posted on March 1, 2003 07:47:32 PM new
If this is true, our credibility world-wide is really shot.
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members
Read the memo
Talk about it: dirty tricks?
Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer
The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.
The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.
The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.
The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'.
Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441.
It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests.
Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations.
Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'.
Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.'
Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council.
It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US.
Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.
The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.
The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.
The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'.
On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up.
While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions.
The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright 'hostility' of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages.
The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations in Europe. 'The Americans are being very purposeful about this,' said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts.
posted on March 1, 2003 10:28:56 PM new
Mexican delegates already stated that they were strong armed to gain their vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the past three weeks, State Department officials including Kim Holmes, the assistant secretary of state for international organizations, visited Mexico City, said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission. Charles Barclay, a spokesman with the State Department, denied that Holmes went to Mexico.
Mexican diplomats have previously described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and complained that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iraq.
"They actually told us: 'Any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,'" one Mexican diplomat said recently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
posted on March 1, 2003 10:46:25 PM new
This story doesn't ring true to me, this "American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members." Don't we think that they're all already bugged, and have been since the beginning of the U.N.? And before?
I'm shocked, shocked to find that bugging is going on in here!
posted on March 2, 2003 01:38:56 AM new
I'm not too interested in the bugging even though the headlines are obviously making hay from Watergate parallels. The high pressure threatening to influence the outcome is a bully's tactic though, and should not be used. Each member should be free to weigh the various considerations for itself without being made to pay a price for casting it's vote in a way that's adverse to bush administration goals.
posted on March 2, 2003 02:54:56 AM new
I'm wondering what happens when the US needs something non security related from one of these nations. i.e. What happens when Mexico calls for the restrictions on their trucks entering the US to finally be lifted as dictated by NAFTA. I don't get the feeling that Fox is the kind of guy that likes being strong armed. What's to stop him from making sure that our trucks have more than a few problems getting thru customs on the way down south. Those are the kind of actions that put a big crimp in industry which is Bush's bread and butter, and campaign financing.
posted on March 2, 2003 05:36:26 AM new
The US has not kept their word on previous agreements with Mexico - so what is the incentive to do more for a bunch of liars?
They'd be suckers to trust the US again.
Of course they bug everything in sight about the UN. I'm sure they have for years.
Now if they could break in the translation circuit and change the voice vote so the delegate says on thing and another voice came out and voted the other way - that would show some initiative!
posted on March 2, 2003 05:56:55 AM new
From Drudge.....
[i]BUT WAIT: WOULD AMERICAN NSA EMPLOYEE SPELL FAVORABLE 'FAVOURABLE', RECOGNIZE 'RECOGNISE' AND EMPHASIZE 'EMPHASISE' IN BRITISH TONGUE?...
WOULD NSA REALLY TIME STAMP EMAILS '31/01/2003 0:16' IN EUROPEAN FORMAT?...[/i]
posted on March 2, 2003 07:33:18 AM new
This is definitely the "smoking gun", no not really. Even if true, like it's been said, everybody spies on everyone else at the UN.
And I'm sure political coercion is nothing new either. This "memo" was not nearly the bombshell I expected it to be...I was disappointed.
=========================================================================================
Original text of memo (assuming authenticity):
"To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA@Chief of Staff (Regional Target) CIV/NSA
on 31/01/2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq debate/votes at UN - RT actions and potential for related contributions
Importance: High
TOP SECRET/COMINT/XL
All,
As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.
We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasise and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognise that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.
We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:15:52 PM new
What do you mean by "strong armed and threatened" ?
What do you call it when Mexico uses the issues of easing immigration laws for thier vote in the UN ?
You have obviously never negotiated anything of importance with several parties involved.
Everything of interest to each party is used, whether it is money, trade laws, status operations, such as a visit to the Whitehouse by a head of state.
You are absolutely begging to find things wrong with Bush's policies and simply can not find anything of substance.
posted on March 2, 2003 06:31:46 PM new
Reamond - since you missed it above...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mexican diplomats have previously described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and complained that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iraq.
"They actually told us: 'Any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,'" one Mexican diplomat said recently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Negotiating is one thing, threats of "paying a heavy price" is another. IMO - Mexico should have called their bluff.
posted on March 2, 2003 07:21:21 PM new
Beautiful day here. Sunny and the snow is almost gone.
Anyway, the Guardian hasn't removed the article from the Sunday Observer nor written a retraction so I assume that neither Koza and Rice nor the Blair government have demanded that they do so which they almost certainly would have done had it been a fake. Also, the Guardian has the status in Britain of what they designate as one of the 5 quality papers as opposed to those that are considered tabloids so I have doubted that it would publish the story without the independent intelligence verification that they indicate. But I always like to keep an open mind until further verification and speculate in the interim.
Almost everyone understands generally the purpose of intelligence agencies, even if only from some exposure to contemporary novels, fiction, and television. They may even assume a certain amount of routine surveillance from intelligence agencies; however, the language of the document suggests more than that, especially when it is directed toward countries which are not "enemies." As does the more detailed revelation of the types and degrees of "persuasion" being placed on nations which are not designated enemies. It is just these sorts of behavior that have caused the shifts in public opinion about the Bush government and the war with Iraq internationally and at home. The longer it continues, the less support--which is of courses the necessity for the Bush government's rushing plans into action before too much scrutiny occurs.
The memorandum and accompanying article, as well as the attempts at excessive coercion, also belie Bush's recognition of the need for UN support, not to defeat Iraq but to carry out his occupation plans. Force alone will not guarantee that success.
But even if the memorandum should be proved false, its purpose would then be disinformation or counterintelligence, and certainly the government would want the sources. If it is true, then we have a security leak.
posted on March 2, 2003 08:08:19 PM new
"Threats of paying a heavy price" isn't strong arming anyone. Have you ever heard a District Attorney negotiate to avoid a criminal trial or attorneys negotiating to avoid a civil trial?
posted on March 8, 2003 09:42:57 PM new
Since I started this topic, I wanted to follow up before I leave for a few weeks.
The memo was genuine, as I assumed, not an intentional leak and has had more than a little effect. These three reports are posted below and they reveal dissension in both the U.S. and British intelligence agencies about how agents' work is being used, or misused, and other fascinating information.
Chow!
Dirty tricks memo: the fallout
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday March 9, 2003
The Observer
An employee at the top-secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been arrested following revelations in The Observer last weekend about an American 'dirty tricks' surveillance operation to win votes at the United Nations in favour of a tough new resolution on Iraq.
Gloucestershire police confirmed last night that a 28-year-old woman was arrested last week on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act. The woman, from the Cheltenham area, has been released on police bail pending further inquiries. More arrests are expected.
Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 9, 2003
The Observer
The United Nations has begun a top-level investigation into the bugging of its delegations by the United States, first revealed in The Observer last week.
Sources in the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed last night that the spying operation had already been discussed at the UN's counter-terrorism committee and will be further investigated.
The news comes as British police confirmed the arrest of a 28-year-old woman working at the top secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act.
Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq.
The Observer reported that the memo was sent to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for help in the operation. It has been known for some time that elements within the British security services were unhappy with the Government's use of intelligence information.
The leak was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history.
In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking a secret history of US involvement in Vietnam, which became known as 'the Pentagon Papers', while working as a Defence Department analyst. The papers fed the American public's hostility to the war.
The revelations of the spying operation have caused deep embarrassment to the Bush administration at a key point in the sensitive diplomatic negotiations to gain support for a second UN resolution authorising intervention in Iraq.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were both challenged about the operation last week, but said they could not comment on security matters.
The operation is thought to have been authorised by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but American intelligence experts told The Observer that a decision of this kind would also have involved Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and NSA chief General Michael Hayden.
President Bush himself would have been informed at one of the daily intelligence briefings held every morning at the White House.
Attention has now turned to the foreign intelligence agency responsible for the leak. It is now believed the memo was sent out via Echelon, an international surveillance network set up by the NSA with the cooperation of GCHQ in Britain and similar organisations in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Wayne Madsen, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and himself a former NSA intelligence officer, said the leak demonstrated that there was deep unhappiness in the intelligence world over attempts to link Iraq to the terrorist network al-Qaeda.
'My feeling is that this was an authorised leak.I've been hearing for months of people in the US and British intelligence community who are deeply concerned about their governments "cooking" intelligence to link Iraq to al-Qaeda.'
The Observer story caused a political furore in Chile, where President Ricardo Lagos demanded an immediate explanation of the spying operation. The Chilean public is extremely sensitive to reports of US 'dirty tricks' after decades of American secret service involvement in the country's internal affairs. In 1973 the CIA supported a coup that toppled the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed the dictator General Augusto Pinochet.
President Lagos spoke on the telephone with Prime Minister Tony Blair about the memo last Sunday, immediately after the publication of the story, and twice again on Wednesday. Chile's Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear also raised the matter with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Chile's ambassador to Britain Mariano Fernández told The Observer: 'We cannot understand why the United States was spying on Chile. We were very surprised. Relations have been good with America since the time of George Bush Snr.' He said that the position of the Chilean mission to the UN was published in regular diplomatic bulletins, which were public documents openly available.
While the bugging of foreign diplomats at the UN is permissible under the US Foreign Intelligence Services Act, it is a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, according to one of America's leading experts on international law, Professor John Quigley of Ohio University.
He says the convention stipulates that: 'The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable.'
.....................
The spies and the spinner
Peter Beaumont in Baghdad and Gaby Hinsliff examine how Alastair Campbell and intelligence staff fell out over what the public should be told about Saddam
Sunday March 9, 2003
The Observer
In the Cheltenham headquarters of Britain's secret global listening facility, GCHQ, analysts have access to one of the world's most powerful pieces of computer software.
They call it Dictionary, and its job is to screen the massive flows of intercepted data and look for groups of words of significance to whatever the analysts are seeking.
When those groups come up, the software alerts the analysts who then begin a review of all the intercepted communication in their search for hard intelligence.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:34:08 PM new
That was interesting to read.
I don't know... There's always conflict between the career bureaucrats who think they're the real guardians of the country vs. the temporarily elected heads of state, but both sides usually know how to put a public face on. All that stuff about Chile complaining about it I disregard. Everyone knows that everyone who can is spying on everyone else, allies and enemies alike.
Dirty tricks.. so what? What's scary is that we seem to be doing such an inept job at it. If it's like Watergate all over again, the similarity is in the bumbling.
posted on March 9, 2003 07:40:02 AM new
And terrorism...we are doing an inept job of that too. America is in the business of perpetrating terrorism in order to maintain obedience to the US and global dominance. While Clinton bombed the poor country of Iraq almost daily until they were on their knees asking for mercy... he did not bring us to the brink of World Warlll. Unlike George Bush, he knew when enough was enough and did not endanger and frighten the entire world.
posted on March 9, 2003 08:10:16 AM new
Did I just here this correctly?!?
NPR in the background I caught something at the end.
....Turkey will gain concensus is their government to deploy American troops by ELIMINATING DISSENTING MEMBERS! This is a move supported and endorsed by the United States.
Apparently Bush and Gang are "doing the happy dance" over their form of "Democracy" in action
Does something seem really wrong here? Is this our administration's concept of Democracy? Just eliminate the opposition?
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic ervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 9, 2003 01:44:34 PM new
Of course our government of the Bush supports MURDER! That way, he canpoint fingers at other countries for doing what he can't wait to do at home. Remember just how happy it made him to think of people being exectuted on death Row in texas when he wass governor ~ just wait until he gets the power to pull the switch himself for the JOY of it!
posted on March 10, 2003 04:21:51 AM new
Helen,
"America is in the business of perpetrating terrorism in order to maintain obedience to the US and global dominance."
Please give me the link to that one. or you can post the pamphlet you copied it from.
You don't think this to be a Hate America, Statement? I don't believe your a pacifist at all. You must be a Socialist. If that's not a leftist political statement I don't know what is. I know I've heard it before. Was it Austbounty?
Borilla, How can anyone take you Serious after your statement on Colin Powell? Sure you try to say everyone's a moron or they are ignorant because they can't comprehend your statement.
Lets tell it like it is. It was an out burst of your Hatred. Probably not because he is Black alone but because He's Black and a Republican.
By your name-calling and labelling we know you lost the arguement. If that is the best you can do, go away. This is a place for adult debate, not infantile personal attacks.
An individual who is defending constitutional rights is way more American and Patriotic than you can ever hope to be. The TRUE test of an American Patriot is one who defends another rights, whether he thinks he is right or wrong. A true Communist would call him anti-american and socialist and pro-Saddam and try to take hie right away....like you do.
You Communist!
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic ervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
As far as your name calling, it doesnt't bother me. The truth is that I am not anti-American. In fact I probably have more concern about America than most of the people who post here. I don't have a racist attitude or hate for this country or any other country or the nonchalant, non questioning acceptance of anti-American Bush policy that is tolerated here. You may call it whatever your little reverend brain thinks appropriate. I don't give a s h i t.
I forgive and forget a lot of stuff that is said on this board but your suggestion that I copied my statement from a pamphlet or from some other poster will not be forgotten.
posted on March 10, 2003 12:30:21 PM new
Not name calling. Labeling. I can do that. Just like you do that.
No never have I said You were a racist.
It was a very anti-American statement. Not just against Bush but against the United States and all it's people.
But worst of all......YOU...said a bad word.
Amen,
I hope I never am lowered to that,
Reverend Colin
posted on March 10, 2003 03:12:56 PM new
Hillary and Pelosi are very far left, but I'd doubt even they would say that about their own country.
America is in the business of perpetrating terrorism in order to maintain obedience to the US and global dominance. Helen
But who knows....I've read in the last week or two that Hillary's getting pretty hawkish...in supporting the war. [only saw that in print twice though]
O'Reilly said on his show one night, that he had asked her to let him know her position on this war, and she wouldn't answer. She's HIS senator. Wonder if she answers other questions from other's that she represents.
