HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019647.jpg

1.68 MB

Extraction Summary

3
People
6
Organizations
5
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Book page / investigative exhibit
File Size: 1.68 MB
Summary

This document appears to be page 159 from a book (likely by author Edward Jay Epstein, based on the filename code) included in a House Oversight investigation. It analyzes intelligence tradecraft regarding 'walk-ins' and defectors, discussing the strategic value of turning them into moles versus exfiltrating them. Specific cases discussed include the rejected asylum request of Chinese police chief Wang Lijun in 2012 and the flight of Edward Snowden to Russia.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Golitsyn Defector / Walk-in
A Russian walk-in who believed he was compromised and whose value was evaluated for exfiltration.
Wang Lijun Police Chief (China) / Walk-in
Well-connected police chief who sought asylum at the U.S. consulate in Chengdu in 2012 but was rejected as a politica...
Edward Snowden Rogue Employee / Defector
Discussed in the context of fleeing to Moscow and the intelligence value of his stolen documents to Russian security ...

Timeline (2 events)

February 2012
Wang Lijun walks into U.S. consulate in Chengdu asking for asylum.
Chengdu, China
Post-February 2012
Wang Lijun arrested for corruption and sentenced to 15 years in prison after leaving U.S. protection.
China

Locations (5)

Relationships (2)

Wang Lijun Asylum Seeker / Rejector State Department
Wang walked into the U.S. consulate... The State Department decided against it.
Edward Snowden Intelligence Asset / Handler (Implied) Russian security services
it can be assumed that after he fled to Moscow... he would wind up in the hands of the Russian security services.

Key Quotes (3)

""While defectors can and do provide critical information... there are very few cases in which the same individual may not have been of greater value if he had returned to his post.""
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019647.jpg
Quote #1
"Some walk-ins are deemed "dangles," or agents dispatched by the KGB to test and confuse the CIA."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019647.jpg
Quote #2
"Such decisions about walk-ins are not made without due consideration, often at the highest level of a government, because exfiltrating a defector can result in diplomatic ruptures and political embarrassments."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019647.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,516 characters)

The Question of When | 159
He offered to defect to the United States. The CIA accepted his offer, and through this archive of secrets he had previously compiled, he became one of the CIA's most productive sources in the Cold War.
The job of an intelligence service is to take advantage of whatever opportunities come its way in the form of self-generated spies. If a Russian walk-in had not yet burned his bridges to his own service, U.S. intelligence officers were under instructions to attempt to persuade the walk-in to return to his post in Russia and serve as a "defector-in-place," or mole. "While defectors can and do provide critical information," a CIA memorandum on walk-ins during the Cold War noted, "there are very few cases in which the same individual may not have been of greater value if he had returned to his post." Of course, if a walk-in believed he was already compromised, as Golitsyn did, a decision would have to be made whether the value of his intelligence merited exfiltrating him to the United States.
This required evaluating the bona fides of the walk-in. Not all walk-ins are accepted as defectors. Some walk-ins are deemed "dangles," or agents dispatched by the KGB to test and confuse the CIA. Others are rejected as political liabilities, as happened to Wang Lijun, a well-connected police chief in China. In February 2012, Wang walked into the U.S. consulate in Chengdu asking for asylum. The State Department decided against it. After Wang left U.S. protection, he was arrested for corruption and received a fifteen-year prison sentence. Such decisions about walk-ins are not made without due consideration, often at the highest level of a government, because exfiltrating a defector can result in diplomatic ruptures and political embarrassments.
Conversely, it raises espionage concerns when an adversary government authorizes the exfiltration of a rogue employee of an intelligence service. At minimum, it suggests that a rival government placed value on what the defector could provide it. The Snowden case is no exception. Whatever Snowden's prior relations might have been with Russia, it can be assumed that after he fled to Moscow, in light of the intelligence value of the stolen documents, he would wind up in the hands of the Russian security services. That assumption was reinforced by subsequent countermeasures that were implemented by adversaries moved to block secret sources of NSA
Epst_9780451494566_2p_all_r1.z.indd 159
9/29/16 5:51 PM
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019647

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document