Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains besides documents concerning national security matters, this file contains sensitive documents concerning other topics, especially personnel matters.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24823962
label
National Security Chronological File (7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24823962
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Security Chronological File (7)
description
This file contains besides documents concerning national security matters, this file contains sensitive documents concerning other topics, especially personnel matters.
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Secret Service. (2003 - )
Presidential appointments
Governmental investigations
National security
Intelligence
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24823962
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
949bb4aadf911864
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 26, folder "National Security Chronological File
(7)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 26 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 01431
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
National security restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memo (s)
CREATOR'S NAME
Philip Buchen
RECEIVER'S NAME
Wheaton Byers
DESCRIPTION
re Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1976
CREATION DATE
07/01/1976
VOLUME
4 pages
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
001900629
COLLECTION TITLE
Philip W. Buchen Files
BOX NUMBER
26
FOLDER TITLE
National Security Chronological File
(1)-(7)
DATE WITHDRAWN
08/12/1988
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
THE WHITE HOUSE
chron
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DOUGLAS BENNETT
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Charles Crutchfield to be a
Member, Board of Directors,
Corporation of Public Broad-
casting
We have concluded our review of the Personal Data Statement
made by Mr. Crutchfield. These responses reveal attitudes
and actions on his part which are likely to cause contro-
versy during the confirmaton process. Among them are:
1. A speech he made on August 11, 1972, in Atlanta, Ga.,
which was printed and circulated by the Georgia
Association of Broadcasters. The title of the
speech was "A Commitment to Balanced News" in which
the speaker cited a personal incident where he had
made ad lib comments while meeting with North
Carolina legislators to support retention of State
laws that permitted cities like Charlotte to annex
additional areas. His report of that incident is:
"I commented that 'Blacks are not -- at this
time -- mentally or economically qualified
to run a city the size of Charlotte.' This
was an unfortunate choice of words. I should
not have used the word 'mentally qualified'.
The meaning I was trying to convey was that,
general speaking, blacks do not -- at this
time -- possess the education and experience
necessary to administer a large city."
His point in using this example was that he had been
unfairly treated by the news media for having used an
ill-considered phrase, but the fact that he did use it
will undoubtedly come up in the hearings.
- 2 -
2. Also, in another speech delivered March 26, 1970,
he very much defended the attacks by Spiro Agnew
on the media.
3. Mr. Crutchfield was active in trying to ban non-
communists from speaking at tax-supported colleges
in the State of North Carolina.
4. The proposed nominee also has publicly criticized
the networks for permitting programs to be aired
in which blasphemy was used such as one episode
of the "All in the Family" series.
In the aftermath of the refusal of the Senate to accept
the nomination of Joseph Coors, we are likely to face
efforts by liberal Senators to characterize Mr. Crutch-
field as equally objectionable, and I think it necessary
that you be aware of this likelihood and the types of
evidence which will be available to the Senate Committee.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Evidence on U. S. Navy Flyers Downed in 1950
1.
Circumstances of the disappearance of the flyers (from
findings made by Secretary of the Navy on April 11, 1951
after inquiry and report by Board of Investigation).
At 10:51 AM on 8 April 1950, ten officers and enlisted
men took off from U.S. Air Force Base, Wiesbaden, Germany,
in a U.S. Navy Aircraft PB4Y-2. Subsequent events, as
found by the Secretary were:
Subsequent to its departure communications were
received from the subject aircraft up to 1:55 PM
(Z) on 6 April. Since the aircraft had fuel aboard
sufficient to last until approximately 11:00 PM (Z)
on 8 April, it was not officially declared missing
until that time. However, search and rescue aircraft
were alerted at 10:45 PM (Z) on that date. The first
search and rescue airplane took off from Wiesbaden at
2:40 AM on 9 April, followed quickly by others and
a total of 26 aircraft were engaged in the search
and rescue operations. On 16 April 1950, search and
rescue operations were suspended at sundown with
negative results. However, a British merchant ship
Mc. CHLAND on 14 April picked up a Mark VII life raft
at location 56-20N 20-06E which was positively
identified as belonging to the missing aircraft. On
23 April 1950, the Swedish ship HITTAGEN also picked
up a Mark VII life raft in a reported position of
56-10N 19-05E which was positively identified as
belonging to the missing aircraft.
Immediately following the failure of the aircraft to
return to Wiesbaden, the Soviet Government addressed
a note to the United States Government stating that
a U.S. aircraft was encountered and fired upon by
Soviet fighter aircraft at approximately 2:30 PM (Z)
on 8 April in the vicinity of overland at Laben, Latvia.
is
FORD
- 2 -
However, it was the opinion of the Board of Investi-
gation that by reconstruction of the scheduled
flight plan of the aircraft, it was most improbable
that the aircraft would have been overland at the
time of the Soviet strike but it was possible that
due to radar failure and weather change, the plane
could have flown into Soviet held territory without
knowing it. Based on the positions of the life rafts
when recovered, by reconstruction of average daily
surface winds and currents in the Baltic during the
period of the elapsed time from the assumed time of
the loss of the aircraft to the time of the recovery
of each raft, and assuming certain sailing charac-
terization of the rafts, an average mean position of
Latitude 55° 19' N Longitude 18° 45 E was computed
as being the geographical point where the loss of the
aircraft occurred. This then would place the aircraft
over the waters of the Baltic Sea.
2. Arrest, Incarceration, and Release of John H. Noble, a
U. S. citizen, by the USSR.
(a) Arrested in Dresden, East Germany, on July 5, 1945.
(b) Held in East German prisons and concentration camps
until August 1950.
(c) Transferred to Vorkuta Arctic Slave Camp where he
arrived on September 14, 1950, and was assigned on
September 26, 1950, to Camp 3. In an affidavit of
May 26, 1973*, Noble said in respect to his stay
at Vorkuta as follows:
"Shortly after my arrival I spoke with a
Yugoslavian National in Camp Number Three
who told me several months before an
American Navy Reconnaissance plane had been
downed by the Soviets over the Baltic Sea
and that eight of the ten crew members had
survived.
"The eight survivors were being held in the
Vorkuta area but most important was all
survivors had been declared dead and they
had been told by the Soviet officials the
United States Government had accepted this
statement and therefore they may just as
well forget about ever going back to America.
*This affidavit, made long after the events in question, is
cited because on the basis of this affidavit, President Nixon
first and now you have been asked to intercede with the Soviets.
-3-
"The Yugoslavian national told me they feared
they would never see their homeland again.
"During my stay I was never able to identify
the survivors by name, however, I heard
repeatedly from other Nationals being trans-
fered from one camp to another that American's
were being held where these transferre's [sic]
came from."
(d) On June 10, 1954, Noble first met William
Marchuk and William Verdine, who were also
U.S. citizens, and on June 30, 1954, all three
arrived at a repatriation camp in Potma. In
a sworn deposition given by Noble on January 18,
1955, he stated:
"
On the 30th of June, 1954, immediately
after I arrived in the Camp of Potma, I was
sitting on the bench in the park with either
Verdine or Marchuk -- I don't remember exactly ---
I was told by a German Yugoslav that he had met
eight American flyers which claimed to have been
shot down over the Baltic Sea.
