McCone was DCI (taking over from Dulles in November, 1961.1 Helms had not been involved in the planning for the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion and had no knowledge of the Pre-Bay of Pigs assassination plots (Helms, 6/13/75, pp. 17-18). Harvey testified that he had "briefed" Helms some time in early 1961 regarding Bissell's directive to Harvey to begin working on an assassination capability." (Harvey, 6/25/75, pp. 42-44) Thereafter, Helms said he was not "brought into Cuban operations" until after McCone had become Director in "late 1961 or early 1962." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 18)

2

Our evidence established, however, that Helms was not brought into the picture affirmatively until April, 1962, when Harvey discussed with him the contacting of Roselli. Helms explained that:

Harvey

says he came to me and said he wanted to recruit this man (Roselli) which I didn't like at the time *** But I decided to go along with it, since (Roselli) had been used in a previous operation, which hadn't worked. He was, therefore, in that sense, around our neck as a possible embarrassment. if he (Roselli) did have some connections and we didn't have very many in those days into Cuba someplace, maybe he would turn out to be a useful fellow. (Helms, 7/17/75, p. 8)

Helms testified that he was never convinced that this operation would be successful but since it had already been approved, he felt that "we haven't got very much, why don't we try". Helms, 7/17/75, pp. 23-24)

Helms, as our Report demonstrates, was much less involved in the plots than either Bissell or Harvey and perhaps because of this testified that:

*** [t]here is something about the whole chain of episode in connection with this Roselli business that I am simply not able to bring back in a coherent fashion. And there was something about the ineffectuality of all this, or the lack of conviction that anything ever happened, that I believe in the end made this thing simply collapse, disappear. And I don't recall what I was briefed on at the time. You saw the IG Report [which] says that I was kept currently informed. Maybe I was and maybe I wasn't, and today I don't remember it. * * * But I do not recall ever having been convinced that any attempt was really made on Castro's life. (Helms, 7/12/75, p. 38)

Nevertheless, Helms did recall being advised of the plots by Harvey and indicating his approval. He testified that he felt the assassination attempts, while he was skeptical as to how far they actually progressed, were authorized by the White House. Helms, however, like Harvey and Bissell, did not have any personal knowledge as to how or through whom such authorization passed.3

1 McCone denied any knowledge of or authorization for the assassination plots which went on during his tenure as DCI. McCone testified that he learned of the plots for the first time in August 1963 when Helms briefed him. This discussion and the failure of McCone to issue any directive thereafter affirmatively banning such actions (which continued into 1964 and 1965) is discussed in the Committee's Report, pp. 99–108.

2 Harvey testified he told Helms exactly what Bissell told him, i.e., that the White House had twice urged Bissell to set up an Executive Action capability. (Harvey, 6/25/75, pp. 42-44)

3 Helms, in effect, stepped into the middle of a project run originally by Bissell and passed on in November, 1961, to Harvey. Dulles remained as DCI until November, 1961well long enough to have briefed the incoming Kennedy Administration on whether to continue the assassination actions. Helms did not know whether Dulles obtained such authorization or for that matter whether McCone did so. As developed hereinafter, everything which was transpiring around him led him to believe such authorization was obtained. See Helms, 6/25/75, pp. 67-69, 34, 90, 101-103. Part VI infra, of these views provides a look at just what kind of environment surrounded Helms and the CIA in 1962. Helms, however, never asked anyone in higher positions if the plots were in fact authorized even when he had the opportunity to do so-exhibiting, at a minimum, very bad judgment.

Helms testified that while no one in the Administration gave him a direct order to assassinate Castro, neither did he expect one.1 It was, however, made abundantly clear to him by the Kennedy Administration that the CIA's mission was to "get rid of Castro";

The desire (of the Administration) was "can't you fellows [CIA] find some way to get rid of Castro and the Castro regime?" (Helms, 7/17/75, p. 17) Helms testified that he had no doubts but that the assassination attempts were within the authorized U.S. policy toward Castro:

I believe it was the policy at the time to get rid of Castro and if killing him was one of the things that was to be done in this connection, that was within what was expected. (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 137)

Thus, Helms told the Committee that the plot activities were both presented to him in 1962 as an ongoing project previously authorized and that such actions appeared to be clearly within the ambit of authority which he felt existed at the time. The latter concept, stressed by Helms in his testimony, was that assassination plots were consistent with the environment of the time. Helms' view that assassination was within the approved policy during the atmosphere of the time is corroborated by the authors of the CIA's 1967 Inspector General's Report who took pains to point out:

We cannot overemphasize the extent to which responsible Agency officers felt themselves subject to the Kennedy Administration's severe pressure to do something about Castro and his regime. The fruitless and, in retrospect, often unrealistic plotting should be viewed in that light. (IG Report, p. 4)

Helms testified that during this 1961-1962 period

The highest authorities of government were anxious that the Castro government fall and that in some fashion Castro go away (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 62)

and if he (Castro) had disappeared from the scene they would not have been unhappy. (Helms, 6/13/75, pp. 72-73)

Helms summed up his testimony, in effect, by stating in colloquy with Senator Mathias that, though no direct order was given to him, "some spark had been transmitted that (assassination) was within the permissible limits." (Helms, 6/25/75, p. 72) Helms' and Harvey's total understanding of the authorization of assassination plotting together with the ingrained system of deniability present in intelligence operations, I feel, explains, but does not excuse their actions in not directly confronting a superior or a While House official and saying: "By the way, are these assassination plots really authorized." I think it blinks reality to suggest that such a thing would have occurred. True, the system must be changed, but these assassination activities must be viewed in light of the modus operandi which existed at the time.

