(Testimony of James J. Rowley)
Mr. Dulles.
or other high Government officials in the nature of a complaint coupled with an expressed or implied determination to use a means other than legal or peaceful to satisfy any grievance real or imagined."
I wonder if you could explain that a little more? I ask this question because I have been studying the previous assassinations a good deal. And in many of these cases, it seems to me this definition would not have covered the assassin. That is, there has been in some cases opposition to government, opposition to people in authority, but there has been no expressed hatred toward or animus against a particular President. And I was wondering whether this went too far on a definition to meet your purposes.
Mr. Rowley.
This is a beginning, as I indicated to you here. We hope to improve it. But this is one of the things where we want to include the Oswald type individual.
Now, Oswald wrote to the Governor intimating that he would use whatever means was necessary to obtain the change of his undesirable, or as he called it, dishonorable discharge. All legal means had been used in his case, where the Navy Review Board had examined it and came to a decision.
And this is an example of what we were trying to include in the area of this type of individual. Now, the other people----
Mr. Dulles.
But that was not a threat directed against the President. That was directed against the Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Rowley.
That is right; but then, on the other hand, they transfer the threats. I am quite sure that the Congressmen here get many threats, and that sometimes they may not come off. But these people are obsessed.
You take the individual that attempted the assassination of the late President Roosevelt in Miami that time. His original purpose was to shoot President Hoover. But then when he heard Roosevelt was there, he transferred.
Now, I remember a situation involving a member of Truman's staff, where a fellow stalked this man at his home. And finally we got into the case on his request. We satisfied ourselves that he wasn't a real threat to him--but we picked up the paper a year later and found out he shot at an assemblyman in Staten Island. So if they make a threat or something like this, even though it is against the Government as a group, or have some grievance, they transfer it--particularly, to the President. They use that father complex, as indicated in the research work that these different agencies have submitted to us.
Representative Ford.
Under these criteria, which you are now following, Oswald would have been designated? Is that your judgment?
Mr. Rowley.
That is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
I had some questions about that in reading it. That did not occur to me, because Oswald had never expressed any antagonism toward the President, as far as I know, up to this time the President personally, or even afterward.
Mr. Rowley.
That is right; but under this criteria he would. Namely, he had the interest because of the letter he wrote to Governor Connally. The activity, because he was a defector, and he demonstrated for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The capability, because he traveled, and he had knowledge of firearms.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes; but those do not come, it seems to me, within this definition. Maybe I interpret it differently than you. The last interest Oswald showed was directed toward General Walker. It wasn't against---of course, that wasn't known.
Mr. Rowley.
No; it wasn't known but the first interest of this type was the letter to Governor Connally as Secretary of the Navy, in which he said he would use whatever means he could to correct that discharge, inferring, of course, that he would apply illegal means if he could.
Representative Ford.
If we only had the letter that he wrote to Governor Connally, and no other information, how would that threat, or that course of action, become known to the Secret Service?
Mr. Rowley.
It would not, unless it was furnished by the Navy Department or Secretary of the Navy's office.
Just like you gentlemen get letters that never come to our attention. But
|
