What do you think?
Rate this book
Muž CIA / Třicet let u zpravodajské služby
From the “most influential career lawyer in CIA history” (Los Angeles Times) an unprecedented memoir filled with never-before-told stories from his thirty-year career at the center of the U.S. government’s intelligence program (1976-2009). In 1975, fresh out of law school and working a numbing job at the Treasury Department, Rizzo took “a total shot in the dark” and sent his resume to the Central Intelligence Agency. He had no notion that more than thirty years later, after serving under eleven CIA directors and seven Presidents, he would become a notorious public figure—a symbol and victim of the toxic winds swirling in post-9/11 Washington. From approval of the rules governing waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” to serving as the point person answering for the Iran Contra scandal, John Rizzo witnessed and participated in virtually all of the significant operations of the CIA’s modern history.
In Company Man, Rizzo charts the CIA’s evolution from shadowy entity to an organization exposed to new laws, rules, and a seemingly never-ending string of public controversies, from Iran-Contra to Valerie Plame. Rizzo offers a direct window into the CIA’s actions in the years after the 9/11 attacks, when he served as the agency’s top lawyer, with oversight of actions that remain the subject of intense debate today, including CIA black sites and the infamous memos surrounding the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. Spanning more than three decades, Company Man is the most comprehensive insider account of the CIA ever written. Filled with revelatory stories set against a backdrop of some of Washington’s biggest political dramas, it is a groundbreaking, timely, and remarkable personal history of American intelligence.
In Company Man, Rizzo charts the CIA’s evolution from shadowy entity to an organization exposed to new laws, rules, and a seemingly never-ending string of public controversies, from Iran-Contra to Valerie Plame. Rizzo offers a direct window into the CIA’s actions in the years after the 9/11 attacks, when he served as the agency’s top lawyer, with oversight of actions that remain the subject of intense debate today, including CIA black sites and the infamous memos surrounding the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. Spanning more than three decades, Company Man is the most comprehensive insider account of the CIA ever written. Filled with revelatory stories set against a backdrop of some of Washington’s biggest political dramas, it is a groundbreaking, timely, and remarkable personal history of American intelligence.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
94 people are currently reading
2225 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
July 2, 2016
A gripping, well-written and readable memoir of Rizzo’s career as well as, more generally, a history of the thirty years in which Rizzo was employed by the CIA. Rizzo argues that the Agency really is an accountable organization generally aware of the legal implications of its actions. Obviously this thesis won’t be accepted by all, and the memoir is quite defensive. The theme of the book seems to be about the challenge of balancing the core mission of an intelligence agency with the need to obey the law, all of it in the face of an ever-evolving political process. He does not try very hard to argue a particular viewpoint, and the whole narrative is basically driven by questions of “how.”
Rizzo recounts joining the CIA’s Office of General Counsel in the aftermath of the Church Committee hearings---“the first of many attorney-hiring binges I would witness at the CIA during my career, most of them coinciding with the inevitable postmortem of some flap or controversy that the Agency reliably, if unfortunately, managed to embroil itself in every few years...A scandal would be awful for the Agency institutionally, but be great for the OGC’s growth potential.” He describes CIA operations officers as “completely un-Machiavellian when seeking legal advice (otherwise, they wouldn’t be coming in the first place). They ask only that their lawyer not look or act like he thinks they are idiots, lunatics, or criminals.”
Rizzo covers such incidents as the Yuri Nosenko affair, the Church Committee, Iran-Contra (which put Rizzo on the map, which he describes as “fun as hell”, and which he calls “the best thing that happened to me in my career”), the historical origins of written presidential findings to authorize covert action (mandated by Congress and left for Rizzo to figure out), the Aldrich Ames case (a particularly gripping part of the book), the Wilson/Plame affair, and others. He describes the controversies and media storms surrounding the Agency’s use of “dirty assets” in places like Guatemala, and how these resulted in CIA officers becoming less inclined to recruit them---until, of course, Congress and the media easily derided the CIA’s “risk aversion” following 9/11. He also describes the impossibility of getting any purely lethal operations against bin Laden approved, as well as the more basic problem of obtaining reliable intelligence about bin Laden’s whereabouts and movements.
Of course, much of the book deals with the CIA’s post-9/11 rendition, detention and interrogation program. Rizzo writes that information extracted from waterboarding Abu Zubaydah led to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, for example (according to the Senate’s report, bin al-Shibh was unexpectedly captured in a raid targeting Hassan Ghul, with no connection between Zubaydah’s reporting and bin al-Shibh’s capture). Another controversy deals with whether or not President Bush was knowledgeable about the program and the techniques used. According to Rizzo, Bush attended none of the Principals Committee meetings on the program (presidents rarely attend such meetings anyway) and Rizzo writes that he is unaware of Bush ever being personally briefed on the program. In his memoirs, Bush asserts that he reviewed the EITs in advance and that he vetoed none of them, even though Justice had already approved their use on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Bush also writes that he met with Tenet about the program, although Rizzo is unaware of such meetings, and Tenet told him that he had no such discussions. Rizzo attributes the episode to Bush’s willingness and intent to assume responsibility for the program. While discussing the issue of briefing the congressional oversight committees about the program, Rizzo recalls no objections, and calls the decision to not brief the entire membership “foolish and feckless.”