III. The Testimony and Evidence Regarding How Authority Would Have Been Obtained the Troubling Doctrine of Plausible Denial The Committee received considerable evidence on the manner or modus operandi which would have been employed to advise the President of matters of great sensitivity, such as the assassination plots. The

1 How Bissell, Harvey, and Helms felt the plots would have been authorized is treated in part III of these views.

Committee Report defines and discusses the mode or method of operating which has come to be known as plausible denial. (Committee Report, pp. 11-12) Members of the Committee have given its application to the assassination plots differing degrees of weight. In these views I assign it substantial weight because of the frequency with which it wove its way through the evidence concerning the critical issue of authorization.

Simply stated, plausible denial is the system which dictates that any acts that are perpetrated shall be done in such a way so as to ensure that the U.S. Government cannot be blamed. In its most common meaning in the intelligence community, plausible denial dictates the use of "cut-outs," or, various levels of knowledge with the lowest level not being told that the work that is being done is on behalf of the U.S. Government. The system is designed to insulate the President from the responsibility for projects which may go awry.

We know that efforts were made to employ this system in the Castro plots through the use of Maheu to initiate the contact with Rosselli and Giancana, the CIA Case Officer assuming the false identity of an employee of Maheu, and the use of the "cover story" of the U.S. business interests in explaining the plots to the Cubans. The agent (in this case the Cubans) may assume or guess that the person he was doing the work for was a government representative, but, an admission of government involvement was avoided.

Additionally, we found the system used in the records of the Special Group which avoid direct attribution to the President and refer to the President as "higher authority," or "his associate." This was true in almost all the cases we examined.1 Moreover, the testimony revealed that the prevailing practice on all sensitive matters was to brief the President without obtaining his express approval. Maxwell Taylor testified that the President would simply listen to what the person briefing him had to say without responding affirmatively so that "the record (did not) say that the President personally approved (the project). (Taylor, 7/9/75, p. 25)

Thus, whenever we attempted to climb the authority ladder to determine the highest level of knowledge and approval of assassination plots we encountered the use of plausible denial. Indeed, Bissell testified that he and Edwards used the system to "circumlocutiously" advise Dulles of the assassination plans because "the Director (Dulles) preferred the use of *** (that) sort of (circumlocutious) language ***." (Bissell, 6/9/75, p. 25) Bissell testified that it would be through the use of plausible denial that he felt approval for the assassination plots would have been obtained from the President by Dulles.

Bissell testified that Dulles would have advised the President of the assassination plots by obliquely describing the operation but continuing "until the President got the word." (Bissell, 6/11/75, pp. 12-14) He described how Dulles could have preserved deniability yet obtained approval from the President:

I have expressed the opinion and am making it clear, it is not based on hard evidence that probably the President knew something of this * * * I very much

1 See "Guidelines for Operation MONGOOSE" (Draft), March 5, 1962; Memorandum for the Record, Special Group Augmented, "Discussion of Operation MONGOOSE with the President" of March 16. 1962 and accompanying footnote of March 22, 1962; Memorandum for the Record, Special Group Meeting, August 25, 1960.

doubt if he at any time was told any of the details. My guess is that indeed whoever informed him, that is Dulles directly or Dulles through a staff member, would have had the same desire that you referred to to shield the President and to shield him in the sense of intimating or making clear that something of the sort was going forward, but giving the President as little information about it as possible, and the purpose of it would have been to give the President an opportunity, if he so elected, to cancel it, to order it cancelled, or to allow it to continue but without, in effect, extracting from him an explicit endorsement of the detailed specific plan.

Senator MATHIAS. What you're saying is this is a highly subjective kind of operation in which an intimation can be given in which the President can clearly be told what is happening, but be told in, I think the words you used, a circumlocutious way, that he might not even blink unless he wanted to. Is that right?

Mr. BISSELL. That is correct, sir. (Bissell, 6/9/75, pp. 60–61)

Bissell made it clear that his perception of what happened at levels of authority above him spanned more than one administration. Indeed, he continually spoke of President Eisenhower and Kennedy together:

In the case of an operation of high sensitivity of the sort that we are discussing, there was a further objective that would have been pursued at various levels, and that was specifically with respect to the President to protect the President. And therefore the way in which I believe that Allen Dulles would have attempted to do that was to have indicated to the two successive Presidents the general objective of the operation that was contemplated, to make it sufficiently clear so that the President-either President Eisenhower or President Kennedycould have ordered the termination of the operation, but to give the President just as little information about it as possible beyond an understanding of its general purpose. Such an approach to the President would have had as its purpose to leave him in the position to deny knowledge of the operation if it should surface. My belief- -a belief based, as I have said, only to my knowledge of command relationship, of Allen Dulles as an individual, and of his mode of operationsis that authorization was obtained by him in the manner that I have indicated. I used the word on Monday "circumlocutious," and it was to this approach that I referred. (Bissell, 6/11/75, pp. 5–6)

William Harvey and Richard Helms also felt that they doubted that there would ever be a direct written or even oral order communicated to the DCI on a matter such as the assassination plots. Helms elaborated on why he felt the plots were authorized even though he was unable to point to a direct written or oral order to carry them out:

***These

[Assassination plots would not be] authorized in any formal way schemes ✶✶ ✶ would have taken place in the context of doing what you could to get rid of Castro, and the difficulty with this kind of thing, as you gentlemen are all painfully aware, is that nobody wants to embarrass a President of the United States discussing the assassination of foreign leaders in his presence. This is something that has got to be dealt with in some other fashion. Even though you use euphemisms you've still got a problem * * * Now, when President Eisenhower took responsibility for the U-2 flights that was on his own *** [h]e wasn't obliged to do that *** he had his mechanism to blame it on, if he wanted to. (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 29)

Helms added that apprising the President of such a matter was no easy or simple task:

Senator MATHIAS. When Mr. Bissell was here I think I asked him whether the job of communicating with superior authority was one of protecting superior authority, and specifically the President, protecting him from knowledge and at the same time informing him, which is a difficult and delicate job, and he agreed that that was really the difficulty.

And you this morning have said that in advising a President or very high authority of any particular delicate subject, that you resorted to euphemism. Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir. (Helms, 6/13/75, pp. 65–66)

*

Senator MATHIAS. Did Presidents indulge in euphemisms as well as Directors? Mr. HELMS. I don't know. I found in my experience that Presidents used the entire range of the English language from euphemisms on the one extreme to very explicit talk on the other.

Senator MATHIAS. Let me draw an example from history. When Thomas A. Beckett was proving to be an annoyance, as Castro, the King said who will rid me of this man. He didn't say to somebody go out and murder him. He said who will rid me of this man, and let it go at that * * *

Mr. HELMS. That is a warming reference to the problem.

Senator MATHIAS. You feel that spans the generations and the centuries? Mr. HELMS. I think it does, sir.

Senator MATHIAS. And that is typical of the kind of thing which might be said, which might be taken by the Director or by anybody else as Presidential authorization to go forward?

Mr. HELMS. That is right. But in answer to that, I realize that one sort of grows up in tradition of the time and I think that any of us would have found it very difficult to discuss assassinations with a President of the United States. I just think we all had the feeling that we were hired out to keep those things out of the Oval Office.

Senator MATHIAS. And yet at the same time you felt that some spark had been transmitted, that that was within the permissible limits?

Mr. HELMS. Yes; and if he had disappeared from the scene they would not have been unhappy. (Helms, 6/13/75, pp. 71-73)

The Executive Assistant to Harvey, described what he thought the approval process might be in the following exchange with Senator Schweiker:

Senator SCHWEIKER. We keep coming back to this confusing status where we see the assassination plans and plots falling out very prolifically, and we see that higher authority as in your case has authorized them, but somewhere along there we lost track. And I guess my question is, would a logical explanation of this very confusing situation be that some of the powers that be just decided not to discuss them in the formal sessions, and just verbally passed on instructions through the chain of command, but not in the formal committee special group apparatus?

Might that be a logical explanation of why we are continually confused by the kind of testimony that you have given, and let me say that others have given, too?

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: I wouldn't expect any President to sign a piece of paper directing an assassination for any reason. I don't think that is done in any government.

Senator SCHWEIKER. So that kind of an explanation would make sense from your experience in government?

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: Yes, sir.

Senator SCHWEIKER. And explain the discrepancy that we keep running into in terms of different situations analogous to yourself?

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: Sure. I don't think you are going to find a piece of paper for everything that this Agency or any other Agency has done. There are lots of things that get done by word of mouth.

The CHAIRMAN: But does this leave us in a situation where the direct connection between the President or the Special Group Augmented, the high policy making authority, with respect to knowledge of and direction to assassination of Mr. Castro must be based upon assumption or speculation?

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: I think it is based upon the integrity of the people who passed on the orders. And it is all oral. (Executive Assistant to Harvey, 6/18/75, pp. 54-55)

Harvey, reporting directly to first Bissell and then Helms, also exhibited in his testimony an ingrained reluctance to even discuss assassination in front of his superiors unless specifically asked about it. He was sure that the way the system of deniability operated

*** no one would want to charge the President personally with the complete, dirty-handed details of [the assassination plans]. (Harvey, 6/25/75, p. 82)