from: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran.htm Click Here: <A HREF="http://cryptome.org/cia-iran.htm">CIA Report on Mossadeq Overthrow</A> ----- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:11:01 -0500 From: Chris Moseng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Redacted PDF If you ever suspect you have encountered a PDF redacted in this manner in the future, head to Kinko's. All Kinko's rental computers with the most recent software have an acrobat plugin called "Pitstop" that can manipulate PDFs *almost as if they were native files. This would include moving layers of graphics that cover text below, for instance. Obviously this method of redaction would only be implemented by someone unfamiliar with the way postscript and PDF files are created and represented. Chris Moseng ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:15:31 -0400 From: John Markoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: iran I am the New York Times reporter who wrote about the CIA's secret history on Iran. We redacted names in our copy on the web at the urging of historians and Iranian scholars who warned that families of Iranian agents of the CIA may face retribution in Iran.If you go ahead with your plans to publish the unredacted version with names, you should recognize that you will then be responsible for whatever happens to the families of those people in Iran. Please call me 202-862-0355 Jim Risen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:42:53 -0400 From: John Markoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: iran Please respond to my last message. I think if you go ahead with your plans to circulate an unredacted version of the Iran document, you must recognize that you are endangering lives, and must take responsibility for that. Jim Risen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 202-862-0355 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:34:04 EDT Subject: Iran document To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mr. Risen: Your e-mails to John Young were posted on his site. I'd like to remind you that your record on naming CIA names leaves the suspicion that you are working with them. You have zero credibility on this issue. What about the families of all the victims of SAVAK during the years that the Shah was in power? Don't they deserve some consideration? Do you really think that two generations later, Iran would retaliate against the families of those involved in the 1953 coup? If your answer is "yes," then would you support another CIA overthrow of the government in Iran, and another 25 years of torture and repression? I think you must take responsibility for NOT including the names in the document. And I'm still waiting for that CIA name that you withheld when you were working for the Los Angeles Times. Regards, Daniel Brandt PIR founder & president --------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Information Research, PO Box 680635, San Antonio TX 78268-0635 Tel:210-509-3160 Fax:210-509-3161 Nonprofit publisher of NameBase http://www.pir.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:15:31 -0400 > From: John Markoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: iran I am the New York Times reporter who wrote about the CIA's secret history on Iran. We redacted names in our copy on the web at the urging of historians and Iranian scholars who warned that families of Iranian agents of the CIA may face retribution in Iran.If you go ahead with your plans to publish the unredacted version with names, you should recognize that you will then be responsible for whatever happens to the families of those people in Iran. Please call me 202-862-0355 Jim Risen > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:42:53 -0400 > From: John Markoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: iran Please respond to my last message. I think if you go ahead with your plans to circulate an unredacted version of the Iran document, you must recognize that you are endangering lives, and must take responsibility for that. Jim Risen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 202-862-0355 ______________________________ This is a copy of an e-mail to James Risen, whose byline appeared on a Los Angeles Times article about a CIA officer accused of wrongdoing: Dear James Risen: In a story that appeared on December 2, 1997, you wrote the following: The Times agreed not to name the officer, who is still serving undercover after being reassigned to a non-management position. A 1982 law bans the publication of names of undercover agents if it could hurt U.S. espionage activities. I object to your policy of not naming this officer. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 does not apply in this case. The relevant paragraph of this law is as follows: 50 USC 421 Sec. 601 (c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Sec. 606 Definitions (10) The term "pattern of activities" requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective. Despite the fact that the CIA's public affairs office uses this 1982 law to browbeat journalists into not disclosing names, the bottom line is that this tactic is effective only because journalists do not bother reading the law. There is no chance whatsoever that a journalist who is not engaged in the requisite "pattern of activities" and without the requisite "reason to believe" would ever be prosecuted under this law. Moreover, this law does not automatically void the First Amendment, and it has never been tested in court. I hope that in the future you will name names. Your policy reminds me of when the Washington Post kept using the name of "Tomas Castillo," the CIA's Costa Rican station chief during Iran-contra, despite the fact that almost every major newspaper was already using his real name, Joseph F. Fernandez. Even Newsweek used the real name. The Post started using the real name only after Fernandez was indicted in 1987. This made the Post look rather ridiculous, and eventually they published a letter to the editor pointing this out. If public officials, who represent us and are paid with our tax dollars, are accused of wrongdoing, then we have every right to know who they are. You have to identify someone before they can be held accountable. If the law was applicable in this case, then I could understand how the lawyers at the Los Angeles Times would be on the editor's back, and the editor would be on your back. But when the law is clearly NOT applicable, then I can only conclude that the Los Angeles Times is guilty of collusion with the CIA. Sincerely, Daniel Brandt, President Public Information Research, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the response: > Date: 4 Dec 1997 > From: James Risen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Daniel Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: On not naming the CIA officer Thank you for your message. The decision not to identify the officer was mine alone, based on certain journalistic considerations which must remain confidential. I can assure you I did not make my decision because of the 1982 law. We merely pointed out the law for our readers. James Risen Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau 202-861-9254 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:36:03 EDT Subject: Re: Iran document To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subj: Re: Iran document > Date: 6/21/00 6:48:38 PM Central Daylight Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Risen) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You don't seem to understand the problem. It was at the urging of > independent Iranian experts who are familiar with conditions in Iran today > that we removed the names. Our only aim was to protect people who may face > retribution. If your organization publishes this, you then must accept > responsibility for the harm that may come to people as a result. You are the one who doesn't understand this simple fact: I don't feel you have any credibility on this issue. Please tell me who these "independent Iranian experts" are so that I can contact them and they may be placed on the record. How do you know they are as "independent" as you claim? Who are they? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jerry Ennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:27:24 -0400 On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:03:55 -0400, long on time, short on sense wrote: > >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. > Good grief, yes. There might be somebody out there somewhere who won't get information they don't need if Mr. Young doesn't hurry. ***************************************************** From: Jerry Ennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:48:27 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 6/21/00 7:06:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, John Young writes: << 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 >> You should be ashamed of yourself. You are helping place other people's lives at risk for no good reason. There was a reason that report was meant to have been redacted, and it does not matter that other people are publishing those names. Erin Solaro ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:57:31 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 06/20/2000 5:49:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << 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 >> Prof. D'Amato My answer is "YES". Now let me ask you a question. What effect do you think your publicly stated question might have on the morale of newly recruited young Americans who have signed on to do a very difficult and dangerous job to help strenghten our national security ? Mike Levin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:22:18 -0400 I must be mistaken. I thought this was requested email list of just over a hundred. Did Prof. D'Amato ask his question on CNN, BBC, VOA, or is Intelforum required monitoring for all young recruits. My point: Let's have some realism here. If Prof. D'Amatos' question to this small group affects moral of new CIA recruits in the field, and on operations, we have a SERIOUS problem. Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Now let me ask you a question. What effect do you think your publicly stated question might >have on the morale of newly recruited young Americans who have signed on to do a very > difficult and dangerous job to help strenghten our national security ? > > Mike Levin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:30:28 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Critique of our publication of the unedited CIA report is appreciated, here and elsewhere. Most of the remarks are on Cryptome, as is the first installment of the unedited report. The New York Times is commended for making the report available. It is a grim reminder of what harm intelligence agencies can cause, how the best and brightest of many countries for two generations have deluded themselves and us about their prowess to covertly shape political affairs -- and not least put unwary, trusting people -- officers and civilians -- at great risk, even death, for ideological madness. There must be no limitation on getting these kinds of reports out, unedited, to alert likely victims -- officers and civilians -- of what threat is posed by covert, secret operations driven by vainglory and narrow, ambitious interests. That the Times failed to use adequate security for the report, that the edited information was easily available to those who are highly skilled at detecting such weaknesses, is remarkable. But no more so than the tales we've seen here at the poor handling of sensitive information by the intelligence agencies, and no more so than countless examples of inept use of high technologies by those accustomed to protection by privileged access to information backed by standing armies and cloaked by "rule of law." And the hoary charge that disclosure of sensitive information will put lives at risk -- no informed person can believe that CYA spin after two generations of its being used to hide incompetence and vanity, being used to divert attention from revelation of far worse deeds already executed and more being planned and implemented. That point was made in the Times reporting itself. Surely no young intelligence recruit -- officer or civilian -- should be deluded that such disbelievable deception will protect from a cold-hearted target of murderous covert ops. The CIA report should be read carefully and widely, as the Times intended, and we're grateful for being able to call attention to its full impact -- especially the lives already long ruined by TPAJAX and those shameful operations which followed it, and surely will still follow, that horrifying US sacrifice of Iranians who were deceived. Reread the paragraph where the CIA was planning to bug out of the danger it had precipitated in Iran, clandestine indeed are these cowards, who, based on the temper of the report, fret more about their anxiety of failure than the harm they are causing. Amazing that they are depicted as despairing and jubilant as if at a sporting event. But then that seems to be how young officers were recruited in those days, and how operations were planned and executed -- for sport of would be kings and courtiers. As now, if current campaigns for intelligence recruiting -- and retention of jaded disbelievers -- are telling the truth. 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:45:25 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: C Ridley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report At 06:30 AM 6/22/00 -0400, John Young wrote: >'Critique of our publication of the unedited CIA report is >appreciated, here and elsewhere. Most of the remarks are on >Cryptome, as is the first installment of the unedited report.......... >As now, if current campaigns for intelligence recruiting -- and >retention of jaded disbelievers -- are telling the truth.' Thanks John - your entire post is a sobering slap for those who needed it. Chris Ridley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jerry Ennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:07:26 -0400 On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:30:28 -0400, John Young pontificated, in part: > >The New York Times is commended for making the report >available. It is a grim reminder of what harm intelligence agencies >can cause, how the best and brightest of many countries for two >generations have deluded themselves and us about their prowess >to covertly shape political affairs -- and not least put unwary, trusting >people -- officers and civilians -- at great risk, even death, for >ideological madness. He writes, ignoring the facts that: There was opposition, albeit disorganized, to Mossadeq within the Iranian military; At least one Iranian general officer had contacted the US Embassy and asked if the US was interested in supporting an Iranian military effort to oust Mossadeq; These were not the actions by rogue intelligence agencies, but the considered actions of the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom with the full approval of US State Department and President of the United States as well as the UK Foreign Office and Prime Minister, and -- perhaps most importantly; While decrying TPAJAX actions for putting "unwary, trusting people -- officers and civilians -- at great risk, even death, for ideological madness," Mr. Young chooses to do the same. > >There must be no limitation on getting these kinds of reports out, >unedited, to alert likely victims -- officers and civilians -- of what >threat is posed by covert, secret operations driven by vainglory >and narrow, ambitious interests. > (Satirical observations follow) I am so glad that my life has been made simpler. No longer must I bother to weigh the opinions of such unworthies as an investigative reporter with long experience in intelligence matters, or the editorial staff of the newspaper that probably has the longest record of publishing intelligence exposes, or of historians, or persons with knowledge and experience in the fields of intelligence or foreign affairs, or anybody else, for I am blessed to have the benefit of the wisdom of the Great Architect, who alone knows, passes on, and rushes to spread, the True answers to such questions of right and wrong, what should and should not have been done almost fifty years ago, etc., etc., etc. (Satirical observations end) >That the Times failed to use adequate security for the report, that >the edited information was easily available to those who are >highly skilled at detecting such weaknesses, is remarkable. The Times' decisions concerning the use of PDF files in deleting portions of a document were mistakes made out of ignorance. Mr. Young's decisions were not made out of ignorance, but something which can be even more destructive. Mr. Young also makes the mistake of concluding that, since some people know about the problem associated with PDF files (although he apparently stumbled across the problem rather than discovering it through any great skill or knowledge), there is no reason he shouldn't serve it all up to everybody on a silver platter. >And the hoary charge that disclosure of sensitive information >will put lives at risk -- no informed person can believe that >CYA spin after two generations of its being used to hide >incompetence and vanity, being used to divert attention >from revelation of far worse deeds already executed and >more being planned and implemented. That point was >made in the Times reporting itself. There he goes again. But I hope he is right on at least one point -- that no harm will come from his vanity. >The CIA report should be read carefully and widely, as the >Times intended, and we're grateful for being able to call >attention to its full impact -- especially the lives already >long ruined by TPAJAX and those shameful operations >which followed it, and surely will still follow, that horrifying >US sacrifice of Iranians who were deceived. > Skipping over the polemic, the report should have been read by more people earlier. The author of the report, Dr. Donald Wilber, has observed, "If this