from: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran.htm Click Here: <A HREF="http://cryptome.org/cia-iran.htm">CIA Report on Mossadeq Overthrow</A> ----- 24 June 2000: Add exchange with New York Times. Add link to second installment of the unedited report: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-ad.htm 23 June 2000: Add messages. 22 June 2000: Add messages and Cryptome response to critics. 21 June 2000: Link to first installment of the unedited report: http://cryptom e.org/cia-iran-07.htm 21 June 2000: Add messages. 21 June 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On June 16, 2000, the New York Times published on its Web site PDF files of a secret CIA report: "CLANDESTINE SERVICE HISTORY, OVERTHROW OF PREMIER MOSSADEQ OF IRAN, November 1952-August 1953," an operation planned and executed by the CIA and British SIS: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html The Times wrote in an introductory note that names of participants in the overthrow were digitally edited from the report "after consultations with historians who believed there might be serious risk that the families of some of those named as foreign agents would face retribution in Iran." Cryptome discovered during reading the report that edited portions could be read by freezing the page during loading just before the digital overwrite occurred (this was possible on a slow computer but not a fast one). We notified the Times of this and another method was used to conceal the edited material. The Times urged Cryptome not to reveal the information and we said we would not (see messages below). Since then Cryptome has learned from messages on Intelligence Forum and other mail lists that other persons have been able to read material edited from the report. Now that the edited information has become public Cryptome is publishing the full unedited report to make it more widely available, in particular to those named in it until now known by a few hostage holding "historians." Here are messages on the topic: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jerry Ennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:21:26 -0400 Readers may recall that, in April, the New York Times published portions of the CIA's Clandestine Service History report on the 1953 overthrow of Iran's Premier Mossadeq. Today, the New York Times has now published the complete report with very minor deletions (made by NYT editors). The report starts at http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf Note that the report's table of contents appears on page 4 of this file and the table of contents is linked to each section of the report. Links to all sections are also posted at the end of each pdf file at the NYT site. ***************************************************** From: Jerry Ennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm) Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins .htm) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:19:45 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times The digital means the NY Times used to black out names of persons it was advised might be put at risk by publication failed to do the job properly. All the deletions are readle. The unredacted report shall be published shortly on cryptome.org. The unexpected consequences of digital security are worth pondering. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:49:57 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you really this cavalier with other people's lives? > The digital means the NY Times used to black out names > of persons it was advised might be put at risk by publication > failed to do the job properly. All the deletions are reable. > The unredacted report shall be published shortly on > cryptome.org. > > The unexpected consequences of digital security are worth > pondering. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 19 June 2000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Meislin, You may wish to know that it is possible to read the NYT-redacted portions of the CIA report on the overthrow of Mossadeq. This is the portion of page 54 which can be read by interrupting the page load before the digital redaction occurs: Acting Minister of Court Abul Ghassem Amini Colonel Novzari, Commander of 2nd Armored Brigade Colonel Zand-Karimi, Chief of Staff of 2nd Mountain Brigade Commander Poulad Daj of the Police Colonel Nematollah Nasiri, Commander of Imperial Guards Lt. Colonel Azamudeh, Reg. CO 1st Mountain Brigade Colonel Parvaresh, head of the Officers' Club 1st Lieutenant Niahi Mr. Perron, Swiss subject General Nadr Batmangelich, retired Colonel Hadi Karayi, Commander of Imperial Guards at Namsar General Shaybani, retired Rahim Hirad, Chief of Shah's private secretariat Soleiman Behbudi, Chief of Shah's household Lt. Colonel Hamidi, Asst. Director of Police visa section Colonel Mansurpur, Squadron Leader (cavalry) Colonel Rowhani, Chief of Staff of 3rd Mountain Brigade Captain Baladi 1st Lieutenant Naraghi Captain Shaghaghi Captain Salimi 1st Lieutenant Eskandari 1st Lieutenant Jafarbey Mr. Ashtari Mr. Mohammed Jehandari 1st Lieutenant Rauhani Dr. Mozaffar Baqai ----- Similarly, all other redactions are readable with the same method. We are in the process of converting the PDF to HTML and intend to publish on the Web the unredacted report. Regards, John Young cryptome.