[1]DARAAN
[2]Ti04-10337"t0002 | 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992 |
[4]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[6]25 August 1993
[8]NOTE FOR: All HRG Members
[9]SUBJECT: Briefing of HPSCI on Denied JFK Documents
[11]This is to let everyone know that HRG has been asked to
[12]brief the HPSCI staff on the 10,000 pages of JFK materials
[13]that we have denied in full (so far).
[15]The request came from HPSCI Chairman Dan Glickman, who
[16]apparently anticipates questions from others in Congress
[17]about the denied documents.
[19]Among the questions we are asked to address in the
[20]briefing are the following:
[22]- How many documents are involved (as opposed to
[23]pages)?
[25]- What specific types of sources and methods are
[26]we protecting?
[28]- What is the review process?
[29]- Who made the judgments to deny the documents?
[31]- Are there provisions for continuing review of the
[32]denied documents?
[34]We've asked that the briefing not take place until the
[35]week of 30 August, but HPSCI may want it sooner.
[37]John F. Pereira
[39]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[41]13-00000
[43]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[45]26 August 1993
[47]CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
[48]HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE RELEASE IN FULL
[49]2000
[51]JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS
[53]I. Overview: CIA declassification program for JFK records
[55]- Sequestered files and Oswald 201 file $ a \
[56]- Total JFK records: f fi dal Ki):
[57]; Hardcopy documents: 162,000 pages Csca malerra\ i tee
[58]Microfilm: 73 reels, 150,000 pages ‘
[59]II. Resources devoted to JFK
[60]Number of people: 15.HRG (9 staffers, 6 retirees)
[61]- 25 indexers (overtime, weekends)
[62]10 DO for coordination
[63]III. Documents Released:
[64]Oswald 35,000 pages “ ~
[65]Sequestere@ files 90,000 pages”
[66]Total 125,000 pages
[68]Indexing and identification forms for each document
[69]Show example of, iden form
[71]Withheld temporarily:
[73]HSCA-originated: 20,000 pages
[74]Third Agency 7,000 pages
[76]Denied-in-full
[77]~- Continuing review of the DIF documents by HRG
[79]- Likelihood CIA will release a number (many ?) of DIF
[80]- Review Board's determination on DIF items
[82]SAN = te br Paw |
[84]13-00000
[86]Iv.
[88]VI.
[90]vit.
[92]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[94]Identification forms provided to NARA for each DIF
[96]Document
[97]Types of information protected in DIF items
[99]- Grounds for postponement of information under JFK
[100].Law
[102]Who made judgments on withholding documents
[104]15 reviewers
[106]Followed procedures
[108]Senior Reviewers provided guidance ;
[109]Directorates coordinated
[110]Third agency coordination
[112]Issues for Review Board
[114]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[116]13-00000
[118]FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[120]CIA SPECIAL CQLL.RGEIONS
[121]HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE . RELEASE IN FULL
[122]2000
[124]JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS
[126]Introduction: Discuss how CIA fulfilled requirements of the
[127]——_— JFK Act..
[128]-Discuss the withheld documents
[130]General Remarks
[132]1. Every JFK record will be seen by the Review Board.
[134]2. We have fcllowed the JFK Assassination Records Act
[135]in determining which records will be postponed. (Section 6)
[137]- Our presumption was that a record would be released.
[138]3. We made every effort to meet the 22 August deadline
[139]established by the JFK Act. The Director was committed to
[140]this. :
[142]... _@. This called for a major eftort--additional people,
[143]lot of overtime and weekend shifts.
[145]‘5. We are continuing to review the postponed documents,
[146]and expect to release a high percentage of them.
[148]AEEEMTE LSE
[150]13-00000
[152]23 January 1996.
[154]CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS -
[155]Memo for Record RELEASE IN FULL
[157]Subject: - Status of JFK Records Review 2000
[159]References: Letter from Marwell to Pereira, dtd 15 Dec 96,
[160](same subject) ;
[161]Letter from Pereira to Marwell, dtd 19 Jan 96,
[162](response to above letter);
[163]Phone Conversation with Marwell, 22 Jan 96,
[164](same subject).
[166]1. Marwell requested a figure for the number of
[167]records in the sequestered files that contained
[168]postponements. I explained that our review figures were
[169]based on pages and that there was no record count for the
[170]microfilm part of the collection. However, based on the HRG
[171]index unaudited record count (see below) of the Oswald 201
[172]file and the JFK hardcopy boxes, I was able to give him an
[173]estimate of 28,000 records..
