The President's Commission reconvened at 3:30 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary Dean Rusk, we wanted to ask you a few
questions about this matter in any particular detail you wanted to
answer. Mr. Rankin would you inform the Secretary the areas we intend
to cover before we ask the questions.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I think the particular area that we
would be interested in with the Secretary is just as to whether, or his
knowledge of whether there was any foreign political interest in the
assassination of President Kennedy?
We have been getting the information in regard to other matters
concerning the State Department from other of his associates and
colleagues and employees of the Department, and we are going to
complete that and it has been helpful to us and I think we can rather
limit the inquiry to that area.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; very well.
Mr. Secretary, would you rise and be sworn, please. Do you solemnly
swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Secretary RUSK. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you
the questions, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary RUSK. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.
Secretary RUSK. I would like to be just as helpful as possible to
the Commission. I am not quite clear of testimony in terms of future
publication. There may be certain points that arise where it might
be helpful to the Commission for me to comment on certain points but
there--it would be a very grave difficulty about publication, so I
wonder what the Commission's view on that is.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, our purpose is to have available
for the public all of the evidence that is given here. If there is any
phase of it that you think might jeopardize the security of the Nation,
have no hesitation in asking us to go off the record for a moment, and
you can tell us what you wish.
Secretary RUSK. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that
connection?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Would it be feasible to have a discussion here of the
points that are vital from the point of view of our record, and so
forth, and maybe a little informal conversation afterward to cover the
other points.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have a recess for a few moments then.
Mr. DULLES. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put
the two together.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you give us your name and address,
please?
Secretary RUSK. Dean Rusk, 4980 Quebec Street, Washington, D.C.
Mr. RANKIN. And you are the Secretary of State for the United States?
Secretary RUSK. That is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. You have occupied that position for some time?
Secretary RUSK. Since January 22, 1961.
Mr. RANKIN. In that position you have become familiar with our foreign
relations and the attitude and interest in some degree of other
countries that we deal with?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; within the limitations of the possibilities, it is
at least my task to be as familiar as possible with those things.
Mr. RANKIN. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or
interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the
assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary RUSK. I would first have to say on a question of that sort
that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to
look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's
mind.
I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union
considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy
or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy.
If I may elaborate just a moment.
Mr. RANKIN. If you will, please.
Secretary RUSK. As the Commission may remember, I was with several
colleagues in a plane on the way to Japan at the time the assassination
occurred. When we got the news we immediately turned back. After my
mind was able to grasp the fact that this event had in fact occurred,
which was the first necessity, and not an easy one, I then, on the
plane, began to go over the dozens and dozens of implications and
ramifications of this event as it affects our foreign relations all
over the world.
I landed briefly in Hawaii on the way back to Washington, and gave some
instructions to the Department about a number of these matters, and
learned what the Department was already doing. But one of the great
questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some
foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode.
I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of
war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at
the truth--to the answer to that question--wherever that truth might
lead; and so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in
touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of
State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to
those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything
more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that
question.
I have not seen or heard of any scrap of evidence indicating that the
Soviet Union had any desire to eliminate President Kennedy nor in any
way participated in any such event.
Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively
despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I
can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make
any such effort.
Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any
policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the
Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish
any evidence pointing in that direction.
I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they
existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such
evidence, and received a negative reply.
I do think that the Soviet Union, again objectively considered,
has an interest in the correctness of state relations. This would
be particularly true among the great powers, with which the major
interests of the Soviet Union are directly engaged.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you expand on that a little bit so that others than
those who deal in that area might understand fully what you mean?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; I think that although there are grave differences
between the Communist world and the free world, between the Soviet
Union and other major powers, that even from their point of view there
needs to be some shape and form to international relations, that it
is not in their interest to have this world structure dissolve into
complete anarchy, that great states and particularly nuclear powers
have to be in a position to deal with each other, to transact business
with each other, to try to meet problems with each other, and that
requires the maintenance of correct relations and access to the
leadership on all sides.
I think also that although there had been grave differences between
Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy, I think there were evidences
of a certain mutual respect that had developed over some of the
experiences, both good and bad, through which these two men had lived.
I think both of them were aware of the fact that any Chairman of the
Soviet Union and any President of the United States necessarily bear
somewhat special responsibility for the general peace of the world.
Indeed without exaggeration, one could almost say the existence of the
Northern Hemisphere in this nuclear age.
So that it would be an act of rashness and madness for Soviet leaders
to undertake such an action as an active policy. Because everything
would have been put in jeopardy or at stake in connection with such an
act.
It has not been our impression that madness has characterized the
actions of the Soviet leadership in recent years.
I think also that it is relevant that people behind the Iron Curtain,
including people in the Soviet Union and including officials in the
Soviet Union, seemed to be deeply affected by the death of President
Kennedy.
Their reactions were prompt, and I think genuine, of regret and sorrow.
Mr. Khrushchev was the first to come to the Embassy to sign the book of
condolences. There were tears in the streets of Moscow. Moscow Radio
spent a great deal of attention to these matters.
Now they did come to premature conclusions, in my judgment, about
what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been
responsible for it--and ideological effect has crept into that.
But I had the impression that the regret was genuine and that the
ordinary Soviet citizen joined with ordinary people in other parts of
the world in feeling the loss of the President in a very genuine sense.
Mr. RANKIN. There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership
of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the
death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might
have been so involved.
Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. By suggestion you mean rumor?
Mr. RANKIN. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.
Secretary RUSK. I haven't been able to put a rational structure behind
that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem
is within the Soviet Union.
If these dissident elements were aiming to change the present
Government of the Soviet Union or its leadership or to return to an
early range of policy by the elimination of present leadership or
seizure of control, I don't quite see how the elimination of the
President of the United States could contribute to that purpose.
I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would
be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have
limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in
a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation.
But, I would doubt very much that such dissident elements would have a
motive or very much of an opportunity. Again, I have seen no evidence
pointing in that direction.
Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general
way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would again repeat that the overriding
consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and
follow the evidence to wherever it leads.
I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into
the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the
present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts,
as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba.
But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that
direction.
There were some exchanges, with which the Commission is familiar,
that seemed to be--seemed to come to another conclusion. But I would
think that objective considerations would mean that it would be even
greater madness for Castro or his government to be involved in any such
enterprise than almost for anyone else, because literally the issue of
war and peace would mean the issue of the existence of his regime and
perhaps of his country might have been involved in that question.
We were under the impression that there was very considerable concern
in Cuba as to whether they would be held responsible and what the
effect of that might be on their own position and their own safety.
But I have seen no evidence that points to involvement by them, and
I don't see objective facts which would seem to make it in their
interests to remove Mr. Kennedy.
You see, this embarks upon, in any event it would embark upon, an
unpredictable trail for them to go down this path, but I would think
again the Commission would wish to examine the evidence as it has been
doing with meticulous care and follow the evidence in these matters.
Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, did you have direct communications
with Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann
connected with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald.
I say those messages, and over a period of some days had daily
consultations about them with our Deputy Under Secretary for
Political Affairs, Mr. U. Alexis Johnson. Mr. Johnson is my principal
representative in our dealings with the various intelligence and
security agencies of the government and with the Pentagon, and he has
an office very near mine on the seventh floor of the Department of
State.
These exchanges raised questions of the most far-reaching character
involving the possibility of the implications of another government,
and so I had a very deep personal interest in that at the time.
Our principal concern was to be sure that the FBI and the CIA who were
the principal agencies investigating this matter would have every
possible facility at their disposal, and would--and that our Ambassador
would be given the fullest support from us in facilitating the
investigation at the Mexican end.
So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its course, very
much involved in those exchanges.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any commentary that you want to make about
those exchanges other than what you have given us?
Secretary RUSK. I think not, sir. I think that the materials, the
information developed in those exchanges are before the Commission, and
I believe the Commission has had a chance to inquire into them both as
I understand both here and in Mexico with the appropriate agencies and
I would think that the Commission's conclusions on that would be more
valuable than mine because I have not put together all the pieces to
draw finished conclusions from them.
Mr. RANKIN. One of the Commissioners saw a newspaper story shortly
after the assassination saying "The Voice of America beaming its
message into Russia immediately blamed the reactionary rightwing
movements after Kennedy's death."
Do you know anything about that matter or what the source of it might
have been?
Secretary RUSK. No; I have not anticipated that question so that I
could have a chance to investigate it, but I will, if I may, Mr. Chief
Justice, file a report with the Commission on that point.
I can say now that there was never any policy guidance from the
Department of State or from the leadership of the Voice of America
suggesting that any broadcasters take that line.
It is possible, and this is purely speculative at the moment, that
the Voice of America in repeating a great many news accounts, as it
frequently does in its overseas broadcasts, may have repeated some
news accounts from this country, among which might have been a story
to that effect from one source or another, but I would like if I may,
sir, an opportunity to investigate that point and make a report to the
Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. You may do that, Mr. Secretary.
Representative FORD. May I ask a question? Have we received in the
Commission all of the Voice of America broadcasts that were made over a
period of 2 to 7 days involved in this incident?
Mr. RANKIN. I don't know of any.
Representative FORD. I think the Commission ought to have them for our
own analysis as well as the analysis of the Secretary of State.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that under your jurisdiction?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; indeed I could provide that.
Mr. RANKIN. If you will, please.
Secretary RUSK. The Commission might also be interested in either
digests or the fuller materials on world reactions to the President's
assassination.
I have here, for example, a daily summary of the 26th of November
1963, on foreign radio and press reaction which gives some interesting
treatment about this behind the Iron Curtain.
I would be happy to furnish the Commission with any material of that
sort which you might wish.
Mr. RANKIN. We would appreciate having that.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Representative FORD. Would that include the Voice of Moscow or whatever
they call it over there?
Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. From the outset of the events that took place?
Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir; you might just wish to look at the first two
or three paragraphs here to get a sample of the kind of summary that
that involves.
Mr. DULLES. Was that prepared in the Department or by the Foreign
Broadcast Information Service?
Secretary RUSK. This particular one is from the Foreign Broadcast
Information Service. We also have another one. We also have another one
from within the Department which is also available in terms.
Representative FORD. I think it would be useful to have both for a
period of about a week or so. I realize this is a summary covering
several days. I think I saw that at the time.
Mr. RANKIN. There was another statement in the paper apparently
purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to
ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963,
which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State
Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement
of any foreign power in the assassination."
Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?
Secretary RUSK. That was the view which we took at the time in
consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have
evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting
evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.
Representative FORD. I don't understand that.
Secretary RUSK. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had
evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't
have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have
created a very dangerous situation in terms of----
Representative FORD. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no
comment?
Secretary RUSK. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press,
no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I
mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put
upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement
was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual
statement at that time.
Representative FORD. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the
assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the
evidence.
Secretary RUSK. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known
facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed.
In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known
at the time the statements are made.
Representative FORD. This statement then appeared in the Sunday
morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was
a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to
be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24
hours after the assassination.
Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on
the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24
hours.
Mr. RANKIN. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official
statement if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who
would be responsible for it?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would have to check the actual source of the
statement. But I would have no present doubt that it was an officer of
the Department who was authorized to make that and for which I would be
fully responsible.
Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question in connection with that?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles.
Mr. DULLES. There was some evidence presented here quite recently when
the district attorney of Dallas was here with regard to a message
from Washington, from the White House to the attorney general of
Texas, who was also here the other day before the Commission, on this
point: A rumor had reached Washington that in preparing the indictment
there, they were going to put in some reference to an international
conspiracy. As a matter of fact, when that was run down it was not
a correct rumor. But when that reached Washington, the reaction was
rather strong and I think entirely understandable, and word went
back to Dallas from high quarters that that should not, hoped that
that would not be included in the legal proceedings and papers that
were filed in connection with the assassination of the President and
charging----
Mr. RANKIN. Unless there was evidence to support it.
Mr. DULLES. Unless there was evidence to support it. And the district
attorney, who was here, testified that he had never considered adding
that into it, putting that in the proceedings because if you put it in
you had to prove it, and it is not necessary at all. All you need to do
is allege a murder with intent, and so forth, and so on. So that that
was all pretty well cleared up.
Mr. DULLES. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything
about that?
Secretary RUSK. I don't personally recall that particular message. I do
recall----
Mr. DULLES. That took place, I think before you got back, because that
took place on the evening of the 22d.