Interesting, but not surprising. This obviously came to the paper trough British Intelligence sources... I wonder if our policies have upset so many folks out there that even our intelligence methods are becoming compromised by our friends who would normally sit on such stuff. _____________________________ 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 Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont Sunday March 2, 2003 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html 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.
I guess the Bush Crowd forgot to read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." I see now that Turkey rejected Bush. How humiliating after all the billions we promised them. I guess the "Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed" is not too stable. I also saw a report that the US may look unfavorably on Turkey in future dealings. Let's see they are threatening to look unfavorably on many of the countries in the world, including long term allies Don't the America Uber Alles crowd realize that if you try to intimidate all the world at once, you iultimately intimidate noone. The US can kick anyone's ass militarily, but even the US must trade with someone and can't take on the whole world economically. These idgiots are having a temper tantrum.
OH MY GOD. Is our president this petty? He can't articulate a case to fight a war against all of Islam, so instead we start bugging friggin' delegates? What a dork. What's next? A couple of henchmen with brass knuckles and bruiser-chains?
It is too bad you guys don't care to present the entire story here. The original "NSA memo" contained the following words- favourable recognise emphasise LOL, I am sure that no British source would dupe the Observer and forget to change the spelling. Riiiiiiight. What kind of self respecting editor would edit a memo being presented to the public? Also, from Matt Drudge- Other errors also appeared in the paper's online document of the purported email text. The spelling of the NSA official's name was strangely changed from "Frank Koza" to "Frank Kozu"; and the top secret marker of "Top Secret//COMINT//XL" should have read "Top Secret//COMINT//X1" to conform to any government coding. (slam source here) Sorry Bush haters, but this story does not pass the smell test.
So we're bugging UN delegates - so what? Whoopde-friggen-do. Everyone does that. Not really news, rimrocker.
Do you think this refutes the story? It's an oddity, sure, but the Observer... and your Drudge reports this... argues that they modified the text for a British audience. Either way, I assume the story could be fraudulent. I don't simply "know" that it is, simply by my adoration for the twerp-in-chief... nor do I "know" that it isn't, simply because I see the president as a buffoon... Hopefully this will be clarified in the weeks to come...
I agree, as my original note implies. It is definitely a part of the game and an important part that should not be compromised for immediate gratification. I'm worried that the cooperation among other nations that we have relied on in the past may be slipping because of the way we're playing the game. If we lose the hearts and minds of our intelligence friends, it's a lot of work to put that back together.
Nations aren't people, rimrocker. It's not like Mexico's delegates find a bug and tell our ambassador "I trusted you. You betrayed me. I thought we were friends? I don't want to be friends with you anymore..." They're a little more pragmatic than that, and I think they understand the game.
Are.....you.....serious? Automatic defense 1: Attack Messenger...johnheath, check. Automatic defense 2: Dismiss as irrelevent....check. If this kind of thing were to come out about, say, Hussein...if he were to bug delegates at a peace conference we were taking part in, do you honestly maintain that you and others wouldn't be freaking out about it? Besides, it has been said many times that people other than Nixon did similar things, that he only got caught...does that lessen the gravity of the act? Do you have any info to back up your contention that this is standard operating procedure; to bug delegates of the UN? Do you in no way see this as being an example of exactly the kind of thing that the US is currently doing which makes many in the world suspicious of us, and see us as being in it not to do the right thing, but to merely get what we want?
Sadly, this is to be expected. I mean all you have to do is look at the America's cup of Yachting. They have spies in that. One guy almost got speared one year as he spied underneath the boat. That's just boating. Countries are crazy like that. I can't even imagine what goes on at a U.N. meeting or something similar. Information always gives you an upper hand, but the truth be told, almost all negotiations end up in the middle anyway. So you never really have an advantage in my opinion. All that being said. If this is true, it just looks bad because we got caught.
Again, I agree, but nations are made of people and when a huge disconnect becomes established between the policy-makers and the policy-executors problems arise. Look at how many leaks and compromises there were during the late 1960's to mid-1970's. Most were justified in my mind but probably only became news because the stuff going on in the intelligence agencies became so skewed that certain individuals acted. Even though I agree with most of the leaks of that time, I do think the problems hurt our intelligence mission for a while.
Sorry to rain on ya'lls parade but the note is an obvious fake, as many news sources are now reporting. Read: http://www.stratfor.com Purported U.S. Intelligence Memo Likely Fake Mar 02, 2003 Summary Britain's The Observer newspaper has published a memo that purportedly orders increased espionage against U.N. Security Council diplomats. The memo is likely a forgery: It includes un-American spellings, and the writer apparently lacks understanding of the U.S. intelligence community's structure. Analysis British newspaper The Observer on March 2 published a memorandum that purportedly was written by a National Security Agency official asking for a "surge" effort to conduct espionage against U.N. Security Council members. That memo, reproduced below in full, would appear to be definite proof that the United States is once again up to dirty tricks. It is quite a leak, until one reads the memo carefully. First, there is the interesting fact that at least three words have British rather than American spellings: "emphasize" (American spelling) appears as the British "emphasise," the same also is true for "favorable" ("favourable") and "recognize" ("recognise"). The probability of an American spelling three words with British styles is near zero -- especially when one considers that Microsoft Word's dictionary would pick up all three of those as spelling errors in the U.S. version, which we have a feeling is used at the NSA or any U.S. government entity. In the memo, the author refers to "the Agency." If he is talking colloquially about the National Security Agency, which is not done in inter-agency memos, he should be referring to the NSA as "The Fort," after Fort Meade. This is the proper slang. However, if he were tasking personnel at the NSA, he would have to be a lot more specific as to who he is tasking and where. The NSA's internal nomenclature is usually impenetrable, consisting of a letter and two or three cryptic numbers. It would not refer to "Agency." If the "Agency" the author refers to is the CIA, he would not refer to it as "Agency" in a memo of this sort, simply because it is a big place. At the very least, he would, even in casual conversation, refer to the DO (Directorate of Operations) or DI (Directorate of Intelligence). "Agency" is not a useful nomenclature, and it is not the way an intelligence professional would refer to the CIA in a memo. Therefore, an NSA official would not be tasking his own team with such language, but would be using a variety of internal nomenclature referring to particular operational groups. The memo also states, "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." The CIA is divided into the Directorate of Operations (spies) and the Directorate of Intelligence (analysts). CIA analysts do not gather intelligence, and DO personnel do not have access to analysts. Asking intelligence analysts to increase their collection efforts doesn't really happen. At the NSA, the reference to analysts would be much more cryptic and specific. Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the CIA is engaged in espionage against U.N. Security Council member-states.That is what they are paid to do, and it would be expected that they are doing it. But the probability of this memo's authenticity requires that Frank Koza, the NSA official who allegedly issued it, not be U.S.-educated, not have his spell-check turned on and not know the difference between the directorates of operations and intelligence. That could be, but it is more likely that The Observer either created, purchased or was slipped a forged document. It would be fascinating if The Observer told its readers where this document came from. The newspaper can be assured that it would not be compromising operations in an intelligence agency -- at least not in an American intelligence agency. 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. Thanks for your help
Oh, and are any of you deluded enough to think that even if this were true (again it probably is not), that EVERY other country on earth doesn't try to do the same to gain leverage? For those b****ing about Bush in relation to this, do you think this would have never happened during the Clinton years? Some of you are so blindingly partisan that it's insane. Give me a freaking break.
Good thing I waited, I was suspect of this memo. Besides, everybody knows the US used nanotechnology to create microscopic bugs that are delivered through the water at UN meetings. Seriously you guys, I mean, hellooooooo. . .
Actually, I would expect it. That's how the game is played. What lessens the gravity of the act is the fact that everyone does it. If you look a little to the left, you'll find a French microcamera right next to the American one... It is common practice within the intelligence community to bug every damn thing that you can - including foreign diplomatic delegations and spaces. Read any biographical account written by anyone who has served with the intelligence community... Just how exactly do you think that everyone gathers so much intelligence on everyone else? Do you think that satellites and spies are the only ways? You surveil the nexus between states, and that happens to be diplomatic functions and functionaries. The only real no-no is getting caught. I see getting caught doing it as bad PR. This is good fodder for the conspiracy theorists, but... Anyone who actually thinks that we're the only ones doing it is either a complete idiot or unbelievably naive - and I don't particularly care what the naive idiots of the world might happen to think of us.
MacBeth, do you understand what "attack the messenger" means? I did not merely dismiss the memo because of its source. I offered valid reasons to question this memo.
Here's what the Observer has posted recently: "This email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience. Following enquiries about this, we have reverted to the original US-spelling as in the document leaked to The Observer. " It doesn't quite tackle the subject questions. Guess we'll wait and see if anyhting more develops.
FWIW... Ari on 03/03/03... Q May I also ask you about a report in The Observer newspaper in London, of a memo purported to be from the NSA -- an email message from a man who actually works at the NSA they established -- in which he describes a surge in surveillance of U.N. Security Council members to see what these nations are thinking about an Iraq vote. What's your response? MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, as a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence. For example, if somebody were to say to me, is Libya an object of American intelligence -- I would never answer that question yes or no. The administration does not answer questions of that nature. We don't answer who does or does not work in the intelligence community. Once you start that, you start getting into process of elimination and we do not do that about any question, about any report, as a blanket matter of policy. Q But, then, if you're a Cameroonian diplomat or a French diplomat at the United Nations, because of what you just said, you're going to have to operate on the assumption that the United States is bugging you. MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a blanket matter of policy that we do not answer questions of that nature, whether it's true or not true, and I'm not indicating to you whether it is true or not true. It's a blanket matter of approach and policy that predates this administration.
