[1]14-0000
[3]104-10105-10102 | 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992
[5]1 July 1976
[7]MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Security
[9]93
[10]FROM + Gherwood R. Bosworth >
[11]xternal Activities Branch
[13]SUBJECT : Manuscript by David Phillips .
[15]1. Attached herewith is a proposed letter to
[16]Mr. David A. Phillips outlining deletions which the
[17]Agency would like made from his book. The general tone
[18]of the responses from Agency components was that, if
[19]possible, this book should not be published. In the view
[20]of most, it dangerously reveals sources and methods,
[21]internal organization, missions, and functions. It also
[22]provides public confirmation of covert Agency activities
[23]and the disruption and’ reduced morale created by Agee
[24]and others.
[26]2. However, on the assumption that publication
[27]could not or would not be blocked, the operating components
[28]catalogued their most serious concerns. The attached
[29]letter to Mr. Phillips includes many of these reservations.
[30]The chapter by chapter review, which appears later in
[31]this memorandum, contains those recommendations for deletion
[32]which, for various explained reasons, should not be forwarded
[33]to Mr. Phillips.
[35]3. Before proceeding with the manuscript review,
[36]we would like to advise that Mr. John Greaney of OGC has
[37]‘volunteered his services to accompany you or Mr. Stembridge
[38]when our proposals are placed before Mr. Phillips. Due
[39]to time limitations, he has not had a chance to review
[40]this memorandum or the proposed letter to Mr. Phillips
[41]_as of this date.
[43]OS 6 2899-A
[45]14-0000
[47]© ARF ag
[48]WS “eelerouns Us9 Oniky
[49]“ER ep rescues
[51]Ses
[53]4. The following is a compilation of items of concern
[54]to Agency components which were. not included in the letter
[55]to Mr. Phillips. This does not include chapters one and
[56]six which have been previously reviewed and returned to
[57]Mr. Phillips.
[59]5. Chapter two: Guatemala
[61]a. Several offices expressed concérn that this -
[62]book, for the first time, confirms the CIA's role with
[63]Col. Armas and the coup. However, since it would be
[64]difficult to defend a classification on this, it was
[65]not included in the letter to Mr. Phillips. The same
[66]was true of the reference to the coup in Iran (p. 43).
[68]b. Another area of concern was our relationship
[69]with the FBI in connection with his arrest and our use
[70]of false identity papers in the U. S.. Of particular
[71]concern was mention of a capability to alter FBI criminal
[72]records. Again, we. don't believe we can prove classification.
[74]c. The one item which could have been deleted
[75]was a footnote on page 35 which inferred that the CIA |
[76]had indemnified Lloyd's of London. for a sunken ship..
[78]LA Division was able only to ascertain that no payment
[79]had been made as of August 1960. Since the footnote
[81]‘begins "press reports claimed that . .."without further
[83]specifying the source, we felt it best to make no comment
[84]to Mr. Phillips on this point.
[86]6. Chapter three: Havana and Beirut
[88]a. Some concern was expressed regarding the
[89]paragraph on page 13 explaining salary off-set for deep
[90]cover officers. Although this may be truely classified,
[91]it might be best to let it remain as is, to dissuade.
[92]readers that the Agency or its officers are making extra
[94]‘money on the side.
[96]b. Other comments ‘related to the details of
[97]Mr. Wisner's death (p. 5); connecting Ernest Hemmingway
[98]with the Havana COS {p. 21); and confirming that an
[100]14-0000
[102]meh gs | RETURN TO cia
[103]_ ; Background Use Only
[104]EG0.Not Searcuucs
[106]American executed by the Cubans was a CIA NOC (p. 48).
[107]The latter point, while clearly sensitive, was not raised
[108]to Mr. Phillips as LA Division posed no specific objection.
[110]7. Chapter four: Bay of Pigs
[112]a. Some objection was raised to Mr. Phillips
[113]citing the Gulf Steamship Company as a cover for the
[114]broadcasting aspect of the Bay of Pigs operation. However,’
[115]in checking this out, it was learned that the cover was
[116]the Gibralter Steamship Company so no objection is made
[117]to the use of Gulf.
[119]b. SSU also raised questions regarding the
[120]confirmation of assassination planning against Castro
[121](p. 12) and the use of the Alban Towers Hotel as a temporary
[122]lodging facility for Agency personnel (p. 17). Since
[123]no one else raised an objection on these points, they
[124]were not relayed to Mr. Phillips.
