AWN.bz Australian Weekend News Publishing Group.. supports Independent Media... A division of International News Limited   INLNews.Com au1.us for DailyworldnewsHeadlines  USA MAIL www.awn.com   www.awntv.com
INLNews USAWeeklyNewsNews Easy To find Hard To Leave EdinburghFringeFest USAWeekendNews.com
GMail HotMail MyWayMail AOLMail YahooMail GMail USA MAIL     ReutersNewsVideos  inl.org  inl.gov  inl.co.nz
INLNs   CNNWorld  IsraelVideoNs NYTimes WashNs WorldMedia  JapaNs  AusNs WorldVideoNs  WorldFinance ChinaDaily  IndiaNs
USADaily BBC EuroNs ABCAust NZNews QldNews WANs   NZNews  QldNews  MelbAge
AdeaideNews  TasNews  ABCTas  DarwinN Top Stories Video/Audio  Reuters AP AFP The Christian Science Monitor U.S. News & World Report AFP Features Reuters Life! NPR The Advocate Pew Daily Number Today in History Obituaries Corrections Politics   LocalNews o BBC News Video Reuters Video AFP Video CNBC Video Australia 7 News Video CBC.ca Video  NPR Audio Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone Video Richard Bangs Adventures Video Charlie Rose Video Expanded Books Video Assignment Earth Video ROOFTOPCOMEDY.com Video Guinness World Records Video weather.com

Your Subtitle text

MI6_CIA_Mossad_ASIO_KGB

MI5 provides immunity for agents' criminal acts, tribunal told

Secret Service policy is so secret that judicial oversight was not initially acknowledged

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/04/mi5-sought-immunity-for-agents-criminal-acts-tribunal-told

MI5 building on Millbank, London

#WesternTruthTV #WTTV #TVNovosti

Edward Snowden Israel Interview -

Mossad & NSA - November 201

WesternTruthTV

Published on Nov 13, 2018

Western Truth TV Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/westerntruthtv

Edward Snowden, the American intelligence officer who broke into world awareness after being responsible for

leaking the largest and most sensitive information in history, spoke to an Israeli audience on November 6, 18, as part of an event sponsored by the media consulting firm

"Oh! Orenstein Choshen".

"Said former deputy head of the Mossad Ram Ben-Barak. Snoden said this through visual meetings (VC), as part of a closed event. The conversation was led by technology journalist Dror Globerman.

The military censor was informed of the details of the incident. Sponsored by SYNC – Secure Cloud Storage –

Free with an extra 1GB when you Use the Link Below http://www.sync.com/get-started?_sync...

Main Site: TV-Novosti.com Western Truth TV

Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/westerntruthtv

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/westerntruthtv Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeanDavisWTTV #WesternTruthTV #WTTV #TVNovosti #WTR #Novosti #RT #Sputnik #WesternTruthRadio

LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE! Western Truth TV & Western Truth Radio Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WesternTruth... (WTR)

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/westerntruthtv (WTTV)

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeanDavisWTTV #WesternTruthTV #TVNovosti #WTTV #WTR #WesternTruthRadio

LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE!

Category

News & Politics

MI5 Building - Thames House, London

Pink Floyd's Roger Waters: WHOLE WORLD Must Focus on Julian Assange Arrest!

goingundergroundRT

Published on Apr 17, 2019

We speak to Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters on the arrest of Julian Assange. He calls on the UK to rise up to oppose Assange’s extradition,

labels the UK a satellite state of US empire for arresting Assange and attacks the government of Lenin Moreno for revoking his asylum LIKE Going Underground http://fb.me/GoingUndergroundRT FOLLOW Going Underground //twitter.com/Underground_RT

FOLLOW Afshin Rattansi //twitter.com/AfshinRattansi

FOLLOW on Instagram http://instagram.com/officialgoingund...

What is the difference between MI5 and MI6 (SIS)?

MI5 is responsible for protecting the UK, its citizens and interests, at home

and overseas, against threats to national security.

SIS is responsible for gathering intelligence outside the UK in support of the

government's security, defence, foreign and economic policies.

MI5 is the British security service while MI6 is the British foreign intelligence service.

Crudely, MI6 are "our" spies while MI5 is there to catch "their" spies.

It gets a little more complicated in that MI6 has its own "counter-intelligence" section.

MI5 grants its informants legal cover to participate in crimes that may extend to murder, torture and sexual assaults, a tribunal has heard.

The policy, in existence since the early 1990s, is likely to have enabled the Security Service to conceal wide ranging illegal activity, Ben Jaffey QC, representing an alliance of human rights group, told the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) on Thursday.

The policy was so secret that even judicial oversight of the practice, introduced in 2012, was not initially acknowledged. Sir Mark Waller, a retired judge appointed to oversee the policy, was instructed by the prime minister at the time, David Cameron, not to comment on its legality.

Known within the intelligence services as “the third direction”, a letter from Cameron to Waller dated 27 November 2012 said his “oversight would not provide endorsement of the legality of the policy”.

Cameron continued: “You would not be asked to provide a view on whether any particular case should be referred to the prosecuting authorities; and your oversight would not relate to any future consideration given by prosecuting authorities to authorisations.”

Waller was the intelligence services commissioner at the time, charged with independent judicial oversight of the conduct of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.

Cameron’s letter explained that in protecting national security, MI5’s agent-handlers permit informants to participate in “crime, in circumstances where it is considered [that] involvement is necessary and proportionate in providing or maintaining access to intelligence” that would disrupt more serious crimes or security threats.

He added that he had considered whether his letter should be published for transparency purposes, but “concluded that it should not on the basis that doing so would be detrimental to national security and contrary to the public interest”.

Some details of the policy were also disclosed on Thursday during the hearing. A heavily redacted copy of a three-page MI5 document, entitled Guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality (official guidance), was released.

The document shows that MI5 sought to give its agents even greater freedom to commit criminal offences than that usually proffered to police informers. “The service has established its own procedure for authorising the use of agents participating in crime,” it states.

It says any authorisation to commit crimes “has no legal effect and does not confer on either agent or those involved in the authorisation process any immunity from prosecution. Rather, the authorisation will be the service’s explanation and justification of its decisions” should the police investigate.

The IPT case, which is potentially embarrassing for the government, has been brought by Privacy International, Reprieve, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre.

MI5’s policy is illegal if it breaches fundamental human rights, such as the ban on the use of torture, Jaffey told the tribunal.

The policy appears to be the equivalent of MI6’s powers created under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Section 7 of the act is sometimes known as the “James Bond clause” because it provides a legal amnesty for spies to commit abroad what would otherwise be crimes.

The MI5 guidelines date back to the early 1990s and, it is believed, attempted to formalise the legal gap exposed earlier during the Troubles in Northern Ireland when special branch agent-handlers sought clarity from Downing Street on how far they were permitted to go in allowing informants to participate in crimes without facing prosecution themselves.

At that stage, in the 1980s, the office of the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was unwilling to give clear guidance. Those exchanges were carefully documented in the De Silva report into the murder of the Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the intelligence agencies, the Home Office and the Foreign Office, told the the IPT that details of MI5’s conduct had to be kept secret and could not be aired in open court. He argued that the claim should be restricted to investigating over a “sensible time period”, at most six years.

For part of the day, the IPT went into closed session from which the press, public and lawyers for the claimants were excluded.

Reprieve’s director, Maya Foa, said: “We want to know if it’s government policy to let MI5 agents get away with serious crimes such as torture and murder.

“While our intelligence agencies have an important role in keeping this country safe it does not follow that agents can be permitted to break the law without limits. If this is indeed the government’s position it must inform MPs and the public, and open the policy to legal and parliamentary scrutiny.”

Interference China’s covert political influence campaign

in Australia Four Corners(日本語字幕）

CI Research & Studies

Uploaded on Apr 9, 2019

A joint investigation by Four Corners, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald reveals fresh and compelling evidence of covert Beijing-backed political activity taking place in Australia.

（Four Corners、The Age、Sydney Morning Herald

との共同調査の結果、オーストラリアおける北京が背後にある政治活動の新たな圧倒的な証拠を明らかにしました）

（現動画の場所）

https://youtu.be/7T_Lu1S0sII

The British government has quietly admitted it lets MI5 break the law for national security

Kieran Corcoran

Mar. 2, 2018,

MI5 Building

MI5 headquarters in central London.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mi5-spies-break-the-law-for-national-security-2018-3?r=US&IR=T

The

Theresa May issued an obscure-sounding statement to parliament on Thursday.

It revealed the text of secret instructions she gave to Britain's MI5 domestic intelligence

agency last year.

It included rules for the oversight of agents committing criminal acts in the line of duty.

This is the first time the government has explicitly admitted that its agents commit crimes.

The government made the admission after a campaign by human rights activists.

LONDON — The British government has quietly acknowledged for the first time that it lets agents break domestic law to keep the country safe.

The admission was contained in a formal statement describing secret instructions issued by the Prime Minister to Britain's security agencies, which include MI5 (domestic intelligence), MI6 (foreign intelligence) and GCHQ (signals intelligence).

Officials delivered the written statement to the UK parliament with little fanfare. It contained an oblique reference to the civil servant who oversees MI5's rules on "agents who participate in criminality."

That reference to "criminality" is the first time that the government has said publicly that agents sometimes break the UK's own laws.

The full statement was submitted in the name of Prime Minister Theresa May, and describes an instruction she issued on August 22, 2017, designed to expand the powers of a government official, The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to oversee MI5.

Here's a picture of the memo, signed by hand:

MI5 Memo of Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office-MI5 Business Insider

nvestigatory Powers Act 2016

Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Additional Directed Oversight Functions)

(Security Service agent participation in criminality) Direction 2017

The Prime Minister, in exercise of the power contained by section 230 of the Investigatory Powers Act (“the Act”), directs the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as follows:

Citation and Commencement

1. This direction may be cited as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner

(Additional Directed Oversight Functions of Security Service agent participation in criminality) Direction 201?….

2. This Direction comes into force on 1^st September 2017

Additional Review Functions

3. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner shall keep under review the application of the Security Service guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and the authorisations issued in accordance with them.

Signed: Theresa May

Theresa May

Theresa May

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May

Date: 22/8/17

The Right Honourable Theresa May MP

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Assumed office - 13 July 2016

Theresa Mary May (/təˈriːzə/;[1] née Brasier; born 1 October 1956) is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Partysince 2016. She served as Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016. May was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead in 1997. Ideologically, she identifies herself as a one-nation conservative.[2]

May grew up in Oxfordshire and attended St Hugh's College, Oxford. After graduating in 1977, she worked for the Bank of England. She also served as a councillor for Durnsford in Merton. After unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the House of Commons she was elected as the MP for Maidenhead in the 1997 general election. From 1999 to 2010, May held a number of roles in Shadow Cabinets. She was also Chairwoman of the Conservative Party from 2002 to 2003.

When the coalition government was formed after the 2010 general election, May was appointed Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, but gave up the latter role in 2012. She continued to serve as home secretary after the Conservative victory in the 2015 general election, and became the longest-serving home secretary in over 60 years. During her tenure she pursued reform of the Police Federation, implemented a harder line on drugs policy including the banning of khat, oversaw the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners, the deportation of Abu Qatada, and the creation of the National Crime Agency, and brought in additional restrictions on immigration.[3] She is to date, the only woman to hold two of the great offices of state.

In July 2016, after David Cameron resigned, May was elected as Conservative Party Leader, becoming Britain's second female Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher. As Prime Minister, May began the process of withdrawing the UK from the European Union, triggering Article 50 in March 2017. The following month, she announced a snap general election, with the aim of strengthening her hand in Brexit negotiations.[4][5] This resulted in a hung parliament, in which the number of Conservative seats fell from 330 to 317, despite the party winning its highest vote share since 1983. The loss of an overall majority prompted her to enter a confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to support a minority government.

May survived a vote of no confidence from her own MPs in December 2018 and a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in January 2019. May has said that she will not lead her party in the next general election scheduled for 2022 under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act,[6] but has not ruled out leading it into a snap election. May carried out the Brexit negotiations with the European Union, adhering to the Chequers Agreement, which resulted in the draft Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. This agreement was defeated by Parliament in January 2019, and negotiations continue to try and reach a deal.[7] May’s revised deal was defeated in Parliament by 391 votes to 242. In March 2019, May committed to stepping down as Prime Minister if Parliament passed her Brexit deal, to make way for a new leader in the second phase of Brexit.[8]

The full instruction was "to keep under review the application of the Security Service guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and the authorisations issued in accordance with them."

Though it seems minor, the statement was a rare insight into the world of the UK's tightly-guarded intelligence services and how they operate.

Human rights group Reprieve claimed the publication as a victoryin their campaign to make more of the intelligence services' activities public.

It was published after Reprieve and Privacy International launched a legal action against the government the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a special court which handles cases to do with the security agencies.

A spokesman for Reprieve told Business Insider that the government published its statement as a result of the challenge, probably to avoid the prospect of being forced to make even more disclosures.

The group has started a petition asking the government to reveal the substance of the guidelines on criminal action, rather than simply the fact that they exist.

UK legislation already explicitly allows MI6 and GCHQ to break the law in countries.

Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 mandates the Foreign Secretary (currently Boris Johnson) to approve criminal acts by either agency so long as they are "necessary" and "reasonable."

MI5 is the British security service while MI6 is the British foreign intelligence service.

Crudely, MI6 are "our" spies while MI5 is there to catch "their" spies.

It gets a little more complicated in that MI6 has its own "counter-intelligence" section.

The Security Service, also known as MI5 (Military Intelligence, Section 5),[3] is the United Kingdom's domestic counter-intelligence and security agencyand is part of its intelligence machinery alongside the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and Defence Intelligence (DI). MI5 is directed by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), and the service is bound by the Security Service Act 1989. The service is directed to protect British parliamentary democracy and economic interests, and counter terrorism and espionage within the UK.

Within the civil service community the service is colloquially known as Box 500 (after its official wartime address of PO Box 500; its current address is PO Box 3255, London SW1P 1AE).[4]

The service has had a national headquarters at Thames House on Millbank in London since 1995, drawing together personnel from a number of locations into a single HQ facility:

Thames House also houses the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, a subordinate organisation to the Security Service; prior to March 2013, Thames House additionally housed the Northern Ireland Office (NIO).

The service has offices across the United Kingdom including an HQ in Northern Ireland.[5]

Details of the northern operations centre in Greater Manchester were revealed by the firm who built it.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI5

TOP SECRET

How is MI5 different to MI6, what do they stand for and what do the spy agencies do?

Both agencies, dating back to the World War One, are tasked with protecting the country but their remits differ

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5736946/difference-mi5-mi6-spy-agencies-about/

THE agencies widely associated with fictional super spy James Bond both serve the same purpose - gathering intelligence.

But the secretive and highly-skilled organisations have very different remits, as SunOnline explains.

MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies are widely associated with fictional spy James Bond, played most recently by Daniel Craig

What does MI5 do and what are its limitations?

MI5 is widely understood to focus its intelligence efforts inside the UK but that isn't always the case.

With threats to Britain's security often coming from abroad, the agency says it does "work outside the UK where it’s necessary to protect the UK's national security or to counter security threats".

It describes itself as a "publicly accountable civilian intelligence organisation", not a "secret police force", as it does not have the power to arrest people.

Reporting to the Home Office, it was formed in 1909 under British army captain Vernon Kell to identify and counteract German spies in the country, according to the Britannica.

What does MI6 do?

The Secret Intelligence Service, commonly referred to as MI6, works on suppressing and countering threats from abroad.

Its roles include counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, providing cyber security intelligence and disrupting terrorism and other criminal activities overseas.

It is known to have been active in the Balkans and Libya, where it was reported to have been instrumental in capturing Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader Muammar.

In November 2006, MI6 allowed two officers - a man and woman - to take part in an interview for the first time, where they alluded to the existence of a 'Q' figure on BBC Radio 1.

MI5 largely works on domestic threats while MI6, its headquarters pictured, counters danger from abroad.

What does MI5 and MI6 stand for?

The name MI5 dates back to the First World War when it was the fifth branch of the Directorate of Military Intelligence of the War Office - now the Ministry of Defence.

The other "MI" (Military Intelligence) branches were later discontinued or absorbed into other organisations, its official website states.

MI5 was renamed to the Security Service in 1931 when it merged with Scotland Yard's Special Section, which had similar responsibilities.

From 1909 and throughout the war, MI6 had several names including the "Foreign Intelligence Service", the "Secret Service" and the "Special Intelligence Service".

Its official origins go back to the start of the Second World War when it was adopted as a "flag of convenience", the MI6 website says.

It adds: "Although 'MI6' officially fell into disuse years ago, many writers and journalists continue to use it to describe SIS."

MI5 Organisation

The Security Service comes under the authority of the Home Secretary within the Cabinet.[7] The service is headed by a Director General at the grade of a Permanent Secretary of the British Civil Service who is directly supported by an internal security organisation, secretariat, legal advisory branch and information services branch. The Deputy Director General is responsible for the operational activity of the service, being responsible for four branches; international counter-terrorism, National Security Advice Centre (counter proliferation and counter espionage), Irish and domestic counter-terrorism and technical and surveillance operations.[8]

The service is directed by the Joint Intelligence Committee[9] for intelligence operational priorities. It liaises with SIS, GCHQ, DIS, and a number of other bodies within the British government and industrial base. It is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Members of Parliament, who are directly appointed by the Prime Minister, by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and by the Intelligence Services Commissioner. Judicial oversight of the service's conduct is exercised by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.[10]

Operations of the service are required to be proportionate and compliant with British legislation including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998, and various other items of legislation. Information held by the service is exempt from disclosure under section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.[11]

All employees of the service are bound by the Official Secrets Act.[12] In certain circumstances employees can be authorised to carry out activity, which would otherwise be criminal, within the UK.[13]

The current Director General is Andrew Parker, who succeeded Jonathan Evans on 22 April 2013.[14]

The service marked its centenary in 2009 by publishing an official history, written by Christopher Andrew, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Cambridge University.[15]

MI5 History

Early years

The Security Service is derived from the Secret Service Bureau, founded in 1909 and concentrating originally on the activities of the Imperial German government as a joint initiative of the Admiraltyand the War Office. The Bureau was split into naval and army sections which, over time, specialised in foreign target espionage and internal counter-espionage activities respectively. This specialisation was a result of the Admiralty intelligence requirements related to the maritime strength of the Imperial German Navy. This specialisation was formalised prior to 1914 and the beginning of World War I, with the two sections undergoing a number of administrative changes and the home section becoming Directorate of Military Intelligence Section 5 (MI5), the name by which it is still known in popular culture.[16]

The founding head of the Army section was Vernon Kell of the South Staffordshire Regiment, who remained in that role until the early part of the Second World War. Its role was originally quite restricted; existing purely to ensure national security through counter-espionage. With a small staff and working in conjunction with the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police, the service was responsible for overall direction and the identification of foreign agents, whilst Special Branch provided the manpower for the investigation of their affairs, arrest and interrogation.[17]

On the day after the declaration of World War I, the Home Secretary, Reginald McKenna, announced that "within the last twenty-four hours no fewer than twenty-one spies, or suspected spies, have been arrested in various places all over the country, chiefly in important military or naval centres, some of them long known to the authorities to be spies",[18] a reference to arrests directed by the service. These arrests have provoked recent historical controversy. According to the official history of MI5, the actual number of agents identified was 22 and Kell had started sending out letters to local police forces on 29 July giving them advance warning of arrests to be made as soon as war was declared. Portsmouth Constabulary jumped the gun and arrested one on 3 August, and not all of the 22 were in custody by the time that McKenna made his speech, but the official history regards the incident as a devastating blow to Imperial Germany which deprived them of their entire spy ring, and specifically upset the Kaiser.[19]

This view has been challenged by Nicholas Hiley who has asserted that it is a complete fabrication. In 2006 his article "Entering the Lists" was published in the journal Intelligence and National Security outlining the products of his research into recently opened files.[20] Hiley was sent an advance copy of the official history and objected to the retelling of the story. He later wrote another article, "Re-entering the Lists", which asserted that the list of those arrested published in the official history[21] was concocted from later case histories.[22]

Inter-war period

MI5 was consistently successful throughout the rest of the 1910s and 1920s in its core counter-espionage role. Throughout World War I, Germany continued trying to infiltrate Britain but MI5 was able to identify most, if not all, of the agents dispatched. MI5 used a method that depended on strict control of entry and exit to the country and, crucially, large-scale inspection of mail. In post-war years, attention turned to attempts by the Soviet Union and the Comintern to surreptitiously support revolutionary activities within Britain. MI5's expertise, combined with the early incompetence of the Soviets, meant the bureau was successful once more in correctly identifying and closely monitoring these activities.[23]

In the meantime, MI5's role had been substantially enlarged. Due to the spy hysteria, MI5 had been formed with far more resources than it actually needed to track down German spies. As is common within governmental bureaucracies, this caused the service to expand its role, to use its spare resources. MI5 acquired many additional responsibilities during the war. Most significantly, its strict counter-espionage role blurred considerably. It became a much more political role, involving the surveillance not merely of foreign agents but also of pacifist and anti-conscription organisations, and of organised labour. This was justified through the common belief that foreign influence was at the root of these organisations. Thus, by the end of the World War I, MI5 was a fully-fledged investigating force (although it never had powers of arrest), in addition to being a counter-espionage agency. The expansion of this role continued after a brief post-war power struggle with the head of the Special Branch, Sir Basil Thomson.[24]

After World War I, Kell's department was considered unnecessary by budget-conscious politicians. In 1919, MI5's budget was slashed from £100,000 and over 800 officers to just £35,000 and 12 officers. At the same time, Sir Basil Thomson of Special Branch was appointed Director of Home Intelligence, in supreme command of all domestic counter-insurgency and counter-intelligence investigations. Consequently, as official MI5 historian Christopher Andrew has noted in his official history Defence of the Realm (2010), MI5 had no clearly defined role in the Anglo-Irish War. To further worsen the situation, several of Kell's officers defected to Thomson's new Agency, the Home Intelligence Directorate. MI5 therefore undertook no tangible intelligence operations of consequence during the Irish War of Independence. MI5 did undertake the training of British Army Case Officers from the Department of Military Intelligence (DMI) for the Army's so-called "Silent Section" otherwise known as M04(x). Quickly trained by MI5 veterans at Hounslow Barracks, outside London, these freshly minted M04(x) Army case officers were deployed to Dublin beginning in the Spring of 1919. Over time, 175 officers were trained and dispatched to Ireland. In Ireland, they came under the command of General Cecil Romer and his Deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Searle Hill-Dillon.[25]

In April 1919, Colonel Walter Wilson of DMI arrived in Dublin to take over the day-to-day management of these 175 Army intelligence officers, and the unit was designated as the "Dublin District Special Branch" (DMI/MO4(x)/DDSB) because it operated exclusively within the confines of the Army's Dublin Military District. Royal Marine Colonel Hugh Montgomery of the Department of Naval Intelligence, was also seconded to Romer's intelligence staff at this time. British Army after-action reports and contemporary accounts indicate that M04(x)/DDSB was considered a highly amateurish outfit. Serious cover constraints, coupled with alcohol abuse and social fraternization with local prostitutes would prove to be the downfall of several of these amateur sleuths.[26] Despite these failings, it was not MI5 but one of Basil Thomson's agents, John Charles Byrnes, a double agent within the IRA, who identified Michael Collins and came close to arranging his capture. Byrnes was discovered as a British spy and executed by the IRA in March 1920.[27]

The intelligence staff of Michael Collins Irish Republican Army penetrated the unit.[28] Using DMP detectives Ned Broy and David Nelligan, Michael Collins was able to learn the names and lodgings of the M04(x) agents, referred to by IRA operatives as "The Cairo Gang". On Bloody Sunday, Collins ordered his Counter-intelligence Unit, The Squad, to assassinate 25 M04(x) agents, several British Courts Martial Officers, at least one agent reporting to Basil Thomson, and several intelligence officers attached to the Royal Irish Constabulary Auxiliary Division, at their lodgings throughout Dublin. Although the shooting of 14 British officers had the desired effect on British morale, in many ways Bloody Sunday was a botched job. Three of Collins's men were apprehended after engaging in a shoot-out on the street, and at least two of the wounded British officers had no connection whatsoever to British Intelligence. Moreover, with MO4(x) having fielded a total of 175 agents of the DDSB, Collins's operation only temporarily slowed British momentum. Within days, the remaining 160-odd M04(x) agents were re-established in secure quarters inside solidly Loyalist hotels in Dublin, from where they continued to pursue Collins and the IRA relentlessly right up until the Truce. In December 1920 the entire DDSB was transferred from British Army Command to civil command under Deputy Police Commissioner General Ormonde Winter, and thereafter was known as "D Branch" within Dublin Castle. By January 1921, the highly experienced MI6 operative David Boyle arrived at Dublin Castle to take over the day-to-day management of D Branch. The unit's former commander, Colonel Wilson, resigned in protest for having had his command taken from him. D Branch thrived under Boyle's leadership. The net impact of Collins's strike of Bloody Sunday, November 21, 1920, was therefore quite negligible—even though the IRA had not gone up against MI5 professionals but instead only a quickly trained outfit of amateur army "D-Listers."[26]

That afternoon, a mixed force of the British Army, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Black and Tans retaliated by indiscriminately shooting dead 14 civilians at a Gaelic Football match at Croke Park.[29]

In 1921, Sir Warren Fisher, the Government inspector general for civil service affairs, conducted a thorough review of the operations and expenditures of Basil Thomson's Home Intelligence Directorate. He issued a scathing report, accusing Thomson of wasting both money and resources and conducting redundant as well as ineffectual operations. Shortly thereafter, in a private meeting with Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Sir Basil Thomson was sacked, and the Home Intelligence Directorate was formally abolished. With Thomson out of the way, Special Branch was returned to the command of the Commissioner of The Criminal Investigation Division at Scotland Yard. Only then was Vernon Kell able once again to rebuild MI5 and regain its former place as Britain's chief domestic spy agency.[26]

MI5 operated in Italy during inter-war period. MI5 helped Benito Mussolini get his start in politics with the £100 weekly wage.[30]

MI5's decline in counter-espionage efficiency began in the 1930s. It was, to some extent, a victim of its own success. It was unable to break the ways of thinking it had evolved in the 1910s and 1920s. In particular, it was unable to adjust to the new methods of the Soviet intelligence services the NKVD and GRU. It continued to think in terms of agents who would attempt to gather information simply through observation or bribery, or to agitate within labour organisations and the armed services, while posing as ordinary citizens. The NKVD, meanwhile, had evolved more sophisticated methods; it began to recruit agents from within the upper classes, most notably from Cambridge University, who were seen as a long-term investment. They succeeded in gaining positions within the Government (and, in Kim Philby's case, within British intelligence itself), from where they were able to provide the NKVD with sensitive information. The most successful of these agents—Harold "Kim" Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross—went undetected until after the Second World War, and were known as the Cambridge Five.[31]

Second World War

MI5 experienced further failure during the Second World War. It was chronically unprepared, both organisationally and in terms of resources, for the outbreak of war, and utterly unequal to the task which it was assigned—the large-scale internment of enemy aliens in an attempt to uncover enemy agents. The operation was poorly handled and contributed to the near-collapse of the agency by 1940. One of the earliest actions of Winston Churchill on coming to power in early 1940 was to sack the agency's long-term head, Vernon Kell. He was replaced initially by the ineffective Brigadier A.W.A. Harker, as Acting Director General. Harker in turn was quickly replaced by David Petrie, an SIS man, with Harker as his deputy. With the ending of the Battle of Britain and the abandonment of invasion plans (correctly reported by both SIS and the Bletchley Park Ultra project), the spy scare eased, and the internment policy was gradually reversed. This eased pressure on MI5, and allowed it to concentrate on its major wartime success, the so-called "double-cross" system.[32]

This was a system based on an internal memo drafted by an MI5 officer in 1936, which criticised the long-standing policy of arresting and sending to trial all enemy agents discovered by MI5. Several had offered to defect to Britain when captured; before 1939, such requests were invariably turned down. The memo advocated attempting to "turn" captured agents wherever possible, and use them to mislead enemy intelligence agencies. This suggestion was turned into a massive and well-tuned system of deception during the Second World War.[32]

Beginning with the capture of an agent named Owens, codenamed Snow, MI5 began to offer enemy agents the chance to avoid prosecution (and thus the possibility of the death penalty) if they would work as British double-agents. Agents who agreed to this were supervised by MI5 in transmitting bogus "intelligence" back to the German secret service, the Abwehr. This necessitated a large-scale organisational effort, since the information had to appear valuable but actually be misleading. A high-level committee, the Wireless Board, was formed to provide this information. The day-to-day operation was delegated to a subcommittee, the Twenty Committee (so called because the Roman numerals for twenty, XX, form a double cross).[32]

The system was extraordinarily successful. A postwar analysis of German intelligence records found that of the 115 or so agents targeted against Britain during the war, all but one (who committed suicide) had been successfully identified and caught, with several "turned" to become double agents. The system played a major part in the massive campaign of deception which preceded the D-Day landings, designed to give the Germans a false impression of the location and timings of the landings (see Operation Fortitude).[32]

All foreigners entering the country were processed at the London Reception Centre (LRC) at the Royal Patriotic School which was operated by MI5 subsection B1D, 30,000 were inspected at LRC. Captured enemy agents were taken to Camp 020, Latchmere House, for interrogation. This was commanded by Colonel Robin Stephens. There was a Reserve Camp, Camp 020R, at Huntercombewhich was used mainly for long term detention of prisoners.[33]

Post-war

The Prime Minister's personal responsibility for the Service was delegated to the Home Secretary Maxwell-Fyfe in 1952, with a directive issued by the Home Secretary setting out the role and objectives of the Director General. The service was subsequently placed on a statutory basis in 1989 with the introduction of the Security Service Act. This was the first government acknowledgement of the existence of the service.[34]

The post-war period was a difficult time for the Service with a significant change in the threat as the Cold War began, being challenged by an extremely active KGB and increasing incidence of the Northern Ireland conflict and international terrorism. Whilst little has yet been released regarding the successes of the service there have been a number of intelligence failures which have created embarrassment for both the service and the government. For instance in 1983 one of its officers, Michael Bettaney, was caught trying to sell information to the KGB. He was subsequently convicted of espionage.[35]

Following the Michael Bettaney case, Philip Woodfield was appointed as a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services. His role was to be available to be consulted by any member or former member of the security and intelligence services who had "anxieties relating to the work of his or her service"[36] that it had not been possible to allay through the ordinary processes of management-staff relations, including proposals for publications.[37]

The Service was instrumental in breaking up a large Soviet spy ring at the start of the 1970s, with 105 Soviet embassy staff known or suspected to be involved in intelligence activities being expelled from the country in 1971.[35]

One episode involving MI5 and the BBC came to light in the mid-1980s. MI5 officer Ronnie Stonham had an office in the BBC and took part in vetting procedures.[38]

Controversy arose when it was alleged that the service was monitoring trade unions and left-wing politicians. A file was kept on Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson from 1945, when he became an MP, although the agency's official historian, Christopher Andrew maintains that his fears of MI5 conspiracies and bugging were unfounded.[39] As Home Secretary, the Labour MP Jack Strawdiscovered the existence of his own file dating from his days as a student radical.[40]

One of the most significant and far reaching failures was an inability to conclusively detect and apprehend the "Cambridge Five" spy ring which had formed in the inter-war years and achieved great success in penetrating the government, and the intelligence agencies themselves.[31] Related to this failure were suggestions of a high-level penetration within the service, Peter Wright (especially in his controversial book Spycatcher) and others believing that evidence implicated the former Director General, Roger Hollis or his deputy Graham Mitchell. The Trend inquiry of 1974 found the case unproven of that accusation, and that view was later supported by the former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky.[41] Another spy ring, the Portland Spy Ring, exposed after a tip-off by Soviet defector Michael Goleniewski, led to an extensive MI5 surveillance operation.[42]

There have been strong accusations leveled against MI5 for having failed in its obligation to provide care for former police agents who had infiltrated the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. The two most notable of the agents, Martin McGartland and Raymond Gilmour, are presently residing in England using false identities and in 2012 launched test cases against the agency. Both men claimed to journalist Liam Clarke in the Belfast Telegraph that they were abandoned by MI5 and were "left high and dry despite severe health problems as a result of their work and lavish promises of life-time care from their former Intelligence bosses". Both men suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.[43]

The Security Service's role in counter-terrorism

The end of the Cold War resulted in a change in emphasis for the operations of the service, assuming responsibility for the investigation of all Irish republicanactivity within Britain [44] and increasing the effort countering other forms of terrorism, particularly in more recent years the more widespread threat of Islamic extremism.[45]

Whilst the British security forces in Northern Ireland have provided support in the countering of both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups since the early 1970s, republican sources have often accused these forces of collusion with loyalists. In 2006, an Irish government committee inquiry found that there was widespread collusion between British security forces and loyalist terrorists in the 1970s, which resulted in eighteen deaths.[46][47] In 2012, a document based review by Sir Desmond de Silva QC into the 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Patrick Finucane found that MI5 had colluded with the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).[48] The review disclosed that MI5 assessments of UDA intelligence consistently noted that the majority came from MI5 sources with an assessment in 1985 finding 85% came from MI5.[48] Prime Minister David Cameron accepted the findings and apologised on behalf of the British government and acknowledged significant levels of collusion with Loyalists in its state agencies.[49]

On 10 October 2007, the lead responsibility for national security intelligence in Northern Ireland returned to the Security Service from the Police Service of Northern Ireland that had been devolved in 1976 to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) during Ulsterisation.[50][51] During April 2010 the Real IRA detonated a 120 lb. car bomb outside Palace Barracks in County Down which is the headquarters of MI5 in Northern Ireland and also home to the 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment.[52]

MI5 is understood to have a close working relationship with the Republic of Ireland's Special Detective Unit (SDU), the counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence section of the Garda Síochána(national police), particularly with regards to threats from dissident republican terrorism and Islamic terrorism.[53]

Executive Liaison Groups enable MI5 to safely share secret, sensitive, and often raw intelligence with the police, on which decisions can be made about how best to gather evidence and prosecute suspects in the courts. Each organisation works in partnership throughout the investigation, but MI5 retain the lead for collecting, assessing and exploiting intelligence. The police take lead responsibility for gathering evidence, obtaining arrests and preventing risks to the public.[54]

Serious crime

In 1996, legislation formalised the extension of the Security Service's statutory remit to include supporting the law enforcement agencies in their work against serious crime.[55] Tasking was reactive, acting at the request of law enforcement bodies such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), for whom MI5 agents performed electronic surveillance and eavesdropping duties during Operation Trinity.[55] This role has subsequently been passed to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and then the National Crime Agency (NCA).[56]

Surveillance

In 2001, after the September 11 attacks in the U.S., MI5 started collecting bulk telephone communications data under a little understood general power of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (instead of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which would have brought independent oversight and regulation). This was kept secret until announced by the Home Secretary in 2015.[57][58][59]

In July 2006, parliamentarian Norman Baker accused the British Government of "hoarding information about people who pose no danger to this country", after it emerged that MI5 holds secret files on 272,000 individuals—equivalent to one in 160 adults.[60] It had previously been revealed that a "traffic light" system operates:[61][62]

Green: active—about 10% of files
Amber: enquiries prohibited, further information may be added—about 46% of files.
Red: enquiries prohibited, substantial information may not be added—about 44% of files

Participation of MI5 Agents in Criminal Activity

In March 2018 the government acknowledged that MI5 agents are allowed to carry out criminal activity in the UK. Mao Foa, the director of Reprieve, said: “After a seven-month legal battle the prime minister has finally been forced to publish her secret order but we are a long way from having transparency. The public and parliament are still being denied the guidance that says when British spies can commit criminal offences and how far they can go. Authorised criminality is the most intrusive power a state can wield. Theresa May must publish this guidance without delay.”[13]

Directors General of the Security Service

Main article: Director General of MI5

1909–1940: Sir Vernon Kell (b. 1873–d. 1942)

1940–1941: Oswald Allen Harker (b. 1886–d. 1968)

1941–1946: Sir David Petrie (b. 1879–d. 1961)

1946–1953: Sir Percy Sillitoe (b. 1888–d. 1962)

1953–1956: Dick White (b. 1906–d. 1993)

1956–1965: Roger Hollis (b. 1905–d. 1973)

1965–1972: Martin Furnival Jones (b. 1912–d. 1997)

1972–1979: Michael Hanley (b. 1918–d. 2001)

1979–1981: Howard Smith (b. 1919–d. 1996)

1981–1985: John Jones (b. 1923–d. 1998)

1985–1988: Antony Duff (b. 1920–d. 2000)

1988–1992: Patrick Walker (b. 1932)

1992–1996: Stella Rimington (b. 1935)

1996–2002: Stephen Lander (b. 1947)

2002–2007: Eliza Manningham-Buller (b. 1948)

2007–2013: Jonathan Evans (b. 1958)

From April 2013: Andrew Parker (b. 1962)

Past names of the Security Service

Although commonly referred to as "MI5", this was the Service's official name for only thirteen years (1916–1929), but it is still used as a sub-title on the various pages of the official Security Service website, as well as in their web address (http://www.mi5.gov.uk).

October 1909: Founded as the Home Section of the Secret Service Bureau.

April 1914: Became a subsection of the War Office Directorate of Military Operations, section 5 (MO5)—MO5(g).

September 1916: Became Military Intelligence section 5—MI5.

1929: Renamed the Defence Security Service.

1931: Renamed the Security Service.

References

1. ^ Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament "Annual Report 2016–2017", page 72. House of Commons (20 December 2017). Retrieved 1 June 2018.

2. ^ "Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2015–2016" (PDF). House of Commons. 5 July 2016. p. 10. Retrieved 12 January 2017.

3. ^ "What's in a name?". MI5. Retrieved 14 May 2014.

4. ^ Geraghty, Tony (2000). The Irish War. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00638-674-2.

5. ^ "Intelligence, Counter-terrorism and Trust". MI5 (Press release). 5 November 2007. Retrieved 8 January 2015.

6. ^ Leppard, David (14 June 2009). "Oops! Building firm blurts out secrets of hush-hush MI5 HQ". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2010. Retrieved 28 December2011.

7. ^ "Security Service Act 1989: The Security Service". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 27 August 2017.

8. ^ "People and organisation". MI5. Retrieved 21 November2018.

9. ^ "Intelligence Services Act 1994". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 27 August 2017.

10. ^ "What the Tribunal can investigate". Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Retrieved 6 July 2014.

11. ^ "Freedom of Information Act, section 23". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 3 February 2009.

12. ^ Leach, Robert; Coxall, Bill; Robins, Lynton (17 August 2011). British Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 341. ISBN 978-0-230-34422-8. Retrieved 11 July 2015.

13. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Grierson, Jamie (2 March 2018). "MI5 agents can commit crime in UK, government reveals". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 March 2018.

14. ^ "Appointment of the new Director General of the Security Service". Home Office. 28 March 2013. Retrieved 20 August2013.

15. ^ "MI5 - The authorised centenary history". MI5. Archived from the original on 30 September 2013.

16. ^ "SIS Records — War Office Military Intelligence (MI) Sections in the First World War". Sis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 26 August 2006.

17. ^ "End for Special Branch after 122 years". The Telegraph. 9 September 2005. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

18. ^ Reginald McKenna, Home Secretary (5 August 1914). "Aliens Restriction Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 1985.

19. ^ Andrew, Christopher (2009). The Defence of the Realm: The Authorised History of MI5. Allen Lane. pp. 49–52.

20. ^ Hiley, Nicholas (2006). "Entering the Lists: MI5's great spy round-up of August 1914". Intelligence and National Security. 21(1): 46–76. doi:10.1080/02684520600568303.

21. ^ Andrew, Christopher (2009). The Defence of the Realm: The Authorised History of MI5. Allen Lane. pp. 873–875.

22. ^ Hiley, Nicholas (2010). "Re-entering the Lists: MI5's Authorized History and the August 1914 Arrests". Intelligence and National Security. 25 (4): 415–452. doi:10.1080/02684527.2010.537022.

23. ^ "How MI5 combated Communist attempts to take over the scouts". The Telegraph. 10 April 2014. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

24. ^ "Basil Thomson". Spartacus Educational. Archived from the original on 20 May 2012. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

25. ^ "Stephen Searle Hill-Dillon". Bloody Sunday. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

26. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Hittle, J. B. E. (2011). Michael Collins and the Anglo-Irish War: Britain's Failed Counterinsurgency. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1-59797-535-3.

27. ^ "John Charles Byrnes or Jack Jameson". www.cairogang.com.

28. ^ Dwyer, T. Ryle (2005). The Squad and the Intelligence Operations of Michael Collins. Cork: Mercier Press. ISBN 978-1-85635-469-1.

29. ^ "Croke Park: Queen in emotionally charged visit". BBC News. 18 May 2011. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

30. ^ Kington, Tom (13 October 2009). "Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 14 October 2009.

31. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b "The Cambridge Spies". BBC. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

32. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d Masterman, John C. (1972) [1945]. The Double-Cross System in the War of 1939 to 1945. Australian National University Press. ISBN 978-0-7081-0459-0.

33. ^ Hoare, Oliver (2000). Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies — The Official History of MI5's Wartime Interrogation Centre. Public Record Office. ISBN 978-1-903365-08-3.

34. ^ "Security Service Act 1989". 4 July 2000. Retrieved 1 July2012.

35. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Harrison, David (11 November 2007). "Cold War rivals play at spy game". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

36. ^ The Earl of Caithness, Minister of State, Home Office (30 November 1987). "Security Services Ombudsman: Access". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Lords. col. 811.

37. ^ John Patten, Minister for Home Affairs (21 December 1988). "Official Secrets Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 538.

38. ^ Hollingsworth, Mark; Norton-Taylor, Richard (1988). Blacklist: The Inside Story of Political Vetting. London: Hogarth Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-70120-811-0.

39. ^ "MI5 kept file on former PM Wilson". BBC News. 3 October 2009.

40. ^ Schaefer, Sarah (22 January 1999). "Parliament & Politics: Straw will not see his MI5 file". The Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

41. ^ Bamford, James (18 November 1990). "Gordievsky's People". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

42. ^ Lewis, Jason; Wynne-Jones, Jonathan (18 June 2011). "MI5 labelled the Archbishop of Canterbury a subversive over anti-Thatcher campaigns". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 1 July2012.

43. ^ Clarke, Liam (14 September 2012). "Two ex-spies target MI6 in landmark legal battle over payouts". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 7 January 2013.

44. ^ "7 Tied to Faction of the I.R.A. Face Terrorism Charges". The New York Times. 19 May 2012. Retrieved 20 November2011.

45. ^ Palmer, Alasdair (14 May 2006). "MI5 mission: impossible". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

46. ^ "Barron finds British collusion in attacks". The Irish Times. 29 November 2006.

47. ^ "Final Report on the Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Bombing of Kay's Tavern, Dundalk" (PDF). Houses of the Oireachtas. November 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 October 2008. Retrieved 20 November2011 – via Burnsmoley.com.

48. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b "Volume 1 Chapter 11: The flow of information from members of the security forces to the UDA". Pat Finucane Review. Archived from the original on 16 December 2012.

49. ^ "Pat Finucane murder: 'Shocking state collusion', says PM". BBC News. 12 December 2012. Retrieved 16 July 2017.

50. ^ "MI5 In Northern Ireland". Security Service MI5. Retrieved 15 July 2017.

51. ^ "Transfer of national security lead to the Security Service". Police Service of Northern Ireland. Archived from the originalon 8 June 2008.

52. ^ "Man arrested over Palace Barracks bomb released". BBC News. 9 May 2010. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

53. ^ McDonald, Henry (2 March 2008). "MI5 targets Ireland's al-Qaeda cells". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 June 2014.

54. ^ Howells, Kim (May 2009). Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented? Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 (PDF). London: UK Cabinet Office, Intelligence and Security Committee. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2009.

55. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Baroness Blatch, Minister of State, Home Office (10 June 1996). "Security Service Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 1502–1503.

56. ^ "About us". National Crime Agency. Retrieved 21 November2018.

57. ^ Corera, Gordon (5 November 2015). "How and why MI5 kept phone data spy programme secret". BBC News. Retrieved 9 November 2015.

58. ^ Whitehead, Tom (4 November 2015). "MI5 and GCHQ secretly bulk collecting British public's phone and email records for years, Theresa May reveals". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 9 November 2015.

59. ^ "Here's the little-known legal loophole that permitted mass surveillance in the UK". The Register. 9 November 2015. Retrieved 9 November 2015.

60. ^ "MI5 has secret dossiers on one in 160 adults". The Mail on Sunday. 9 July 2006.

61. ^ Jack Straw, Home Secretary (25 February 1998). "Security Service Files". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 346–348.

62. ^ "MI5 Files". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 5 June 2006. col. 278W.

63. ^ "MI5 (The Security Service)". The Secret Architecture of London. Retrieved 18 February 2017.

64. ^ Sheldon, Robert (June 1993). Thames House and Vauxhall Cross (PDF). London: National Audit Office. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-10556-669-4. Retrieved 7 July 2013.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SECRET SERVICE BUREAU

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/the-establishment-of-the-secret-service-bureau

By Professor Christopher Andrew, author of "The Defence of the Realm".

The Security Service (MI5) and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) began operations in October 1909 as a single organization, the Secret Service Bureau, staffed initially by only two officers: the fifty-year-old Royal Navy Commander Mansfield Cumming and an Army captain fourteen years his junior, Vernon Kell. Cumming and Kell later parted company to become the first heads of, respectively, the future SIS and MI5.

As well as being an accomplished linguist, Kell also proved adept at running an office on a shoestring. At the outbreak of war in August 1914, he had only sixteen staff (including the caretaker), well below the minimum which any modern security service would think necessary in order to function at all.

Kell’s original remit was to deal with what an official committee reported in 1909 was ‘an extensive system of German espionage’, based largely on German nationals in Britain. ‘Refuse to be served by a German waiter’, the Daily Mail advised its readers. ‘If your waiter says he is Swiss, ask to see his passport.’ Such alarmism reflected the tensions caused by the Anglo-German naval arms race and the approach of the First World War. Most of the ‘spies’ who persuaded Whitehall that it was faced with ‘an extensive system of German espionage’ in Britain were figments of the media and popular imaginations.

After initially pursuing some false leads, Kell discovered a real network of spies working for German Naval Intelligence who, because of the naval arms race, presented a significant threat to British security. As Home Secretary in 1910-11, Winston Churchill, the greatest intelligence enthusiast in all the cabinets in which he served, enabled Kell to make maximum use of his slender resources in two vital ways.

First, Churchill successfully urged chief constables to assist Kell’s counter-espionage operations. Secondly, he introduced a system of Home Office Warrants (HOWs), each personally authorised by the Home Secretary, which authorised the interception of all the correspondence of suspects. Hitherto individual warrants signed by the Home Secretary had been required for every letter opened. Home Office Warrants are still used today and the Home Secretary continues to be responsible for authorising them. These new arrangements proved crucial in enabling MI5 to investigate suspects.

MI6

United Kingdom

Secret Intelligence Service

Government bureau

https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-mission.html

Headquarters: London, United Kingdom

Founder: H. H. Asquith

Founded: July 1909

Motto: Semper Occultus (Always Secret)

Number of employees: 2,594 (31 March 2016)

Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Our operations

A national and global team

Our people are at the heart of our mission. We fulfil our operations in a number of ways – with the information our agents provide, the technical resources at our disposal and our close relationship with foreign intelligence and security services. These include The Security Service (MI5)and GCHQ, as well as other UK law enforcement agencies and government departments.

Formed in 1909 as a section of the Secret Service Bureau specialising in foreign intelligence, the section experienced dramatic growth during World War I and officially adopted its current name around 1920.[5] The name MI6(meaning Military Intelligence, Section 6) originated as a flag of convenience during World War II, when SIS was known by many names. It is still commonly used today.[5] The existence of SIS was not officially acknowledged until 1994.[6] That year the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA) was introduced to Parliament, to place the organisation on a statutory footing for the first time. It provides the legal basis for its operations. Today, SIS is subject to public oversight by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

The stated priority roles of SIS are counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, providing intelligence in support of cyber security, and supporting stability overseas to disrupt terrorism and other criminal activities.[7] Unlike its main sister agencies, the Security Service (MI5) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), SIS works exclusively in foreign intelligence gathering; the ISA allows it to carry out operations only against persons outside the British Islands.[8] Some of SIS's actions since the 2000s have attracted significant controversy, such as its alleged acts of torture and extraordinary rendition.[9][10]

Since 1995, SIS has been headquartered in the SIS Building in London, on the South Bank of the River Thames.

Foundation[edit]

The service derived from the Secret Service Bureau, which was founded on 1 October 1909.[5] The Bureau was a joint initiative of the Admiralty and the War Office to control secret intelligence operations in the UK and overseas, particularly concentrating on the activities of the Imperial German government. The bureau was split into naval and army sections which, over time, specialised in foreign espionage and internal counter-espionage activities, respectively. This specialisation was because the Admiralty wanted to know the maritime strength of the Imperial German Navy. This specialisation was formalised before 1914. During the First World War in 1916, the two sections underwent administrative changes so that the foreign section became the section MI1(c) of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.[11]

Its first director was Captain Sir Mansfield George Smith-Cumming, who often dropped the Smith in routine communication. He typically signed correspondence with his initial C in green ink. This usage evolved as a code name, and has been adhered to by all subsequent directors of SIS when signing documents to retain anonymity.[5][12][13]

First World War[edit]

The service's performance during the First World War was mixed, because it was unable to establish a network in Germany itself. Most of its results came from military and commercial intelligence collected through networks in neutral countries, occupied territories, and Russia.[14]

Inter-War period

After the war, resources were significantly reduced but during the 1920s, SIS established a close operational relationship with the diplomatic service. In August 1919, Cumming created the new passport control department, providing diplomatic cover for agents abroad. The post of Passport Control Officer provided operatives with diplomatic immunity.[15]

Circulating Sections established intelligence requirements and passed the intelligence back to its consumer departments, mainly the War Office and Admiralty.[16]

The debate over the future structure of British Intelligence continued at length after the end of hostilities but Cumming managed to engineer the return of the Service to Foreign Office control. At this time, the organisation was known in Whitehall by a variety of titles including the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Secret Service, MI1(c), the Special Intelligence Service and even C's organisation. Around 1920, it began increasingly to be referred to as the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), a title that it has continued to use to the present day and which was enshrined in statute in the Intelligence Services Act 1994. During the Second World War, the name MI6 was used as a flag of convenience, the name by which it is frequently known in popular culture since.[5]

In the immediate post-war years under Sir Mansfield George Smith-Cumming and throughout most of the 1920s, SIS was focused on Communism, in particular, Russian Bolshevism. Examples include a thwarted operation to overthrow the Bolshevik government [17] in 1918 by SIS agents Sidney George Reilly [18] and Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart,[19] as well as more orthodox espionage efforts within early Soviet Russia headed by Captain George Hill.[20]

Smith-Cumming died suddenly at his home on 14 June 1923, shortly before he was due to retire, and was replaced as C by Admiral Sir Hugh "Quex" Sinclair. Sinclair created the following sections:

A central foreign counter-espionage Circulating Section, Section V, to liaise with the Security Service to collate counter-espionage reports from overseas stations.
An economic intelligence section, Section VII, to deal with trade, industry and contraband.
A clandestine radio communications organisation, Section VIII, to communicate with operatives and agents overseas.
Section N to exploit the contents of foreign diplomatic bags
Section D to conduct political covert actions and paramilitary operations in time of war. Section D would organise the Home Defence Scheme resistance organisation in the UK and come to be the foundation of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) during the Second World War.[15][21]

With the emergence of Germany as a threat following the ascendence of the Nazis, in the early 1930s attention was shifted in that direction.[15]

MI6 assisted the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police, with "the exchange of information about communism" as late as October 1937, well into the Nazi era; the head of the British agency's Berlin station, Frank Foley, was still able to describe his relationship with the Gestapo's so-called communism expert as "cordial".[22]

Sinclair died in 1939, after an illness, and was replaced as C by Lt Col. Stewart Menzies (Horse Guards), who had been with the service since the end of World War I.[23]

On 26 and 27 July 1939,[24] in Pyry near Warsaw, British military intelligence representatives including Dilly Knox, Alastair Denniston and Humphrey Sandwith were introduced by their allied Polish counterparts into their Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment, including Zygalski sheets and the cryptologic "Bomba", and were promised future delivery of a reverse-engineered, Polish-built duplicate Enigma machine. The demonstration represented a vital basis for the later British continuation and effort.[25] During the war, British cryptologists decrypted a vast number of messages enciphered on Enigma. The intelligence gleaned from this source, codenamed "Ultra" by the British, was a substantial aid to the Allied war effort.[26]

Second World War

During the Second World War the human intelligence work of the service was complemented by several other initiatives:

The cryptanalytic effort undertaken by the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS), the bureau responsible for interception and decryption of foreign communications at Bletchley Park. (See above.)
The extensive "double-cross" system run by MI5 to feed misleading intelligence to the Germans.
Imagery intelligence activities conducted by the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit (now JARIC, The National Imagery Exploitation Centre).

