One instance of intentional withholding that was followed by timely notification resulted from meetings between CIA officers and HPSCI staff on August 5 and SSCI staff on August 7,1992. Briefers from the DO (the branch chief and division chief, respectively) deliberately declined to identify an asset despite specific requests by the staff directors. The briefers did so because CIA policy (which we consider appropriate) limited authority for such disclosures to the DCI and DDO. The briefers did, however, alert their superiors, and ADDO Price then notified at least the SSCI.
A probable example of intentional withholding that was not followed by notification occurred when the Guatemala COS intentionally, we believe, did not mention Colonel Alpirez's alleged involvement in the death of Michael DeVine when he discussed the DeVine case with the SSCI staff in a May 19 meeting (and possibly also in a June 26 meeting). We believe it improbable that he could have forgotten the Alpirez-DeVine linkage, since his headquarters had reminded him of it in a cable he received only a week earlier. He apparently did not alert his superiors to the omission from his briefing and did not feel it his responsibility to do so. Although responsibility for notifying the committees rests with headquarters--not chiefs of station--we believe that, by participating in the meeting, he incurred an obligation to inform his superiors.
In the other instances we examined in which information was not provided to committee staff during the meetings, we believe that the failures were likely unintentional. Intent, however, is not required for the withholding of information to have been a violation of the CIA's obligation to keep the oversight committees "fully and currently informed" under Section 413 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code.