(Testimony of Robert Inman Bouck Resumed)
Mr. Stern.
Mr. Bouck, since the Stevenson trip received a great deal of publicity and I take it you knew about it at the time or PRS knew about it, can you tell us why there was no effort in October to determine who these people were for possible use if President Kennedy or a later President should consider a trip to Dallas?
Mr. Bouck.
Well, there are a great many disturbances and activities around, and we have never felt that we should document those per se inasmuch as they did not constitute a jurisdiction--they were not within our jurisdiction except when the President went to an area, so it has always been something that we attempted to resolve when we had jurisdiction in the area because the President was going there, rather than engage in investigative activity that was not within our jurisdiction just per se, whenever there was a disturbance.
Mr. Stern.
I am not sure I follow that. I take it your jurisdiction is to determine, perhaps not to act upon, but to determine people who might be threats i the President or Vice-President.
Mr. Bouck.
These people were not judged at that time to be threats to the President, necessarily.
Mr. Stern.
I see. Their activities in connection with Ambassador Stevenson's visit did not seem to you at that time
Mr. Bouck.
They did not fit our criteria as being a direct indication that the President might be harmed, but then when the President went to that area, the a more serious connotation was put on those people and they were investigate and were identified and pictures were made of them and given to the agents.
Mr. Stern.
That is because the President was then going to that area?
Mr. Bouck.
Yes; that is right.
Mr. Stern.
Suppose the President was going to another area to which these individuals had moved in between the Stevenson visit and the hypothetical Presidential trip. You would have had no record of them, no way of knowing about them, is that correct?
Mr. Bouck.
No; that would have to--unless it had been reported to me they had moved, then the only way we would pick that up would be in the local liaison which begins some days before a trip.
Mr. Stern.
But there would have been no basis to report to you that they had moved as I understand it because they would not have been persons of concern to you merely because of their involvement in the Stevenson affair?
Mr. Bouck.
That is probably right.
Mr. Mccloy.
To summarize your testimony a bit, I gather that the funds mental criterion that you were looking for is the potential threat to the health and life of the President of the United States, that you are not a genera security agency of the United States, but are directed particularly to that particular Objective, and one of the things that alerts you most is the threat and then you examine that threat to determine whether or not it is a serious threat. A lot of elements enter into that and at that point when it does become a serious threat, then you put it on your alert files, is that about right?
Mr. Bouck.
That is a very good----
Mr. Mccloy.
Furthermore----
Mr. Bouck.
Analysis.
Mr. Mccloy.
Flowing from that the mere fact that a man or woman was a defector, or a man is a member of a political organization doesn't in itself embody the threat to the United States, to the President, the person of the President of the United States.
Mr. Bouck.
Right.
Mr. Mccloy.
It is only as there is some additional element that causes you to fear that there is a potential menace that you put in that category you have been talking about?
Mr. Bouck.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Stern.
I think we might illustrate that, Mr. McCloy, by a series of abstracts of cases that Mr. Bouck has prepared. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 766 for identification.
Mr. Bouck.
Yes.
Mr. Stern.
And would you describe that and summarize very briefly the cases involved there which I think are intended to typify, are they not----
|