"I don't remember the name of this German
Yugoslav, but
I know some people which
were together with him and have already been
repatriated
"One of them I think I have here: Franz Zvetko
"He was together with these Yugoslavs for more
than a year
so most likely he knows the
name of this person
"I did not take opportunity to speak with this
fellow later on, because I was warned by
several people in the Camp that this person
was working in connection with the Soviet
authorities."
Later, in the same deposition, Noble stated that
he remembered only the one conversation with
the German Yugoslav, and said he gave no details
of the eight flyers. Noble also said Marchuk
was informed of the flyers by the same Yugoslav
either in company with Noble on June 30, 1954
or on other occasions when Marchuk talked alone
FORD
-4-
with the same Yugoslav. Marchuk was most
likely to have known more than Noble about
the information which the Yugoslav had, but
not Verdine because he spoke no Russian and
very little German, according to this deposition.
(e) On January 8, 1955, Noble was given his freedom
in Berlin and arrived back in this country on
January 17, 1955.
(f) Noble was debriefed in Berlin before returning
to this country, according to a State Department
message of January 12, 1955, and told of having
"talked to prisoners who had seen 8 of these
flyers alive [those shot down in the Baltic in
1950] in an unspecified camp. On January 17,
1955, Noble was interviewed in New York City
by a Navy Intelligence officer, and identified
Franz Zwetko, then in Austria, as the man who
could identify the German Yugoslav who had told
Noble the story of the eight Americans. Later
in Washington on January 18, 1955, Noble gave
a sworn deposition at the State Department,
with exhaustive questions and answers, the
transcript of which covers 34 pages and part
of which is quoted in item (d) above. Lastly,
on March 23, 1955, the F.B.I. interviewed
Noble in Detroit, and the interview report
states in part:
"While in Camp Potma about January 2, 1955
[sic], awaiting release he talked to
FNU WUKOWITSCH, who stated he had seen
the eight Americans (believed to refer to
the eight lost in a plane accident), and
talked with them and they expressed to
him their fear that they would be "lost"
in the Soviet Union because they had been
officially pronounced dead by the Russian
Government.
"
Included in Noble's affidavit of May 26, 1973,
part of which is quoted in item (c) above, is
another statement, not reflected in any of the
other documentation, namely:
"After my arrival in Washington, D. C. on
January 17, 1955, I was interviewed by
Naval Intelligence primarily regarding
the downed American Navy fliers referred
to earlier in this statement. I was told
by my interrogators that they did have
photographic evidence to the fact the
- 5 -
plane was afloat for some time after the
crash and a Soviet vessel did come alongside
to pick-up the survivors and/or the bodies.
"Due to the fact the plane was afloat gave
reason to believe there are survivors which
verified to me the existence of the American's [sic]
inside Vorkuta. "
3. Lack of substantiation for the evidence given by
John Noble that eight of the flyers who crashed in 1950
survived and were imprisoned by the Soviets.
(a) In his 1973 affidavit Noble identified the
source for his only information about the
flyers as a Yugoslav who had also been
imprisoned by the Soviets, but he placed
the Yugoslav at Vorkuta and the time of
the disclosure in 1950. In all of his
statements given to U. S. authorities
upon his release in 1955, Noble placed
the Yugoslav in Potma at the only instance
of any conversation between the two and
gave the time as being in 1954. When I
talked recently to Noble he gave no
satisfactory explanation for this
discrepancy and said only that he now
thought he had heard the same information
both at Vorkuta in 1950 and at Potma in
1954. But this current recollection of
his having received the same report at
different times and in separate locations
is clearly contradicted by Noble's fresher
memories in 1955.
(b) No one else has ever confirmed to the U. S.
Government the information which Noble said
he had obtained from the particular Yugoslav
who told him of the eight flyers still alive
in the Soviet Union. The government made an
exhaustive inquiry in 1955 to see if it was
possible to confirm the story. The Yugoslav
described by Noble as the sole source for
his information about the flyers was identified
by Zwetko (to whom Noble had directed the
U. S. officials) as one Wukowitsch, then in
West Berlin. The latter was promptly
interviewed and stated he had no knowledge
of any Navy internees in Russia, although
- 6 -
he had in 1950 heard over a prison loudspeaker
from a radio broadcast that an American aircraft
had crossed the USSR border, that the U.S. had
charged the Soviets with shooting it down, and
that the Soviets had denied the charge. One
Franz Lesnik had been a fellow prisoner of
Wukowitsch who helped the U. S. officials locate
Wukowitsch in West Berlin, but he also had no
knowledge of American prisoners taken from a
U. S. aircraft. Many other possible sources
for confirming Noble's account were interviewed
in 1955 without obtaining any confirmation or
additional clues. Among them were the two
Americans who had been with Noble in Potma --
Marchuk and Verdine -- and various former
prisoners of other nationalities.
(c) As to the recollection of Noble in 1973 that he
was told of photographic evidence possessed by
Navy intelligence that the downed Navy aircraft
remained afloat and that a Soviet vessel came
alongside to pick up bodies and survivors, it
is nowhere supported by any records. I have
read the complete transcript of evidence taken
by the Board of Investigation for the Navy, and
no reference appears to any such photographs.
Moreover, the Navy's search and rescue flights
(which proved futile) were only begun during
darkness in the early morning of April 9, 1950,
some hours after the downed aircraft would have
run out of fuel and twelve hours after the time
when the Soviet government later said its air-
craft had fired on the U. S. aircraft.
4. Recommendation
In response to the information supplied you by John
along with your memo of conversation attached at
TAB A, I recommend you authorize me to disclose to
John the extent and results of my investigation into
the matter. I think he would then agree that, however
sincere John Noble may be about what he was told while
in Soviet prison camps, there is no evidence whatsoever
which substantiates the hearsay account given by Nobbe
and no basis for further investigation which could prove
fruitful, especially in respect of an event dating back
25 years.
Brent Scowcroft concurs in this recommendation.
APPROVE
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1976
MEETING WITH CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. MOSS
Thursday, July 22, 1976
3:30 or 4:00 p.m. (30 minutes)
The Oval Office
From: Philip W. Buchen
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss with John E. Moss as Chairman of the
Oversight Investigation Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce the
positions taken by you in your letters of today
sent to Chairman Staggers (Tab A) and to John E. Moss
(Tab B).
II.
BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: The return date for the subpoena
to AT&T is now at 10:00 a.m. on Friday,
July 23. As a result of your letters of today,
it is hoped that Chairman Moss will agree to the
proposals made in your letter to him of today
(Tab B) or that, if he wants additional time to
consider them, he will further extend the return
date for the subpoena. If there is neither
agreement nor postponement as an immediate
result of this meeting, it will be necessary for
the Justice Department to file immediately a suit
against AT&T to obtain a temporary restraining
order tonight to prohibit AT&T from complying
with the subpoena tomorrow morning.
B. Participants: Congressman Moss, John Marsh,
Brent Scowcroft and Philip Buchen.
C. Press Plan: Kennerly photo only. Meeting not
to be announced (although the press already
knows it is to occur).
- 2 -
III. TALKING POINTS
1. John, I understand that you have had very
beneficial discussions with Jack Marsh and
Phil Buchen and that you talked to Phil Buchen
yesterday afternoon indicating that you thought
it would be in the best interests of the country
if we could find acceptable arrangements for
your Subcommittee to obtain certain information.
2. John, I also understand that the principal
differences between you and the Executive Branch
are now over the means for verifying the expurgated
backup material for the surveillances involving
assistance to the FBI from the AT&T. From our
point of view, any verification procedure which
allows the names of particular targets of foreign
intelligence surveillance or the identities and
nature of sensitive source and methods to reach
your Subcommittee and, potentially every member
of the House of Representatives, involves risks
that I as President cannot approve. I feel
particularly strong on this point because I
understand that for the purposes of investigation
you do not need to know the identities of targets
which could be foreign establishments, individual
foreign agents or even double agents. My security
advisers tell me that if a foreign power should
ever find out that we have discovered one of its
foreign agents, not only would such agent be with-
drawn and replaced but also the foreign power
could reasonably surmise how that agent was
discovered and could take serious reprisals
against the informants on which we have relied
to discover the existence of the foreign agent.
3. I know that you, John, have been trusted with much
sensitive information under previous administrations
and I would feel no difficulty in sharing very
confidential information with you but I must draw
the line on having your Subcommittee acquire
information that could in turn, because of Rule 11,
become available to any of 435 Congressmen parti-
cularly when there is not a critical need for
your Subcommittee or any other Congressman to
know this information.
7
- 3 -
4. You may think that I have stepped in to disrupt
a plan that you thought could be implemented on
the basis of discussions your staff has had
with Rex Lee and others in the Department of
Justice. However, Phil Buchen tells me that as
late as July 12th he approved for negotiation
purposes a memorandum from the Justice Department
which involved proposing to you arrangements which
would leave open the verification procedure until
after you had seen the expurgated documents. We
all think that once you have looked at the
expurgated documents, you will find that they
serve your purposes completely and that no greater
verification procedure is necessary than the one I
proposed in my letter to you today.
TOP SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS Class
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE HONORABLE REX LEE
Attached are the originals of Affidavits
of Mr. Lew Allen and Mr. Robert L. Keuch.
9-6:13
in
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachments (2)
TOP SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
sent
Confidential
July 22, 1976
8/2/76
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN MATHENY
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Declassification of Memorandum
to President Eisenhower
The Counsel's Office sees no reason why the attached
memorandum could not be declassified.
Attachment
UNCLASSIFIED UPON ACHMENTS REMOVAL
OF
STATE K. FORD
classified
chann
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
TO:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
Suggest you circulate copies as
you see fit.
A
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Star Article of 7/23/76 Entitled
"Moss Claims U.S. Wiretaps
on Increase"
Attached at Tab A is a page from the affidavit of
James B. Adams, Assistant to the Director of the FBI,
which details the number of leased line letters from
which Congressman Moss wrongly inferred that wiretaps
and microphones for foreign intelligence purposes had
increased during your Administration. At Tab B is the
release issued by the Department of Justice after
Congressman Moss had spoken to the press. It explains
that the number of leased line letters does not reflect
the actual number of different wiretaps and microphones
and that the number of persons subject to surveillances
has actually decreased under your Administration.
Attachments
is
FORD
chen
THE WHITE HOUSE
waSHINGTON
dan
July 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RICHARD CHENEY
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
1)
Preparatory to our meeting on the subject we discussed,
I attach for your review drafts of documents which the
President could use to implement part of the procedures
he would follow in determining his preference for the
nominee as Vice President.
The draft of a letter for Edward McCabe explains the
procedures to be followed. I suggest him for this
purpose because he is a respected private attorney,
was formerly counsel to President Eisenhower and is
now serving as part-time counsel to the President Ford
Committee, although I have not, of course, inquired
whether he is willing to serve in this capacity.
The memorandum setting forth the desired information
and documents is based on the kind of information
obtained from prospective appointees to federal office,
and from persons who are screened for security clearance
purposes; although in some respects the information
required is more extensive, but is consistent with
information Congressman Ford had to supply to the
Congress upon his nomination to be Vice President
of the United States.
Attachments
chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Case of U. S. V. AT&T as
Defendant and Chairman Moss
as Intervenor-Defendant
Action was started on Thursday, July 22, in the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to restrain AT&T from turning over certain
documents to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee, pursuant to its subpoena. The
documents in question involve letters from the FBI
to AT&T to order installation of telephone lines
between (a) the point of FBI wiretaps or microphones
installed to acquire foreign intelligence information
and (b) the point where the FBI is to monitor the com-
munications which can be intercepted by the wiretaps
or microphones.
Letters like this have been sent to AT&T since 1969
(before which they were merely shown but not delivered)
and have been issued only after determination by the
Attorney General that interception of the communications
to be monitored is within the lawful authority of the
government to conduct electronic surveillances without
judicial warrant for the intelligence and counter-
intelligence operations of the NSA and the Intelligence
Branch of the FBI.
Each of the letters which has gone to AT&T identifies
by location, telephone number or other means, the subject
of the surveillance. Their disclosure would reveal
every foreign power or agent of a foreign power which has
been a subject of interest to the United States for
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes.
Involved are foreign agents believed to be engaged in
espionage, sabotage, or terrorism, whose identification,
-2-
if it became known to unfriendly powers, would be
seriously detrimental to this nation's security, could
jeopardize the lives of informants, and would evidence
to the extreme advantage of foreign powers the limits
of our awareness as to their agents.
The Court initially issued a temporary restraining
order and set the case for a further hearing on
July 28 when the United States will move for the issuance
of a preliminary injunction and for a summary judgment
to make the injunction permanent. Such a judgment would
protect the information held by AT&T from delivery to
a Subcommittee of Congress and thus would avoid the risk
of either deliberate or inadvertent disclosure by
action of the Subcommittee, by any one of the 435 members
of the Congress who, pursuant to Rule 11 (2) (e) (2) of the
House would have access to the information, or by any
Congressional staff member who may be given access.
Notwithstanding the case by the U. S. for preventing
such risks of disclosure over objections by Congressman
Moss, the Executive Branch has offered the Subcommittee
access to certain records within the FBI sufficient to
permit the Subcommittee to make a responsible judgment
that the electronic surveillances conducted through
assistance from AT&T were within the lawful authority
of the United States. To the extent these surveillances
involved domestic-related activities rather than foreign-
related ones, as the law prior to the Kieth case in 1972
permitted, a full disclosure would be made to the
Subcommittee, and in other respects the reason and
justification for each surveillance would be disclosed
but not the identity of the particular target and not
the details of the sensitive sources or methods.
Despite this offer of alternative means for providing
adequate and relevant information to the Subcommittee,
Chairman Moss persists in defending the force and
effect of the subpoena for delivery of highly sensitive
documents.
cc: Jack Marsh
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Case of U. S. V. AT&T as
Defendant and Chairman Moss
as Intervenor-Defendant
Action was started on Thursday, July 22, in the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to restrain AT&T from turning over certain
documents to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee, pursuant to its subpoena. The
documents in question involve letters from the FBI
to AT&T to order installation of telephone lines
between (a) the point of FBI wiretaps or microphones
installed to acquire foreign intelligence information
and (b) the point where the FBI is to monitor the com-
munications which can be intercepted by the wiretaps
or microphones.
Letters like this have been sent to AT&T since 1969
(before which they were merely shown but not delivered)
and have been issued only after determination by the
Attorney General that interception of the communications
to be monitored is within the lawful authority of the
government to conduct electronic surveillances without
judicial warrant for the intelligence and counter-
intelligence operations of the NSA and the Intelligence
Branch of the FBI.
Each of the letters which has gone to AT&T identifies
by location, telephone number or other means, the subject
of the surveillance. Their disclosure would reveal
every foreign power or agent of a foreign power which has
been a subject of interest to the United States for
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes.
Involved are foreign agents believed to be engaged in
espionage, sabotage, or terrorism, whose identification,
-2-
if it became known to unfriendly powers, would be
seriously detrimental to this nation's security, could
jeopardize the lives of informants, and would evidence
to the extreme advantage of foreign powers the limits
of our awareness as to their agents.
The Court initially issued a temporary restraining
order and set the case for a further hearing on
July 28 when the United States will move for the issuance
of a preliminary injunction and for a summary judgment
to make the injunction permanent. Such a judgment would
protect the information held by AT&T from delivery to
a Subcommittee of Congress and thus would avoid the risk
of either deliberate or inadvertent disclosure by
action of the Subcommittee, by any one of the 435 members
of the Congress who, pursuant to Rule 11 (2) (e) (2) of the
House would have access to the information, or by any
Congressional staff member who may be given access.
Notwithstanding the case by the U. S. for preventing
such risks of disclosure over objections by Congressman
Moss, the Executive Branch has offered the Subcommittee
access to certain records within the FBI sufficient to
permit the Subcommittee to make a responsible judgment
that the electronic surveillances conducted through
assistance from AT&T were within the lawful authority
of the United States. To the extent these surveillances
involved domestic-related activities rather than foreign-
related ones, as the law prior to the Kieth case in 1972
permitted, a full disclosure would be made to the
Subcommittee, and in other respects the reason and
justification for each surveillance would be disclosed
but not the identity of the particular target and not
the details of the sensitive sources or methods.
Despite this offer of alternative means for providing
adequate and relevant information to the Subcommittee,
Chairman Moss persists in defending the force and
effect of the subpoena for delivery of highly sensitive
documents.
cc: Jack Marsh
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Doug Bennutt 7/28/76 took
this memo to President,
who saw no reason why
M.L. should not step
down. I have so
advised M.L.
P.
I N. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
P.
SUBJECT:
Mel Laird as a Member of PFIAB
When Mel was originally being considered for appointment
to PFTAB, Hobart Lewis talked to me about the problem he
saw because Mel was under contract with Reader's Digest
to write articles for the magazine on national defense
and international affairs. Hobart thought that it would
be difficult for Mel to separate information he acquired
as a Member of PFIAB from information he derived indepen-
dently, and he thought that in any event, competitive
publications and the public generally would believe he
was taking advantage of information he acquired in an
official capacity for the purpose of preparing his
articles.
Somehow, these concerns of Hobart Lewis were later
ignored, and Mel agreed to accept the appointment.
However, even though you nominated him, Mel has not
yet taken his oath of office nor participated in any
PFIAB meeting, because Mel himself is concerned now
that his role for Reader's Digest poses the problems
which had been previously raised. Moreover, Mel did
provide for the May issue of Reader's Digest an article
on the CIA which does include heretofore unpublished
information about its operations. Also, for the August
issue he will be providing an article that contains
heretofore unpublished information about the relation-
ships between the Soviet Union and Cuba. Leo Cherne
has seen both of these articles and does believe that
articles like this, if prepared after Mel takes part
in the PFIAB deliberations, would lead to the charge
that he was using his PFIAB position to his private
advantage.
FORD
-2-
I report these developments to you because Mel
indicates he will be sending a letter to you
shortly in which he proposes to step aside from
service on PFIAB, and he wants to be sure that
you understand why he has reluctantly decided to
take this step.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Attached is a draft of a document to be used
in contacting persons at the semi-final stage
of the selection process, a signed copy of
which is to be sought from each prospective
candidate then under consideration. I urge
that the President review this promptly and
approve taking this next step as early as
Thursday of this week so as to enable the
persons contacted to get their material
together in time.
Attachments
is
FORD
GARNED
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SAM HOSKINSON
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Enclosed with this memorandum is a report to the
President of July 12, 1976, by the Intelligence
Oversight Board.
After this was originally delivered to me, I
received a call from Joe Dennin, Counsel to the
IOB, who suggested that I might want to hold up
further handling of this communication until the
Defense Department (Bob Ellsworth) came up with
a proposal or other suggestion as mentioned in the
last paragraph of the report to the President.
At that time IOB contemplated a fairly quick response
from Defense, but more recently I have received a
call from Dennin indicating that the IOB was no longer
requesting that further handling of the report be
postponed, presumably because IOB has not heard from
Defense.
I assume you will see that the report gets to the
President, although you may want to prepare a cover-
ing memorandum that comments on the issue raised by
IOB. Such a memorandum, I suggest, should be pre-
ceded by consultation with OMB and with Bob Ellsworth,
and I would be glad to discuss a draft of the memorandum
before it goes to the President.
Attachment
FORD
Clavilified Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
SUBJECT:
Army Special Operations
Field Office in Berlin
I am returning to you the Action Memorandum on
the above subject which has been prepared for
you to send to the President.
I do concur in the action recommended. I do,
however, point out that the National Security
Decision Memorandum which you recommend be signed
by the President has been drafted so as to call
for your signature rather than the President's,
and I assume that this was done in error.
&
FORD
AS
TOP SECRET
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 12, 1976
DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12356, Sec. 3.4.
MR 89-23,#5 NSC ltr, 9/30/89
By KBH NARA, Date 12/4/89
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
SUBJECT:
Intelligence Oversight Board Report
Dated August 6, 1976
I. BACKGROUND
Attached at Tab A is a report to you from Chairman
Murphy of the Intelligence Oversight Board, along
with a memorandum of its staff on which the report
is based.
This report is made pursuant to Section 6 (a) (v) and
(vi) of your Executive Order 11905 which requires
the Board to report to you and the Attorney General
"any activities that raise serious questions about
legality" and to you alone "any activities that raise
serious questions about propriety." This report
appears to raise both questions of "legality" and those
of "propriety."
The Attorney General has received a similar report and
I have talked to him. He does not look upon the
report as raising any question of criminality but
merely of whether there was a requirement to comply
with Section 662 of the Foreign Assistance Act, and,
if so, whether there was a failure to do SO. This
statute requires that no funds can be expended by CIA
for certain activities unless and until you find them
to be important to the national security and report to
certain Committees of the Congress.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board's staff memorandum does not reflect a thorough
examination of the facts. Therefore, before you receive
your own legal advice on the issue raised by the Board,
TOP SECRET
TOP SECRET
-2-
I believe you should authorize me to dig further into
the facts of the matter. I would propose to do so by
having Brent Scowcroft assign someone from the NSC
staff to join me in talking first to George Bush and
then to those people at CIA who may have direct
knowledge of the activities in question. Also, we
would examine whatever documentary evidence is avail-
able. At the conclusion of this process, I would
report to you and the Attorney General whatever
findings we make and then confer with the Attorney
General as to what would be the most appropriate legal
advice to you. Jack Marsh and Brent Scowcroft concur
in this recommendation.
