The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones

[Elevation]

in Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence forum at

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5832

with quite a bit of relevant discussion (except for my off-topic back and forth with Ken White, which I should have done by PM).

A moderator will probably move your post (& this one) there.

No big sin & keep posting.

The Intelligence forum should have some topics of interest to you, in light of



http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...6211#post56211

If you are looking at analysis or other "home office stuff", plan on a PhD or law degree; keep up the language and area studies; and keep clean.

Same first name here, but I go by Mike (2nd name).

Thanks Mike. All of the different sources of information on this website is amazing.

[jmm99]

see class assignment (post # 20, page 1) - in case you missed it. A little bit of cross-posting, etc.

[Elevation]

into the right pew, we can address this:



After reading all prior posts, please tell me:

1. What's coming for him ?

2. But, far more important, your reasoned analysis of why.

First class assignment Intel Law 101

Thats a tough question

My professor in my history of Intel class had to have his lecture notes vetted before he could teach the course and I know all current members have to do the same thing whenever they want to write a book or speak in public about the Agency, due to agreements they sign. I imagine that applies to former Agency members as well, but I'm not completely sure. However, I would imagine they definitely have to go through vetting if they want to talk or publish any information regarding classified information or procedures.

I know that the case against Frank Snepp is a landmark case in terms of establishing legal precedent for the government to go after those who publish secrets without agency permission. However, it will probably be worse for Ishmael because he was even told beforehand by the Agency that he couldn't publish about 98% of the things inside the book

At the very least all profits Ishmael makes from the book will be seized and he'll potentially be facing jail time as well.

Am I on the right track at least?

[Elevation]

What I'm also not sure about Mike, are the penalties the same for writing about classified things in a book as they are for stealing a classified document and distributing it?

[jmm99]

Perhaps

Hint: Break down subject into two categories:

1. PRB (some refs in links on page 1) and agency's civil remedies per Snepp case. Google - lots of open source stuff.

2. Fed Criminal Statutes re: classified data - case of alleged Israeli spies in DC is recent. You will find that area something of a quagmire - where outright espionage is not involved. Same Google idea.

I imagine that applies to former Agency members as well, but I'm not completely sure.

Answer is in links - along with known exceptions. Sources and methods can be deadly to some of our own people or their agents, even if the data is 30-40 years old. X > Y > Z.

At the very least all profits Ishmael makes from the book will be seized and he'll potentially be facing jail time as well.

Not necessarily; agency GC may elect not to go civil - DoJ may decide not to prosecute. What's the criteria ?

What I'm also not sure about Mike, are the penalties the same for writing about classified things in a book as they are for stealing a classified document and distributing it?

You tell me.

[Elevation]

Perhaps

Hint: Break down subject into two categories:

1. PRB (some refs in links on page 1) and agency's civil remedies per Snepp case. Google - lots of open source stuff.

2. Fed Criminal Statutes re: classified data - case of alleged Israeli spies in DC is recent. You will find that area something of a quagmire - where outright espionage is not involved. Same Google idea.



Answer is in links - along with known exceptions. Sources and methods can be deadly to some of our own people or their agents, even if the data is 30-40 years old. X > Y > Z.



Not necessarily; agency GC may elect not to go civil - DoJ may decide not to prosecute. What's the criteria ?



You tell me.

JMM,

I'll do a little research and get back to you in a day or two, I got a few other things on my plate at this second. In the meantime I'll be sure not to expose any state secrets.

[Elevation]

JMM,

Here are some things I've learned about the vetting process and penalties from the following sources that have answered some questions I had and have led me a little closer to giving you a complete response. The link you provided on the first page is outstanding by the way.

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...py-books_N.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...Protection_Act

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/..._Complaint.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7361446.stm

1- All former CIA employees are indeed required to go through the PRB before publishing. The process is mandatory because sources and methods are to be protected as established by the National Security Act of '47 and CIA Act of '49.

2- The PRB only serves to vet that material to eliminate classified things from being published, but isn't supposed to stop publishing on the basis of the material being critical.

