My reply to Mr. Haas’ letter of 8/19/08

Dear Sir:

Here is my reply to Mr. Haas’ letter of 8/19/08

When I initially wrote to The Citizen re Mr. Haas’ book, it was not my intention to engage in a prolonged dialogue with him, but I do feel that a reply to his letter is called for. In Mr. Haas’ opening paragraph, he implies that I am an apologist for the CIA, and I can’t let that go unchallenged. May I suggest that he, or anyone, who thinks I am an apologist for the CIA read my two books.

1. Mr. Haas’ statement “to imply that being a CIA polygrapher gives him any insight at all about CIA operations is the height of arrogance” is inaccurate and offensive. Every CIA polygraph examiner who conducts Ops Tests has more insight on CIA operations than Mr. Haas. This retired CIA polygraph examiner spent four years in Vietnam, a total of 2011 days overseas doing operational polygraph tests, has met more agents/assets than anyone I can think of, and has worked with more case officers on more operations, in more countries, than any examiner in the history of CIA’s polygraph program. I have interrogated and obtained admissions of operational misconduct from CIA agent handlers/case officers, caught seven double agents, and uncovered numerous fabricators. I suggest that Mr. Haas’ referring to me as a ‘desk jockey” is about as accurate as his book and analogous to telling Ted Williams or Pete Rose that they have no insights on how to hit a baseball.
2. Although my real-life experiences, in terms of heroics, don’t compare with Mr. Haas’ alleged deeds of derring -do, I have been shot at on five occasions, endured two earthquakes, suffered one serious case of food poisoning in which I lost 22 pounds (151 pounds to 129), have had a couple of other close calls, and know all too well what it is to be terrified. I have interrogated, up close and personal, assassins, terrorists, murderers, drug dealers, rapists and other criminals of all stripes. If my experiences don’t give me insight on CIA operations, please enlighten me as to what I could have done to get more insight.
3. If Mr. Haas’ comment “Polygraph examiners don’t have unrestricted access to operational files” is any indication of his “insight” on CIA operations, his insight is seriously impaired. I needed that access in order to debrief, test and interrogate agents and assets, and in my 31 years as a CIA polygraph examiner, I was never denied access to an operational file. What experience has Mr. Haas had with CIA polygraph examiners?
4. I am a loyal CIA retiree, acting on my own, in commenting on Mr. Haas. I have no agenda other than to raise questions about Mr. Haas’ claims. Mr. Haas’ book is a contradiction of everything I know about the CIA, and if Mr. Haas can convince me that he is, and was, whom he claims, he will have my apology.
5. In applying the definition of prove, I can no more PROVE that Mr. Haas didn’t work for the CIA than he can Prove that he did. I suggest the lack of specificity and paucity of detail in Mr. Haas’ claims is deliberate and done so as to make verification impossible. All we have is the word of an admitted drug abuser and alcoholic. That isn’t enough for me.
6. I am not the only one who questions Mr.Haas’ bona fides. I cite Mr. Arjun’s 12 July 08 Amazon review in which Mr. Arjun seems to imply that Mr. Haas’ information about the “Tent” at the Gulhane hotel is out of date and the description of the tent may have been plagiarized.
7. I found Mr. Haas’ comments re his HALO training lacking credibility. In another review, Matt Winsted, a former military HALO instructor expressed even stronger doubts about these claims.

8. I suggest that the CIA is mute re Mr. Haas’ book because:

a. The CIA has no control over what Mr. Haas writes.
b. There is no classified information in Mr. Haas’ book.
c. To comment of Mr. Haas’ book would promote the book.

9. When I said the CIA doesn’t assassinate people, I meant it, and to my knowledge, the CIA doesn’t assassinate people. I know the CIA was accused of complicity in the assassinations of Diem and Lumumba, and of trying to assassinate Castro, but know of no such activity since I entered on duty in 1968.
10. I have tested applicants, much more qualified than Mr. Haas, who have offered to perform assassinations and were rejected, out of hand. I know of two senior officers who offered to assassinate Philip Agee and were summarily thrown out of the Director of Operations’ Office.

11. It’s Stasi, not Stassi. For a native German speaker, I find it strange that he would make such a mistake.

12. I am certain that at the time Mr. Haas says he was recruited (1971 ) the CIA was not involved, in any way, in assassinations. Also, the CIA neither recruits, nor to my knowledge, has ever recruited any American under the age of 21 to work in the clandestine service. 19 year olds simply lack the maturity for covert operations and it doesn’t make sense to recruit them.