Rizzo also covers, more generally, the CIA’s drone programs and notes the irony of targeted killings generating less outrage from Congress and human rights groups, and less media coverage, than the EITs. He notes the additional irony that targeting terrorists for lethal action was “always a big deal during the Clinton administration,” a turn of events Rizzo finds “perverse.” He notes that drone strikes expanded dramatically under Obama and that human rights groups were drawn to the program partly because they needed a new issue to attack following the end of the RDI program.
Rizzo’s treatment of all the figures he interacted with will strike some as too uncritical, although he does not seem to be a fan of the likes of Ron Wyden (“a foe who could not be appeased”) or various others. He is fairly critical of Clinton’s inaction regarding the al-Qaeda threat but says less about Bush’s inaction during his first few month of office. In another passage that critics will love, Rizzo recalls Bush’s public denials of any sort of rendition program: “It’s not that he deliberately lied---I am sure that he did not. Still, his answer wasn’t true.” Rizzo doesn’t even address the question of whether any of the intelligence revealed by the EITs was true or not. Also, some parts of the book seem to strain credulity. Rizzo writes that Porter Goss “never intended” to cover up the destruction of the CIA’s EIT tapes, for example.
Still, an insightful, wry and clearly written memoir from a relatively unusual perspective.
Rizzo recounts joining the CIA’s Office of General Counsel in the aftermath of the Church Committee hearings---“the first of many attorney-hiring binges I would witness at the CIA during my career, most of them coinciding with the inevitable postmortem of some flap or controversy that the Agency reliably, if unfortunately, managed to embroil itself in every few years...A scandal would be awful for the Agency institutionally, but be great for the OGC’s growth potential.” He describes CIA operations officers as “completely un-Machiavellian when seeking legal advice (otherwise, they wouldn’t be coming in the first place). They ask only that their lawyer not look or act like he thinks they are idiots, lunatics, or criminals.”
Rizzo covers such incidents as the Yuri Nosenko affair, the Church Committee, Iran-Contra (which put Rizzo on the map, which he describes as “fun as hell”, and which he calls “the best thing that happened to me in my career”), the historical origins of written presidential findings to authorize covert action (mandated by Congress and left for Rizzo to figure out), the Aldrich Ames case (a particularly gripping part of the book), the Wilson/Plame affair, and others. He describes the controversies and media storms surrounding the Agency’s use of “dirty assets” in places like Guatemala, and how these resulted in CIA officers becoming less inclined to recruit them---until, of course, Congress and the media easily derided the CIA’s “risk aversion” following 9/11. He also describes the impossibility of getting any purely lethal operations against bin Laden approved, as well as the more basic problem of obtaining reliable intelligence about bin Laden’s whereabouts and movements.
Of course, much of the book deals with the CIA’s post-9/11 rendition, detention and interrogation program. Rizzo writes that information extracted from waterboarding Abu Zubaydah led to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, for example (according to the Senate’s report, bin al-Shibh was unexpectedly captured in a raid targeting Hassan Ghul, with no connection between Zubaydah’s reporting and bin al-Shibh’s capture). Another controversy deals with whether or not President Bush was knowledgeable about the program and the techniques used. According to Rizzo, Bush attended none of the Principals Committee meetings on the program (presidents rarely attend such meetings anyway) and Rizzo writes that he is unaware of Bush ever being personally briefed on the program. In his memoirs, Bush asserts that he reviewed the EITs in advance and that he vetoed none of them, even though Justice had already approved their use on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Bush also writes that he met with Tenet about the program, although Rizzo is unaware of such meetings, and Tenet told him that he had no such discussions. Rizzo attributes the episode to Bush’s willingness and intent to assume responsibility for the program. While discussing the issue of briefing the congressional oversight committees about the program, Rizzo recalls no objections, and calls the decision to not brief the entire membership “foolish and feckless.”
Rizzo also covers, more generally, the CIA’s drone programs and notes the irony of targeted killings generating less outrage from Congress and human rights groups, and less media coverage, than the EITs. He notes the additional irony that targeting terrorists for lethal action was “always a big deal during the Clinton administration,” a turn of events Rizzo finds “perverse.” He notes that drone strikes expanded dramatically under Obama and that human rights groups were drawn to the program partly because they needed a new issue to attack following the end of the RDI program.
Rizzo’s treatment of all the figures he interacted with will strike some as too uncritical, although he does not seem to be a fan of the likes of Ron Wyden (“a foe who could not be appeased”) or various others. He is fairly critical of Clinton’s inaction regarding the al-Qaeda threat but says less about Bush’s inaction during his first few month of office. In another passage that critics will love, Rizzo recalls Bush’s public denials of any sort of rendition program: “It’s not that he deliberately lied---I am sure that he did not. Still, his answer wasn’t true.” Rizzo doesn’t even address the question of whether any of the intelligence revealed by the EITs was true or not. Also, some parts of the book seem to strain credulity. Rizzo writes that Porter Goss “never intended” to cover up the destruction of the CIA’s EIT tapes, for example.
