ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES

AND RESEARCH CENTER

  • About the AARC
  • AARC 2014 Conference Videos
  • Analysis and Opinion
  • COLD WAR CONTEXT
  • The Malcolm Blunt Archives
  • CURRENT FOIA LITIGATION
  • Dan Hardway Blog: Sapere Aude
  • Destroyed Files
  • DOCUMENTS AND DOSSIERS
  • FBI Cuba 109 Files
  • Joe Backes: ARRB Document Release Summaries, July 1995-April 1996
  • MISSING RECORDS
  • News and Views
  • Publication Spotlight
  • Public Library
  • SELECT CIA PSEUDONYMS
  • SELECT FBI CRYPTONYMS
  • CIA Records Search Tool (CREST)
  • AARC Catalog
  • President’s Page
  • AARC Board of Directors
  • AARC Membership

Copyright AARC

A CRUEL AND SHOCKING MISINTERPRETATION

© 2015 Dan Hardway —

Phil Shenon and I agree on at least a few things. In any resolution of the mysteries surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Mexico City will undoubtedly be important. The investigation into what happened there in 1963 was, for some reason, seriously curtailed by the U.S. government. The government has, since then, fought tooth and nail to keep the full story about what happened there secret.

While I have never met Mr. Shenon, I have spoken with him several times by telephone. I first heard from him when he called me around 2011. He introduced himself as a reporter for Newsweek Magazine. He said he was working well in advance on an article for that magazine for the 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder. He wondered whether I would be willing to talk about the HSCA’s investigation in Mexico City. I agreed to speak with him.

Over the course of that first conversation, and several follow-up calls from him over the next couple of years, it became apparent to me that Mr. Shenon was only interested in our work investigating what had happened in Mexico City in 1963 insofar as it might provide some kind of basis for linking Oswald to Castro or the Cubans. I tried to discuss the details of the HSCA investigation into what happened in Mexico City in its anomalous issues, but he was uninterested in those details. While there is an acknowledgment in his book, A Cruel and Shocking Act, stating that Ed Lopez and I were “generous with their time and interviews for this book,” precious little, if any, of what we shared with him made it into the book or any of his subsequent writing on the subject of Mexico City. Not only does Mr. Shenon ignore the post-HSCA materials we tried to bring to his attention, he also ignores the primary thrust of our report written for the HSCA.
41hm0PONQ1L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_

I would not take issue with Phil Shenon if I thought what he is claiming is, merely, that the possibility of Cuban assistance to Oswald should be investigated. While I think the evidence of that is very weak at best, I will not deny that any avenue of investigation that remains open should be pursued. What I take issue with Mr. Shenon about is his single-minded concentration on that one issue and the resultant misrepresentation of facts and questions related to, and arising from, Lee Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. It appears to me that Shenon may be carrying water for the proponents of the original conspiracy theory – that Castro did it – rather than offering any objective review of the complete evidentiary base of that underlies the Mexico City visit. Shenon deliberately ignores the indicators and evidence that suggest Oswald’s trip to Mexico was either designed in advance, or spun in the aftermath, to give the appearance of Cuban and Soviet collusion in the Kennedy assassination.

Shenon’s thesis, as most recently explicated in his article in Politico, “What Was Lee Harvey Oswald Doing in Mexico?”, is built on suspicions expressed by some government officials after the assassination and Charles Thomas’s reporting of the Duran twist party – a report based on a story first told by Elena Garro de Paz. Many had initial suspicions after the assassination: Lyndon Johnson alleged a communist conspiracy within twenty minutes of JFK’s death; Bobby Kennedy’s first question to CIA Director John McCone that day was, “Did some of your guys do this?” (The Warren Commission, in Executive Session, was very concerned about Oswald’s intelligence connections, but Allen Dulles told them it was something that couldn’t really be proven, as a good intelligence officer would lie under oath to the Commission.) When Shenon and I talked, I tried to get him to consider evidence and facts that have come to light about Mexico City and the CIA’s handling of various investigations since, including the one I worked on in 1978, in his evaluation of the twist party story that lies at the root of his speculations. My efforts had no effect. Any possible explanation other than Cuban complicity has been ignored by Mr. Shenon who seems hell-bent on promoting the idea that Castro was behind the assassination, refusing to address any other possibility.

I tried, in vain as it turns out, to get Mr. Shenon to consider that what we had learned about Oswald’s activities, and the government’s reaction to those activities, could support a different explanation which also pointed to an additional avenue of investigation that needed to be publicized and followed. In my view, Oswald’s activities are more consistent with his being involved in an intelligence operation being run by U.S. intelligence than with him trying to make contact with Cubans to garner support for an assassination attempt on the sitting leader of this country.

To fully appreciate why I say that, a little background from Washington in 1978, is necessary. In 1978 the CIA resisted the HSCA’s inquiry into Mexico City more than any other area of inquiry. The chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey, told the Committee on August 15, 1978, “[T]he deeper we have gotten into the Agency’s performance in Mexico City, the more difficult they have gotten in dealing with us, the more they have insisted on relevance, the more they have gone back in effect on their agreement to give us access to unsanitized files. For a while we had general and free access to unsanitized files. That is increasingly not true in the Mexico City area….” And we have since learned that they used George Joannides to shut down the investigation into Oswald and Mexico City. In doing so, they lied to us about who he was. He ran propaganda operations in

George Joannides

George Joannides

Miami in 1963-64 and was the case officer for DRE, the anti-Castro group that scored the anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee coup using Oswald in New Orleans in August of 1963. As G. Robert Blakey has since acknowledged, “The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.” I think the CIA expected we would take the superficial approach of considering the “Castro did it” theory, but when we went beyond the initial appearances and began pushing our investigation into the propaganda sources, seeking interviews with the actual penetration and surveillance agents, seeking to find others in Mexico City who may have seen Oswald, then the Agency resistance to our investigation turned to a stonewall. Shouldn’t it be enough to raise serious questions that when a Congressional Committee investigating specific disinformation operations ran by the CIA, the CIA brings one of those involved in the operation being investigated and uses him in an undercover capacity to forestall and subvert the investigation? But that’s not all.

Consider the scenario of U.S. intelligence involvement in Oswald’s activities in Mexico City that we were not able to fully investigate in 1978. Let’s start with some background on David Phillips. David Phillips was one of, if not the, most experienced, ingenious, respected, and qualified disinformation officers in the CIA. In 1963 he was stationed in Mexico City, but, in early October, he was temporarily assigned to duty at Headquarters because he was being promoted from running anti-Castro propaganda operations to overseeing all anti-Castro operations in the

David Atlee Phillips

David Atlee Phillips

Western Hemisphere. He was an experienced hand. In the late 1950’s he had been under non-diplomatic cover in Havana, where he worked  with student leaders who would eventually form the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (“DRE”). During the Bay of Pigs, Phillips was stationed at CIA Headquarters where he had responsibility for the propaganda and psychological warfare aspects of the antiCastro operations. In running those operations he not only oversaw the operations he ran personally from Headquarters, he was also the supervisor of the propaganda operations flowing out of the JMWAVE station in Miami by William Kent (aka Doug Gupton, William Trouchard). When the students who had been recruited by Phillips fled Cuba, they were reorganized under Kent’s tutelage into the DRE based in Miami.

Phillips was transferred to Mexico City later in 1961 after the Bay of Pigs. Kent was promoted to Headquarters, and George Joannides took over Kent’s position in Miami, including supervision of DRE. While still stationed in Headquarters in the early 60’s, David Phillips had worked with Cord Meyer to develop the first disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting and disrupting a group of Castro sympathizers who had organized themselves into the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). In the summer of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald formed a chapter of the FPCC in New Orleans. In August of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald, still in New Orleans, had an encounter with DRE which led to a lot of publicity linking Oswald to communists, labeling him as pro-Castro, and discrediting the FPCC. In July and August of that year there is strong evidence that Oswald was used to identify and contact pro-Castro students at Tulane University. In early September, Oswald was seen with David Philips in Dallas.

On September 16, 1963, the CIA informed the FBI that it was considering action to counter the activities of the FPCC in foreign countries. To my knowledge, the operational files on this new anti-FPCC operation have never been released by the CIA. In New Orleans, on September 17, 1963, Oswald applied for, and received, a Mexican travel visa immediately after William Gaudet, a known CIA agent, had applied for one. On September 27 Oswald arrived in Mexico City. This activity did not occur suddenly or in a vacuum. Oswald had started establishing his pro-Castro bona fides earlier that summer in New Orleans, including establishing an FPCC chapter there.

There are too many similarities between Oswald’s activities in New Orleans and Mexico City to simply dismiss, without investigation or discussion, the possibility that he was being used in an intelligence operation, either wittingly or unwittingly, in both cities. In addition to his contacts with the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic facilities in Mexico City, which could have been part of an intelligence dangle, an attempt to discredit the FPCC, or both, there is now also evidence of Oswald’s contacts with students at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and his presence at social events with Cuban Consulate

Secret Wars Diary by David Atlee Phillips

Secret Wars Diary by David Atlee Phillips

employees. David Phillips frequently lied about Oswald and Mexico City, but in a footnote in a little known book he self-published, Secret Wars Diary, he wrote: “I was an observer of Cuban and Soviet reaction when Lee Harvey Oswald contacted their embassies.” [Emphasis added.] One purpose served by an intelligence dangle is to enable the dangling agency to observe the reaction and, from that observation, identify roles of employees, procedures and processes of the enemy.

There can be little doubt that Oswald’s activities, especially the more flagrant, blatant and egregious ones such as those alleged by Shenon to have occurred at the Cuban Consulate, could only have scandalized the Cuban diplomats who heard the threats and bluster – all to the discrediting of the FPCC, just as the publicity about the New Orleans encounter between Oswald and the DRE formed one of the propaganda nails in that organization’s coffin. It is much more likely, in my opinion, that the seasoned Cuban diplomats would be offended than it is that they would support someone exhibiting Oswald’s alleged behavior to attempt an assassination. It is much more likely that the Cuban diplomats would have, as the evidence shows they did, consider Oswald as a U.S. intelligence provocation. The Cubans knew of the surveillance on their facilities. Why would they use someone to do such a job who showed up under surveillance and announced his plans? On the other hand, someone as provocative as Oswald should have generated a cascade of response that, when observed by the watchers, would have revealed an abundance of information. It could also serve to discredit the FPCC with the Cubans. The CIA prevented us, in 1978, from interviewing then surviving penetration and surveillance agents who would have known more about such an operation.

In 1978, we knew not only about the allegations of the twist party, but also about the stories of Oswald’s contact with students. The CIA prevented us from interviewing Oscar Contreras, a student Oswald contacted. But Anthony Summers, and others, have interviewed him since. Contreras acknowledges that Oswald, in late September, 1963, approached him and three other students who were members of a pro-Castro student organization. He asked them for help getting a visa to Cuba from the Consulate. Contreras did have contacts at the Consulate and spoke to the Consul and an intelligence officer. Both warned him to have nothing to do with Oswald as they suspected he was trying to infiltrate proCastro groups. Contreras still wonders how Oswald identified him and his friends as the students, out of the thousands attending the University, as the ones with contacts in the Consulate. Shenon, some way or another, sees this incident as supporting possible Cuban involvement in the assassination. No mention is made to the similarity to what Oswald was doing with Tulane students in New Orleans.

While in New Orleans, Ruth Paine had asked fellow Quaker, Ruth Kloepfer, to check on the Oswalds while they were in New Orleans. Mrs. Kloepfer’s husband was a professor at Tulane University. There is information in the extensive records in this case that Oswald passed out FPCC leaflets near Tulane University and the homes of some of the professors there who were members of a local leftist group. The

Lee Oswald in New Orleans leafleting for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee

Lee Oswald in New Orleans leafleting for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, 9 August, 1963

individuals who helped pass out pamphlets on the last occasion when Oswald passed out his FPCC literature in downtown New Orleans, were introduced by Oswald as students from Tulane. There are, keeping things in parallel, indications in the documentation about the case that Oswald, while in Mexico City, made contact with Quakers studying at the Autonomous University. There are indications that one Quaker student at the University at that time was an active agent of the CIA, although that person has never been identified and it has not been determined that he had any contact with Oswald in Mexico City. The reason that it has not been determined is that it has not been investigated.

It has to be pointed out that June Cobb, a known CIA agent, was very involved in Agency actions aimed at the FPCC in the early 1960’s. She appears again as the first person to report Elena Garro de Paz’s story about the Duran/Oswald twist party. At the time she made that report to the Mexico City CIA station, Cobb, a CIA asset, was renting a room from Elena Garro de Paz, Sylvia Duran’s cousin. And Shenon bases most of

Elena Garro De Paz

Elena Garro De Paz

what he writes on a supposition that, based on this twist-party story, Duran was at the center of the Cuban recruitment of Oswald. But the fact is that it is still very much in question whether Duran had been recruited as an asset by the CIA. David Phillips, as well as other CIA employees, in 1978, were of the opinion that she may have been targeted for recruitment by the CIA. The CIA, then and since, has gone out of its way to keep details about Duran buried, claiming, among other things, to have destroyed her Mexico City P file.

But the point is, the activities in Mexico City in September and October, 1963, are a capsule version of Oswald’s activities in New Orleans in June, July and August of 1963. In the context of the other information we’ve learned about the CIA’s FPCC black propaganda operation, the people involved in those operations and the role of at least one of those people, George Joannides, in subverting the HSCA investigation, how can anyone not seriously consider whether Oswald’s Mexico City activities were part of a CIA anti-FPCC operation? The very first conspiracy theory, that Castro and the communists killed JFK – the one expressed by President Johnson 20 minutes after the assassination, and first seeing print in the DRE’s CIA funded newspaper, Trinchera, on November 23, 1963 – still has followers and proponents, the latest being Phil Shenon. None of the proponents, it seems, have ever really considered whether they may be the victims – or a part – of a very good, deliberate disinformation operation – possibly the best Phillips and Joannides ever ran.

 

 

________________________

Dan Hardway, J.D. Attorney in private practice; former investigator, House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Filed Under: News and Views

30 December 2022: Mandate to renew the UN Investigation into the death of UNSG Hammarskjöld

Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961.

Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961.

Courtesy of Susan Williams:

On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution A/77/L.31, which authorises the renewal of the UN’s ‘Investigation into the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjöld and of the members of the party accompanying him.’ It further authorises the reappointment of the Eminent Person, Judge Mohamed Chande Othman, to lead the investigation.

The Resolution was initiated by Sweden and co-sponsored by 141 Member States (out of 193). The US and the UK did not co-sponsor the resolution.

The Resolution follows Judge Othman’s latest report (A/76/892), which is readily available on the UNA Westminster webpages on developments relating to the Hammarskjöld plane crash (along with various other significant documents and updates).

 

In this latest report, Judge Othman writes:

‘…I respectfully submit that the burden of proof to conduct a full review of records and archives resulting in full disclosure has not been discharged at the present time. Indeed, information received from other sources under the present mandate underscores that it is almost certain that these Member States [that is to say, the USA, the UK, and South Africa] created, held or were otherwise aware of specific and important information regarding the cause of the tragic event. That information is yet to be disclosed.’  

In case of interest, the passing of the Resolution by the GA can be watched on UNTV. It takes about three minutes from 1.04.40: https://media.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14tlsg06p

 

RELATED:

Do Spy Agencies Hold Answer to Dag Hammarskjold’s Death? U.N. Wants to Know

Investigation into the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjöld and of the members of the party accompanying him

Filed Under: News and Views

2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, and now, June of 2023; some things seem not to change

 Prescient, you say? Uh-huh.

Following is from my Malcolm Blunt book, The Devil is in the Details, Chapter Seven, Quilted Patterns, published November 2020. The conversation took place in late November of 2016:
MALCOLM BLUNT: … I think one of the most important things, Alan, when you check the records, you go through the Warren Commission records – the working papers and the working notes of John Hart Ely – you find in the subtext of some of the drafts where he discusses the fact that there may have to be material alteration in Lee Harvey Oswald’s biography.
ALAN DALE: Material alteration.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Material alterations, yep.
ALAN DALE: And his name is John Hart Ely.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Yep.
ALAN DALE: So why would there, why would there have to be material alterations?
MALCOLM BLUNT: Well, we get back to the same thing: because some things just don’t fit.
ALAN DALE: Time after – it’s not just one thing; it’s time after time after time after time.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Some things just don’t fit.
ALAN DALE: Well, that’s a drag, that’s a drag. I’m holding a document that you shared with me. It’s CIA document 104-10331-10129; it’s JFK document, Agency originator CIA, from…withheld – we’re not supposed to know, although you have an educated guess about the woman…
MALCOLM BLUNT: Mmhmm.
ALAN DALE: …responsible for writing this – and it’s addressed to J. Barry Harrelson. Now who was J. Barry Harrelson?
MALCOLM BLUNT: He was chief of the Historical Review Group.
ALAN DALE: Inside the Agency.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Inside the Agency. They were in charge of cooperating with the ARRB and getting stuff released.
ALAN DALE: Yeah. And some of them were proactive a little bit, or at least not completely, you know, obstructionist, right?
MALCOLM BLUNT: Yeah. I think there were people there who were generally trying to get stuff put out there, yeah.
ALAN DALE: Mmhmm. So, the piece of correspondence to which this cover sheet refers is from within the Agency to someone in the Historical Review Group of the Agency.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Mm.
ALAN DALE: And it’s dated December 21st 1995, so it’s towards the beginning era of the ARRB.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Mmhmm.
ALAN DALE: And – may I read this just for a moment?
MALCOLM BLUNT: Sure, yeah.
ALAN DALE: Just for the record, Senator.
MALCOLM BLUNT: For the record, yeah.
ALAN DALE: I want to read this into the record.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Yeah.
ALAN DALE:
SUBJECT: JFK – Postponed Release Dates.
I looked over the Board’s press release of December 20th 1995 which you faxed to me this morning. You asked me whether the Board had the power to set future “release dates” of postponed documents, as stated in the final paragraph of page 2.
Based on my review of the JFK Act, the Board’s statement that it is their responsibility to set “postponed released dates” is not quite accurate. When the Board decides to postpone a document, it also sets a date or condition for future disclosure (JFK ACT Sec 9(3)(B)). At that time the originating agency and the Archivist review the document again (JFK ACT Sec 5(g)(1)). Although it is obviously the Board’s hope that the document ultimately gets released in full, the Agency and the Archivist will have the power to continue to postpone release if necessary. Any decisions to continue postponement, however, must be supported by a written unclassified statement that will be published in the Federal Register.
As you are well aware, all records shall be released in full by 2017. However, even then, the Agency can always appeal to the President. Postponement is possible beyond 2017 if the President certifies that it is necessary to prevent an identifiable harm to military defense, intelligence, law enforcement or foreign relations and that harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
In sum, it would be more accurate to state that the Board is setting future “review” dates, and not “release” dates.
I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions let me know.
MALCOLM BLUNT: I think that’s a very interesting communication, because it gives an insight into Agency thinking on the release of documents. They don’t quite see it the way that we see it. We think…
ALAN DALE: [laughing]. Yeah. No, they’re on a different side.
MALCOLM BLUNT: …that everything is going to be released in 2017 – there might be a few appeals to the President – but they see it slightly different.
ALAN DALE: Mmhmm.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Slightly differently, yeah.
ALAN DALE: So even though that was written – it’s in-house, from inside the Agency to another part of the interior of the Agency…
MALCOLM BLUNT: Yeah.
ALAN DALE: It’s from 1995, but it’s still relevant, you know, it still has meaning to us.
MALCOLM BLUNT: Sure.
ALAN DALE: Here we are on the threshold of 2017, but there’s nothing, no reason to think that the policy is…
MALCOLM BLUNT: Well, it just gives us, you know, an insight into their perspective.
ALAN DALE: Mmhmm.
MALCOLM BLUNT: You know, they don’t quite see it as, you know, 2017 releases, they see it as a possibility that the can could be kicked further down the road. That’s what I’m seeing there. For certain, for certain, you know, documents and certain materials.
[Note: This is exactly what happened. Following a successful appeal to President Donald Trump to postpone full release of all remaining JFK assassination records, there was a review date set for 6 months after the scheduled release date of 26 October, 2017; The next review of currently withheld documents is scheduled for 2023]
Transcript by Mary Constantine.

ORDER THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS HERE

Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: Assassination records, CIA, JFK, JFK records, John F. Kennedy, Kennedy assassination. John F. Kennedy

15 DECEMBER 2022 JFK RECORDS RELEASE

JFK Assassination Records – 2022 Additional Documents Release

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2022?page=264

 

JFK Assassination Bulk Download Files

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/jfkbulkdownload

Filed Under: News and Views, Uncategorized

JFK Assassination Records – 2022 Additional Documents Release

 

 

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2022

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

White House Announcement RE JFK Records 15 DECEMBER 2022

Memorandum on Certifications Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT:      Certifications Regarding Disclosure of
Information in Certain Records Related to the
Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Section 1.  Policy.  As set forth in the Presidential Memorandum of October 22, 2021 (Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy) (2021 Memorandum), in the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the “Act”), the Congress declared that “all Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy . . . should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination.”  The Congress also found that “most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records.”  In the 30 years since the Act became law, the profound national tragedy of President Kennedy’s assassination continues to resonate in American history and in the memories of so many Americans who were alive on that terrible day; meanwhile, the need to protect records concerning the assassination has weakened with the passage of time.  It is therefore critical to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency by disclosing all information in records concerning the assassination, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise.

Sec. 2.  Background.  (a)  The Act permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information in records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  Since 2018, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have been reviewing under this statutory standard each redaction they have proposed that would result in the continued postponement of full public disclosure, with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) reviewing whether it agrees that each redaction continues to meet the statutory standard.  In my 2021 Memorandum, the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) explained that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the ability of agencies, including NARA, to conduct this review and comprehensive engagement, and the Archivist recommended that I temporarily certify the records for continued postponement for a limited period.  In the 2021 Memorandum, I directed the completion of an intensive 1-year review of each remaining proposed redaction to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency by disclosing all information in records related to the assassination, except in cases when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise.

(b)  Pursuant to my direction, agencies have undertaken a comprehensive effort to review the full set of almost 16,000 records that had previously been released in redacted form and determined that more than 70 percent of those records may now be released in full.  This significant disclosure reflects my Administration’s commitment to transparency and will provide the American public with greater insight and understanding of the Government’s investigation into this tragic event in American history.

(c)  In the course of their review, agencies have identified a limited number of records containing information for continued postponement of public disclosure.  NARA has reviewed these proposed redactions and has coordinated with relevant consulting agencies, where appropriate, to ensure that the proposed redactions meet the statutory standard for continued postponement.  The Acting Archivist has recommended certifying a small subset of the reviewed records for continued postponement of public disclosure.

(d)  The Acting Archivist has further indicated that additional work remains to be done with respect to a limited number of other reviewed records that were the subject of agency proposals for continued postponement of public disclosure.  The Acting Archivist believes such additional work could further reduce the amount of redacted information.  The Acting Archivist therefore recommends that I temporarily certify the continued postponement of public disclosure of the redacted information in these records to provide additional time for review and to ensure that information from these records is disclosed to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the standards of the Act.

Sec. 3.  Certification.  In light of the proposals from agencies for continued postponement of public disclosure of information in the records identified in section 2(c) of this memorandum under the statutory standard, and the Acting Archivist’s recommendation, I agree that continued postponement of public disclosure of such information is warranted to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, I hereby certify that continued postponement of public disclosure of these records is necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  All information within these records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act shall accordingly be withheld from public disclosure.  Further release of the information in these records shall occur in a manner consistent with the Transparency Plans described in section 7 of this memorandum.

Sec. 4.  Temporary Certification.  In light of the proposals from agencies for continued postponement of public disclosure of information in the records identified in section 2(d) of this memorandum under the statutory standard, the Acting Archivist’s request for an extension of time to continue review of those records, and the need for an appropriately thorough review process, I agree with the Acting Archivist’s recommendation regarding temporary postponement.  Temporary continued postponement of public disclosure of such information is necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, I hereby certify that all information within these records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act shall be withheld from public disclosure until June 30, 2023.

Sec. 5.  Release.  Any information currently withheld from public disclosure that agencies have not proposed for continued postponement shall be released to the public by December 15, 2022.

Sec. 6.  Review.  (a)  From the date of this memorandum until May 1, 2023, relevant agencies and NARA shall jointly review the remaining redactions in the records addressed in sections 2(d) and 4 of this memorandum with a view to maximizing transparency and disclosing all information in records concerning the assassination, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise.  Any information that agencies propose for continued postponement of public release beyond June 30, 2023, shall be limited to the absolute minimum under the statutory standard.  Agencies shall not propose to continue redacting information unless the redaction is necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  In applying the statutory standard, agencies shall:

(i)   accord substantial weight to the public interest in transparency and full disclosure of any record that falls within the scope of the Act; and

(ii)  give due consideration that some degree of harm is not grounds for continued postponement unless the degree of harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

(b)  If, by no later than May 1, 2023, NARA agrees that a proposed redaction meets the statutory standard for continued postponement, the Archivist shall recommend to the President, no later than May 1, 2023, that continued postponement of public disclosure of the information is warranted after June 30, 2023.

(c)  If, by no later than May 1, 2023, NARA does not recommend that a proposed redaction meets the statutory standard for continued postponement, agencies shall, no later than May 15, 2023:

(i)   withdraw the proposed redaction; or

(ii)  recommend to the President, through the Counsel to the President, on a document-by-document basis, that release of the information continue to be postponed, providing an explanation for each proposed redaction of why continued postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

(d)  In the development of the recommendations described in this section, as questions arise about particular proposed redactions, NARA shall consult, as appropriate, with relevant agencies as described in section 5(d) of my 2021 Memorandum.

(e)  At the conclusion of the review described in this section, any information withheld from public disclosure that agencies do not propose for continued postponement beyond June 30, 2023, shall be released to the public by that date.

Sec. 7.  Transparency Plans.  As part of their review, each agency prepared a plan for the eventual release of information (Transparency Plan) to ensure that information would continue to be disclosed over time as the identified harm associated with release of the information dissipates.  Each Transparency Plan details the event-based or circumstance-based conditions that will trigger the public disclosure of currently postponed information by the National Declassification Center (NDC) at NARA.  These Transparency Plans have been reviewed by NARA, and the Acting Archivist has advised that use of the Transparency Plans by the NDC will ensure appropriate continued release of information covered by the Act.  Accordingly, I direct that the Transparency Plans submitted by agencies be used by the NDC to conduct future reviews of any information that has been postponed from public disclosure, including information in the records described in sections 2(c) and 3 of this memorandum.

Sec. 8.  Publication.  The Acting Archivist is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                               JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

Filed Under: News and Views

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 60
  • Next Page »
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Newsletter Signup

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Send checks to:
    AARC
    930 Wayne Ave.
    Unit 1111
    Silver Spring, MD 20910

    Office: (844) JFK-2017

    Menu

    • Contact Us
    • Warren Commission
    • Garrison Investigation
    • House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
    • Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
    • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    • Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    • LBJ Library
    • Other Agencies and Commissions
    • Church Committee Reports

    Recent Posts

    • 30 December 2022: Mandate to renew the UN Investigation into the death of UNSG Hammarskjöld
    • 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, and now, June of 2023; some things seem not to change
    • 15 DECEMBER 2022 JFK RECORDS RELEASE
    • JFK Assassination Records – 2022 Additional Documents Release
    • White House Announcement RE JFK Records 15 DECEMBER 2022
    Copyright 2014 AARC
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Tools