CHAPTER 21
They must lead a double life . . . it is a vexing existence.
—David Atlee Phillips, as quoted in The Literary Spy
False or assumed identities are a way of life for intelligence officers. While conducting their work, case officers and technical officers alike have learned to live “normally” with alias names by combining a con man’s verbal skills to spin a plausible cover story with unassailable identification papers. The intelligence officer must convincingly establish that he is who and what he claims, even though it is all a fabrication. Most officers use a dozen or more different alias names during a career.
For the CIA, creating false identities and their supporting documentation had its origin in 1942 in the Documentation Division of the OSS Research and Development branch. Agents infiltrated by the OSS into Occupied Europe required “bullet-proof” identification papers, as the slightest whiff of duplicity could result in summary execution. OSS logbooks from October 1943 show requirements for fabricated documents such as French stamps, ID papers, and travel certificates. Agents dispatched behind German lines by OSS officer William Casey, later Director of Central Intelligence, were regular “customers” for the output of the OSS document fabrication shop in London between 1944 and 1945.1 The London operation, manned by an assortment of craftsmen and forgers, was a field component of Stanley Lovell’s OSS R&D branch and evolved in the postwar years into the Document Intelligence branch in the Operational Aids Division of the CIA’s Office of Special Operations.
In 1951, the CIA’s consolidation of technical and scientific work in the Technical Services Staff included the capability to manufacture documents and identity papers. The significance of documentation for Agency operations was reflected by the fact that three of TSS’s six original divisions focused on some aspect of identity and documents.2 Hundreds of CIA officers working overseas, together with every agent dispatched into Eastern Europe or China, required an alias identity along with unassailable documents to back up an airtight cover story. The alias protected the agent’s true identity, while the cover legitimized his presence in the area. TSS assembled a documentation team of artists, forgers, engravers, printers, papermakers, and photographers from OSS veterans, U.S. trade schools, and selected German and Japanese artisans who had originally learned their craft while working against the United States.
Selection of appropriate cover for covert operatives was handled by a separate division within the DDP.3 TSS, and subsequently OTS, supported cover requirements by creating and/or reproducing paper or plastic documentation that a person would normally be expected to carry, such as passports, visas, licenses, credit cards, blood donor records, stationery, membership cards, business cards, and travel documents. Paper documents were at the heart of establishing an officer’s identity and legitimacy, particularly in the decades before electronic databases.4 Historically, officially issued and printed documents carried on one’s person were the standard form of identification for travelers, but in recent years, biometric identification and individual data stored on computer chips have become a required element of establishing identity.
Fabricating high-quality identity documents has always been technically difficult and unforgiving. The OSS London shop reportedly checked documents thirty times before issuance to an agent going behind German lines .5 Minor mistakes or errors in printing, format, color, paper texture, inks, or missing security features in government-issued documents were quickly recognized in the home country. Immigration and customs officials, as well as border guards, were trained to spot false documentation; likewise, local police were keenly aware of the typical contents of a traveler’s wallet or purse. Hotel receptionists, ticket agents, and bank tellers were trained to be alert for fraudulent or counterfeit documents. A suspicious document opened the door for additional investigation and questioning that, once begun, often led to an unraveling of the bearer’s cover story and endangered the larger operation.
Intelligence officers working under an alias required documents that were perfect reproductions of official issuances and contained the current authentication features necessary for travel. Credit cards had to be signed with the same name and same script as the bearer’s passport, driver’s license, and club cards. Passports had to contain valid visas and entry and exit “chops” (rubber-stamp impressions) that corresponded to travel reflected on other documents. Dates on airline stubs or train tickets had to be consistent with dates showing entry into a country.
A production element within the OTS designed, printed, bound, laminated, and artificially aged the false documents while a separate authentication division reviewed, verified, and prepared each document before issue. The separate authentication process confirmed that every piece of an individual’s document package, including any government-issued identification papers, was complete, accurate, and up to date. Before issuance, authentication officers compared the document package to data maintained in CIA’s exhaustive international document inventory and archives of current and historic samples of customs and immigration forms, rubber stamps, cachets, seals, passports, and travel paperwork. To ensure that the document inventory and knowledge of international travel remained current, CIA officers or assets were sent on probes to survey travel routes, observe immigration practices, collect chops in passports at foreign border crossings, and record changes in entrance/exit procedures in countries of operational interest.
A few months before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a CIA officer had his attaché case stolen in a European country while registered as a guest at an upscale hotel near a major airport. OTS had modified the attaché case by creating an inner cavity for secreting papers that documented the officer as a resident of a neighboring country.
The attaché case came into possession of the local internal security service where the secret compartment and contents were discovered. The alias documentation was turned over to the country that had supposedly issued the documents, where an investigation determined the papers were forgeries. Suspecting that the origin of the forgery was the work of a third country, not the United States, the offended service registered a blunt objection. The third country’s intelligence service knew it had no role in the fabrication, but to calm matters simply acknowledged receipt of the materials without comment.
Nearly a year later, at a conference of intelligence services cooperating on detecting terrorist forgeries, the story was related and the documents displayed. The OTS officers immediately recognized the documents as ones they fabricated. Later a friendly colleague from the third country privately commented, “We know these aren’t ours. They are really good, almost perfect. Better than anything we could do. We don’t know who else can do such fine work, but we thought you should know that the capability is out there.” Obscured by the language of intelligence diplomacy was a professional compliment for OTS’s fabrication skills.
Alias travel documents were critical to the success of a CIA sting operation in the late 1980s. The CIA needed intelligence on the capabilities of a tactical missile being designed in a country hostile to the United States. Tight security surrounded the missile program and foreign visitors were never given access to the facility where components were assembled. To attempt to gain access, a CIA agent assumed the persona of a Middle Eastern businessman and the cover of an international military equipment broker. The agent needed to find a way to get inside the building to photograph the equipment.
CIA planners contrived a scenario whereby the agent acquired information that a third country, also hostile to the United States, had interest in secretly buying several of the missile systems. The intelligence, in the form of official-appearing documents, had all been fabricated by OTS. The agent made contact with a representative from the target country for a “confidential discussion” and presented the so-called intelligence with a proposal that he broker the sale. Suspicion was high but the asset’s intelligence, cover story, and identification papers were so convincing that follow-up meetings were arranged.
The asset demonstrated good faith by putting several hundred thousand dollars on the table and serious negotiations about a possible sale began. He established the position of his client that any deal would be contingent on his inspecting the goods before signing a purchase contract. Over several weeks, discussions went back and forth until the target country’s senior official called for a final meeting.
The negotiations lasted three days but eventually a verbal agreement was reached and formal papers drawn up for signature. The seller agreed to the asset’s demand to inspect the production facility and missile components. Then, with the contract papers on the table ready for signature, the senior negotiator abruptly called a halt. “Let me see your passport,” he demanded. The asset, stunned by the request, had no choice but to comply. The negotiator slowly examined the passport page by page before handing it back with a smile. “I just wanted to make sure,” he explained, “that you were in Yemen in March three years ago like you told me yesterday. I see you were. Now let us conclude our business.”
The tension subsided as the asset struggled to maintain his composure. In fact, he had never been in Yemen although travel to that country had been built into his cover story. OTS had inserted the required visa into his passport, valid for the month in question. The techs had properly dated the entry and exit immigration chops, complete with scrawled initials of the immigration officers. In fact, the entire passport, visa, entry/exit stamps, chops, and signatures had been constructed by OTS. A concealed camera in the asset’s briefcase silently filmed the entire drama.
Some time later, a senior DO official called the operation “one of the best of the decade.” Its success hinged on the work of the OTS’s document fabrication and authentication officers.
From the cover perspective, CIA employees fall broadly into two classifications: overt and undercover. The majority of CIA employees are overt, acknowledge their CIA affiliation, and each January receive W-2 forms issued by the Central Intelligence Agency. Typical of overt employees are individuals in senior management positions, those with assignments in public affairs, the Center for Study of Intelligence, congressional liaison, personnel recruitment, analytical components of the Directorate of Intelligence, and research units in the Directorate of Science and Technology. These individuals perform work that does not require a covert identity.
Within the Directorate of Operations, most employees have cover, as does any other Agency officer who participates in covert operations. Cover documents provide corroborating personal and public material to establish and support the legitimacy of a cover and a fabricated identity.
The CIA categorizes cover in two types, official and commercial. Official covers are provided by other government agencies and departments while commercial covers are acquired from private-sector companies or private individuals. The cover of any individual officer can be adapted to the operational need and ranges from “light” to “deep.”
Officers may have a cover that allows them to work using their true name or they may assume an alias as part of operational cover. Two types of aliases are frequently used. The most common is a created identity. Officers are assigned randomly selected names, consistent with their ethnic appearance and supported by standard identification documents such as driver’s license, credit cards, social security card, and passport. Throughout their career, officers would be issued multiple aliases and supporting documents. Since 1990, however, the created identity has become increasingly vulnerable to detection as an alias due to interconnected databases containing official and personal information about individuals. The adage “If you don’t exist in cyberspace, you are probably a fraud” has become a truism that limits the long-term operational use of created identities.
Borrowed identities offer an alternative to fictitious identities but require the cooperation and temporary “disappearance” of the voluntary and cooperating donor. Borrowed identities have the advantage of possessing a verifiable personal history and require no manufactured backstopping of the individual’s college attendance, work history, social connections, or forged documents. The borrowed identity also exists as a “cyber persona” since, at minimum, credit history shows up on numerous databases. Reproduction of personal ID papers is simplified by a willing donor making the material available to document specialists. OTS technicians can provide effective disguise in the form of the donor’s clothing and, within reason, body appearance. Borrowed identity, normally reserved for particularly sensitive operations, was successfully employed to effect the single personal meeting that occurred between an agency officer and TRIGON in Moscow in 1976.
Disguise can either complement an alias or obscure the true identity of the user. The history of OTS’s disguise work, like documents, began in OSS. At the formation of TSS, disguise became part of the Furnishings and Equipment Division and subsequently supported covert operations by altering the appearance of officers and agents to protect their true identity or ensure against future visual recognition. Disguise also can make an individual’s appearance consistent with photo identification documents that are used to support an alias identity. Disguise conceals personal identity as wood blocks conceal microphones and transmitters.
CIA officers meeting with assets have often employed light disguise in conjunction with an alias. Such disguises may give the officer a visage that alters his true features. A light disguise might include a wig, glasses, mole, facial hair, dental appliance, or certain articles of clothing. Whether the disguise is realistic or believable is less important than the fact that it prevents the officer from being recognized later. Light disguises would typically be employed when meeting with an unknown volunteer who asks to speak to someone in intelligence. To avoid the risk of exposing an officer to someone who could be a terrorist or part of another intelligence service’s dangle operation, the CIA representative would apply a light disguise before engaging the volunteer. Light disguises are also issued to members of surveillance teams to protect them from recognition by the target or by well-wishing friends whom they might inadvertently encounter while on the job.
As necessary, more elaborate disguises using full or partial facial masks could perform an ethnic or sex change to alter a person’s racial or gender appearance. Among the options are padded clothing to alter body type and weight distribution, sculpted appliances that alter eye color, mouth lines, and affect speech tone, makeup and hair coloring, hand and arm “gloves” to match facial coloring, shoe lifts to add height, and torso devices to create a stooped posture. Individually and in combination, the disguise techniques can affect dramatic appearance change.6
For officers in need of a disguise subject to close attention and durable for hours or days, OTS specialists would spend several hours performing the transformations. These labor-intensive disguises were typically applied on individuals in high-risk situations such as illegal border crossings. Given time, the disguise specialists would alter hair color, apply facial hair, modify jaw lines, improvise dental work, create wrinkles, change complexion, or add glasses and warts to match any photographic documents and thus avoid chance recognition at a border crossing or airport checkpoint.7
The use of disguise to maintain secrecy is a basic means of acquiring information otherwise unavailable. It is also one of the most ancient. The Old Testament describes several disguise incidents in the history of the Hebrew people such as Jacob’s deception of his father Isaac to secure the family birthright. The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu offered instructions for disguising spies in The Art of War with this comment: “Your surviving spy must be a man of keen intellect, though in outward appearance a fool; of shabby exterior, but with a will of iron.” More recently, Shakespeare was famously fond of disguises, incorporating them into the plays, including Twelfth Night, Measure for Measure, and As You Like It.
The twenty-first-century spy’s disguise must not only be flawless in outward appearance, it must also reflect his assumed identity in the array of sophisticated documentation safeguards in use throughout the world. Disguise must match a digital persona that includes holographic images and microchips containing biometric data embedded into passports and travel documents. Personal information on the Internet that is compatible with one’s disguise becomes as critical to the modern spy’s identity as the traditional counterfeit beard and eyeglasses.