Still, an insightful, wry and clearly written memoir from a relatively unusual perspective.
July 15, 2022
John Rizzo takes you behind the CIA’s covert curtains, giving a thorough and excellent account of the US intelligence community’s successes and misfortunes during some of its most controversial seasons (1976-2009).
I really enjoyed his straight shooter perspective through some of the tumultuous legal battles he endured, writing with a lot of respect for each person he encountered and good humor. A great book for any minutely interested in intelligence, national security, or just a good time.
I really enjoyed his straight shooter perspective through some of the tumultuous legal battles he endured, writing with a lot of respect for each person he encountered and good humor. A great book for any minutely interested in intelligence, national security, or just a good time.
June 12, 2024
A very poorly written book. The book has so many abbreviations, names and departments that I couldn’t make much headway in what was going on. It was a chore just to read 10 pages a day.
August 3, 2022
Five stars for Mr. Rizzo - an excellent public servant who’s breezy writing style makes this book a cakewalk to read.
A lot fewer stars for the self reflection in the book. Rizzo either genuinely liked every person and director he met over 30+ years at the agency, or he was unwilling to delve into it here. An interesting narrative, but not a particularly reflective one.
A lot fewer stars for the self reflection in the book. Rizzo either genuinely liked every person and director he met over 30+ years at the agency, or he was unwilling to delve into it here. An interesting narrative, but not a particularly reflective one.
May 7, 2014
R. John does more justice to this book (is there a pun in there?) than I ever could, so just go and read his review.
However, I just have to add..
.
Careerist? What an understatement! Rizzo believes that all the agents on the ground who were involved with the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques program were convinced it was necessary. How does he know this? Well, these were smart people-- so smart, that they'd know that participating in this program wasn't going to expressly help their career along --and they participated anyway. Surely, nothing is more important than one's career? Rizzo seems to be unable to even conceive of a world where one would follow repellent job orders because they needed the money/health insurance.
Likeable equals competent? Again, R. John understates this. Sure, it's one thing to stick up for your buddies who may have made bad choices but were really swell. It's another thing to defend the polices of individuals who were later revealed to be literally out of their minds (Reagan and Casey).
Tone-deaf? Rizzo insists the EITs were not torture (just "hairy"). Torture terms are reseved for Rizzo's interludes with Congress, which he describes as "bloodbaths", and the Congressmen as "grilling" him.
Still, it was a fun book to get through for its interesting subject matter.
However, I just have to add..
.
Careerist? What an understatement! Rizzo believes that all the agents on the ground who were involved with the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques program were convinced it was necessary. How does he know this? Well, these were smart people-- so smart, that they'd know that participating in this program wasn't going to expressly help their career along --and they participated anyway. Surely, nothing is more important than one's career? Rizzo seems to be unable to even conceive of a world where one would follow repellent job orders because they needed the money/health insurance.
Likeable equals competent? Again, R. John understates this. Sure, it's one thing to stick up for your buddies who may have made bad choices but were really swell. It's another thing to defend the polices of individuals who were later revealed to be literally out of their minds (Reagan and Casey).
Tone-deaf? Rizzo insists the EITs were not torture (just "hairy"). Torture terms are reseved for Rizzo's interludes with Congress, which he describes as "bloodbaths", and the Congressmen as "grilling" him.
Still, it was a fun book to get through for its interesting subject matter.
January 24, 2019
Malcolm Gladwell recommended this book because he said a career bureaucrat have more to tell than a star. He was right.
December 25, 2024
Company Man is John Rizzo's story of thirty years working as a lawyer for the CIA. He started in the Carter years and left in the Obama years. One of the interesting facts was that the number of lawyers increased from a few under Carter to a large number as the years went on, rather like carbon deposits on the bottom of cast-iron pans. Another interesting fact was that the lawyers had to feel their way along at times with little Congressional input or guidance. Then, during the enhanced interrogation techniques' interrogation of Rizzo, Congressional Democrats were outraged while the cameras were rolling but couldn't bother to show up when the media was not around.
Some of the book was dull, but other parts were eye-opening. I enjoyed reading about Rizzo's take on CIA directors that I had heard of over the years. This is not about the 007 spy aspects of the CIA, but the legal aspects before 007's American cousin accepts his mission.
Some of the book was dull, but other parts were eye-opening. I enjoyed reading about Rizzo's take on CIA directors that I had heard of over the years. This is not about the 007 spy aspects of the CIA, but the legal aspects before 007's American cousin accepts his mission.
April 16, 2014
In the last ten yeas a flood of CIA memoirs have been published. Rizzo's is pretty unique in that he was an attorney and not a case officer which provides a less documented perspective on The Agency since the mid-1970s. For instance, Rizzo delves into the history and mechanics of Presidential Findings since he helped create the modern process for writing and approving Findings. He discusses operations from a legal perspective rather than the nitty gritty of executing covert action. He does spend a lot of time examining the post-9/11 years, enhanced interrogations, and turmoil surrounding those events. As with all CIA memoirs you could see where he wanted to tell more, but the Publication Review Board drew a line. In all, I found Rizzo's perspective very interesting and refreshing.
