The Secret Agent Books

I enjoyed this book for the most part, especially the thinly veiled speculation about the dissapearance of Jim Thompson. The only thing that really soured me from time to time is how the male characters are written. They seem like a woman's version of a man.

I found this on a recommended shelf of a bookstore I frequent. It wasn't one I would recommend, nor one I would avoid. There were stretches in the story I was really drawn in, but it never became one 'I just couldn't put down'... which I did a couple times reading something else instead, but I did come back to the novel after a while wanting to know a little more of what was going on and what had gone on.
There is a current story, and a history that is also being revealled that is the imputus of the current story, and that worked for me. I just didn't have an attachment to the main character. Other readers DID.

Run, do not walk, to your nearest bookstore and buy this book

If you like action packed adventure and an intense interplay between personalities, geography and plot then you will find this a fine book as your ride a whirlwind of story telling that involves you in systems and power structures beyond your ability to control.

A complicated, aggressive and risk-taking woman is drawn into an intricate plot that spans three continents, involves people willing to kill and a foreign culture in Thailand impenetrable by traditional western patterns.

Francine Mathews worked for the CIA and has carried some of that knowledge with her as she develops exciting, dynamic ways of imagining a world and telling us about it. I hope she has a long career of writing novels and I look forward to her next one.

The whole world is divided into two types of people: those who divide things into two groups and those who do not..

..seriously, Ms. Matthews book oscillates wildly between "chick flick" material and the obligitory, leader-of-the-pack, head-of-the class, "high lift, low-drag" (thank you, Harry Coyle) heroine and characters that occupy the pages of this spy/CIA/former OSS agent genre. The flashbacks to post World War II Siam save the book, in my humble opinion, but she could come off a little better if she softened the hardened-bitch-longing-for-a-relationship-to-restore-a-loveless-past schtick engaged in by Ms. Fogg. (a relative of that other world-traveler, Phineas?) She could also redo the character of Oliver Kane and lose some of that too-cute dialog he is always spouting at the other end of the pay phone, ducky. Entertaining at times and *definitely* better than Finder's "Extraordinary Powers" -- but then, almost every work of fiction is (he said, gratiuitously). Still there is this indulgence in brand-name-dropping and labels. Why do we need to know *every* brand of caviar, liquor, skis, etc. Is this some kind of product placement deal?

*sigh*

I have seen some of the reviews of this book, especially Newt's. It was his that made me buy it. Perhaps I am not enough of an "insider" to appreciate this story, but I found it compelling at times, boring at times and the flipping back and forth between the present and the past at the least, distracting.
So, I would say, for a paperback price it may be worth your reading.

Conrad still suffers today from the same pigeon-hole that his writing was pounded into during his own lifetime. He is still seen as harbinger of distant seas, of the exotic, the foreign. He is best known for Heart of Darkness, a book immortalized in pop culture by Francis Ford Coppola's retelling of this long, tormented short story as a Vietnam epic in Apocalypse Now.

And yet, The Secret Agent is a book that rivals, if not matches or exceeds, that great horror of the English cannon. This is more than a novel about terrorism, this is a terrorist novel. It's a book about poverty and squalor, about the obfuscated struggles of humanity; it conspires to build our ideals into violent extremes, chipping at a suffering domesticity negotiated in silence, then lets them fall in the babble of gutted secrets. This violence is not thrusted upon us in a language that dazzles tired eyes with surreal distortions; Conrad's is a dark, brooding prose as tempered and inauspicious as blinding banalities of our daily lives, and it these complacencies that he uses to deliver an ultimate shock. Conrad aims here at the absolute vortex of the British Empire--really, of the entire West--at that crossroads between global politics and the most individual of covenants. The knowledge found there manifests a total psychological collapse, one that leaves the cruel mechanisms of reality horrifically untouched.

Its important to remember, that the novel is written at a time when democracy is not exactly well spread through Europe, and most of the continental countries are having a hard time trying to understand why the English shelter anarchists and Marxists and even allow them to publish their works.

No doubt that Conrad met a few of them in literary or social circles and found them amusing in their contradictions. That is why the "criminal mastermind" Mr. Verloc is portrayed more as a very lazy bourgeois than someone whose mind is set upon creating the conditions to change society.

On the other hand, Conrad is faithful to its belief on the perennial existence if not preeminence, of a dark side of the soul in everyone. So the atmosphere in which every character dwells is gloomy, sad and purposefully shows that no motivation is really beyond a person's self interest, even if you claim that you are doing it for God and country, to save the planet or your mother.

Anarchism was a big thing in the late 19th century and early 20th century (you can compare it with the situation of Islamic terrorism today). Several kings, presidents and other politicians were killed by anarchists during that epoch (US president McKinley and Austrian Empress Sissi was among them). Conrad's book is one of the best novels about the anarchist world, dealing with an anarchist cell working in London during that time. The protagonist, Verloc, is the head of the cell and also an informer for the police and an agent for an unnamed foreign country (thus, he is a triple agent) and his attempt to blow up the Greenwich observatory ends tragically for an unwitting member of his family. Note: Conrad amusingly says in the prologue that he never personally met an anarchist himself, but the main story is based on real events he probably picked up from the press of the time.

Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent brought up many interesting topics for discussion. The group of motifs Conrad chose to weave into his 1907 novel is highly political in nature: Anarchist views, science, capitalism, socialism, idealization, private ownership, poverty, the police, and possibly even Muslim extremism. For a novel written when it was, in many places The Secret Agent seemed an almost prophetic tale of Mr. Verloc, a secret agent in London.

Interestingly enough, its first prophetic topic is of great importance in today's terror-stricken world, the plot of the story centering mainly on an Anarchist terrorist plot to put one of their followers, Mr. Verloc, in charge of blowing up an observatory. His method of choice, the suicide bomber, is eerily familiar to today's reader. What makes this suicide bomber plot all the more interesting are the obscure details Conrad includes that led me to question whether Verloc and his family were, in fact, Muslim. In Sir Ethelred and the Assistant Commissioner's chapter ten discussion, the Assistance Commissioner's thoughts question the country's domestic policy and focus on his battle against the "paynim (heathen/Muslim) Cheeseman," which is Verloc. Toward the end, Conrad describes Mrs. Verloc as walking around town covered in black except for her eyes. These two details combine to add a Muslim thread to this already visionary terrorist suicide bombing plot in London, curiously reminiscent of recent world events.

Stevie's comments to Mrs. Verloc on the taxi were intriguing as well, receiving new life from the recent New Orleans natural disaster. Stevie's sympathy for the poor taxi driver and poor horse lead him to wonder why the police don't fight to stop injustice. Mrs. Verloc's response, "They are there so that them as have nothing shouldn't take anything away from them who have" is followed by Stevie's question of "What, not even if they were hungry?" The way the media portrayed and the police responded to the "looting" in New Orleans was the answer to Stevie's question: "Yes, that's the police's job even if the poor are hungry."

The Secret Agent, even though nearly a century old, brings to the forefront topics that seem to our world today fairly new. The details connect with the reader because of their strange relevance, spurring conversation about the various topics listed above.

Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens

This novel is confusing, melodramatic and contains too many improbable developments.

Its main character, Verloc, considers himself as an anarchist, although his role is 'the protection of the social mechanism', because 'protection is the first necessity of opulence and luxury'.
As an 'agent provocateur' for a foreign country, he is forced (otherwise he looses his job) to organize a terrorist attack, which should 'waken up the middle classes' against 'unhygienic labour' in Great-Britain.
He is also a spy on revolutionary activities of a small club of leftists fanatics (a combination of marxists and anarchists).

Conrad's superlative style is everything except subtle: 'the shallow enviousness of unhygienic labour' and 'the poor, pathetically mendacious, miserably authenticated by the horrible breath of cheap rum and soap-suds', seem to contradict a 'bad world for poor people'.
The writing is sloppy. One time, an organization is called the Central Red Committee, another time, the International Red Committee. A 'Central' Committee seems rather bizarre for anarchists ('I depend on death, which knows no restraint and cannot be attacked. My superiority is evident.')

A dialogue between a police chief and a pure anarchist ('looking for the blow to open the first crack in the great edifice of legal conceptions sheltering the atrocious injustice of society') seems improbable, as well as the short love story between Verloc's wife and another anarchist, at the end.

However, certain aspects of the novel are very actual, like the use of 'a weak-minded creature with carefully indoctrinated loyalty and blind docility and devotion', to carry out the fatal terrorist attack. Also actual is the following sentence: 'the existence of secret agents should not be tolerated, as tending to augment the positive dangers of evil'.

This book has not the same high standard as Conrad's masterpieces like 'Hearth of Darkness' and 'Lord Jim'.

Only for Conrad fans.

A casual read of this book reveals its many inconsistencies. A careful read and a knowledge of US history reveals that this text is full of lies.

Gimpel states that he has been referred to as The World's Most Dangerous Spy. A spy who appears to have never fired a shot at anyone and who claims to have never killed anyone is the world's most dangerous spy? Ha! Gimpel is merely trying to convince readers (and perhaps himself as well?)that he was an excellent spy, a lady's man, a master of several languages, and on and on. At the same time, his book details how he told his girlfriend in Berlin that he was leaving with an American to travel to the US. (The three of them go out drinking the night before his departure, and his girlfriend begs him to stay in Berlin with her, instead of going to America.) Why would a professional spy (and the world's most dangerous one at that) tell his girlfriend details of his upcoming trip to spy on a foreign nation? [Answer: either he didn't really tell her and is just lying to readers, or he did, indicating that he wasn't a very good spy.]

The author reports that he spent several years in Alcatraz. He speaks highly of the dining hall, stating that "you could easily imagine yourself in a hotel." Ha! I have visited Alcatraz as a tourist, and can hardly imagine the dining hall being mistaken for a dining room in hotel. He mentions that Al Capone spent the last years of his life in Alcatraz. On the next page, he quotes someone on a tour boat traveling the waters off of The Rock as saying (over the loudspeaker) that Al Capone died of a brain tumor in Alcatraz. News flash: Capone was released from prison in 1939, spent some time in a hospital, then lived his last years at his estate in Florida, where he died in 1947. Even if Gimpel himself was unaware of this, his editor(s) should have caught this error.

Alcatraz visitors could only be family members, and they were not allowed physical contact with prisoners. At one point (pp. 256-7) Gimpel says that he was visited by two men (neither of whom was related to him), and that they spoke to him in German. All visits in Alcatraz were monitored, and the prisoners instructed concerning topics which were not allowed to be discussed. Would the guards at the prison allow a prisoner and two visitors to carry on a conversation in a foreign language? Gimpel then goes on to say that during a second visit with these non-family members, he was allowed to visit with them in an ordinary room (no glass between them, no phones used for communication, etc.).

