Intelligence Activitifs Senate Resolution 21
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIFS SENATE RESOLUTION 21 HEARINGS BEFORE; THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OP THE UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 4 MAIL OPENING OCTOBER 21, 22, AND 24, 1975 Printed for the use of the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 64663 0 WASHINGTON: 1976 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 -Price $2.40 OPERATIONS SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman JOHN G. TOWER, Texas, Vice Chairman JR., Tennessee PHILIP A. HART, Michl gan HOWARD H. BAKER, Arizona WALTER F. MONDALE , Minnesota BARRY GOLDWATER, MCC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland WALTER D. HUDDLES!rON, Kentucky CHARLES Pennsylvania ROBERT MORGAN, Nor th Carolina RICHARD SCHWEIKER, GARY HART, Colorado WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, Jr., Chief Counsel CURTIS R. SMOTHERS, Counsel to the Minority AUDREY HATRY, Clerk of the Committee (II) CONTENTS HEARING DAYS Page Tuesday, October 21, 1975a-- I Wednesday, October 22, 1975 --- 41 Friday, October 24, 1975 - 119 LIST OF WITNESSES '\TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1975 Stewart, Gordon, former Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency, accompanied by Stanley Gaines, counsel -- 3-----3 Abernathy, Thomas, former staff member, Inspector General's staff, Central Intelligence Agency, accompanied by Mitchell Rogovin, counsel - 3 Glennon, John, former staff member, Inspector General's staff, Central Intelligence Agency - 3 Osborn, Howard J., former Director of Security, Central Intelligence Agency, accompanied by John Debelias, counsel ----- 25 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975 Day, Edward J., former Postmaster General, accompanied by James F. Reilly, Sr., counsel - 42 Gronouski, John A., former Postmaster General -------------- 42 Blount, Winton M., former Postmaster General, accompanied by Douglas Arant, counsel --------------------------- 42 Reilly, James, Sr., counsel for J. Edward Day - 68 Montague, Henry, former Chief Inspector,- Postal Inspection Service - 70 Cotter, William, former Chief Inspector, Postal Inspection Service - 70 Helms, Richard, Ambassador to Iran and former Director, Central Intel- ligence Agency -------------------------------------- 83 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1975 Mitchell, John, former Attorney General, accompanied by William G. Hundley, counsel - 119- ---------------- Wannall, W. Raymond, Assistant Director, Intelligence Division, Federal Bureau of Investigationt---------- D 147 Branigan, William, Section Chief of Counterintelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation- Ce147 Moore, Donald E., former FBI Inspector---------- 147 Mintz, John A., Assistant Director, Legal Counsel Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation------------- -147 HEARINGS EXHIBITS I No. 1-Inspector General's Survey of the Office of Security ----------- 175 No. 2-November 21, 1955 memorandum to Chief of Operations re Project HTLIN GUAL- to-Chief of ..... 187 No. 3-May 4, 1956 memorandum from James Angleton to Director of C Intelligenceentra re Projectl HTLINGUALe- toDirectorof195- No. 4-June 3, 1971 memorandum for the record re meeting at DCI-s office concerning HTLINGUAL ----------------- 197 ' Under criteria determined by the committee, in consultation with the Central Intel- ligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, certain materials have been deleted from these documents, some of which were previously classified, to maintain the integrity of the internal operating procedures of the agencies involved, and to protect Intelligence sources and methods. Further deletions were made with respect to protecting the privacy of certain individuals and groups. These deletions do not change the material content of these exhibits. (mIII) IV No. 5-August 30, 1971 memorandum to Deputy Chief, Counterintel- ligence re HTLINGUAL-Correspondence of members of the Page U.S. Government -199 December 22, 1971 memorandum for the record re handling of items to and from elected or appointed U.S. officials -200 No. 6-Chart prepared by Senate Select Committee, showing notification of Postmasters General concerning mail openings -202 No. 7-April 23, 1965 memorandum for the files from [CIA officer] re discussion with Assistant Deputy Director for plans concerning HTLINGUAL operation and congressional subcommittee hearings concerning tampering with the mail -203 No. 8-February 16, 1961 memorandum from Richard Helms to Deputy Chief, Counterintelligence re HTLIN GUAL -205 No. 9-May 19, 1971 memorandum for the record re DCI's Meeting Concerning HTLINGUAL -206 No. 10-February 16, 1961 memorandum from Richard Helms to Deputy Chief, Counterintelligence re HTLINGUAL -210 No. 11-Excerpts from June 1970 Special Report of the Interagency Com- _ - 4 mittee on Intelligence (Ad Hoc) [the Huston plan] -211 No. 12-March 20, 1970 letter from Richard Helms to J. Edgar Hoover - 219 No. 13-February 1, 1962 memorandum from Deputy Chief, Counterin- telligence to Director, Office of Security re Project HTLIN GUAL_ 222 No. 14-July 28, 1970 memorandum for the record from Richard Helms re Discussion with Attorney General Mitchell on Domestic Intelligence-224 No. 15-September 18, 1970 memorandum from John Dean to the Attorney General -225 No. 16-March 11, 1960 memorandum from SAC, San Francisco to FBI Headquarters re Confidential Source -228 No. 17-December 5, 1973 SAC memorandum 56-73 -232 No. 18-October 2, 1964 memorandum from D. E. Moore to W. C. Sullivan re Espionage -233 No. 19-February 27, 1965 memorandum from A. H. Belmont to Clyde Tolson re the Long Committee -235 No. 20-March 2, 1965 memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover to Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Gale, Rosen, Sullivan, DeLoach-238 No. 21-February 20, 1975 memorandum for the record re Operational Aspects of MKSOURDOUGH, San Francisco, Calif- 241 No. 22-March 10, 1961 memorandum from D. E. Moore to A. H. Belmont re Project Hunter, Espionage R -244 No. 23-August 24, 1966 from M. E. Triplett to W. A. Branigan -245 No. 24-May 25, 1965 Airtel from SAC, San Francisco to FBI Head- quarters -2-4-9---------------------------------------- - 249 No. 25-May 24, 1975 Decision in Lamont v. Postmaster General of the United States -250 No. 26-January 18, 1966 memorandum from FBI Headquarters to SAC, San Francisco re Confidential Source-256 No. 27-May 17, 1954 memorandum to Director of Security from Richard Helms re SRPOINTER -257 APPENDIX October 24, 1975 letter from J. Edward Day to the Senate Select Com- mittee -259----- - INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES-MAIL OPENING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITI RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE AcTIvinIEs, Wa8hington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Church, Tower, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart of Colorado, Goldwater, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. Schwarz, 0. Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the minority. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. Today, and through the rest of this week, we wish to resume our in- quiry into the question of why the Federal Government has been open- ing the mail of American citizens for over two decades. It is a policy fundamentally at odds with freedom of expression and contrary to the laws of the land. This committee has already reviewed in public some details of the CIA mail openings while we were considering the Huston plan. One provision of that plan was a recommendation to institute a mail opening program, though, ironically, intelligence officers were already busily unsealing envelopes in various parts of the country and had been doing so for years. We are less concerned this week with the emphasis of the mail grams pro- than with the workings of the institutions that allowed them to take root and flourish, even though they violated the laws of the land. How did this mail policy begin? Who in the CIA, the FBI, the White House, the Justice Department, and the Post Office knew about it? What reviews were made of the policies as the leadership changed with- in these institutions? Though mail is the subject of this week's hearings, what interests ius most are the reasons the Agency used to justify this violation of civil liberties. The question of mail openings, then, will be only the medium through which we probe in depth the way our intelligence services function. As a case study, mail opening reveals the most revealing look of the inner life of the CIA and the FBI. In the instance of the CIA, with which we begin our examination today, the evidence suggests their mail program was allowed to continue despite the harshest criti- cism of it from investigators within the CIA Inspector General's (1) 2 Office, and despite the fact that it was not very productive in terms of intelligence information. Moreover, throughout the 20-year period, many senior Govern- ment officials were not told of the mail openings or were misinformed about them. These are serious charges which have arisen in our re- search into the mail opening program of the CIA and the FBI. We are here today to explore the decisionmaking process within the CIA, to ascertain how valid these public allegations are. To assist us in our search for understanding and for ways to im- prove the Government, we have appearing before the committee this morning Mr. Gordon Stewart, Mr. John Glennon, and Mr. Thomas Abernathy, all of whom served in the CIA Inspector General's Office, which investigated mail opening programs in the sixties, and Howard Osborn, who will appear after these three gentlemen, who was the CIA Director of the Office of Security from 1964 to 1974. Before I swear the witnesses, I would like to ask Senator Tower for opening remarks that he would like to make at this time. Senator TOWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with an endorsement of the chairman's statement that the primary value of these open sessions on mail opening is the opportunity to gain the insights which can only come from an in- depth case study.