May 2, 2020
Decent read that had good writing. The whole "I worked at the CIA for 30 years" ends up not yielding much for story telling (dude I met this one guy in this place and some cool stuff happened). It's more a very lawyer type story.
February 11, 2025
I was doing fine till Rizzo started showing his partisan hand when talking about Valerie Plame and Nancy Pelosi. I am no Pelosi fan, but I find it odd that Rizzo makes it all the way to the Obama years without a negative word about anyone, other than Robert Hanssen the CIA traitor and mole for the Russians, then essentially calls Pelosi a liar.
Maybe she was a liar about enhanced interrogations. Maybe Rizzo told the truth but it's truly telling that Pelosi and Hanssen are the sole negative points in the book...along with Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. I doubt Rizzo could make the entire Plamegate appear to be any more mundane. Rizzo even paints the scene as if it were a high school drama, using words such as "baroque," "sideshow," "mini drama," and even downgrading Plame's role as an operative, calling her a "mid-level officer," "she was so obscure." The whole depiction is demeaning and smacks of imperial hubris with a healthy heaping of condescension towards those that are not republicans. Rizzo is essentially saying that,
Here's what Rizzo actually says.
In short, what Rizzo said was:
Rizzo's and the Cheney gang are nothing but partisan trash who would throw a fellow US citizen, a covert operative under the bus so they could see political gain to push a war that had no WMDs so that a few heads of corporations could get rich. Fck Rizzo.
Maybe she was a liar about enhanced interrogations. Maybe Rizzo told the truth but it's truly telling that Pelosi and Hanssen are the sole negative points in the book...along with Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. I doubt Rizzo could make the entire Plamegate appear to be any more mundane. Rizzo even paints the scene as if it were a high school drama, using words such as "baroque," "sideshow," "mini drama," and even downgrading Plame's role as an operative, calling her a "mid-level officer," "she was so obscure." The whole depiction is demeaning and smacks of imperial hubris with a healthy heaping of condescension towards those that are not republicans. Rizzo is essentially saying that,
"I was sucked into this ridiculous sideshow of drama that distracted me, and others, from really important stuff, see. This Plame dame, she was a nobody. A shill. A waste of my time, and your time lemme tell you, if I ever saw someone wasted time. So lemme tell you about this nobody dame that's not worth the paper this book is written on, from some nowhere corner of the CIA."
Here's what Rizzo actually says.
"I did manage to get sucked into the most baroque and longest running sideshows. A July 2003 article by the syndicated columnist Robert Novak publicly outing the covert CIA employee Valerie Plame, wife of the former ambassador Joseph Wilson; a highly vocal critic of the Bush administration policies on Iraq. At the time this mini drama began, Plame was a mid-level officer in the counter proliferation division which was part of the Directorate of Operations.
"Although she had been an agency officer, she was so obscure that I didn't even ever recall hearing her name, much less meeting her. Nonetheless, outing an undercover officer is never a trivial thing; no matter where that officer is located in the hierarchy. Over the years CIA covert personnel have been attacked and sometimes murdered as a result of being compromised like that.
"So, a few days after the Novak column aired I dutifully had our office send a crimes report to the Justice Department, notifying it of the leak. The OGC sends dozens of such reports to Justice every year. There's hardly a day goes by without some piece of classified information popping up somewhere in the media...And on the scale of such things the Plame leak, while deplorable was negligible in terms of harm to the nation's security. I fully expected Justice to treat it the way it treated 99% of our crimes reports; which is to say to do little or nothing.
"Based on the assessment we made the Plame leak appeared to be most unlikely candidate for a full blown Justice FBI investigation. There was no evidence indicating that any CIA source or operation or Plame herself for that matter was placed in jeopardy as a result of the outing. And it appeared that dozens, if not hundreds of people knew she was an agency employee. To be sure that was not Plame's fault. Indeed, the ensuing investigation would show that she was always remarkably careful and discrete in maintaining her cover, even with her close friends on the outside. For that she deserves considerable credit. Being that disciplined is an arduous task for an undercover operative...
"Surely, I figured, a marginally harmful leak such as the Plame disclosure wouldn't be investigated and prosecuted simply because of the partisan political pressure being applied at the time by opponents of Bush administration policies in Iraq. The crimes reporting process had never been trivialized and distorted like that in all my years in the CIA. The entire episode would quickly fade away, I sagely concluded. Well...nobody's perfect...
"...it finally culminated in a conviction of Lewis Scooter Libby; Chief aid to Vice President Cheney for lying to the FBI and a Grand Jury. Mind you, Libby was not found guilty of leaking Plame's name. It turned out that Pat learned who those culprits were early on. For reasons that remain unclear to me they never faced prosecution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In the end, therefore, the Plame case was hardly a compelling cautionary tale for future would be leakers. And, at least in so far as we at the CIA were concerned hardly worth the thousands of hours agency personnel, including two of our lawyers working on the case full time, had to devote the supporting four year investigation and trial of a guy who wasn't even the leaker.
