AI, CIA and "Contract Source"

[Benjamin Cole]

Tom Graves and Fred Litwin have posited the CIA has no such thing as a "contract source."

This is in reference to the CIA historian's definition of Clay Shaw, made in 1992, as a "highly paid contract source" up until 1956.

The dynamic duo claim the CIA historian was mistaken.

So, I asked AI, "Does the CIA have people they call a "contract source"?

AI answer:

Yes, the CIA uses the term "contract source" (or "contract agent") to describe individuals who are not official, full-time government employees but are paid by the CIA to provide specialized services, information, or to assist with intelligence operations.

These individuals work under written or verbal agreements, often within the Directorate of Operations (the clandestine arm of the agency).

Here are the key details regarding "contract sources" and similar personnel:

Definition: A contract source/agent is any person—often a foreign national or specialized independent contractor—who receives funding from the CIA for services, and who is not a permanent federal employee.
Purpose: They are used for various tasks, including intelligence gathering, technical support, translation services, and security roles, often when the CIA needs to operate without leaving a direct trail to the U.S. government.

"Highly Paid" Examples: Declassified documents have referred to specific individuals, such as Clay Shaw, as a "highly paid CIA contract source".

Distinction from Officers: Unlike Staff Operations Officers (who are full-time employees), contract sources usually do not receive standard government employee benefits.

Distinction from Assets: While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, a contract source is technically "contracted" (paid via a formal agreement), whereas an asset is a broader term for anyone providing information, which might be done through coercion or voluntary cooperation rather than a contract.

The CIA's use of contractors has been subject to oversight, with inspectors general noting in the past that the agency relies heavily on these individuals to fulfill mission requirements.

---30---

So, should we trust the CIA historian on Clay Shaw, or...some guys posting online?

I am not sure. 

But I lean to the CIA historian. I may follow up.

[Fred Litwin]

Find a CIA document that uses the term "contract source."

[Michael Capasse]

Find a CIA document that uses the term "contract source."

not required.
and some things you don't write down

[Gerry Down]

I think what the CIA historian meant was that Shaw was a domestic contact source, except because his info was more valuable and regular than the average person, he was getting paid for it.

Also prob the CIA recruited him to be a domestic contact source rather than him volunteering.

[Tom Graves]

I think what the CIA historian meant was that Shaw was a domestic contact source, except because his info was more valuable and regular than the average person, he was getting paid for it.

I think you're all wet.

[Tom Graves]

Tom Graves and Fred Litwin have posited the CIA has no such thing as a "contract source."

This is in reference to the CIA historian's definition of Clay Shaw, made in 1992, as a "highly paid contract source" up until 1956.

The dynamic duo claim the CIA historian was mistaken.

So, I asked AI, "Does the CIA have people they call a "contract source"?

AI answer:

Yes, the CIA uses the term "contract source" (or "contract agent") to describe individuals who are not official, full-time government employees but are paid by the CIA to provide specialized services, information, or to assist with intelligence operations.

These individuals work under written or verbal agreements, often within the Directorate of Operations (the clandestine arm of the agency).

Here are the key details regarding "contract sources" and similar personnel:

Definition: A contract source/agent is any person—often a foreign national or specialized independent contractor—who receives funding from the CIA for services, and who is not a permanent federal employee.
Purpose: They are used for various tasks, including intelligence gathering, technical support, translation services, and security roles, often when the CIA needs to operate without leaving a direct trail to the U.S. government.

"Highly Paid" Examples: Declassified documents have referred to specific individuals, such as Clay Shaw, as a "highly paid CIA contract source".

Distinction from Officers: Unlike Staff Operations Officers (who are full-time employees), contract sources usually do not receive standard government employee benefits.

Distinction from Assets: While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, a contract source is technically "contracted" (paid via a formal agreement), whereas an asset is a broader term for anyone providing information, which might be done through coercion or voluntary cooperation rather than a contract.

The CIA's use of contractors has been subject to oversight, with inspectors general noting in the past that the agency relies heavily on these individuals to fulfill mission requirements.

---30---

So, should we trust the CIA historian on Clay Shaw, or...some guys posting online?

I am not sure. 

But I lean to the CIA historian. I may follow up.

Dear "BC,"

You may follow up, and I may throw up.


Question:

Did Clay Shaw write reports for the (unpaid, voluntary) Domestic Contact Service from 1948 to 1956?

If so, how many?

If so, why didn't J. Kenneth McDonald mention this in his cobbled-together 1992 report?

-- "TG"

[Benjamin Cole]

TG--

Since I have not pawed through the 64 boxes of HSCA materials reviewed by the CIA historian and his staff (boxes which include an unknown number of reels of microfilm), I don't pretend to know the full reason the historian, in 1992, so prominently and unambiguously presented Shaw as a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA, until 1956.

I doubt the CIA historian made an error on such a high-profile topic.

No one else seems to have manually reviewed the 64 boxes of files either.

Fred Litwin claims to have seen the materials online somehow, but of course, there is no guarantee all the documents were copied and placed online, let alone the reels of microfilm.

I gather Litwin has done some word-searches online, hunting for the "Shaw," perhaps in combination with other words, and drew his conclusions from that. I have done similar word searches, and the results can be iffy.

It is curious that the CIA, or the CIA historian's office, has never issued a correction to their definition of Shaw.

A rather important clue, no?

Perhaps Fred Litwin can explain why the CIA has left the lie outstanding for more than 30 years.

If the CIA, or historian's office, issues a correction or clarification on the Shaw matter, I would easily and certainly accept that.

No biggie to me. Someone in the CIA was very interested in LHO---we know that from DeMohrenschildt and J. Walter Moore, and the unusual routing of mail/documents inside the CIA.

What would be interesting is if it was Bruce Solie who put Shaw onto LHO.

At bottom, I suspect the New Orleans stuff had little to do with the JFKA.

LHO took a potshot at General Walker in April 1963, and likely had accomplices. In Dallas!

LHO's Walker hunt accomplices---not New Orleans figures---strike me as LHO's likely companions on 11/22.

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.

[Tom Graves]

TG--

Since I have not pawed through the 64 boxes of HSCA materials reviewed by the CIA historian and his staff (boxes which include an unknown number of reels of microfilm), I don't pretend to know the full reason the historian, in 1992, so prominently and unambiguously presented Shaw as a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA, until 1956.

I doubt the CIA historian made an error on such a high-profile topic.

No one else seems to have manually reviewed the 64 boxes of files either.

Fred Litwin claims to have seen the materials online somehow, but of course, there is no guarantee all the documents were copied and placed online, let alone the reels of microfilm.

I gather Litwin has done some word-searches online, hunting for the "Shaw," perhaps in combination with other words, and drew his conclusions from that. I have done similar word searches, and the results can be iffy.

It is curious that the CIA, or the CIA historian's office, has never issued a correction to their definition of Shaw.

A rather important clue, no?

Perhaps Fred Litwin can explain why the CIA has left the lie outstanding for more than 30 years.

If the CIA, or historian's office, issues a correction or clarification on the Shaw matter, I would easily and certainly accept that.

No biggie to me. Someone in the CIA was very interested in LHO---we know that from DeMohrenschildt and J. Walter Moore, and the unusual routing of mail/documents inside the CIA.

What would be interesting is if it was Bruce Solie who put Shaw onto LHO.

At bottom, I suspect the New Orleans stuff had little to do with the JFKA.

LHO took a potshot at General Walker in April 1963, and likely had accomplices. In Dallas!

LHO's Walker hunt accomplices---not New Orleans figures---strike me as LHO's likely companions on 11/22.

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.

High profile?

The Clay Shaw trial had concluded 23 years earlier.

But then again, maybe J. Kenneth had read a report on Shaw that Bruce Solie had written for Jim Garrison, and/or seen Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie, "JFK," and, gotten, like so many other gullible Americans, zombified by it.

George DeMohrenschildt, the guy whom in the early 1970s CIA counterintelligence analyst Clare Edward Petty determined, by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts, was very probably a long-term NKVD/KGB "illegal"?

That George Demohrenschildt?