3- I believe this paragrapgh answers the question about whether the CIA and DoJ should go forward with the case. It explains how court action isn't necessary mandatory:

"If an author seeks to publish without having obtained PRB approval, the Agency can go to court to block publication or can seize the profits if publication already has occurred, even if there is no classified information involved.(5) In deciding to recommend litigation to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the Board must be convinced that the Agency can articulate harm to national security flowing directly from the disclosure. And the Board must weigh the risk of going to court, which not only may result in an adverse ruling but which also means identifying and calling attention to damaging information and providing publicity for the book that contains it. Each review thus requires a policy judgment that weighs damage and the prospect of litigation, with judicial precedent in mind. "

4- Its a crime to publicize identities and information about CIA sources, operatives, agents and assests due to the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". If succesfully convicted, the guility party will serve about 5 years in prison. The only person to be succesfuly found guilty was Sharon Scaranage. She served 5 years and 8 months in jail.

5- The Espionage Act of 1917 makes it illegal for people to publish information with "intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years" It seems like some of the sensative material in Jones' book fall in line with this law.

5- Stealing classified information will land you in jail for life, as in the case of Jonathan Pollard, the guy spying for Israel. The above copy of the warrant for Ben Ami Kadish lay out all the laws that people who get caught stealing classified info are breaking. The BBC link is where I learned what Pollard was actually sentenced to.

Thats all I got for now.

[jmm99]

it gets you an A - with a bonus for answer #3

from Elevation
It seems like some of the sensative material in Jones' book fall in line with this law.

Perhaps true as to some data (Jones denies anything he wrote was classified); but the devil is in proving what you quote:

"intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies"

So, a specific intent crime - and if Jones' bio is even half true that intent seems skinny to me. We need more facts.

Some comments - which illustrate why there are agency contracts, the PRB and other bothersome "stuff".

--------------------------------
Sharon Scranage (Operations Support Assistant) - Wiki Bio

.... Soussoudis [her Ghanian intel officer boyfriend] was later exchanged for a number of Ghanaian CIA agents who had been arrested following their exposure by Scranage. ....

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

One wonders if she wasn't "honey-trapped". In any event, one network down the tubes from pillow talk.

She was prosecuted under the "Agee Act" - brief ref. to Agee here - elsewhere, there is lots of stuff on that saatana.

What Can You Say About A Spy?
Monday, Jul. 25, 2005
....
What was the original impetus behind creation of the act?
In two words, Philip Agee. ... CIA officer who spent most of his 11-year career in Latin America ... resigned in 1969... Agee wrote a 1975 memoir, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, featuring a 24-page appendix made up of agents' names and operations. Later that year Richard Welch, a CIA station officer in Athens, was assassinated....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...id=chix-sphere

Welch's death was not caused by Agee's book; but his death illustrated one of the dangers of disclosing the identity of officers and agents - Welch's identity was well known to terrorists in Greece.

----------------------------------------
And, leave it to the Telegraph to give us a catchy headline:

The spies who loved. . . and lost their jobs
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 07/06/2007
James Bond may always get his girl, but when the women who spy for the CIA get their man they get sacked. Now they are suing the Agency for discrimination, they tell Toby Harnden ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ma...t/ftcia107.xml

And a long article (7 pp.) in US News on the "pillow talk" class action filed with EEOC by attorney Janine Brookner representing the plaintiffs. Draw your own conclusions.

Foreign Affairs
Does the CIA have a double standard when its spies cozy up to foreigners? Veteran female officers speak out.
By David E. Kaplan
Posted 4/22/07

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...0422/30cia.htm

Didn't find a url to the EEOC case file - it is getting too late.

Sex, Sin - and I Spy - an unbeatable combo.

--------------------------------------------------
And, since you nailed Pollard and Kadish, I can't dock you points for not reading my mind - I was thinking of the "AIPAC Case" - US v. Rosen, which can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

Many pleadings - showing you what happens step by weary step in a Federal espionage case - starting at bottom with Larry Franklin's plea bargain.

If you have some time, they all would be worth reading - original docs beat what people say original docs say.

[Elevation]

it gets you an A - with a bonus for answer #3



Perhaps true as to some data (Jones denies anything he wrote was classified); but the devil is in proving what you quote:



So, a specific intent crime - and if Jones' bio is even half true that intent seems skinny to me. We need more facts.

Some comments - which illustrate why there are agency contracts, the PRB and other bothersome "stuff".

--------------------------------
Sharon Scranage (Operations Support Assistant) - Wiki Bio


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

One wonders if she wasn't "honey-trapped". In any event, one network down the tubes from pillow talk.

She was prosecuted under the "Agee Act" - brief ref. to Agee here - elsewhere, there is lots of stuff on that saatana.



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...id=chix-sphere

Welch's death was not caused by Agee's book; but his death illustrated one of the dangers of disclosing the identity of officers and agents - Welch's identity was well known to terrorists in Greece.

----------------------------------------
And, leave it to the Telegraph to give us a catchy headline:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ma...t/ftcia107.xml

And a long article (7 pp.) in US News on the "pillow talk" class action filed with EEOC by attorney Janine Brookner representing the plaintiffs. Draw your own conclusions.



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...0422/30cia.htm

Didn't find a url to the EEOC case file - it is getting too late.

Sex, Sin - and I Spy - an unbeatable combo.

--------------------------------------------------
And, since you nailed Pollard and Kadish, I can't dock you points for not reading my mind - I was thinking of the "AIPAC Case" - US v. Rosen, which can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

Many pleadings - showing you what happens step by weary step in a Federal espionage case - starting at bottom with Larry Franklin's plea bargain.

If you have some time, they all would be worth reading - original docs beat what people say original docs say.

I'll check them out JMM.

I suppose actually reading Jones' book will help answer alot of the questions as well. I'll see if I can steal a copy somewhere.

A few weeks ago I got done reading Charlie Wilson's War and that had a section devoted to the CIA and alot of the negative things that happened to it back then, for example: original cutbacks under Carter, the Welch killing, and other exposures.

[jmm99]

as Ken White succinctly pointed out on page 1 of this thread:

The real problems with national level Humint did not arise until Nixon had Schlesinger start the dismantling of the DO in 1973, the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee did their thing and James Earl Carter and Stansfield Turner completed the massacre. The Agency has never fully recovered.

IMO: the agency had a consensual adult relationship with the Oval Office during Eisenhower (Dulles bros) and Reagan (Casey), but at other times was either a presidential plaything or ignored. So, there have been lots of things to bitch about - and, thus, the Jones book and many others.

The Nixon-Schlesinger thing was particularly disruptive to the then-called Directorate of Plans, which became the Directorate of Operations - less about a 1000 officers. You will find differences of opinion as to whether that shift in emphasis was good or bad - and in terms of whether some deadwood should have been removed.

I suppose that names do not necessarily mean anything; but the picture after that seemed to reflect a shift from HUMINT to more of a paramilitary concept. The latter was necessary to the effort in Afghanistan ("Mr. Wilson's War"); but query, to what extent paramilitary efforts should be a function of the DO.

Anyway, a read of Jones' book would be worthwhile - and a compare to those written by Bob Baer. Guess I'll order it from Amazon. Three reviews of the book by retired folks at the end of the Amazon page, which is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Factor-D...1875405&sr=8-1

The first one calls for the final completion of the Nixon-Schlesinger massacre, which seems rather drastic IMO.

[jmm99]

This is not quite the book I expected. I did not expect a Phillip Agee exposé; nor a legal brief; nor a dry treatise written by an analyst. I guess I expected a Bob Baer-type book, with more explicit assertion of policy (national strategy) considerations mixed in with the war stories.

The policy arguments are expressed in the Appendix (pp.355-361) in summary form; and some have been discussed here. They are here.

Keeping those points in mind as you read the book, you will see where he develops the evidence - but not point by point. It's not a legal brief, but a special kind of autobiography.

You can also glean some of the author's background, military career and CIA postings (all but OIF very generalized) from the book. IJ is very protective of his true name identity for good reasons (emphasized at various points in the book).

------------------------------------------
Author's Note (p. vii)

"All individuals, unless they are public figures, are obscured in order to make it impossible to identify any CIA employee or agent. Dates and places of non-public events have been obscured or changed. No classified information, sources, or methods are revealed."

"Ishmael" supposedly was the nickname with which he was tagged during training. Taking him at his word above, his true nickname could be "Clint". Similarly, with all of the tags for sources and colleagues, the outsider would be hard-pressed to draw any firm conclusions. Was "Suspenders" really a wearer of suspenders, or was he really "Elephant Hide Belt" ? Was Jonah a red-haried male ? Dates and places should be treated in the same way - a café overlooking the Danube, or was it really the Vistula ? In short, this book may be inhabited by any number of legends - or maybe, only some of them are legends.

Here are some colleagues:

Loman (later, William Loman - i.e., "Willie Loman"), Roger, Max, Harry, Jonah, Moe, Godfather, Two Dog Dave, Worst Spy in the World, Andy, Sylvia, Charleton, Martin, Horace, Randy, Stefan, Bettie, Valerie;

and agents: The Twins (access agents), Dr. B (rogue state scientist).

That's through chap. 7. Now, I suppose it would be possible for an outsider to come up with something of a bio for many of these; but would it be a true bio or a legend ? Of course, to an insider of IJ's vintage, these characters (as described) might match real people.

The following did jump out at me and will to everyone else (p.137) [the context is 1996-1997, following the Ames-Nicholson flap]:

"A pretty blond woman named Valerie came into the office and sat down at our table. She said she had received a message to return to HQs and wondered what it was all about. Moments later, a group of managers beckoned her to join them in the conference room. "She's about to be purged," said the older man. Twenty minutes later, the woman returned, weeping softly."

And indeed (pp.253-255 & fns 43-46), IJ briefly addresses the Plame case from open-sources.

Disclosure is even less as to "information" derived by IJ from agents, who generally are unnamed and unlocated (the geography provided may be as legendary as some of the people).

Where the book may hit the reefs is not on its limited disclosure of "sources" and "information", but on disclosure of methods. The book is about 99% "methods" - broadly construed. In short, it's a "how to do" and "how not to do" book.

----------------------------------
Except for the open-source vignettes (supported by 66 footnotes) and a number of geographical and historical vignettes, the vast bulk of the book is devoted to how IJ recruited agents and obtained information; and how the CIA managers wanted him to recruit agents and obtain information. You also will get a lot on CIA personnel, approval, reporting and accounting policies, management levels, etc. - generalized at times, specific at other times.

What is classified or not is not my call.

How to set up the Ismael Jones Intel Service (as I glean it - so, in my words, not IJ's):

1. Get your domestic house and personal finances in absolute order.

2. Have 300-500K of your own money available to finance your operations.

3. Keep accurate financial records for reimbursement - eventually.

4. Build up a target list from all sources.

5. Seek approval of contacts by presenting risk-averse scenarios (even if not the expected reality); or present the contact as a "walk-in" (even if you contacted him first).

6. Contact directly in the normal course of business - make the cold call.

7. Fudge reports (as to contact details, not the information) to fit the picture wanted by agency management for "how to do".

There is a lot more - about which, opinions will differ. All in all, an interesting book - not sorry I bought the book - which I two-ferred with Bob Baer's new book on Iran. Since the book is now #20,921 in Books, neither the CIA nor the author is about to get rich.

[Juan Rico]

Guess I'll order it from Amazon. Three reviews of the book by retired folks at the end of the Amazon page, which is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Factor-D...1875405&sr=8-1

thanks for keeping this thread alive, sir...

the first review (the most outstanding) when you follow that amazon link is by a fella named robert steele (i guess he's a former Marine/former case officer, same as jones). along with his name is a link to his site (www.oss.net/PIG , this wasn't here before). he has a pdf book available FREE for the november election festivities.

on the right hand side of the site are his 2 other books advertised with free chapters available for download (chapter 13 of 'on intelligence' and chapter 15 of 'the new craft of intelligence'). from a layman's perspective, both chapters were pretty good reads. both steele and jones definitely share the same passion for reform of this community.

just wondering what everyone's take of these 2 chapters would be (and also the pdf PIG book since intel is also addressed, partly)

[davidbfpo]

The works of Robert Steele on the value of open source information are well known; I've read one of his books in total and he is a zealot for his cause. The latest offer is no different, although timely for the US election. I say contrast as the thread started with a SF author revealing information to the public and so into the open.

Yes, open source information can help and can play a greater role in most spheres of intelligence - for the context (situational awareness) and details (of individual targets). I thought Steele went overboard in his advocacy.

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

Don't know either of these guys (obviously in IJ's case - suppose he could be my neighbor - been wondering about him ).

Anyway, based on their writings - about the only commonality seems to be as former Marines and employment by the same agency. IJ is committed to HUMINT ("secret" kind), but wants it done better, etc., etc.

Mr. Steele seems committed to many things - put it that way - and no further comment by me on Mr. Steele.

[Juan Rico]

jmm99, you're right this guy's absolutely all over the place! i'm becoming a fan of this guy's works, intel and strategy.

"it would cost CIA too much to try and shut me down..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6dW4U1xVr0

[jmm99]

with Mr. Steele's many works. So, it may be a case of some gold among the mud; or some mud among the gold (to paraphrase St. Jerome).

Use of open-source data has been promoted by many analysts in the agency, long before Mr. Steele reared his head. The shaggy dog story that goes along with that is that consumers have tended to want some "secret stuff" - otherwise, the analytics couldn't really be "intelligence".

Example of how to do it (not a CIA story). Three highly intelligent guys (had to be since I was one of them ) are loaded for bear to brief Boss on a matter. Boss walks in (not having that much background on the matter), sits down, and says: "Mr. McCarthy, do me a favor and get the Brittanica volume that discusses X." OK, get volume. Boss reads; then get volume Y; then Z, etc. Boss ends up with a stack of references which he reads (quick reader was he), while everyone is chomping at the bit. Boss then says: "Now, we can tackle the real issues, since I'll understand what you're telling me."

The points are that (1) there is a lot of open-source out there; and (2) the consumer has to be amenable to recognition of its value (like Boss).

[bourbon]

JMM,
I talked to a guy I know, a former operations officer who worked in the noc program. I asked him if IJ was legit, he said he thought so. That is probably the closest thing to a firm answer I am likely to get from him. So I will eat some crow here, and say my skepticism was misplaced.

He agreed with IJ's criticism of the "Platforms" concept. Credited the creation to "just do something" pressure from Congress, whereby poor ideas are executed in the short-term over good ideas that have long-term implantation.

JR,
The same guy worked with Steele years ago, his take on him is similar to what has been posted on this thread, though he agrees with alot of and see's alot of value in Steele's ideas and advocacy.

[jmm99]

your friend confirmed my impression from the book as to IJ's character - very much a straight-arrow who is not "on a mission", but who has some very strong views on the agency's shortcomings - as he perceives them. I also thought (my perception) that he was a bit naive - not in his intelligence tradecraft, but in his political tradecraft.

A lot of this is consumer-driven. The Executive and/or Legislative want X (and usually far more X than is needed - and in a hurry). So, a Potemkin Village is built for a lot of $ - and nothing in substance changes. Having 90% of NOCs based in the US doing make-work (if true, as IJ claims) is obviously nuts.

Things looked better during Eisenhower, where DoS and CIA (via Dulles brothers) were part of the Breakfast Club. However, brickbats (some valid, some not) were thrown then, as well. Implementation of long-term solutions has been difficult, since some of the solutions have had blowback worse than the problems supposedly solved.

[jmm99]

A number of points from Faddis and Berntsen in the following article are similar to the criticisms leveled by IJ in his book. Those points are not uncontested.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY
Oct. 17, 2008 – 9:27 p.m.
CIA’s Loss of Top Spies ‘Catastrophic,’ Says Agency Veteran
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff

Only a few months ago, Sam Faddis was running a CIA unit charged with preventing terrorists from getting nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Today, only 50, the equivalent of a full colonel at the top of his game, he has quit.

Scores more like him, Faddis says, spies with years of working the back alleys of the world, have walked away from the CIA’s Operations Directorate at the top of their careers, at a time when the agency needs their skills the most.

The directorate is losing “25 or 30 chiefs of station” — the top CIA representative in a country or major city — “or their equivalent” at headquarters, every six months, Faddis estimates.

That’s out of an estimated thousand or fewer case officers — the men and women who recruit and manage spies — worldwide.
.....
The CIA has said that money is luring away its best old hands. And it’s true that a large number come back as private contractors, doing virtually the same jobs at twice the pay. Some say there are more contractors filling desk in the directorate now than career officers.

But many don’t return, Faddis maintains. And, theoretically, he and other operations veterans say, contractors can’t take leadership positions that have been emptied.

The CIA flatly denies there’s a hemorrhage of senior personnel.

“Last year, for example, it was in the neighborhood of 7 percent of GS-15s in the National Clandestine Service,” spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

“And that’s somewhat below what it had been in previous years,” he continued. “It’s all quite modest. The notion of dramatic losses at that grade, or any other, is simply incorrect.”
....
Virtually none of the team chiefs and case officers who led the first CIA units into Afghanistan and Iraq remain with the agency, said Faddis, who recently authored a memoir, “Operation Hotel California: The Clandestine War Inside Iraq.”
....
Gary Berntsen, a former station chief who led one of the first CIA teams into Afghanistan after 9/11, agrees. He left in disgust over management.

In a new book, “Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism & National Leadership,” Berntsen writes that the agency’s personnel problems predated the Bush administration, but the president waited too long to double the size of the Operations Directorate.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...arm1=5&cpage=1

The Faddis book is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Hote.../dp/1599213664

The Berntsen book is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Intellig...4278836&sr=1-2

[Juan Rico]

thought bernsten was more constructive than jones, here's a good audio speaking about his new book (good stuff):

http://www.mideasti.org/podcast/huma...ractical-guide