"To this day I have not met Valerie Plame. Of those who knew and worked with her, the consensus was that she was a capable, dedicated officer who was involuntarily catapulted into a political maelstrom not of her own making. And then manipulated and exploited by her publicity seeking, preening, blowhard of a husband. Suddenly robbed of her anonymity, she did her best for a couple of years to try to cope with balancing her dual loyalties to her job and to her husband. But it was a struggle.
"I remember at one point Plame had pleaded with the agency to provide her with round the clock security protection; siting the potential threat her unwanted notoriety posed to her and her family. What I determined was that there was no credible information of any kind indicating she or anyone in her family was in any sort of danger. So I reluctantly concluded that the agency could not lawfully expend the considerable amount of tax payer money that would be required to shield her from a non-existent threat...I hoped, that for her part that she understood that her case for needing protection was not helped by her husband's relentless pursuit of an ever higher public profile, including, I am told, his inveigling her to pose with him in a ludicrous Vanity Fair photo shoot in which she wore Garbo-like sunglasses and a scarf.
"...she also became a full fledged celebrity and a fixture on the lecture circuit with a best selling memoir...that became a major albeit fictionalized motion picture. In the final analyses then, it might be argued that her outing turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to Valerie Plame. However for those of us at the CIA who had to live with her case the entire episode was little more than a seemingly interminable distraction and a colossal waste of time and money."
In short, what Rizzo said was:
I got sucked into a sideshow drama where this inconsequential covert operative got exposed. Yeah, sure, operatives can lose their life, get murdered as a response to being outed, but whatever. See, this Plame dame was a mid-level nobody in a backwoods corner of the CIA so far away that we actually forgot this department existed. So, anyway, her husband, Wilson, a US ambassador, he didn't say nice things about President Trump. Dubya. So, Cheney pulled some strings, got his assistant to get another assistant to get someone else to out Valerie Plame, that CIA spy we're talking about, and OOPSIES, she's compromised. Sure the government looked into Skooter, but he wasn't the leaker. Nope. It was a couple of other guys, who never saw the inside of a cell. And gosh I have no idea why they got off outing a CIA covert operative. Was a shame that it happened to the wife of a Trump critic. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In the end, this Plame dame wanted protection, because of that whole murdered spy thing I mentioned, but pfft, who she kiddin'? Fagedaboutit. The whole thing turned out to be a total waste of time.
Rizzo's and the Cheney gang are nothing but partisan trash who would throw a fellow US citizen, a covert operative under the bus so they could see political gain to push a war that had no WMDs so that a few heads of corporations could get rich. Fck Rizzo.
August 26, 2016
It's the story of a lawyer who rose to be the Acting General Counsel for the CIA. That explains why he's very careful with his words, why he uses lots and lots of abbreviations (at least he provides a list of acronyms at the beginning, and why there seems to be a lot of, I don't know, gaps, details, something missing from the story. In the epilogue, he explains that he had to submit the manuscript to the CIA for approval and they took stuff out.
The introduction bored me to sleep, literally, but it picks up a little after that. So, don't quit after the intro. Give it a couple chapters. (Which is where my spouse gave up on it).
All I can figure is it's Rizzo's chance to tell the parts of his story that his nomination interviews for General Counsel didn't let him tell. Not that he answers the questions any further, but he at least explains why he isn't answering.
There's parts I can relate to - the bureaucracy, the aggravation of trying to deal with elected officials who seem to have no clue how career government people, who were hired and not elected, work. I'll give it to the guy that he really doesn't criticize these officials (with the exceptions of a few).
I can't say it really made things clearer, but it reminded me that the media doesn't have the whole story, neither does the White House, Congress, the American people or the CIA itself.
Made me want to hunt down Fox Mulder and ask questions.
The introduction bored me to sleep, literally, but it picks up a little after that. So, don't quit after the intro. Give it a couple chapters. (Which is where my spouse gave up on it).
All I can figure is it's Rizzo's chance to tell the parts of his story that his nomination interviews for General Counsel didn't let him tell. Not that he answers the questions any further, but he at least explains why he isn't answering.
There's parts I can relate to - the bureaucracy, the aggravation of trying to deal with elected officials who seem to have no clue how career government people, who were hired and not elected, work. I'll give it to the guy that he really doesn't criticize these officials (with the exceptions of a few).
I can't say it really made things clearer, but it reminded me that the media doesn't have the whole story, neither does the White House, Congress, the American people or the CIA itself.
Made me want to hunt down Fox Mulder and ask questions.
May 14, 2018
This guy is a real piece of work. I can see right through his grandstanding and his attitude towards many of the people he writes about dealing with throughout the book. But all that said, it's a very interesting read and is particularly relevant right now. I picked it up out of the blue before Gina Haspel's nomination came before the Senate, but it was particularly relevant to be reading it while her confirmation hearings have been in the news. I recommend the read, but get it from the library so he doesn't get the royalty, because he really doesn't come across as a good human to me, mostly because it's pretty clear he doesn't think there was anything wrong with torturing human beings in the early 2000s.
