[Mithras]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/19/opinion/19HERB.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST

A Single Conscience v. the State
By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 19, 2004

Katharine Gun has a much better grasp of the true spirit of democracy than Tony Blair. So, naturally, it's Katharine Gun who's being punished.

Ms. Gun, 29, was working at Britain's top-secret Government Communications Headquarters last year when she learned of an American plan to spy on at least a half-dozen U.N. delegations as part of the U.S. effort to win Security Council support for an invasion of Iraq.

The plans, which included e-mail surveillance and taps on home and office telephones, was outlined in a highly classified National Security Agency memo. The agency, which was seeking British assistance in the project, was interested in "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals."

Countries specifically targeted were Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. The primary goal was a Security Council resolution that would give the U.S. and Britain the go-ahead for the war.

Ms. Gun felt passionately that an invasion of Iraq was wrong — morally wrong and illegal. In a move that deeply embarrassed the American and British governments, the memo was leaked to The London Observer.

Which landed Ms. Gun in huge trouble. She has not denied that she was involved in the leak.

There is no equivalent in Britain to America's First Amendment protections. Individuals like Ms. Gun are at the mercy of the Official Secrets Act, which can result in severe — in some cases, draconian — penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of information by intelligence or security agency employees.

Ms. Gun was fired from her job as a translator and arrested for violating the act. If convicted, she will face up to two years in prison.

We are not talking about a big-time criminal here. We are not talking about someone who would undermine the democratic principles that George W. Bush and Tony Blair babble about so incessantly, and self-righteously, even as they are trampling on them. Ms. Gun is someone who believes deeply in those principles and was willing to take a courageous step in support of her beliefs.

She hoped that her actions would help save lives. She thought at the time that if the Security Council did not vote in favor of an invasion, the United States and Britain might not launch the war. In a statement last November she said she felt that leaking the memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed."

"I have only ever followed my conscience," she said.

In 1971, in what the historian William Manchester described as "perhaps the most extraordinary leak of classified documents in the history of governments," Daniel Ellsberg turned over to The New York Times a huge study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. The Nixon administration tried to destroy Mr. Ellsberg. He was viciously harassed. His psychiatrist's office was burglarized. And he was charged with treason, theft and conspiracy.

The prosecution was not successful. The charges were thrown out due to government misconduct. In an interview last week, Mr. Ellsberg, who was with the Defense Department and the Rand Corporation in the 1960's and 70's, told me he wished he had blown the whistle much earlier on the deceptions and lies and other forms of official misconduct related to Vietnam.

He is lending his name to a campaign in support of Ms. Gun. She took a principled stand, he said, early enough to have a chance at altering events.

"What I've been saying since a year ago last October," said Mr. Ellsberg, "was that I hoped that people who knew that we were being lied into a wrongful war would do what I wish I had done in 1964 or 1965. And that was to go to Congress and the press with documents. Current documents. Don't do what I did. Don't wait years until the bombs are falling and then put out history."

Ms. Gun is being allowed by British courts to plead an unusual "defense of necessity." She has said that her disclosures were justified because they revealed "serious wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. government," and because she was sincerely trying to prevent the "wide-scale death and casualties" that would result from a war that was "illegal."

She's due in court today for a pretrial hearing.

[Lerkfish]

I'm really, really, really not surprised.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Just to clarify here, because I know that somebody will surely misunderstand. This person is being prosecuted by the British government for violating the British Official Secrets Act.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just to clarify here, because I know that somebody will surely misunderstand. This person is being prosecuted by the British government for violating the British Official Secrets Act.

I understood that. I am still not surprised.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I understood that. I am still not surprised.

Nor am I. If you work with highly classified information and you choose to release it to the public, you will be prosecuted. Anyone who has held any kind of a clearance is told that.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just to clarify here, because I know that somebody will surely misunderstand. This person is being prosecuted by the British government for violating the British Official Secrets Act.

