4/17/2024, 5:42:03 PM · by ransomnote · 49 replies
X ^ | Apr 17, 2024 | Katherine Maher via @realchrisrufo
ransomnote: 10 minute video interview with former CIA agent Frank Snepp circa 1983. TRANSCRIPT BELOW.
TRANSCRIPT BEGINS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Snepp: Once again I want to make it perfectly clear that we were not hiring these reporters, they were not operating as our spies or as our dupes. But, in a war situation, when there are so few sources of information, a reporter may rely on a CIA contact, and he becomes vulnerable.
In Saigon, if I planted a piece information with a reporter, I would ordinarily then try to create an environment in which he could not check the information. I would go to the British ambassador and brief him on the dis-information I had just given the reporter, so when the reporter wanted to cross-check what I told him with, say, the British Ambassador, New Zealand Ambassador, or what have you, he would get false confirmation, the same message coming back at him and would say, "Aha! I've got proof Frank Snepp was telling the truth," when in fact, what he'd gotten was simply an echo of what I'd given him in the first place, via the British Ambassador or other of our friendly diplomatic contacts
Reporter: Frank, a 2-part question.
What were the objectives of the, or what was the objective of the CIA? What about the moral implications of what you were doing in feeding disinformation? Did the objective over-ride the moral implications? Moral problems?
Frank Snepp: Well the objective of the agency in general was to generate intelligence and get it back to Washington, to get at the truth and make sure policy makers understand it.
When you plant disinformation you are diverging from that objective and I think, probably in retrospect, it was…ah…very counterproductive. I am, as an ex-CIA agent, opposed to the disinformation activities in which I was involved. I admit that I was involved, and I think it served no useful purpose. Propagandizing the American public or Congress is not the CIA's job.
As to the morality of what the CIA was doing, or that particular activity, the war was a relative thing, it was a relativistic environment and morality seldom came into play when you were operating in the field.
In my estimation, a CIA man should be amoral. That may sound pretty shocking to somebody, but what if my morality were that of a Nazi agent? You wouldn't want me to be your intelligence officer. Keep the morals out of intelligence; keep the truth in, and stay away from disinformation.
Reporter: Well, what was the primary purpose of the CIA as you viewed it? Was it an intelligence gathering agency or was it an agency that was primarily involved in covert operations?
Frank Snepp: They were both part of the CIA's mandate in Vietnam, and the agency performed covert actions, covert operations very well. The operations were held to a limited size and were of limited objective.
When they got big, like the Phoenix program, they got out of hand and innocent people died as a result. 'Innocent', by that I mean people who were not connected with the Communist movement.
Reporter: You might refresh our memory on the Phoenix program, briefly.
Frank Snepp: The Phoenix program was an assassi... well it was a program designed to neutralize the Communist cadre that worked throughout South Vietnam, mainly through capture, but it got out of hand and what happened was Phoenix operatives, operating under CIA control, and the control of other agencies, would kill the suspects, the people who were suspected of these connections.
Reporter: Let's talk about Frank Snepp for just a moment. You wrote a book titled 'Decent Interval', right? It was published; it's on the stands right now. What was your personal experience with the CIA after writing that book?
Frank Snepp: My personal experience with the CIA was..ah..a lawsuit from the US government suing me for publishing Decent Interval without the CIA's approval, even though nobody ever accused me of publishing secrets in the book. The lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court ,and the Supreme Court came down with the decision which is historic in it's implications. The Supreme Court decided that every government worker in a position of trust, whether in the CIA, State Department , National Security Council has an implicit obligation to submit what he says or what he writes about his work to the government for censorship. If he doesn't, he is liable to monetary penalties, forfeiture of all of his profits.
All of the profits from Decent Interval, my profits, were forfeited to the government, and he is subject to a lifelong gag order which means he must continue to submit his statements to the government for approval. Again, even if there are no secrets involved, and even if he has signed no secrecy agreement with the government. This involves an implicit obligation.
Reporter: Had you signed a secrecy agreement?
Frank Snepp: I signed six different secrecy agreements, and ah the secrecy agreement I signed upon leaving the agency said the only thing I had to protect was secrets. I protected secrets. The Supreme Court said that didn't matter; I was obliged to protect even non-secrets. This is something unprecedented in American law.
Reporter: Straighten me out on one thing. If you write on anything else other than the CIA in your experiences you do not have to submit it, right?
Frank Snepp: Novels, screenplays…all are submitted.
Reporter: Everything?
Frank Snepp: Everything. Not to the CIA, to the US government for censorship. And again anybody in the government now is under the same regime of censorship. One of the victims of the Vietnam war was the First Amendment , and my case was one of the cases that came out of the Vietnam war.
Reporter: To whom in the government do you submit it for review?
Frank Snepp: I submit it first to the Central Intelligence Agency, and it's a case of having the criticized censor the criticism. If I object to something the CIA tries to delete then I go to court, and I have to argue before a judge that what I want to keep in is not injurious to the agency. That's an impossible argument to make because the courts in this country increasingly defer to the National Security community in any cases like this.
Reporter: Well now how did your case differ from the decisions in the Pentagon Papers? Was there any similarity at all?
Frank Snepp: Yes indeed because in the Pentagon Papers case, the supreme Court recognized for the first time in American History, well I should say for the second time, that prior restraint, the use of gag orders, was permissable under certain circumstances, in instances of impending peril to the national security. In my case, the Supreme Court broadened the circumstances under which prior restraint, the use of gag orders, are permissable, and now gag orders can be applied to people who are not threatening the national security, who have simply held a job in the government, and wish to speak about something that they have gained knowledge of as a result of their government employment.
Reporter: What is your view of the Supreme Court decision in the Pentagon Papers case?
Frank Snepp: It differs with the view normally held by the press. The press views the Supreme Court decision to let the New York Times and Washington Post publish the Pentagon Papers as a great victory for the journalistic profession and the principle of free speech. My view is somewhat different. As I've said before, that decision by the Supreme Court in effect recognized the legitimacy of prior restraint and the use of gag orders under certain conditions. And that is something that is not in the presses' interest, and yet the press is often so short-sighted as to emphasize the small victories and neglect the implications of what has been done by the Court.
Reporter: Well as a strategy analyst, you've seen and read the Pentagon Papers I presume. Was there any breach of security in that, in your opinion?
Frank Snepp: There were several pieces of information in the Pentagon Papers which bore 'classified' labels. As to whether their publication was injurious to the National Security, I would say not. Some of the information which bore a 'classified' label was in fact disinformation, information which was not accurate, but none the less, 'classified'.
Reporter: Can you think of anything that would have given aid and comfort to Moscow?
Frank Snepp: Absolutely not. The Central Intelligence Agency has in itself ah…has itself conducted a post-mortem on the Pentagon Papers, so has the Pentagon; both have concluded that the publication of the Papers had no adverse consequences for national security.
TRANSCRIPT ENDS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
