The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones

[jmm99]

and back to the topic.

For those interested in the possible legal issues here - and, keep in mind, that no one has brought any kind of legal action for or against Mr. Jones - some background on the Frank Snepp case.

Very brief Wiki bio of Mr. Snepp is here (updated 14 Jul 2008):

Frank Warren Snepp (born 3 May 1943, Kinston, North Carolina) is a journalist and former chief analyst of North Vietnamese strategy for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Five out of eight years in the CIA, he worked as interrogator, agent debriefer, and chief CIA strategy analyst in the Saigon embassy. He is currently a producer for KNBC-TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp

Webpage and links by Mr. Snepp (updated ?; last copyright 2006):

Inside the Site
Biography
Services
Irreparable Harm
Decent Interval
Supreme Court
CIA on Snepp
Contact Frank

http://www.franksnepp.com/

Of the links, "Supreme Court" and "CIA on Snepp" are worth reading - simply to understand Mr. Snepp's perspective.

The SCOTUS decision was mercifully brief (in comparison to most) - and unanimous. The holding was

Held:

A former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had agreed not to divulge classified information without authorization and not to publish any information relating to the Agency without prepublication clearance, breached a fiduciary obligation when he published a book about certain Agency activities without submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of the Government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=444&invol=507

Note 1 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has stated that "My book is also the first CIA book for which all author profits will be given away." (see FrontPage cited above) While that would not technically affect the Government's case if one were brought (under Snepp case logic of a constructive trust, the Government could still go after the funds in the hands of the charitable recipients), it would certainly affect the PR aspect - and perhaps, affect the decision to pursue civil litigation or not.

Note 2 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has also stated that "There is no classified information in my book." (FrontPage). That remains the sole evidence on that unless and until contrary evidence is presented and accepted under relevant proof standards.

The agency's Publications Review Board's decisions can be appealed internally within the agency and externally in the Federal court system. See, for legal references, current through dates stated:

SOURCE: Studies in Intelligence (Spring 1998)
Reviewing the Work of CIA Authors
Secrets, Free Speech, and Fig Leaves
John Hollister Hedley
CIA's Publications Review Board (PRB) and its small staff perform a balancing act more than 300 times a year, navigating a process sanctioned by the US Supreme Court to clear the writings of Agency authors for nonofficial publication. The challenge: to balance CIA's secrecy agreement with the Bill of Rights. Business is brisk, as a growing number of former CIA employees seek to become published authors--especially former operations officers reflecting on their clandestine careers abroad.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/hedley.html

The second cite is to an internal memo, agency approved for external release 2003/11/06, which has one particularly relevant recommendation (p.19):

We recommend that:

V.A. The General Counsel examine the merits of DO argumentation for disallowing certain manuscripts in toto whose text largely concerns DO methodology and operations.

http://fas.org/sgp//eprint/prb1981.pdf

Note 3 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has also stated (FrontPage) that

"My book has also been disapproved in its entirety by CIA censors. I actively sought the approval of the censors, and repeatedly asked them during the course of a year what parts of the book they would like removed or rewritten. But they simply replied: all of it. In the end, CIA censors returned the manuscript to me as a stack of blank pages."

The obvious legal issue here is whether Mr. Jones waived a number of legal rights by not going through with internal and external review of the "blank pages" return - or, whether the courts can address the "in toto" rejection despite lack of that review - an issue not to be answered here by me.

Googling - "publications review board" cia - will get you about 500 hits on PRB reviews.

[jmm99]

My statement in above post was "The SCOTUS decision was mercifully brief (in comparison to most) - and unanimous."

Wrong on "unanimous". Though the decision was Per Curium (by the Court), there was a dissent by JJ. Stevens, Brennan and Marshall as to several substantive and procedural points.

The holding quoted is correct; and is the ruling presently in effect, unless and until overruled.