The author talks about his former partner at one point being alone in New York and without money. A couple of pages later he speculates that the former partner "still had some money" (from the $5,000 that Gimpel gave him). Later in the text, he talks about how, after the two of them separated, his former partner went on a two-day drinking binge (difficult to do without money). So which is it: did he or did he not have money?

I could go on and on detailing the problems and inconsistencies in Agent 146. In the end, once you start to see that the author is contradicting himself and in some cases outright lying to the reader, it is very difficult to believe anything that he has to say. Even the book jacket--printed in 2003--contains lies. To wit: that Gimpel was given a last-minute pardon, that he returned to Germany in 1947, and that he and his partner were the only Nazi spies to reach American soil.

Save your time and money, and read one of the other books on WWII espionage such as Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks or Behind the Lines by Russell Miller.

Erich Gimpel did not die in 1956 in Germany as the official review at top states. He was living in South America as of 2002, with photographic proof if one simply searches the web carefully enough. I don't know where that death date comes from, but as far as I know he was still living in his '90's even as of 2004.

Sure there are things in this book that question the credibility of the author, but isn't all history written looking back when memories, sometimes are not the best? Rose colored glasses are used when recalling impossible situations? I don't know. But what I am sure about is Agent 146 was impossible to put down. From start to finish I was captivated in the life of danger, the inside look at Nazi Germany and the hair raising cat and mouse chase through New York City. Maybe some of it is hyped up, maybe not, but I couldn't put this book down and I encourage anyone with any interest in World War II to read it!

Erich Gimpel narrates Walter Mitty-like escapad-es, with absolutely no corroboration Characters are imply initials or phoney names. Some incidentsreported simply did not happen, such as a "JoanKenneth" knocking at the Military Commissionhearing room, asking to testify in favor of Gimpel. The record of trial and witness list show no such appearance. Also, it would have been impossible tobreach the security at Governors Island. So beware! There are many more fictions presented as fact. Hisaccount of his escape attempt at Leavenworth doesnot jive with the Bureau of Prisons account, whichled to his transfer to Alcatraz.The "true" story of a spy in America? Not in my book. There is no record that he sent a single message (transmitter was never assembled---FBI found the parts in a box after his capture).His performance for the Abwehr was consistent with the failure of German intelligence throughout WW II.

I "read" this book as a book on tape. I found this book enjoyable to "read". If you want to read something interesting about clandestine spying in The US during WWII, read this! I think reading this book was "time well spent". Email:boland7214@aol.

I will credit this author for atleast being able to see that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Some authors cant even understand that.

But as far as the theory of Kennedy's limo driver being the man that shot him, it is not supported by any evidence, much less "definitive proof".

There were how many witnesses in Dealey Plaza? Hundreds?
How many films and photos were taken of that day? Thousands?
Certainly hundreds.

There is no evidence that JFK's limo driver shot him.
There are people seeing things that are illusions (atleast in my view), but in my view there is no proof that the limo driver shot Kennedy.

All of the evidence regarding the shot that killed Kennedy is strongly indicative of the shot having come from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. We have ear/eye/nose witnesses to the shot. We have acoustic evidence proving that a shot came from there, we have large numbers of witnesses running there after the shot was fired, we have hundreds of little footprints and loads of cigarette butts in that area as if someone was walking nervously, back and forth, waiting for Kennedy to arrive,(it couldnt have been an innocent bystander, because they could have walked all the way down to the street to get a close-up view of kennedy, yet they remained tucked away behind the fence, standing in the mud, when they had a dry sidewalk down below...which indicates that they didnt want to be seen) we have loads of evidence that points to the area behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, being the location of the fatal headshot.

No evidence suggests that the fatal headshot came from the driver of the limo, or for that matter, no evidence suggests that the fatal headshot came from the book despository.


Lets just use common sense here......do you honestly think that the driver of the limo thought (before he even arrived in Dallas) that he would be able to turn around while driving the car and shoot the President with nobody seeing him? There was no assurance that Connally was going to be hit, and there was no assurance that Jackie Kennedy would be assisting her wounded husband (for all we know the shots could have missed and both Jackie and JFK could have been looking forward...... right in the direction of Greer), yet we are supposed to believe that the SS had decided to put the gun in the hands of Kennedy's own driver.. who could have easily have been seen by Jackie Kennedy, Governor Connally, Mrs. Connally, Other SS men, Dallas Police, and witnesses, and caught in films and photos..... turning around and aiming and then firing a shot at the President?
This is almost as ridiculous as the magic bullet theory.


In summary, while the author is right about there being a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (Whether the SS as a whole or in part was involved, is open for discussion), I believe that it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence and uses common sense, that the driver of the limo didnt kill Kennedy by shooting him. He may have purposely or mistakingly been partly responsible for the assassination, by not hitting the gas and getting out of there at a high rate of speed, immediately after hearing the shots, but how can you truly train for such a job? It's easy when you know that a fake shot is going to be fired (in SS practice drills), but when the real thing happens, you are shocked and dont know how to respond.

I recommend "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, and "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman, instead of this book,if you want a thorough understanding of who killed Kennedy and why.

By simple geometry it is not possible for a driver who sits left in the car to hit the president at the RIGHT temple and create a massive blowout in straight line to the right back of the head!
Better read "Files on JFK" from Wim Dankbaar, who presents the confession of one of the real shooters, James E. Files, and many other proofs for the many CIA-orchestrated hit-teams on Dealey Plaza, where close to the statue of freemason Dealey the catholic president was murdered in the streets which look like a pyramid in top view!

How on earth could Dan Robertson's very short book be the definitive book on the assassination of President Kennedy? There have probably been a million or more words written about that day in Dallas, and hundreds of different theories. Most reviews point out two facts about this book, it is very well researched, and it is very well written. The third fact mentioned is that William Greer has been known about and discussed for years. So what can you believe, and why is this book important? Dan Robertson takes you deeper and ties more loose ends together, quickly and simply then all the great researchers that came before him, and never does he try to reinvent the wheel, or change what is already know. He builds on the vast body of existing work on the assassination. Don't take my word for it, believe your own eyes. The Pictures here are not the greatest, but once you know where to look, I challenge you to look at any good film or photograph of the fatal shot, that Greer has not been cropped out of, and then believe your own eyes.

I read Robertson's book and reviewed the DVD he wrote about. I must admit that I was very skeptical at first, but after reviewing everything, including the DVD multiple times, I saw it! Greer did kill JFK! As Robertson says in his book and as he shows in his photos, the gun is not near Kellerman's head as some have wrongly suggested, but to Kellerman's left and lower than his head. Be sure to read footnote 22 and the photos at the end of Chapter III. Look for the arrow pointing to the gun -- it's not pointing at Kellerman's head but between Kellerman and Greer! It's all there for anyone with eyes and an open mind!
Five stars *****

I agree with Vince Palamara, whose excellent work on the U.S. Secret Service and John F. Kennedy is accessible online. This book contains much useful information.

An analysis of the facts does identify many important inconsistencies in the Secret Service protection of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963--and William Greer may have been one of them. But that does not put a gun in his hand--he was clearly having more than enough trouble with those hands on the steering wheel.

Certainly there have been incidents and events in the FBI's history that given the opportunity it would have done things differently and better. However, this does not negate the hundreds of thousands of successful prosecutions of federal cases handled both efficiently and professionally by tens of thousands of current and former FBI agents who have devoted their lives and careers to ensuring that America's citizens are protected and criminals prosecuted. Whether Swearingen's "FBI Secrets" is a valid measure for that review remains to be seen.

The real test of credibility about anything Swearingen has to offer the reader must be based on his own words and personal firsthand accounts. What follows is but one example of many where he reduces the nexus of his reliability to a mere two very important paragraphs. If the reader is to accept the premise of just this one event, then all of Swearingen's "FBI Secrets" must stand on its own; otherwise, like a house of cards, or in this instance a stream of fabrications, it all must fall of its own weight.

Chapter 12 "Perjury Before Congress," Swearingen relates the 1975 testimony of W. Raymond Wannall, then Assistant Director (A.D.) of the FBI's Intelligence Division before the Church Committee investigating governmental operations regarding intelligence activities.

Swearingen is not taken out of context or misquoted because he is clearly accusing Wannall of lying under oath before Congress:

"SOON after Raymond Wannall testified before Congress, he traveled to Los Angeles, where he held a BRIEFING for AGENTS in the Security Division of the Los Angeles FBI field office, WHICH I ATTENDED. Wannall EXPLAINED how he and other TOP FBI OFFICIALS had CONSPIRED to ALTER TESTIMONY before the Church Committee."

"Mr. Wannall SAID "When it came to [testifying about] black bag jobs, WE SELECTED agents who had NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of the ILLEGAL BREAK-INS to conduct a search of the [FBI] files." HE SAID that those agents who had had no experience in bag jobs WOULD NOT KNOW WHERE TO LOOK for information on bag jobs. WANNALL SAID that the only documentation they could find was what existed in the indices for surreptitious entries, WHICH WAS NOT MUCH. WANNALL SAID that no effort was made to interview agents who, based on information in their PERSONEL FILES, might have had any knowledge of bag jobs. WANNALL SAID, "We did a GOOD JOB of CONCEALING THE EXTENT of black bag jobs."" (p. 101; Emphasis Added)

It is curious that Swearingen quotes Wannall (even providing parenthetical details) but then goes on to editorialize or paraphrase what he said at this briefing. Why not provide the entire text of the Wannall's speech, or better yet, since Swearingen was nearing the twilight of his career and had already demonstrated his loathing for the FBI in his book, that he wouldn't have secretly recorded such a devastatingly indicting presentation. After all, Swearingen was an FBI agent and allegedly familiar with secret monitoring and the like and certainly could have memorialized this meeting in some more definitive way, or at a minimum, fully quoted Wannall.

Swearingen doesn't state how many agents were at this briefing, however, the agent population of the Bureau in 1975 was about 8500 and the Los Angeles Division was then, and remains, one of the FBI's largest field offices. It is reasonable to estimate that the Intelligence Division must have comprised at least a significant percentage of agents assigned to the L.A. office. But for illustration purposes lets put that number on the low side, fifty, or maybe even less, twenty-five agents who attended the briefing by A.D. Wannall along with Swearingen.

The reader has to accept, as prima facie evidence, that A.D. Wannall deliberately lied under oath before the Church Committee under penalty of contempt at a minimum and certainly of a potential perjury charge, and then held a briefing of ordinary street agents in Los Angeles to tell them exactly HOW and WHY he lied.

This then, if the reader is to accept Swearingen's recitation of the incident, was not a briefing by Wannall at all, but was, in every sense of the word, a confession to a felony.

For this to be true, A.D. Wannall must have felt compelled to unload this terrible burden of lying to congress about the suspected illegal deeds of the FBI to a roomful of agents he did not personally know, any one of whom (including Swearingen himself) could have picked up the phone at the end of the briefing and called someone, anyone in the press, or from the Church Committee, and in the parlance of the street "dropped a dime" on the Assistant Director. Certainly there would have been another agent in the room who would not want to hear something so distasteful coming from the mouth of a senior FBI official. Or in the alternate, maybe carry a grudge against Wannall or any senior FBI official and want to even the score a bit. Why would have Wannall felt comfortable enough to confide in a group of agents he did not know, or worse, know whether they would keep his confidence to themselves? Wannall must have been an incredibly stupid, naïve, or trusting individual. But perhaps the agents present would never have spoken about Wannall's confession because they were afraid of the repercussions as Swearingen repeatedly claims for himself. But, J. Edgar was already gone and the Bureau had been changing monthly since his death in 1972. However, since A.D. Wannall's career, pension and retirement were in jeopardy, along with a potential indictment, staggering and ruinous legal fees, and quite possibly a prison sentence, confessing would have been a major leap of faith for the Assistant Director. No, Wannall was no fool, but we have only Swearingen to contest that at this point. Because, he tells the reader, he was there at the time and heard the confession himself.

Swearingen tells us that Wannall's confession contained the details needed to have him charged with obstruction of justice, and with the witnesses in the room at the time, certainly all of whom if called upon to testify under oath, would have told the truth about hearing that Wannall had not only lied to the Church Committee but how he had pulled it off. Wannall, according to Swearingen's account, even implicated other "top FBI officials" in the same breath, creating the groundwork for a conspiracy and telling those present why the committee was looking in the wrong place. Unwittingly, Wannall, if he said these things, was broadening the potential witness list against himself or making the agents present at the briefing potential defendants' after-the-fact for remaining silent, or at a minimum, subject to an internal FBI disciplinary investigation.

Swearingen reports this exceedingly significant and specific event as if it actually happened; but the reader has only his word that it even occurred. If Swearingen were able to produce the tiniest thread of corroboration it could add even an ounce of credibility to this tale. Further, there are no footnotes (other than Swearingen's own editorial comments), no proper sourcing of any factual claims or even a bibliography with which any intelligent reader could further test Swearingen's factual accuracy on other claims made in the book. This becomes then no more than a first-person running narrative, a diary of hatred and fabrication where everyone connected with the FBI is a complete fool or incompetent; it suggests only of retribution for a less than illustrious career.

Swearingen's hatred for the FBI is obvious from cover to cover, for example: When only in the Bureau a matter of weeks he states, "But no matter how ridiculous New Agents class seemed, I could not bring myself to get up and leave." (p. 9) "In just a few short months of being in the FBI I had observed a dark side of cheating and bigotry that made me uncomfortable. Still, I did not want to quit a well-paying job that commanded worldwide respect. " (p.17) "This and other intimidation tactics of Hoover's FBI, such as the weight requirement, were pushing me more and more toward leaving the FBI." (p.48) (After resigning from the FBI and being reinstated) "I thought of resigning again but decided to stay because I could not afford to be bouncing around from one job to another. My employment résumé would look terrible." (p.51) "I was afraid to say or do what Turner had the guts to do. I wanted job security. I was ashamed of what I had become." (p.55) "After witnessing twenty years of FBI wrongdoing, I had accepted it as a means to survive in the Bureau." (p.1) And, there are many more examples.

This event allegedly took place in 1975, "FBI Secrets" came out in 1995. The reader must then also believe that in those intervening twenty years (or even up to now, 2008, thirty-three years later) that Swearingen couldn't convince just one of those in attendance at A.D. Wannall's confession to step forward and offer even a hint of corroboration. Swearingen though, has been consistent in his lack of timely reporting of significant events (see Swearingen's 2008 book, To Kill a President; Finally---An Ex-FBI Agent Rips aside the Veil of Secrecy that Killed JFK, at amazon.com), written over four decades after the fact.

The reader need only apply a modicum of judgment and a very simple test to decide whether Swearingen's reporting is plausible at all. Where is the logic? Where is there a gram of common sense in Swearingen's claim to such a fanciful event as A.D. Wannall making these dreadfully self-incriminating statements to a roomful of agents? There isn't any. It makes no sense because it never happened and Swearingen cannot prove otherwise, and the reader need not be compelled to accept only his word for it. A briefing by Wannall may have indeed occurred, but devoid of Swearingen's fanciful rhetoric and concocted dialogue. If just this one instance of a specific event cannot be proven in any manner, then the entire book and its author lack credibility. If the reader is inclined to accept this seminal event as factual, then so be it; everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If not, then nothing Swearingen offers can be taken at face value and "FBI Secrets" collapses under the weight of the author's fabrications.

A person purportedly named C. Cumming gave FBI SECRETS a one star review thirteen years after publication based upon the Forward, which was written by Ward Churchill. Over the objections of the author, South End Press insisted the forward be written by Churchill because South End Press had published some of Churchill's books. The author had suggested the forward be written by noted authors such as William Turner or Curt Gentry, author of Helter Skelter.

Ward Churchill had absolutely nothing to do with writing or editing FBI Secrets. South End Press asked Churchill to read the book for his comments. Churchill is not one of the authors as claimed by C. Cumming.

This book is a must read for everyone who wants to know what the FBI is capable of doing to their civil rights. The author knows what he is writing about because he lived through most of what is reported.

