REQUEST BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REVIEW CIA INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PRIOR TO ITS DISSEMINATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R000100160002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 20, 2002
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 11, 1963
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 20 iT 1676R000100160002-4
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOl
Action Memorandum No. `
General Counsel
SUBJECT . Request by the Attorney General to Review CIA Information
Concerning the Attorney General $ rior to its Dissemination
REFERENCE: Memorandum for Di3CI from Chief, SAS, Subject as above,
dated 3 June 1963 with attachments
1. Reference is made to the attached request by the Attorney General
to review CIA. Information concerning the Attorney General prior to its dis-
and to the study by the Chief, . ,;ecial Affairs Staff, as forwaruee
A
C
I
N
through the Deputy Director (Plans).
2. It seems to me that in spite of the obvious, sensitive;, political
nature of the request, the intelligence cormn nity cannot adequately perform
its functions under the restraints proposed by Mr. Nolan of the Attorney
General's office. If we were to comply with the Attorney Generale request,
similar treatment should likewise be afforded the President, the Secretary of
Mate, the Secretary of Defense, and every other Cabinet member as well as
many other senior official# of the government. I can see no justification from
an intelligence viewpoint for complying with this request either because of
the assigned functions of the Attorney General or because of the relationship
of the Attorney General to the President. However, I a%m as sensitive to the
delicacies of this matter as is anyone else and, before indicating any action
outside of the Agency, I would like you to prepare a brief of a possible
approach to Mr. Nolan or the Attorney General by you. In order to fortify
yourself as well as myself, I would like you, in collaboration with DDIP, to
work up a reasonable number of similar reports which would involve the
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other senior
officials of this government along similar lines as those put forward in the
attached study and those to which the Attorney General apparently offered
objection.
SUSPENSE DATE:
Approved For Release 200W IPCI ' DP80B01676R000100160002`-4
 Approved For Release 2002/09/04: CIA-RDP80B01676R000100160002-4
3. U the tor.; oiug is pratitat le, it would then appear to be logical
for you to talk to fir. N*Um is orit.r to dissn*d* the At rney General trcwn
his basic "quest MW pqasihty ovwu to dls.%ade hiss tram sstibltshil* the
typo of direct, personal contact which leads to such reports in the first place.
Marvb&ll S. carter
J.,jeUtoams i s+e ral, USA
3 epMty Dtrectos
nv+
Approved For Release 2002/09/04 : ':1A-RDP80B01676R000100160002-4
 Vrbv. or eleas QP/09/04: CIA-RDP80BO1676R000100160002-4
0GC 63-1696a
17 June 1963
SC'
1<
,d
M
4EMO"ANDUM FOR: Depu IDirector of Central Intelligence
Request by Attorney General to Review CIA
Information Concerning the Attorney General
Prior to its Dissemination
REFERENCE: Action Memorandum No. A-256, dtd 11 Jun 63
2. If a talked to Mr. John Nolan, Department of Justice,
today about his earlier request on behalf of the Attorney General
for reports mentioning the Attorney General's name. It appeared
that the real problem was to make arrangements so that if the
attorney General were mentioned in reports he would be informed
so that he would not be unaware if someone else brought the matter
up to him.
3. Mr. Nolan agreed that the problem was probably caused
by the delay in our dissemination through the FBI and that this delay
was on the Bureau's end. We explained to him that if a high official
were mentioned the first question was whether the information had
intelligence value. If not, it was discarded; if so, it was then looked
at to see if the information might be critical of the individual. If so,
a memorandum would be prepared which would go to the individual
concerned and on a very limited distribution to others who needed the
intelligence information. If it were not deemed critical, the
electronic dissemination would be made. It was this dissemination
which had been delayed in the Bureau so that the Attorney General
did not get timely notice.
4. 1 told Mr. Nolan we would handle the matter any way the
Attorney General wished, including giving him a link to the electronic
dissemination system if the FBI ligk were not convenient to the
Approved For Release 2002/09/04 -CAA-RDP80B01676R000100160002-4
 Approved For Release 2002/09/04-CIA-RDP80B01676R000100160002-4
Attorney General's office. Mr. Nolan said he would far prefer it
if we could arrange to deliver the reports in question so that they
would not have to screen all the take at their end. I said this was
feasible and checked with Chief, Intelligence
Reports Control, FI, who said that when any such report came in
critical mention of the Attorney General would be handled in accordance
with established practice and noncritical mention could be hand carried
to the Attorney General, probably being delivered in about an hour's
time. I checked with Mr. Nolan to see if he wanted night messages
or out-of-hours service, and he replied in the negative, so the reports
can be delivered to his office during office hours. According to
this presents no problem.
'~yaJs.~.~esa~ f w
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
cc. C/SAS
C/FI/lntell Reports Control
Approved For Release 2002/0 -RDP80BO1676R000100160002-4