Full Version: NSA Watching Security Council....
This document gathered from the National Security Council has lead some to criticize apparent US spying on the security council members to gain hints as to how they will vote on Iraq.
US plan to bug Security Council: the text
Your opinion?
US plan to bug Security Council: the text
Your opinion?
Already linked and addressed in the US vs UN topic.
I think this is a frightening and believable story. I will wait on believing this specific story until I have seen it repeated and repeated with confirmation in a more reliable source.
This is definitely the type of thing that will happen when we unleash our spooks on the world wide web. Where will we stop ourselves from snooping in the name of protecting ourselves from terror if all of our surveillance operations are done without adequate public scrutiny?
This is definitely the type of thing that will happen when we unleash our spooks on the world wide web. Where will we stop ourselves from snooping in the name of protecting ourselves from terror if all of our surveillance operations are done without adequate public scrutiny?
Think I'll just put one and one together:
1) Our government believes it is at war.
+
1) During wartime, we spy on the enemy.
=
2) Anyone against government interests is the enemy.
1) Our government believes it is at war.
+
1) During wartime, we spy on the enemy.
=
2) Anyone against government interests is the enemy.
AM, there is a flaw in that logic...The United Nations is not our enemy...Iraq is
I don't even think this spying thing is real. That letter from The Observer could be made up by ANYONE. It's not a U.S. dirty trick, it's a dirty trick made up by The Observer to flash their Anti-U.S. war stance around
I don't even think this spying thing is real. That letter from The Observer could be made up by ANYONE. It's not a U.S. dirty trick, it's a dirty trick made up by The Observer to flash their Anti-U.S. war stance around
Drudge
According to the Drudge Report which is also skeptical and looking into the the multiple errors in spelling and British grammar of the memo he concludes with this note...
My guess is the American press and the Whitehouse will avoid mentioning it...Ari will probably get some questions on it but evasion and denial will likely make it all go away quick enough. After all...who do they have to answer to anyway?
According to the Drudge Report which is also skeptical and looking into the the multiple errors in spelling and British grammar of the memo he concludes with this note...
QUOTE
The compelling report took more than 3 weeks to develop, research and confirm, an OBSERVER insider said on Sunday.
Spelling alterations and typographical slip-ups not withstanding, editors of the OBSERVER are standing tough behind the results of the paper's investigation.
Spelling alterations and typographical slip-ups not withstanding, editors of the OBSERVER are standing tough behind the results of the paper's investigation.
My guess is the American press and the Whitehouse will avoid mentioning it...Ari will probably get some questions on it but evasion and denial will likely make it all go away quick enough. After all...who do they have to answer to anyway?
goamerica,
I agree. The logic is flawed.
My point is that it doesn't really matter if the article in question is true or not. This is war. Spying is going on big time. Information is power. This is why encryption algorithms are so important to national security.
If I was a UN delegate or somehow associated, I'd be very careful where, how, and when I communicated. That would be part of the professionalism for the job. Then there's the other side to this--purposeful distribution of false information.
The UN might not be the enemy as defined, but it is going against the Bush administration's desires. Ergo, spy-oh. It's just part of the program, and we should be adult enough to admit it.
Anyway, I read the article and just chuckled: This is not news.
I agree. The logic is flawed.
My point is that it doesn't really matter if the article in question is true or not. This is war. Spying is going on big time. Information is power. This is why encryption algorithms are so important to national security.
If I was a UN delegate or somehow associated, I'd be very careful where, how, and when I communicated. That would be part of the professionalism for the job. Then there's the other side to this--purposeful distribution of false information.
The UN might not be the enemy as defined, but it is going against the Bush administration's desires. Ergo, spy-oh. It's just part of the program, and we should be adult enough to admit it.
Anyway, I read the article and just chuckled: This is not news.
I'm sorry but for some reason I feel that this is just as wrong as Watergate. We are not at war yet...we are supposed to be working with the UN to find alternatives...not manipulating them to do Bush's will at the possible peril of the other countries involved.
I think it's disgusting but hey...maybe my moral outrage meter is set way too high...otherwise more people in this country would be complaining about the things like this that are now every day news. I'm just very disgusted that there is no shame anymore in lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, and buying whatever we want because we think we can.
I think it's disgusting but hey...maybe my moral outrage meter is set way too high...otherwise more people in this country would be complaining about the things like this that are now every day news. I'm just very disgusted that there is no shame anymore in lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, and buying whatever we want because we think we can.
QUOTE(Danya @ Mar 3 2003, 10:20 AM)
I'm sorry but for some reason I feel that this is just as wrong as Watergate
It is wrong...too bad it can't be confirmed as true yet
GA, My post was in direct response to this post by AM:
My point is that it doesn't really matter if the article in question is true or not. This is war. Spying is going on big time. Information is power. This is why encryption algorithms are so important to national security
Notice where he says it doesn't matter if it's true or not? We already know it isn't confirmed...my comment was responding to whether or not it is right even if it isn't true.
My point is that it doesn't really matter if the article in question is true or not. This is war. Spying is going on big time. Information is power. This is why encryption algorithms are so important to national security
Notice where he says it doesn't matter if it's true or not? We already know it isn't confirmed...my comment was responding to whether or not it is right even if it isn't true.
QUOTE(Danya @ Mar 2 2003, 12:22 PM)
My guess is the American press and the Whitehouse will avoid mentioning it...Ari will probably get some questions on it but evasion and denial will likely make it all go away quick enough. After all...who do they have to answer to anyway?
What did I tell you.
The parts from the press briefing. Ari can't answer yes or no if they are spying on the UN because it's not their policy to discuss intelligence. Whatever. I now believe the story is true.
QUOTE
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.
and
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.
and
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.
transcript
QUOTE
QUOTE (Danya @ Mar 2 2003, 12:22 PM)
My guess is the American press and the Whitehouse will avoid mentioning it...Ari will probably get some questions on it but evasion and denial will likely make it all go away quick enough. After all...who do they have to answer to anyway?
What did I tell you.
The parts from the press briefing. Ari can't answer yes or no if they are spying on the UN because it's not their policy to discuss intelligence. Whatever. I now believe the story is true.
QUOTE
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.
and
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.
and
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.
transcript
My guess is the American press and the Whitehouse will avoid mentioning it...Ari will probably get some questions on it but evasion and denial will likely make it all go away quick enough. After all...who do they have to answer to anyway?
What did I tell you.
The parts from the press briefing. Ari can't answer yes or no if they are spying on the UN because it's not their policy to discuss intelligence. Whatever. I now believe the story is true.
QUOTE
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.
and
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.
and
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.
transcript
How can a "No comment" response indicate guilt. He was very clear about the reasons that he would not answer yes or no.
As to the issue of whether this is appropriate enough: it is the US intelligence agencies' job to provide this type of intel. We need to know what others are thinking, or else we are flying blind. Its like a candidate taking flash polls before elections...he'd like to know where he stands before the real deal begins. I don't see the harm. From what I can tell, the memo just told the agency to pay close attention to what these countries were saying in press conferences, public statements, etc. Did it say something specifically about "bugging"? Maybe I am unfamiliar with the terms they are using...
By the way, although the UN is not our enemy, there are MEMBERS of the UN who are unfriendly. Also, when it comes to spying on friends/allies/etc. I always remember old James Bond movies where the British and American intelligence agents were always wondering what the other side (although an ally) was doing. Just because a country is our friend (outwardly) doesn't mean they reveal everything to us.
This is all about politics, on a global scale. If you don't believe spying/manipulating/backstabbing doesn't occur in politics, I wonder what you do believe...
QUOTE(amlord @ Mar 5 2003, 10:41 AM)
It's like a candidate taking flash polls before elections...he'd like to know where he stands before the real deal begins.
Actually it's more like a candidate breaking into and bugging the phones, offices, cars, homes, emails, and friends and families of your opponents.
Ari could never said if they were doing that either so should I assume they are? Tell me, what would they have to do or who would they have to spy on for you to feel it crossed a line?
Don't forget Nixon left his office in shame over the same behavior.
Again, where does it say anything about bugging, wiretapping, breaking into offices, etc? Or is all of this assumed? OK, it says it in the Link title, but that's it.
Maybe I don't read the lingo well enough...it just says pay special attention to what committee member nations say, ETC...
Maybe I don't read the lingo well enough...it just says pay special attention to what committee member nations say, ETC...
QUOTE(Danya @ Mar 3 2003, 10:47 PM)
The parts from the press briefing. Ari can't answer yes or no if they are spying on the UN because it's not their policy to discuss intelligence. Whatever. I now believe the story is true.
It's not their policy, it's our policy, and has been for a long time. Even when that boy-toy of yours was in the Oval Office.
QUOTE(Musing from the Middle @ Mar 5 2003, 02:27 PM)
It's not their policy, it's our policy, and has been for a long time. Even when that boy-toy of yours was in the Oval Office.
MusingfromtheMiddle, statements like this do not help your credibility.
The guy that broke the story get's hate email from the American's out there that have no use for stories about how corrupt their government is. (These must be from those who know it's corrupt and prefer it that way...so long as they don't fool around on their wife everything else is allowed.)
Observer
The whistle-blower was arrested.
observer
Just thought you'd all like updates.
Observer
The whistle-blower was arrested.
observer
Just thought you'd all like updates.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.