On the question of propriety, after all the facts are
in, you may want to have the Operations Advisory Group
study the matter from a policy standpoint and make a
recommendation to you.
III. ACTION
Approve investigation
See me to discuss
of facts by Buchen
and NSC staff member
TOP SECRET
claimfied
chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL HYLAND
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.
In accordance with the attached letter from
Assistant Attorney General Thornburgh, will
you please provide me with copies of the
requested documents.
Thank you for your assistance.
Attachment
Claim.
August 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE HONORABLE HAROLD TYLER
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:
Possible Misuse of Government
Facilities
Douglas Bennett of our office has been advised by
operators of the White House #witchboard that on
the mornings of August 3 and 4, they received
requests to place overseas phone calls through the
White House switchboard for someone who identified
himself as Douglas Bennett. A list of the parties
called, their locations and telephone numbers in
Europe and the times the calls were placed is
attached.
Ordinarily, it is not possible for calls to be
placed through the White House switchboard by
unauthorized persons, because the operators take
the request and have the requesting party hang up
while they place the call. In this instance, how-
ever, the party who represented himself to be
Douglas Bennett asked to hold on the telephone
while the call was placed on the pretext that the
requesting party did not want a call back which
would awaken others in the house.
I assume It will be possible for the Department to
check with the persons named on the attached list
to learn the identity of the true caller and the
purpose for the calls.
111
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachment
R. FORD LIBRARY
chron
SECRET WITH ATTACHMENTS
class
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 1, 1976
Dear Mr. Thornburgh:
In response to your request of August 13, 1976, as modified
by a review by your staff of NSC documents on August 30, I
forward the attached documents. The NSC has requested that
these documents be submitted with the understanding that they
will be maintained as classified material and returned upon
completion of your investigation. Any request for their
declassification, in full or in part, should be submitted
through this office. However, because this material clearly
contains sensitive intelligence information, it is unlikely
that it will be possible to declassify substantive portions
of this material.
Sincerely,
Thely W Buchen
President
The Honorable Richard L. Thornburgh
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20007
Attachments
1. "DCI Briefing for 6 November 1970 National Security
Council Meeting" 15 pp (SECRET)
2. Memorandum of Conversation dated November 6, 1970,
Subject: National Security Council Meeting - Chile
(NSSM-97). (Edited Version), SECRET, 1 page
SECRET WITH ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Investigation by the Watergate Special
Prosecutor of Republican Committee
Records in Kent County
Under date of September 2, the Watergate Special
Prosecutor caused to be issued from the Grand Jury
of the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia subpoenas to the Custodians of the
Records for both the Kent County Republican Committee
and the Kent County Financial Committee. The subpoenas
cover all of the Committees' records for the period
January 1, 1964, to the present. Subsequently, the
Special Prosecutor advised that he also wanted records
of the Fifth District Republican Committee.
Stephen Bransdorfer, Attorney for the Committees,
contacted Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff and worked
out an arrangement whereby the records need not be
sent to Washington but will be examined by agents of
the FBI in Grand Rapids.
Bransdorfer has been led to believe that the purpose
of the examination is to determine whether contributions
from labor union funds were made to these local commit-
tees to benefit candidates for election to federal
offices. Prior to delivery of the documents to the FBI
for examination, they were reviewed by Bransdorfer and
his colleagues, who in turn disclosed to Niel Weathers
those transactions which appeared to relate to the
purpose of the Special Prosecutor's inquiry. Only
records from 1966 to date are available. They do show
certain contributions from union-related sources with
the same address of 675 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York, namely, (i) the Seafarers Committee on
Political Education, (ii) Seafarers Political Activity
- 2 -
Donation (SPAD), and (iii) Philip Carlip. These
receipts were reported by the Committees under State
law, to the extent the Committees were required to do
so (which did not include receipts at times outside
the periods of general election campaigns), but
because the Committees did not operate in more than
one State, they were not required by law before 1972
to make any Federal report.
Also, the Committees' records do show that expenditures
were made for your benefit in 1966, 1968, and 1970 and
for Bob Griffin's benefit in 1966. Expenditures for
your benefit were itemized for 1966 and 1968 on a
ledger account of the Fifth District Committee which
bears your name and the number "451", and in 1970 a
single payment was made to Insight Advertising
Company to pay for services rendered in your behalf.
The ledger account also identifies receipts of the
Fifth District Committee which apparently were intended
to benefit your campaigns, but none appears to be from
a union-related source. However, payment of the Insight
Advertising bill for $1,875 appears to be related to the
MEBA contribution of $2,500 made on the same date in 1970.
Again, the expenditures were reported by these Committees
in their State filings to the extent the Committees were
required to report them.
Attached at TAB A is a summary made by Niel of these
transactions. At TAB B is a copy of ledger account
number 451 from the Committee records.
How the records in question could relate to prosecutable
charges under Federal law is difficult even to guess.
Labor organizations are prohibited by Federal law from
making political contributions in connection with an
election to Federal office. However, unions may sponsor
separate political action committees, and the contribu-
tions received by the local Republican Committees as
reported by them were from such committees rather than
from the unions themselves. Also, a three-year statute
of limitations applies to violation of the law against
union contributions, and no union-related receipts
appear in the subpoenaed records after November 16, 1971.
Under the Federal law in effect during 1964-1972, you
might have been required to report to the Clerk of the
House receipts of the Kent and Fifth District Committees
- 3 -
related to your candidacy and expenditures by them for
your campaigns if made with your knowledge and consent.
But that was not how the former Federal Corrupt Practices
Act was ever interpreted or applied. The prevailing
practice was to permit and encourage multiple committees
and to expect a candidate for Congress to file a Federal
report for only his principal and personally controlled
campaign committee, leaving other committees only to
file as may have been required by the law of the single
state in which they functioned. In any event, the three-
year statute of limitations also applies to any failure
of a candidate for Congress to file a complete Federal
report.
If someone has complained to the Special Prosecutor that
the Kent County Committees and the Fifth District
Committee were used as conduits for monies that went
not for your campaign expenses but for your personal
benefit, then the subpoenaed records support no such
charge except for any possible question as to the
reason for the expenditure of December 12, 1966, that
is described as "Union Bank and Trust Co. GRF" for
$2,200 and the one of October 26, 1966, for $200 to
Union Bank, presumably for your account. Although
these transactions occurred almost ten years ago, I
will ask Bob McBain to try to find out their purpose.
But I am not concerned, because I believe your Union
Bank accounts were thoroughly audited at the time of
your Vice Presidential confirmation hearings.