February 23, 2014
I thought this was excellent. Although I do not agree with the "extended interrogation techniques" that Rizzo helped erect and therefore took issue with some of the claims he made, the vast majority of this book is not an argument in favor or against torture or anything of the sort; instead, it is a chronicle of his experiences at the agency, a revelation of some of the inside workings of some of our nation's greatest intelligence crises, and an intriguing exploration of history. Well-written, interesting, and engaging.
December 11, 2023
I haven’t wanted to burn a book in… ever. But I tell you what, if one was inclined to burn books, you could do a service to humanity and start with this one. Except that it may need to exist as proof of how psychopathic and monstrous the US “intelligence community” is. The banality of evil is horrendous, masked behind all the acronyms and platitudes and decades of indoctrinated normalcy.
It made me sick to my stomach, and that’s a tough thing to do.
It made me sick to my stomach, and that’s a tough thing to do.
September 6, 2017
Really boring. I was interested to read this, but it reads more as an events and person list with very little dive into the details and 'secrets' of the inner workings. Also, if water boarding isn't torture, put yourself on the rack and take a dip. Report back.
Ugh.
Ugh.
July 24, 2022
The point of the book is that government bureaucrats are frequently the favorite whipping boys of feckless politicians. And I'm convinced the author is correct, particularly since my own sister has experienced this phenomenon.
What's interesting is how many of those feckless politicians hail from one party. Maybe I read the book looking for what I wanted to see - the author explained that his voting strategy is to always vote for the presidential incumbent or his anointed successor (well, he did vote for Obama in 2008). But really the biggest concern of the book is the war on terror and how the government dealt with it, and how the politicians ultimately turned on the CIA for the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EIT) program for terrorists believed to have information about future planned attacks.
So we can start with Bill Clinton. The author states that the government was looking for Bin Laden as soon as 1998 - that there was a lot of chatter about a pending terrorist attack. Despite living through these years I was not aware of this early date, so 9/11 was definitely one of the great failures of the federal government. The author points out how utterly indecisive Clinton was about how to deal with the situation, issuing contradictory orders. Doesn't surprise me one little bit. For example, US allies were allowed to capture Bin Laden as long as they only fired their weapons in self defense! In the end though, Mr. Rizzo lets Clinton off by stating that the CIA's assets could not have gotten close to Bin Laden anyway.
We can go on to Nancy Pelosi, who lied that she didn't know about the EIT program. But, who cares about that? Because everyone knows the CIA are liars.
I wish I could meet one of those anti-Iraq war voters who nearly put John Kerry in the White House and who gave people like Barack Obama a platform to oppose the EIT program. You know, the people who voted in Obama over Hilary Clinton because she had voted for the invasion of Iraq. Because Obama's solution was to end the "torture" of the terrorists. It was the humane thing to do, right? So what was his solution instead? Burn 'em! Obama preferred to use Predator drones to kill suspected terrorists, along with any woman and children that happened to be around them. Because that's so much more humane than "torture."
My point is the real anti-war people, when they can be honest, must feel terribly betrayed by their politicians.
Frankly, in the end though, I agree with them. We should never let the CIA torture anyone. But the reality is we shouldn't have our military in the Middle East period. I believe the majority of our problem is sticking our noses in places where there are no easy solutions - certainly none that our feckless politicians could ever find. We have to face the fact that we MADE Bin Laden. We have no one to blame but ourselves if it blew up in our faces. But if we're going to be in the Middle East we're going to have to go all the way. I feel no remorse over the CIA waterboarding the highest-ranking Al-Qaeda officers they caught. All three of them.
You read that right! I was under the distinct impression that the CIA had waterboarded dozens of terrorists, if not all 119 of them. Uh, no, it was only 3 guys. And turns out that waterboarding was so brutal that KSM WITHSTOOD IT. He only broke under the sleep-deprivation EIT. Seems sooner or later you learn that waterboarding isn't going to kill you, so you don't break. So I strongly feel that the attacks on the EIT program were misplaced and ultimately hypocritical.
In the end though, as much as I despise the politicians who claim leadership of this country, they have to be in charge. The career federal bureaucrats have enough power. They have to answer to someone, if only to our unworthy politicians.
So if you lived through this time you might want to get the book. See I file books like this under Current Events, because it happened in my lifetime and I'd like to be informed about my own history. But if Iran-Contra is ancient history, you might not find this book particularly enthralling. After all, Mr. Rizzo was not James Bond - he was his lawyer.
What's interesting is how many of those feckless politicians hail from one party. Maybe I read the book looking for what I wanted to see - the author explained that his voting strategy is to always vote for the presidential incumbent or his anointed successor (well, he did vote for Obama in 2008). But really the biggest concern of the book is the war on terror and how the government dealt with it, and how the politicians ultimately turned on the CIA for the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EIT) program for terrorists believed to have information about future planned attacks.
So we can start with Bill Clinton. The author states that the government was looking for Bin Laden as soon as 1998 - that there was a lot of chatter about a pending terrorist attack. Despite living through these years I was not aware of this early date, so 9/11 was definitely one of the great failures of the federal government. The author points out how utterly indecisive Clinton was about how to deal with the situation, issuing contradictory orders. Doesn't surprise me one little bit. For example, US allies were allowed to capture Bin Laden as long as they only fired their weapons in self defense! In the end though, Mr. Rizzo lets Clinton off by stating that the CIA's assets could not have gotten close to Bin Laden anyway.
We can go on to Nancy Pelosi, who lied that she didn't know about the EIT program. But, who cares about that? Because everyone knows the CIA are liars.
I wish I could meet one of those anti-Iraq war voters who nearly put John Kerry in the White House and who gave people like Barack Obama a platform to oppose the EIT program. You know, the people who voted in Obama over Hilary Clinton because she had voted for the invasion of Iraq. Because Obama's solution was to end the "torture" of the terrorists. It was the humane thing to do, right? So what was his solution instead? Burn 'em! Obama preferred to use Predator drones to kill suspected terrorists, along with any woman and children that happened to be around them. Because that's so much more humane than "torture."
My point is the real anti-war people, when they can be honest, must feel terribly betrayed by their politicians.
Frankly, in the end though, I agree with them. We should never let the CIA torture anyone. But the reality is we shouldn't have our military in the Middle East period. I believe the majority of our problem is sticking our noses in places where there are no easy solutions - certainly none that our feckless politicians could ever find. We have to face the fact that we MADE Bin Laden. We have no one to blame but ourselves if it blew up in our faces. But if we're going to be in the Middle East we're going to have to go all the way. I feel no remorse over the CIA waterboarding the highest-ranking Al-Qaeda officers they caught. All three of them.
You read that right! I was under the distinct impression that the CIA had waterboarded dozens of terrorists, if not all 119 of them. Uh, no, it was only 3 guys. And turns out that waterboarding was so brutal that KSM WITHSTOOD IT. He only broke under the sleep-deprivation EIT. Seems sooner or later you learn that waterboarding isn't going to kill you, so you don't break. So I strongly feel that the attacks on the EIT program were misplaced and ultimately hypocritical.
In the end though, as much as I despise the politicians who claim leadership of this country, they have to be in charge. The career federal bureaucrats have enough power. They have to answer to someone, if only to our unworthy politicians.
So if you lived through this time you might want to get the book. See I file books like this under Current Events, because it happened in my lifetime and I'd like to be informed about my own history. But if Iran-Contra is ancient history, you might not find this book particularly enthralling. After all, Mr. Rizzo was not James Bond - he was his lawyer.
August 23, 2020
A company man is an apt description of John Rizzo. He was one of the most influential men in the CIA for 20 plus years of his 34 year stint there. With that comes an insider perceptive on some of the most notable events in the CIA history, most importantly the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
Rizzo articulates the reasons behind the EIT program with a logical and a surprisingly unbiased view. I found Rizzo making a compelling argument for the necessity of the program but at the same time an opinion against the morals too. I must say my viewpoint was change.
However the reader must be careful. Rizzo is a master wordsmith as with most lawyers, and this book has been vetted with a fine tooth comb to not included anything harmful. Read this with an open but inquisitive mindset.
Rizzo articulates the reasons behind the EIT program with a logical and a surprisingly unbiased view. I found Rizzo making a compelling argument for the necessity of the program but at the same time an opinion against the morals too. I must say my viewpoint was change.
However the reader must be careful. Rizzo is a master wordsmith as with most lawyers, and this book has been vetted with a fine tooth comb to not included anything harmful. Read this with an open but inquisitive mindset.
November 13, 2022
Rizzo's fluid writing style made the pages turn quickly and I found his insider perspective to be fascinating. His personal descriptions of others do sound somewhat biased on the sunny side, but at the same time it is hard to shake the feeling that the bias is a natural product of his own positive outlook.
---
(Regarding 'dirty assets')
The best people to recruit are those who are closest to the "action," which means they, too, have been complicit in human-rights abuses. At what point does the blood-particularly when the blood belongs to a U.S. citizen- get stuck to the Agency's hands? In the morally ambiguous role that a spy agency plays in a democratic society dedicated to the preservation of human rights, where is the line to be drawn?
---
(Regarding 'dirty assets')
The best people to recruit are those who are closest to the "action," which means they, too, have been complicit in human-rights abuses. At what point does the blood-particularly when the blood belongs to a U.S. citizen- get stuck to the Agency's hands? In the morally ambiguous role that a spy agency plays in a democratic society dedicated to the preservation of human rights, where is the line to be drawn?
June 28, 2020
1)Author is in plain denial about the cruel , inhumane ways for interrogations by CIA. That's what happens when you've grown too attached to something. Also shows effects of groupthink.
2) Lack of diversity in CIA.
3) Author appears to be not used to working alongside women (point #2).
4) I dislike how author brushes of Valerie Plume and tells as it her journalist/ ambitious husband that made her identity public.
5) Tells the importance of networking and lobbying.
6) I still enjoy the book. Seems like a pleasant man to work him. It shows in his endearing mentions to other colleagues. :)
2) Lack of diversity in CIA.
3) Author appears to be not used to working alongside women (point #2).
4) I dislike how author brushes of Valerie Plume and tells as it her journalist/ ambitious husband that made her identity public.
5) Tells the importance of networking and lobbying.
6) I still enjoy the book. Seems like a pleasant man to work him. It shows in his endearing mentions to other colleagues. :)
March 14, 2021
Decent autobiography by a CIA insider on the working of the Agency over a 30+ year period. Most interesting was his detailed explanation of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) by the CIA on post-9/11 terrorists and its creation and approval by the government. Of course, like every autobiography, it only gives his side of the story so while I believe what he's written I'm sure there are others who would cover the time period differently. Another part of the book I enjoyed was the time they caught they spy Aldrich Ames working within their midst. Worth the read.
April 11, 2023
Interesting perspective on the many legal and moral public issues involving the cia since the seventies. What would be even more interesting would be a follow on book about the events that haven’t seen the light of public review.
Even thought one would assume that this book has pro rizzo bias, he includes many of his mistakes and scenes that are less that flattering. This self examination gives the book a greater feel of authenticity. We’ll written Snd easy to read and follow. He also doesn’t hold back on his criticism of some of the players.
Even thought one would assume that this book has pro rizzo bias, he includes many of his mistakes and scenes that are less that flattering. This self examination gives the book a greater feel of authenticity. We’ll written Snd easy to read and follow. He also doesn’t hold back on his criticism of some of the players.
March 13, 2018
You'd think a book written by a CIA lawyer would be like reading a text book, but this book was super engaging. It gives you an insiders look on how the CIA is run, and just how reliant the agency is on relationships with members of congress and administrations. The deep dive into the enhanced interrogation tesuniqes fiasco was also fascinating, and eye-opening. If you'd like to see how the sausage of intelligence policy is made, give it a try.
February 3, 2021
This was required reading for a law class, but I was pleasantly surprised that although it was both deep & insightful, it was also an easy, entertaining, and engaging memoir to read. Definitely not an objective perspective on CIA activities, especially with the post 9/11 enhanced interrogation techniques, but I thought Rizzo was well balanced and humble in explaining his reasoning and perspective.
May 29, 2024
Listened to this one on audio, and while it was quite dense in many chapters (it was written by a career government lawyer, after all), I was very interested and engaged in the legal determinations behind some of the most repulsive (but necessary?) tactics employed by the CIA. I came into it with one point of view, but after reading/listening, I have a more nuanced view and opinion of the aspects covered (EITs, Iran-contra, etc).
July 23, 2017
Inside the CIA from a long term career lawyer
I enjoyed this book!
Mr. Rizzo candidly weaved a four decade / 7 president / 11 director story about our premier intelligence apparatus's infrastructure.
Though I feel different than Rizzo about torture (he'd call it EIT), I can understand his rationale for the label and practice.
All in all, a good read by a good public servant.
I enjoyed this book!
Mr. Rizzo candidly weaved a four decade / 7 president / 11 director story about our premier intelligence apparatus's infrastructure.
Though I feel different than Rizzo about torture (he'd call it EIT), I can understand his rationale for the label and practice.
All in all, a good read by a good public servant.
September 18, 2017
Very interesting and insightful read. John Rizzo did a great job telling his story. It was great to get his perspective of the EIT program as well as the Iran-Contra scandal.
In addition, John Rizzo shows that partisan politics doesn't have to infect everyone in D.C. despite decades of being surrounded and exposed to nothing but partisanship.
In addition, John Rizzo shows that partisan politics doesn't have to infect everyone in D.C. despite decades of being surrounded and exposed to nothing but partisanship.
November 27, 2017
Interesting read on the CIA
Told from the perspective of a CIA lawyer, this memoir was surprisingly entertaining, not dry and plodding, as some legal times are. The view of CIA activities from a legal viewpoint - not flashy counterintelligence operatives - makes you think differently about this agency and their mandate.
Told from the perspective of a CIA lawyer, this memoir was surprisingly entertaining, not dry and plodding, as some legal times are. The view of CIA activities from a legal viewpoint - not flashy counterintelligence operatives - makes you think differently about this agency and their mandate.
April 30, 2025
Excellent.
Book is about the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) from a legal standpoint.
The author is a the CIA’s former top lawyer who goes through some of the most controversial issues during his time with The Agency and explains them from a legal standpoint.
As a history buff, who remembers these controversies very well, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Book is about the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) from a legal standpoint.
The author is a the CIA’s former top lawyer who goes through some of the most controversial issues during his time with The Agency and explains them from a legal standpoint.
As a history buff, who remembers these controversies very well, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
July 30, 2017
Fun to get insight into an interesting job: A lawyer for the CIA. Good stories, some that arose from
Known news stories. Rizzo's disdain for anyone critical of the CIA (including and especially Clinton and Obama) is tempered by his loyal roots. Good read.
Known news stories. Rizzo's disdain for anyone critical of the CIA (including and especially Clinton and Obama) is tempered by his loyal roots. Good read.
June 11, 2018
I really enjoyed this memoir by John Rizzo, who was a lawyer for the CIA for three decades. He seems like a man of principle, with a great respect for his agency while at the same time not ignoring the faults and bad leadership he sometimes witnessed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews