COMMENTS ON THE MURPHY COMMISSION REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 7, 2006
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: April 3, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For. Release 2006/091 7:CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
..... _.,...m,,,
.-, ;, ..
3 April 1975
MEMORANDUM. FQR: Legislative Counsel
SUBJECT : Comments on the Murphy Commission
Deport
1. In commenting on this report, I am explicitly re -
(raining from trying to change the views and recommendations
but am focusing on matters of fact and security.
2. The description of the responsibility of the DDI on
page 8 of Part I, even though short, is not accurate. I recom-
mend dropping the last two lines of that page and substituting
the following:
order to produce intelligence assessments of
foreign developments and daily and periodic
intelligence reports for the President, NSC
and other government departments.
3. The figure given in the beginning of
the NSA paragrap i on page 11 of Part I does not apply to NSA
as an agency. It does apply to the Consolidated Cryptologic
Program which includes all the Service Cryptologic Agencies
as well as NSA. This figure may also be double-counted in the
paragraph on the Service intelligence organizations as described
on page 12.
4. The sentence on NPIC on page 5 of Part IV seems to
reflect a misunderstanding of what NPIC is as an organization,
NPIC itself is a coherent organization under CIA rrianagerrtent
composed of people and s"lots from both CLL. and DIA. The concept
of CIA and DoD "acting independently of one another" in NPIC
as an organization is not true. IIowever, n which
NSA revie~s~ completed.
.~
Approved For Release 2006/Q~1+1~.7J,;`:~~~t~DP80B014~5R`400'90007~OO~I4~4
 Approved For Release 2006/09107 :CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
i r8
NPIC is housed also houses separate imagery interpretation
components of DIA, Army and CIA. The quoted concept does
describe some of the activities of these components.
5. The line in the NSA paragraph on page 5 of Part IV
which says that NSA is the only national cryptolagic organization
in the West which reports to the Defense chief is just not true.
For example, the Canadian Communications Security Establishment
and the Australian Defence Signals Division are each in their
respective defense departments. In fact, I can think of only one
country with'a national cryptologic organization that is not in
its defense establishment and that is the British GCHQ. I recom-
mend dropping the sentence.
6. The equating of clandestine collection with the term
HUMINT in Part V' is just plain wrong; clandestine collection is
just one type of HUMINT. I recommend the use of the term
HUMINT be dropped.
7. On page 2 of Part V, the statement that the USSR
"annually commits more resources (both people and money) than
the TJ. S. to all phases of intelligence" is nice but our previous.
attempts to quantify such a statement have failed. Furthermore,
what the US needs is ~to have the best intelligence it can afford;
what the Soviets spend is interesting but not directly relevant
to the problem.
~3. All through the report there are references to satellite
photography, the NRO and the like. We are faced with. a Presidential
directive that makes even the fact of such activities classified
SECIi-ET. On -the other hand, I believe that the Murphy Commission
would be viewed as an authoritative "official'" document in the
sense that Judge IIainsworth's decision ruled that statements in
such a document would in effect put formerly classified information
into the public domain and thereby make it unclassified. In this
case we have two options:
-- We could insist that all such references be
removed from any unclassified version of
the report, or
Approved Far Release 200~1~7.J I~-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
 Approved For Release 2006/091Q~;T.; ;CIA;=R ~ P80B01495R000900070014-4
We could let it ride because it tivould be
unrealistic to insist upon classification
and because trying to use other tivords
would make the report difficult to under-
stand.
If we took the second option, the DCI might then be in a position
to say authoritatively that the "fact of satellite photography" is
now in the. public domain and therefore unclassi_f'ied. This obviously
is a decision that the DCI should make.
EDWARD W. PROCTOR
Dep~.zty Director for Intelligence
DDI/EWFrac~tor/tb ~~ Apr 75)
Distri'aution:
Original & 1 -Addressee
1 - D/DCI/IC
1 -Chairman/ COMIRE~
C~- i e
1 -DDI Chrano
1 - rev's Chrono
~ ~L~; ~. ~:. a
-3-
Approved For Release 2006/09107 :CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
 Approved For Release 2006/09107: CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4
MEMORANDUM FOR: h1r. Proctor
This draft came from OLC after we re-
ceived the batch fro office. Maybe
this is what you we y oo ing for. Note
the 4 April dPad1'
By the way, said last week
that the fact your don't show up in
the doesn't mean they were ignored--
only at has not yet incorporated them.
2 Apr 75
(DATE)
1oAU GN54 lOl WHICH CM AY FBEMUSED'D'
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2006/09107: CIA-RDP80B01495R000900070014-4