If you believe everything you read, you should not read this book. Look into the background of Ward Churchill and decide if he is a person who is fair and balanced when it comes to his version of events.

The author is a former agent and as such has written the most recent and most authoritative insider account which describes the day-to-day office level details of COINTELPRO (when it functioned illegally). The keeping of secret lists of people to be arrested and sent to detention camps is morally repulsive enough,but the bureau did far more than this. It broke into buildings to gather evidence, planted bugs and incriminating evidence. It used this illegally obtained material to blackmail others, including public figures. It directly interfered in the administration of justice by intimidating witnesses, in some cases having its informants perjure themselves by coming forth with false testimony. It even had people murdered.
Knowledge of such activites is of particular importance now because of the legalization and reestablishment of COINTELPRO which occurred with the enactment of the Patriot Act. This event totally changes the security landscape both for activists and for corporate America. Its implications are guaranteed to be a force chilling to democratic ideals, a new dark period in American history. This book should be a starting point for any corporate strategist charged with maintaining an even foothold as acts of repression unfold. As checks and balances disappear, abuses of power emerge. It is now legal for any federal investigator to demand any business document without court supervision whether it be the reading habits of library patrons, the member rosters of organizations,or the minutes of closed meetings. Any person which reveals the material has been compromised is guilty of a federal felony.
The author describes how he was taught to pick locks and sneak into look for evidence. He had to do it at risk of expulsion from the FBI if he was caught. Now it has been legalized and no legal record of the breakin is required. With these new powers agents may easily subvert third party security firms and alarm companies that are paid to protect their custormers. A careful read of the atrocities the bureau committed in the past vs what they can do now legally is very sobering.

After a lifetime of devoted service conducting illegal wiretaps, break-ins and burglaries, known as "black bag jobs" former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen decided to tell all about an FBI that few people really know.

To be fair, government employees, no matter what agency employs them, are awash in an ocean of fraud, waste, corruption and general mismanagement perpetuated by their so called "supervisors." These individuals are generally unemployable, mediocre and incompetent. Thank God for government service, the largest, most pernicious public employment and welfare system in existence next to the Pentagon and its arms suppliers, or they'd be on the streets.

"FBI Secrets" does more than expose specific secrets documenting COINTELPRo-type programs designed to deny and destroy the rights of American citizens to actively engage in political dissent, it exposes the moral dilemma faced by those who perpetuate them. Admittedly, this agent waited until after retirement to expose what he knows; but he reveals to the reader the torment of an agent who became disillusioned with the agency yet had a career to protect.

Swearingen could have simply walked away. it would not have stopped these invasive violations of American's civil liberties but, at least, he would nt have been involved. With hindsight, and through the work of many investigative journalists and authors, information concerning how the FBI violates the civil rights of American citizens is abundantly avaialble.

The history of the founding of the FBI, beginning in 1908 with the corrupt Bureau of Investigation, the Palmer raids, orchestrated by Attorney General Mitchell Palmer and executed by an unknown federal bureaucrat named J. Edgar Hoover, stands in stark contrast to the James Stewart inspired cinematic travesty, "The FBI Story." Certainly, the author's slim, yet powerful volume, stands as a beacon of truth next to this cinematic garbargio.

The peculiarities of the Director, his life-long homosexual relationship with Clyde Tolson, his liasons with other rich and pwerful gay men, such as Lewis Rosenthiel of Schenley, the red baiting Roy Cohn and New York's Cardinal Spellman made, in large measure, what the Bureau what it is today, the nation's political police.

This ex-CIA agent provides the most detailed account to date of the operations of the CIA inside South Vietnam. Giving a first hand account of high-level disagreements. Replete with important disclosures.

One of the aspects of organizational whistle-blowing that makes it such a hazardous choice for the individual wanting to tell the explosive truth he has to share with us is the fact that too often he or she must pay a terrible personal price for the singular act of selflessness the whistleblowing represents. So here in the case of former CIA analyst Frank Snepp, who used his considerable writing skills to such advantage in the best-selling book "Decent Interval", which details the manifest ways in which the American government deliberately misled, betrayed, and deceived the government and people of South Vietnam by deciding to withdraw all American forces and then allow the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) to execute what would almost certainly be a fatal sweep southward to envelop and overwhelm the Army of the Republic Of Vietnam (ARVN).

In the present book Snepp describes the ways in which his former employers, the Central Intelligence Agency, used its considerable influence, powers, and resources to derail his effort to publish the book, and upon the failure of that effort ("Decent Interval" was published in 1977), to then punitively pursue confiscation of all of the monies earned by Snepp in association with the book's overwhelming sales success in order to punish Snepp for his trangression of the rules forbidding publication of any materials by former employees without express permission by the CIA. The law suit subsequently filed by the CIA went through all of the appropriate venues, finally landing in the Supreme Court and, according to Snepp, an audience that was quite sympathetic to the Agency's argument. Thus, although he was defended well by a then little-known Harvard lawyer by the name of Alan Dershowitz, Snepp lost the case to the CIA.

Of course, given his personal involvement and the loss of a substantial sum of money as a result, one suspects Snepp is less than objective in his analysis of the case. He admits as much by way of an extended critique of himself and his own actions, which he readily admits may have had the inadvertent and ironic effect of increasing the degree of governmental restrictions on information, acting to further bias the government's restrictions on free speech, open government, and secrecy itself. This is a very interesting read, although it hardly for the faint of heart. I recommend it for anyone interested in the ways in which the bureaucracy works and operates. Enjoy!

Frank Snepp portrays an ugly picture of the warped sense of loyalty which allows ordinarily honorable individuals to perform dishonorable deeds in the name of national security. Every reader will be left with a sense of dismay at the things the CIA has done to protect itself from detractors.

Regardless, I think it is important that readers not take everything Mr. Snepp says at face value, especially his interpretation of events. Often, he is either coloring events to appear more noble (as we are all wont to do) or is incredibly naive about the way the world works. How could one of the top CIA press briefers in Vietnam not know about the politics of national security? Whether over editorializing or naive, clearly there is more to the story than the reader sees.

Frank Snepp was a CIA analyst in Vietnam who witnessed the abandonment of those who had helped us there during that war. Snepp, although part of the deception himself, tried to warn his superiors of the signs of the impending doom. This is his heartrending account of his attempts to clear his own conscience and make the truth known.

Irreparable Harm is written with quiet, beautiful understatement. I consider its publication a tremendous achievement. I think that few who haven't experienced first-hand in their own lives the sort of driven need to stand by one's own highest principles of truth and honor as Snepp, and who haven't been thus harrassed and persecuted for it, could grasp the monument Snepp has built. Snepp writes a meticulously detailed and researched, blow-by-blow account of the events that led the CIA to shun him, leading him to produce his first book, Decent Interval, and of the aftermath of its publication. He makes vividly clear his own moral dilemmas and suffering. Finally, he puts happened, events so mind-boggling and incomprehensible out of context.

The book is a template. It impresses on us the images of corruption and deceit and shows us the difficult way out of them. It is a road few will voluntarily travel

There's some Augie March here, a bit of Pnin, maybe some Bech, and one is always waiting for the author to fall in love with a cow a la Ike Snopes, but the analog which kept returning to me is The Sot-Weed Factor. You have to love these features: the author laments that women can't stop falling in love with him (and, incidentally, giving him money); he is bewildered as to what other people do when they don't have any money (hint: like those 130,000 VN refugees, maybe get a job, Frank?) He is offended by an opposing lawyer who 'hid out' in law school during the VN era (uh, Frank, you hid out in grad school yourself.) Over and over, he is betrayed by friends and lovers; hilariously, he seems to be the only one not to see why nobody likes him. Try this: he even reports suffering flashbacks of VC in the treeline! (Earth to Frank: try to remember, you never actually spent a night on the ground . . .) Despite his pretense of self-investigation, this fellow is markedly less introspective than Rabbit Angstrom himself. Conclusion: were it fiction, this would be a work of genius; as autobiography, it ranks with Zsa Zsa and her ilk.

The book has its moments but it clearly hasn't told me anything new. This is basically a mainstream success story and it doesn't guide me into a new direction. Next?

What drivel! Couldn't get past page 20

I think the book was very influential and encouraging. it made me want to get right up and get started on my own business.

I had no idea who Roberts was when I picked up his book. But good gawd I am impressed! This guy is ballsy and brash and inspiring. He belongs in my book on P.T. Barnum, "There's a Customer Born Every Minute." I admire him for coming out of nowhere, with nothing, and making millions with sheer balls, hard work, and plenty of honesty. An absolutely terrific book! Reading it feels like being at a high action boxing match or basketball game. Riveting!

I was a twenty year old who aspired to achieve. I had all the hopes and dreams imaginable. I had the fire in my belly and was confident that I would make it big when I grew up. Someone had given me Roberts Rules as a Christmas gift and somewhere around the end of January I decided to read it. Well MR. Roberts Rules have inspired me to get going in my quest for success. Although I have not acheived my ultimate goals I have conquered many. Some say you have to see it to believe it. I say yes but in the meantime Read this book. An be on your was to SUCCESS!!!!!

I have over a thousand James Bond books on my shelf. But when I need a Bondian factoid, this is the only book I reach for (and is always the only one I ever need). What sets The Bond Files apart from ALL the other books about Bond is that it does not stop at just the Fleming novels and/or the official films. It has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, including the continuation novels, videogames, James Bond Jr., role-playing games, the Daily Express comic strips, etc. etc. Sure, some errors creep in here and there, but that's forgivable considering the sheer volume of info here. And as far as the authors opinions clashing with my own...who cares!? I don't reach for this book for opinions, I reach for it for dates, plots, locations, character names; the facts.

My only wish is for a new updated edition. Not only have we had a new film since the last edition, but we've had several new novels and videogames, as well as reprints of the Daily Express comic strips that the authors hadn't access to in 2002. So, please, if you're out there Andy and Paul...bring us an updated edition of The Bond Files. This is THE manual for Bond fans.

What can I say? This is one of the best books ever written about James Bond. It tackles every single medium Bond has appeared in, from Ian Flemming's novels to the unwatchable series James Bond Jr. There's plenty of behind the scenes info and some best (No, I expect you to die) and worst (I'll buy you a delecatessen in stainless steel) lines. There's even a comprehensive list of flubs for each book and film. Overall, a must-buy for anyone who loves Bond.

There have been many excellent guides written about the James Bond phenomena and this is one of the best. Having used the Bond films and books in the classroom before I retired I wished I were back in action with this book. While much of the information is known, if you have read all the books and seen all the films as I have as well as books about Bond, it is a neatly written and a very comprehensive guide. It compares very well with the superior James Bond Bedside Companion by Raymond Benson and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia which is probably then best book on the Bond films ever put together. This one also covers comic strips, games, and other areas not touched outside of the James Bond Fan Club and is handy to carry. In the spirit of the original author I enjoyed reading through it on plane flights, one of the places Ian Fleming claimed his books were intended for.

It's unclear why two people who clearly loathe James Bond would bother to write a book about the legendary spy. My only guess is that this book was commissioned by Vin Diesel to kill off James Bond and clear the way for more movies in the XXX series, the gen-X James Bond wannabe.

Andy Lane and Paul Simpson have almost nothing kind to say about any of the films. For example, the description of every film's credit sequence is in a section called "cringe-worthy title sequence." This is strange considering that the millions of Bond fans around the world love the title sequences, one of the most sacred components of the 007 formula. (Yet the authors praised the witless title sequence from the dull Never Say Never Again, which seemed straight from a television film).

Another section for each film is entitled "Mistakes Can Be Fatal," in which the authors try to be clever and witty by exposing errors, but instead only demonstrate they don't have a clue about logic and continuity. For example, they state that in GoldenEye it's illogical for a dam to be in the mountains (?!). Well, I live in the mountains, and there are a couple dams nearby.

Worse, the book provides little behind-the-scenes information; most of the information in the book can be gleaned from imdb.com or a DVD cover, or just watching the movie.

I feel sorry for anyone who reads this book. I pity even more the authors, who clearly wasted a lot of their time, which would have perhaps been better spent playing bocce ball or pitching a Remo Williams sequel.

Unfortunately I can not recommend this book. I used to welcome books about James Bond because they were far and few to be found in the world of publishing. This book falls into the plethora of recent publications about Ian Fleming's creation. Being part of that trend this book carries the stigma of glaring inaccuracies when it tackles Ian Fleming's written word. Many authors do not do their homework and the research into the actual words that Fleming put to paper. Fleming's sublime knowledge into the world of espionage, esoteric life styles and curiosity pieces is something analogous to the riddle of the Sphinx because in many instances the reader either misunderstands Fleming's prose or the reader just glosses over his words totally oblivious to the intent Fleming implied. Hell's belle's.

My son received the other Code Master book (Treasure Hunter) for his 7th birthday and absolutely loved it, but it was pretty hard for him. (The age guidelines on THAT book/puzzle is 8-12.) For his friend's 6th birthday we got this one ("Secret Agent") because it is rated for younger kids. It's VERY well done and absorbing, and it's easier than the Treasure Hunter. Notice the age recommendations and follow them. This would be tough for most 4 yr olds but with a lot of parent help they'd love it. Too easy for most 8 yr olds--they should get Treasure Hunter instead. And for 7 yr olds, even though my son loved Treasure Hunter, I would recommend the Secret Agent one. Even though we solved it in about 4 days (evenings after school), it was some of the most excited moments I've seen him have in a long time. And now he loves the stuff inside too, and especially the lock box itself. (You can reset the combination code so it can really be a secret for you alone.) Highly recommended.

This is supposed to represent the world of spies? The only good thing was the historical spy stories. Everything else got lost in some B-movie "sci-fi" cliché. A toned downed James Bond idea would have appealed to kids, this just does not work. My 8 year old knows what a spy does, and this 'aint it!!!

We bought this book (really more of an activity set)for my six-year old son. He worked on the various missions with his father. They were completely engrossed in this book for hours, setting it down only to eat. It was not something our son could have done completely on his own but it was a perfect father/son activity. They loved it! My husband commented on how cleverly the entire package was put together. They were both challenged! You have to crack a code to get to the inside hidden compartment of the book. Inside there are various missions that you can succeed in only by following instructions and completing various activities which include word puzzles and fun science projects. The only drawback is that once you solve the missions, you're done. It's not something you would do twice. But my son doesn't care. He is really exited to have the box with the secret compartments as a toy. A Great Buy! I would highly recommend this book and plan to buy more from this author.

The hazards of following a reviewer's suggestions are compounded if you and the reviewer don't share similar tastes. So it was with my purchase of this book based upon an article about classic spy novels I read in the WSJ. It is true that Conrad's book is a classic and it is about a "secret agent", and I wasn't expecting a LeCarre or Fleming sort of read, but I found it plodding and somewhat dull. I was intrigued by the fact that English was not Conrad's first language and by how well he had assimilated the language and culture. I finished the book but it felt like an assignment for school.

Like reviewer Michael White before me, I found little insight into modern terrorism here and, although Conrad's writing style is always enjoyable, I found the story unsatisfying. The "terrorists" in this story are somewhat humorously portrayed as vain, self-absorbed toothless tigers and it's more a story about one man's personal crisis. I didn't much care for the ending and although I read somewhere about this novel having an amazingly suspenseful climax, I must have missed it because I found it predictable and even slightly boring. I've loved the other Conrads I've read, but cannot really recommend this one.

First a comment about this remarkable Modern Library Edition - it has an absurd introduction by Robert Kaplan, which is deliciously skwered in an Afterword by the volume's editor, Peter Mallios. Kaplan reads Conrad's book with all the sophistication one brings to a Tom Clancy novel, claiming to draw insight into how the modern state has to defend itself. In reality, Conrad clearly was condemning the police in the novel for wanting to put an 'enemy of the state' in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

Ignore the media frenzy - don't read this book for insight into 9-11 or Osama bin Laden, because, if you're a serious reader, you really won't find much there. Read this book because it is an excellent early Modernist novel, filled with beautifully crafted language, and themes, forms, and techniques that became key elements of mature Modern literature.