[175]2. Unaudited HRG Index statistics:
[177]Total Records Records w/Postponements
[178]Oswald . . 4, 349. . . ae meee wee eee eee T,871
[179]JFK , ;
[180](63 boxes) 28,532 a 12,132
[182]32,881 (154,724 pages) 14,003
[184]The page count for the hardcopy part of the collection is
[185]within 10,000 pages of the Microfilm (163,500). Given that
[186]the microfilm contains many duplicates and similar records
[187]as the hardcopy, the percentage of sanitized documents
[188]should be close to the same. I estimate the total number of
[189]records with postponements to be approximately 28,000.
[191]13-00000
[193]ae CONFIDENTIAL
[194]NOTE FOR: _ (Richard E. Schroeder ;
[195]FROM: ohn F. Pereira
[196]DATE: 03/27/96 05:54:53 PM
[197]SUBJECT: Phone Conversation with Susan Oullette, HPSCI
[199]As you requested, | called Susan Oullette, HPSCI Staff today to respond to her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said that
[200]the Committee was interested in the process used for declassifying the records, the status of our review, and what criteria we use for
[201]declassification.
[203]Following ara among the main topics we covered during a discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-II:
[205]- A description of the JFK records held by CIA
[206]- Process of declassification (review by retired senior officers, coordination with DO,
[207]OGC, others) ;
[208]+ Criteria for redaction
[209]- Coordination with FBI, other agencies on third agency documents.
[210]- Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination Records Review Board
[211]-+ Differences with the Board on release of certain information e.9.,
[212]names of former employees, identification of stations
[213]-+ Current appeal to the White House of decision by Board to release
[214]certain information we redacted.
[215]- Efforts of the Board to identify additional records, including in other
[216]countries
[217]soc Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but she would let me know if more would be needed. | invited her to visit us if
[218]she wanted more details or to look at the records.
[220]ce: Brian S. Latell, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO
[222]CONFIDENTIAL
[227]. CONFIDENTIAL
[228]EVENT: QUICK COM DATE: 03/27/96 TIME: 1500
[229]PLACE: 7BOO HOS STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05672
[231]FOR: HPSCI
[232]SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
[234]RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ICHARD SCHROEDER: - SECURE: 3-9940
[236]---> (PARTICIPANTS) <---
[238]ASSOC NAME ROLE
[239]STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCT)
[240]CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI) BRFR
[242]EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
[244]In response to a request from HPSCI staffer Susan
[245]Ouellettee, John Pereira, Chief of the Center for the Study
[246]of Intelligence's Historical Review Group, called her to
[247]discuss staff questions. Attached is his memo of that
[249]‘telecon.
[251]QUOTE:
[253]--I called Susan Ouellette, HPSCI Staff today to respond to
[255]her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said
[256]that the Committee was interested in the process used for
[257]declassifying the records, the status of our review, and
[258]what criteria we use for declassification.
[260]Following are among the main topics we covered during a
[261]discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-III:
[262]- A description of the JFK records held by
[263]CIA :
[264]- Process of declassification (review by
[265]retired senior officers, coordination ;
[266]with DO, OGC, others)
[267]- Criteria for redaction .
[268]- Coordination with FBI, other agencies on
[269]third agency documents.
[270]- Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination
[271]Records Review Board
[272]. - - Differences with the Board
[273]on release of certain information
[274]e.g., names of former
[275]employees, identification of stations
[276]- - Current appeal to the White
[277]House of decision by Board to
[278]; release certain information
[279]we redacted.
[282]13-00000 |
[284]~ - - Efforts of the Board to
[285]identify additional records, including
[287]in other countries
[289]Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but
[290]she would let me know if more would be needed. I invited
[292]her to visit us if she wanted more details or to look at the
[293]records.
[295]END QUOTE
[297]SUPPORTING TEXT:
[299]no further text in this document  (U)
[301](Richard E. Schroeder }
[302]DCI /OCA/CLG
[303]28 March 1996
[307]DO/ORMS
[308]DDI
[310]OGC
[312]OCA
[314]RES chrono
[316]CL By 620119 |\ ”
[318]CL REASON 1.5C
[320]DECL ON X1
[322]DRV FM HUM 4-82
[323]CONFIDENTIAL
[326]13-00000 |
[330]vo SECRET
[332]From the Desk of Richard E. SchroedérC-
[334]NOTE FOR: John Pereira
[335](Laurie Goodwin @ DO
[336]FROM: (Richard E. Schroeder)C-
[337]DATE: 03/28/96 01:19:41 PM
[338]SUBJECT: HPSCI Request for staff brief on JFK assassination
[340]HPSCI staffer Susan Ouellette liked John Pereira's 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue {see attached note) so much that
[341]she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on two issues mentioned by
[342]John in the telecon:
[344]~-Differences with the Board on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations),
[345]and ~Current appeal to the White House of decesion of Board to release certain info we redacted.
[347]Defer to John and D0 addees to work out who'll brief (see separate note from DO/ORMS'Laurie Goodwinyre Bill McNair.)
[349]Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4, or Apr 9, 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open.
[350]John, pls advise your timing preference. Thanks.
[352]C9605672.D0C
[354]ce: Brian Latell
[355]Barry Harrelson
[356]Fred Wickham @ DO
[357]William McNair @ DO
[358](Virginia B- OKUM @ DO
[359]Montgomery Rogers
[360](Charles Boykin
[362]{ Jacqueline Mitchell 7
[364]SECRET
[366]13-00000
[368]MEMORANDUM FOR:
[370]Attendees at the meeting with HPSI Members on Wed:
[371]‘Mike Sheehy 7
[372]Christine Healey.
[374]Bi ieser _
[376]FORM FO] USE PREVIOUS - : -
[377]5-75 EOITIONS *U.S. GPO: 1989-253-195/00416
[379]Lele TS Median alce RS
[381]Ree
[384]13-00000 -
[386]toe
[388]SECRET
[390]TO: John Pereira
[392](laurie Goodwin @ DO
[393]FROM: (Richard E. Schroeder:C-
[394]DATE: 04/03/96 12:57:18 PM
[396]SUBJECT: [ Re: HPSCI Request for staff brief on JFK assassination
[398]HPSCI staffer Susan Ouellette liked John Pereira's 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue (see attached note) so much that
[399]she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on two issues mentioned by —
[400]John in the telecon:
[402]~-Differences with the Board on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations},
[403]end ~-Current appeal to the White House of decesion of Board to release certain info we redacted. ,
[405]Defer to John and DG addees to work aut who'll brief (see separate note from DO/ORMSiLaurie Goodwin te Bill McNair.)
[407]Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4 or Apr 9, 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open.
[408]John, pls advise your timing preference. Thanks.
[410]C9605672.D0C
[412]I've now confirmed our briefing for HPSCt at 1030 Weds 10 April. Pls let me know who will attend for CSE and the D0.
[413]Thanks. OCA van will depart from OHB Main Entrance at 1000. RES 1255/3Apr96.
[415]CC: Brian Latell, Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO, William McNair @ DO, Virginia B. OKUM,@ DO, Montgomery
[417]Rogers, (Charles Boykin/\oyce Woodburn, Jacqueline Mitchell 7
[419]SECRET
[421]13-00000 -
[423]a _ . ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[425]From the Desk of {Linda C. Cipriani OY 25 my a
[426]rom the Vesk of Linda G. Lipriani SEL E
[428]NOTE FOR: John F. Pereira
[430]J. Barry Harrelson
[431]FROM:
[432]DATE: 04/09/96 01:51:24 PM
[433]SUBJECT: HPSCI talking points
[435]Thought you may be interested in seeing in advance an outline of what | plan to say at the HPSCI briefing. Of course, | will be ready to
[436]alter this according to the circumstances of the meeting!
[438]Talking Points
[440]I. Statutory Authorities of the JFK Board
[442]1. The JFK Act states that all government records relating
[443]to the JFK assassination should carry a presumption of immediate
[444]disclosure and that all records will eventually be disclosed.
[445]Although the Act allows for the postponement of release of
[446]certain information, all records will be disclosed in full by
[447]°2017 unless the President certifies that protection is still
[448]necessary.
[450]2. Under the JFK Act, the JFK Board determines what is an
[451]"assassination record" and whether an assassination record
[452]qualifies for postponement. The Board has the power to direct a
[453]government agency to make available to it, not only assassination
[454]records, but additional information which it believes is
[455]necessary to fullfill its duties under the Act. It has has the
[456]power to request the Attorney General to subpoena private
[457]persons, records and other information relevant to its
[458]responsibilities under the Act. ;
[460]II. Appeal Procedures set out in JFK Act
[462]1. Once Board has determined whether a record shall be
[463]released or postponed, it must send a "Notification Letter" to
[464]the head of the agency (DCI)
[466]2. Only recourse for an agency that disagrees with Board
[467]determination is to appeal to the President.
[469]3. The President has 30 days from the date of the
[470]Notification Letter to reply to appeal
[471]a. White House asks that agencies submit any
[472]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY ‘<
[475]NRET
[479]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[481]appeals within 7 days of receiving Notification Letter
[483]4. CIA has never before presented an appeal to the
[484]President; FBI presented an appeal last year but the White House
[485]told the parties to work out their difficulties.
[487]III. February 8th Appeal
[489]1. In November and December of 1995, the JFK Board
[490]notified DCI of the release of documents that would:
[492]- implicate high- ranking (Mexican) officials ina
[493](tel-tap) operation against Eoreign embassies - liaison
[495](December 7)
[496]- reveal station in \Helsin! (December 27)
[497]- identify sensitive {unilateral} source in the
[499]Nicaraguan) service (November 28) '
[501]2. On February 8, DCI submitted an appeal to the President
[502]on these issues.
[504]a. Admittedly, CIA did have problems getting appeal
[505]out on time. The JFK staff was very understanding of our time
[506]problems and arranged to give us more time. They too have
[507]recognized that the time periods set out in the Act are too short
[509]-to bring an appeal.
[511]b. The reason for CIA's delay was simply because the
[512]decision to appeal a Board determination to the President of the
[513]US is very difficult one to make, both on a procedural and a
[514]substantive level. As CIA never did an appeal before, it did not
[515]have an efficient system worked out. -
[517]c. Today, the procedure is as follows: Once HRG is
[518]notified of Board decisions, they immediately pass this on to OGC
[519]and the DO. The appropriate components within DO are asked
[520]whether the release would cause current damage to the national
[521]security or intelligence operations or sources. If so, they are
[522]tasked to provide a written assessment of that damage.
[524]d. An appeal package is then prepared by OGC and the
[525]DO. This package must then be approved by GC, DDO, EXDIR, DDCI
[526]and DCI.
[528]e. Although CIA's turn around time is improving, it
[529]can take several weeks to task the appropriate people, have them
[530]gather the information needed to prepare an appeal and then get
[531]this up to the DCI.
[533]3. Despite our time problems, the JFK Staff was ©
[534]cooperative in the process of bringing this appeal to the
[536]President:
[538]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY ™ Of ey
[540]13-00000 |
[542]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[544]“eCity
[546]a. Before submitting appeal to the President, I faxed ~
[547]copy of appeal to JFK Board's General Counsel with the idea that
[548]if it presented new and convincing evidence, he would present it
[549]to the Board during its session.
[551]b. Shortly after submitting the appeal to the
[552]President, I spoke with White House Counsel and Counsel to JFK
[553]Board. We agreed to put the appeal on hold until the Board could
[554]review CIA's submission to the White House and possibly
[555]reconsider its determinations in light of additional information
[556]presented in the appeal.
[558]c. I talked with JFK Board's Counsel and Executive
[559]Director regularly about the best way to handle the appeal. I
[560]arranged with them to have the General Counsel of CIA to come to
[561]the Board's February meeting and present new information
[562]regarding the issues on appeal.
[564]d. On February 29, the General Counsel of CIA and I
[565]met with the JFK Board and their staff. We discussed issues on
[566]eal as well as 3 other stations recently released (Osio7\
[568]Stockholm, Copenhagen) .
[570]e. Based on the information presented by CIA at this
[571]meeting, the Board reconsidered and agreed to protect all of the
[572]issues on appeal as well as 3 other stations. .
[574]IV. Future appeal procedures
[576]1. Both JFK Board and CIA agree that we should never have
[577]to appeal something to the President and we should try to work
[578]out difficult issues on our own.
[580]2. In the last 2 months, when CIA believed that a release
[581]would damage the national security, the Board has invited us to
[582]their meetings to present additional evidence on the issue. In
[583]some cases, they have reconsidered their decision and protected
[584]the information.
[586]3. The Board also recently released {fokyo|station - we are
[587]arranging to meet with them at the end of this month to present
[588]stronger arguments. for protecting this station.
[590]4. The Board is now considering the release of names of
[591]CIA employees who retired under cover. It is very important for
[592]CIA's mission that the names of its employees, especially those
[593]who remain covert, be protected even after retirement. In the
[594]spirit of cooperation and in the hopes of getting the Board to
[595]understand this, CIA helped arrange a meeting between the JFK
[596]Board's General Counsel and a retired CIA covert employee
[598]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY ve Chey
[599]i
[602]as © . ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY GGHET
[604]currently living in Europe. CIA hopes that after hearing from
[605]the employee about his objections to having his name released and
[606]the harm that may come to him, the Board will agree to protect
[607]his name, and others like him, from release.
[609]ce:
[611]Stary
[613]ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[615]13-00000
[617]1 ee
[618]ue .
[620]SECRET
[622]HPSCI BRIEFING - JFK DECLASSIFICATION 10 April 1996
[624]1. Nature of the records--Oswald 201, Sequestered Wards copy frien She
[625]4 be TD
[626]- Other records: Minutes of DCI morning meetings; working
[627]files
[628]- Third Agency documents: FBI, SSCI, Presidential libraries
[629]=> 2. Pages released (227,000)
[630]- Percentage of( pags Yedacted; 70 % ;
[631]3. Process of declassification
[632]- Former senior officers in HRG review
[634]- Coordination with OGC, DO (DO team detailed to HRG)
[636]-4;-- Standards for review in JFK Assassination Records Collection
[638]Act, 1992
[639]nasal Santee - Records related to the assassination or investigation _
[640]3h Seed of into the assassination [Coven or \e act votes |
[641]recvrelg - Law provides grounds for postponement of disclosure of
[643]. records
[645]ea
[647]-- “Clear and convincing evidence“ must be pre-
[648]sented to the Board
[650]E.g., Identity of agent currently requiring
[651]protection ;
[653]- Source or method currently utilized
[655]- Foreign government relationship cur-
[656]rently requiring protection
[658]5. Board has authority to release records unless it agrees there
[659]is “clear and convincing evidence” to support a postponement
[661]- Board then has to justify on the record each redaction
[662]with which it agrees
[664]- Once a determination is made, Board must publish it in
[665]Federal Register within 14 days
[668]13-00000
[670].
[672]- Options available: substitute language e.g., “Northern
[673]European station”
[675]- Also, summary of a record
[676]- Board has access to every document in full
[677]6. Issues raised by Board's decisions:
[679]- Problem: Board has difficulty in linking disclosure of
[680]information that is 30 years old with damage to current
[681]intelligence operations
[685]- Identification of stations e.g., (Helsinki? \ ~ Sept V864
[687]oe Reels
[689]- Names of former Agency employees who retired under cover
[691]- Board guidelines: Protect person if retired under
[693]Ke cover and now resjding ,verseas, but mot i in US a
[694]C YEA. Ae Fou he adda vn ey iiOunes.
[696]- Giafson, joint operation
[698]- Briefing of the Board by ave’ Edger, Jeff Smith, Central
[699]Cover, DO desk officers, others
[701]- Problem of accumulative effect of releases--eroding cover,
[702]ability to conduct operations
[704]7. Provision for appeal to the White House if we disagree
[705]with Board's determination
[707]- President has sole authority to require postponement of
[708]a record or information
[710]--President required to advise the Board within 30 days
[711]of the Board's determination
[713]-- This is published in the Federal Register
[714]8. Current appeal (now resolved)
[716]- Issues: identification of Agency asset
[718]liaison relationship \ Jocuword excel os
[719]identification of station
[721]- Potential appeal: (Tok@ef station (
[723]9. Additional requests of Board to review other records e.g.,
[725]history of Mexico City station, Intelligence Community Staff
[726]records
[728]Noles 5 Roord does at ecespt an ye ate" . an
[729]Pos tpanewrent — we perbes eovthe, ins ae usl Keatwn Ge
[730]*Bven if Oe FOR Wan t ko prt hee de Crea mex dtseysewant<
[731]oven Spec CAC] J ak CoA Gtr (San ate He €
[733]secetal sf by Tee pre FUCA ele,
[735]13-00000
[737]; SECRET. Page 1
[738]f : , ;
[739]WTC/Memorandum for the Record
[740]EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE:04/10/96 TIME: 1030 STATUS: COMPLETE
[741]PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL ,
[742]' FOR: HPSCI
[743]SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
[744]—- (PARTICIPANTS ) —--
[745]ASSOC NAME ( ) ROLE
[746]STAFF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCTI)
[747]STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
[748]STAFF EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
[749]’ STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
[750]STAFF LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCT)
[751]STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
[752]STAFF SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
[753]CIA §=—-—sSO(CIPRIANI, LINDA) (DCI/occ) © BRFR
[754]CIA HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI) - BRFR
[755]CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI) BRFR
[756]CIA (SCHROEDER, RICHARD) (DCI/OcA) SPR
[757]CIA WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS) BRFR
[758]—-- ( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY )— .
[760]Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination
[761]declassification issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI,DO,and.OGC. briefed staff.on-the status.of the JFK
[762]dectassification effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination Records Review Board and the scope of the
[763]Board's authority, and the details of some current declassification issues we have been addressing with the Board. We noted
[764]the close working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and said that the Board staff is trying to understand the
[765]Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under the
[766]1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and methods. (S)
[768]——( ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ) —-
[770]1. C/CSW/Historical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly describing the nature of the CIA JFK material. The
[771]open-ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered after the assassination, and the "sequestered file” is that material
[772]that was assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. The material was originally sanitized and released to the
[773]National Archives in 1993. We are now reviewing the 227,000 pages and attempting to justify the material we withheld. Some
[774]seventy percent of the released material contains redactions, although {ater in the briefing we noted that as our experience has
[775]grown the redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25
[776]senior annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham, have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed
[777]out that we are not only reviewing the assassination records, but those records bearing on the House Assassinations
[778]Committee's investigation of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic historians who make up the Board, and
[779]said they are supported by 30 full-time Board staffers headed by former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell.
[781]CL BY O
[782]CL REASON 1.5C
[783]DECLON X11
[785]DRV FM HUM 4-82
[787]SECRET
[790]13-00000 |
[791]; SECRET Page 2
[793]WTC/Memorandum for the Record —
[794](KEY: 6/96-05677)
[795]Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone
[796]release, and said that the Board requires “current justification" if we want to protect agent identities, sources and methods, or
[797]liaison identities. Under the law, the Board has the authority to release all intormation, and must justify in the Federal Register
[798]within 14 days any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all documents. Pereira said that we negotiate with the Board
[800]Board is making an "honest effort" to see the connection between 30 year old information and current damage to Agency
[801]equities. Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that
[802]the Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have
[803]briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem." Harrelson pointed out that our} joint teltaps had recorded Oswald himself
[804]although we assured the clearly unhappy Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact thatdiaison cooperated in the teltaps) We We
[805]also noted our effort to protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although we are working particularly hard incases
[806]where the Agency employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are concemed about the cumulative erosive effect on our
[807]‘cover and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the Board tends to focus on individual specific cases without always
[808]focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete decisions. (S) i
[810]2. (Cipriani described the appeals process specified in the 1992 JFK Act. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which he’
[811]studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992 act, documents related to JFK carry the “presumption of release," with the
[812]Board defining which records fall under the act.. We have to justify any redactions or postponements, and Board decisions can
[813]only be appealed to the President himself (which, as Cipriani'dryly noted, tends to inhibit appeals.) The act also specifics very
[814]short deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get
[815]our appeals out of Hqs and to the White House--a practical impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three issues: (i) a
[817]cable implicating seniorMexican officials in our joint teltaps} (i) the identification of the very sensitive Helsinki’Station, and (ii)
[818]the identity of a\Nicaraguan’source. ‘In fact our appeal took several months, with the Board being very y accommodating about
[819]the delay, and we finally were able to give the Board enough justification and explanation that they changed their position and
[820]spared the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency declassification team includes a DO team (as noted
[821]above,) and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem. (Cipriani'responded that new information arises for the
[822]Board to consider in making its determination, and Wickham elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal sensitive
[823]current information to protect old material. He characterized this as a problem of "DO culture." At the same time, he cited the
[824]specific example of the(Mexicans declining to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip as illustrative of Mexican }
[825](Sensitivity to the li to the liaison issue.) We later noted that the only other appeal thus far involves the FBI, and the White House has
[827]told the Bureau to resolve the matter with the Board. (S)
[829]3. Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material, and
[830]illustrated by showing the staff a bulky recent Board declassification notification which we must review to confirm we have no
[831]problem with the material involved. In response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that the original redaction and
[832]submission to the Board took place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards and judgements have evolved
[833]since then. Further, we have to double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some cases compare substitute
[834]language. Sheehy asked why we would object to such a thing as the acknowledgment of T okyo Station, and seemed
[835]impressed and persuaded when Wickham patiently explained that both the{Japanese} and’Ambassador Mondale|have strongly
[836]recommended against confirming the existence. of the Station. The Japaneselare very sensitive to any public
[837]acknowledgment of ouriliaison relationship. Wickham noted that the Board is trying to document Oswald's travels, and wants
[838]to identify stations reporting such travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report the facts, but want to protect details
[840]SECRET
[842]13-00000 |
[844]ne , SECRET Page 3
[846]WTC/Memorandum for the Record
[847](KEY: C/96-05677))
[849]that do not add to the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey question, Pereira said we are making progress in
[850]giving the Board staff the context and framework necessary to appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff tries
[851]very hard to give the Board necessary background, and Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very good
[852]working relationship with the staff. Under the provisions of the Act, the Board will be working until October 1997, dealing with
[853]CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as private individuals and even foreign governments. They are interviewing people, and as
[854]Pereira noted, "getting theories." (S)
[856]4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority Staffer Eberwein,
[857]perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by Deputy Majority Director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and methods,
[858]however, expressed concern later about possibly amending the '92 act to moderate the act's bias toward release. Indeed, she
[859]contacted OCA lawyer|Cindy Ellisfand asked her to draft language amending the act. It had not been my impression during
[860]the briefing that staff had been especially concerned about the act to the point of intending to modify it, and its also unclear
[861]whether Eberwein was acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership in asking OCA to suggest modifications to
[862]the act. (S)
[864]o~,
[867]Richard E. Schroeder,(C
[868]CIA Liaison Group f
[869]Office of Congressional Affairs
[871]foe pad
[872]DCVOCA/CLGIRESchroederidms/39940 (15 Apr 96)
[874]Distribution:
[875]Original - OCA Records
[876]1-D/OCA
[877]1 - DCI/CSI
[878]1 - DO/IMS
[879]1 - DO/ORMS/CAG
[880]1 - DCVOGC
[882]1- - RESchroeder Chrono
[884]----- (FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS) —~—
[885]There were no Action Items on file for this event.
[887]SECRET
[889]13-00000
[891]a SECRET
[892]: EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030
[893]PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05677
[894]FOR: HPSCI _
[895]SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS J
[896]RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: (RIGHARD SCHR - SECURE: 3-9940
[897]---> (PARTICIPANTS) <---
[899]Assoc NAME ROLE
[900]STAFF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI)
[901]STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
[902]STAFF EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
[903]STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
[904]STAFF LOWENTHAL,: MARK M. (HPSCI)
[905]STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
[906]STAFF SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
[907]CIA (CIPRIANI, LINDA) (DCI/oGC) BRFR
[908]CIA HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI) _ BRFR
[910]| “CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI) BRFR
[911]4 CIA (SCHROEDER, RIGHARD! (DCI/oca) SPRT
[913]a CIA WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS) BRFR
[915]PT Fie NEL sie RR. rg tate epee ee
[917]SOTA
[919]13-00000 |
[921]SECRET
[922]EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030
[923]PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05677
[925]FOR: HPSCI
[926]SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
[928]RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: - SECURE: 3-9940
[930]---> (PARTICIPANTS) <---
[932]ASSOC NAME ROLE
[933]STAFF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI)
[935]STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
[937]STAFF EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
[939]STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
[941]STAFF LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI)
[943]STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCT)
[945]STAFF SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
[947]CIA (CIPRIANI, LINDA ](DCI/OGC) BRFR
[948]CIA HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI) BRFR
[949]CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI) BRFR
[950]CIA (SCHROEDER, RICHARD) (DCI/OCA) _  SPRT
[951]CIA. -WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS) BRFR
[953]EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
[955]Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which
[956]HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination declassification
[957]issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI, DO, and OGC
[958]briefed staff on the status of the JFK declassification
[959]effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination
[960]Records Review Board and the scope of the Board's authority,
[961]and the details of some current declassification issues we
[962]have been addressing with the Board. We noted the close
[963]working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and
[964]said that the Board staff is trying to understand the
[965]Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed
[966]concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under
[967]the 1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of
[968]intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and
[969]methods. (S)
[971]SUPPORTING TEXT:
[973]1. C/CSI/Historical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly
[974]describing the nature of the CIA JFK material. The open-
[975]ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered later,
[976]and the "sequestered file" is that material that was
[978]13-00000 .
[980]assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. All is
[981]being processed for declassification, with some 227,000
[982]pages already released. Some seventy percent of the
[983]released material contains redactions, although later in the
[984]briefing we noted that as our experience has grown the
[985]redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up
[986]to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25 senior
[987]annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham,
[988]have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed
[989]out that we are not only reviewing the assassination
[990]records, but those records bearinmg on our own investigation
[991]‘of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic
[992]historians who make up the Board, and said they are
[993]supported by thirty full-time Board staffers headed by
[994]former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell.
[995]Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must
[996]have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone
[997]release, and said that the Board requires "current
[998]justification" if we want to protect agent identities,
[999]sources and methods, or liaison identities. Under the law,
[1000]the Board has the authority to release all information, and
[1001]_must justify in the Federal Register within fourteen days
[1002]any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all
[1003]documents. Pereira said that we negotiate with the Board
[1004]the use of summaries or generic descriptions (such as
[1005]substituting "a northern European station" for Helsinki) and
[1006]that the Board is making an
[1007]"honest effort" to see the connection between thirty year
[1008]old information and current damage to Agency equities.
[1009]Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the
[1010]concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that ‘the
[1011]Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and
[1012]that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have
[1013]briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem."
[1014]Harrelson pointed out that our (joint teltaps had recorded}
[1015]swa imself, although we assured the clearly unhappy
[1016]Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact that
[1017](Cooperated in the teltaps|. We also noted our effort to
[1018]protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although
[1019]we are working particularly hard in cases where the Agency
[1020]employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are
[1021]concerned about the cumulative erosive effect on our cover
[1022]and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the
[1023]Boards tends to focus on individual specific cases without
[1024]recognizing the broader cumulative impact of their discrete
[1025]decisions. (S).
[1027]2. (@ipriani}described the appeals process specified in the
[1028]1992 JKF Act. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which
[1029]he studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992
[1030]act, documents related to JFK carry the "presumption of
[1031]release," with the Board defining which records fall under
[1032]the act. We have to justify any redactions or
[1033]postponements, and Board decisions can only be appealed to
[1035]13-00000 |
[1037]the President himself (which, as Cipriani} dryly noted, tends
[1038]to inhibit appeals.) The act also specifics very short
[1039]deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his
[1040]decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get
[1041]our appeals out of Hqs.and to the White House--a practical
[1042]impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three
[1043]issues: (i) a cable implicating senior Mexican officials [in]
[1044]four joint teltaps) (ii) the identification of the very
[1045]sensitive \Helsinki) Station, and (iii) the identity of a
[1046]Nicaraguan source. In fact our appeal took several months,
[1047]with the Board being very accommodating about the delay, and
[1048]we finally were able to give the Board enough justification
[1049]and explanation that they changed their position and spared
[1050]the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency
[1051]declassification team includes a DO team (as noted above,)
[1052]and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem.
[1053]Cipriani responded that new information arises for the Board
[1054]to consider in making its determination, and Wickham
[1055]elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal
[1056]sensitive current information to protect old material. He
[1057]characterized this as a problem of "DO culture." At the
[1059]same time, he cited the specific example jof the Mexicans
[1061]/declining to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip
[1062]\as_ illustrative of Mexican sensitivity to the liaison issue./
[1064]We later noted that the only other appeal thus far involves
[1065]the FBI, and the White House has told the Bureau to resolve
[1066]the matter with the Board. (S)
[1068]3. Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with
[1069]very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material,
[1070]and illustrated by showing the staff a buiky recent Board
[1071]declassification notification which we must review to
[1072]confirm we have no problem with the material involved. In
[1073]response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that
[1074]the original redaction and submission to the Board took
[1075]place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards
[1076]and judgements have evolved since then. Further, we have to
[1077]double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some
[1078]cases compare substitute language. Sheehy asked why we_
[1079]would object to such a thing as the acknowledgement of (Tokyo/
[1080]station, and seemed impressed and persuaded when Wickham
[1081]patiently explained that both the Gapanese) and /Ambassador }
[1082](Mondale? have strongly recommended against confirming the
[1083]existence of the station. The (Japanese! are very sensitive
[1084]to any public acknowledgement of our (Liaison) relationship.
[1085]Wickham noted that the Board is trying to document Oswald's
[1086]travels, and wants to identify stations reporting such
[1087]travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report
[1088]the facts, but want to protect details that do not add to
[1089]the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey
[1090]question, Pereira said we are making progress in giving the
[1091]Board staff the context and framework necessary. to
[1092]appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff
[1093]tries very hard to give the Board necessary background, and
[1095]13-00000 |
[1097]‘.
[1100]Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very
[1101]good working relationship with the staff. Under the
[1102]provisions of the act, the Board will be working until
[1103]October 1997, dealing with CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as
[1104]private individuals and even foreign governments. They are
[1105]interviewing people, and as Pereira noted, "getting
[1106]theories." (S)
[1108]4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like
[1109]Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority staffer
[1110]Eberwein, perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by deputy
[1111]majority director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and
[1112]methods, however, expressed concern later about possibly
[1113]amending the '92 act to moderate the act's bias toward
[1114]release. Indeed, she contacted OCA lawyer {Cindy Ellis) and
[1115]asked her to draft language amending the act. It had not
[1116]been my impression during the briefing that staff had been
[1117]especially concerned about the act to the point of intending
[1118]to modify it, and its also unclear whether Eberwein was
[1119]acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership)
[1120]in asking OCA to suggest modifications to the act. (8S)
[1122](Richard E. Schroedér_\
[1123]DCI /OCA/CLG
[1124]15 April 1996
[1126]Distribution: DCI/CSI .
[1127]DO/ORMS
[1128]DO/IMS
[1129]OCA
[1130]OGC
[1131]RES chrono
[1133]CL BY 620119 |
[1135]CL. REASON 1.5C
[1137]DECL ON X1
[1139]DRV FM HUM 4-82
[1140]SECRET
[1142]13-00000
[1144]SECRET
[1146]TO: (Richard E. Schroeder:C-
[1147]FROM: (Lind. Cpa
[1148]DATE: 04/15/96 05:30:04 PM
[1150]SUBJECT: [ Re: DRAFT--OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief
[1152]Looks OK to me - [ was especially pleased to read that the staff was concerned about the the presumption for release in the Act and
[1153]asked (Cindy Ellis\to draft language modifying the act. I#Cindy needs any help, | would be very happy to give her some suggestions!
[1155]| would greatly appreciate being kept informed as this progresses.
[1156]Thanks {Linda \
[1158]ce: " John Pereira, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO,(Linda Cipriani
[1160]SECRET
[1162]13-00000
[1164]ane SECRET
[1166]TO: Richard E. Schroeder-C-
[1168]FROM: John F. Pereira
[1169]DATE: 04/16/96 02:40:06 PM
[1170]SUBJECT: [ Re: DRAFT--OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief
[1172]The MER looks basically fine.
[1173]Two minor suggestions:
[1175]Par 1.- change “our own investigation” to the House Assassinations Committee's investigation
[1177]Par 1, last sent. - change last part of sent to read without always focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete
[1178]decisions.
[1180]ce: J. Barry Harrelson -
[1182]SECRET