Attachments
chan
THE WHITE HOUSE
Class
WASHINGTON
September 16, 1976
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: DOUG BENNETT
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
8x
BOBBIE GREENE KILBERG
SUBJECT:
Hobart Lewis Nomination for Reappointment
as a Member of the U.S. Advisory
Commission on Information
Newspaper accounts of Hobart Lewis' actions in regard
to Wayne Andreas' contribution of $100,000 to Richard
Nixon indicate the following:
1033
16,
NARS 8/12/88
Andreas wanted to contribute $100,000 to Nixon
in 1971, probably for his Presidential campaign.
Andreas contacted Lewis and Lewis put Andreas in
touch with Rose Woods. Shortly thereafter, Andreas
personally delivered $100,000 to someone in the
White House.
an
Andreas' contribution was not used in the 1972
of
campaign but was kept in Rose Woods' safe.
KR
In June 1973, a decision was made to return
the $100,000 to Andreas. Woods asked Lewis to
come to the White House where she gave him the
$100,000 in cash.
Lewis asked Woods to tell Andreas that his
money had been returned to Lewis. Lewis kept it
for several days and then borrowed it from Andreas
to pay off personal debts. This loan was first
confirmed in a letter from Lewis to Andreas and
then by a promissory note for the loan. The loan
had not been paid back as of June 1976.
The facts available to us do not warrant a conclusion
that Lewis acted illegally, and the Special Prosecutor
has reported to the FBI, pursuant to their security
- 2
clearance check on Lewis for this reappointment, that
he is not the subject of an investigation by that office.
However, we think that Lewis' participation, parti-
cularly in the return of the Andreas money from the
White House, showed very poor judgment and could be of
potential embarrassment to the President.
conf chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
CONF IDENTIAL
WASHINGTON
September 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM HYLAND
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
"Green Book" Matter
From my records, it does appear that when the
new appointments were made to PFIAB, including
the new Chairman on March 11, 1976, I had not
heard about the incident of the "Green Book.
The first time I heard about this matter was
about April 21, 1976.
More recently, I was furnished a copy of a
chronology of events which was prepared at the
request of the FBI by Leo Cherne and the PFIAB
staff. The first mention of information supplied
to me as well as Jack Marsh and Brent Scowcroft
is at Item 39 which reports events on 23 April 76,
but, I believe, I had a telephone call from
Leo Cherne on April 21 in which he alerted me
to the information that came to me on April 23.
Attachment-- Chronology of events
commined to be an administrative mark
belied por E.O. 12356, Sec. 1.3 and
billvist's mome of March 16, 1983
KR
NARS date 8/12/98
UNCLASSIFIED UPON REMOVAL
OF CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 13, 1976
CONF IDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BOB HARTMANN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
Attached is a copy of a letter from
Garry Brown's office about which
Jack Marsh talked to you.
It appears that Graham Northrop on the
Minority Staff of the House Banking and
Currency Committee is the author.
Please give me your comments.
Attachment
timined to be an administrative me
used
per E.O. 12356, Sec.
wist's memo of March 16, 1933
KR
NARS date 8/12/88
CONFIDENTIAL
GERALD R.FORD
MICHIG
ICE
425 CHERRY THET SE.
MICHIGAN
GRAND RAPIDS
Zip 49502
?
Po
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
Hand delivered
house of Representatibes
4: 4:35p.m.
Washington, D.C. 20515
September 28, 1972
Hon. Garry E. Brown
404 Cannon H.O.B.
Dear Garry:
As you know, the House Banking and Currency Committee will
meet at 10 o'clock on Tuesday, October 3 to consider an
investigation of the Watergate affair. This is 2 matter
of utmost importance, and I urge you to be present at this
meeting.
Obviously, we desire to see those who have been involved
in illegal activities brought to justice, but at the same
time we must be careful not to impinge on the constitutional
rights of those who have been indicted by reckless or
irresponsible investigations motivated by political con-
siderations. Because of the political overtones of this
matter I think it would be imperative for all Republican
members to be present at the Committee meeting to assure
that the investigative resolution is appropriately drawn.
Sincerely,
Gerald Jany R. Ford, M.C.
TOP SECRET ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1976
Dear Mr. Thornburgh:
In accordance with the meeting this week with
Mr. Robert Andary of your office and Mr. Barry Roth
of my staff, the following materials relating to
Chile are provided to you:
1. Testimony of Richard Helms before the
Rockefeller Commission; declassified as
per your request.
2. Blue Form 101, dated 22 September 1970,
Memorandum for Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
from Richard Helms; and attached Memo-
randum for the Record, 21 September 1970
"Conversation with Augustin Edwards,
owner of El Mercurio Chilean Newspaper
Chain, 18 September 1970" by KYM. (In
folder "Korry File" Chile 1971)
3. Notes of 40 Committee Meeting Tuesday,
September 22, 1970 8:10-8:40 a.m. (In
folder "Chile 1970")
4. Blue Form 101, Memorandum for Dr. Henry
A. Kissinger, from Richard Helms, 18
September 1970; and attached Memorandum
for the Record, 18 September 1970
"Discussion of Chilean Political Situation:
by KYM. (In folder "Chile 1970")
5. Memorandum for the President from Dr. Henry
A. Kissinger, Subject: Chile, dated 17
September 1970, and attached note dated
September 21, 1970. (In folder "Chile 1970")
6. Six page, unsigned, undated document which
begins "The following actions have been taken
in response to the President's instructions of
15 September 1970." (In folder "Chile 1970")
UNCLASSIFIED UPON REMOVAL
OF CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
TOP SECRET ATTACHMENTS
TOP SECRET ATTACHMENTS
- 2 -
7. Memorandum for Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
from Brent Scowcroft, 28 March 1973,
Subject: "White House Involvement in
Chilean Election." (In folder "Chile
14 September 1970-8 November 1970")
8. Memorandum dated September 9, 1970, from
Viron P. Vaky to Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
Subject, Chilean Developments; with
attachments.
9. Letter dated November 9, 1970, from
Henry A. Kissinger to Mr. William Merriam,
with background materials.
10. Memorandum dated October 22, 1970, from
Theodore L. Elliot, Executive Secretary,
Department of State to Henry A. Kissinger,
Subject, Message to Chilean President Frei
on Atttempted Assassination of Army
Commander, with attachments.
I have requested that the NSC immediately review items
2, 4 and 7 for the purpose of declassifying as much of
their contents as possible. As soon as the NSC's review
has been completed, we will contact your office.
Sincerely,
Philip/W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Richard L. Thornburgh
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Enclosures
TOP SECRET ATTACHMENTS
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Differences Between the CIA and the DOJ
BACKGROUND
Throughout the various investigations of alleged
abuses by the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
you have taken the position that evidence of offenses
against the statutes of the United States should be
submitted to the Department of Justice. For example,
your order on January 4, 1975, establishing the
Rockefeller Commission expressly provided:
"The Commission shall furnish to the
Attorney General any evidence found
by the Commission which may relate
to offenses under the statutes of
the United States. "
In San Francisco before the World Affairs Council
luncheon on September 22, 1975, you stated:
"I can assure you
that under no
circumstances will there be any action
by me or people working with me to use
the classification process to prevent
the exposure of alleged or actual
criminal action by any Federal authority."
During the Church Committee investigation of alleged
assassination plots involving foreign leaders, you
made it clear to all of your staff who worked on
responses to such Committee that on this subject
UNCLASSIFIED UPON REMOVAL
OF CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
- 2 -
you wanted material to be provided without regard
to classification status or possible claims of
executive privilege. This material included
documents on CIA activities in Chile during 1970.
You took this position because of the possible
criminality involved and the obvious misuse of
power if the allegations proved to be true.
Now an impasse exists between the Justice Department
and Director George Bush of the CIA over the calling
of certain witnesses and use in evidence of documents
that reveal their identification and CIA connections
for the purposes of a grand jury investigation and
possible trial of cases involving alleged perjury
previously committed before Committees of Congress
or the Rockefeller Commission by some of these same
persons and by others connected with the CIA. The
investigation involves the knowledge of such persons
and their sworn statements about CIA operations in
Chile during the late 1960's and early 1970's
including Agency relations with ITT, many details
of which have been publicly disclosed in the pro-
ceedings and reports of the Church Committee (volume
on "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign
Leaders,' pp. 225-53, and volume on "Covert Action"
pp. 5-48, pp. 95-136, and pp. 144-209).
The scope and nature of requests made by Justice to
the CIA and the reactions of Director Bush up to
October 13, 1976, are described in a memorandum from
George Bush to Jack Marsh which is attached at TAB A.
Subsequently, meetings were held to try to resolve
the remaining differences between Justice and CIA.
PRESENT STATUS
Near the end of negotiations, the CIA maintained its
concern about seventeen Agency employees, past and
current, and two other persons who had supplied informa-
tion on Chile to the CIA. In deference to that concern,
Justice determined that at least for grand jury purposes,
its needs could be reasonably limited to disclosures of
eight of the nineteen persons involved, and that it
would attempt to avoid disclosing the present location
and position of one of those and would try to bring
another before the grand jury under an alias. So the
FORD
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
- 3 -
issue now to be resolved is whether the requirements
of the Department of Justice, as reduced to the
eight persons still in question, are to be respected
by George Bush. He seeks your guidance because he
believes his statutory responsibility "for protecting
intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized
disclosure" [emphasis added] is in conflict with
the needs of the Justice Department and he has never
had a directive from you on your policy as expressed
in your statement at the San Francisco World Affairs
Council meeting on September 22, 1975, which is quoted
above in this memorandum. Jack Marsh and I believe that
it is clearly within the authority of George Bush to
authorize the disclosures at issue on the basis of the
stated needs of the Department of Justice and that
your public statement is sufficient indication that
for him to do so would not contravene any policy of
yours, but would be in keeping with your policy. How-
ever, Brent Scowcroft believes that George should have
your guidance on this matter.
The most recent statement by George of the problem as
he sees it, which was not provided me until late on
this Friday afternoon, is attached at TAB B.
Attached at TAB C is a Secret document prepared for me
by the Justice Department in justification of its
requirements for the disclosures it seeks. This has
not been shown to CIA or anyone else at the White House
except Jack Marsh, because it explains why the persons
in question are targets of investigation or are essential
witnesses. This document shows the importance which the
Department of Justice puts upon their testimony and upon
documents concerning their knowledge of, and involvement
in, prior CIA activities. I believe it overcomes any
argument that the Department of Justice has gone farther
in its requests to the CIA than is necessary for proper
criminal investigatory and prosecutorial purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
I strongly recommend that you authorize me to advise
George Bush as follows:
a. That your policy as it should guide his
actions is the same as you stated it to
be on September 22, 1975.
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
TOP SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
- 4 -
b.
That his authorizing disclosures of the
names and CIA connections of the persons
identified at TAB C and of documents
requested by the Department of Justice
for the purposes described which contain
such names and show the knowledge and
involvement of such persons in relevant
CIA activities is consistent with your
policy of making an exception for investi-
gation and prosecution of alleged criminal
acts.
Arguments in favor of such recommendation are:
°While there may be instances when
disclosure of information damaging
to the national security would justify
using prosecutorial discretion not to
investigate or prosecute for an alleged
crime (as the Attorney General does
concede) the exercise of such discretion
to protect the confidentiality of human
sources of information when that informa-
tion is otherwise already known or would
not itself be presently damaging to the
national security would not appear to be
justified. This is particularly true
where some of the sources are themselves
targets of investigation and where there
is no claim that personal damage to any
of the people innocent of any crime who
are involved would be very serious or
irreparable.
°No one outside of the Attorney General
ought to substitute his judgment on a
matter like this unless there appears
to be an abuse of discretion in proceeding
with an investigation or prosecution or
there is an evident failure to take into
account an overriding public interest
vital to the security of the nation.
°Failure to permit disclosure of the
requested information would abort the
pending investigation and lead to no
prosecution, with the consequences that
otherwise prosecutable persons will be
saved from prosecution merely to protect
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
- 5 -
their identities and CIA connections
from disclosure. Such an outcome
would be interpreted by knowledgeable
people as setting a precedent for
never investigating or prosecuting a
confidential source of information
even though he may have committed
perjury; also for not prosecuting
anyone for any crime if the evidence
to do so would involve disclosing
confidential CIA sources or methods.
Arguments against such recommendation are:
°CIA secret informants and employees
for undercover activities will be
difficult to recruit or will be
inhibited in their work if they have
to worry about the possibility that
their identity and activities may
be later disclosed in connection
with a criminal case.
°The morale of people in the agency
will be adversely affected.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Declassification Request
of the Department of Justice
The Attorney General has approved an investigation by
the Criminal Division of possible violations of Federal
law arising from testimony in 1973 and 1975 before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its Subcom-
mittees on Multi-national Corporations, as well as
testimony before the Rockefeller Commission. In response
to a request from Justice, we have provided to them a
classified copy (at Tab A) of a November 6, 1970,
intelligence briefing on Chile that was prepared by
the CIA for delivery by Director Helms to a meeting of
the National Security Council.
Justice has now requested from the NSC staff that as
much of this briefing as possible be declassified in
order that they can present it to witnesses before a
grand jury. As a matter of policy, Justice will not
take classified materials before a grand jury.
In response to this request, Bill Hyland has sent me
the memorandum at Tab B, objecting to complete declassi-
fication. Although Bill states that "the material itself
might not damage the national interest," he objects to
declassification on grounds that it will imperil the
ability of CIA Directors to provide the President a
briefing in complete candor and with no reservations.
He concludes that declassification in this instance
means that every Director will henceforth have to assume
that his briefing to NSC meetings may be publicized at
any time. He suggests that relevant excerpts be de-
classified.
UNCLASSIFIED UPON REMOVAL
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
OF CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
- 2 -
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
I cannot agree with Bill's conclusions. Under E. O.
11652, classification of information is not justified
when release of the information will not damage
national security. It is substance, not form, that
controls the question of classification. The contents
of this briefing are such that disclosure at this time
could not be expected to cause damage to national
security, which is the minimum test for classification.
The issue then is not classification, but whether
executive privilege should be maintained with respect
to this document. In this regard, the briefing appears
to be primarily factual in nature, rather than containing
recommendations and opinions. Therefore, disclosure in
this instance means only that government officials can-
not be assured of protection of information that later
is directly related to criminal investigations.
Justice needs virtually all of the briefing in order to
question witnesses before the grand jury, and in its
judgment, it cannot in advance of use before the grand
jury limit its request to specific portions as NSC
suggests.
RECOMMENDATION
For the above reasons, and for reasons given in another
memorandum to you concerning differences between the
CIA and the DOJ in connection with the same investiga-
tion, I recommend that you authorize NSC to declassify
this document in order that Justice can make necessary
use of it in connection with such investigation.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
Attachments
SECRET/WITH ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SECRET/WITH
ATTACHMENTS
October 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL HYLAND
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
P.
Attached is my draft of a proposed memorandum
to the President which I expect to take up with
him before he leaves Richmond early tomorrow
morning.
May I please have your suggested changes promptly,
if you have any to make.
Attachments
OF
SECRET/With
ATTACHMENTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Claim
chin
November 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
TRUDY FRY
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
Attached is the original of a Memorandum
For The President on the subject of
"Declassification Request of the Depart-
ment of Justice," along with a copy of
my memorandum of October 25 to
William Hyland.
The President did not mark the original
of my memorandum to him, but I presented
it to him on Air Force One on October 23.
The President verbally authorized my
memorandum to William Hyland.
The attached should therefore become a
part of Presidential records.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
claim
WASHINGTON
November 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
TRUDY FRY
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN P.W.B.
Attached is the original of a Memorandum for
the President on the subject of "Differences
Between the CIA and the DOJ," along with a
copy of my memorandum of October 25 to
George Bush.
The President did not mark the original of
my memorandum to him, but I presented it to
him on Air Force One on October 23. The
President verbally authorized my memorandum
to George Bush.
The attached should therefore become a part
of Presidential records.
Attachments
TOP SBCRET/SENSITIVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR WHEATON BYERS
FROM: PHILIP W. BUCHEN
R.
In accordance with our conversation, I am returning
the two PFIAB papers which you delivered to me on
November 19 with the recommendation that these
materials be included in the report of PFIAB to the
President.
I have read both documents and I have made a comment
to Leo Cherne about the item that appears at the
bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 in the memo
summarizing the recent activities of PFIAB.
Attachments
UNCLASSIFIED OF CLASSIFIED
UPON ACHMENTS REMOVAL
TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 20, 1976
TO:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
For transmittal by
courier if you agree.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
i
Attached is a secret briefing paper
supplied to me by the General Counsel
of the CIA. I recently received an
oral briefing concerning this matter,
and I asked for this written paper to
pass on to you so that you would be
informed in the event the briefings to
the Congressional Committees which are
now going on should result in publicity
about the situation.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 11, 1976
[1977]
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Intelligence Oversight Board
Report to the President
After reviewing your memorandum of December 16 on the
above subject, I wish to make the following suggestions:
1. The analysis made by Sam Hoskinson and Rob Roy
Ratliff ought to be sharpened somewhat. For
example, the letter from the IOB says that the
Secretariat of the Fourth International moved
its meeting place in 1974, that the apartment
thereafter came to be occupied by two Americans,
and that the CIA learned of this circumstance
by April 22, 1975; whereas these points are
not directly covered by the memorandum to you.
2. After clarifying all of the facts, I suggest
the general contents of the memorandum to you
be put in the form of a letter for you to send
in behalf of the President to the IOB with a
copy to the Attorney General. In this way, the
files of the IOB will show a response which
helps to clarify the situation.
If you approve of this suggestion, I would very
much like to see the letter going to the IOB.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SECRET
January 17, 1977
Dear Tony:
On October 4, 1974, J. Fred Buzhardt, who was then
employed at the White House, delivered to me certain
materials which he advised had come from the files
of the CIA. Reference to this material was con-
tained in a memorandum of September 24, 1974, from
John Warner to me, a copy of which I enclose.
Later on January 14, 1975, we furnished copies of
these documents to the Department of Justice and
a copy of the transmittal and receipt dated
January 14, 1975, is enclosed.
We still find in our files two copies of Item 1
and single copies of Items 2, 3 and 4 as listed on
the transmittal to the Justice Department.
At this point, I believe it is desirable that we
return to you the foregoing materials so that no
copies will remain here in the Presidential files.
Sincerely,
Thily Buchen
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Anthony Lapham
General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D. C.
Enclosures
UNCLASSIFIED UPON REMOVAL
OF CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
SECRET
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet
WITHDRAWAL ID 01433
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
National security restriction
TYPE OF MATERIAL
Memo (s)
CREATOR'S NAME
Philip Buchen
RECEIVER'S NAME
Robert Murphy
DESCRIPTION
re possible intelligence community
abuse
CREATION DATE
01/17/1977
VOLUME
2 pages
COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID
001900629
COLLECTION TITLE
Philip W. Buchen Files
BOX NUMBER
26
FOLDER TITLE
National Security Chronological File
(1)-(7)
DATE WITHDRAWN
08/12/1988
WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST
WHM
sanitized 4/96 ut.
THE WHITE HOUSE
N
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1977
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
This is in reference to your letter of November 29,
1976, reporting to the President a case of "the
intentional interception, through electronic sur-
veillance, of communications of United States
persons" which the Intelligence Oversight Board
concluded raised "a serious question of legality."
As Jack Marsh advised you on December 3, 1976,
your letter was brought to the attention of the
President and was referred to me for consideration.
Photocopy from Gerald R. Ford Library
Since that time, the following additional informa-
tion has come to my attention:
1.5c
--
1.3(a)(4)
-- Only after March 1976 did the question of
legality arise as a result of Executive
Order 11905 when CIA continued to receive
1.5C
items
1.3(a)(4)
which included intercep-
tions of communications of U. S. persons
derived from electronic surveillance. How-
ever, it is important to note that CIA was
not conducting or monitoring the operation,
provided no operational direction or
guidance, and made no use of the items.
-- When senior officials of CIA discovered
that this material existed, in July 1976,
the Agency ordered its field station to
disengage from the activity,
1.5C
1.3(a)(4)
This directive to with-
draw came three months prior to CIA's
quarterly report to the Intelligence Over-
sight Board, and five months prior to your
letter to the President.
DECLASSIFIED E.O. 12958 Sec. 3.6
With PORTIONS EXEMPTED
E.O. 12958 Sec. 1.5 (c)
TOP SECRET SENSITIVE
MR 156, #23, NSC 6/24/96
By let NARA, Date 1/8/97
TOP SECRET SENSITIVE
2
-
We should be concerned over the bureaucratic short-
comings in CIA's handling of this situation --
especially its failure to respond to a cable of
March 1976 in which the field station asked confirma-
tion of its conclusion that the operation was not
prohibited by Executive Order 11905. However, there
does not appear to be evidence of intentional CIA
misconduct. Moreover, this incident has served to
alert CIA's senior management, as well as others, to
the need for being more vigilant in observing both
the letter and the spirit of the Executive Order.
Sincerely,
Thely W.Buelen Philip
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Robert D. Murphy
Chairman
Intelligence Oversight Board
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE