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, then a more serious connotation was put on those people and they were investigated 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 fundamental 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 general 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 abut right?
Mr. Bouck. That is a very good——
Mr. McCloy. Furthermore——