13. The military does not recruit any 18 year old, or anyone, of any age, to be an assassin. After basic training, those who excel on the rifle range may be asked to undergo sniper training, but training to be an assassin? Not only “no”, but hell no.

14. While in the military, serving with the 513th MI, in Germany, we were prohibited (by a Presidential Directive from President Kennedy) from recruiting American College students.

15. In his book, Mr. Haas cited two “bad trips” while on LSD. In 1971, one use of marijuana was grounds for a security disapproval for an applicant. I know of no CIA applicant who acknowledged LSD use and was subsequently hired. The fact that Mr. Haas claimed to have continued to use drugs after his claimed recruitment is mind blowing. Did “Phil” sanction Mr. Haas’ drug use? Was Mr. Haas’ drug use addressed during his polygraph test?

16. No, I do not discount the revelations made by DCI Colby in the Family Jewels, and suggest that the involvement in assassinations cited therein, however peripheral, ended before the Family Jewels were made public. In the Family Jewels, there is no mention of a CIA operative assassinating anyone.

17. I would not use the word “elite” in the context Mr. Haas uses it here. A comparison of the requirements to enlist in the military with the requirements to join the CIA would certainly suggest that the CIA is more selective than military recruiters. The CIA has to be, and doesn’t take high school drop outs, drug users, convicted felons, and social outcasts. I enlisted in the U.S. Army, served 5 years on active duty and was honorably discharged as a Staff Sergeant/E-6. I take second place to no one in my respect for and admiration of our military men and women. For someone who has never served a day in uniform to question my respect for our military is offensive.

18. In Mr. Haas’ book, he makes no mention of how he avoided the draft. I joined the CIA during the Vietnam War, know several CIA employees who were drafted while with the CIA, and know of no case in which the CIA got a draft deferment for one of its employees. Did Mr. Haas ever receive a draft notice?

19. Why not undertake a covert operation under your own name? Plausible denial is the essence of covert operations and using one’s true name negates plausible denial. For a person who claims he could pass for a native German to go on a mission carrying his real passport into a denied area is the epitome of poor tradecraft. Yes, Mr. Haas, I unfortunately did read your whole book.

20. In commenting on Mr. Haas’ trip to Guantanamo, I can only suggest that he wangled a boondoggle, “fact finding” TDY. There is nothing in his book that suggests he had any skills that he could bring to the table at Guantanamo. Was he an interrogator? An Arabic linguist? Experienced in Middle East operations? What does “coordinate intelligence operations” mean? His TDY was no different than those boondoggles made by numerous politicians, pentagon and other government officials to Iraq, Afghanistan, and, in my day, Vietnam.

21. Re Mr. Haas’ clearances: Here, Mr. Haas confuses me. He says: “A person who would fabricate the story I wrote, WOULD NOT, under any circumstances be granted a Top Secret Security Clearance.” This begs the question: How would those who granted him his clearances know that his book was not fabricated? The Department of the Army can no more prove, or disprove, his story than anyone else.

22. If the book wasn’t fabricated, the revelations made by Mr. Haas in his book, by every standard under which I was granted clearances, would disqualify him from any clearance let alone a Top Secret clearance. That being said, I posit that Mr. Haas told his Department of Army employers that he fabricated the book. I further suggest that his employers rationalize their decision to grant him his clearance by saying that there is no classified information in the book.

23. Mr. Haas’ statement “In fact, no one who admitted the dependencies I had would also NEVER, EVER, be granted this level of clearance.” This inane statement defies any theoretical explanation. He did admit serious dependencies and was granted a Top Secret clearance in spite of his admissions. I agree with Mr. Haas, no one who made the admission he made should be granted a clearance. I have no idea as to how, or why, anyone who admitted the dependencies Mr. Haas’ admitted would (or should) be granted a Top Secret clearance.

24. If Mr. Haas is who he claims to be, he violated his secrecy agreement with the CIA. This, in and of itself, raises questions about why his TS clearance was extended.

25. I never initiated any investigation of Mr. Haas, nor do I have an agenda or ax to grind. I have been privileged to work with some truly fine and genuinely heroic CIA officers, seven of whom were not only colleagues but friends who lost their lives in the line of duty. They have been honored by stars on the CIA’s wall of remembrance in the main lobby of CIA’s headquarters. Mr. Haas’ book dishonors their memory.

26. My letter, to which Mr. Haas is replying, is my first public comment on him and I was not the individual who confronted Mr. Haas during his library talk in Vienna, Virginia

27. In terms of proof, I think more specificity would be helpful. For example: How many static line jumps did Mr. Haas make before his first HALO jump? How many HALO jumps did he make? How long was it between his HALO jump and the HALO jump into East Germany? Who was his HALO instructor? What bona fides did Mr. Haas have that enabled him to meet with the Afghan drug dealers he alleges he killed? Why did Mr. Haas not wait to talk with the East German cop who stopped him before murdering him? When and where was he polygraphed? How many polygraph tests has he taken? Did he sign a secrecy agreement? Where and when did he undergo his medical and psych evaluations? How much was he paid? Did he pay taxes on his income? Who were his roommates in college? Who were some of his NROTC friends? Who was the NROTC officer who told him “Phil” was waiting to see him? How did he know “Phil” was CIA? This is information that is not classified and would go a long way, at least with me, in establishing his bona fides.
28. I also find the lack of any supporting comments from former CIA employees very telling. There are enough disgruntled employees out there, who, if they believed Mr. Haas, would more than likely rally to defend his book. There are two endorsements on the back cover of Mr. Haas’ book; neither is from anyone with any background with the CIA. Don Bohning is a superb reporter whom I like and respect. I spoke with him about his endorsement, and based on that conversation, I think he was misled about the book.
29. Based on what I read in Mr. Haas’ book, “Phil” was his only CIA contact. It seems more than likely to me that he would have been targeted for recruitment by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the predecessor to the DEA, than the CIA. How would Mr. Haas know? What were “Phil’s” bona fides? Has Mr. Haas ever heard of a false flag recruitment?
30. Mr. Haas’ statement in the last paragraph, “I am as qualified as any long-term veteran is disingenuous, arrogant, and borders on the obscene.
31. In addition to my comments as to the authenticity of Mr. Haas’ claims, I have some comments on the publication of his book. The manuscripts of both of my books, after being approved by the CIA’s Publications Review Board, were submitted to two publishers. Both publishers passed my manuscripts on to former CIA officers for them to review and verify their authenticity. Frank Snepp, the former CIA analyst and author of Decent Interval performed this task for my first book. Jim Olson, the author of Fair Play and legendary CIA Counterintelligence officer performed this task for GATEKEEPER, my second book. In addition, my publisher for GATEKEEPER asked me if I could get former CIA colleagues to write dust cover endorsements of GATEKEEPER. Five of my former colleagues complied, and their comments are on the dust cover.
32. I am one of three former CIA officers who has been published by Mr. Haas’ publisher. I was not asked to either review Mr. Haas’ manuscript for authenticity or write a dust cover comment. I find this extraordinary.
33. Both of my publishers insisted on seeing the PRB’s sign off/permission on my manuscripts before they would accept my manuscripts for publication. Their rationale in both cases was that they wanted to avoid any legal problems with the CIA.
34. Mr. Haas’ book was not reviewed by the PRB. The only reason I can come up with for a publisher to publish Mr. Haas’ book without a PRB review is that Mr. Haas convinced the publisher that he was not held to the same standard as every CIA employee I know or knew. Why a publisher might believe this is open to conjecture.
35. In summing up my comments, I will address one of the scenarios in Mr. Haas’ book, his alleged arrest and detention in Iran. Mr. Haas alleges that he was released as a result of CIA intervention. I doubt very much that if Mr. Haas had been arrested and detained as he alleges, the CIA would have ever found out about it. If he were released as he alleges, the CIA would have to have blown his cover, and he would never be used operationally again.
36. If we accept Mr. Haas’ story, we also have to believe that upon his return to Munich, and after telling “Phil” that he couldn’t sleep and was having flashbacks, “Phil” sent him on a mission into East Germany. This is analogous to sending a shell-shocked, young soldier on a reconnaissance mission behind enemy lines; unconscionably callous, very stupid, and criminally irresponsible.

Mr. Haas’ book an egregious misrepresentation of the CIA and his book appeals to those who take comfort in believing that the CIA would hire people such as Mr. Haas. I am not one of them.

John F. Sullivan