Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 20, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 9, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
February 27, 1978
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP81M00980R002700020033-5.pdf594.16 KB
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R0027000200s 1NT RNAL USE ONLY Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 8 Monday - 27 February 1978 31. (Internal Use Only - MMP) BRIEFINGS Diane LaVoy, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, called with a total of eight requests: (a) three separate but related requests for briefings on Operations Center computer use of extracting intelligence and the CONTEXT system, the Task Force system and how the one 25X1 currently in being (on Somalia) functions, and a follow up to the handlin of last years' "Berlin tensions. " After checking with NFAC/CSS, I relayed these requests to C/Operations Gen 1 We agreed to set aside 1415 to 1615 hours on 2 March to brief Ms. LaVoy in the Operations Center. I called Ms. LaVoy back and confirmed this appointment with her. (b) four separate requests about various offices in NFAC - Current Reporting Group, Office of Weapons Intelligence, Office of Strategic Research, and both China and Africa within ORPA. Additionally, she asked for a listing of the NIOs, both b name and function. I have passed all of these requests to 'n writing and have requestec~5X1 that we set up a briefing for Diane on 6 or 7 March 1978. 110000 32. (Unclassified - MMP) LIAISON Jeanne McNally, secretary to Thomas K. Latimer, Staff Director, House. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, called to relay a request from :Representative Robert McClory (R., Ill.) about the location of Soviet dissident camps for dissidents per se and described the usual methods of handling dissidents. I suggested to Jeanne that the request might not be precisely what we had just discussed, and subsequently I received a call from Tom Latimer saying that Representative McClory's interest was in the displacement of Lithuanians et cetera within the Soviet Union. T,1ve r /rrcc ....,....._ ~L ?5X1 , lvi.r. uutu ler. Ms. McNally asked me whether 0900 would be an acceptable hour for the 15 March date that I had indicated to her was agreeable to the DCI for an open hearing (for the Subcommittee on Oversight chaired by Representative Les Aspin (D., Wis.) on the DCI's regulation on CIA dealing with the U. S. press. I told Jeanne that I would get back to her and passed this inquiry on to Office of Legislative Counsel. 25X1 Qf L INTERNAL U ,,,E Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-R?P81 M00980R002700020033-5 Approved For Release 2007/031 N , M P if 0980R002700020033-5 Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Monday, o 27 February 1978 Page 4 15. LIAISON Phoned Earl Eisenhower, Senate Select o ee on luCel Bence staff, and informed him I had had a search done of both Office of Security and DDO files, in response to the allegations o of New York City, that she was being investigated by the Agency and that we had no record whatsoever of her. attorney had written to Senator Howard H. Baker (R., Tenn.), who asked the Select Committee to look into this matter. I agreed to give 25X1 Eisenhower a blind memorandum on this subject. 17. BRIEFING NE Division,25X1 DDO, briefed tan Taylor, Angelo Codevilla, Abe Shulsky, Catherine Essoyan, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff, and Richard Beal, consultant to the Committee, on the recent Egyptian/Cypriot terrorist incident. This was another in a series of briefings this group is receiving in order to evaluate Governmental capabilities against international terrorism. 18. LIAISON Returned via courier to Abe Shulsky, Senate IS-elect Committee on Intelligence staff, the paper which the Soviet emigre gave to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan's (D., N. Y.) New York office on the Soviet missile program along with a translation of it. 19. LIAISON Received a call from Debbie Dubrule, Joint Economic Committee, who asked that George Tyler, also of the Committee, be put on the subscription list to receive the "International Energy Biweekly Statistical Review. " I told her I would arrange it. 20. LIAISON Took a call from Ken Klein, House Sele sinations staff, who reiterated the request for access to th aper. I explained that both Jackie Hess and Gary Cornwell of the Committee, had already called with that request and tha would return his call within a few days to convey our response. Approved For Release 2Q7/Q3103 ; QIA 7PDPQ1,MQ0980R002700020033-5 Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 INTERNAL USE ONLY JOURNAL OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL Monday - 27 February 1978 1. (Unclassified - NDL) LIAISON Per her earlier request, I sent to Ann Proctor, Staff Assistant to Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (D., Mo.), the January 1978 issue of the National Basic Intelligence Factbook. V- (Unclassified - THW) LIAISON Ernest Evans, Senate Armed Services Committee staff, called requesting an unclassified report on the portion of the Soviet military budget that goes to manpower. They intend to use such a report, if one exists, in open session. If no unclassified report exists, they would still like to obtain classified information on the same subject. The request is from the Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel. I told Mr. Evans I would call him back. _Jwill follow-25X1 up on this. 4. (Internal Use Only - THW) LIAISON Called David Bushong, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff, to see if he had any indication how the-,deletions in the Senate debate were being received by the various Senators. He suggested I call Bill Miller, the Committee's Staff Director, which I did. Miller indicated that no one had any problems so far. vlfx . ! TER t,L US F O"' -,/ Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002749 0033-5 Apt-For Release 2007/03/03: Ch P81 M00980R002700020033-5 Central Intelligence Agency V shington. D. C 20505 OLC: 78-0665/a Honorable Robert F. Drinan House of Representatives .Washington, D..C. 20515 Dear Mr. Drinan: This letter is in response to your letter of 7 February 1978 concerning CIA intelligence activities. There has been established within the Intelligence Community for more than three decades a program whereby persons may voluntarily provide information on matters of intelligence interest. This information.. principally from U. S. citizens, has proven over the years to be of inestimable value in keeping the United States Government abreast of significant foreign developments in broad areas of importance. . The authority for the Director of Central Intelligence to undertake such a program is contained in Executive Order 12036, Sections 1-801 and 1-809 (copy attached). I fully appreciate your concern that the families of such persons who have. remained abroad may be subject to reprisals if the cooperation with the United States Government of their relatives is revealed. I wish to assure you that I am well aware of the sensitivities involved. In accordance with my statutory responsibility for the protection of intelligence sources and methods, any information collected through this program is handled with the most stringent controls and limited dissemination while at the same time protecting as inviolate the identities of our sources. I trust that the foregoing is responsive to your request. Yours sincerely, /5/ StU i 2 i u: STANSFIELD TURNER Enclosure cc: DCI DDCI Dist.: Orig - Addressee ER DDO 1 - OLC Subject 1 - OLC Chrono OLC:MDC:mlg (22 February 1978) Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 r Approved For Release 2007/05 ' " l%AtAM00980R002700020033-5 The Honorable Birch Bayh, Chairman Select Committee on Intelligence United.States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 OLC 77-5457/b tA/l Pha 2 7 FEB 1978 S5 C/ This is in response to Senator Inouye's letter to me (Q#1070) requesting answers to eight questions on the Helms matter and copies of all correspondence between the Attorney General, or any other representative of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency requesting access to or use of documents in the investigation or prosecution of Richard Helms regarding his testimony before Congress. We have been informed by the Department of Justice that, while the case 'against Ambassador Helms has been resolved, an investigation of certain ITT officials and other persons is being actively pursued. Many of the documents which were relevant to the Helms investigation are also relevant to the current investigation and, for that reason, the Department is reluctant at this time to provide copies of the DOJ-CIA. correspondence on the case. Below are set forth answers to the questions contained in your letter: Q. (1) How many "potentially relevant" documents were identified? Did the Department of Justice explain what use it planned to make of these documents? Were Justice Department representatives prepared to use the information in questioning witnesses, in presentation of the documents to the grand jury, or for the actual use at trial? Did they distinguish which documents were to be used for developing the perjury charge, the so-called "ITT-cover-up" charge, or some other charge? A. The Department of Justice attorneys were given access to Agency information, including classified operational traffic, intelligence reports and internal memoranda relating to operations and events in Chile in order that they might determine which documents fell within the ambit of the CIA-ITT- Chile investigation. From this corpus of documentary information the Department of Justice investigators identified materials which they considered relevant to the investigation. These documents, including 55,102 pages of material which were numerically stamped, were retained in special safes within the CIA, Office of General Counsel. The materials so identified filled four, four-drawer safes. Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 proved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 Drawing from this total collection the Department of Justice investigators then asked that some 758 documents, attachments and daily calendars and logs be reviewed to determine whether and to what extent they could be declassified for use as evidence in the course of the investigation. The Agency was not informed which documents were to be used for developing a perjury charge, the so-called "ITT-cover-up" charge or some other charge. Nor was it informed whether the documents were to be used solely for presentation, to the grand jury or also were to be used in questioning witnesses and for actual 'use at trial. To the best of our knowledge, however, the -Department was interested in using these documents for all of these purposes, but at a minimum they wanted the latitude to use these documents as required. Q Q. (2) Did the Department of Justice explain what protective action they intended to take with respect to these documents? Did they express any willingness to sanitize the documents to use in camera procedures; to refrain from using some documents in the grand jury or in public trials and limit their use only to interviews? Or, did they simply request bulk declassification of all of the documents which they reviewed? - A. The Department of Justice requested total declassification of the documents required so that they could be freely used for investigative and pro- secutive purposes. Documents were declassified to the extent possible and we understand that the declassified as well as the sanitized documents were used in the grand jury proceedings. No special protective steps were taken with respect to these documents. As to other documents which might have become involved in the proceedings, for example, as a result of defense discovery requests, the Department of Justice represented that it would take such actions to protect classified material as might be possible under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and be permitted by the trial judge. Q. (3) Did CIA officials discuss this matter with Mr. Helms or any representatives of Mr. Helms during the period that he was under investigation? Or, were all discussions pertaining to these documents in this matter handled by the Department of Justice and all requests or possible requests for documents discussed between representatives of the Department of Justice and the CIA? A. To the best of our knowledge there were only the following interchanges with Ambassador Helms or his representatives on the ITT-Chile Matter: a. On 10 November 1975 Ambassador Helms asked about the status of the Justice investigation and whether indictments were in the offing. The Agency explained that same day, that Justice had used a grand jury in the District of Columbia to secure subpoenas of corporate records. On 11 November 1975, Ambassador Helms thanked the Agency for this information and asked to be advised of further developments. -2- Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RD?P81 M00980R002700020033-5 proved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 b. On 7 May 1976, the Agency alerted Ambassador Helms to a draft Senate Select Committee addendum to a November 1.976 report entitled, "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," sections of which dealt with covert actions in Chile in 1970 and quoted former President Nixon's statements concerning the extent of his knowledge and approval of CIA actions in Chile. On 9 May 1976, Ambassador Helms thanked the Agency for this information and, noting that he did not know whether the statements were factually correct, suggested that a former senior Agency official be shown the draft and be asked to comment on it. On 11 May 1976, the Agency informed Ambassador Helms that the former official came to Headquarters, reviewed the Senate Select Committee's draft report, took issue with certain parts and so informed a member of the Senate - Select Committee staff. Q. (4) Of the documents provided to the Department of Justice, how many did the Department request the CIA to declassify? How many of the docu- ments was the CIA willing to declassify? How many of the documents which the CIA was not willing to declassify fell into each of the following categories? a. Documents which could not be declassified because they revealed the names of agents. b. Documents which could not be declassified because they revealed the names of cooperating foreign nations. c. Documents which could not be declassified because they revealed the names of cooperating Americans. d. Documents which could not be declassified for other reasons. A. According to our count the Department of Justice requested declassifi- cation of 758 documents and attachments of which 152 documents were declassified in full, and 519 were declassified in substantial part, deleting only cryptonyms, pseudonyms, names of personnel under cover, etc. Fifty-three documents could not be declassified and 34 documents have not been declassified pending'a.dditional review. The documents which could not be declassified either in whole or in part frequently contained a number of classified items falling within more than one of the above suggested categories (a-d). A single document, therefore, may be counted in more than one column in the chart below. Reason for denial Documents denied in part Documents denied in entirety a 97 12 b 17 1 30 11 466 49 ? Approved For Release 2007/03/03': CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 pproved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5 Q. (5) Of those documents which the Department of Justice proposed declassifying as potentially relevant, how many of those documents were con- sidered to be potentially exculpatory. Was there any review of documents or any other review to determine what classified information should be provided. to meet constitutional obligations to the rights of the defendant? A. It is assumed that one of the reasons for the Department's extensiv e review of Agency documents was to determine whether any documents were potentially exculpatory or otherwise required at trial to meet constitutional requirements but we do not know how many of the reviewed documents may have been identified as relevant for these purposes. Q. (6) Was the CIA led to believe that Mr. 'elms, if indicted, intended to raise any particular affirmative defense which would require disclosure of classified intelligence information? If so, what was that defense, and in general terms what was the nature of the information required to be disclosed? Similarly, was it the Agency's understanding that Mr. Helms would have made pre- trial motions requiring disclosure of classified information? If so, what motions did you anticipate and in general terms what was the nature of the information which would have been required to be disclosed? How did you get your information regarding this issue? A. The Agency had no specific indication as to the line or lines of defense -which would have been pursued by Ambassador Helms but it was assumed that broad discovery requests, supported by numerous pre-trial discovery motions, would have been forthcoming in the event of prosecution. In all likelihood such discovery would have sought production of a great deal of classified information including, of course, the information which was deleted from the documents provided to the Department of Justice. Q. (7) Did the DCI express to the President: or the Attorney General any - official review of whether further criminal proceedings against Mr. Helms might jeopardize national security or sources and methods? Specifically, what was communicated and to whom was that view expressed? A. The DCI indicated to the President and, in more specific terms to the Attorney General, the potential national security consequences of declassi- fication of those items which were deleted from the documents which were ,requested by the Department of Justice. Q. (8) Why would the disclosure of the names of agents; the names of cooperating foreign nations; or the names of cooperating Americans be needed in a prosecution for perjury or related charges pertaining to misleading Congress as to the covert action in Chile? Approved For Release 2007/03/03 CIA-RDP81 M0098OR002700020033-5 pproved For Release 2007/0 03: CIA-RDP81 M0098OR002700020033-5 A. Any question as to why any particular information or document may have been required in support of any of the charges under investigation should more appropriately be answered by the Department of Justice. Yours sincerely, 3: GI 1 -5- Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5