July 6, 2013 - No. 26

Condemn the Acts of Piracy Against Bolivian President Evo Morales!

European Countries at U.S. Behest Engage in Flagrant Violation of International Law

Leaders from the member nations of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) participate in a mass rally in
Cochabamba, Bolivia, July 4, 2013 to support President Evo Morales and his country's sovereignty.

On July 2, in an egregious and flagrant violation of international law and diplomatic norms, the governments of France, Italy, Portugal and Spain refused to grant permission for the plane carrying Bolivia's President Evo Morales to fly over their territory, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing in Austria as its fuel was running low. Paris, Rome, Lisbon and Madrid acted at the behest of the U.S., under the pretext that former CIA agent Edward Snowden may have been on Morales' plane. The U.S. has made it clear that it will bully, pressure and openly coerce any country that might provide refuge for Snowden, who exposed the massive U.S. spying and violation of peoples' rights in the U.S. and throughout the world. Whether or not Snowden was on Morales' plane is not the central point. What is central is that the Obama regime has arrogated to itself the "right" to violate international law as it deems fit and the big powers of Old Europe, Canada and certain Commonwealth countries have adopted piracy and gangsterism as their mode of conduct in international affairs. It corroborates what the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) has pointed out, that we now face the disintegration, erasure and sweeping away of previous arrangements and ways that prevailed in the latter half of the 20th century. The forcing down of Morales' plane is one more poignant indication of this. It is a very dangerous situation indeed which must be opposed with every fibre of our being.

(A. Helguera)

In this regard, TML calls on the working people of Canada to join the people of Bolivia who came out in their hundreds of thousands to support their President, along with the Presidents of several Latin American countries who rallied in the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia no sooner did the assault on the President of Bolivia become known.

At the mass rally held in Cochabamba on July 4, the Presidents of various South American countries denounced the acts of the governments of Italy, France, Portugal and Spain against President Evo Morales, saying they "offend not only the Bolivian people, but also all our nations."

"We have dignity, sovereignty and pride in our peoples," President Evo Morales said. He stressed that he will not permit any country to subject Bolivia to any form of blackmail or intimidation such as the treatment he received. He pointed out what happened to him was no mistake, but part of the imperial politics against the Bolivian people.

For his part, the President of Ecuador Rafael Correa reiterated that the South American nations must "graduate from being colonies" and "perpetuate ourselves as free and sovereign peoples." The countries of South America will not permit that any head of state of Our Americas be treated in such a manner, he added. He warned the people that actions such as those carried out against the Bolivian President will destroy the international rule of law and that it merited convoking the extraordinary meeting of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) because Bolivia has not plundered, carried out espionage or aggression against any country.

The President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro said that it was a sad hour for Europe but he reaffirmed that for Latin America, it is a time to unite. "The aggression against Evo Morales has united us further," he said.

The President of Argentina Cristina Fernández said that at the very least, the governments of the European countries involved should apologize.

Also present at the rally were representatives of all the social movements in Bolivia, reiterating the defiance of the people of Bolivia to these imperial acts.

Following the rally, the Presidents of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez; Uruguay, José Mujica; Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro; Ecuador, Rafael Correa; and Suriname, Desiré Bouterse issued a strong condemnation of those countries involved, all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The statement denounces before the international community and its various bodies, "the flagrant violation of treaties that govern peaceful coexistence, solidarity and cooperation between our States." The Presidents of Peru, Colombia, Chile and Brazil, who could not attend this extraordinary UNASUR summit, also expressed their condemnation of the injustice suffered by Evo Morales in Europe.

Bolivia also sent an official letter to the United Nations calling on it to censure the European countries which did not permit President Evo Morales and his aircraft to fly over their airspace or refuel.

The letter, delivered to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, was signed by Bolivia's permanent representative to the UN, Sacha Llorenti, and details the actions of the French, Portuguese and Spanish authorities against the presidential plane. It says that such actions on the part of the countries concerned pave the way to a harmful precedent that could affect other dignitaries and endanger peaceful coexistence between states.

The letter describes the behaviour by these countries as a flagrant violation of international law and the personal security and liberty of the Bolivian president. A breach of the most basic rules of diplomacy to which states are bound has been committed, the letter goes on to say. It calls the acts unjustifiable aggression on the constitutionally elected President by virtue of his political position. It points out that having someone like Evo Morales occupy the office of President certainly irks the global powers who believe they still have imperial authority over the nations of the world, the letter says.

In the letter, Bolivia asks the UN Secretary General to report to the international community to ensure that this incident does not go unpunished and to prevent setting a dangerous precedent that could affect other heads of state.

The letter calls on Ban Ki-moon to himself speak out against these actions that clearly prove that liberty and the most basic rights can be subjugated to the interests of the few at the expense of the majority.

News agencies also inform that the European Parliament criticized the treatment of the Bolivian President. Martin Schulz, President of the EU Parliament, called the treatment ridiculous and unacceptable. Schulz said that the EU would have to verify who gave the orders to carry out such an act, a clear reference to France, Italy, Portugal and Spain's decision to abruptly cancel the flight permits for Morales' presidential airplane. European countries must respect international law, he said.

Evo Morales was held in Vienna for 14 hours and only after his plane was inspected did Spain lift its ban and permit his plane to refuel in the Canary Islands.

(Photos: MinCI)

Hooliganism in International Relations
Must Not Pass!

- Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), July 4, 2013 -

Bolivian President Evo Morales is greeted by residents, ministers and members of social movements on his return to Bolivia, July 3, 2013.

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) denounces the refusal of Italy, France, Spain and Portugal to permit the Bolivian presidential aircraft to land or fly over their territories on July 2. President Evo Morales was returning from Russia where he attended the second summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. Short of fuel, the plane was forced to land in Vienna, Austria where it was boarded and searched, using the pretext that the plane could be transporting the former CIA agent, Edward Snowden. The U.S. government has issued a warrant for Snowden’s arrest after the leak of top secret information.

The actions of the European states against the Bolivian presidential aircraft are outrageous hooliganism, which violate all norms of immunity of a president of a republic, the sovereignty of countries and the official flights of their highest representatives. CPC(M-L) notes that the government of Canada has remained silent on this hooligan act, which not only shows utter disrespect for the Bolivian President but also sets a very dangerous precedent tantamount to casual declarations of war wherein no international code of conduct is recognized.

The dangerous levels of anarchy and incoherence in international affairs can also be seen in the fact that the European Union is protesting U.S. spying on their official offices in Washington and Brussels yet member countries are cooperating with the U.S. by committing acts of piracy against the President of Bolivia, denying lawful access to their airspace and boarding and searching his presidential aircraft, which are all hostile acts in violation of Bolivian sovereignty and international norms.

These events prove that private interests have taken over the governments of these countries involved. They have usurped state power in pursuit of private agendas. The world is witness to degeneration in norms of diplomatic behaviour and the rule of law, as these private interests using state power adopt methods of revenge-seeking and settling scores using the dirtiest gangster methods.

Might does not make right and never shall no matter how righteous the cause is deemed to be. Condemn the utter disregard for the sovereign rights of independent countries! Demand those European countries that participated in these acts of international hooliganism and piracy apologize and desist from such conduct in the future. Demand that the Government of Canada denounce these acts of international hooliganism against Evo Morales, President of the sovereign Plurinational State of Bolivia and issue an official statement to that effect.

No to Collaboration with the U.S. in the Use of
Gangster Methods. It Must Not Pass!

Cochabamba Declaration by the Union of South American Nations

- July 4, 2013 -

Given the situation that the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was subjected to by the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain, we denounce before the international community and various international organizations:

- The flagrant act that took place as a violation of international treaties governing peaceful coexistence, solidarity and cooperation between our states; an unusual, unfriendly and hostile act, constituting an unlawful act that affects the freedom of movement and a displacement of a head of state and his delegation.

- The abuse and neocolonial practices that still exist on our planet in the 21st century.

- The lack of transparency about the motivations of the political decisions that prevented transit for the Bolivian presidential aircraft and the President.

- The injustice suffered by President Evo Morales, which offends not only the Bolivian people but all our nations.

- The illegal spying practices that threaten the rights of citizens and friendly coexistence among nations.

In view of these denunciations, we are convinced that the process of building the Patria Grande [Integrated Latin America] to which we are committed must be consolidated with full respect for the sovereignty and independence of our peoples, without interference from global hegemonic powers, and overcoming the old practices of imposing first and second class [status on] countries.

The heads of state and governments of countries of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), gathered in Cochabamba on July 4, 2013:

1. We declare that the unacceptable restriction on the liberty of President Evo Morales, virtually making him a hostage, is a violation of the rights of not only the Bolivian people but of all countries and peoples of Latin America and sets a dangerous precedent for existing international law.

2. We reject the actions that clearly violate the norms and principles of international law and the inviolability of heads of state.

3. We call on the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain to explain the reasons for the decision to prevent the presidential plane from the Plurinational State of Bolivia from overflying their airspace.

4. Similarly, we urge the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain to present the corresponding public apologies for the serious incidents that occurred.

5. We support the complaint filed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for the serious violation of human rights and specific endangerment of the life of President Evo Morales; we also support the right of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take all actions it deems necessary to the courts and relevant agencies.

6. We agreed to form a monitoring committee, entrusting the task to our foreign ministries to perform the actions necessary to shed light on the facts.

Finally, in the spirit of the principles set forth in the treaty establishing UNASUR, we urge all the heads of state of the union to stand by [accompany] this declaration.

Similarly, we call on the United Nations and regional organizations that have not done so yet, to make a pronouncement on this unjustifiable and arbitrary event.

Cochabamba, July 4, 2013

(Translated by Censored News: Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights; edited slightly by TML.)

Anarchy in International Relations

Surveillance Programs Reveal U.S. Hypocrisy

- Liu Dan and Bi Mingxin, Xinhua, June 14, 2013 -

Protest in support of Edward Snowden outside U.S. consulate in Hong Kong, June 15, 2013.

In past years, the U.S. government has been blaming other countries for threatening cyber security. However, the recent leakage of the two top-secret U.S. surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA) has smashed the image of the U.S. as a cyber liberty advocate and revealed its hypocrisy.

Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old defense contractor, revealed last week that the NSA is monitoring a wide swath of telephone and Internet activity as part of its counterterrorism efforts.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong [June 12] that the United States is involved in extensive hacking operations directed against China.

In an interview with the newspaper, Snowden said he wanted to demonstrate "the hypocrisy of the U.S. government when it claims that it does not target civilian infrastructure, unlike its adversaries."

"We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one," he said.

"Not only does it do so, but it is so afraid of this being known that it is willing to use any means, such as diplomatic intimidation, to prevent this information becoming public."

The revelations have renewed the debate over surveillance in the United States and overseas under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Civil liberties advocates describe the measures as "dangerous and unacceptable intrusions."

"Americans' faith in the law is touching. In this instance, it is misplaced," read an article posted on the New Yorker on June 12.

"Ever since 9/11 and the USA Patriot Act and the explosion of new security organizations, the American people have seen their liberties eroded." said Bob Beckel, a liberal Democratic strategist. And Cal Thomas, a USA Today columnist, shared Beckel's opinion when they discussed the impact of the leaks on citizens' liberty in his column.

U.S. officials have argued the programs strike the correct balance between privacy and national security. Obama administration have attempted to justify the surveillance programs by pointing to the arrests and convictions of would- be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi in 2009 and David Headley, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

However, court documents lodged in the U.S. and UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data-mining through Prism and other NSA programs played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots, according to a report of the Guardian.

The New York Times also criticized that the U.S. government is "using a would-be subway bomber to justify sweeping surveillance."

While the U.S. government is defending its own surveillance programs, it keeps accusing other countries including China of launching cyber attacks.

For months now, the U.S. government has implicated Beijing in state-sponsored hacking. China has denied such attacks while defending itself as a victim of cyber crimes. Snowden's testimony now certainly adds a dose of conviction to the Chinese government's statements.

According to the whistleblower, among some 61,000 reported targets of the NSA are thousands of computers in China -- which U.S. officials have increasingly criticized as the source of thousands of attacks on U.S. military and commercial networks.

China's cyber security has come under increasingly severe threats amid a variety of safety risks, according to a report released in March by the National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team Coordination Center (CNCERT).

Hackers have tampered with 16,388 web pages in China -- including 1,802 government websites -- in the past year, up 6.1 percent and 21.4 percent year on year respectively, the report said.

In 2012, around 73,000 overseas Internet Protocol addresses were involved in hijacking nearly 14.2 million mainframes in China via Trojans [viruses] or Botnet,[1] with the United States being the largest source of such hacking activities.

As the birthplace of the World Wide Web, the United States already has a matchless superiority and ability to launch cyber attacks around the globe.

Currently, the U.S. military has established a significant cyber force, including the 780th Military Intelligence Brigade, which is a regular military unit tasked with carrying out cyber missions.

Earlier media reports said Iran was once attacked by U.S. military intelligence agencies via the Internet, while, according to China's foreign ministry, a majority of the cyber attacks against China comes from the United States.

As the aftershocks of NSA surveillance programs continue, it's time for the U.S. government to make more self-examination instead of pointing fingers at other nations.

TML Note

1. A botnet is a group of computers controlled from a single source which run related software programs and scripts. The term usually refers to multiple computers that have been infected with malicious software. To create a malicious botnet, a hacker must first compromise several computers. (techterms.com)

China Opposes Hacking Allegations

2007 press conference held by U.S. Air Force where it announced the establishment of a cyber command to
prepare for "victory in cyberspace."

In the first week of February, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal claimed that cyber attacks from China-based hackers had been detected. This was promptly rejected by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose spokesperson Hong Lei said allegations of Chinese hacker attacks are groundless. He reiterated his government's position on fighting cybercrime.

The allegations the Chinese government calls baseless continue to circulate based on a report by U.S. security company Mandiant stating that the company had traced cyber attacks waged against U.S. companies and government agencies to a unit of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). On February 20, the Chinese news agency Xinhua published the following commentary which points out why the allegations are both baseless and revealing.

Baseless and Revealing

U.S. cybersecurity firm Mandiant on [February 18] claimed in a report that hackers related to the Chinese military attacked some U.S. websites, once again stirring up the "Chinese hackers threat."

Mandiant put forward as its main evidence a claim that many of the cyber attacks were launched from IP addresses registered in the Chinese metropolis of Shanghai.

However, one does not need to be a cybersecurity expert to know that professional hackers usually exploit what is called the botnet in other parts of the world as proxies for attacks, not their own computers.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that both the origins of the hackers and the attacks they have launched can be located.

That is why China's foreign ministry and defense ministry both described the firm's report as "amateurish" when they dismissed Mandiant's false accusations.

However, it is beyond belief that a firm specialized in the field of cybersecurity could be so indiscreetly desperate as to jump to a conclusion so full of loopholes, unless it has a good reason.

If one takes a closer look at Mandiant's report, it is not too difficult to find that it reeks of a commercial stunt.

In a statement accompanying the firm's report, Kevin Mandia, founder and CEO of Mandiant, seems to do nothing but market the products and services of his company.

"Given the sheer amount of data this particular group (the hackers) has stolen, we decided it was necessary to arm and prepare as many organizations as possible to prevent additional losses," he said.

Next time, the CEO could simply say: "See the Chinese hackers? Hurry up, come and buy our cybersecurity services."

Moreover, the much-hyped threat can also be attributed to some U.S. politicians and businessmen who always seek to use China to pursue their personal political and commercial interests, especially at a time when the U.S. Congress is about to approve a budget plan for the country's new fiscal year.

Without targeting China as a "presumed enemy," they might run short of excuses to demand more money to build an even stronger cyber military force or buy cybersecurity hardware and services from a company whose CEO used to serve in the U.S. air force.

As the birthplace of the World Wide Web, the United States already has a matchless superiority and ability to stage cyber attacks across the globe.

Currently, the U.S. military has established a significant cyber force, including the 780th Military Intelligence Brigade, which is a regular military unit tasked with carrying out cyber missions.

Earlier media reports said Iran was once attacked by U.S. military intelligence agencies through the Internet, while, according to China's foreign ministry, a majority of the cyber attacks against China come from the United States.

In fact, the credibility of the United States has already been seriously questioned because of its government's habit of accusing other nations based on phony evidence.

In 1993, the United States accused "Yinhe," a Chinese cargo ship, of carrying banned material for making chemical weapons to Iran. However, no suspected goods were found after a joint Chinese-Saudi inspection.

Similarly, facts will eventually prove that the cyber attacks accusations are groundless and will only tarnish the image and reputation of the company making them, as well as that of the United States.

European Concerns over U.S. Spy Program

Map of U.S. National Security Agency's spying activity. Countries range in colour from green,
least spied on, to red for those countries the most spied on. Click to enlarge.

News agencies report that Germany ranks as the most-spied-on European Union (EU) country by the U.S., according to a map of secret surveillance activities by the National Security Agency (NSA). They also report that Frankfurt is of particular interest because it is the country's banking and financial capital.

German ministers expressed their outrage over the widesclale U.S. spy program, comparing U.S. methods to those of the former East Germany's (DDR) Ministry for State Security, or Stasi.

The U.S. is using "American-style Stasi methods," said member of the European Parliament Markus Ferber. "I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell," he said.

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said leaked reports indicate that U.S. intelligence services are able to track virtually all forms of Internet communication and demanded an explanation.

"The more a society monitors, controls and observes its citizens, the less free it is," she wrote in a guest editorial for Spiegel Online. "The suspicion of excessive surveillance of communication is so alarming that it cannot be ignored. For that reason, openness and clarification by the U.S. administration itself is paramount at this point," she said.

Peter Schaar, Germany's federal data protection commissioner, said the leaked intelligence was grounds for "massive concern" in Europe. "The problem is that we Europeans are not protected from what appears to be a very comprehensive surveillance program," he told the Handelsblatt newspaper. "Neither European nor German rules apply here, and American laws only protect Americans."

Meanwhile, the European Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights Vivian Reding wrote the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an explanation for the collection of foreign nationals' data. In a letter seen by Reuters, the European Union's Chief Justice wrote: "I would request that you provide me with explanations and clarifications on the PRISM program, other U.S. programs involving data collection and search, and laws under which such programs may be authorized." Reding asked Holder to explain whether EU citizens were targeted under PRISM, how broad U.S. access to the data would have been and how EU companies and citizens can appeal against the monitoring of their private correspondence.

Reuters reports that EU officials have for several years asked the United States to explain how laws such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act affect EU citizens and companies. "The European Parliament, in particular, has become vocal about limiting data sharing and protecting privacy. Reding has said she has asked U.S. authorities to use an agreed legal channel called the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement to access any data, a method that requires judicial approval," writes Reuters.

Since 2011 the EU has tried to negotiate a transatlantic data protection agreement that would limit U.S. access to European data. The talks have stalled partly over the issue of what rights EU citizens had on U.S. soil, a Commission official told Reuters.

"EU officials are also debating whether data protection should be included in negotiations for an EU-U.S. free trade deal on which formal talks are expected to begin in July," Reuters states.

The European business community "has warned that without legal certainty, technologies which rely on data protection such as cloud computing will not be able to grow in Europe," Reuters reports.

Companies considering adopting cloud technology, where software and data are stored online on remote servers rather than locally on a person's individual computer, cite security as their biggest concern and "European officials say they are aware that Europe's cloud market hinges on privacy," states Reuters. "The storage of the data in foreign servers and related legal uncertainty constitutes a real impediment," a second Commission official said. "Lobby groups in Brussels say they need to know which set of laws -- EU or U.S. legislation -- they should follow," Reuters informs.

U.S. Spying on European Union Offices

In related news, on June 29, German magazine Spiegel reported that the NSA has been spying on offices of the EU in Europe and the U.S. Spiegel reports that "the U.S. placed bugs in the EU representation in Washington and infiltrated its computer network. Cyber attacks were also perpetrated against [EU offices] in New York and Washington."

The report continues: "The information appears in secret documents obtained by whistleblower Edward Snowden that Spiegel has in part seen. A 'top secret' 2010 document describes how the secret service attacked the EU's diplomatic representation in Washington. The document suggests that in addition to installing bugs in the building in downtown Washington, DC, the European Union representation's computer network was also infiltrated. In this way, the Americans were able to access discussions in EU rooms as well as emails and internal documents on computers.

"... It has also been revealed that the British intelligence service GCHQ operates a similar program under the name Tempora with which global telephone and Internet connections are monitored."

Referring to the electronic eavesdropping operation in Brussels, Spiegel writes: "A little over five years ago, EU security experts noticed several telephone calls that were apparently targeting the remote maintenance system in the Justus Lipsius Building, where the EU Council of Ministers and the European Council are located. The calls were made to numbers that were very similar to the one used for the remote administration of the building's telephone system.

"Security officials managed to track the calls to NATO headquarters in the Brussels suburb of Evere. A precise analysis showed that the attacks on the telecommunications system had originated from a building complex separated from the rest of the NATO headquarters that is used by NSA experts.

"A review of the remote maintenance system showed that it had been called and reached several times from precisely that NATO complex. Every EU member state has rooms in the Justus Lipsius Building that can be used by EU ministers. They also have telephone and Internet connections at their disposal."

In other related news, the Guardian reported that based on information provided by Snowden,  the U.S. secret services spy on 38 embassies, including those of France, Italy and Greece. If the allegations are true, it would be a hard blow to the relations between the EU and U.S., Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament said. Schulz spoke with U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, demanding prompt concrete information on the matter which was put for debate in the European Parliament on July 3. Of specific concern are bilateral relations between the U.S. and Europe, including negotiations on a free trade agreement.

(Reuters, June 18, June 29; Spiegel, June 29, 2013; Guardian)

U.S Involvement in Cyber Attack on Iran

NBC News and the Washington Post recently informed that James Cartwright, formerly second in command at the Pentagon and a four-star general, has become a target in the investigation of a leak of classified information. The leak revealed the central role of the U.S. in the 2010 cyber attack on Iran's nuclear program using the Stuxnet computer worm. This attack temporarily disabled 1,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Iranian nuclear facilities. The computer worm affected control systems built by the German electronics giant Siemens by exploiting "vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Windows operating system and quickly affected computers around the world." Deutsche Welle reports.

Graphic showing how the U.S. and Israel carried out the sabotage of Iran's nuclear program
using the Stuxnet computer worm. Click to enlarge.

Deutsche Welle informs that "Cartwright, who retired in 2011, was one of President Barack Obama's closest security advisers.He was later, however, mentioned as a suspect by the New York Times, which reported in 2012 that the virus had indeed been a U.S.-Israeli attack.

"The New York Times pointed out that Cartwright was one of the crucial advisers to President Obama when an element of the program accidentally became public in 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and get out on the Internet. Republican politicians said senior administration officials had leaked the details of the U.S. cyberattack on Iran to bolster the president's national security credentials during the 2012 re-election campaign. Congressional leaders demanded a criminal probe into who leaked the information. The investigation of the Stuxnet cyberattack leak is one of a number of national security breach investigations conducted by the Obama administration."

(Agencies)

Ecuador Rejects U.S. Intimidation over Asylum with Principled Position

On June 26, Senator Robert Menendez (Democrat, New Jersey), head of the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, threatened Ecuador that the U.S. would block renewal of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) should Ecuador grant asylum to former CIA agent Edward Snowden.

The Act reduces tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of trade in products such as cut flowers, artichokes and broccoli. "Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," Senator Menendez said in a statement.

The government of Ecuador gave a firm and principled response to the U.S. threats. "It's unprecedented to try to make a state illegitimate for receiving an asylum request," Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said.

Ecuador does not accept pressure or threats from anyone, it does not trade its principles nor subject them to commercial interests, however important they may be, emphasized Correa. He reiterated Ecuador's unilateral and irrevocable waiver of preferential treatment under the ATPDEA.

President Correa's defiance of the pressure and blackmail attempts by the U.S. has won wide support amongst the grassroots who re-elected him last February 17, as well as the media, Prensa Latina reports. It points out that this nationalist spirit in defence of sovereignty is what saw the removal of the U.S. military base in Manta.

To deal with the effects of the U.S measures on Ecuadorian companies which export to the U.S., Correa announced that he will send an urgent economic bill to the National Assembly which will provide compensation of $23 million to offset the loss of U.S. tariff preferences.

During a conversation with the national and foreign press, he said that a compensation mechanism for the business sector in Ecuador would include, among other things, the implementation of a tax credit certificate equivalent to that amount. "We will not leave the Ecuadorian export sector isolated," he said, and reiterated that, "While I am President I will not let this small but dignified and sovereign country be subject to any kind of blackmail or abuse, that certain U.S. political sectors have unsuccessfully tried."

Ecuador, he clarified, will not submit to subjugation and indignity and "neither wants to demonstrate superiority against nor challenge anyone." He stressed Ecuador's willingness to maintain excellent relations with all countries in a framework of mutual respect.

"We do not have the slightest intention of breaking diplomatic and trade relations with the United States. Not only that, the relations of the Ecuadorian people with the people of the United States will always be the best," he said.

"If those tariff preferences meant aid amounting to $23 billion to Ecuadorian exporters, Ecuador is ready to offer to the United States a similar amount in order to provide training in human rights."

It would be training, said Correa, that would help to avoid attacks on the privacy of individuals, torture, extrajudicial killings and other acts injurious to humankind, stressing that Ecuador is one of the seven countries who have signed all such human rights treaties.

In related news, a group of U.S. artists and intellectuals has asked Ecuador to provide asylum to Edward Snowden, fearing U.S. reprisals against him.

In a letter addressed to President Rafael Correa, they express doubts about an alleged speedy trial for Snowden should he be taken into U.S. custody. Of particular concern is that Snowden may suffer the same fate as soldier Bradley Manning, who was arrested three years ago for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

The letter condemns the administration of President Barack Obama for focusing its anger on Snowden, described as a "brave whistleblower" for informing the U.S. public about the constitutional violations they suffered.

"We have seen this drama play out several times before under the Obama administration. The administration has charged more than twice as many whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined. These have included Thomas Drake who also exposed wrongdoing at the NSA, and most notably Private Bradley Manning, who stands accused of providing Wikileaks with information that revealed U.S. war crimes, U.S. meddling in other countries' affairs, and other grave and troubling misdeeds. Manning was held for three years before his trial under conditions that a formal UN investigation found to be 'cruel, inhuman and degrading.'"

The long list of signatories includes well-known artists, writers, activists and professors as well as former U.S. military and intelligence personnel, and others in Canada, the UK and elsewhere. To view the full letter and list of signatories, click here.

(Prensa Latina, USA Today, Just Foreign Policy)

Reference Material

The National Security Industrial Complex and NSA Spying: The Revolving Doors Between State Agencies and Private Contractors

- Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch/IPS*, June 17, 2013 -

When Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton -- a military contractor based in McLean, Virginia -- blew the whistle on the extent of U.S. global electronic surveillance, he unexpectedly shone a light on the world of contractors that consume some 70 percent of the $52 billion U.S. intelligence budget.

Some commentators have pounced on Snowden's disclosures to denounce the role of private contractors in the world of government and national security, arguing that such work is best left to public servants. But their criticism misses the point.

It is no longer possible to determine the difference between employees of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the employees of companies such as Booz Allen, who have integrated to the extent that they slip from one role in industry to another in government, cross-promoting each other and self-dealing in ways that make the fabled revolving door redundant, if not completely disorienting.

Snowden, who was employed by Booz Allen as a contract systems administrator at the NSA's Threat Operations Centre in Hawaii for three months, had worked for the CIA and Dell before getting his most recent job. But his rather obscure role pales in comparison to those of others.

Pushing for Expanded Surveillance

To best understand this tale, one must first turn to R. James Woolsey, a former director of CIA, who appeared before the U.S. Congress in the summer of 2004 to promote the idea of integrating U.S. domestic and foreign spying efforts to track "terrorists."

One month later, he appeared on MSNBC television, where he spoke of the urgent need to create a new U.S. intelligence czar to help expand the post-9/11 national surveillance apparatus.

On neither occasion did Woolsey mention that he was employed as senior vice president for global strategic security at Booz Allen, a job he held from 2002 to 2008.

"The source of information about vulnerabilities of and potential attacks on the homeland will not be dominated by foreign intelligence, as was the case in the Cold War. The terrorists understood us well, and so they lived and planned where we did not spy (inside the U.S.)," said Woolsey in prepared remarks before the U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security on June 24, 2004.

In a prescient suggestion of what Snowden would later reveal, Woolsey went on to discuss expanding surveillance to cover domestic, as well as foreign sources.

