Us spies on un security council

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

Unbelievable

The US government has just lost ALL sympathy and support from me, this is unexcusable

[Guest]

Hardly surprising. The embarrassing thing is that the information leaked. If it is reliable, that is. It could be somebody elses maskirovka aiming to embarrass USA. Regardless if this incident is true or not, I'm very sure that USA is making a good effort on trying to collect intelligence from the UN both through humint and sigint. They would be stupid not to.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Doesn't surprise me much either.

Probably planning to try and get info so they could then try and blackmail members to bowing down to the will of Uncle Sam.

O've probably been reading too many novels. And too many history books.

[DarkLight 0]

And some people are surprised that the amount of US haters have been growing lately...

I can tell you one thing, i'm not surprised, basically cuz i'm feeling the urge to become one of them too.

[cam0flage 0]

Very interesting and humiliating for the US, if the information is reliable. Isn't The Observer some kind of tabloid newspaper?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Mar. 02 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very interesting and humiliating for the US, if the information is reliable. Isn't The Observer some kind of tabloid newspaper?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the Observer. The Observer is right up there with the Independent, The Times and papers like that.

Tabloids are The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Star (hey, there's a pattern emerging here )]

Tabloids are utter rubbish, but the good English newspapers (Independent, Observer, Times) are very very good.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Mar. 02 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very interesting and humiliating for the US, if the information is reliable.<span id='postcolor'>

The most interesting part is always listening to the excuses for espionage:

"Me spying? How dare you! I was only trying to find out what you want for Christmas!"

There is always a procedure involved that is executed in a ritualistic manner. If country A is spying on country B and is discovered then:

B makes a formal protest to A

A makes a démarche to B (protests the protest)

B makes a number of B's diplomats persona non grata (kicks them out of the country)

A then kicks the same number of B's diplomats out of their country

.. and everything is normal and well between A and B. The only one in trouble is the spy, if he had not diplomatic immunity from the beginning.

[iNeo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 02 2003,12:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is always a procedure involved that is executed in a ritualistic manner. If country A is spying on country B and is discovered then:

B makes a formal protest to A

A makes a démarche to B (protests the protest)

B makes a number of B's diplomats persona non grata (kicks them out of the country)

A then kicks the same number of B's diplomats out of their country<span id='postcolor'>

Like that Russian industrial espionage on Ericsson last year

[Balschoiw 0]

And the Echelon project used for industrial espionage.

[Balschoiw 0]

Funny that we all shall trust a government that even betrays its closest friends. (so called )

[Koolkid101 0]

Hmmm I'm not sure the times very well reliable it seems so left-wing. Thats what my radio says.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The problem nowadays is that news are news whether they are true or not. Noone wants to be the last to publish NEWS and soon you have the unsupported gossip even on CNN. Reminds me of the last election in the US where BUSH was already announced winner before anyone could have known how many votes there were to be counted and how many would be invalid. Noone wanted to be the last to tell the news. Please treat this article with a certain scepsis and also coolness. Spying is nothing new to the political business and enables diplomats to better understand the motivators of the opposite side.

[Othin 0]

First of all, I highly doubt the validity of this document. Something like that would not just be sent on a piece of paper for anyone to see. Denoir should also be able to speak to the fact that most countries don't send classified memos to each other. Things are taken care of in a very different manner.

As for the NSA, it's common knowledge that they can tap the phones of non-US citizens. Is it right? Probably not. Is it an opportunity that any country would take? Yes. That's part of the game of politics. If anything this is a tame example of espionage.

And those of you getting up in a fluff, I wouldn't start pointing fingers as many of your vaunted governments use the same methods of the U.S. Much like an arms race, you have to do a certain amount to stay relevent. France, Germany, England, Isreal, Australia, China, and Russia all invest large amounts of money in their intelligence agencies.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 02 2003,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all, I highly doubt the validity of this document.  Something like that would not just be sent on a piece of paper for anyone to see.  Denoir should also be able to speak to the fact that most countries don't send classified memos to each other.  Things are taken care of in a very different manner.

As for the NSA, it's common knowledge that they can tap the phones of non-US citizens.  Is it right?  Probably not.  Is it an opportunity that any country would take?  Yes.  That's part of the game of politics.  If anything this is a tame example of espionage.

And those of you getting up in a fluff, I wouldn't start pointing fingers as many of your vaunted governments use the same methods of the U.S.  Much like an arms race, you have to do a certain amount to stay relevent.  France, Germany, England, Isreal, Australia, China, and Russia all invest large amounts of money in their intelligence agencies.<span id='postcolor'>

Espionage is a big business. Especially industry-wise. It is a known fact that many big governments have forwarded secret informations on new products to national corporations so those would come up with an corresponding patents before.

However doing that in an UN council only increases the impression that the US wants that war at whatever it may cost. This desperation lets us assume that there is more to the story then a few weapons of mass-destruction. Corea is spitting into our face and sending us pictures of polished nuclear facilities but the BUSHies send half of the strongest army in the world into the desert because a bunch of inspectors is not working fast enough to find WWI mustard gas.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 02 2003,16:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but the BUSHies send half of the strongest army in the world into the desert because a bunch of inspectors is not working fast enough to find WWI mustard gas.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

You forgot to mention new and improved VX.

*cough*

*cough* *cough* *cough*

*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*

[Othin 0]

Actually, I can now officially call shenannigans on this one.  I missed the link to the memo the first time through.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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

<span id='postcolor'>

Number one look at the date.  We don't write our dates like that.  It would be 31 Jan 03 if it was official or 01/31/03 if non.

Look at the spellings.  They're all the british english spellings, not american english.  FAVOURABLE", "RECOGNISE" AND "EMPHASISE.  Not in my country.

There are a few other things relating to security channels that I'm not going to get into for obvious reasons.

edit because I'm an idiot and misspelled "write"

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Koolkid101 @ Mar. 02 2003,14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm I'm not sure the times very well reliable it seems so left-wing. Thats what my radio says.<span id='postcolor'>

Bollox mate, The Times are a conservative paper, centre-right.

Left-wing papers are The Independent and The Guardian.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number one look at the date. We don't write our dates like that. It would be 31 Jan 03 if it was official or 01/31/03 if non<span id='postcolor'>

It was my understanding that official US military channels spelt the date Day/Month/Year contary to the US system.

Not related, but I'd thought I'd ask.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--- CLARIFICATION from MARTIN BRIGHT, The Observer

"There seems to be some confusion over the Anglicised (or Anglicized) spelling in our reproduction of the email online and on the front of the newspaper. This was done for editorial reasons to standardise (standardize) spelling throughout the newspaper. Following the many queries from the United States we would like to make it cleart that the original document had American spelling and this will be corrected on the online version of the email". <span id='postcolor'>

Either someone made a mistake, or heads are going to roll.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 02 2003,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Number one look at the date.  We don't write our dates like that.  It would be 31 Jan 03 if it was official or 01/31/03 if non<span id='postcolor'>

It was my understanding that official US military channels spelt the date Day/Month/Year contary to the US system.

Not related, but I'd thought I'd ask.<span id='postcolor'>

Every military document I've ever read has been in the format of dd mon yy ie 20 Feb 58. I've never really seen it totally spelled out.

[Badgerboy 0]

Our official letter heads have it as;

Date: 4 September 2002

I know internal stuff between Sqn's gets scribbled down however you feel is ok. (Over here D/M/Y . Not sure if thats official military practise, or just something we do. I'll ask tomorrow!

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 02 2003,12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And some people are surprised that the amount of US haters have been growing lately...

I can tell you one thing, i'm not surprised, basically cuz i'm feeling the urge to become one of them too.<span id='postcolor'>

yes,US haters becuase everyone in the US works in the government or military

[IceFire 0]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Like Othin said earlier. It's fairly commong to spy on foreign govt employees in your country.

US diplomats visiting other countries are constantly told by the State Dept, or Dept of Commerce that they are probably being spied on,(more or less depending on which country you are in).

The only embarrassing thing about this(if it is indeed true) is that it got leaked.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Regardless of the date, no american spells those particular words with an anglicized dialect like that.

Occam's Razor seys that the odds are 99.9% this is a fake.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I think they have no other options than to denie it!