GC&CS was the source of Ultra intelligence, which was very useful.[27]

The chief of SIS, Stewart Menzies, insisted on wartime control of codebreaking, and this gave him immense power and influence, which he used judiciously. By distributing the Ultra material collected by the Government Code & Cypher School, for the first time, MI6 became an important branch of the government. Extensive breaches of Nazi Enigma signals gave Menzies and his team enormous insight into Adolf Hitler's strategy, and this was kept a closely held secret.[28]

The British intelligence services signed a special agreement with their allied Polish counterparts 1940. In July 2005, the British and Polish governments jointly produced a two-tome study of bilateral intelligence cooperation in the War, which revealed information that had until then been officially secret. The Report of the Anglo-Polish Historical Committee was written by leading historians and experts who had been granted unprecedented access to British intelligence archives, and concluded that 48 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939–45 had come from Polish sources.[29] This was facilitated by the fact that occupied Poland had a tradition of insurgency organizations passed down through generations, with networks in emigre Polish communities in Germany and France; a major part of Polish resistance activity was clandestine and involved cellular intelligence networks; while Nazi Germany used Poles as forced labourers across the continent, putting them in a unique position to spy on the enemy. Liaison was undertaken by SIS officer Wilfred Dunderdale, and reports included advanced warning of the Afrikakorps' departure for Libya, awareness of the readiness of Vichy French units to fight against the Allies or switch sides in Operation Torch, and advance warning both of Operation Barbarossa and Operation Edelweiss, the German Caucasus campaign. Polish-sourced reporting on German secret weapons began in 1941, and Operation Wildhorn enabled a British special operations flight to airlift a V-2 Rocket that had been captured by the Polish resistance. Polish secret agent Jan Karski delivered the British the first Allied intelligence on the Holocaust. Via a female Polish agent, the British also had a channel to the anti-Nazi chief of the Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.[29]

The most significant failure of the service during the war was known as the Venlo incident, named for the Dutch town where much of the operation took place. Agents of the German army secret service, the Abwehr, and the counter-espionage section of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), posed as high-ranking officers involved in a plot to depose Hitler. In a series of meetings between SIS agents and the 'conspirators', SS plans to abduct the SIS team were shelved due to the presence of Dutch police. On the night of 8–9 November 1939, a meeting took place without police presence. There, the two SIS agents were duly abducted by the SS.[30]

In 1940, journalist and Soviet agent Kim Philby applied for a vacancy in Section D of SIS, and was vetted by his friend and fellow Soviet agent Guy Burgess. When Section D was absorbed by Special Operations Executive (SOE) in summer of 1940, Philby was appointed as an instructor in the arts of "black propaganda" at the SOE's training establishment in Beaulieu, Hampshire.[31]

In May 1940, MI6 set up British Security Co-ordination (BSC), on the authorisation of Prime Minister Winston Churchill over the objections of Stewart Menzies.[32][33] This was a covert organisation based in New York City, headed by William Stephenson intended to investigate enemy activities, prevent sabotage against British interests in the Americas, and mobilise pro-British opinion in the Americas.[34][35] BSC also founded Camp X in Canada to train clandestine operators and to establish (in 1942) a telecommunications relay station, code name Hydra, operated by engineer Benjamin deForest Bayly.[36]

In early 1944 MI6 re-established Section IX, its prewar anti-Soviet section, and Philby took a position there. He was able to alert the NKVD about all British intelligence on the Soviets—including what the American OSS had shared with the British about the Soviets.[37]

Despite these difficulties the service nevertheless conducted substantial and successful operations in both occupied Europe and in the Middle East and Far East where it operated under the cover name Interservice Liaison Department (ISLD).[38]

Cold War

In August 1945 Soviet intelligence officer Konstantin Volkov tried to defect to the UK, offering the names of all Soviet agents working inside British intelligence. Philby received the memo on Volkov's offer and alerted the Soviets, so they could arrest him.[37] In 1946, SIS absorbed the "rump" remnant of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), dispersing the latter's personnel and equipment between its operational divisions or "controllerates" and new Directorates for Training and Development and for War Planning.[39] The 1921 arrangement was streamlined with the geographical, operational units redesignated "Production Sections", sorted regionally under Controllers, all under a Director of Production. The Circulating Sections were renamed "Requirements Sections" and placed under a Directorate of Requirements.[40]

IS operations against the USSR were extensively compromised by the presence of an agent working for the Soviet Union, Harold Adrian Russell "Kim" Philby, in the post-war Counter-Espionage Section, R5. SIS suffered further embarrassment when it turned out that an officer involved in both the Vienna and Berlin tunnel operations had been turned as a Soviet agent during internment by the Chinese during the Korean War. This agent, George Blake, returned from his internment to be treated as something of a hero by his contemporaries in "the office". His security authorisation was restored, and in 1953 he was posted to the Vienna Station where the original Vienna tunnels had been running for years. After compromising these to his Soviet controllers, he was subsequently assigned to the British team involved on Operation Gold, the Berlin tunnel, and which was, consequently, blown from the outset. In 1956, SIS Director John Alexander Sinclair had to resign after the botched affair of the death of Lionel Crabb.[41]

SIS activities included a range of covert political actions, including the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (in collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency).[42]

Despite earlier Soviet penetration, SIS began to recover as a result of improved vetting and security, and a series of successful penetrations. From 1958, SIS had three moles in the Polish UB, the most successful of which was codenamed NODDY.[43] The CIA described the information SIS received from these Poles as "some of the most valuable intelligence ever collected", and rewarded SIS with $20 million to expand their Polish operation.[43] In 1961 Polish defector Michael Goleniewski exposed George Blake as a Soviet agent. Blake was identified, arrested, tried for espionage and sent to prison. He escaped and was exfiltrated to the USSR in 1966.[44]

Also, in the GRU, they recruited Colonel Oleg Penkovsky. Penkovsky ran for two years as a considerable success, providing several thousand photographed documents, including Red Army rocketry manuals that allowed US National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) analysts to recognise the deployment pattern of Soviet SS4 MRBMs and SS5 IRBMs in Cuba in October 1962.[45] SIS operations against the USSR continued to gain pace through the remainder of the Cold War, arguably peaking with the recruitment in the 1970s of Oleg Gordievsky whom SIS ran for the better part of a decade, then successfully exfiltrated from the USSR across the Finnish border in 1985.[46]

The real scale and impact of SIS activities during the second half of the Cold War remains unknown, however, because the bulk of their most successful targeting operations against Soviet officials were the result of "Third Country" operations recruiting Soviet sources travelling abroad in Asia and Africa. These included the defection to the SIS Tehran station in 1982 of KGB officer Vladimir Kuzichkin, the son of a senior Politburo member and a member of the KGB's internal Second Chief Directorate who provided SIS and the British government with warning of the mobilisation of the KGB's Alpha Force during the 1991 August Coup which briefly toppled Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.[47]

After the Cold War

The end of the Cold War led to a reshuffle of existing priorities. The Soviet Bloc ceased to swallow the lion's share of operational priorities, although the stability and intentions of a weakened but still nuclear-capable Federal Russia constituted a significant concern. Instead, functional rather than geographical intelligence requirements came to the fore such as counter-proliferation (via the agency's Production and Targeting, Counter-Proliferation Section) which had been a sphere of activity since the discovery of Pakistani physics students studying nuclear-weapons related subjects in 1974; counter-terrorism (via two joint sections run in collaboration with the Security Service, one for Irish republicanism and one for international terrorism); counter-narcotics and serious crime (originally set up under the Western Hemisphere controllerate in 1989); and a 'global issues' section looking at matters such as the environment and other public welfare issues. In the mid-1990s these were consolidated into a new post of Controller, Global and Functional.[48]

During the transition, then-C Sir Colin McColl embraced a new, albeit limited, policy of openness towards the press and public, with 'public affairs' falling into the brief of Director, Counter-Intelligence and Security (renamed Director, Security and Public Affairs). McColl's policies were part and parcel with a wider 'open government initiative' developed from 1993 by the government of John Major. As part of this, SIS operations, and those of the national signals intelligence agency, GCHQ, were placed on a statutory footing through the 1994 Intelligence Services Act. Although the Act provided procedures for authorisations and warrants, this essentially enshrined mechanisms that had been in place at least since 1953 (for authorisations) and 1985 (under the Interception of Communications Act, for warrants). Under this Act, since 1994, SIS and GCHQ activities have been subject to scrutiny by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.[49]

During the mid-1990s the British intelligence community was subjected to a comprehensive costing review by the government. As part of broader defence cut-backs SIS had its resources cut back twenty-five percent across the board and senior management was reduced by forty percent. As a consequence of these cuts, the Requirements division (formerly the Circulating Sections of the 1921 Arrangement) were deprived of any representation on the board of directors. At the same time, the Middle East and Africa controllerates were pared back and amalgamated. According to the findings of Lord Butler of Brockwell's Review of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the reduction of operational capabilities in the Middle East and of the Requirements division's ability to challenge the quality of the information the Middle East Controllerate was providing weakened the Joint Intelligence Committee's estimates of Iraq's non-conventional weapons programmes. These weaknesses were major contributors to the UK's erroneous assessments of Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' prior to the 2003 invasion of that country.[50]

War on Terror

During the Global War on Terror, SIS accepted information from the CIA that was obtained through torture, including the extraordinary rendition programme. Craig Murray, a UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, had written several memos critical of the UK's accepting this information; he was then sacked from his job.[51]

SIS members were present in Afghanistan during the 2001 invasion following the September 11 attacks; after members of the 22nd Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment returned to the UK in mid-December 2001, members of both territorial SAS regiments remained in the country to provide close protection to SIS members.[52]

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it is alleged, although not confirmed, that some SIS conducted Operation Mass Appeal which was a campaign to plant stories about Iraq's WMDs in the media. The operation was exposed in The Sunday Times in December 2003.[53][54] Claims by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter suggest that similar propaganda campaigns against Iraq date back well into the 1990s. Ritter says that SIS recruited him in 1997 to help with the propaganda effort. "The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was."[55] Towards the end of the invasion, SIS agents operating out of Baghdad international airport with Special Air Service (SAS) protection, began to re-establish a station in Baghdad and began gathering intelligence; in particular on WMDs, after it became clear that Iraq did not possess any WMDs, MI6 had to officially withdraw pre-invasion intelligence about them. In the months after the invasion, they also began gathering political intelligence; predicting what would happen in post-Baathist Iraq. MI6 personnel in the country never exceed 50; in early 2004, apart from supporting Task Force Black in hunting down former senior Ba'athist party members, MI6 also made an effort to target "transnational terrorism"/jihadist network that led to the SAS carrying out Operation Aston in February 2004: They conducted a raid on a house in Baghdad that was part of a 'jihadist pipeline' that ran from Iran to Iraq that US and UK intelligence agencies were tracking suspects on – the raid captured members of Pakistan based terrorist group.[56]

Shortly before the Second Battle of Fallujah, MI6 personnel visited JSOCs TSF (Temporary Screening Facility) at Balad to question a suspected insurgent, afterwards they raised concern about the poor detention conditions there and as a result the British government informed JSOC in Iraq that prisoners captured by British special forces would only turn them over to JSOC if there was an undertaking not to send them to Balad. In Spring 2005, the SAS detachment operating in Basra and southern Iraq, known as Operation Hathor, escorted MI6 "case" officers into Basra so they could meet their sources and handlers and MI6 provided information that enabled the detachment to carryout surveillance operations. MI6 were also involved in resolving the Basra prison incident; the SIS played a central role in the British withdrawal from Basra in 2007.[56]

In July 2011 it was reported that SIS has closed several of its stations in the past couple of years, particularly in Iraq, where it used to have several outposts in the south of the country in the region of Basra according to the annual report of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. The closures have allowed the service to focus its attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are its principal stations.[57] On 12 July 2011, MI6 intelligence officers, along with other intelligence agencies tracked 2 British-Afghans to a hotel in Herat, Afghanistan who were discovered to be trying to "establish contact" with the Taliban or al-Qaeda to learn bomb-making skills; operators from the SAS captured them and they are believed to be the first Britons to be captured alive in Afghanistan since 2001.[58][59]

In October 2013, SIS appealed for reinforcements and extra staff from other intelligence agencies amid growing concern about a terrorist threat from Afghanistan and that the country will become an "intelligence vacuum" after British troops withdraw at the end of 2014.[60]

In March 2016, it was reported that MI6 had been involved in the Libyan Civil War since January of that year, escorted by the SAS, to meet with Libyan officials to discuss the supplying of weapons and training for the Syrian Army and the militias fighting against ISIS.[61] In April 2016, it was revealed that MI6 teams with members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment seconded to them had been deployed to Yemen to train Yemeni forces fighting AQAP, as well as identifying targets for drone strikes.[62] In November 2016, the Independent reported that MI6, MI5 and GCHQ supplied the SAS and other British special forces- as part of a multinational special forces operation- a list (compiled from intelligence) of 200 British jihadist to kill or capture before they attempt to return to the UK. The 200 male and female jihadists are senior members of ISIS that pose a direct threat to the UK; Sources said SAS soldiers have been told that the mission could be the most important in the regiment's 75-year history.[63]

Other activities

On 6 May 2004 it was announced that Sir Richard Dearlove was to be replaced as head of SIS by John Scarlett, former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. Scarlett was an unusually high-profile appointment to the job, and gave evidence at the Hutton Inquiry.[64]

SIS has been active in the Balkans, playing a vital role in hunting down people wanted by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. British intelligence operations in the Balkans are thought to have played a vital role in the handover of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević to The Hague; SIS has also been heavily involved in the hunt for Radovan Karadžić and General Ratko Mladic, who are linked to a vast range of war crimes including the murder of Srebrenica's surrendering male population and organising the Siege of Sarajevo.[65]

On 27 September 2004, it was reported that British spies across the Balkans, including a SIS was chief officer in Belgrade and another spy in Sarajevo, were moved or forced to withdraw after they were publicly identified in a number of media reports planted by disgruntled local intelligence services – particularly in Croatia and Serbia. A third individual was branded a British spy in the Balkans and left the office of the High Representative in Bosnia, whilst a further two British intelligence officers working in Zagreb, remained in place despite their cover being blown in the local press. The exposure of the agents across the three capitals has markedly undermined the British intelligence operations in the area, including SIS efforts to capture The Hague's most wanted men, which riled many local intelligence agencies in the Balkans, some of which are suspected of continuing ties to alleged war criminals. They were riled due to MI6 operating "not so much a spy network as a network of influence within Balkan security services and the media," said the director of the International Crisis Group in Serbia and Bosnia, which caused some of them to be "upset". In Serbia, the SIS station chief was forced to leave his post August 2004 after a campaign against him led by country's DB intelligence agency, where his work investigating the 2003 assassination of the reformist prime minister Zoran Djindjic won him few friends.[65]

On 15 November 2006, SIS allowed an interview with current operations officers for the first time. The interview was on the Colin Murray show on BBC Radio 1. The two officers (one male and one female) had their voices disguised for security reasons. The officers compared their real experience with the fictional portrayal of SIS in the James Bond films. While denying that there ever existed a "licence to kill" and reiterating that SIS operated under British law, the officers confirmed that there is a 'Q'-like figure who is head of the technology department, and that their director is referred to as 'C'. The officers described the lifestyle as quite glamorous and very varied, with plenty of overseas travel and adventure, and described their role primarily as intelligence gatherers, developing relationships with potential sources.[66]

Sir John Sawers became head of the SIS in November 2009, the first outsider to head SIS in more than 40 years. Sawers came from the Diplomatic Service, previously having been the British Permanent Representative to the United Nations.[67]

On 7 June 2011, John Sawers received Romania's President Traian Băsescu and George-Cristian Malor, the head of the Serviciul Roman de Informatii (SRI) at SIS headquarters.[68]

Five years before the Libyan Civil War, a UK Special Forces unit was formed called E Squadron which was composed of selected members of the 22nd SAS Regiment, the SBS and the SRR. It was tasked by the Director Special Forces to support MI6's operations (akin to the CIA's SAD – a covert paramilitary unit for SIS). It was not a formal squadron within the establishment of any individual UK Special Forces unit, but at the disposal of both the Director Special Forces and the SIS; previously, SIS relied primarily on contractor personnel. The Squadron carried out missions that required 'maximum discretion' in places that were 'off the radar or considered dangerous'; the Squadron's members often operated in plain clothes, with the full range of national support, such as false identities at its disposal. In early March 2011, during the Libyan Civil War, a covert operation in Libya involving E Squadron went wrong: The aim of the mission was to cement SIS's contacts with the rebels by flying in two SIS agents in a Chinook helicopter to meet a Libyan Intermediary in a town near Benghazi, who had thereafter promised to fix them up a meeting with the NTC. A team consisting of six E Squadron members (all from the SAS) and two SIS officers were flown into Libya by an RAF Special Forces Flight Chinook; the Squadron's members were carrying bags containing arms, ammunition, explosives, computers, maps and passports from at least four nationalities. Despite technical backup, the team landed in Libya without any prior agreement with the rebel leadership, the plan failed as soon as the team landed, the locals became suspicious they were foreign mercenaries or spies and the team was detained by rebel forces and taken to a military base in Benghazi. They were then hauled before a senior rebel leader, the team told them that they were in the country to find out the rebels needs and to offer assistance, but the discovery of British troops on the ground enraged the rebels who were fearful that Gaddafi would use such evidence to destroy the credibility of the NTC. Negotiations between senior rebel leaders and British officials in London finally led to their release and they were allowed to board HMS Cumberland.[69][70][71]

On 16 November 2011 SIS warned the national transitional council in Benghazi after discovering details of planned strikes, said foreign secretary William Hague. 'The agencies obtained firm intelligence, were able to warn the NTC of the threat, and the attacks were prevented,' he said. In a rare speech on the intelligence agencies, he praised the key role played by SIS and GCHQ in bringing Gaddafi's 42-year dictatorship to an end, describing them as 'vital assets' with a 'fundamental and indispensable role' in keeping the nation safe. 'They worked to identify key political figures, develop contacts with the emerging opposition and provide political and military intelligence. 'Most importantly, they saved lives,' he said. The speech follows criticism that SIS had been too close to the Libyan regime and was involved in the extraordinary rendition of anti-Gaddafi activists. Mr Hague also defended controversial proposals for secrecy in civil court involving intelligence material.[57]

The Daily Star reported in November 2011 that SIS helped capture Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. The top-secret mission, dubbed Operation X to disguise its purpose, used modern electronic intelligence (ELINT) technologies to bug him along with his friends and family. Gaddafi had been hiding out in the desert for a month but the breakthrough came when he made two phone calls, one after the other, to say he was safe. It allowed the joint British and French bugging operation to pinpoint his location. SIS agents using the £25 million top-secret equipment closed in on him before calling in the Libyan snatch squad to apprehend him.[72]

In February 2013 Channel Four News reported on evidence of SIS spying on opponents of the Gaddafi regime and handing the information to the regime in Libya. The files looked at contained "a memorandum of understanding, dating from October 2002, detailing a two-day meeting in Libya between Gaddafi's external intelligence agency and two senior heads of SIS and one from MI5 outlining joint plans for "intelligence exchange, counter-terrorism and mutual co-operation".[73]

In February 2015, The Telegraph reported that MI6 contacted their counterparts in the South African intelligence services to seek assistance in an effort to recruit a North Korean "asset" to spy on North Korea's nuclear programme. MI6 had contacted the man who had inside information on North Korea's nuclear programme, he considered the offer and wanted to arrange another meeting, but a year passed without MI6 hearing from him, which prompted them to request South African assistance when they learnt he would be travelling through South Africa. It is not known whether the North Korean man ever agreed to work for MI6.[74]

CIA activities in the United Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_Kingdom

There is a long history of close cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom intelligence services; see Clandestine HUMINT and Covert Action for World War II and subsequent relationships. There are permanent liaison officers of each country in major intelligence agencies of the other, such as CIA and Secret Intelligence Service ("MI6"), FBI and the Security Service (MI5), and National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

Oleg Penkovsky, a Soviet military intelligence colonel, who was a defector in place, was a joint US-UK espionage operation. Much of Penkovsky's product is available online at the CIA FOIA Reading Room under the code name IRONBARK.[1]

A major source of tension between the two countries was Kim Philby, a senior UK SIS officer who was a Soviet agent. Philby, at one point, was the SIS liaison officer resident in the US. James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence, was surprised by Philby's activity, and, as a consequence, began hunts for moles within CIA.

Counterintelligence

An indication of the United States' close operational cooperation is the creation of a new message distribution label within the main US military communications network. Previously, the marking of NOFORN (i.e., NO FOREIGN NATIONALS) required the originator to specify which, if any, non-US countries could receive the information. A new handling caveat, USA/AUS/CAN/GBR/NZL EYES ONLY, used primarily on intelligence messages, gives an easier way to indicate that the material can be shared with Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. This marking is now used as FVEY or Five Eyes.[2] There is also a marking for US/UK access only, which is "REL TO USA, GBR."#

Counter-terrorism

In his early 2005 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss mentioned that in 2004, the UK detected and dismantled an al-Qa'ida cell.[3]

IA Vision, Mission, Ethos & Challenges

Vision

CIA’s information, insights, and actions consistently provide tactical and strategic advantage for the United States.

Mission

Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.

Ethos

The officers of the CIA are guided by a professional ethos that is the sum of our abiding principles, core values, and highest aspirations. This ethos holds us on course as we exercise the extraordinary influence and authorities with which we have been entrusted to protect the Nation and advance its interests. CIA’s ethos has many dimensions, including:

Service. We put Nation first, Agency before unit, and mission before self. We take pride in being diverse, inclusive, agile, responsive, and consequential.

Integrity. We uphold the highest standards of lawful conduct. We are truthful and forthright, and we provide information and analysis without institutional or political bias. We maintain the Nation’s trust through accountability and oversight.

Excellence. We bring the best of our diverse backgrounds and expertise to everything we do. We are self-aware, reflecting on our performance and learning from it. We strive to give all officers the tools, experiences, and leadership they need to excel.

Courage. We accomplish difficult, high-stakes, often dangerous tasks. In executing mission, we carefully manage risk but we do not shy away from it. We value sacrifice and honor our fallen.

Teamwork. We stand by and behind one another. Collaboration, both internal and external, underpins our best outcomes. Diversity and inclusion are mission imperatives.

Stewardship. We preserve our ability to obtain secrets by protecting sources and methods from the moment we enter on duty until our last breath.

Key Challenges

Close intelligence gaps with enhanced collection and analysis on the countries, non-state actors, and issues most critical to the President and senior national security team.

Fulfill our global mission to give customers decision advantage as they confront an unprecedented volume and diversity of worldwide developments that affect US interests.

Leverage technological advances for better performance in all mission areas—collection, analysis, covert action, and counterintelligence—while protecting against technological threats to the security of our information, operations, and officers.

Improve the ways we attract, develop, and retain talent to maximize each CIA officer’s potential to contribute to achieving mission.

Better manage Agency resources during a period of fiscal austerity.

Posted: Apr 04, 2007 03:54 PM

Last Updated: Nov 01, 2018 11:30 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the federal government of the United States, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT). As one of the principal members of the United States Intelligence Community (IC), the CIA reports to the Director of National Intelligence and is primarily focused on providing intelligence for the President and Cabinet of the United States.

Unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is a domestic security service, the CIA has no law enforcement function and is mainly focused on overseas intelligence gathering, with only limited domestic intelligence collection.[6] Though it is not the only agency of the Federal government of the United States specializing in HUMINT, the CIA serves as the national manager for coordination of HUMINT activities across the U.S. intelligence community. Moreover, the CIA is the only agency authorized by law to carry out and oversee covert action at the behest of the President.[6][7][8][9] It exerts foreign political influence through its tactical divisions, such as the Special Activities Division.[10]

Before the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the CIA Director concurrently served as the head of the Intelligence Community; today, the CIA is organized under the Director of National Intelligence(DNI). Despite transferring some of its powers to the DNI, the CIA has grown in size as a result of the September 11 attacks. In 2013, The Washington Post reported that in fiscal year 2010, the CIA had the largest budget of all IC agencies, exceeding previous estimates.[3][11]

https://twitter.com/CIA?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

CIAVerified account

@CIA

We are the Nation's first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go.

Langley, VA

cia.gov

Joined February 2014

Born September 18, 1947

The CIA has increasingly expanded its role, including covert paramilitary operations.[3] One of its largest divisions, the Information Operations Center (IOC), has shifted focus from counter-terrorism to offensive cyber-operations.[12]

68: THE STUDENTS, THE PRESIDENT, AND THE CIA

El 68: Los estudiantes, el presidente y la CIA

http://literalmagazine.com/68-the-students-the-president-and-the-cia/

SERGIO AGUAYO

#
Gandhi Publica.

The following is an excerpt from Chapter One of the book of the same title, available online through Gandhi Publica.

The golden age began one Sunday in August, 1958. That morning, a breakfast meeting was held between the presidential candidate for the PRI, Adolfo López Mateos, and the CIA Station Chief in Mexico, Winston Scott. From that day forward, a collaboration developed that would become strategic following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution a few months later. Mexico became one of the main arenas of confrontation between the superpowers, and Scott occupied a privileged niche in the highest circles of Mexican political power. His access was so important that Washington left him in charge for thirteen years, when station chiefs are customarily relieved every four years.

The CIA Station in Mexico was considered by Washington to be “the best in WH [Western Hemisphere] and possibly one of the best in the Agency.” There were 50 U.S. agents stationed in Mexico, with 200 Mexicans as agents and informers. The jewel in the crown were the 14 agents of LITEMPO.

In 1960, Scott created the LITEMPO program, described by Anne Goodpasture —a CIA official who worked closely with Scott— as “a productive and effective relationship between CIA and select top officials in Mexico,” There were fourteen top-level officials In LITEMPO: three presidents (Adolfo López Mateos, Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, and Luis Echeverría Álvarez), two directors of the Federal Security Division (Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios and Miguel Nazar Haro) and possibly, the Chief of Díaz Ordaz’s Presidential General Staff (General Luis Gutiérrez Oropeza). The essential point here is that all of them were on the CIA payroll: they were paid agents of the CIA. The exact sum of their salaries is unknown.

We do know that when Díaz Ordaz was named presidential candidate, the CIA collaborated with his campaign by delivering “400 [dollars] per month as a subsidy from December 1963 to November 1964” This figure “was in addition to a regular salary of [deleted] per month paid to LITEMPO-1 as a station support agent”.

This rapport benefited both governments. The DFS helped the United States monitor and control the Cubans, the Soviets, and the disenchanted Americans and exiles who were passing through Mexico. The CIA corresponded by informing the president what the enemies of the regime were doing on a daily basis and if necessary, collaborating in their neutralization.

Instances of active CIA involvement in repression include the joint DFS-CIA operation against Víctor Rico Galán, a well-known, critical journalist in those years. According to Morley, “Win helped build the case against [Rico] Galan. In September 1966 he and twenty-eight associates were arrested.” The journalist was imprisoned in Lecumberri for seven years.

The relationship between Scott and Díaz Ordaz was so close that, according to Morley, in the sixties Winston Scott was the “second most powerful man in Mexico” after the president. Here are a few examples of his status: in December 1962, López Mateos and Díaz Ordaz signed their names as witnesses to Scott’s second wedding ceremony; in April 1964, Scott learned from the president that Díaz Ordaz was to be revealed as the PRI presidential candidate and in May 1969, Díaz Ordaz confided to him that he had hand-picked Luis Echeverría to become the next president of Mexico. He had vital pieces of information months ahead of the events.

Scott and Díaz Ordaz were passionate anti-communists, and there is evidence that both the American and the Mexican contributed to the official narrative according to which the Movement of ’68 formed part of an international conspiracy assembled by the Soviets and the Cubans, among others. By transforming the Movement into an enemy of the fatherland, the president and the United States, they justified its repression. According to them, as well as other members of the upper echelons of power, the Mexicans largely responsible were Javier Barros Sierra, the president of the UNAM, and university professor Heberto Castillo.

After the night of Tlatelolco, Díaz Ordaz essayed an explanation that held the Movement responsible for the massacre: one that allows us to appreciate the intensity of his relationship with the CIA Station Chief. At that crucial moment, Scott defended the flimsy official story to his superiors in Washington and as a result, he lost credibility. An official from the United States Embassy in Mexico wrote that Scott presented “fifteen differing and sometimes flatly contradictory versions of what happened at Tlatelolco”. A few months later, they withdrew his appointment, adducing the excessive time he had spent in Mexico; in my opinion, Washington could no longer defend someone who had lost all objectivity.

These facts are related to a crucial aspect of our history that has been ignored: those aggressions against the population in which other governments knowingly participated. As a working hypothesis, it may be argued that the CIA was jointly responsible for the deaths and suffering caused on October 2, and that the same holds true for other Mexican tragedies. A similar argument may be made regarding the role played by Cuba and other international players during ’68. It is one of my long-term research goals to continue exploring this hypothesis.

Re-examining ’68 is also relevant in light of the crisis being experienced in Mexico today, in 2018. Fifty years have gone by and yet, the political elite continues to do everything in its power to prevent citizen participation in public affairs, despite the fact that a convergence between society and State seems to be the best way to confront criminal violence, government corruption, inequality, impunity and the hostility of Donald Trump and his followers.

Rethinking ’68 allows us to evoke a movement born out of the hope that a better Mexico is possible. Reliving that feat is one way to dispel uncertainty and discouragement: if it could be done then, we can do it now.

THE SECRET WAR THAT TRANSFORMED THE CIA

ARNOLD R. ISAACS

https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/the-secret-war-that-transformed-the-cia/

FEBRUARY 1, 2017

Joshua Kurlantzick, A Great Place to Have a War: America in Laos and the Birth of a Military CIA (Simon & Schuster, 2017)

If you work at it, you can make a case that Americans fought on the right side in Vietnam. There is an argument — not conclusive, but defensible — that with all its faults, the anti-Communist side offered South Vietnam’s people a freer and more prosperous future than they would face if the Communists won. That didn’t mean war was a wise choice or that its goal justified the death and destruction it caused. But Americans looking for some moral comfort could at least tell themselves that they were fighting for a better outcome for the Vietnamese.

By contrast, it is harder to find anything morally defensible in American actions in Laos and Cambodia. U.S. operations in those countries, including among the heaviest bombing in military history, were conducted to support American objectives in Vietnam rather than for any achievable benefit for its smaller, weaker neighbors. That was also the reason for U.S. air support and military aid that kept weak, ineptly led local Laotian and Cambodian ground forces in the field long after it was clear they had no chance of winning against their stronger North Vietnamese enemies. Exactly the same can be said about the Vietnamese Communists, who intervened in Laos and Cambodia for the identical purpose: to support their war in Vietnam. In those “sideshow” conflicts (as the British writer William Shawcross called the Cambodian war) Americans and Vietnamese both pursued their own goals with little regard for the grievous price being paid by the Laotian and Cambodian people.

In A Great Place to Have a War, a new history of the largely clandestine American effort in Laos, Joshua Kurlantzick quotes from a passage that starkly captures the moral blindness of U.S. policy in that war. It’s from a now-declassified retrospective written by CIA historians years after the war ended. Kurlantzick only used part of the quote, but the full version makes the issue even clearer:

In the opinion of many officers in the CIA Clandestine Services, the paramilitary programs that the Agency operated in Laos between 1963-71 were the most successful ever mounted. Small in numbers of personnel and even smaller in relative dollar costs, the CIA Laos operations shone in contrast to the ponderous operations of the US military forces in Vietnam.

Think about that. A war that was won by the enemy, leaving America’s principal allies to flee or live under a particularly harsh Communist dictatorship, was… successful? A low cost in dollars and personnel? True only if you choose to ignore the devastating casualties among the tribesmen (and boys) who made up the Americans’ principal fighting force, and came out of the war with their land and way of life irretrievably lost. It is hard to imagine how anyone could think of Laos as a victory, but apparently that’s what it is in the CIA’s institutional memory. In former agency director Richard Helms’s memoir, the chapter on Laos is titled “The War We Won.” This characterization is possible only if Laotian lives and the fate of their country counted for nothing at all.

America’s involvement in Laos began in the 1950s, when the United States started providing conventional military assistance to government forces fighting Laotian Communist insurgents who were backed by North Vietnam. Despite U.S. aid, the government army proved ineffective. Early in 1961, the Americans turned to a different strategy, arming and directing an irregular force of Hmong tribesmen (then commonly called Meo), a mountain tribe living in the Plain of Jars region in northern Laos. That plan was conceived and organized by Bill Lair, a CIA officer who had been based in Thailand for many years and knew the region well. The guerrillas were commanded by a Hmong officer in the Laotian army named Vang Pao.

The year after the CIA’s initial contacts with the Hmong, a Laos peace agreement was signed in Geneva, establishing a new and officially neutral coalition government. Despite the agreement, the fighting did not end, and CIA support for Vang Pao’s guerrilla movement continued to grow. Meanwhile, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was also deepening, turning to open war in early 1965 with a full-scale bombing campaign against North Vietnam and the commitment of U.S. ground forces in South Vietnam. From then on events in Vietnam, not any goals for Laos, were decisive in determining the course of the Laos war.

Four personalities figure prominently in Kurlantzick’s account of those events. In addition to Bill Lair and Vang Pao, they are Tony Poe, a soldier-of-fortune archetype who ran missions by Laotian guerrillas in the field, and William Sullivan, the career diplomat who was the U.S. ambassador in Laos and effectively commanded the secret U.S. war during his tenure between 1965 and 1969. Kurlantzick conducted first-hand interviews with three of the four, all except Sullivan.

Along with their own stories, the four protagonists stand for broader themes. Bill Lair, who tried unsuccessfully to stop his superiors from pushing the Hmong guerrillas past the point of no survival, stood for the kind of honorable commitment that America ultimately did not represent in Laos. Tony Poe, a man of violence with little or no moral restraint, was in Laos to fight a war, not to be a spy or pursue any political goal. As Kurlantzick points out, he can be seen as a symbol of the CIA’s shift from intelligence-gathering to paramilitary operations. Bill Sullivan, both as ambassador and then as a member of Henry Kissinger’s negotiating team in the American-Vietnamese peace talks in Paris, exemplifies the cynicism of U.S. policy, which for years backed a war that destroyed Laoian lives and society to serve American interests and then walked away, without visible twinges of conscience, when those interests changed. Vang Pao could stand in for other American clients who were too dependent on U.S. power (and too concerned with keeping their own) to find a different path when American needs diverged from theirs.

Kurlantzick also examines that war’s lasting consequences for the agency and the nature of America’s involvement in foreign conflicts. Laos, he writes, was the CIA’s “template” for large-scale clandestine warfare in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s (with Laos veterans often in key roles in paramilitary operations in both regions) and then in numerous places after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, as the CIA assumed a major combat role in the war-on-terror era.

That evolution came about, Kurlantzick argues, because the Laos operation had gratifying results for both the agency and its political masters, even if the war ended in defeat. For the CIA, Laos meant bigger payrolls and richer budgets and stronger influence in national policy discussions — all standard bureaucratic goals in the Washington power game (which may explain why Richard Helms called it a victory). The fact that the war was lost was irrelevant. The Laos model was enticing for U.S. political leaders too: a way to wield power at less cost in money and American lives with poor foreigners doing almost all the bleeding and dying, largely hidden from congressional scrutiny and “almost totally unwatched by the media” or other nosy critics. What, as they say, was there for a president not to like?

A Great Place to Have a War adds illuminating details to the historical record and gives useful insights on the CIA’s militarization and its meaning for today’s world. At the same time, though, it is sometimes fuzzy and occasionally wrong on the facts and meaning of events in the wider war outside Laos.

The book’s treatment of the air war is one example. Even while its tone about the bombing is critical, it does not do justice to the real story of the overall U.S. air campaign and how little priority the Americans put on the consequences for Laos. Writing about the massive escalation of bombing in Laos in 1968 and 1969 — a tenfold increase, from 20 or 30 strikes a day to 300 or more — Kurlantzick notes that there were no additional targets to justify the skyrocketing number of missions. But he nowhere explains that the escalation had nothing to do with supporting the Laotian government or its troops. The only reason ten times as many more bombers flew over Laos was that President Johnson halted bombing in North Vietnam in 1968, so the airpower no longer used in North Vietnam was diverted to Laos. (As a classified Pentagon study put it “probably the best analogy would be a fire hose, running under full pressure most of the time and pointed with the same intensity at whichever area is allowed.”)

Throughout the air campaign, the essential U.S. objective was to strike North Vietnamese targets on the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail, a mission having nothing to do with the ground war in Laos. Strikes supporting the Hmong guerrillas or other Laotian forces did not really reflect a military strategy other than keeping them in the field to tie down North Vietnamese troops. That goal served American purposes, not theirs. The Lao were expendable. That is a central point of Kurlantzick’s thesis that could have been made more strongly if the context — here and elsewhere — had been more accurately and clearly explained.

Even with some bits of bad history, though, A Great Place to Have a War is a valuable work, especially in its examination of the CIA’s evolution since the Laos war and the implications of that change for U.S. actions overseas and for American policymaking at home. Kurlantzick raises important issues: Who should wage America’s wars? Who agrees on when and where to fight them, and who controls how they are fought? And ultimately, when wars are fought by proxy and in secret, what does that mean for American institutions and American character? Those questions are critical now, not just for a war fought two generations in the past. Indeed, in today’s world the answers matter a great deal more than they did then.

Arnold R. Isaacs was a war correspondent in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1972 to 1975.

He wrote Without Honor: Defeat in Vietnam and Cambodia and co-authored Pawns of War, a history of the Lao and Cambodian conflicts.

He is also the author of

Vietnam Shadows: The War, Its Ghosts, and Its Legacy and From Troubled Lands: Listening to Pakistani Americans and Afghan Americans in Post-9/11 America.

Tibet: The CIA’s Cancelled War

Jonathan Mirsky

Tibet: The CIA's Cancelled War | by Jonathan Mirsky | NYR Daily ...

The New York Review of Books

Tibet resistance fighters.jpg

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2013/04/09/cias-cancelled-war-tibet/

hamo Tsering Collection

Resistance fighters on the Tibetan border during the early years of the CIA’s Tibet program

For much of the past century, US relations with Tibet have been characterized by kowtowing to the Chinese and hollow good wishes for the Dalai Lama. As early as 1908, William Rockhill, a US diplomat, advised the Thirteenth Dalai Lama that “close and friendly relations with China are absolutely necessary, for Tibet is and must remain a portion of the Ta Ts’ing [Manchu] Empire for its own good.” Not much has changed with the Fourteenth Dalai Lama one hundred years later. After a meeting in 2011 with President Obama in the White House Map Room—the Oval Office being too official—the Dalai Lama was ushered out the back door, past the garbage cans. All this, of course, is intended to avoid condemnation from Beijing, which regards even the mildest criticism of its Tibet policy as “interference.”

However there was one dramatic departure from the minimalist approach. For nearly two decades after the 1950 Chinese takeover of Tibet, the CIA ran a covert operation designed to train Tibetan insurgents and gather intelligence about the Chinese, as part of its efforts to contain the spread of communism around the world. Though little known today, the program produced at least one spectacular intelligence coup and provided a source of support for the Dalai Lama. On the eve of Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 meeting with Mao, the program was abruptly cancelled, thus returning the US to its traditional arms-length policy toward Tibet. But this did not end the long legacy of mistrust that continues to color Chinese-American relations. Not only was the Chinese government aware of the CIA program; in 1992 it published a white paper on the subject. The paper included information drawn from reliable Western sources about the agency’s activities, but laid the primary blame for the insurgency on the “Dalai Lama clique,” a phrase Beijing still uses today.

The insurgency began after the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet following its defeat of the Nationalists, and after Beijing forced the Dalai Lama’s government to recognize Chinese administration over the region. In 1955, a group of local Tibetan leaders secretly plotted an armed uprising, and rebellion broke out a year later, with the rebels besieging local government institutions and killing hundreds of government staff as well as Han Chinese people. In May 1957, a rebel organization and a rebel fighting force were founded, and began killing communist officials, disrupting communication lines, and attacking institutions and Chinese army troops stationed in the region.

By that point, the rebellion had gained American backing. In the early 1950s, the CIA began to explore ways to aid the Tibetans as part of its growing campaign to contain Communist China. By the second half of the decade, “Project Circus” had been formally launched, Tibetan resistance fighters were being flown abroad for training, and weapons and ammunition were being airdropped at strategic locations inside Tibet. In 1959, the agency opened a secret facility to train Tibetan recruits at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, partly because the location, more than 10,000 feet above sea level, might approximate the terrain of the Himalayas. According to one account, some 170 “Kamba guerrillas” passed through the Colorado program.

While the CIA effort never produced a mass uprising against the Chinese occupiers, it did provide one of the greatest intelligence successes of the Cold War, in the form of a vast trove of Chinese army documents captured by Tibetan fighters and turned over to the CIA in 1961. These revealed the loss of morale among Chinese soldiers, who had learned of the vast famine that was wracking China during The Great Leap Forward. Over the next decade, however, there was growing disagreement in Washington over the CIA’s activities in Tibet, and in 1971, as Henry Kissinger prepared for Nixon’s meeting with Mao, the program was wound down.

“Although Tibet may not have been on the table in the Beijing talks, the era of official US support for the Tibetan cause was over,” recalled John Kenneth Knaus, a forty-year CIA veteran, in his 1999 book Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival. “There was no role for Tibet in Kissinger’s new equation.” By 1975, President Gerald Ford was able to say to a skeptical Deng Xiaoping, China’s future leader, “Let me assure you, Mr. Vice-Premier, that we oppose and do not support any [United States] governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned.”

Many friends of Tibet and admirers of the Dalai Lama, who has always advocated nonviolence, believe he knew nothing about the CIA program. But Gyalo Thondup, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, was closely involved in the operations, and Knaus, who took part in the operation, writes that “Gyalo Thondup kept his brother the Dalai Lama informed of the general terms of the CIA support.” According to Knaus, starting in the late 1950s, the Agency paid the Dalai Lama $15,000 a month. Those payments came to an end in 1974.

In 1999, I asked the Dalai Lama if the CIA operation had been harmful for Tibet. “Yes, that is true,” he replied. The intervention was harmful, he suggested, because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests rather than helping the Tibetans in any lasting way. “Once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help,” he told me. “Otherwise our struggle could have gone on. Many Tibetans had great expectations of CIA [air] drops, but then the Chinese army came and destroyed them. The Americans had a different agenda from the Tibetans.”

This was exactly right, and the different goals of the Agency and the Tibetans are explored fully by the Tibetan-speaking anthropologist Carole McGranahan in her Arrested Histories: Tibet, the CIA, and Memories of a Forgotten War (2010). Although sometimes clouded by anthropological jargon, her account fascinatingly explores how differently from their American counterparts the Tibetan veterans remember the CIA operation. A striking example is the matter of the Chinese army documents, whose capture in a Tibetan ambush of a high-ranking Chinese officer is depicted in grisly detail in a huge painting in the CIA’s museum in Washington. In addition to revealing low Chinese morale, the documents disclosed the extent of Chinese violence in Tibet. “This information was the only documentary proof the Tibetan government [in exile] had of the Chinese atrocities and was therefore invaluable,” MacGranahan notes. Yet the documents and their capture rarely came up during her long interview sessions with the veterans. “Why is it that this particular achievement, so valued by the US and Tibetan governments, is not remotely as memorable for [the] soldiers?”

One reason is that the Tibetan fighters were told nothing about the value of the documents, which they couldn’t read. One veteran explains to her:

Our soldiers attacked Chinese trucks and seized some documents of the Chinese government. After that the Americans increased our pay scale. Nobody knew what the contents of those documents were. At that time, questions weren’t asked. If you asked many questions, then others would be suspicious of you.

The leader of the ambush tells her that “as a reward the CIA gave me an Omega chronograph,” but he, too, had little knowledge of the documents’ importance. As McGranahan shows in extensive detail, the veterans were preoccupied above all by their devotion to the Dalai Lama, whom they wanted to resume his position as supreme leader of an independent Tibet.

After the CIA mission was ended, Tibet became increasingly marginal to Washington’s China policy, as Knaus has now made clear in a second book, Beyond Shangri-la: America and Tibet’s Move into the Twenty-First Century. The reality is that American presidents now face a world power in Beijing. In language that sums up the cats-cradle of American justifications for ignoring Tibet, ex-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Marshall Green recalls to Knaus, “there was nothing we could do to help the Tibetans except by improving our relations with the Chinese Communists so that we might be in a position to exert pressure on them to moderate their policies towards the Tibetans.” Green “admitted that this was ‘perhaps a rationalization.’”

President Obama will soon meet the new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. His advisers will have reminded him of the encounter between his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin on June 27, 1998. In that meeting, Clinton assured Jiang that, “I agree that Tibet is a part of China, an autonomous region of China. And I can understand why the acknowledgement of that would be a precondition of dialog with the Dalai Lama.” Banking on his well-known charm, Mr. Clinton added, “I have spent time with the Dalai Lama. I believe him to be an honest man, and I believe if he had a conversation with President Jiang, they would like each other very much.” Jiang, it is reported, threw back his head and laughed. Clinton’s suggestion was omitted from the official Chinese transcript.

April 9, 2013,

Gandhi Publica

Con Publica tener tu propio libro, imprimirlo y venderlo nunca había sido tan fácil.

Publica tu libro en formato electrónico en gandhi.com.mx y se parte del catálogo más grande de México.
Te damos un servicio completo, desde la conversión, solicitud de ISBN, hasta el diseño de la portada.
Conoce el estatus de tus ventas de manera periódica y accesible.
Registra los libros que quieras. El limite lo pones tú.
Podrás imprimir tu libro cuantas veces quieras con nuestro servicio de impresión bajo demanda.

¡Regístrate e inicia ya tu historia como escritor!

https://www.gandhi.com.mx/publica-1

Sergio Aguayo Quezada is a full-time Professor at El Colegio de México since 1977. In 2014, he joined the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights of Harvard School of Public Health as a Research Associate. Aguayo has authored dozens of books and academic articles. He publishes a weekly syndicated column in the newspaper Reforma and since March 2001, he has appeared on Primer Plano, a weekly television program broadcast on Canal 11. Throughout his career, he has actively promoted democracy and human rights. His Twitter is @sergioaguay

Web Visit Counter: 005675724

VISIT COUNTER

web counter

The Story of My Experiments with Truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_My_Experiments_with_Truth

The Story of My Experiments with Truth is the autobiography of Mohandas K. Gandhi, covering his life from early childhood through to 1921. It was written in weekly instalments and published in his journal Navjivan from 1925 to 1929. Its English translation also appeared in installments in his other journal Young India.[1] It was initiated at the insistence of Swami Anand and other close co-workers of Gandhi, who encouraged him to explain the background of his public campaigns. In 1999, the book was designated as one of the "100 Best Spiritual Books of the 20th Century" by a committee of global spiritual and religious authorities.[2]

Translator's preface

This section is written by Mahadev Desai who translated the book from Gujarati to English in 1940. In this preface Desai notes that the book was originally published in two volumes, the first in 1927 and second in 1929. He also mentions that the original was priced at ₹1 (1.4¢ US) and had a run of five editions by the time of the writing of his preface. 50,000 copies had been sold in Gujarati but since the English edition was expensive it prevented Indians from purchasing it. Desai notes the need to bring out a cheaper English version. He also mentions that the translation has been revised by an English scholar who did not want his name to be published. Chapters XXIX-XLIII of Part V were translated by Desai's friend and colleague Pyarelal.[3]#

Introduction[edit]

The introduction is written by Gandhi himself mentioning how he has resumed writing his autobiography at the insistence of Jeramdas, a fellow prisoner in Yerwada Central Jail with him. He mulls over the question a friend asked him about writing an autobiography, deeming it a Western practice, something "nobody does in the east".[1] Gandhi himself agrees that his thoughts might change later in life but the purpose of his story is just to narrate his experiments with truth in life.[3] He also says that through this book he wishes to narrate his spiritual and moral experiments rather than political.

Part I[edit]

The first part narrates incidents of Gandhi's childhood, his experiments with eating meat, smoking, drinking, stealing and subsequent atonement.[4] There are two texts that had a lasting influence on Gandhi, both of which he read in childhood. He records the profound impact of the play Harishchandra and says,"I read it with intense interest...It haunted me and I must have acted Harishchandra to myself times without number."[5] Another text he mentions reading that deeply affected him was Shravana Pitrabhakti Nataka, a play about Shravana's devotion to his parents. Gandhi got married at the age of 13.[3] In his words, "It is my painful duty to have to record here my marriage at the age of thirteen...I can see no moral argument in support of such a preposterously early marriage." Another important event documented in this part is the demise of Gandhi's father Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi wrote the book to deal with his experiment for truth. His disdain for physical training at school, particularly gymnastics has also been written about in this part.[6]

Part II[edit]

After a long history of antagonism, the British and the Dutch shared power in South Africa, with Britain ruling the regions of Natal and Cape Colony, while the Dutch settlers known as the Boers taking charge in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, two independent republics. The white settler and the independent Boer states continued to engage in volatile interactions with the British, so a threat of violent eruptions always loomed large. In order to placate both the Boer and other white settlers, the British adopted a number of racist policies, and while the Indians, most of them working on sugar and coffee plantations, did not suffer as much as the black population, they clearly experienced a treatment as second-class citizens. The initial story of Gandhi’s travails in South Africa and of his systematic struggle against oppression is well known. Gandhi repeatedly experienced the sting of humiliation during his long African sojourn. The incident at Maritzburg, where Gandhi was thrown off the train has become justly famous. When Gandhi, as a matter of principle, refused to leave the first class compartment, he was thrown off the train.[7] Later, Gandhi also had difficulty being admitted to hotels, and saw that his fellow-Indians, who were mostly manual laborers, experienced even more unjust treatment.

Very soon after his arrival, Gandhi's initial bafflement and indignation at racist policies turned into a growing sense of outrage and propelled him into assuming a position as a public figure at the assembly of Transvaal Indians, where he delivered his first speech urging Indians not to accept inequality but instead to unite, work hard, learn English and observe clean living habits. Although Gandhi's legal work soon start to keep him busy, he found time to read some of Tolstoy's work, which greatly influenced his understanding of peace and justice and eventually inspired him to write to Tolstoy, setting the beginning of a prolific correspondence. Both Tolstoy and Gandhi shared a philosophy of non-violence and Tolstoy's harsh critique of human society resonated with Gandhi's outrage at racism in South Africa.

Both Tolstoy and Gandhi considered themselves followers of the Sermon on the Mount from the New Testament, in which Jesus Christ expressed the idea of complete self-denial for the sake of his fellow men. Gandhi also continued to seek moral guidance in the Bhagavad-Gita, which inspired him to view his work not as self-denial at all, but as a higher form of self-fulfillment. Adopting a philosophy of selflessness even as a public man, Gandhi refused to accept any payment for his work on behalf of the Indian population, preferring to support himself with his law practice alone.

But Gandhi's personal quest to define his own philosophy with respect to religion did not rely solely on sacred texts. At the time, he also engaged in active correspondence with a highly educated and spiritual Jain from Bombay, his friend Raychandra, who was deeply religious, yet well versed in a number of topics, from Hinduism to Christianity. The more Gandhi communicated with Raychandra, the more deeply he began to appreciate Hinduism as a non violent faith and its related scriptures. Yet, such deep appreciation also gave birth to a desire to seek inner purity and illumination, without solely relying on external sources, or on the dogma within every faith. Thus, although Gandhi sought God within his own tradition, he espoused the idea that other faiths remained worthy of study and contained their own truths.

Not surprisingly, even after his work assignment concluded, Gandhi soon found a reason to remain in South Africa. This pivotal reason involved the "Indian Franchise Bill", with which the Natal legislature intended to deprive Indians of the right to vote. No opposition existed against this bill, except among some of Gandhi's friends who asked him to stay in South Africa and work with them against this new injustice against Indians, who white South Africans disparagingly called "coolies." He found that racist attitudes had become deeply entrenched, especially in the Dutch-ruled regions, where they lived in the worst urban slums and could not own property or manage agricultural land. Even in Natal, where Indians had more influence, they were not allowed to go out after 9 p.m. without a pass, while in Cape Colony, another British territory, they were not allowed to walk on the sidewalk. The new bill which prohibited Indians from voting in Natal only codified existing injustice in writing.

Although a last-minute petition drive failed to the Indian Franchise Bill from passing, Gandhi remained active and organized a much larger petition, which he sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, and distributed to the press in South Africa, Britain and India. The petition raised awareness of the plight of Indians and generating discussions in all three continents to the point where both the Times of London and the Times of India published editorials in support of the Indian right to the vote. Gandhi also formed a new political organization called the Natal Indian Congress (a clear reference to the Indian National Congress), which held regular meetings and soon, after some struggles with financing, started its own library and debating society. They also issued two major pamphlets, An Appeal to Every Briton in South Africa, and The Indian Franchise–An Appeal, which offered a logical argument against racial discrimination. He was also thrown of the Train when he didn't agree to move from his first class seat which he paid for.

Though, at first, Gandhi intended to remain in South Africa for a month, or a year at most, he ended up working in South Africa for about twenty years. After his initial assignment was over, he succeeded in growing his own practice to about twenty Indian merchants who contracted manage their affairs. This work allowed him to both earn a living while also finding time to devote to his mission as a public figure. During his struggle against inequality and racial discrimination in South Africa, Gandhi became known among Indians all around the world as "Mahatma," or "Great Soul."

Part III

In South Africa with the Family, the Boer War, Bombay and South Africa Again.

In 1896, Gandhi made a brief return to India and returned with his wife and children. In India, he published another pamphlet, known as the Green Pamphlet, on the plight of Indians in South Africa. For the first time, Gandhi realized that Indians had come to admire his work greatly and experienced a taste of his own popularity among the people, when he visited Madras, an Indian province, where most manual laborers had originated. Although his fellow-Indians greeted him in large crowds with applause and adulation, he sailed back to South Africa with his family in December 1896.

Gandhi had become very well known in South Africa as well, to the point where a crowd of rioters awaited him at Port Natal, determined that he should not be allowed to enter. Many of them also mistakenly believed that all the dark-skinned passenger on the ship that took Gandhi to Natal were poor Indian immigrants he had decided to bring along with him, when, in reality, these passengers were mostly returning Indian residents of Natal. Fortunately, Gandhi was able to establish a friendly relationship with the British in South Africa so the Natal port's police superintendent and his wife escorted him to safety. After this incident, local white residents began to actually regard him with greater respect.

As Gandhi resumed his work at the Natal Indian Congress, his loyalty to the British guided him to assist them in the Boer War, which started three years later. Because Gandhi remained a passionate pacifist, he wanted to participate in the Boer War without actually engaging in violence so he organized and led an Indian Medical Corps which served the British in a number of battles, including the important battle of Spion Kop in January 1900.

At the time, Gandhi believed that the British Empire shared the values of liberty and equality that he himself embraced and that, by virtue of defending those principles, the British constitution deserved the loyalty of all British subjects, including Indians. He viewed racist policy in South Africa as a temporary characteristic aberration, rather than a permanent tendency. With respect to the British in India, at this point in his life, Gandhi considered their rule beneficial and benevolent.

The armed conflict between the British and Dutch raged on for over three years of often brutal fighting with the British conquering the Transvaal and Orange Free state territories. Gandhi expected that the British victory would establish justice in South Africa and present him with an opportunity to return to India. He wanted to attend the 1901 meeting of the Indian National Congress, whose mission was to provide a social and political forum for the Indian upper class. Founded in 1885 by the British, the Congress had no real political power and expressed pro-British positions. Gandhi wanted to attend its meeting nevertheless, as he was hoping to pass a resolution in support of the Indian population in South Africa. Before he left for Bombay, Gandhi promised the Natal Indian Congress that he would return to support their efforts, should they need his help.

As Gandhi attended the 1901 Indian National Congress, his hopes came true. G.K. Gokhale, one of the most prominent Indian politicians of the time, supported the resolution for the rights of Indians in South Africa and the resolution passed. Through Gokhale, in whose house Gandhi stayed for a month, Gandhi met many political connections that would serve him later in life.

However, his promise to always aid his friends in Natal soon prompted him to return to South Africa, when he received an urgent telegram informing him that the British and Boers had now formed a peaceful relationship and often acted together to the detriment of the Indian population, as Britain was planning to live local white individuals in power in South Africa, much like it had done in Canada and Australia.

Gandhi travelled back to South Africa immediately and met with Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and presented him with a paper on the injustice against the Indian population but Chamberlain indicated that the Indians would have to obey the new rulers of South Africa, now called the "Afrikaners," which included both Dutch and British local settlers.

Gandhi began to organize a fast response to this new South African political configuration. Instead of working in Natal, he now established a camp in the newly conquered Transvaal region and began helping Indians who had escaped from the war in that region, and now had to purchase overly expensive re-entry passes. He also represented poor Indians whose dwellings in a shantytown the authorities had dispossessed. Gandhi also started a new magazine, Indian Opinion, that advocated for political liberty and equal rights in South Africa. The magazine, which initially included several young women from Europe, expanded its staff around the country, increasing both Gandhi's popularity and the public support for his ideas.

At round same time, Gandhi read John Ruskin's book Unto This Last, which maintained that the life of manual labor was superior to all other ways of living. As he adopted this belief, Gandhi chose to abandon Western dress and habits, and he moved his family and staff to a Transvaal farm called the Phoenix, where he even gave renounced the use of an oil-powered engine and printed Indian Opinion by hand-wheel, and performed agriculture labor using old, manual farming equipment. He began to conceive of his public work as a mission to restore old Indian virtue and civilization, rather than fall prey to modern Western influence, which included electricity and technology.

Between 1901 and 1906, he also changed another aspect of his personal life by achieving Brahmacharya, or the voluntary abstention from sexual relations. He made this choice as part of his philosophy of selflessness and self-restraint. Finally, he also formulated his own philosophy of political protest, called Satyagraha, which literally meant "truth-force" in Sanskrit. In practice, this practice meant protesting injustice steadfastly, but in a non-violent manner.

He put this theory into practice on September 8, 1906, when, at a large gathering of the Indian community in Transvaal, he asked the whole community to take a vow of disobedience to the law, as the Transvaal government had started an effort to register every Indian child over the age of eight, which would make them an official part of the South African population.

Setting a personal example, Gandhi became the first Indian to appear before a magistrate for his refusal to register, and he was sentenced to two months in prison. He actually asked for a heavier sentence, a request, consistent with his philosophy of self-denial. After his release, Gandhi continued his campaign and thousands of Indians burned their registration cards, crossing the Transvaal-Natal border without passes. Many went to jail, including Gandhi, who went to jail again in 1908.

Gandhi did not waiver when a South African General by the name of Jan Christiaan Smuts promised to eliminate the registration law, but broke his word. Gandhi went all the way to London in 1909 and gathered enough support among the British to convince Smuts to eliminate the law in 1913. Yet, the Transvaal Prime Minister continued to regard Indians as second-class citizens while the Cape Colony government passed another discriminatory law making all non-Christian marriages illegal, which meant that all Indian children would be considered born out of wedlock. In addition, the government in Natal continued to impose crippling poll tax for entering Natal only upon Indians.

In response to these strikingly unjust rules, Gandhi organized a large-scale satyagraha, which involved women crossing the Natal-Transvaal border illegally. When they were arrested, five thousand Indian coal miners also went on strike and Gandhi himself led them across the Natalese border, where they expected arrest.

Although Smuts and Gandhi did not agree on many points, they had respect for each other. In 1913, Smuts relented due to the sheer number of Indians involved in protest and negotiated a settlement which provided for the legality of Indian marriages and abolished the poll tax. Further, the import of indentured laborers from India was to be phased out by 1920. In July 1914, Gandhi sailed for Britain, now admired as "Mahatma," and known throughout the world for the success of satyagraha.

Part IV[edit]

Part IV. Mahatma in the Midst of World Turmoil

Gandhi was in England when World War I started and he immediately began organizing a medical corps similar to the force he had led in the Boer War, but he also faced health problems that caused him to return to India, where he met the applauding crowds with enthusiasm once again. Indians continued to refer to him as "Mahatma" or "Great Soul," an appellation reserved only for the holiest men of Hinduism. While Gandhi accepted the love and admiration of the crowds, he also insisted that all souls were equal and did not accept the implication of religious sacredness that his new name carried.

In order to retreat into a life of humility and restraint, as his personal principles mandated, he decided to withdraw from public life for a while spending his first year in India focusing on his personal quest for purity and healing. He also lived in a communal space with untouchables, a choice which many of his financial supporters resented, because they believed that the very presence of untouchables defiled higher-caste Indians. Gandhi even considered moving to a district in Ahmedabad inhabited entirely by the untouchables when a generous Muslim merchant donated enough money to keep up his current living space for another year. By that time, Gandhi's communal life with the untouchables had become more acceptable.

Although Gandhi had withdrawn from public life, he briefly met with the British Governor of Bombay (and future Viceroy of India), Lord Willington, whom Gandhi promised to consult before he launched any political campaigns. Gandhi also felt the impact of another event, the passing of G.K. Gokhale, who had become his supporter and political mentor. He stayed away from the political trend of Indian nationalism, which many of the members of the Indian National Congress embraced. Instead, he stayed busy resettling his family and the inhabitants of the Phoenix Settlement in South Africa, as well as the Tolstoy Settlement he had founded near Johannesburg. For this purpose, on May 25, 1915, he created a new settlement, which came to be known as the Satyagraha ashram ( derive from Sanskrit word "Satya" means "truth" ) near the town of Ahmedabad and close to his place of birth in the western Indian province of Gujarati. All the inhabitants of the ashram, which included one family of untouchables, swore to poverty and chastity.

After a while, Gandhi became influenced by the idea of Indian independence from the British, but he dreaded the possibility that a westernized Indian elite would replace the British government. He developed a strong conviction that Indian independence should take place as a large-scale sociopolitical reform, which would remove the old plagues of extreme poverty and caste restrictions. In fact, he believed that Indians could not become worthy of self-government unless they all shared a concern for the poor.

As Gandhi resumed his public life in India in 1916, he delivered a speech at the opening of the new Hindu University in the city of Benares, where he discussed his understanding of independence and reform. He also provided specific examples of the abhorrent living conditions of the lower classes that he had observed during his travels around India and focused specifically on sanitation.

Although the Indians of the higher-castes did not readily embrace the ideas in the speech, Gandhi had now returned to public life and he felt ready to convert these ideas to actions. Facing the possibility of arrest, just like he always did in South Africa, Gandhi first spoke for the rights of impoverished indigo-cultivators in the Champaran district. His efforts eventually led to the appointment of a government commission to investigate abuses by the indigo planters.

He also interefered whenever he saw violence. When a group of Ahmedabad mill workers went on strike and became violent, he resolved to fast until they returned to peace. Though some political commentators condemned Gandhi's behavior as a form of blackmail, the fast only lasted three days before the workers and their employers negotiated an agreement. Through this situation, Gandhi discovered the fast as one of his most effective weapons in late years and set a precedent for later action as part of satyagraha.

As the First World War continued, Gandhi also became involved in recruiting men for the British Army, an involvement which his followers had a difficult time accepting, after listening to his passionate speeches about resisting injustice in a non-violent manner. Not surprisingly, at this point, although Gandhi still remained loyal to Britain and enamored with the ideals of the British constitution, his desire to support and independent home rule became stronger. As time passed, Gandhi became exhausted from his long journey around the country and fell ill with dysentery. He refused conventional treatment and chose to practice his own healing methods, relying on diet and spending a long time bedridden, while in recovery in his ashram.

In the meantime, India’s unrest was overwhelming at the prospect of the British destroying the world's only Muslim power, the Ottoman Empire. While the British alleged that they fought to protect the rights of small states and independent peoples from tyranny, in India, an increasing number of people found this alleged commitment less than genuine.

After the end of the war, the British government decided to follow the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee, which advocated the retention of various wartime restrictions in India, including curfews and measures to suppress free speech. Gandhi was still sick when these events took place and, although he could not protest actively, he felt his loyalty to the British Empire weaken significantly.

Later, when the Rowlatt Act actually became law, Gandhi proposed that the entire country observe a day of prayer, fasting, and abstention from physical labor as a peaceful protest against the injustice of the oppressive law. Gandhi's plea generated an overwhelming response as millions of Indians did not go to work on April 6, 1919.

As the entire country stood still, the British arrested Gandhi, which provoked angry crowds to fill the streets of India's cities and, much to Gandhi's dislike, violence erupted everywhere. Gandhi could not tolerate violence so he called off his campaign and asked that everyone return to their homes. He acted in accordance with his firm belief that if satyagraha could not be carried out without violence, it should not take place at all.

Unfortunately, not all protesters shared Gandhi's conviction as ardently. In Amritsar, capital of the region known as the Punjab, where the alarmed British authorities had deported the local Hindu and Muslim members of the Congress, the street mobs became very violent and the British summoned Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer to restore order. Dyer prohibited all public meetings and instituted public whippings for Indians who approached British policemen. Despite these new regulations, a crowd of over ten thousand protesters gathered in the center of Armitsar, and Dyer responded with bringing his troops there and opening fire without warning. Tightly packed together, the protesters had nowhere to run from the fire, even when they threw themselves down on the ground the fire was then directed on the ground, ceasing only when the British troops no longer had ammunition. Hundreds died and many more were wounded.

This unfortunate occurrence became known as the Amritsar Massacre, it outraged the British public almost as much as Indian society. The authorities in London eventually condemned Dyer's conduct, forcing him to resign in disgrace. The effect the massacre had on Indian society became even more profound as more moderate politicians, like Gandhi, now began to wholeheartedly support the idea of Indian independence, creating an intense climate of mutual hostility. After the massacre, Gandhi eventually obtained permission to travel to Amritsar and conduct his own investigation. He produced a report months later and his work on the report motivated him to contact a number of Indian politicians, who advocated for the idea of independence from British rule.

After Amritsar, Gandhi attended the Muslim Conference being held in Delhi, where Indian Muslims discussed their fears that the British would suppress Caliphs of Turkey. Muslims considered the Caliphs as heirs of Mohammed and spiritual heads of Islam. While the British considered such suppression a necessary effort to restore order after World War I, the Muslim populations viewed it as slap in the face. Gandhi urged them not to accept the actions of the British. He proposed a boycott of British goods, and stated that if the British continued to insist on the elimination of the Caliphate, Indian Muslims should take even more drastic measures of non-cooperation, involving areas such as government employment and taxes.

During the months that followed, Gandhi continued to advocate for peace and caution, however, since Britain and Turkey were still negotiating their peace terms. Unlike more nationalistic politicians, he also supported the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms for India, as they laid the foundation for constitutional self-government. Eventually, other politicians who thought the reforms did not go far enough had to agree with Gandhi simply because his popularity and influence had become so great that the Congress could accomplish little without him.

As the British remained determined to put an end to the Muslim Caliphate, they enforced the Rowlatt Act resolutely. Even Gandhi became less tolerant towards British practices and in April 1920, he urged all Indians, Muslim and Hindu, to begin a "non-cooperation" protest against the British rule by giving up their Western clothing and British jobs. As a personal example, on August 1, he returned the kasar-i-hind medal that he had received for providing medical service to the Boer War's wounded British army in South Africa. He also became the first president of the Home Rule League, a largely symbolic position which confirmed his position as an advocate for Indian Independence.

In September 1920, Gandhi also passed an official constitution for the Congress, which created a system of two national committees and numerous local units, all working to mobilize a spirit of non-cooperation across India. Gandhi and other volunteers traveled around India further establishing this new grass roots organization, which achieved great success. The new British Viceory in India, Lord Reading, did not dare to interfere because of Gandhi's immense popularity.

By 1922, Gandhi decided that the initiative of non-cooperation had to transform into open civil disobedience, but in March 1922, Lord Reading finally ordered Gandhi's arrest after a crowd in the city of Chauri Chaura attacked and killed the local representatives of British authority. Gandhi, who had never encouraged or sanctioned this type of conduct, condemned the actions of the violent crowds and retreated into a period of fasting and prayer as a response to this violent outburst. However, the British saw the event as a trigger point and a reason for his arrest.

Part V

The British authorities placed Gandhi on trial for sedition and sentenced him to six years in prison, marking the first time that he faced prosecution in India. Because of Gandhi's fame, the judge, C.N. Broomfield, hesitated to impose a harsher punishment. He considered Gandhi clearly guilty as charged, despite the fact that Gandhi admitted his guilt and even went as far as requesting the heaviest possible sentence. Such willingness to accept imprisonment conformed to his philosophy of satyagraha, so Gandhi felt that his time in prison only furthered his commitment and goals. The authorities allowed him to use a spinning wheel and receive reading materials while in prison, so he felt content. He also wrote most of his autobiography while serving his sentence.

However, in Gandhi's absence, Indians returned to their British jobs and their every day routines. Even worse, the unity between Muslims and Hindu, which Gandhi advocated so passionately, had already begun to fall apart to the point where the threat of violence loomed large over many communities with mixed population. The fight for Indian independence could not continue while Indians themselves suffered disunity and conflict, all the more difficult to overcome in a huge country like India, which had always suffered religious divisions, as well as divisions by language, and even caste.

Gandhi realized that Independence and that the British had lost the will and power to sustain their empire, but he always acknowledged that Indians could not rely simply on the weakening of Britain in order to achieve independence. He believed that Indians had to become morally ready for Independence. He planned to contribute to such readiness through his speeches and writing, advocating humility, restraint, good sanitation, as well as an end to child marriages. He acknowledged that he had changed his position on many issues, like child marriages, and that he had not always managed to discern the most moral course of action in his life.

After his imprisonment ended, he resumed his personal quest for purification and truth. He ends his autobiography by admitting that he continues to experience and fight with "the dormant passion" that lie within his own soul. He felt ready to continue the long and difficult path of taming those passions and putting himself last among his fellow human beings, the only way to achieve salvation, according to him.

"That is why the worlds' praise fails to move me; indeed it very often stings me. To conquer the subtle passions is far harder than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms,"

Gandhi writes in his "Farewell" to the readers, a suitable conclusion for an autobiography that he never intended to be an autobiography, but a tale of experiments with life, and with truth.

Publication and later editions

After its initiation, The Story of My Experiments with Truth remained in the making for 4–5 years (including the time while Gandhi was imprisoned at Yerwada Central Jail near Pune, Maharashtra), and then it first appeared as a series in the weekly Gujarati magazine Navjivan during 1925–1928, which was published from Ahmedabad, India.

The Story of My Experiments with Truth was first published in the United States in 1948 by Public Affairs Press of Washington, DC.[8][9]

Influences

Gandhi wrote in his autobiography that the three most important modern influences in his life were Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You, John Ruskin's Unto This Last, and the poet Shrimad Rajchandra (Raychandbhai).[10][11]

Book Reviews

Development in Action (UK): Book Review by Joni Hillman

South Asian Women's Forum: Book Review

Editions in print[edit]

India – ISBN 81-7229-008-X

United States – authorized edition with forward by Sissela Bok, Beacon Press 1993 reprint: ISBN 0-8070-5909-9

Dover Publications 1983 reprint of 1948 Public Affairs Press edition: ISBN 0-486-24593-4

References

1. Johnson, edited by Richard L. (2006). Gandhi's experiments with truth : essential writings by and about Mahatma Gandhi. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-7391-1143-7.

2. ^ "Spiritual books of the century". USA Today. 2 December 1999.

3. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Desai, M. K. Gandhi. Transl. from the original Gujarati by Mahadev (1987). An autobiography : or the story of my experiments with truth (reprint. ed.). London [u.a.]: Penguin Books. p. 454. ISBN 978-0-14-006626-5.