history had been read by the planners of the Bay of Pigs, there would have been no such operation." >Reread the paragraph where the CIA was planning to bug >out of the danger it had precipitated in Iran . . . Of course, the CIA would be being berated for abandoning these "unwary, trusting people" if they had not planned to evacuate people (including Iranians) in view of the possible failure of the operation. >As now, if current campaigns for intelligence recruiting -- and >retention of jaded disbelievers -- are telling the truth. > I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say, but any reader of Dr. Wilber's paper can draw all the "warning" conclusions that Mr. Young seems to be trying to make without knowing whether it was Major "X" or LtCol "Y" of the "XYZ" Battalion who was involved in the operation. The bottom line -- and Mr. Young's reasoned response would be welcomed -- is that disseminating the report with all names intact contributes absolutely nothing to answering the question of whether such operations should be undertaken under certain circumstance or never at all. Even if you buy all of Mr. Young's tub-thumping, the fact remains that his actions have not contributed to the understanding of government decisions and actions in the foreign affairs arena. The New York Times has performed a worthwhile service. Mr. Young has not. ***************************************************** From: Jerry Ennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:46:21 -0400 In attacking the messenger i.e. Herald Young, we have forgotten to ask the fundamental question: "should an organization, tasked with gathering and analyzing information for the benefit of civilian and military leadership, have been involved in creating, and manipulating events, regimes, and military matters, instead of doing what it was created to do, report on them?" I am sorry list, I believe civilian intelligence agencies, out of uniform, should watch, listen, analyze and report back to their masters. Those in uniform, with guns, bombs, tanks and big gray ships, should start wars, kill enemies of the state, and generally go round the world creating havoc. Taking this a step further: "As in any criminal trial, when the evidence comes out in open court, accomplices named and events portrayed, may cause problems for the rest of the gang!" Moral of the story: "If you rob Banks for a living, don't expect the Nobel Prize, when you retire, and know the "60 Minutes" TV crew isn't at your door asking about your Geraniums." Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:27:23 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tell me John, have you considered that your action is going to make it easier for intelligence agencies to justify not releasing documents? 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:58:11 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Alec, I'm very new at handling sensitive documents, and am getting a Berlitz immersion in what I should or should not believe about them. Does anyone have access to absolute truth about the cult of intelligence -- who was it that aptly named the perfervor of the modern era? My faith is uncertain so I'm recruitable, like, as Dr. Wilber hymned: "The station principal agent team of [Djalili and Keyvani] working on their own and with singular shrewdness." This daring duo going to get a movie made about them, now they're infamous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:20:05 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Alec, > > I'm very new at handling sensitive documents, and am getting > a Berlitz immersion in what I should or should not believe about > them. Does anyone have access to absolute truth about the > cult of intelligence -- who was it that aptly named the perfervor > of the modern era? Do you automatically broadcast everything (in public and private life) that you are told in confidence? If not, why not? The answer should either tell you how you to deal with a sensitive documents or why you don't have any friends. 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. * *********************************************************************. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:22:49 -0400 Depends what you mean by "sensitive". My first encounter years ago, after asking a senior officer "Why is that classified Secret" was "Because it makes us look like stupid fools if it ever became public." The second encounter, minutes later was explained as, "Because it refers to something, that refers to something in that Top Secret file." My comment on "Why bother" was met with a firm scolding, and how the entire Empire depended on a cloak of secrecy, to cover incompetence, and show everyone how important we all were in the nature of the universe, handling such classified material. You see why I like Robert Steele's "Open Source" concept. Alan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'm very new at handling sensitive documents, and am getting > a Berlitz immersion in what I should or should not believe about > them. Does anyone have access to absolute truth about the > cult of intelligence -- who was it that aptly named the perfervor > of the modern era? > > My faith is uncertain so I'm recruitable, like, as Dr. Wilber hymned: > "The station principal agent team of [Djalili and Keyvani] working > on their own and with singular shrewdness." This daring duo > going to get a movie made about them, now they're infamous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:29:49 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This tells us about inappropriate classification, and there is a lot of that, but it also avoids dealing with the point at hand. Should the names of those Iranian nationals who played a secret role in the overthrow of Mossadegh be published? That is the question. Given that there is no statute of limitations on espionage in the US, should the Russians be publishing the names of hitherto unidentified, and still living sources in the US and Britain? Should the CIA reciprocate? > Depends what you mean by "sensitive". My first encounter years ago, after > asking a senior officer "Why is that classified Secret" was "Because it > makes us look like stupid fools if it ever became public." > > The second encounter, minutes later was explained as, "Because it refers to > something, that refers to something in that Top Secret file." > > My comment on "Why bother" was met with a firm scolding, and how the entire > Empire depended on a cloak of secrecy, to cover incompetence, and show > everyone how important we all were in the nature of the universe, handling > such classified material. > > You see why I like Robert Steele's "Open Source" concept. 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:53:31 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Dravis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Covert Action and the CIA Mr. Simpson wrote: >In attacking the messenger i.e. Herald Young, we have forgotten to ask the >fundamental question: > >"should an organization, tasked with gathering and analyzing information for >the benefit of civilian and military leadership, have been involved in >creating, and manipulating events, regimes, and military matters, instead of >doing what it was created to do, report on them?" My own research, and the research of others, on the pre- and early history of the CIA convinces me that it was intended, from the very beginning, to perform espionage and what came to be called covert action. As the wartime OSS (Office of Strategic Services, dissolved October 1945) became the SSU (Strategic Services Unit, housed within the War Department), then the nominally independent CIG (Central Intelligence Group, created in January 1946) and then the more independent CIA (created September 1947), a small cadre of key covert operations personnel were nested within each successive organization. This nucleus staff for covert operations was allegedly retained to study foreign subversion techniques and for possible remobilization during wartime. But if the covert operations staff was intended to remain in a passive mode, why did intelligence personnel and Cabinet officers work so long and hard to ensure that Central Intelligence had sources of funding that were screened from Congressional scrutiny and from the regular budgetary procedures of the Executive Branch? You don't need secret funding to study foreign developments or to write up National Intelligence Estimates (or "OREs" as they were called in the early days). You need secret funding when you want to run agents to steal secrets, when you want to pay foreign newspapers to publish anti-communist editorials, and when you want to have the capability to secretly "manipulate events." In short, removing covert operations from the purview of Central Intelligence may be a good idea or it may be a bad idea, but such a reform would, I believe, be inconsistent with the vision of the CIA's founding fathers (as far as I'm aware they were all men, so I can use that politically incorrect term). Sincerely, Mike Dravis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Alan Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Covert Action and the CIA Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:02:25 -0400 Good point. So when did the "nice guys" politically correct label appear? And when did "Covert Action" include the sort of activities in Laos and Vietnam? I have no problem with, as you say, an intelligence agency stealing, robbing, wiretapping, forging and generally doing whatever it takes to get information. Covert action, yes. Running Dictatorships, murder, torture and bombing, with all the ensuing slaughter, no. Consider this: If someone sent in a posting to the new moderator, explaining how to kill political opponents, and the best ways to torture young women and children, I think you would send it back as "Not Intelligence Related". Maybe we have grown up a little since the 200th Anniversary, and maybe JYA is the "politically correct" path in the New World Order. Have to go, I have two "Little Old Ladies" with 12 gauge pump shotguns outside, want to have a word with me! Alan Simpson > > My own research, and the research of others, on the pre- and early history > of the CIA convinces me that it was intended, from the very beginning, to > perform espionage and what came to be called covert action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:34:06 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Q) Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report John, You're just doing fine, or if you will, you're just living up to the expectations of those who've intended - with certain predictability that you would react as you did - to invoke your actions. Really -you- have nothing to worry about. For those who have, there may be a different reason. The future holds less secrets than the past. cheers Jack ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:12:31 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Steven Aftergood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Targeting O'Leary; Iran leaks Years after she departed from government service, former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary remains a popular target of criticism among politicians and commentators of a certain ideological bent. She was singled out several times at the Wednesday, June 21 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the latest security failures at Los Alamos Laboratory. Senator James Inhofe specifically accused O'Leary of having leaked classified information about the W87 nuclear warhead to U.S. News and World Report, which published a cartoon of the W87 in its July 31, 1995 issue. (The same cartoon was republished in the 1999 Report of the Cox Committee on Chinese espionage.) This accusation, which originated with Rep. Curt Weldon in the House last year, has been fully discredited. In a letter to Senator Inhofe yesterday, the Federation of American Scientists asked him to publicly retract his comments and to apologize to Secretary O'Leary. In a separate letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, FAS asked him to strike Inhofe's accusation from the record of the hearing, or to annotate it as false. The FAS letters to Senators Inhofe and Warner may be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/06/inhofe.html Last Sunday, the New York Times web site published nearly the entire text of a classified Central Intelligence Agency history of the 1953 covert action in Iran. The secret CIA history had been leaked to the Times earlier in the year, and first reported on April 16. On its web site, the Times digitally blacked out the names of certain Iranian agents of the CIA cited in the document. Times national security reporter James Risen wrote this was done "at the urging of historians and Iranian scholars who warned that families of Iranian agents of the CIA may face retribution in Iran." Unfortunately, the digital redaction was clumsily executed by the Times and the concealed names could be detected with a minimum of cleverness, as discovered by John Young, who runs the estimable Cryptome web site. Mr. Young proceeded to publish the text of the CIA history including the agent names that the Times had attempted to conceal. Insofar as Mr. Young's action puts others at risk, not himself, it seems like an elementary moral error. He has assumed a responsibility that he cannot possibly discharge. Moreover, it is hard to identify any countervailing public interest in disclosure of the names. The more profound responsibility, however, arguably lies with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and the CIA, who insisted in a lawsuit brought by the National Security Archive that no more than one sentence of the the 200 page official history could be declassified. The fundamental dishonesty of this claim is now evident from the text published by the Times. If the CIA had exercised a more discerning classification policy and had declassified the bulk of the report, then there would have been no "leak" to the New York Times, and no subsequent disclosure of agent names. Instead, through overclassification, DCI Tenet failed in this case to fulfill his statutory obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods. The classified CIA history is available on the New York Times web site here: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html John Young's Cryptome site is here: http://cryptome.org In 1997, the FAS Secrecy & Government Bulletin argued that both the CIA and the Government of Iran had a motive to exaggerate the CIA's role in the events of 1953, and had in fact done so. See: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec70.html#coup (To "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to these occasional notices from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). ___________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Laleh Khalili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Mr. Young Thank you for what you have done with the report. Truth needs to come out and those who are concerned with the "lives" of those involved (and this 50 years after - when most of those involved have died of old age or have been executed by the IRI anyway) seem to me to care about an absrtact notion called "US interests" more than all those other "lives" that were lost in the bargain in Iran. On several levels your work is worth praise: attacking government secrecy, revealing perils of incompetence in the mad rush of technology, and in revealing truths that are so controversial, so hot, so important that they still shape the lives of people in Iran. Thank you Laleh ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:06:59 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Edward Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: cia document John, I'm a reporter writing a story for the Saturday paper about your recent posting of the blacked out names in the CIA document. I'd like a comment from you on this question: Why did you decide to post the names despite pleas from certain Times and Times Digital editors and reporters that the posting might endanger people linked to the attempted coup? Any reply soonest would be appreciated. Yours, Ed Wong [ See NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/062400iran-repor t.html ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:09:52 -0400 To: Edward Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: cia document Ed, When I learned that others were able to access the edited material it was clear that my discovery was not unique and was probably preceded by others more technologically adept. That made it urgent to broadcast the disclosure so that the few who knew about it could not take advantage of privileged information. The Times is commended for making the report available. It is a truly a disturbing document to read and ponder. That public service should not be diminished by an incidental aspect, though there may be those who wish to deflect attention from its immense value by overdramatizing the names issue. The report should be widely read -- in full, the names of all participants in context, none hidden. Regards, John 212-873-8700 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Eric Behr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: NYT CIA article To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:33:55 -0500 (CDT) Have good luck growing up. And if you have this thing called "conscience" at all, I also wish you good luck dealing with it when/if you do grow up. Thank you for your time. -- Eric Behr | NIU Mathematical Sciences | (815) 753 6727 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.math.niu.edu/~behr/ | fax: 753 1112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Following is the first recovered material from Section VII, p. 54, sent to Mr. Meislin at the New York Times to demonstrate recovery of redacted material: 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 The original redacted PDF page: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-7-54.pdf An image of the PDF page: ----- 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
