Donate $100 for the Cryptome archive of 65.000 files from June 1996 to the present

28 August 2000: Link to original New York Times PDF files: http://cryptome.org/iran-cia/cia-iran-pdf.htm

2 July 2000: Link to 1998 publication of names of coup participants.

25 June 2000: Link to full unedited report: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm

24 June 2000: Add exchange with New York Times. Add link to second installment of the unedited report: http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm#D (now part of full report)

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://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm#VII (now part of full report)

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 <jde1@att.net> To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jde1@att.net) 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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: intelforum@his.com 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: jya@pipeline.com To: meislin@nytimes.com 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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <die@die.com> To: intelforum@his.com 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,  die@die.com  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" <jitze.couperus@syntegra.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 <jde1@att.net> To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jde1@att.net)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:02:03 -0400 To: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: Re: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: intelforum@his.com > 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 (jchambers@cas.org)          *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 <jya@pipeline.com> From: Rich Meislin <meislin@nytimes.com> 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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <meislin@nytimes.com> From: jya@pipeline.com 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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com > 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 <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: RE: Complete CIA history of 1953 Iranian coup posted by New York Times To: intelforum@his.com >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 (jchambers@cas.org)          *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: intelforum@his.com From: "Anthony D' Amato" <a-damato@northwestern.edu> 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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com > 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" <thomsona@flash.net> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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: intelforum@his.com From: "Anthony D' Amato" <a-damato@northwestern.edu> 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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com > 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: intelforum@his.com From: "Anthony D' Amato" <a-damato@northwestern.edu> 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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report This it the NY Times letter: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:04:29 -0400 To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> From: Rich Meislin <meislin@nytimes.com> 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: ESolaro@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:20:59 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com In a message dated 6/20/00 4:54:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, thomsona@flash.net 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 <Frode.Weierud@cern.ch> To: intelforum@his.com 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 : Frode.Weierud@cern.ch         Switzerland             WWW    : http://home.cern.ch/frode/
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:34:14 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com 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 <meislin@nytimes.com> From: jya@pipeline.com 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 <jya@pipeline.com> From: Rich Meislin <meislin@nytimes.com> 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                                        meislin@nytimes.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:11:01 -0500 From: Chris Moseng <moseng@mninter.net> To: jy@cryptome.org 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 <markoff@nytimes.com> To: jy@cryptome.org 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 <markoff@nytimes.com> To: jy@cryptome.org 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 Risenj@nytimes.com 202-862-0355
From: NameBase@cs.com Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:34:04 EDT Subject: Iran document To: risenj@nytimes.com CC: jy@cryptome.org 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/                   NameBase@cs.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:15:31 -0400 > From: John Markoff <markoff@nytimes.com> > To: jy@cryptome.org > 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 <markoff@nytimes.com> > To: jy@cryptome.org > 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 Risenj@nytimes.com 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 <James.Risen@latimes.com> > To: Daniel Brandt <NameBase@cs.com> > 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 james.risen@latimes.com
From: NameBase@cs.com Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:36:03 EDT Subject: Re: Iran document To: risenj@nytimes.com CC: jy@cryptome.org > Subj:  Re: Iran document >  Date:    6/21/00 6:48:38 PM Central Daylight Time >  From:    risenj@nytimes.com (Jim Risen) >  To:  NameBase@cs.com >  >  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 <jde1@att.net> To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jde1@att.net)
From: ESolaro@aol.com Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:48:27 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com 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: LevinMJ@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:57:31 EDT Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com In a message dated 06/20/2000 5:49:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, a-damato@northwestern.edu 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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com >   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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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: intelforum@his.com From: C Ridley <cridley@meyerequipment.com> 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 <jde1@att.net> To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jde1@att.net)


	    


	    




From: "Alan Simpson" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:27:23 -0400 (DST) From: John Chambers <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jchambers@cas.org)          *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: intelforum@his.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com > From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> > > 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 (jchambers@cas.org)          *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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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 news@wbrief.com > 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 <jchambers@cas.org> Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report To: intelforum@his.com 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 (jchambers@cas.org)          *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: intelforum@his.com From: Michael Dravis <oso@his.com> 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" <news@comlinks.com> To: <intelforum@his.com> 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: intelforum@his.com From: Q@ranger.net (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: saftergood@igc.org From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org> 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 saftergood@igc.org). ___________________ 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 <lk180@columbia.edu> Sender: lk180@columbia.edu To: jya@pipeline.com 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: jya@pipeline.com From: Edward Wong <edwong@nytimes.com> 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-report.html ]
Date: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:09:52 -0400 To: Edward Wong <edwong@nytimes.com> From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> 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 <behr@math.niu.edu> Subject: NYT CIA article To: jy@cryptome.org 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 behr@math.niu.edu | 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: