Short and Sour

Former British cabinet minister Claire Short has announced that British intelligence bugged Kofi Annan?s office: ?In fact,? she added in a BBC radio interview, ?I?ve had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to the war, thinking ?Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying.??

The story is a follow-up to an initial report in The Observer in March 2003, which led to subsequent legal action being taken against the person who leaked the story: Katharine Gun, a linguist who worked at the British eavesdropping agency, GCHQ.

Last week I noted that The Observer?s revelations were actually a dud. I could be made to eat my words because of Short?s indiscretions, but somehow I doubt it. After all, we?re in an age when the C.I.A. can blithely sail through a New York Times report that all but suggests that 9/11 might have been avoided had the agency pursued a lead.

Comments

[M. Simon]

The way this is handled in the USA is that the FBI is responsible for intel in North and South America and the CIA gets every where else with some overlap.

This is especially true of domestic (USA) intel and counter-intel.

If the CIA handled the hand off properly the responsibility was nominally FBI.

Now the FBI at the time was very busy with drug prohibition crimes and was not very interested in terrorism. (See the FBI, Boston, drug case:

http://www.reconsider.org/tidbits/2001-10-17_%20FBI%20probe%20targeted%20drugs,%20not%20terrorism.htmhttp://www.reconsider.org/tidbits/2001-10-17_%20FBI%20probe%20targeted%20drugs,%20not%20terrorism.htm

[p. carnehan]

Usually, a government prosecution of a whistleblower indicates that something is, in fact, going on - an impression invariably confirmed when the prosecution abruptly folds its tents and walks away, pretending nothing ever happened. In this case, there are actually two interlocking scandals; first, the bugging, which is illegal under international and domestic law, and second, the possibilty (now virtual certainty) that some of the lawyers working for the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence had determined that the war itself was illegal but were over-ruled by Lord Goldsmith. The ability of the defence in Ms Gun's trial to present such legal opinions about the war is most likely the reason that the case was withdrawn, in an attempt to take a small loss to prevent a larger one, though Ms Short has wrecked that strategy as well.
Besides being another blow at the credibility of the PM - and possibly the President, since the NSA is deeply involved as well - and a further confirmation of the abuse of power endemic in the two administrations, this scandal could have serious practical consequences. If Mr Bush expects to withdraw from Iraq before the election, he absolutely has to have the UN's assistance, as galling as the prospect must be to his senior foreign-policy advisors. The difficulty of acquiring such assistance was always great, given the way the administration treated the UN prior to the war, but one expects that the situation will be even worse now with the Secretary-General himself carrying a personal grievance (and probably an incipient lawsuit). Bush and Blair did their very best to make sure that Iraq would become an Anglo-American problem when they thought the solution would be quick and glorious, and now they - and we - are paying for it, with diminishing odds of anyone else footing part of the bill.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Call me crazy, but I just assume that every government on earth is doing as much spying on other governments as they feel is necessary, and that they can get away with. Friends, enemies, neutrals, whatever. It seems that even when a nation is caught spying on its 'friends,' it usually gets smoothed over in quick fashion. They are pretty much all in the same racket, after all.

[p. carnehan]

It is the 'get away with' that matters - the sin is always in getting caught. Usually it does get smoothed over, but I have a feeling that this won't be one of those cases. What the Bush administration has never understood is that in a balance of power scenario, being number one is *not* a good thing, since it is in the interests of the next tier of powers to constrain your actions and prevent you from becoming even stronger (the short version of why Germany, France and Russia stiffed us on Iraq while Poland, Spain and Italy were so supportive.) Screwing about with spying on the UN not only causes problems with that organisation - which we really do need these days - but gives a further reason for the rest of the world to distrust us, *and* a rallying point for their opposition. Moreover, neither Bush nor Blair can afford another scandal these days, especially one that involves intelligence. Even if Annan is willing to let this one slide, I doubt Kerry and Howard will be as accomodating.

[subterfuge]

T o be honest, I would be upset if the US intelligence agencies were NOT spying on the UN.

[Will Spencer]

I am almost OK with condoning government spying.

I am much more OK with not blaming the CIA (FBI, MI5, MI6, KGB, etc... etc... ) for not noticing when someone is about to attack us.

I am NOT ok with telling them that they cannot dotheir jobs and THEN asaulting them for not doing their jobs.