LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM

MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Stokes, Preyer, McKinney, Fauntroy, Dodd, and Fithian.

Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order.

The Chair would like to make some opening remarks.

OPENING REMARKS BY HON. LOUIS STOKES, CHAIRMAN OF

FULL COMMITTEE

The time has come for the select committee to shift its attention away from the deaths of President Kennedy and Dr. King and to turn to the general subject of political assassination.

Up until now in these public hearings, the committee has been looking back to the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., to try to work out some meaning for those awful

events.

Today and tomorrow the committee will look to the present and the future, taking as its premise the grim reality that political assassinations-the murder of public officials or of private citizens who have become public figures-will inevitably occur again if the past is any guide to the future. For the future may be foretold in the stark statistics of the past. Nine American Presidents, nearly one in four, have been targets of assassin's bullets, and four of them have died as a consequence.

Two U.S. Senators have been fatally assaulted, while four others have narrowly escaped. And with the recent murder of Leo Ryan, our colleague, four Members of the House have been assassinated, while seven others have been targets of unsuccessful attempts. Sadly, it is, therefore, an appropriate time for this concern. How terribly ironic it is that over the throne of the self-appointed messiah who ordered the murder of Congressman Ryan, there was a sign that paraphrased the words of George Santayana, the philosopher:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat

it."

Ten years ago, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence did a comparative analysis of assassination in this country and elsewhere. It concluded that high rates of

assassination tend to accompany rapid economic development, and they exist in countries ruled by regimes that are coercive, but not wholly totalitarian.

This general conclusion should mean that the United States should have a low incidence of political murder, where actually the reverse is the case. A nation with one of the highest levels of economic development and greatest degree of political freedom, the United States also has a uniquely high assassination rate.

*

it

*

President Kennedy was philosophical about the problem, and prophetic, as well. On the trip to Texas, during which he was killed, he said to an aide, * If anybody really wants to shoot the President (is) not a very difficult job-all one *** (has) to do *** (is) get a high building with a telescopic rifle, and there ** (is) nothing anybody (can) *** do to defend against such an attempt."

The question this committee must now address is this:

How is the Nation prepared to try to prevent and then to respond to future political assassinations, Presidential or otherwise? Frankly, if our record of the past is indicative, the prospects are not good.

Congress, for one, has taken a piecemeal, after the fact, approach in enacting legislation, to wit:

A President was assassinated, so Public Law 89-141 was enacted on August 28, 1965, making it a Federal crime to kill, kidnap or assault the President, the President-elect, the Vice President or, if there should be no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession. Before then, assassinating the President was not a Federal offense.

Then, in 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, and title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. 351) was enacted, making it a crime to kill, kidnap or assault a Member of Congress or a Member-elect. Before then, assassinating a Member of Congress was not a Federal offense.

Finally, following the murder of Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, Public Law 92-539 extended the coverage of Federal law to foreign officials in the United States and to official guests.

But, the committee must ask itself, is this enough? It may well be that a forward looking comprehensive approach is required. In this period of relative calm, it is time to reflect on what has been done and what needs to be done.

Today and tomorrow, the committee will be hearing from top officials of the major Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies having some responsibility in this area, the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the CIA, and Director of the Secret Service and the Deputy Attorney General.

Questions the committee will be considering are these:

How adequate are our efforts to prevent assassination?

Are our criminal laws adequate to protect public officials?

Do they also give adequate protection to private citizens who are public figures?

Do they protect not only against death and the threat of death, but also against kidnaping and other assaults?

Assuming the worst occurs, are the laws granting authority to our investigative agencies adequate?

Do the Federal investigative agencies have adequate authority to control the crime scene?

Have plans been made to bring the best in modern science and technology to bear on the truth-finding process?

Is our system of prosecution adapted to handling sensitive assassination cases?

Do we afford to the accused of these heinous crimes those procedural and other due process rights that are the hallmark of a free society?

It is on these and other questions that the committee will focus its thoughts in these hearings today and tomorrow.

Our first witness today is Mr. William H. Webster, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Webster, welcome. It is nice to have you here with our committee this morning, and you may proceed in any manner that you so desire.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR OF THE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the FBI's current and future capabilities with regard to the serious problem of political assassinations.

Although much has been learned from inquiry into our investigations of the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President John F. Kennedy, I would prefer not to deal directly with these matters today. I take this approach for two reasons:

First, the FBI has already cooperated with this committee_in making available personnel and material from our files. Since December of 1976, at a cost to date exceeding $800,000, we have produced approximately 700,000 pages of requested documents. As many as 75 persons have worked together searching, clearing, and assembling this information, and I want you to know we remain ready to provide any further assistance you may require.

Second, as a practical matter, there is little I could personally add in commenting on historical matters which preceded by 10 years or more my appointment as Director.

I want, therefore, to look ahead. My comments will address three issues: First, our response to any future assassinations including our jurisdiction to investigate political assassinations generally; second, potential obstacles that might be encountered during related investigations; and third, arrangements which have been made to interact with other governmental agencies in conducting these investigations.

Let me take up jurisdiction first.

After President Kennedy was assassinated in November of 1963, Director Hoover advised the Attorney General that there was a lack of Federal jurisdiction over offenses of this nature. Lee Harvey Oswald was, in fact, in the custody of a local law enforcement agency at the time of his death.

Today, owing to a number of subsequently passed statutes, we can assert jurisdiction over this kind of offense.

The Presidential assassination statute provides that the FBI shall investigate the assassination, kidnaping, assault, attempted killing or kidnaping, or conspiracies to kill or kidnap the President, the President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect or if there is no Vice President, the officer next in order of succession to the Office of President of the United States-or any individual who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Under this statute, where we assert jurisdiction, State and local jurisdiction is suspended. Their role, by statute, is limited to providing assistance to the FBI.

A similar statute provides FBI investigative jurisdiction over congressional assassinations, kidnapings, and assaults, attempted killings or kidnapings, and conspiracies to kill or kidnap. The same crimes committed against Members of Congress-elect are also covered.

Federal laws also prohibit the killing or kidnaping of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons. In addition, these laws make conspiracies to kill or kidnap unlawful.

We may assert jurisdiction under a variety of other statutes. The basic Federal criminal civil rights laws, for example, give us jurisdiction when federally secured rights are violated or when parties conspire to violate these rights. And we investigated the Martin Luther King, Jr., assassination on the premise that his Federal right to travel had been denied thus, in effect, we are answering some of the questions about private citizens who are in the public domain.

Other kinds of violations occurring in a political assassination context would also give jurisdiction to investigate.

For instance, we have jurisdiction over cases in which someone had transported interstate explosives with intent to injure or had bombed U.S. property or an institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance. These situations could coincidentally involve political assassinations.

Other pertinent statutes might involve various sections of Crime on Government reservations statutes which include murder, attempted murder and manslaughter, kidnaping, destruction or injury to public buildings or property; also the racketeer influence corrupt practices statute, if the assassination were committed in furtherance of a pattern of racketeering activity; the election law statute if the assassination, for example, injured, intimidated, or interfered with a person campaigning as a candidate; and the foreign agents registration, Federal train wreck, and aircraft piracy statutes.

Now, with respect to our response: Assuming there is an assassination over which we have jurisdiction, how would the FBI respond? Let me preface my reply with two points:

First, as Director, I am responsible for all investigations conducted by the Bureau. I delegate authority for the handling of investigative matters to our special agents in charge, which we call our SAC's, through the Associate Director and appropriate Assistant

Director.

The SAC carries out his responsibilities by directing his assistants and squad supervisors who, in turn, direct the efforts of the

investigators. I might say, parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, we have 59 special agents-in-charge in our various field command offices. It should be noted that assignment of responsibility does not abrogate or dilute responsibility; each superior must insure that his instructions are promptly and properly carried out.

Second, our response to any assassination would be of a magnitude commensurate to the impact of the specific crime on national or international society and to the complexity of the act. Thus, the aborted attempt of "Squeaky" Fromme to kill President Ford, a direct, personal attempt, which was solved immediately, would generate a different degree of response than a sophisticated, possibly conspiratorial, or successful crime.

Because I can't describe how we would react in every situation, let me first consider how we would respond in the most important and most traumatic, the assassination of the President.

If this occurs, the field commander would immediately implement our major case operations plan. The SAC, as field commander, would initiate a major case investigation under that plan. In addition, I would consider sending an Assistant Director or other ranking official to the scene to assume overall command of the case in the field.

The major case operation plan involving a Presidential assassination would include the following arrangements:

Following confirmed reports of the assassination, two command posts, one at headquarters and one in the field, would be established. Supervisory personnel from all affected divisions would man the headquarters command post. Here, all leads and investigative results would be coordinated. The field command post through a multiple communications capability would forward information developed by its investigative task force to headquarters.

The major case operation plan can, of course, be utilized in other serious crimes. In fact, our investigation of the assassination of U.S. Representative Leo J. Ryan of California gives a good illustration of how the major case plan works in actual practice.

We premised this investigation on violation of the congressional assassination statute. A Deputy Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative Division was designated to take charge of that investigation. Under his personal direction, the FBI Headquarters Command Post was activated. Oral and written reports were submitted to me daily on the progress of the investigation.

The FBI Headquarters Command Post was staffed by supervisory personnel who were responsible for various aspects of the investigation which were coordinated with other agencies. This is, of course, an ongoing investigation.

The command post was further broken down in a manner that fixed responsibility for all investigation in Guyana and for investigation in various sections of the United States.

FBI personnel were physically located at the U.S. State Department Command Post as well as the Pentagon Command Post in Washington, D.C. The Deputy Assistant Director immediately established liaison with officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Secret Service, Military Services, U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.