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:13:10 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The NYT CIA Report We read the CIA report on the overthrow of Mossadeq from the New York Times site on a slow computer. When page 54 loaded we saw a block of text an instant before it was blacked out. We backed up and loaded it again, with the same result: a flash of the redacted text. We then commenced successive reloading the page and interrupting loading a split second before the text was blacked out. After a few tries we were able to freeze loading so that the text was perfectly readable: a list of some two dozen names of alleged participants in the overthrow. We then used the method on other redactions with the same result that all the redacted text in the report and its appendices was readable. We tried the method on fast computers and found the pages loaded too fast to see the flash of text and too fast for us to interrupt the loading before blackout occurred. A curious breach that would be missed by fast computers such as the NY Times must have to process its digital files, and perhaps the supercomps at select agencies as well. We've sent the Times a note about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:26:31 -0400 From: Dave Emery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:13:10PM -0400, John Young wrote: > We read the CIA report on the overthrow of Mossadeq from > the New York Times site on a slow computer. When page 54 > loaded we saw a block of text an instant before it was blacked > out. We backed up and loaded it again, with the same result: > a flash of the redacted text. > That is extremely stupid. The fact you saw the text means that anyone using a html capture utility to query the site and record the html source of the page to a file should trivially be able to remove the redactions with an ordinary text editor or no doubt many kinds of html specific editors. The text of the redacted stuff must perforce be included in the clear as plain old marked up ascii as it could not have been momentarily displayed as something readible otherwise. Someone was either trying to leak material to the world deliberately or was completely incompetant. And I mean completely... -- Dave Emery N1PRE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Jitze Couperus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:51:01 -0700 Dave Emery wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:13:10PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > We read the CIA report on the overthrow of Mossadeq from > > the New York Times site on a slow computer. When page 54 > > loaded we saw a block of text an instant before it was blacked > > out. We backed up and loaded it again, with the same result: > > a flash of the redacted text. > > > That is extremely stupid. The fact you saw the text means that > anyone using a html capture utility to query the site and record the > html source of the page to a file should trivially be able to remove the > redactions with an ordinary text editor or no doubt many kinds of html > specific editors. The text of the redacted stuff must perforce be > included in the clear as plain old marked up ascii as it could not have > been momentarily displayed as something readible otherwise. > Not quite as simple as that - the original report appears to be an image (processed by Photoshop at some point) and (I'm guessing here based on what I see in the file) a subsequent snippet of postscript to overlay sensitive spots in the image with a blodge. All of this is then encapsulated in an Adobe PDF file. But in essence you are correct - moderately skillfull wielding with an editor to remove the bits of script that inserted the blodges would result in the original image being rendered without redactions. Slowing the rendering machine down and/or stopping it in its tracks - after the image is displayed but before the blodges are inserted - has the same effect and is even easier for those with accerss to a megahertz deprived machine. To bring this back on topic - the latter demonstrates the irony that those deprived of the latest technology, are sometimes in a better position to harvest information than those with the fastest Cray. Jitze Couperus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jerry Ennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:53:52 -0400 On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:19:45 -0400, John Young wrote: > >The unredacted report shall be published shortly on >cryptome.org. > Just because a person can behave irresponsibly does not mean he should behave irresponsibly. >The unexpected consequences of digital security are worth >pondering. > Mr. Young should ponder the expected consequences of his proposed action. ***************************************************** From: Jerry Ennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:02:03 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times The report tells a shameful story of murderous US policy, however much its author and its leaker aim to crow or confess, and we don't want help hide that by giving a diversionary. So we are holding up putting the unredacted material on the Web until we hear from the NY Times on what will be done to better secure the "threat to agents" we hear so much about from those who threaten others as a matter of policy -- even here. Still, more more information about carefully manipulated leaks, rather redacted "history," is worth providing. For now we will publish, as here earlier today, what can be gleaned from the report with careful attention to what it contains just beneath its patently transparent cloak. Names of agents and officers inartfully concealed is from the payback manual, no? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:12:17 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Names of agents and officers inartfully concealed is from the > payback manual, no? Could be an honest mistake, no? Alec The Ural was getting too mainstream - so we bought the Dnepr. ********************************************************************** *Alec Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *My employer and I * *Senior Scientific Information Analyst *speak to one another * *Chemical Abstracts Service *but we do not speak * *Phone: (614)-447-3600 ext. 3533 *for one another. * *********************************************************************. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:04:29 -0400 To: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Rich Meislin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Young, Thank you for informing us about the problem with this document. We are removing it from our site until we can delete the names in a more secure fashion. The names were obscured because of our concern for possible retribution against the families of the people named in this report, and we would strongly urge you to respect that judgment. Sincerely, Rich Meislin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:15:23 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report The NY Times has written that the CIA report is being withdrawn until a secure method assures that the redactions are not readable. The paper urged us not to disclose ineptly redacted information, to respect its decision to not publish it. But that may be a goad to publish, huh? A redacted page from the Pentagon Papers manual on defying prior restraint, yes? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 20 June 2000 To: Rich Meislin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Meislin, We shall not publish names in the CIA report. We have not disclosed the names from p. 54 sent to you. Thanks for making the report public. Regards, John Young cryptome.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:03:32 -0400 For Agencies that excel in clever misinformation, lies and deception, even to their Masters, methinks the "leaks", together with the "tantalizing" deletion of names, are just too convenient. We all know the CIA was totally out of control during that period, and many employees, and ex-employees should be doing long prison sentences, but let the buyer beware. Like the MI6 list, let us ask "Why", and take a good look around for what else is going on, whilst everyone's attention is focused on the obvious. (Same for Los Alamos, Elian etc.) I did a hour long radio talk show on Thursday, on information security and government incompetence. Interesting was the number of "Urgent Talking Points" Faxed for me from right wing organizations with "Leaks" and very detailed chronology of failures under Clinton, and other Democratic Presidents. Also interesting were the number of "call-ins" with details of embarrassing anecdotes. We know there is a Regime of Arrogance, and disdain for democratic process and oversight, in these government agencies, but let us not blindly accept, and distribute every "leaked document" we have presented. Clean up the dirty, smelly bathwater problem, but save the Baby! Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The report tells a shameful story of murderous US policy, however > much its author and its leaker aim to crow or confess, and we don't > want help hide that by giving a diversionary. > > So we are holding up putting the unredacted material on the > Web until we hear from the NY Times on what will be done > to better secure the "threat to agents" we hear so much about > from those who threaten others as a matter of policy -- even > here. > > Still, more more information about carefully manipulated > leaks, rather redacted "history," is worth providing. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:27:07 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For Agencies that excel in clever misinformation, lies and deception, >even to their Masters, methinks the "leaks", together with the >"tantalizing" deletion of names, are just too convenient. You do, of course, realize that in trying not to fall prey to a CIA disinformation plot, that you have lengthened the life of the real disinformation operation. Alec The Ural was getting too mainstream - so we bought the Dnepr. ********************************************************************** *Alec Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *My employer and I * *Senior Scientific Information Analyst *speak to one another * *Chemical Abstracts Service *but we do not speak * *Phone: (614)-447-3600 ext. 3533 *for one another. * *********************************************************************. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:34:24 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Anthony D' Amato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times At 01:03 PM 6/20/00 -0400, Alan Simpson wrote: >I did a hour long radio talk show on >Thursday, on information security and government incompetence. Interesting >was the number of "Urgent Talking Points" Faxed for me from right wing >organizations with "Leaks" and very detailed chronology of failures under >Clinton, and other Democratic Presidents. Also interesting were the number >of "call-ins" with details of embarrassing anecdotes. > >We know there is a Regime of Arrogance, and disdain for democratic process >and oversight, in these government agencies, but let us not blindly accept, >and distribute every "leaked document" we have presented. Clean up the >dirty, smelly bathwater problem, but save the Baby! -------------- QUERY: I'm unclear what point Alan is making. If he is suggesting that the right-wing organizations are criticizing intelligence failures under Democratic Presidents, surely they are smart enough to know that by the same token they have to accept intelligence failures under Republican Presidents, and therefore their criticisms tend to cast doubt upon the entire intelligence apparatus. Yet I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that it's the right wing, rather than the left wing, that generally supports a strong intelligence-security program for government (even as they downsize the government in other areas). ----- Anthony D'Amato Leighton Professor of Law Northwestern University ("Life isn't everything." -- Neil Simon) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:27:47 -0400 Yes, Prof. D'Amato you are generally correct. About 2-3 years ago we noticed a shift in persuasive tactics by right wing pressure groups. You don't really notice these patterns, until you adopt computer technologies to concentrate news feeds, "Talking Points", opinion statements, and all the BS that comes into a news operation. We had a problem, akin to the whole intelligence process, of information overload. (Keep in mind we develop news networks, so do not have the luxury of a huge staff or armies of interns.) No, fortunately, most vocal groups are not smart enough. They adopt emotional "Hot Buttons" and usually by constant repetition, by multiple channels, try and influence public opinion. (If you stop, dissect, and analyze, huge flaws appear.) Many dream of the return to the Reagan days, and desperately need an enemy to HATE, be it Cuba, North Korea or Socialized Medicine! Being objective, the right wing propaganda looks amateurish, like Moscow Radio in the 1960's and '70's. By comparison the flood of material I get from the from the White House, has the hallmarks of Dick Morris, Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Full of lies, but well presented for the masses! Most of the voting audience don't remember Lenin, Marx or know, or care what a neo-Marxist is. Finally Prof. D'Amato,how would you find the proposed legislation, restrictions on cryptography, and expansion of eavesdropping and intelligence gathering on Joe Public, under Clinton, and in the UK under Blair, both socialist dreamers? If Reagan had proposed these measures the loony left would have been demonstrating on the streets! Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > QUERY: I'm unclear what point Alan is making. If he is suggesting that > the right-wing organizations are criticizing intelligence failures under > Democratic Presidents, surely they are smart enough to know that by > the same token they have to accept intelligence failures under Republican > Presidents, and therefore their criticisms tend to cast doubt upon the > entire intelligence apparatus. Yet I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that > it's the right wing, rather than the left wing, that generally supports > a strong intelligence-security program for government (even as they > downsize the government in other areas). > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Allen Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:46:09 -0500 John Young wrote > The NY Times has written that the CIA report is > being withdrawn until a secure method assures > that the redactions are not readable. > > The paper urged us not to disclose ineptly redacted > information, to respect its decision to not publish it. Way too late, whatever was in there is out there. That the NYT screwed up this badly is yet another indication that "time and chance happeneth to them all." > But that may be a goad to publish, huh? A redacted > page from the Pentagon Papers manual on defying > prior restraint, yes? I do find this too much. Whatever you might think of the CIA or the US, quite possibly there are names in the document that would identify people who were working in good faith, trying to do good for their country. Perhaps they were mistaken, perhaps they were gulled into working for monsters (though I don't think so), but they and theirs deserve protection. And, given the current regime in Iran, protection is in order. Probably some names can be justly named -- but I'd err on the side of caution, lest past deeds beget present evil and innocents suffer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:08:53 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Anthony D' Amato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report At 03:46 PM 6/20/00 -0500, Allen Thomson wrote: >I do find this too much. Whatever you might think of the CIA or the US, >quite possibly there are names in the document that would identify people >who were working in good faith, trying to do good for their country. >Perhaps they were mistaken, perhaps they were gulled into working for monsters >(though I don't think so), but they and theirs deserve protection. > >And, given the current regime in Iran, protection is in order. > >Probably some names can be justly named -- but I'd err on the side >of caution, lest past deeds beget present evil and innocents suffer. ------------ QUESTION: I'd like to ask Allen and others whether they feel that intelligence agents generally are lulled into a false sense of security when their government says that their names will be protected from disclosure. One instance of disclosure is the Philby-Burges-Maclean- Blunt-Klugmann infiltrations. Another is decrypts. Then there are mistakes in document handling. Missing tapes, computers. Missent files. Does anyone who works for the CIA really believe that his family name will be protected? ----------- Anthony D'Amato Leighton Professor of Law Northwestern University ("Life isn't everything." -- Neil Simon) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:08:26 -0400 Allen Thomson has a point. Whilst I am a firm believer in media influencing overall policy, and holding the Chiefs responsible for the running of their departments, what is to be achieved by naming the Worker Bees? I find the dribble given to John Young by NYT amazing. You either publish, or don't. If you don't want page 3 to go out, rip it out, electronically delete it, or editorialize the document. There is no extra points for showing a picture of the original. Few readers (viewers) know to look for, and as a classified document can take many forms, then why bother. Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I do find this too much. Whatever you might think of the CIA or the US, > quite possibly there are names in the document that would identify people > who were working in good faith, trying to do good for their country. > Perhaps they were mistaken, perhaps they were gulled into working for monsters > (though I don't think so), but they and theirs deserve protection. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:46:27 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Anthony D' Amato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report At 04:15 PM 6/20/00 -0400, John Young wrote: >The NY Times has written that the CIA report is >being withdrawn until a secure method assures >that the redactions are not readable. > >The paper urged us not to disclose ineptly redacted >information, to respect its decision to not publish it. ----------- REQUEST: John, I and perhaps others would appreciate it if you would provide us with a copy of the letter or email that you received from the NY Times. ------ Anthony D'Amato Leighton Professor of Law Northwestern University ("Life isn't everything." -- Neil Simon) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:20:33 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report This it the NY Times letter: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:04:29 -0400 To: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Rich Meislin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Young, Thank you for informing us about the problem with this document. We are removing it from our site until we can delete the names in a more secure fashion. The names were obscured because of our concern for possible retribution against the families of the people named in this report, and we would strongly urge you to respect that judgment. Sincerely, Rich Meislin ----- I have confirmed that the Times has redacted the CIA report by another method which appears to be secure -- at least from me. I have written Mr. Meislin that we will not publish the redacted parts. It would be appreciated if nobody thinks we have become responsible, or worse, a "responsible publisher" -- ugh, what dreadful complicity has accrued to that moniker, nearly as bad as an "unnamed administration official, " or, as in this instance, [blank] [blank] major principal Tehran station assets which must not be revealed to SIS, instead feed them [blank] and sub-agent [blank]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:20:59 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/20/00 4:54:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I do find this too much. Whatever you might think of the CIA or the US, quite possibly there are names in the document that would identify people who were working in good faith, trying to do good for their country. Perhaps they were mistaken, perhaps they were gulled into working for monsters (though I don't think so), but they and theirs deserve protection. >> Independent of whatever I may or may not think of the CIA's role in the overthrow of Mossadegh, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Thompson. Being a long-time admirer of Henning von Tresckow, I understand that sometimes patriotism is not easy to define, and I think it best to err on the side of mercy. (I also have NOT read the report.) Whatever their motives, however, those who loved them did not commit their acts, and should not suffer for them. Erin Solaro ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:05:15 +0200 (METDST) From: Frode Weierud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Anthony D' Amato wrote: > QUESTION: I'd like to ask Allen and others whether they feel that > intelligence agents generally are lulled into a false sense of security > when their government says that their names will be protected from > disclosure. One instance of disclosure is the Philby-Burges-Maclean- Professor D'Amato say "their government" which seems to suggest that he thinks the names that have been redacted are Americans working for the CIA. This is not the case. The names are those of Iranians apart from one other foreign national. I am all for an open society where there is as little secrecy as possible and I have always been striving for historical material to be released in full. However, I would never go as far as putting peoples lives at risk and I feel that in this case is it would be prudent NOT to release the redacted names. Frode Weierud Frode Weierud Phone : +41 22 7674794 CERN, SL, Fax : +41 22 7679185 CH-1211 Geneva 23, E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switzerland WWW : http://home.cern.ch/frode/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:34:14 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What the papers say... This is what the Tehran Times Web edition says about the report. Book on CIA Intervention in Iran's 1953 Coup on Internet TEHRAN TIMES POLITICAL DESK TEHRAN The full text of a book revealing CIA's interception in August 17, 1953 coup in Iran against the government of then prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq appeared on the Internet. New York Times Institute on Sunday placed the full text of the book by Donald Wilber elaborating on details of the coup against the government of Mosaddeq on the Internet with all its appendixes. The introduction and some appendixes of the book had been placed on the Internet in April. The editor in the introduction noted that with the consultations made by some historians, the names of some persons have been deleted because there was possibility of being subjected to prosecution in Iran on charges of serving as the agents of foreigners. The editor also pointed out that there is inconsistency between the summarized introduction and the full text of the book and the New York Times in its report has used the text of the book as criteria. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 21 June 2000 To: Rich Meislin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Meislin, Mail list messages on the Internet show that others have recovered redactions from the original NY Times PDF files. Since the information is now public we are preparing to publish the report unredacted. Regards, John Young cryptome.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Messages received since posting this file] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:51:22 -0400 To: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Rich Meislin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: CIA Iran Report Dear Mr. Young, I do not know of anywhere that these names have been made widely available to the public. I would once again urge you not to be the first to do so. If you're aware of a location where these have been published, I'd appreciate the information. Rich Meislin At 7:01 AM -0400 6/21/00, John Young wrote: >Dear Mr. Meislin, > >Mail list messages on the Internet show that others have >recovered redactions from the original NY Times PDF files. > >Since the information is now public we are preparing >to publish the report unredacted. > >Regards, > >John Young >cryptome.org ....................................................................... Rich Meislin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
