On June 16, 2000, the New York Times published on its Web site PDF files of a secret CIA report:

http://cryptome.org/iran-cia/cia-iran-pdf.htm اسناد منتشر شده توسط سي آ ا كودتا بر عليه حكومت دكتر مصدق
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
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
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
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
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
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"
To:
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
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
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
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
From: Rich Meislin
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
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
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"
To:
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
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"
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"
To:
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"
To:
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"
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"
To:
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"
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
Subject: Re: The NYT CIA Report
This it the NY Times letter:
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:04:29 -0400
To: John Young
From: Rich Meislin
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:
<<>>
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
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
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
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
From: Rich Meislin
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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
> To: Daniel Brandt
> 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
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:
<<>>
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:
<<>>
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"
To:
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
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
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
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"
To:
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
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
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
Subject: RE: The NYT CIA Report
To: intelforum@his.com
> From: John Young
>
> 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"
To:
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
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
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"
To:
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
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
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
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
From: John Young
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
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: