BRIEFING ON THE JIIRG REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP68B00969R000100070006-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 23, 2004
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: August 11, 1966
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2005/08/03 : B00969R000100070006-7
11 August 1966
25X1
25X1
25X1
SUBJECT: Briefing on the JIIRG Report
1. I attended a briefing on the JIIRG report in the DD/S&T
conference room at 1400 hours on 10 August 1966. There were
about 26 people present. Among those whom I recognized were:
2. made the introduction. He said that
about a year ago the Bureau of the Budget sent a letter to the
DCI and to the Secretary of Defense expressing reservations con-
cerning the money proposed for the expansion of NPIC. BoB asked
that a survey be made of existing PI facilities to see if there
was any unused interpretation capacity. Admiral Raborxl.., named
I I as his representative to work with General
uarro on ia. The two got together and drew up their terms of
reference, which were approved by the DCI and by the Secretary of
Defense. The JIIRG has been on the task for the past eight or
nine months. About ten days ago the JIIRG asked for comments on
its draft report. Most of the DoD responses have been received.
The CIA responses are still awaited. hopes to have
the report in the hands of the DCI and the Secretary of Defense
by the end of the month.
3? John Hughes, of DoD, conducted the briefing. The brief-
ing was essentially an oral presentation, with visual aids, of
the report itself. The briefing did nothing to improve my under-
standing of or to change my views concerning what is proposed.
4. In the question period following the formal briefing it
became evident that the report would encounter appreciable resist-
ance from CIA elements, particularly those within the DD/S&T. Most
of the questions asked or arguments raised) came from Carl Duckett,
all of the DD/S&T.
a. Duckett, who is chairman of GMAIC, had two questions.
The first was whether NPIC would continue to serve the third-
phase exploitation needs of GMAIC. Hughes assured him that
it would. He cited the footnote to the tasking chart: "NPIC
will not engage in Direct Support Exploitation as such. How-
ever, NPIC will respond to the special requirements of USIB
Approved For Release 2005/08/0~t-1 68B00969R000100070006-7
25X1
 Approved For Release 2005/0> K
i; pP68B00969R000100070006-7
WWP11 WA
member agencies and committees and other higher authority in
all functional areas as required to provide a national or
supplemental view." His second question was concerned with
whether COMEX would be set astride GMA.IC in approving GMAIC's
requirements for photo interpretation. Hughes quite obvious-
ly didn't know the answer to this question. After a good bit
of hemming and hawing he concluded that COMEX would have no
n?-I-'4, rw-11-ir +n -i-r'1rw (aMAT1!t.q interpretation requirements.
25X1
c. All of0 remarks were contentiously phrased,
but they had no particular focus. One of his comments was
of some interest: If it makes sense to divest COMDR of any
responsibility in the field of photo exploitation, then it
makes even better sense to relieve COMDR of any responsibility
00969R000100070006-7
Approved For Release 2005/08/03 :r
?MET
 Approved For Release 2005/ HOC DP68B00969RR0000100070006-7
25X1
in the SIGINT field. Photo exploitation involves only a few
hundred peopl and a few million dollars; SIGINT exploitation
involves some
5. It appeared to me that the point over which the questioners
were most apprehensive was the failure of the plan to assign NPIC
responsibility for direct support exploitation. There is an "escape"
clause that says that "NPIC will respond to the special requirements
of USIB member agencies and committees . . to provide a national
view;" however, it seemed clear that the DD/S&T representatives felt
this an inadequate assignment of responsibilities. It also was
evident that the participants were confused by the new terminology
used in the report. The report distinguishes between what it calls
"basic support exploitation" and "direct support exploitation."
Basic support equates to national requirements, and direct support
equates to departmental requirements. This is not made clear ix ?
the report; in fact, it might be inferred from the report thatCsuch
distinction is intended. It appears to me that once the data base
is built, the loopholes in the plan will allow NPIC to be used pre-
cisely as it has been used in the past.
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/08/03 ~~2p 8B00969R000100070006-7