NSA Spied on UN Security Council

[Mickey]

Apparently nothing new but in the lead up to the UN vote on intervention in Iraq, we were spying on Security Council members, including tapping home phones and e-mails to get an idea how the vote was going. The story first broke in 2003 when a British translator leaked an NSA e-mail from Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza. The translator, Katharine Tersea Gun, was later charged with violating Britian's Official Secrets Act so it seems as though the e-mail was authentic. Ari Fleischer was asked about it at the time and said " "As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence, so I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

 

That was then. Fresh confirmation of the spying has now emerged which cites "NSA documents", "two former NSA officials", "one intelligence source" and "one former official". A story, along with a copy of the original leaked e-mail can be found at NSA Spying

 

When contacted to comment, the WH refused and referred the writers to that two year old statement made by Ari F.

 

Is this true? Dunno. What and who is a "former official", official of what? Are they qouting one guy and referring to him with different sobriquets to make it sound like they have more sources than they really do? Woodward's book makes a pretty good case that we were spying on Hans Blix so if this were true, it shouldn't shock anyone besides me .

 

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe we should be spying on the Security Council but if so, what about treaties we have signed to the contrary? What does this do to our credibility if we are promising one thing in a treaty and doing another in secret? What is more maddening, that we are doing this or that we got caught?

 

This raises some interesting questions on the nether regions where diplomacy and surveillance meet.

[Adam]

We should spy on the UN- they repeatedly prove they can't be trusted.

[Berg]

Apparently nothing new but in the lead up to the UN vote on intervention in Iraq, we were spying on Security Council members, including tapping home phones and e-mails to get an idea how the vote was going.  The story first broke in 2003 when a British translator leaked an NSA e-mail from Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza.  The translator, Katharine Tersea Gun, was later charged with violating Britian's Official Secrets Act so it seems as though the e-mail was authentic.  Ari Fleischer was asked about it at the time and said " "As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence, so I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

 

That was then.  Fresh confirmation of the spying has now emerged which cites "NSA documents", "two former NSA officials", "one intelligence source" and "one former official".  A story, along with a copy of the original leaked e-mail can be found at NSA Spying

 

When contacted to comment, the WH refused and referred the writers to that two year old statement made by Ari F.

 

Is this true?  Dunno.  What and who is a "former official", official of what?  Are they qouting one guy and referring to him with different sobriquets to make it sound like they have more sources than they really do?  Woodward's book makes a pretty good case that we were spying on Hans Blix so if this were true, it shouldn't shock anyone besides me  .

 

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Maybe we should be spying on the Security Council but if so, what about treaties we have signed to the contrary?  What does this do to our credibility if we are promising one thing in a treaty and doing another in secret?  What is more maddening, that we are doing this or that we got caught?

 

This raises some interesting questions on the nether regions where diplomacy and surveillance meet.

544000[/snapback]

 

 

Mickey,

 

Irrespective of any treaties, we spy on everyone and they spy on us. It has always been this way. Is it right or wrong? Depends on who you ask and who is being spied on.

 

The only thing surprising to me here is that you are surprised.

[Mickey]

We should spy on the UN- they repeatedly prove they can't be trusted.

544014[/snapback]

Maybe the UN is saying the same thing about... ahem... WMD's.....er...um... torture....cough, cough, er...ummmm.. us.

[Berg]

Maybe the UN is saying the same thing about... ahem... WMD's.....er...um... torture....cough, cough, er...ummmm.. us.

544041[/snapback]

 

I don't know if the UN has its own spying capabilities, but certainly everyone else is.

[Mickey]

Mickey,

 

Irrespective of any treaties, we spy on everyone and they spy on us.  It has always been this way.  Is it right or wrong?  Depends on who you ask and who is being spied on.

 

The only thing surprising to me here is that you are surprised.

544039[/snapback]

Doesn't surprise me, hence the smiley face. Do we have proof the French or Hans Blix was spying on us back then? That would be fun if we did.

[Berg]

Doesn't surprise me, hence the smiley face.  Do we have proof the French or Hans Blix was spying on us back then?  That would be fun if we did.

544044[/snapback]

 

I thought the smiley face meant you were happy...

[GG]

Do we have proof the French ... was spying on us back then?  That would be fun if we did.

544044[/snapback]

 

Yes. Every Labor Day weekend.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Apparently nothing new but in the lead up to the UN vote on intervention in Iraq, we were spying on Security Council members, including tapping home phones and e-mails to get an idea how the vote was going.  The story first broke in 2003 when a British translator leaked an NSA e-mail from Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza.  The translator, Katharine Tersea Gun, was later charged with violating Britian's Official Secrets Act so it seems as though the e-mail was authentic.  Ari Fleischer was asked about it at the time and said " "As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence, so I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

 

That was then.  Fresh confirmation of the spying has now emerged which cites "NSA documents", "two former NSA officials", "one intelligence source" and "one former official".  A story, along with a copy of the original leaked e-mail can be found at NSA Spying

 

When contacted to comment, the WH refused and referred the writers to that two year old statement made by Ari F.

 

Is this true?  Dunno.  What and who is a "former official", official of what?  Are they qouting one guy and referring to him with different sobriquets to make it sound like they have more sources than they really do?  Woodward's book makes a pretty good case that we were spying on Hans Blix so if this were true, it shouldn't shock anyone besides me  .

 

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Maybe we should be spying on the Security Council but if so, what about treaties we have signed to the contrary?  What does this do to our credibility if we are promising one thing in a treaty and doing another in secret?  What is more maddening, that we are doing this or that we got caught?

 

This raises some interesting questions on the nether regions where diplomacy and surveillance meet.

544000[/snapback]

 

Hasn't the NSA been spying on the UN for decades? Wasn't Kennedy getting some of his intel during the Cuban Missile Crisis from UNSC sources?

 

It's not that I don't see it as a big deal, as much as I don't see it as some sort of huge breaking news story. "Breaking news: we're still spying on the UN! Details again at 11..."?

[Johnny]

mike price thought the TR were spying on UTEP

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I, for one, am shocked and appalled.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Yes.  Every Labor Day weekend.

544157[/snapback]

 

Damn that traitor Jerry Lewis...

[Mickey]

Hasn't the NSA been spying on the UN for decades?  Wasn't Kennedy getting some of his intel during the Cuban Missile Crisis from UNSC sources?

 

It's not that I don't see it as a big deal, as much as I don't see it as some sort of huge breaking news story.  "Breaking news: we're still spying on the UN!  Details again at 11..."?

544180[/snapback]

I think it is a little different in that the Cuban Missile crisis presented a situation where we and our allies were fairly well united and the future of all humanity was at stake. The Iraq war was controversial with nothing approaching a consensus in our favor within the UN. If the Germans or French were ever caught bugging our UN Ambassador, I missed the story. Maybe it is one of those things that is fine unless you get caught and we got caught because you just look stupid. If the French are doing it and can avoid being detected, how goofy do we look when some translator is getting ahold of top secret info?

 

Against the backdrop of all the other bugging problems going on, it looks all that much worse. I imagine we will simply mutter our way through an appropriate apology and move on.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think it is a little different in that the Cuban Missile crisis presented a situation where we and our allies were fairly well united and the future of all humanity was at stake.  The Iraq war was controversial with nothing approaching a consensus in our favor within the UN.  If the Germans or French were ever caught bugging our UN Ambassador, I missed the story.  Maybe it is one of those things that is fine unless you get caught and we got caught because you just look stupid.  If the French are doing it and can avoid being detected, how goofy do we look when some translator is getting ahold of top secret info?

 

Against the backdrop of all the other bugging problems going on, it looks all that much worse.  I imagine we will simply mutter our way through an appropriate apology and move on.

544235[/snapback]

 

 

How come no one ever responds to what I write, just what they think?

 

News flash: I said WE have been spying on the UN forever. Not the Germans. Not the French. WE. Nor did I make any sort of judgement about the spying...I merely judged the story, characterized as it was as some big investigative reporting revalation, as overblown reporting along the lines of "Francisco Franco is STILL dead!" Screaming "Oh my God, look at the police state we've become!" is patently ludicrous when one's example is something that's been going on for forty years.

 

But as for the spying itself...is your problem with the concept of spying, or the idea of spying at the UN? Because if you're NOT going to spy on the UN, who are you going to spy on? The UN is where the friggin' foreigners are.

[Mickey]

 

How come no one ever responds to what I write, just what they think? 

 

News flash: I said WE have been spying on the UN forever.  Not the Germans.  Not the French.  WE.  Nor did I make any sort of judgement about the spying...I merely judged the story, characterized as it was as some big investigative reporting revalation, as overblown reporting along the lines of "Francisco Franco is STILL dead!"  Screaming "Oh my God, look at the police state we've become!" is patently ludicrous when one's example is something that's been going on for forty years. 

 

But as for the spying itself...is your problem with the concept of spying, or the idea of spying at the UN?  Because if you're NOT going to spy on the UN, who are you going to spy on?  The UN is where the friggin' foreigners are. 

544247[/snapback]

Sorry Tom, earlier there were some posts about "we spy on everyone and everyone spies on us.." I thought you were adding in the Cuban Missile Crisis along the same lines.

 

The foreigners at the UN are diplomats, not spies, at least in theory. Same with Embassies, they are where the ambassadors live, not the spies, at least in theory. We certainly get pretty ticked when our diplomats are spied on and the perpetrators usually respond, at least back in the cold war days, with the complaint that we are hiding spies under the cover of diplomacy.

 

I just think it is an interesting issue, where diplomacy and spying meet. When you get caught, it is a problem, nevermind that everyone else might be doing it.

 

In this specific context it is even more interesting, at least for me. This is an administration afterall that is being accused of using ginned up intelligence to manufacture a justification for war. Spying on allied diplomats, bugging the phones in their homes on the eve of a crucial UN vote on the heels of Powell's now embarassing big speech, I don't think that , in context, is ho-hum news.

 

As for who I would bug, I think I would start with terrorists and such as opposed to Ambassador Huff-n-Fuss's shoe-phone. That is assuming I am looking for information regarding national security as opposed to say, getting the Ambassador on tape setting up a date with his mistress to use to, oh, say blackmail him in to voting for a certain UN Resolution I was interested in. Certainly though, this administration wouldn't do something like that now would it?

[GG]

Let me get this straight, the spooks should only be spying on the bad guys, because we can trust our friends to do the right thing by the US.

 

ps- I wonder why there's nary a mention on this forum of 1,000's of pages of Paul Volcker's recent works that painstakingly detail what our friends were doing on the eve of a crucial UN vote on the heels of Powell's now embarassing big speech, I don't think that , in context, is ho-hum news.

[Adam]

Maybe the UN is saying the same thing about... ahem... WMD's.....er...um... torture....cough, cough, er...ummmm.. us.

544041[/snapback]

The UN has WMD's?....not too surprising

[EC-Bills]

I, for one, am shocked and appalled.

544221[/snapback]

 

Don't worry Joe, we'll be here to help you through it all.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The foreigners at the UN are diplomats, not spies, at least in theory.  Same with Embassies, they are where the ambassadors live, not the spies, at least in theory.  We certainly get pretty ticked when our diplomats are spied on and the perpetrators usually respond, at least back in the cold war days, with the complaint that we are hiding spies under the cover of diplomacy.

 

Which is why, the more I think about it, the more innocuous this seems. I'm sure we spy as best we can on all the embassies we can...and the difference between spying on diplomats in embassies and diplomats at the UN is...?

 

The way I see it, you're either for or against the gathering of intelligence. I don't see why the UN should rank any differently than an embassy.

 

I just think it is an interesting issue, where diplomacy and spying meet.  When you get caught, it is a problem, nevermind that everyone else might be doing it.

 

In this specific context it is even more interesting, at least for me.  This is an administration afterall that is being accused of using ginned up intelligence to manufacture a justification for war.  Spying on allied diplomats, bugging the phones in their homes on the eve of a crucial UN vote on the heels of Powell's now embarassing big speech, I don't think that , in context, is ho-hum news.

 

And for me, it is, as it falls under the "Yeah, no sh--, tell me something I don't know" clause of "How The World Works."

 

As for who I would bug, I think I would start with terrorists and such as opposed to Ambassador Huff-n-Fuss's shoe-phone.  That is assuming I am looking for information regarding national security as opposed to say, getting the Ambassador on tape setting up a date with his mistress to use to, oh, say blackmail him in to voting for a certain UN Resolution I was interested in.  Certainly though, this administration wouldn't do something like that now would it?

544295[/snapback]

 

Elaborate little plot you've cooked up. I believe I saw that in a movie once.

[Terry Tate]

, gentlemen do not read each other's mail. The modern-day Henry Stimpson's are no doubt shocked.