"One source will be our vulnerability assessments, based on our own judgments about weak links in our society's networks that can be exploited by terrorists," he said. "A second source will be domestic intelligence. How to deal with such information is an extraordinarily difficult issue in our free society."

In late July 2004, Woolsey appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball", a news-talk show hosted by Chris Matthews, and told Matthews that the federal government needed a new high-level office -- a director of national intelligence -- to straddle domestic and foreign intelligence. Until then, the director of the CIA served as the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community.

"The problem is that the intelligence community has grown so much since 1947, when the position of director of central intelligence was created, that it's (become) impossible to do both jobs, running the CIA and managing the community," he said.

Both these suggestions would lead to influential jobs and lucrative sources of income for Woolsey's employer and colleagues.

The Director of National Intelligence

Fast forward to 2007. Vice Admiral Michael McConnell (retired), Booz Allen's then-senior vice president of policy, transformation, homeland security and intelligence analytics, was hired as the second czar of the new "Office of the Director of National Intelligence" which was coincidentally located just three kilometers from the company's corporate headquarters.

Upon retiring as DNI, McConnell returned to Booz Allen in 2009, where he serves as vice chairman to this day. In August 2010, Lieutenant General James Clapper (retired), a former vice president for military intelligence at Booz Allen from 1997 to 1998, was hired as the fourth intelligence czar, a job he has held ever since. Indeed, one-time Booz Allen executives have filled the position five of the eight years of its existence.

When these two men took charge of the national-security state, they helped expand and privatize it as never before.

McConnell, for example, asked Congress to alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the NSA to spy on foreigners without a warrant if they were using Internet technology that routed through the United States.

"The resulting changes in both law and legal interpretations (... and the) new technologies created a flood of new work for the intelligence agencies -- and huge opportunities for companies like Booz Allen," wrote David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth in a profile of McConnell published in the New York Times this weekend.

Last week, Snowden revealed to the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald that the NSA had created a secret system called "Prism" that allowed the agency to spy on electronic data of ordinary citizens around the world, both within and outside the United States.

Snowden's job at Booz Allen's offices in Hawaii was to maintain the NSA's information technology systems. While he did not specify his precise connection to Prism, he told the South China Morning Post newspaper that the NSA hacked "network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one."

Indeed Woolsey had argued in favor of such surveillance following the disclosure of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping by the New York Times in December 2005.

"Unlike the Cold War, our intelligence requirements are not just overseas," he told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA in February 2006. "Courts are not designed to deal with fast-moving battlefield electronic mapping in which an al Qaeda or a Hezbollah computer might be captured which contains a large number of email addresses and phone numbers which would have to be checked out very promptly."

Propaganda Puppets

Roger Cressey, a senior vice president for cybersecurity and counter-terrorism at Booz Allen who is also a paid commentator for NBC News, went on air multiple times to explain how the government would pursue the Boston Marathon case in April 2013. "We always need to understand there are priority targets the counter-terrorism community is always looking at," he told the TV station.

Cressey took a position "on one of the most controversial aspects of the government response to Boston that completely reflects the views of the government agencies -- such as the FBI and the CIA -- that their companies ultimately serve," wrote Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire, on Salon. "Their views, in turn, convinces NBC hosts of the wisdom of the policy, a stance which could easily sway an uncertain public about the legitimacy of the new face of state power that has emerged in the post-9/11 period. That is influence, yet it is not fully disclosed by NBC."

This was not the first time that Cressey had been caught at this when speaking to NBC News. Cressey failed to disclose that his former employer -- Good Harbor Consulting -- had been paid for advice by the government of Yemen, when he went on air to criticize democracy protests in Yemen in March 2011. (Cressey has just been hired by Booz Allen at the time)

"What is not disclosed about Cressey in this segment where he scaremongers about a post-Saleh Yemen is that he has multiple conflicts of interest with the current regime there," wrote Zaid Jilani of ThinkProgress at the time.

A Flood of New Contracts

Exactly what Booz Allen does for the NSA's electronic surveillance system revealed by Snowden is classified, but one can make an educated guess from similar contracts it has in this field -- a quarter of the company's $5.86 billion in annual income comes from intelligence agencies.

The NSA, for example, hired Booz Allen in 2001 in an advisory role on the five-billion-dollar Project Groundbreaker to rebuild and operate the agency's "nonmission-critical" internal telephone and computer networking systems.

Booz Allen also won a chunk of the Pentagon's infamous Total Information Awareness contract in 2001 to collect information on potential terrorists in America from phone records, credit card receipts and other databases -- a controversial program defunded by Congress in 2003 but whose spirit survived in Prism and other initiatives disclosed by Snowden.

The CIA pays a Booz Allen team led by William Wansley, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, for "strategic and business planning" for its National Clandestine Service, which conducts covert operations and recruits foreign spies.

The company also provides a 120-person team, headed by a former U.S. Navy cryptology lieutenant commander and Booz Allen senior executive adviser Pamela Lentz, to support the National Reconnaissance Organization, the Pentagon agency that manages the nation's military spy satellites.

In January, Booz Allen was one of 12 contractors to win a five-year contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency that could be worth up to $5.6 billion to focus on "computer network operations, emerging and disruptive technologies, and exercise and training activity."

Last month, the U.S. Navy picked Booz Allen as part of a consortium to work on yet another billion-dollar project for "a new generation of intelligence, surveillance and combat operations."

How does Booz Allen wins these contracts? Well, in addition to its connections with the DNI, the company boasts that half of its 25,000 employees are cleared for "top secret-sensitive compartmented intelligence" -- one of the highest possible security ratings. (One third of the 1.4 million people with such clearances work for the private sector.)

A key figure at Booz Allen is Ralph Shrader, current chairman, CEO and president, who came to the company in 1974 after working at two telecommunications companies -- RCA, where he served in the company's government communications system division and Western Union, where he was national director of advanced systems planning.

In the 1970s, RCA and Western Union both took part in a secret surveillance program known as Minaret, where they agreed to give the NSA all their clients' incoming and outgoing U.S. telephone calls and telegrams.

In an interview with the Financial Times in 1998, Shrader noted that the most relevant background for his new position of chief executive at Booz Allen was his experience working for telecommunications clients and doing classified military work for the US government.

Caught for Shoddy Work

How much value for money is the government getting? A review of some of Booz Allen's public contracts suggests that much of this work has been of poor quality.

In February 2012, the U.S. Air Force suspended Booz Allen from seeking government contracts after it discovered that Joselito Meneses, a former deputy chief of information technology for the air force, had given Booz Allen a hard drive with confidential information about a competitor's contracting on the first day that he went to work for the company in San Antonio, Texas.

"Booz Allen did not uncover indications and signals of broader systemic ethical issues within the firm," wrote the U.S. Air Force legal counsel. "These events caused the Air Force to have serious concerns regarding the responsibility of Booz Allen, specifically, its San Antonio office, including its business integrity and honesty, compliance with government contracting requirements, and the adequacy of its ethics program."

It should be noted that Booz Allen reacted swiftly to the government investigation of the conflict of interest. In April that year, the Air Force lifted the suspension -- but only after Booz Allen had accepted responsibility for the incident and fired Meneses, as well as agreeing to pay the air force $65,000 and reinforce the firm's ethics policy.

Not everybody was convinced about the new regime. "Unethical behavior brought on by the revolving door created problems for Booz Allen, but now the revolving door may have come to the rescue," wrote Scott Amey of the Project on Government Oversight, noting that noting that Del Eulberg, vice-president of the Booz Allen's San Antonio office had served as chief engineer in the Air Force.

"It couldn't hurt having (former Air Force people). Booz is likely exhaling a sigh of relief as it has received billions of dollars in air force contracts over the years."

That very month, Booz Allen was hired to build a $10 million "Enhanced Secured Network" (ESN) for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. An audit of the project released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office this past February showed that it was full of holes.

The ESN "left software and systems put in place misconfigured -- even failing to take advantage of all the features of the malware protection the commission had selected, leaving its workstations still vulnerable to attack," wrote Sean Gallagher, a computer reporter at ArsTechnica.

Booz Allen has also admitted to overbilling the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) "employees at higher job categories than would have been justified by their experience, inflating their monthly hours and submitting excessive billing at their off-site rate." The company repaid the government $325,000 in May 2009 to settle the charges.

Nor was this the first time Booz Allen had been caught overbilling. In 2006, the company was one of four consulting firms that settled with the U.S. Department of Justice for fiddling expenses on an industrial scale. Booz Allen's share of the $15 million settlement of a lawsuit under the False Claims Act was more than $3.3 million.

Incidentally, both the NASA and the Air Force incidents were brought to light by a company whistleblower who informed the government.

Investigate Booz Allen, Not Edward Snowden

When Snowden revealed the extent of the U.S. national surveillance program earlier this month, he was denounced immediately by Booz Allen and their former associates who called for an investigation of his leaks.

"For me, it is literally -- not figuratively -- literally gut-wrenching to see this happen because of the huge, grave damage it does to our intelligence capabilities," Clapper told NBC News's Andrea Mitchell. "This is someone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to violate a sacred trust for this country. I think we all feel profoundly offended by that."

"News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm," Booz Allen said in a press statement.

Yet instead of shooting the messenger, Edward Snowden, it might be worth investigating Shrader and his company's core values in the same way that the CIA and NSA were scrutinized for Minaret in the 1970s by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Frank Church of Idaho in 1975.

Congress would also do well to investigate Clapper, Booz Allen's other famous former employee, for possible perjury when he replied: "No, sir" to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when asked: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

* Excerpts of this piece appeared on the Guardian's Comment is Free and Inter Press Service. Jim Lobe contributed research.

Google & Facebook Discussed Secret Systems for
U.S. to Spy on Users

- Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch, June 8, 2013 -

Google and Facebook have discussed -- and possibly built -- special portals for the U.S. government to snoop on user data, according to revelations sparked by an investigative series of articles by Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the top military adviser to the Pentagon and the White House) has made a series of trips to Silicon Valley in northern California to meet with Facebook, Google, Intel and Microsoft, to attempt to persuade the technology companies to help them spy on users.

Click to enlarge.

Information about the program came out soon after the Guardian first published a secret U.S. government court order for Verizon, a major U.S. telecommunications company, to give the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) access to "metadata" on their clients phone calls. This data is arguably more important than the content of the calls, since it reveals the network of who talks to who and when, allowing patterns to be identified about individuals and groups.

The Guardian followed this up by revealing an NSA program named Prism that allowed the government to review contents of emails as well as audio and video conversations. A slide from a 41 page presentation made in April 2013, lists Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk and Yahoo and even provided the dates that the companies "joined" the scheme. It also mentions a project called "Upstream" that allows the NSA to collect information from "fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past."

Technology giants immediately denied all knowledge. "We have not joined any program that would give the US government -- or any other government -- direct access to our servers," said Google CEO Larry Page. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers," said Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook. "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network," said a Yahoo spokesperson.

Click to enlarge.

This corresponded to testimony provided by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Ron Wyden in March at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March. "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" he asked. "No, sir," Clapper answered.

On [June 7] it turned out that each of them had lied or been misinformed. "(I)nstead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said," writes Claire Cain Miller in the New York Times. "Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said."

On [June 7], President Barack Obama acknowledged the existence of both programs but said people should not be worried: "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls," he said at a press conference. "That's not what this program is about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people's names, and they're not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism"

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, explains however that tracking metadata is actually far more significant and worrisome. "Repeated calls to Alcoholics Anonymous, hotlines for gay teens, abortion clinics or a gambling bookie may tell you all you need to know about a person's problems," Wizner wrote in an op-ed with his colleague, Jay Stanley. "In addition sophisticated data-mining technologies have compounded the privacy implications by allowing the government to analyze terabytes of metadata and reveal far more details about a person's life than ever before. So we shouldn't be comforted when government officials reassure us that they're not listening to our communications - they're merely harvesting and mining our metadata."

Frequently Asked Questions About ECHELON

- www.nsawatch.org -

Radar array  in Menwith Hill, UK, suspected to be part of the ECHELON spying network.

Q - What is Project ECHELON?

ECHELON is the term popularly used for an automated global interception and relay system operated by the intelligence agencies in five nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (it is believed that ECHELON is the code name for the portion of the system that intercepts satellite-based communications). While the United States National Security Agency (NSA) takes the lead, ECHELON works in conjunction with other intelligence agencies, including the Australian Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). It is believed that ECHELON also works with Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the agencies of other allies of the United States, pursuant to various treaties.(1)

These countries coordinate their activities pursuant to the UKUSA agreement, which dates back to 1947. The original ECHELON dates back to 1971. However, its capabilities and priorities have expanded greatly since its formation. According to reports, it is capable of intercepting and processing many types of transmissions, throughout the globe. In fact, it has been suggested that ECHELON may intercept as many as 3 billion communications everyday, including phone calls, e-mail messages, Internet downloads, satellite transmissions, and so on.(2) The ECHELON system gathers all of these transmissions indiscriminately, then distills the information that is most heavily desired through artificial intelligence programs. Some sources have claimed that ECHELON sifts through an estimated 90 percent of all traffic that flows through the Internet.(3)

However, the exact capabilities and goals of ECHELON remain unclear. For example, it is unknown whether ECHELON actually targets domestic communications. Also, it is apparently very difficult for ECHELON to intercept certain types of transmissions, particularly fiber communications.

Q - How does ECHELON work?

ECHELON apparently collects data in several ways. Reports suggest it has massive ground based radio antennae to intercept satellite transmissions. In addition, some sites reputedly are tasked with tapping surface traffic. These antennae reportedly are in the United States, Italy, England, Turkey, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and several other places.(4)

Similarly, it is believed that ECHELON uses numerous satellites to catch "spillover" data from transmissions between cities. These satellites then beam the information down to processing centers on the ground. The main centers are in the United States (near Denver), England (Menwith Hill), Australia, and Germany.(5)

Diagram of the ECHELON network, showing the various radar and other military bases involved around the world.
Click to enlarge.

According to various sources, ECHELON also routinely intercepts Internet transmissions. The organization allegedly has installed numerous "sniffer" devices. These "sniffers" collect information from data packets as they traverse the Internet via several key junctions. It also uses search software to scan for web sites that may be of interest.(6)

Furthermore, it is believed that ECHELON has even used special underwater devices which tap into cables that carry phone calls across the seas. According to published reports, American divers were able to install surveillance devices on to the underwater cables. One of these taps was discovered in 1982, but other devices apparently continued to function undetected.(7)

It is not known at this point whether ECHELON has been able to tap fiber optic phone cables.

Finally, if the aforementioned methods fail to garner the desired information, there is another alternative. Apparently, the nations that are involved with ECHELON also train special agents to install a variety of special data collection devices. One of these devices is reputed to be an information processing kit that is the size of a suitcase. Another such item is a sophisticated radio receiver that is as small as a credit card.(8)

After capturing this raw data, ECHELON sifts through them using DICTIONARY. DICTIONARY is actually a special system of computers which finds pertinent information by searching for key words, addresses, etc. These search programs help pare down the voluminous quantity of transmissions which pass through the ECHELON network every day. These programs also seem to enable users to focus on any specific subject upon which information is desired.(9)

Q - If ECHELON is so powerful, why haven't I heard about it before?

The United States government has gone to extreme lengths to keep ECHELON a secret. To this day, the U.S. government refuses to admit that ECHELON even exists. We know it exists because both the governments of Australia (through its Defence Signals Directorate) and New Zealand have admitted to this fact. (10) However, even with this revelation, US officials have refused to comment.

This "wall of silence" is beginning to erode. The first report on ECHELON was published in 1988.(11) In addition, besides the revelations from Australia, the Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON's activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that Echelon's powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.

This report found that:

The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1947, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information servicers.

Each of the five centres supply "dictionaries" to the other four of keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries participating in the GATT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the main priorities of this system continued to be military and political intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from a "highly placed intelligence operatives" who spoke to the Observer in London. "We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in which we operate." They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. "At any time GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target request," the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure is known as Mantis. With telexes its called Mayfly. By keying in a code relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex "fixes" on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it is difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a target.(12)

A more recent report, known as Interception Capabilities 2000, describes ECHELON capabilities in even more elaborate detail.(13) The release of the report sparked accusations from the French government that the United States was using ECHELON to give American companies an advantage over rival firms.(14) In response, R. James Woolsey, the former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), charged that the French government was using bribes to get lucrative deals around the world, and that US surveillance networks were used simply to level the playing field.(15) However, experts have pointed out that Woolsey missed several key points. For example, Woolsey neglected to mention alleged instances of economic espionage (cited in Intelligence Capabilities 2000) that did not involve bribery. Furthermore, many observers expressed alarm with Woolsey's apparent assertion that isolated incidents of bribery could justify the wholesale interception of the world's communications.(16)

The European Parliament formed a temporary Committee of Enquiry to investigate ECHELON abuses.(17) In May 2001, members of this committee visited the United States in an attempt to discover more details about ECHELON. However, officials from both the NSA and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) canceled meetings that they had previously scheduled with the European panel. The committee's chairman, Carlos Coelho, said that his group was "very disappointed" with the apparent rebuffs; in protest, the Parliamentary representatives returned home a day early.(18)

Afterwards, the committee published a report stating that ECHELON does indeed exist and that individuals should strongly consider encrypting their emails and other Internet messages.(19) However, the panel was unable to confirm suspicions that ECHELON is used to conduct industrial espionage, due to a lack of evidence.(20) Ironically, the report also mentioned the idea that European government agents should be allowed greater powers to decrypt electronic communications, which was criticized by some observers (including several members of the committee) as giving further support to Europe's own ECHELON-type system.(21) The European Parliament approved the report, but despite the apparent need for further investigation, the committee was disbanded.(22) Nevertheless, the European Commission plans to draft a "roadmap" for data protection that will address many of the concerns aired by the EP panel.(23)

Meanwhile, after years of denying the existence of ECHELON, the Dutch government issued a letter that stated: "Although the Dutch government does not have official confirmation of the existence of Echelon by the governments related to this system, it thinks it is plausible this network exists. The government believes not only the governments associated with Echelon are able to intercept communication systems, but that it is an activity of the investigative authorities and intelligence services of many countries with governments of different political signature."(24)These revelations worried Dutch legislators, who had convened a special hearing on the subject. During the hearing, several experts argued that there must be tougher oversight of government surveillance activities. There was also considerable criticism of Dutch government efforts to protect individual privacy, particularly the fact that no information had been made available relating to Dutch intelligence service's investigation of possible ECHELON abuses.(25)

In addition, an Italian government official has begun to investigate Echelon's intelligence-gathering efforts, based on the belief that the organization may be spying on European citizens in violation of Italian or international law.(26)

Events in the United States have also indicated that the "wall of silence" might not last much longer. Exercising their Constitutionally created oversight authority, members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence started asking questions about the legal basis for NSA's ECHELON activities. In particular, the Committee wanted to know if the communications of Americans were being intercepted and under what authority, since US law severely limits the ability of the intelligence agencies to engage in domestic surveillance. When asked about its legal authority, NSA invoked the attorney-client privilege and refused to disclose the legal standards by which ECHELON might have conducted its activities.(27)

President Clinton then signed into law a funding bill which required the NSA to report on the legal basis for ECHELON and similar activities.(28) However, the subsequent report (entitled Legal Standards for the Intelligence Community in Conducting Electronic Surveillance) gave few details about Echelon's operations and legality.(29)

However, during these proceedings, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who has taken the lead in Congressional efforts to ferret out the truth about ECHELON, stated that he had arranged for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to hold its own oversight hearings.(30)

Finally, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the US Government, hoping to obtain documents which would describe the legal standards by which ECHELON operates.(31)

Q - What is being done with the information that ECHELON collects?

The original purpose of ECHELON was to protect national security. That purpose continues today. For example, we know that ECHELON is gathering information on North Korea. Sources from Australia's DSD have disclosed this much because Australian officials help operate the facilities there which scan through transmissions, looking for pertinent material.(32) Similarly, the Spanish government has apparently signed a deal with the United States to receive information collected using ECHELON. The consummation of this agreement was confirmed by Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique, who tried to justify this arrangement on security grounds.(33)

However, national security is not Echelon's only concern. Reports have indicated that industrial espionage has become a part of Echelon's activities. While present information seems to suggest that only high-ranking government officials have direct control over Echelon's tasks, the information that is gained may be passed along at the discretion of these very same officials. As a result, much of this information has been given to American companies, in apparent attempts to give these companies an edge over their less knowledgeable counterparts.(34)

In addition, there are concerns that Echelon's actions may be used to stifle political dissent. Many of these concerns were voiced in a report commissioned by the European Parliament. What is more, there are no known safeguards to prevent such abuses of power.(35)

Q - Is there any evidence that ECHELON is doing anything improper or illegal with the spying resources at its disposal?

ECHELON is a highly classified operation, which is conducted with little or no oversight by national parliaments or courts. Most of what is known comes from whistleblowers and classified documents. The simple truth is that there is no way to know precisely what ECHELON is being used for.

But there is evidence, much of which is circumstantial, that ECHELON (along with its British counterpart) has been engaged in significant invasions of privacy. These alleged violations include secret surveillance of political organizations, such as Amnesty International.(36) It has also been reported that ECHELON has engaged in industrial espionage on various private companies such as Airbus Industries and Panavia, then has passed along the information to their American competitors.(37) It is unclear just how far Echelon's activities have harmed private individuals.

However, the most sensational revelation was that Diana, Princess of Wales may have come under ECHELON surveillance before she died. As reported in the Washington Post, the NSA admitted that they possessed files on the Princess, partly composed of intercepted phone conversations. While one official from the NSA claimed that the Princess was never a direct target, this disclosure seems to indicate the intrusive, yet surreptitious manner by which ECHELON operates.(38)

What is even more disquieting is that, if these allegations are proven to be true, the NSA and its compatriot organizations may have circumvented countless laws in numerous countries. Many nations have laws in place to prevent such invasions of privacy. However, there are suspicions that ECHELON has engaged in subterfuge to avoid these legal restrictions. For example, it is rumored that nations would not use their own agents to spy on their own citizens, but assign the task to agents from other countries.(39) In addition, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear just what legal standards ECHELON follows, if any actually exist. Thus, it is difficult to say what could prevent ECHELON from abusing its remarkable capabilities.

Q - Is everyone else doing what ECHELON does?

Maybe not everyone else, but there are plenty of other countries that engage in the type of intelligence gathering that ECHELON performs. These countries apparently include Russia, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and many others.(40) Indeed, the excesses of these ECHELON-like operations are rumored to be similar in form to their American equivalents, including digging up information for private companies to give them a commercial advantage.

However, it is also known that ECHELON system is the largest of its kind. What is more, its considerable powers are enhanced through the efforts of America's allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Other countries don't have the resources to engage in the massive garnering of information that the United States is carrying out.

Notes

1. Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information (An appraisal of technologies for political control), Part 4/4: The state of the art in Communications Intelligence (COMINT) of automated processing for intelligence purposes of intercepted broadband multi- language leased or common carrier systems, and its applicability to COMINT targeting and selection, including speech recognition, Ch. 1, para. 5, PE 168.184 / Part 4/4 (April 1999). See Duncan Campbell, Interception Capabilities 2000 (April 1999) (http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/stoa_cover.htm).
2. Kevin Poulsen, Echelon Revealed, ZDTV (June 9, 1999).
3. Greg Lindsay, The Government Is Reading Your E-Mail, TIME DIGITAL DAILY (June 24, 1999).
4. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 2, para. 32-34, 45-46.
5. Id. Ch. 2, para. 42.
6. Id. Ch. 2, para. 60.
7. Id. Ch. 2, para. 50.
8. Id. Ch. 2, para. 62-63.
9. An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control, at 20, PE 166.499 (January 6, 1998). See Steve Wright, An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control (January 6, 1998) (http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm).
10.Letter from Martin Brady, Director, Defence Signals Directorate, to Ross Coulhart, Reporter, Nine Network Australia 2 (Mar. 16, 1999) (on file with the author); see also Calls for inquiry into spy bases, ONE NEWS New Zealand (Dec. 28, 1999).
11. Duncan Campbell, Somebody's listening, NEW STATESMAN, 12 August 1988, Cover, pages 10-12. See Duncan Campbell, ECHELON: NSA's Global Electronic Interception, (last visited October 12, 1999) (http://jya.com/echelon-dc.htm).
12. PE 166.499, supra note 9, at 19-20.
13. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1.
14. David Ruppe, Snooping on Friends?, ABCNews.com (US) (Feb. 25, 2000) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/echelon000224.html).
15. R. James Woolsey, Why We Spy on Our Allies, WALL ST. J., March 17, 2000. See also CRYPTOME, Ex-CIA Head: Why We Spy on Our Allies (last visited April 11, 2000) (http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm).
16. Letter from Duncan Campbell to the Wall Street Journal (March 20, 2000) (on file with the author). See also Kevin Poulsen, Echelon Reporter answers Ex-CIA Chief, SecurityFocus.com (March 23, 2000) (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6).
17. Duncan Campbell, Flaw in Human Rights Uncovered, HEISE TELEPOLIS, April 8, 2000. See also HEISE ONLINE, Flaw in Human Rights Uncovered (April 8, 2000) (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/6724/1.html).
18.Angus Roxburgh, EU investigators 'snubbed' in US, BBC News, May 11, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1325000/1325186.stm ).
19.Report on the existence of a global system for intercepting private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), PE 305.391 (July 11, 2001) (available in PDF or Word format at http://www2.europarl.eu.int).
20. Id.; see also E-mail users warned over spy network, BBC News, May 29, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1357000/1357264.stm ).
21. Steve Kettman, Echelon Furor Ends in a Whimper, Wired News, July 3, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44984,00.html).
22. European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI)), A5-0264/2001, PE 305.391/DEF (Sept. 5, 2001) (available at http://www3.europarl.eu.int); Christiane Schulzki- Haddouti, Europa-Parlament verabsciedet Echelon-Bericht, Heise Telepolis, Sept. 5, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/); Steve Kettman, Echelon Panel Calls It a Day, Wired News, June 21, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44721,00.html).
23. European Commission member Erkki Liikanen, Speech regarding European Parliament motion for a resolution on the Echelon interception system (Sept. 5, 2001) (transcript available at http://europa.eu.int).
24. Jelle van Buuren, Dutch Government Says Echelon Exists, Heise Telepolis, Jan. 20, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/).
25. Jelle van Buuren, Hearing On Echelon In Dutch Parliament, Heise Telepolis, Jan. 23, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/).
26. Nicholas Rufford, Spy Station F83, SUNDAY TIMES (London), May 31, 1998. See Nicholas Rufford, Spy Station F83 (May 31, 1998) (http://www.sunday- times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/98/05/31/stifocnws01003.html?999).
27. H. Rep. No. 106-130 (1999). See Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Additional Views of Chairman Porter J. Goss (http://www.echelonwatch.org/goss.htm).
28. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-120, Section 309, 113 Stat. 1605, 1613 (1999). See H.R. 1555 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)) http://www.echelonwatch.org/hr1555c.htm).
29. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, LEGAL STANDARDS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN CONDUCTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE (2000) (http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/standards.html).
30. House Committee to Hold Privacy Hearings, (August 16, 1999) (http://www.house.gov/barr/p_081699.html).
31. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, PRESS RELEASE: LAWSUIT SEEKS MEMOS ON SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS; EPIC LAUNCHES STUDY OF NSA INTERCEPTION ACTIVITIES (1999). See also Electronic Privacy Information Center, EPIC Sues for NSA Surveillance Memos (last visited December 17, 1999) (http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foia/nsa_suit_12_99.html).
32. Ross Coulhart, Echelon System: FAQs and website links, (May 23, 1999).
33. Isambard Wilkinson, US wins Spain's favour with offer to share spy network material, Sydney Morning Herald, June 18, 2001 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/18/text/world11.html).
34. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 5, para. 101-103.
35. PE 166.499, supra note 9, at 20.
36. Id.
37. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 5, para. 101-102; Brian Dooks, EU vice-president to claim US site spies on European business, YORKSHIRE POST, Jan. 30, 2002 (available at http://yorkshirepost.co.uk).
38. Vernon Loeb, NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana, WASHINGTON POST, December 12, 1998, at A13. See Vernon Loeb, NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana, WASHINGTON POST, A13 (December 12, 1998) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/daily/dec98/diana12.htm).
39. Ross Coulhart, Big Brother is listening, (May 23, 1999).
40. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 1, para. 7.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca