Mr. DULLES. Is this the first time he came into the Embassy?
Mr. COLEMAN. This is 3 days before he came.
Mr. DULLES. The first time?
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SNYDER. I recall writing. I think probably the letter you have in
mind--
Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 914 which is a letter
dated October 28, 1959, from Mr. Snyder to Mr. Boster, and ask you
whether that is a letter you sent.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 914 for
identification.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Is that a copy of the letter that you sent to Mr. Boster?
Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.
Mr. COLEMAN. Doesn't that letter, at the bottom, indicate that you were
attempting to get advice on how to handle an attempted renunciation of
American citizenship? At the bottom of the first page.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes; this is a letter which I wrote to Gene Boster. This
letter, I might add, did not refer to any particular case, but was a
letter in which I had put down ideas which had been circulating in my
mind for some time, based on my initial handling of cases in Moscow.
And it was by way of putting down, as I say, some general ideas on the
subject, and asking Gene what the Department felt about this general
area of notions. It wasn't directed at any particular case.
Representative FORD. Do you feel that the regulations then, as well as
now, and the law as well, are archaic in this regard?
Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no; it is simply that--not the law, and certainly not
the regulations--and certainly not the law, can ever take the place of
the judgment of the officer on the spot.
Mr. DULLES. Was this motivated by the Petrulli case?
Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't think it was. The Petrulli case was a clear-cut
case, there was no problem with the Petrulli case, legal or otherwise.
It was motivated, as best I can recall, by my experience with a few
other cases. Well, let's say--let's go back a little bit further, in
a more general vein. The kind of people, the kind of Americans, and I
suppose not only Americans but Frenchmen, Englishmen, and otherwise,
who occasionally drift into the Soviet Union and state that they want
to roll up their sleeves and go to work for socialism for the rest of
their lives, or something of this sort, are usually quite a peculiar
kind of person.
In the first place, they are rarely Marxists in any meaningful sense
of the term. That is, they don't really know what it is all about.
They probably don't know two words about Marxist theories, or Marxism,
Leninism, Stalinism, or anything else. Even less do they know anything
about the country that they have chosen to spend their lives in,
theoretically.
Almost universally they have never been to the country before. They
speak no Russian. And they are rebounding from something--in some
cases, such as the Petrulli case, the man is simply incompetent. In
other cases, as in the Webster case, he appears to have been fleeing
from his wife and the general responsibilities of his prior position,
and finding that he could not escape from them in the Soviet Union
either.
In the case of Oswald, a man who, for one reason or another, seemed
to have been uncomfortable in his own society, unable to accommodate
himself to it, and hoping he will make out better some place else.
At any rate, almost universally, the pattern is of a person who is not
acting out of any ideological grounds. He simply doesn't--and I think
this is essentially true probably of Oswald--this was my feeling in
speaking with him--that Oswald really knew nothing about Marxism and
Leninism, that he professed to be modeling his life after.
Mr. DULLES. Isn't it possible, though, from this discussion--maybe this
should be asked to your legal adviser--that our procedure under law
about renunciation may be in conflict with general international law,
because if he comes into the country with an American passport, as an
American citizen, I gather under ordinary international law we have to
take him back. We are responsible for him. And no renunciation he makes
changes that, as the Petrulli case shows.
Now, in the Petrulli case you had a situation where he was incompetent,
and you could throw the thing out on the ground he didn't know what he
was doing. But in these other cases, maybe you can't.
Mr. SNYDER. Well, in the specific instance and circumstances of the
Soviet Union, you obviously have a major problem, there is a major
state problem.
Mr. DULLES. That might arise in other cases. Isn't that true in any
case--If an American citizen arrives with an American passport, the
country where he arrives doesn't have to keep him, does it? Isn't it
our responsibility to take him back?