[126]8. Chapter five: Mexico City
[128]a. In addition to all the comments directed
[129]to Mr. Phillips (see attached letter), the SSU objected
[130]to discussion of the purchase of scotch (p. 15), the
[131]specifics associated with the Cuban missile crisis (pp. 25-27),
[132]and the handling of "walk-ins" (pp. 33-35). LA Division
[133]also objected to the Agency's role in name tracing (p. 8).
[135]b. In view of the considerable deletions requested
[136]of Mr. Phillips, the above were not included as their
[137]‘sensitivity and justification for classification appears
[138]to be marginal. ;
[140]9. Chapter seven: Washington, D. C.
[142]a. Several offices took exception to some items
[143]in this chapter: which were not passed on to Mr. Phillips.
[145]b. The SSU objected to the mention of liquor
[146]in the Director's dining room and the footnote confirming
[148]14-0000
[150]1A
[152]Jayag
[154]S
[157]“7 RETURN 7O CIA
[158]Backgroune Use ¢
[160]a CIA role in the Glomar Explorer (p. 26). In view of the
[161]fact that GSA is now trying to rent or sell the ship, we
[162]don't feel we can justify a classification on these items.
[164]c. The DDO objected to: the general discussion
[165]of cover starting on page 29, but we could not pin the.
[167]_ objection down to specifics. SSU commented that Mr. Phillips
[169]reveals the, location of many statjons around the world
[170](including (Brazzavillé)on page 31}, but deletions of the .
[172]names woul be, ,difficu t to justify legally. |
[174]d. Both the SSU and LA Division objected to
[175]Mr. Phillips mention of assassination attempts on Castro
[176](pp. 42-44), but, again, we would have trouble defending
[177]the classification of the information presented.
[179]10. Chapter eight: Rio de Janeiro and Caracas
[181]a. The most sensitive objections to this chapter
[182]involved the information on pages 15 to 20 of our role
[183]in Chile - Track II. These included the allegation of
[184]back-channel correspondence and the fact that the information
[185]could distort the public's view of the whole affair.
[187]Unfortunately, no one could tie it to the sources and methods
[189]or classification questions and therefore it was not included
[190]in the Phillips letter.
[192]b. Other items of concern were the discussion
[193]of cover in Brazil (pp. 2-3); the operational use of ;
[194]women (p. 23); the employment of blacks (p. 26), especially
[195]the revelation that two black officers in Brazil were
[196]CIA officers, jeopardizing their cover, and that Army
[197]commo went through the Agency during the Dominican crisis
[198](p- 31). While all of these could cast us in a questionable
[199]light or make operational life more difficult, it would
[201]be difficult to justify their deletion on legal grounds.
[203]ll. Chapter nine: LA Division
[205]a. Although the requested deletions from this
[206]chapter are rather lengthy, they do no include all
[207]reservations raised by our offices. ,
[209]14-0000
[211]b. Several offices objected to references to
[212]the assassination of President Kennedy and the Watergate
[213]affair (pp. 5, 16, 30). These were rather innocuous
[214]and could probably not be justified on legal grounds.
[216]c. The second objection was the author's general
[217]verification of the information in the Agee book and the
[218]impact of this book on the Agency. Again, deletion would
[219]be difficult to justify, but you may wish to discuss the .
[220]damage potential with Mr. Phillips directly. ©
[222]12. Chapter ten: Retirement
[224]_ The DDO raised the question that Mr. Phillips
[225]statement on page 12 that he knew Agee has been to Cuba
[226]five times betrays knowledge he gained either from travel
[227]programs or liaison services. This would be a difficult
[228]point to argue in any confrontation with Mr. Phillips.
[230]13. Epilogue .
[232]a. The SSU questioned whether this manuscript
[233]is the proper vehicle to surface the fact that two cables
[234]sent to Santiago in May 1973 established our non-involvement
[235]in the overthrow of Allende (p. 6). We could see no
[236]justification to strike this.
[238]b. -The SSU further believes that revelation of
[239]friction between Mr. Colby and Dr. Kissinger (p. 13) is
[240]also improper. Perhaps'so, but difficult for us to press
[241]for deletion.
[243]c. And last, the SSU objected to comments on
[244]pp. 14-18 which are suggestive of Agency judgements and
[245]evaluation regarding the conduct and success of the
[246]investigative efforts as-well as other personalities
[247]critical of the Agency.
[249]7 O35
[250]Shuweerdl e (eawoutk \
[252]herwood R. Bosworth
[254]Att
[255]Distribution: .
[256]Orig - Adse
[257]1 - OS Registry
[258]1 - EAB
[260]1 - Chrono 03
[261]; OS/SSD/EAB(SRBosworth : sw (1 Jul 76).
[263]Up