The CIA's Family Jewels

[John Dolva]

I'm thinking that one good reason for the CIA to (selectively) release these "family jewels" today is to promote the idea of how open, how changed, the agency is now. Look how bad we were back then! We admit it! Thank goodness we don't do such things today!

To be releasing these documents at this time, they must really be up to no good. Maybe 30 years or so from now they'll let us know what it is (or confirm what is already known by then), to let us know how the agency has changed since years like 2007.

Except the only "news" that is coming out is primarily stuff that came out via the Church Committee. CIA and Mafia plots to kill Castro. So yes it's VERY "selective". Relevent documents on the assassinations will come out only by accident after some enterprising researcher wades thru a lot of useless items for one jewell. (Which they thought had been destroyed).

Dawn

Yep, lots of old news repackaged.

What is the agenda?

Perhaps with the spread and outsourcing of 'snatch' ops and interrogation (read torture) to private and officially unacknowledged detention centers thoughout the world, the CIA feels a need to assure people that things are changing for the better while in fact the opposite is likely.

(IMO) It's that which the 'smoke' potentially obscures or directs away from that needs to be identified.

A primary contender is the changing political landscape of Latin/South America. As more nations throw off the yokes of yeteryears, ther is an increased possibility that archives in these countries will become available. A pre-emptive release from the CIA's perspective may provide a basis for refutations of possibly damaging revelations in the future.

It's a process in evolution. Close ongoing scrutiny is needed, certainly of the documents themselves, but also their theme(s).

Edited June 27, 2007 by John Dolva

[John Simkin]

It is clear that what has been published is that it is not what is normally referred to as the "Family Jewels". The "family Jewels" is the report written by Cleveland Cram (History of the Counterintelligence Staff 1954-1974). As David Wise points out in his book Molehunt (1992): "When Cram finally finished it in 1981... he had produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram's approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA's vaults." It is highly significant that the dates of this document is 1959-1973. It of course leaves out the time when Eisenhower was in power. As I suspected, this is an attempt to smear the Democratic Party.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

"It is highly significant that the dates of this document is 1959-1973. It of course leaves out the time when Eisenhower was in power. As I suspected, this is an attempt to smear the Democratic Party."

I could be mistaken but I thought Eisenhower was POTUS in 1959 AND 1960. It is clear the plots to assassinate Castro and Lumumba (at least) started during the Eisenhower Administration and the documents describe illegal activities during the Nixon Administation as well. Difficult to say it is a scheme to smear JFK and LBJ, methinks!

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

"It is highly significant that the dates of this document is 1959-1973. It of course leaves out the time when Eisenhower was in power. As I suspected, this is an attempt to smear the Democratic Party."

I could be mistaken but I thought Eisenhower was POTUS in 1959 AND 1960. It is clear the plots to assassinate Castro and Lumumba (at least) started during the Eisenhower Administration and the documents describe illegal activities during the Nixon Administation as well. Difficult to say it is a scheme to smear JFK and LBJ, methinks!

It of course leaves out the period 1954 to 1959 that involved Eisenhower/CIA plots to overthrow the governments of third world countries such as Guatemala in 1954.

[John Simkin]

I see on page 5 and 21 that the telephone taps on newsmen were part of "Project Mockingbird".

[Ron Ecker]

"We don’t know everything that’s going on today," said David M. Barrett, a political scientist at Villanova University. "But it seems to me there’s already enough evidence to conclude that things are not so different today." . . .

"These documents are supposed to show the worst of the worst back then," Mr. Bamford said. "But what’s going on today makes the family jewels pale by comparison."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

Edited June 27, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Rex Bradford]

Redactions and all, and there are many, the CIA family jewels documents are now available in the MFF document archive:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=60409

We added a hotlinked table of contents to make browsing and navigation a little easier.

Enjoy, if that is the right word here....

Rex

[John Simkin]

Redactions and all, and there are many, the CIA family jewels documents are now available in the MFF document archive:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=60409

We added a hotlinked table of contents to make browsing and navigation a little easier.

Enjoy, if that is the right word here....

Rex

That is very useful. Thank you Rex.

[William Kelly]

I see on page 5 and 21 that the telephone taps on newsmen were part of "Project Mockingbird".

Rather than recruiting willing newsmen to serve as assets as we have known Mockingbird, these apparently independent newsmen were bugged and observed by CIA spooks from a Hinkley Hilton observation post across the street.

This seems like small stuff, and doesn't sound like Frank Wisner's "Worldwitzer" organ that they bragged about.

BK

[John Simkin]

I see on page 5 and 21 that the telephone taps on newsmen were part of "Project Mockingbird".

Rather than recruiting willing newsmen to serve as assets as we have known Mockingbird, these apparently independent newsmen were bugged and observed by CIA spooks from a Hinkley Hilton observation post across the street.

This seems like small stuff, and doesn't sound like Frank Wisner's "Worldwitzer" organ that they bragged about.

BK

Sure does. It just seems a coincidence that they used the title Mockingbird. As far as I am aware the CIA have never used this term before (although E. Howard Hunt did just before he died). Deborah Davis was the first person to reveal the name "Operation Mockingbird". She told me she got it from a senior CIA official. The same one who named Richard Ober as being Deep Throat.

[Charles Drago]

From my introduction (page v) to George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance:

In a 1946 letter to [C.D.] Jackson, General Robert McClure, at one time Eisenhower's chief of intelligence for the European theater, boasts to his civilian psyops counterpart of the scope of their manipulation [of the media].

"We now control 137 newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 movies, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, 7,384 book dealers and printers, and conduct about 15 public opinion surveys a month, as well as publish one newspaper with 1,500,000 circulation ... run the AP of Germany, and operate 29 library centers."

Fariness and balance, it seems, did not originate with the Fox network's alleged news division.'

Edited June 27, 2007 by Charles Drago

[William Kelly]

From: Michael Ravnitzky [mailto:mikerav@verizon.net]

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:36 PM

To: The Archives & Archivists (A&A) List; Discussion of Investigative

Reporting Techniques and Training; State and Local Freedom of Information

Issues

Subject: Why did the CIA release the Family Jewels file now?

Why did the CIA release the Family Jewels file now?

By Michael Ravnitzky, mikerav@verizon.net

The Central Intelligence Agency has this week released a limited set of

files entitled Family Jewels, a very interesting development in light of the

history of the documents, the subject matter, and the personalities involved

- such as the refined paranoiac counterintelligence chief James Jesus

Angleton and the Mephistophelian necromantic records-shredder Dr. Sidney

Gottlieb.

30 years ago, congressional committees held hearings and looked into the

Family Jewels and although much was published on the subject, the agency

documents themselves were kept secret. It will be up to historians to

decide whether the 30 years and counting of continued secrecy was worthwhile

in the end.

In November 1999, while working for the late lamented APBnews.com, my

colleague TAMI SHEHERI (now with ABC News) and I requested a copy of the

Family Jewels documents from the CIA. The CIA responded promptly, insisting

that the only Family Jewels documents they were familiar with were OSS World

War II records at the National Archives. (I have a copy of the letter for

the skeptical.)

CIA repeatedly denied any knowledge of the Family Jewels documents, even

when we submitted copies of news articles that discussed the documents by

name. CIA utterly refused to accept a records request for these documents,

making it impractical to pursue the matter further.

Several years later, I again requested the Family Jewel documents and was

again turned away summarily, the CIA again claiming utter ignorance of this

material. As recently as late 2005 and early 2006, the agency reiterated

its complete lack of knowledge that such documents were in its possession

I know now that either there was a deliberate policy of responding in this

fashion to requests for this material, or else the records officers

maintained a blithe disregard for agency history and documentation, or else

this was a crude form of a Glomar-type response, in which the agency can say

that it doesn't have any records even though it does, if merely disclosing

the existence of the records would cause some grave harm. But of course,

the notion of raising a Glomar-type response after innumerable Congressional

hearings is absurd.

Here is an actual example of an internal CIA memo that shows the mindset at

work regarding access to historical documents such as Presidential Daily

Briefs, even after 40 years:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/iscap/cia050602.pdf

In the end, this policy of continuing to deny the existence of the Family

Jewels documents to some requesters while processing the request albeit at a

snails pace for at least one other requester taints the underlying

credibility of the agency.

WHY NOW?

So why did the CIA decide to release these records now?

This is a very good question and I have weeded out some unlikely theories I

have heard and narrowed it down to three non-mutually exclusive hypotheses;

it very likely may have been the confluence of all three.

FIRST, there had been a pending FOIA request for the documents since 1992,

which had become the oldest pending FOIA request at CIA. There has been a

government-wide initiative to reduce backlogs, and particular to attack the

10 oldest pending requests in each agency. This particular request had

recently achieved higher visibility within the agency because of its status

as the oldest. The CIA is obliged to report its progress on eliminating its

backlog of very old record requests.

In addition, the National Security Archive, a research archive equipped with

a website that had requested the records, was beginning to pursue their

older requests with renewed vigor and intent to sue in federal court,

raising the visibility of the matter in a way that private individuals or

academics could not achieve.

SECOND, General Hayden ordered the file released, despite some internal

reluctance. There is a hint of an internal disagreement in policy between

the political appointee and the career staff, but details are likely to

remain beneath the surface for the time being.

THIRD, the agency preferred to see the release handled under the Freedom of

Information Act rather than under the provisions of Mandatory

Declassification Review. An appeal of a FOIA request goes to the agency and

then the requester must seek addition remedies in federal court, and the

courts typically defer to CIA classification decisions, justified or not.

In contrast, an MDR appeal goes to the agency and then the requester can

seek appeal at ISCAP - the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel

- a special board set up to hear such classification appeals. An ISCAP

appeal would take the decision out of the hands of the agency and the

courts. The CIA did not wish to transmit an unredacted copy of the

documents to the ISCAP which would be required as part of an MDR appeal.

Because MDR requests for the Family Jewels documents were pending, CIA

wanted to short-circuit any such requests by making a partial release.

