[patconnole]

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.' ......................................

full text at http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,905899,00.html

 

[patconnole]

The actual memo leaked to the "Observer".

To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA, DEF Chief of Staff (Regional Targets)
CIV/NSA
Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH
Top Secret//COMINT//XI

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 favorable 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 emphasize 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 recognize 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

 

[DRB]

Funny how the Observer had posted the memo with British spellings and now have "reverted" back to the American spelling.

 

[Damn True]

Sounds dubious.

Ya know what gripes me?

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan

Why the hell should it matter what some pi$$-ant backwater 3rd world country the size of these thinks? They do nothing but create a drain on the world. They produce nothing of substance, and yet they are swing votes in the outcome of world history. That's like asking some welfare crack-whore her opinion on US tax code.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sounds dubious.

Ya know what gripes me?

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan

Why the hell should it matter what some pi$$-ant backwater 3rd world country the size of these thinks?

The same reason the electoral college makes North Dakota count in an election.

 

[patconnole]

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.

......................................................................

Q Ari, I have two questions for you. Following up on Terry's question about the article in The Observer, you say you never do comment on intelligence matters. But the article also specifies that six of the countries the U.S. is trying to get to vote in favor of the second resolution are being monitored. If they were to ask the U.S. government about that, would they also get an answer, we don't comment on intelligence matters?

MR. FLEISCHER: My answer is the same in all cases, and that's the long-standing answer and policy, as you're all very familiar with here.

..........................................................................................

Q Ari, is there -- going back to the British newspaper, The Observer, is there really a need to spy on the non-permanent members of the Security Council, to wiretap their phones? Is it true what the newspaper is --

MR. FLEISCHER: I just go right back to my answer to Terry on that question. And, again, I hope you can appreciate, the reason that these questions never get answered -- and not to infer that that means a yes or a no, because it's impossible for you to make those judgments, because we are not -- I'm not indicating to you yes or no.

But I gave an example at the beginning. If I said, yes, we are, you would know something about what we do with our intelligence. If I say, no, we're not, you start asking that question around the world to try to use the process of elimination to find out what the United States does, from an intelligence point of view.

And that is not a position that I think the American people would want the government to go down the line and start to describe every specific item of intelligence. So I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no, I'm stating the long-standing policy of the government on questions exactly like this, which do come up from time to time.

..................................................................................

Q Going back to the previous question, what is the U.S. policy about discussing intelligence information against other countries from the podium?

MR. FLEISCHER: The policy is the same about any country; we do not talk about intelligence.

Q I'm trying to square that with earlier in a briefing when you reminded us that Colin Powell spoke about wiretaps of Iraqi officials.

MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, and as you know, that was after a very lengthy declassification process involving the situation uniquely in Iraq.

Q Well, all we're asking you here to do is if you can, in effect, declassify -- (laughter.) What is the difference? You declassify stuff that helps make your case on Iraq. We're asking you if you're bugging our allies. It seems to be --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, I'm not making any presumption that it is classified. I'm not saying whether there is or is not anything of the kind that you are asking.

Q Well, if there's not of a kind, that's why I don't understand why you can't say it's not of the kind.

MR. FLEISCHER: Because then you're playing process of elimination around the world, which is a process we do not --

Q Well, we've already eliminated one, Iraq. (Laughter.) How about a couple more, the two that are mentioned in this memo, that very clearly --

MR. FLEISCHER: This is something that those of you who have covered the White House for many years know exists -- pre-exists prior to this administration, and it is a standard response on any such questions about intelligence.

Q But you do know there have been times when officials have knocked down that intelligence, and you're certainly not doing that today.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sounds dubious.

Ya know what gripes me?

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan

Why the hell should it matter what some pi$$-ant backwater 3rd world country the size of these thinks? They do nothing but create a drain on the world. They produce nothing of substance, and yet they are swing votes in the outcome of world history. That's like asking some welfare crack-whore her opinion on US tax code.

Yeah I agree, the US should take over the world. Those people are only good for mowing your lawns and cleaning your pools anyway. Your worth to the world can only be measured in material terms.
Who p!ssed in your cereal today mate, what a mean spirited, heartless and arrogant thing to say. Do you honestly think a major war is not going to affect most countries on earth and that they have no right to have a say in matters that may directly affect their lives. The US is not the only country that matters.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sounds dubious.

Ya know what gripes me?

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan

Why the hell should it matter what some pi$$-ant backwater 3rd world country the size of these thinks? They do nothing but create a drain on the world. They produce nothing of substance, and yet they are swing votes in the outcome of world history. That's like asking some welfare crack-whore her opinion on US tax code.

Wow, I've never seen the stereotypical "Ugly American" thinking spewed so eloquently before.

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sounds dubious.

Ya know what gripes me?

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan

Why the hell should it matter what some pi$$-ant backwater 3rd world country the size of these thinks? They do nothing but create a drain on the world. They produce nothing of substance, and yet they are swing votes in the outcome of world history. That's like asking some welfare crack-whore her opinion on US tax code.

Where you on the other hand have done more for the world than anybody from Angola, Cameroon, Guinea or Pakistan.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
Funny how the Observer had posted the memo with British spellings and now have "reverted" back to the American spelling.

Was this from drudge? Democracynow.org interviewed the Observer reporter behind the story. Very interesting. They spent two weeks verifying the validity of the memo, talking to former security people.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030303.ra&start=1:31.0

Listen to the who thing if you've got the time, one of the best shows I've heard there for a while.

 

[patconnole]

On Ari's responses..... I can't stand'em, but I totally get it this time. He couldn't say anything either way. The "process of elimination" argument is a great one..... they can't pick and choose when and when not to say "No! We're not spying this time!"

Funny question though, with the actual bugging subjects-- "If they were to ask the U.S. government about that, would they also get an answer, we don't comment on intelligence matters?"

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Funny how the Observer had posted the memo with British spellings and now have "reverted" back to the American spelling.

And also completely irrelevant to the actual content.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
Was this from drudge? Democracynow.org interviewed the Observer reporter behind the story. Very interesting. They spent two weeks verifying the validity of the memo, talking to former security people.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030303.ra&start=1:31.0

Listen to the who thing if you've got the time, one of the best shows I've heard there for a while.

I saw it when it first came out in the print version. As for DemocracyNow, they have an axe to grind and are going to present their slant at all costs (which is no different than most media). They play fast and loose with facts on a pretty regular basis.

I don't doubt for one second that the NSA, CIA and FBI are putting the full court press on to collect as much information as they possibly can regarding any diplomatic communications about Iraq. To be honest I doubt seriously the collection needed to ramped up that much. The analysis of the collected data is what probably got punched up. Any diplomat that doesn't think he is being watched and bugged by multiple nations in New York isn't going to last very long. In some cases they count on folks listening.

The real fact of the matter is that "friendly" governments spy on each other as much as they do their "enemies". I don't think that this should be of any surprise to anyone. So while the article certainly had some punch, did it tell us something we didn't already know.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
And also completely irrelevant to the actual content.

Okay if they have the memo, why not print a picture of it? If they did change the spelling on the words whose to say they didn't change some of the other words.

The fact of the matter is that the NSA would deny the existance of the memo no matter what. Fake or not. No amount of real investigation is ever going to prove one way or the other if its real or not.

I do doubt the authenticity of the memo.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
On Ari's responses..... I can't stand'em, but I totally get it this time. He couldn't say anything either way. The "process of elimination" argument is a great one..... they can't pick and choose when and when not to say "No! We're not spying this time!"

Funny question though, with the actual bugging subjects-- "If they were to ask the U.S. government about that, would they also get an answer, we don't comment on intelligence matters?"

I get a kick of his press briefings more than any other press secretary in history. Its so much more confrontational than it ever has been in the past. Or maybe its just frustration that he ends up answering the same question over and over like he is going to slip up. They all have to do that but he seems to get pissed about it.

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

I was fairly certain the UN was based on a collaborative effort by the world. I can clearly understand that based on what I've seen and heard here through popular opinion that the USA wishes to dissolve the UN.

Gee. I guess I can't really say anything if they do that. Suppose they wanted to keep the UN though, what for if it is all based on what the US wants?

Chuck you farley. Go back off in your own wack yard...

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
I saw it when it first came out in the print version. As for DemocracyNow, they have an axe to grind and are going to present their slant at all costs (which is no different than most media). They play fast and loose with facts on a pretty regular basis.

I don't doubt for one second that the NSA, CIA and FBI are putting the full court press on to collect as much information as they possibly can regarding any diplomatic communications about Iraq. To be honest I doubt seriously the collection needed to ramped up that much. The analysis of the collected data is what probably got punched up. Any diplomat that doesn't think he is being watched and bugged by multiple nations in New York isn't going to last very long. In some cases they count on folks listening.

The real fact of the matter is that "friendly" governments spy on each other as much as they do their "enemies". I don't think that this should be of any surprise to anyone. So while the article certainly had some punch, did it tell us something we didn't already know.

I was suprised, but I guess I shouldn't have been.
Democracynow definitely has an axe to grind--- but their interviews are great: I give a lot more weight to what their guests say than the host. "Today, War Secretary Donald Rumsfield......."