And how do you feel about that? And how do you feel about the US effort to wiretap the homes of diplomats from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan in order to gain information that might have helped win them over?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
And how do you feel about that? And how do you feel about the US effort to wiretap the homes of diplomats from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan in order to gain information that might have helped win them over?

Countries spy on each other. This is well known, universally practiced, and quite simply, not news.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Countries spy on each other. This is well known, universally practiced, and quite simply, not news.

So it's OK because everyone does it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mithras:
And how do you feel about that? And how do you feel about the US effort to wiretap the homes of diplomats from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan in order to gain information that might have helped win them over?

my comment would be they appeared to spend more efforts getting good intelligence on the UN ambassadors on the vote to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of attack against the US in 45 minutes than they actually did getting intelligence on the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
So it's OK because everyone does it?

Would you be so angry if, for example, France was spying on these countries for similar reasons?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
So it's OK because everyone does it?

More or less.

There are limits. There are gentlemen's agreements with certain close allies not to spy on one another. For example, between Britain and the US, or the US and Canada. But that's about it. You might recall the Johnathon Pollard case a few years ago. He was convicted of spying for Israel against the US. That ruffled a few feathers. But in general, this is normal.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Would you be so angry if, for example, France was spying on these countries for similar reasons?

Yes. IMO no country should be allowed to spy in the UN. You can spy on other countries military and intelligence but not on UN delegates.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Would you be so angry if, for example, France was spying on these countries for similar reasons?

France was getting ready to preemptively regime-change Iraq based on sham intelligence?

wow. who knew?

seriously, though, I'm not angry about it myself, I consider it normal operations....however, that does not make it automatically "moral" or "just", simply because everyone does it.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my comment would be they appeared to spend more efforts getting good intelligence on the UN ambassadors on the vote to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of attack against the US in 45 minutes than they actually did getting intelligence on the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq.

[Arkham_c]

Welcome to the world. Everyone spies on everyone. The UN is not some perfect world. It's just a bunch of pompous a-holes who do nothing but sit around and scratch their butts while the world goes to hell.

Who cares? She released confidential information to the public. The nature of that confidential material is not the issue. What if she had released your tax records because she was sure that you had cheated on your taxes and wanted to make sure everyone knew how much you make?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Welcome to the world. Everyone spies on everyone. The UN is not some perfect world. It's just a bunch of pompous a-holes who do nothing but sit around and scratch their butts while the world goes to hell.

Who cares? She released confidential information to the public. The nature of that confidential material is not the issue. What if she had released your tax records because she was sure that you had cheated on your taxes and wanted to make sure everyone knew how much you make?

Paragraph one: I agree.

Paragraph two: I disagree. the nature of the confidential material is an important issue, and what precipitated the leak in the first place.
Trying to influence the UN vote in order to justify regime changing preemptively another country is a vastly different category than whether I cheated on my taxes or what my salary is.

[zigzag]

This is a tough one but when you work for a top-secret agency and leak documents, even as an act of conscience, you breach a trust and there are consequences. I'm not saying the consequences should be harsh in this case, but it can't just be waved off. Part of bravery is accepting the consequences of one's actions.

Conscience is a funny thing. There are probably Iraqis of conscience who would say that what she did was wrong, that she jeopardized the liberation of millions of people from a brutal dictator. Which one has the moral high ground, the stronger conscience? I'm honestly not sure. No easy answers.

As for spying, yes, it's a fact of life. The Cameroonians are probably flattered that we would consider them important enough to bug.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
they appeared to spend more efforts getting good intelligence on the UN ambassadors on the vote to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of attack against the US in 45 minutes than they actually did getting intelligence on the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq.

Touché!!

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
More or less.

There are limits. There are gentlemen's agreements with certain close allies not to spy on one another. For example, between Britain and the US, or the US and Canada. But that's about it. You might recall the Johnathon Pollard case a few years ago. He was convicted of spying for Israel against the US. That ruffled a few feathers. But in general, this is normal.