Here is a direct link to the document set:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.a...elease_date=6%2

F18%2F2007&keywords=FAMILY+JEWELS&case_no=F%2D1992%2D00353&copyright=0&release_dec=RIPPUB&classification=UshowPage=0001

The story does not end here - there are lots of portions withheld and they

ought to be released, eventually.

There are some portions which are redacted for plain silly reasons which do

not stand up to scrutiny.

There are also other documents, underlying explanatory documents, providing

more historical detail about some of these programs; those should be

released as well.

General Hayden's decision should be applauded, and perhaps further

historical disclosures on topics of importance to the public will occur

regularly.

Ironically, with all the attention paid to the Family Jewels documents,

another tranche of 11,000 pages of documents released simultaneously is

being receiving relatively scant attention. These are important Cold War

era reports entitled CAESAR, POLO and ESAU concerning Russia and China and

they have much to tell us. Here is a link to those:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/cpe.asp\

BK: Thanks to Frog for passing this on.

[John Dolva]

I'm thinking that one good reason for the CIA to (selectively) release these "family jewels" today is to promote the idea of how open, how changed, the agency is now. Look how bad we were back then! We admit it! Thank goodness we don't do such things today!

To be releasing these documents at this time, they must really be up to no good. Maybe 30 years or so from now they'll let us know what it is (or confirm what is already known by then), to let us know how the agency has changed since years like 2007.

From a 'credibility' perspective: A broad strategy?

SELECTED Portions of an article by JEFF GERTH (NYTimes)

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/diciembre.../nytimes-i.html

Propaganda: Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive

"The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit based at Fort Bragg turns out what its officers call "truthful messages" to support the United States government's objectives, though its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their American sponsorship is hidden."

"We call our stuff information and the enemy's propaganda," said Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, during a tour in June. Even in the Pentagon, "some public affairs professionals see us unfavorably," and inaccurately, he said, as "lying, dirty tricksters." "

"The American message makers who are wary of identifying their role can cite findings by the Pentagon, pollsters and others underscoring the United States' fundamental problems of credibility abroad."

"Psychological operations are an essential part of warfare, more so in the electronic age than ever," said Lt. Col. Charles A. Krohn, a retired Army spokesman and journalism professor. "If you're going to invade a country and eject its government and occupy its territory, you ought to tell people who live there why you've done it. That requires a well-thought-out communications program."

"In an article titled "War of the Words," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote about the importance of disclosure in America's communications in The Wall Street Journal in July."

"The American system of openness works," he wrote. The United States must find "new and better ways to communicate America's mission abroad," including "a healthy culture of communication and transparency between government and public."

"Jeffrey B. Jones, a former Army colonel who ran the Fort Bragg psychological operations group, to coordinate the new information war. He led a secret committee, the existence of which has not been previously reported, that dealt with everything from public diplomacy, which includes education, aid and exchange programs, to covert information operations."

"To show off the new media in Afghanistan, AID officials invited Ms. Matalin, the former Cheney aide and conservative commentator, and the talk show host Rush Limbaugh to visit in February. They visited a journalism school. Mr. Limbaugh told his listeners, the students asked him "some of the best questions about journalism and about America that I've ever been asked."

"One of the first queries, Mr. Limbaugh said, was "How do you balance justice and truth and objectivity?" "

"His reply: report the truth, don't hide any opinions or "interest in the outcome of events." Tell "people who you are," he said, and "they'll respect your credibility." "

It could be that the disclosure of low risk, previously 'known' diclosures may be part of this psy-ops credidibility drive.

Then, rather than focusing exclusively on the 'revelation' (conformations of what's already known?) rather see it in a broad perspective of what has been and what it may be a part of future vents?

- What is the agenda?

- It's a process in evolution. Close ongoing scrutiny is needed, certainly of the documents themselves, but also their theme(s).

Edited June 28, 2007 by John Dolva

[Robin Finn]

The mainstream U.S. media chooses to focus on "CIA Plots with Mafia to Kill Castro." What's so interesting about 30-year old "revelations?" Some of the real jewels might be the Joannides records,Win Scott's memoir and the papers from his home at the time of his death,every piece of paper with Phillips' name on it,the real LHO photo from Mexico City,etc.

[Tim Gratz]

Robin, I agree with you 100%. Why does the CIA fight so hard to conceal the Joannides documents and yet reveal the Family Jewels? From what I can tell so far, most of the "dirty deeds" in the "Family Jewels" were investigated and reported by the Church Committee.

By the way, I no longer believe that the documents prove Dulles' knowledge of the CIA plots to kill Castro. I think the Church Committee report best evaluates Dulles' probable knowledge of the plots. Bissell testified that he briefed Dulles on the plot but in a very round-about way. Although he approved if not initiated the plots Bissell apparently did not have the intestinal fortitude to label the plots for what they were.

Most will know that I would attribute the following to journalistic incompetence rather than a conspiracy to "get the Kennedys" but I do note that the MSNBC report on the Dulles issue calls Dulles "the Kennedy administration's CIA director". I am sure we will all agree that is a ridiculous way to describe a man appointed by Eisenhower and fired by Kennedy!