effectuate this policy on a basis which will b

utually satisfactory to the congressional cormittees and to the Department

(Ihis order supersedes the Deputy Attorney General's Memorandum No. 5, dated

LEASE

Izes the Attorney General's press release of November 5, 1953, establishing

procedures to permit committees of the Congress and their authorized repre-

sentatives to interview and to take sworn testimony from Federal prisoners.

It supplements Order No. 3229 (Revised) dated January 13, 1953, and Order

No. 3464, Supplement No. 4 (Revised) dated January 13, 1953 (with Memorandum

of "Authorization Under Order No. 3464 Supplement No. 4 (Revised)" dated

January 13, 1953), Insofar as said orders have reference to procedures to be

followed in the Department's relations with congressional committees. In

support of this order, reference should be had to the President's letter

dated May 17, 1954, addressed to the Secretary of Defense, and to the Attorney

General's Memorandum which accompanied it.]

A. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM DEPARIMENT FILES

1. Congressional committee requests for the examination of files

or other confidential information should be reduced to writing, signed by

the chairman of the committee, and addressed to the Deputy Attorney General,

who is responsible for the coordination of our liaison with Congress and

congressionad committees. The request shall state the specific information

sought as well as the specific objective for which it is sought. the Deputy

Attorney General will forward the request to the appropriate division where a

reply will be prepared and returned for the Deputy Attorney General's signa-

ture and dispatch to the chairman of the committee.

2. If the request concerns a closed case, 1. e., one in which

there is no litigation or administrative action pending or contemplated,

the file may be made available for review in the Department, in the presence

of the official or employee having custody thereof. The following procedure

shall be followed in such cases:

a. The reply letter will advise the committee that the

file is available for examination and set forth the

name, telephone extension number, and room number of

the person who will have custody of the file to be

reviewed;

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 79

---

## Page 80

- 2 -

D. Before making the file available to the committee

representative all reports and memoranda from the FBI

as well as investigative reports from any other agency,

will be removed from the file and not be made available

for examination; provided however that if the committee

representative states that it is essential that information

trom the fBi reports and memoranda be made available,

he will be advised that the request will be considered

by the Department. Thereafter a summary of the contents

of the FBI reports and memoranda involved will be

prepared which will not disclose investigative tech-

niques, the identity of confidential informants, or

other matters which might jeopardize the investigative

operations of the FBI. This summary will be forwarded

by the division to the FBI with a request for advice as

to whether the fBI has any objection to examination of

such summary by the cormittee representative. The file

will not be physically relinquished from the custody of

the Department. If the committee representative desires

to examine investigative reports from other government

agencies, contained in the files of the Department, he

will be advised to direct his request to the agency whose

reports are concerned.

3. If the request concerns an open case, 1. e., one which Ilti-

gation or administrative action 1s pending or contemplated, the file may

not be made available for examination by the committee's representative.

The following procedure shall be followed:

a. The reply letter should advise the conmittee that

its request concerns a case in which litigation or

administrative action is pending or contemplated, and

state that the file cannot be made available until the

case is completed; and

b. Should briefly set forth the status of the case in

as much detail as is practicable and prudent without

jeopardizing the pending contemplated litigation or

administrative action.

B. REQUESTS FOR INZERVIENS WITH DEPARIMENTAL PERSONNEL

1. Requests for interviews with departmental personnel regarding

any official matters within the Department should be reduced to writing,

signed by the chairman of the committee, and addressed to the Deputy Attorney

General. When the approval of the Deputy Attorney General is given, the

employee is expected to discuss such matters freely and cooperatively with

the representative, subject to the limitations prescribed in A respecting

open cases and data in investigative reports;

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 80

---

## Page 81

-3 -

2. Upon the completion of the interview with the committee repre-

sentative the employee will prepare a summary of it for the file, with a

copy routed to his division head and a copy routed to the Deputy Attorney

General.

C. EMPLOYEES IESTIFYING BEFORE CONCRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

1. Then an employee is requested to testify before a congressional

committee regarding official matters within the Department the Deputy Attorney

General shall be promptly informed.

When the Deputy Attorney General's approv-

al is given the employee is expected to testify freely subject to limitations

prescribed in A respecting open cases and data in investigative reports;

2. An employee subpoenaed to testify before a congressional committee

on official matters within the Department shall promptly notify the Deputy

Attorney General. In general he shall be guided in testifying by Order 3229

(Revised) and the President's letter of May 17, 1954, cited at the beginning

of this Order.

3. Upon the completion of his testimony the employee will prepare

a memorandum outlining his testimony with a copy routed to his division head

and a copy routed to the Deputy Attorney General.

D. REQUESTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES FOR THE TESTIMONY OF FEDERAL PRISONERS

Because of the custodial hazards involved and the extent to which

their public testimony may affect the discipline and vell-being of the institu-

tion, it is the policy of the Department not to deliver Federal prisoners out-

side

the penal institution in which they are incarcerated for the purpose of

being intervieved or examined under oath by congressional committees.

However,

when it appears that no pending investigation or legal proceeding vill be

adversely affected thereby and that the public interest will not be otherwise

adversely aifected, Federal prisoners may be interviewed or examined under oath

by congressional committees in the institution in which they are incarcerated

under the following procedures, and with the specific advance approval of the

Deputy Attorney General.

I. Arrangements for interviewing and taking of sworn testimony

from a Federal prisoner by a committee of the Congress or the authorized

representatives of such a committee shall be made in the form of a written

request by the chairman of the committee to the Deputy Attorney General.

2. Such written request shall be made at least ten (10) days

prior to the requested date for the interview and the taking of testimony

and shall be accompanied by written evidence that authorization for the

interview or the taking of svorn testimony was approved by vote of the com-

mittee. Such request shall contain a statement of the purpose and the sub-

jects upon which the prisoner will be interrogated as vell as the names of

all persons other than the representatives of the Department of Justice who

will be present.

3. A member of the interested committee of the Congress shall be

present during the entire time of the interrogation.

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 81

---

## Page 82

= 4 -

4. The varden of the penal institution in which the Federal

prisoner is Incarcerated shall, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the

time at which the interview takes place, advise the Federal prisoner concerned

of the proposed interview or taling of svorn testimony; and shall further

advise that he is under the same, but no greater obligation to answer than any

other witness who is not a prisoner.

5. The warden of the penal institution shall have complete

authority in conformity with the requirements of security and the mainte-

nance of discipline to limit the number of persons who will be present at

the interview and taking of testimony.

6. The warden or his authorized representative shall be present

at the intervier and at the taking of testimony and the Department of Justice

shall have the right to have one of its representatives present throughout

the interview and taking of testimony.

T. The conmittee shall arrange to have a stenographic transcript

made of the

entire proceedings at committee expense and shall furnish a copy

of the transcript to the Department of Justice.

E. OBSERVERS IN ATTEINDANCE AT COMMITTEE HEARINGS

In order that the Department may be kept currently advised in

matters within its responsibility, and in order that the Deputy Attorney

General may properly coordinate the Department's liaison with Congress and

its committees, each division that has an observer in attendance at a

congrssional hearing, will have the observer prepare a written summary of

the proceeding which should be sent to the division head and a copy routed

to the Deputy Attorney General.

/s/ Herbert Brownell, Jr.

Attorney General

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 82

---

## Page 83

NRO35 WA CODE

4:38PM NITEL 5-20-75 PAW

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL. ATTENTION

SENSTUDY - 75.

REBUTEL MAY 2, 1975.

IN CONNECTION WITH WORK OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE SELECT

COMMITTEES, ITS REPRESENTATIVES MAY CONTACI YOUR OFFICE FOR

INFORMATION:

IN ONE RECENI INSTANCE, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SENATE

SELECT COMMITTEE TELEPHONICALLY INQUIRED AS TO IDENTITY OF SAC

IN A PARTICULAR OFFICE DURING 1970.

IN HANDLING SUCH INQUIRIES INSURE ESTABLISHING BONA FIDES

OF REPRESENTATIVE BY SHOW OF CREDENTIALS ON PERSONAL CONTACI OR,

IF TELEPHONIC CONTACT, BY TELEPHONING BACK TO COMMITTEE.

UNLESS INFORMATION IS OF A PUBLIC NATURE, AS IN THE INSTANCE

CITED ABOVE, OBTAIN FBIHQ CLEARANCE PRIOR TO SUPPLYING ANY.

INFORMATION. FBIHQ MUST BE EXPEDITIOUSLY

ADVISED OF ALL

INFORMATION FURNISHED.

END

123-2986-2

SEANCHER

INDEXED

SERIALIZED

SC FILED

MAY 2 0 1975

FBI - HOUSTON

NW 65994. Docld:32989520 Page 83

---

## Page 84

NRO74 WA CODE

9:48PM NITEL 5-2-75 MSE

TO ALL'SACS

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENTION

• SENSTUDY

CAPTIONED MATTER PERTAINS TO BUREAU'S HANDLING OF REQUESIS

FROM SENATE AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEES TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL

OPERAT VITH RESPECI TO IO ACTIVITIES. • IN CONNEC-

TION WITH WORK OF THESE COMMITTEES, STAFF MEMBERS MAY SEEK

TO INTERVIEW CURRENT AND FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

RECENTLY, THE SENATE SELECI COMITTEE (SSC) STAFF HAS

INTERVIEWED SEVERAL FORMER EMPLOYEES AND IT IS ANTICIPATED

THAT MANY MORE SUCH PERSONNEL WILL BE CONTACTED.

THE FBI HAS PLEDGED FÚLL 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

62-29864

SEARCHEL

AIVIKDEXED

SERIALIZED IL

ELLED

MAY

2 1975

FBI - HOUSTON

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 84

---

## Page 85

• PAGE TWO

PROTECIED. SHOULD 'ANY FORMER EMPLOYEE CONTACI YOUR OFFICE AND

HAVE ANY QUESTION REGARDING HIS OBLIGATION NOT TO DIVULGE INFOR-

MATION OBTAINED BY VIRTUE OF HIS PAST FBI EMPLOYMENT, HE SHOULD

BE INSTRUCTED IO CONTACT 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

PROTECIION 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

HAVE SOME BAD NEWS FOR YOU YOUR NR DOT HAS LEAD FOR LEGAI

THEREFORE IT HAS TO COME ON TAPE LINE 4287

PLEASE CHANGE ACK TO PAW FBIHQ FOR 3 12 10 AND 9 THREE TELS

NW 65994, Rocld 379895200Page 85

---

## Page 86

NRO74 WA CODE

9:48 PM VITEL 5-2-75 MSE

TO ALL SACS

FROM DIRECTOR (62-116395)

PERSONAL ATTENIION

SENST UDY 75

CAPTIONED MATTER PERTAINS. TO BUREAU'S HANDLING OF REQUESTS

FROM SENATE AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTÉES TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL

OPERATIONS WITH, RESPECT TO INIELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. IN CONNEC

TION WITH WORK OF THESE COMMITIES; STAFF MEMBERS MAX SEEK •

TO INTERVIEW CURRENT AND. FORMER FBI EMPLOYEES.

RECENTLY,, THE SENATE SELECI COMMITTEE (SSC) STAFF HAS

• INTERVIEVED SEVERAL FORMER EMPLOYEES AND IT IS ANTICIPATED

THAT MANY MORE SUCH PERSONNEL WILL BE CONTACIED.

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 CHAI SENSITIVE SOURCES AND

METHODS AND ONGOING SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIONS ARE FULLY

62-29861

SEARCHED

1 INDEXEI

SERIALIZED LL BLED TES

2. 1975

BI — HOUSTO

NW 65994 Docld:32989520 Page 86

---

## Page 87

PAGE TWO

PROTECTED. SHOULD ANX. FORMER EMPLOYEE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE AND

HAVE ANY QUESTION REGARDING HIS OBLIGATION NOT TO DIVULGE INFOR-

MATION OBTAINED BY VIRTUE OF HIS PAST FBI EMPLOYMENT, HE SHOULD

BE INSTRÚCTED TO CONTACI LEGAL COUNSEL, FBIHQ, BY COLLECT 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 IO CÜRRENT EMPLOYEES

OF YOUR OFFICE,

HOWEVER, CONTACT WITH THE LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD

BE HANDLED THROUGH THE SAG.

END

HAVE SOME BAD NEWS FOR YOU YOUD NR: 00T HAS LEAD FOR LEGAT

THEREFORE IT HAS TO COME ON

TAPE LINE 4287

PLEASE CHANGE ACK TO PAW FBIHQ FOR 3 12 IQ AND 9 THREE TELS

NW 55994 PocId:37989579 Page 87

---