Edit: sorry , I misread this the first time.

The US and its allies collect intel on one another all the time. Israel is particularly agressive in human intel. However, typically if an spy get caught he or she is sent back on a 'visa violation.' The pollard case is unique.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my comment would be they appeared to spend more efforts getting good intelligence on the UN ambassadors on the vote to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of attack against the US in 45 minutes than they actually did getting intelligence on the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq.

But they didn't want intelligence on the non-existence of WMDs in Iraq . . .

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are gentlemen's agreements with certain close allies not to spy on one another. For example, between Britain and the US, or the US and Canada. But that's about it.

Uh no. Actually, there is a statute called the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says 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."

Furthermore, there is a general principle that laws cannot be relied upon to further illegal ends. It seems to me that the court has to ask whether the war was illegal. If it was, then I'm pretty sure under English common law, this woman could not be required to comply with the Secrets Act. That's my unresearched opinion of course.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Everyone spies on everyone. The UN is not some perfect world.

The controversial part is the use of signals intelligence, which is not only invasive and sometimes illegal, but the UN being on US soil means that the US has a strong advantage.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But they didn't want intelligence on the non-existence of WMDs in Iraq . . .

ahhh..I stand corrected.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my comment would be they appeared to spend more efforts getting good intelligence on the UN ambassadors on the vote to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of attack against the US in 45 minutes than they actually did getting intelligence on the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq.

Where's Kindbud to announce Lerk's smackdown?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Would you be so angry if, for example, France was spying on these countries for similar reasons?

Would you not be so angry if, for example, France was spying on the US for similar reasons?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh no. Actually, there is a statute called the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says 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."

Furthermore, there is a general principle that laws cannot be relied upon to further illegal ends. It seems to me that the court has to ask whether the war was illegal. If it was, then I'm pretty sure under English common law, this woman could not be required to comply with the Secrets Act. That's my unresearched opinion of course.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Vienna Convention. My understanding is that they bugged the room. That's not interception of diplomatic communications. Not, frankly, that this matters much anyway. State practice is well known on this subject. Countries spy on one anothers diplomatic missions whenever they can. This is not news.

I have no knowledge of English common law on the subject. That seems like a matter for the courts. It doesn't alter the fact that when you hold a security clearance and than violate it, you can expect to be prosecuted.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
The controversial part is the use of signals intelligence, which is not only invasive and sometimes illegal, but the UN being on US soil means that the US has a strong advantage.

So?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Where's Kindbud to announce Lerk's smackdown?

LOL! aint gonna happen.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I'm familiar with the Vienna Convention. My understanding is that they bugged the room. That's not interception of diplomatic communications. Not, frankly, that this matters much anyway. State practice is well known on this subject. Countries spy on one anothers diplomatic missions whenever they can. This is not news.

I have no knowledge of English common law on the subject. That seems like a matter for the courts. It doesn't alter the fact that when you hold a security clearance and than violate it, you can expect to be prosecuted.

I thought emails were intercepted as well? telephone conversations, etc....that's NOT interception of diplomatic communications?

[The Ayatollah]

When you are under an NDA or working with secret or TS information, you know full and well that you are not authorised to discuss it (beyond the strict limits already in place) or disclose it to unathorised parties. This person was finking on stuff she has no business telling--in doing so, she could potentially give away methods and sources. The info lost, plus outing methods and sources, does grave harm to a nation's national security and intelligence-gathering capabilities. She's a criminal, not a whistleblower.

Now if she'd dropped a dime to save lives or out some terrible crime, then she might have my gratitude. Otherwise, fine her or lock her up.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Now if she'd dropped a dime to save lives or out some terrible crime, then she might have my gratitude. Otherwise, fine her or lock her up.

hmmmm...

someone MIGHT consider saving Iraqi lives or stopping an illegal invasion (terrible crime) would fit your parameters.

somehow, I doubt you would see it that way, though.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
The info lost, plus outing methods and sources, does grave harm to a nation's national security and intelligence-gathering capabilities. She's a criminal, not a whistleblower.

As Lerk pointed out, her government's intelligence-gathering capabilities are apparently so pathetic that I'm not sure how much "grave harm" could be done.
Parroting blatant frauds (Niger) and plagiarizing some grad student's 10 year old thesis are not exactly top-notch methods...

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So?

Sooooo, not his statement about 'everybody's doing it' in not completely accurate.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:


Sooooo, not his statement about 'everybody's doing it' in not completely accurate.

How do you draw that conclusion? This is pretty much universal practice. Some countries are better at it than others, of course. The US, Russia, France, the UK, Israel, and the Vatican all have the reputations of having top notch intelligence services.

Probably the most bugged building in the world is the US Embassy in Moscow. The old one was completely bugged. Among the things the KGB managed to do was bug the US Ambassador's office by putting a bug in a wooden Great Seal of the United States that they gave him. The Ambassador liked it so much he mounted it right over his desk. It was there for years before it was discovered.

In the late 1970s, the US foolishly agreed to let the Soviets build a new embassy for us in Moscow. It is famously full of bugs. I know some people who have worked there. Basically, you don't conduct any kind of classified work in the building. If you do have to discuss anything sensitive you walk outside and whisper to each other, or you go in "the tank." The tank is a specially shielded room. I don't know the details of how that works, but I'm told it isn't very comfortable in there.

The Soviets, by the way, were smarter than us. They insisted that all the materials and the workmen for their new embassy be imported from the Soviet Union (back when there was a USSR). They didn't trust us, because, of course, we'd have bugged their building just like they bugged ours.

If you are ever in DC, take a look at the Russian Embassy buildings (there are several). Notice in particular the many antennas on the roof, and where they are pointed. The Pentagon, the White House, and the State Department all are popular places to aim dishes at. I guarantee they are not trying to pick up ESPN.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guarantee they are not trying to pick up ESPN.

Of course not - they're watching Survivor like the rest of us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Countries spy on each other. This is well known, universally practiced, and quite simply, not news.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My understanding is that they bugged the room. That's not interception of diplomatic communications. Not, frankly, that this matters much anyway. State practice is well known on this subject.

No, the memorandum was an instruction to monitor all communications between the UN and the targeted countries. There was definitely interception of diplomatic communications in there. All I'm saying is that your statement that there are only gentlemen's agreements on this matter is incorrect.

As they say in France, there are illegal activities and there are illegal activities that you caught doing. This particular incident falls into the latter category. Not only is it in fact illegal activity but the US was caught red-handed doing it. That at the very least distinguishes this from some of the other incidents you mention. States don't like to be caught breaking the law like this because it gives the victims of the crime an excuse to behave similarly.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US, the UK all have the reputations of having top notch intelligence services.

The use of the past tense would have been more appropriate here. After all, you and I both take the leaders of those two nations at face value when they say the intelligence they got was inaccurate. Besides, the US intelligence agency isn't even able to conduct a mission to spy on the UN (hardly a hostile enemy) without getting bust!

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How do you draw that conclusion? This is pretty much universal practice. Some countries are better at it than others, of course. The US, Russia, France, the UK, Israel, and the Vatican all have the reputations of having top notch intelligence services.

Yeah, but they don't have the same easy ability to use signint for collection at the UN, and likely engage in little if any of it. The other acceptable collection techniques would be more than suitable. I'm sure a couple particular countries were doing their own signal collection, but the US overstepped.
He's some of why:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...125813,00.html

Probably the most bugged building in the world is the US Embassy in Moscow.

I'm glad you saw that TV show.

Unfortunately, maybe they didn't mention (it's been a while since I saw that one) that embassies are the center of intelligence operations in a country, so comparing them to the UN is about as big of a leap as you can get, especially when you compare it to the us and russian embassies during the cold war, which really are in a league of their own. That's why hey made that great documentary about them.

[dialo]

Note that this woman herself was an analyst and disturbed by the level of surveillance the US was engaged in.

Note, too, that the operation apparently sought to give the US 'an edge.'

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
Note that this woman herself was an analyst and disturbed by the level of surveillance the US was engaged in.

Note, too, that the operation apparently sought to give the US 'an edge.'

OMG HOW UNFAIR!

(Unless your country is the one getting he edge)

There are pillows. Some use them to sleep on.

Others just need to bite hard on them.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
As they say in France, there are illegal activities and there are illegal activities that you caught doing. This particular incident falls into the latter. Not only is it in fact illegal activity but the US was caught red-handed doing it.

They weren't "caught red handed." Caught red handed would be something like the way the New Zealanders caught the French after they sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. No, in this case, nobody "caught" the US and UK spying, a British intelligence analyst betrayed her oath and leaked it. That's now a matter for the courts to pass judgement on.

The use of the past tense would have been more appropriate here. After all, you and I both take the leaders of those two nations at face value when they say the intelligence they got was inaccurate. Besides, the US intelligence agency isn't even able to conduct a mission to spy on the UN (hardly a hostile enemy) without getting bust!

Beating up on intelligence agencies is a sport with a long history. For example, prior to Pearl Harbor the US cracked Japan's diplomatic codes. The information might have allowed the US to anticipate the attacks. Unfortunately, the analysis and interagency communication was poor. The information didn't reach the decisionmakers until after the attack. As horrible as that is, it is easy to monday morning quarterback the intelligence services. When they are right, you don't normally notice. When they are wrong, they get pilloried. But you don't want them to be too cautious, because then you are back to the problem that existed before Pearl Harbor. A complacent intelligence service is no use to anyone.

By the way, have you seen this? We are now discovering that Libya's nuclear program was much more extensive than previously realized. The Guardian

Secondly, counties regularly spy on other countries even when they consider them "friendly." This is normal. In any case, the UN was not the target (and so what if it was?), the target was individual members. Personally, I'd have been annoyed if they hadn't bugged them. The only problem is that this junior employee thought she was the Foreign Secretary. She can now deal with the legal consequences of her actions.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG HOW UNFAIR!

(Unless your country is the one getting he edge)

It would have been her country getting the edge.

But that's not the real issue. The issue is the diplomatic fallout of operations like this. It was not an essential one and was bound to be exposed. It shouldn't have reached the scale that it did.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, have you seen this? We are now discovering that Libya's nuclear program was much more extensive than previously realized. The Guardian

Yes, amazing how we underestimate the real threats and overstate the ones that we have strategic interests in. Well, amazing to some...

It should be obvious to all the Kindbuds and Zimphires of this world that think that it's cool for the US to build up new nukes and waltz over non-proliferation obligations, that nuclear technology is more and more accessible. Unrelated to this topic, but I really wish the developed world would realise the inevitable and develop strategies for dealing with a situation where every Tom, Dick and Harry has access to nukes. Libya is a good example of the weakness of policies like pre-emptive self defense, military might and hegemony in comparison to strong international organisations and collective action.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I really wish the developed world would realise the inevitable and develop strategies for dealing with a situation where every Tom, Dick and Harry has access to nukes. Libya is a good example of the weakness of policies like pre-emptive self defense, military might and hegemony in comparison to strong international organisations and collective action.

Counter proliferation is obviously important. But given the fact that this technology is becoming easier to make, you also have to look at the demand side. That's why the Libya example is important. If Gaddafi is true to his word (which has to be verified), then there is one less nutcase trying to get nukes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
It would have been her country getting the edge.

But that's not the real issue. The issue is the diplomatic fallout of operations like this. It was not an essential one and was bound to be exposed. It shouldn't have reached the scale that it did.

There is no diplomatic fallout. All the countries involved know this goes on. Most of them do the same thing themselves.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A complacent intelligence service is no use to anyone.

But of less use are intelligence agencies that resist reform and hide flawed decisions behind secrecy, like the one we are discussing and the Iraq war in general, in an attempt to eliminate public debate and accountability.

By the way, have you seen this? We are now discovering that Libya's nuclear program was much more extensive than previously realized. The Guardian

Too bad our resources have been stretched so thin because of an ideological obsession with imaginary threats.

BTW: Libya is just the symptom of the problems with a certain other country.

Secondly, counties regularly spy on other countries even when they consider them "friendly." This is normal.

The vast, vast majority of intelligence collection involves basic research over a variety of sources, most of them open. This doesn't mean that other sources aren't important. Quite the contrary. However, you are walking a fine line here by not differentiating between them.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is no diplomatic fallout. All the countries involved know this goes on. Most of them do the same thing themselves.

Not the countries involved in this particular operation. Many of them do not have the resources. The big 5 certainly engage in intel operations at the UN (and the our government's inability to deal with it is a problem contributed to by operations like this), but that is well known and out in the open.

And of course there was diplomatic fallout, from many angles (I'm very surprised you made your statement), some of which are described in the Guardian article linked above:

The disclosure of the 'dirty tricks' memo caused serious diplomatic difficulties for the countries involved and in particular the socialist government in Chile, which demanded an immediate explanation from Britain and America. The Chilean public is deeply sensitive to dirty tricks by the American intelligence services, which are still held responsible for the 1973 overthrow of the socialist government of Salvador Allende. In the days that followed the disclosure, the Chilean delegation in New York distanced itself from the draft second resolution, scuppering plans to go down the UN route.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
Not the countries involved in this particular operation. Many of them do not have the resources. The big 5 certainly engage in intel operations at the UN (and the our government's inability to deal with it is a problem contributed to by operations like this), but that is well known and out in the open.

And of course there was diplomatic fallout, from many angles (I'm very surprised you made your statement), some of which are described in the Guardian article linked above:

Most diplomats are not so naive as you guys seem to be. All this does is tell people what they already know, or would assume. The net diplomatic fallout will be nil -- Guardian hyperventilating notwithstanding.

The one real effect is that this coming on top of the Kelly affair might cause the US to be more leery about sharing intelligence with the British. They do seem to have a problem with intelligence analysts leaking secrets to the press.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Most diplomats are not so naive as you guys seem to be.

Don't start with this personal crap just because you want to stick to your ideology as soon as you're forced to learn about intel collection.

The distinction that is important here is that this was a major comint operation. It was a bad move for the US to use it in this way, just like it would be a bad move for any other nation's intel agency to do so. There was even reported hesitancy in the administration about using it due to concerns of discovery.

Of course everyone collects information on every one else. How else do you know what is going on? Sure, everyone assumes they are bugged. But this level of covert electronic collection is not common (the memo was a request for a 'surge' in operations) and most of the countries involved are not among the elites.

It's crystal clear now with your comments about who is and is not 'naive' that you have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to studying law and leave information issues to information professionals. Some of us actually deal with this stuff for a living.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:

It's crystal clear now with your comments about who is and is not 'naive' that you have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to studying law and leave information issues to information professionals. Some of us actually deal with this stuff for a living.

You work for an intelligence agency? Why are you posting that on a public board?

Or do you mean computer geek. Not the same thing.

FYI, the people who I learned about this subject matter from were respectively: a 50 year CIA veteran, a former US Ambassador to the United Nations in the Carter Administration and member of the commission that examined embassy security after the Africa bombings, and a legal advisor to the US Department of Defense. All three were professors of mine.

I don't claim to have knowledge from dealing with this stuff for a living. But the people I picked my knowledge up from do. Take it and their anecdotes which I am passing on for what they are worth. But please spare us the "I'm a computer geek" rant.