4. ^ Men of Turmoil – Biographies by Leading Authorities of the Dominating Personalities of Our Day. Hesperides Press. 2007. p. 384. ISBN 1-4067-3625-2.

5. ^ Post, Pitirim A. Sorokin ; introduction by Stephen G. (2002). The ways and power of love : types, factors, and techniques of moral transformation (Timeless classic pbk. ed.). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. p. 552. ISBN 978-1-890151-86-7.

6. ^ Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber; R, Lloyd I. (1983). Gandhi : the traditional roots of charisma ([Pbk. ed.]. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-226-73136-0.

7. ^ Narrain, Arvind (April 1, 2013). " """MY EXPERIMENTS WITH LAW": GANDHI'S EXPLORATION OF LAW'S POTENTIAL". NUJS Law Review. Retrieved January 3, 2015.

8. ^ "Books and Authors". The New York Times. 1948-04-21. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

9. ^ "BOOK PUBLISHER MORRIS SCHNAPPER DIES AT AGE 86". Washington Post. 1999-02-07. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

10. ^ Singh, Purnima (2004). Indian cultural nationalism (Ed. 1st. ed.). New Delhi: India First Foundation. p. 290. ISBN 978-81-89072-03-2.

11. ^ editor, Wendy Doniger, consulting (1999). Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions ; Wendy Doniger, consulting editor. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster. p. 1181. ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0.

External Links

The Story of My Experiments with Truth – Google books

National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kozhikode: Nalanda Digital Lib.

An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth, full text

Read online The Story of My Experiments with Truth - Gandhi Heritage Portal

Mahatma Gandhi Autobiography

What is the difference between the CIA and the KGB? Both are survelling the citizens.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-CIA-and-the-KGB-Both-are-survelling-the-citizens

Dustin K. MacDonald, former Crisis Line Manager (2013-2017)

The CIA primarily operates externally to the United States and adopts specific policies and procedures to ensure that its work is carried out in a generally fair and transparent (to those who have a “need to know”) way.

For example, the CIA virtually never uses journalists, clergy or aid workers as Intelligence Officers. This is to prevent legitimate US workers in these areas from being mistaken as spies.

The CIA also does not use “honeypots” or “honeytraps”, where an intelligence officer is required or allowed to become romantically or sexually involved with an asset to collect intelligence.

Finally, the CIA and internal intelligence agencies like the FBI are independent of other elements in the government.

The KGB no longer exists, but its successors like the FSR (which handles external intelligence like the CIA does) has no qualms about using a variety of tactics like honeypots or extortion to collect information.

The FSB (which handles internal intelligence like the FBI) is deeply involved in the government; it’s pretty common to have an FSB agent on the Board of most large corporations and your average citizen can be subject to wide-ranging human rights abuses at the hands of these individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

The KGB (Russian: Комите́т Госуда́рственной Безопа́сности (КГБ), tr. Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, IPA: [kəmʲɪˈtʲet ɡəsʊˈdarstvʲɪnːəj bʲɪzɐˈpasnəsʲtʲɪ] (listen)), translated in English as Committee for State Security, was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991. As a direct successor of preceding agencies such as Cheka, NKGB, NKVD and MGB, the committee was attached to the Council of Ministers. It was the chief government agency of "union-republican jurisdiction", acting as internal security, intelligence and secret police. Similar agencies were constituted in each of the republics of the Soviet Unionaside from Russia, and consisted of many ministries, state committees and state commissions.

The agency was a military service governed by army laws and regulations, in the same fashion as the Soviet Army or MVD Internal Troops. While most of the KGB archives remain classified, two online documentary sources are available.[1][2] Its main functions were foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence, operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State Border of the USSR, guarding the leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, organization and ensuring of government communications as well as combating nationalism, dissent, and anti-Soviet activities.

In 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the KGB was split into the Federal Security Service and the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.

After breaking away from Georgia in the early 1990s with Russian help, the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia established its own KGB (keeping this unreformed name).[3]

https://www.kanopy.com/product/cia-vs-kgb

CIA vs KGB

Battleground Berlin

Java Films

For 50 years, Berlin was the symbol of the Cold War. The city at the heart of the intelligence war between the US and the Soviet bloc. Thousands of KGB or CIA agents observed each other, cogs in the biggest information war in history.

But the war between the secret services was one dimension of a much larger conflict. A confrontation that almost boiled over just under the surface of the cold war. Economic pressures, secret diplomacy and espionage were the hallmarks of this hidden war that never turn into armed conflict. An underground war between two institutions, without the knowledge of official diplomacy.

We hear from former CIA and KGB agents and discover the hidden face of the cold war.

Running Time

53 mins

Year

2015

Kanopy ID

1246623

Filmmakers

David Muntaner

Languages

English

Subjects

Documentaries > Politics & Current Affairs

Social Sciences > History - Modern

Social Sciences > Law & Criminal Justice

Documentaries > Historical Perspectives

Social Sciences > Political Science

Documentaries

Passion for Justice - A Civil Rights Leader

Vision Video

Passion for Justice tells the compelling story of Drs. John and Vera Mae Perkins, integral leaders in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's and an evangelical voice for community development and racial reconciliation. As a pastor in 1960's Mississippi, John Perkins first focused exclusively on evangelism and Bible literacy,…

American Commune - America's Largest Socialist Experiment

Mundo Sisters

In 1970, 1,500 hippies and their guru Stephen Gaskin founded a commune in rural Tennessee. Members forked over their savings, grew their own food, delivered their babies at home and built a self-sufficient society. Raised in this alternative community by a Jewish mother from Beverly Hills and a Puerto Rican…

Hot Damn!

Estuary Press

Hot Damn! contains footage of the 1965 Bay Area peace movement at a time when the Vietnam War was escalating rapidly. Segments include the Berkeley, California, troop train demonstrations; the Committee for Non Violent Action (CNVA) peace protest at the Oakland Army Base; the October 15-16, 1965 International Days of…

No Greater Cause and Faces of Vietnam Protest

Estuary Press

No Greater Cause chronicles the height of the anti-Vietnam war movement in the Bay Area. Footage shows the massive confrontations in Oakland between police and anti-draft protestors in l967; the rally of 100,000 against the war at Kezar Stadium in April, l967. On October 12, 1968, GI's for Peace organized…

Perch of the Devil

Estuary Press

Perch of the Devil is about the hard rock miners of Butte, Montana, and the strike of copper miners in 1959. The film reviews the history of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Local Union No. 1 and the many violent struggles that have happened in the mining camps of…

Freedom March

Estuary Press

Freedom March features the San Francisco civil rights protest march of May 26, 1963, sponsored by Bay Area black churches and the labor movement in support of the Birmingham, Alabama Campaign against segregation led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The film shows the…

Passion and Power - The Technology of Orgasm

Wendy Slick & Emiko Omori

This is the story of one simple invention, the vibrator, and its relationship to one complex human behavior, the female orgasm. The history of the vibrator and its medical use had virtually vanished until historian, Rachel Maines, researching needlework patterns in early 20th century women's magazines, ran across ads for…

Through Their Eyes - The Impact of Agent Orange in Vietnam

Black Bags Productions

A documentary about the current unsettling situation of Agent Orange in Vietnam. It follows an extended journey in Vietnam of a Chinese-Vietnamese American filmmaker. She visits families affected by the dioxin poisoning from the Agent Orange herbicide, as well as a good number of Vietnamese unaffected citizens (doctors, activists, scientists,…

500 YEARS - Life in Resistance

New Day Films

This new documentary tells the epic story that led Guatemala to a tipping point in their history from the genocide trial of former dictator General Rios Montt to the popular movement that toppled sitting President Otto Perez Molina. Focusing on universal themes of justice, racism, power and corruption, 500 YEARS…

Venezuela: Revolution From the Inside Out

MVD Entertainment Group

Venezuela: Revolution from the Inside Out is a voyage into Latin America's most exciting experiment of the new millennium, exploring the history and projects of the Bolivarian Revolution through interviews with a range of its participants, from academics to farm workers and those living in the margins of Caracas. This…

Black Panther / San Francisco State On Strike - Fighting for African American Rights in 1960's SF Bay Area

California Newsreel

BLACK PANTHER is the film the Black Panthers used to promote their cause. Shot in 1969, in Oakland, San Francisco and Sacramento, this exemplar of 1960s activist filmmaking traces the development of the Black Panther organisation. In an interview from jail, Minister of Defense Huey P. Newton describes the origins…

Theme: Murder

New Day Films

A real life story of murder, secrets and sexuality, set in the art world of the 50's and 60's, Theme: Murder takes the viewer on an immersive journey into the struggles and frustrations of living with an unsolved homicide. The filmmaker was nine years old in 1968 when her father,…

Writ Writer

New Day Films

Writ Writer portrays the historic conflict that emerged in the 1960s when Texas prisoners petitioned the courts for relief from inhumane prison conditions. Focusing on the story of self-taught jailhouse lawyer Fred Arispe Cruz, the film uncovers his legal battle, his collaboration with poverty law attorney Frances Jalet, and his…

Above and Beyond - The Birth of the Israeli Air Force

Playmount Productions

Would you risk everything - your future, your citizenship, even your life - to help a brother in need? In 1948, just three years after the liberation of Nazi death camps, a group of Jewish American pilots answered a call for help. In secret and at great personal risk, they…

Morning Sun

Center for Asian American Media

Morning Sun attempts, in the space of two hours, to create an inner history of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (c.1964-1976). It provides a multi-perspective view of a tumultuous period as seen through the eyes - and reflected in the hearts and minds - of members of the high-school generation…

The Human Face of Indonesia

National Film and Sound Archive of Australia

Indonesia is among Australia's closest neighbours and one of the world's most populous countries. Over 80 percent of its people are Muslim. The military plays a significant role in politics in Indonesia and at the time of filming, the government was headed by President Suharto, an army general. This series…

The Human Face of Hong Kong

National Film and Sound Archive of Australia

Hong Kong is internationally recognised as a hugely successful financial, manufacturing and trading centre. It is also known as an exotic internaional stopover where even the most dedicated non-consumer buys at least a camera. But Hong Kong is still a colony. It has no democracy. It is governed by a…

The Human Face of China

National Film and Sound Archive of Australia

"A series of five comprehensive human-interest programs on China and its people.

I Live At Ground Zero

Jezebel Productions

"I Live at Ground Zero" offers a different take on the 9/11 disaster through the eyes of a child. On September 11, 2001, children living and going to school around the World Trade Center were eye-witnesses to the destruction and senseless loss of life. Isabella, the subject of our film,…

Seed of Sarah

Jezebel Productions

A video collage of song and remembrance. The story is based on Judith Magyar Isaacson's highly acclaimed memoir recounting her real-life story as a young Hungarian girl growing up during the tumultuous years of WWII and the Holocaust. The film follows Judith's present day journey back to the places of…

The Man Who Drove With Mandela

Jezebel Productions

How did South Africa come to be the first country in the world to embody LGBT rights in their post-apartheid Constitution? It was in large part due to the unsung hero Cecil Williams, whose moving life story is told in the feature documentary, The Man Who Drove With Mandela. Featuring…

Boatlift - An Untold Tale of 9/11 Resilience

From the midst of 9/11, one of the darkest moments in American history, comes this inspiring and relatively unknown story. When the twin towers fell, hundreds of thousands of people ran to the water's edge. They soon realized that Manhattan is, indeed, an island. And that they were trapped. Within…

Understanding Vietnam: A Conversation

with the Director of 'The Vietnam War'

aniel Hautzinger- AUGUST 10, 2017

https://interactive.wttw.com/playlist/2017/08/04/understanding-vietnam-conversation-director-vietnam-war

Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s The Vietnam War airs Sunday, September 17 through Thursday, September 21 and Sunday, September 24 through Thursday, September 28. Sunday broadcasts are at 7:00 pm, weekday broadcasts at 8:00 pm. Explore WTTW's Vietnam War site.

It’s been 42 years since a North Vietnamese tank bulldozed through the gates of Saigon’s Presidential Palace, officially ending the Vietnam War, and we’re still working our way through the consequences and meaning of the conflict. “The Vietnam War is the most important event in American history in the second half of the twentieth century,” says Lynn Novick, the co-director with Ken Burns of The Vietnam War, a ten-part, eighteen-hour, magisterial documentary series premiering on PBS in September. “It was such a traumatic episode that we have yet to fully understand what happened or talk about it in an informed and civilized way. It’s still working on us in ways

Despite the passage of four decades, we still can’t agree on what even happened in Vietnam – why decisions were made, how the conflict dragged on – let alone on whose fault it is or what it tells us. As the author Tim O’Brien says in the documentary, “The best you could say about Vietnam is that certain blood was being shed for uncertain reasons.” More than three million Vietnamese and over 58,000 Americans died.

Novick believes that many of the schisms dividing the United States today have their root in the Vietnam era. “Not only is the Vietnam War important and misunderstood, it’s also one of the most polarizing periods in recent history. Today’s paranoia, cynicism, resentment, and misunderstandings really started to bubble up during Vietnam. These things wax and wane, but we’re at a low moment right now.

“Vietnam feels extraordinarily relevant because we can see echoes of the era today: a question of America’s power in the world, lack of faith in institutions, a presidency in disarray, government leaks. It’s much too simplistic to say history repeats itself, but it does seem to circle around the same themes over and over again.”

Given the resonance between Vietnam and today, the past may offer guidance for the present. One clear lesson that Novick believes America learned from Vietnam is to not “confuse the warriors with the war and blame soldiers for policies that they had nothing to do with.” When many veterans returned home, they were met not with gratitude and respect but rather animosity. The public enmity for the war was directed at many former soldiers in addition to the politicians who supported it. Instead of being thanked for their service, veterans were ostracized.

Unfortunately, other lessons have been forgotten, especially in government. “Our policymakers seem to have to relearn the lessons of Vietnam every generation,” says Novick. However, the era does provide a heartening example of the power of the American public when policymakers make wrongheaded, costly, tragic decisions. “During this deeply unsettling period in our history, the American people exercised their rights as a democracy in an unprecedented way,” Novick says. “They made their voices heard and held our leaders accountable, and ultimately the government responded.”

Yet The Vietnam War, which was written by Geoffrey C. Ward, never simplistically demonizes anyone. One of its strengths is its attempt to comprehend the reasons people made the decisions they did. Novick says that one of the most revelatory experiences in making the documentary was listening to presidential tapes. “Eavesdropping on the presidents as they made these momentous decisions and justified themselves really humanized them. But in the documentary we also want to understand the effects of policy on Americans and Vietnamese, and show who was responsible for them.”

The series also tries to include a multiplicity of perspectives in telling the story of the war. Novick believes that this is one of its main contributions to understanding the era: “The story has never been told this way before, and I don’t know that it ever will be again.” Both American and Vietnamese voices are included, with a disparate array of perspectives on each side. Americans who fought in the war tell their stories, as do those who fought against it. North Vietnamese veterans describe their experiences; so do fighters from the South. Anti-war protesters, deserters, Vietnamese Americans, refugees, parents: they all appear. “No matter who you are, no matter where you come from, you have to open up to another person’s view when you watch the film,” says Novick.

The stories of these people are essential to the documentary, and to grasping the consequences of the war. As the narration states, “meaning can be found in the individual stories of those who lived through it.” The stories provide an emotional through-line in the chaos of the military maneuvers and political decisions. “We were just overwhelmed with the generosity and bravery of the people who shared their stories,” Novick says.

Two interviews especially affected her. “To bear witness to people as they tell their story and find meaning in traumatic experiences is a life-altering experience,” she says. While a mother who had lost her son relived her darkest hours, Novick was overcome and had to cut the cameras: “That was one of the only times in all the years of doing this work that I had to stop.” A retired North Vietnamese general’s recollection of the capture of Saigon revealed in a profound way the human toll of the war. “He couldn’t go out and celebrate like everybody else because he was thinking about all the men in his command who had been killed. That was a really important reminder that whatever one might think about the politics of the war, there’s a human side, which is that a lot of people died. This is a tragedy on a very large scale, with epic implications, and yet individuals have to make their way through it.”

That is what The Vietnam War shows. Beyond the policy, beyond the troop movements, behind the protests and the unease, everyday people strove to survive and find meaning in their lives, with tenacity, grit, and pure, basic humanity. Those are the stories that had to be told.

Lynn Novick.

Marines marching in Danang. March 15, 1965

South Vietnamese soldier comforts severely wounded comrade. Near Saigon. August 5, 1963.

73rd Airborne Brigade paratrooper after an early morning firefight. July 14, 1966

MI5 and police to be given new anti-terror powers 'to target certain high-risk communities'

Initiative seeks to identify plotters before they strike and to lengthen jail terms

Jane Dalton @JournoJane

Sunday 22 April 2018

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-police-terrorism-uk-attacks-new-powers-radicalised-a8316646.html

Police handed out leaflets to the public in London last year, giving advice on who to call if people spot something suspicious after the Manchester Arena attack that killed 22 people ( Getty )

Couple who met on dating site jailed for planning Isis-inspired attack

Police handed out leaflets to the public in London last year, giving advice on who to call if people spot something suspicious after the Manchester Arena attack that killed 22 people

Security services and police are to be given tougher powers to act against terrorism suspects in communities where the threat of people being radicalised is thought to be highest.

Under a new strategy, authorities will aim to identify plotters before they have finalised any plans for terror attacks.

Security chiefs believe a “step change” is needed to keep the public safe from terrorism, according to The Sunday Times.

The targeting of certain communities, which will prove controversial, is part of the new approach outlined in leaked counter terrorism strategy documents.

The plans call for more focus on “communities where the threat from terrorism and radicalisation is highest” before they strike, the report said, giving MI5 and detectives powers to disrupt plots earlier.

It follows last year’s atrocities at Manchester, Westminster and London Bridge, in which a total of 35 people were killed.

Three of the five terrorists involved in the attacks were among 23,000 extremists known to the security services, but only one was under active investigation by MI5 when they struck.

The new document, due to be published in the coming weeks, sets out how police and MI5 will be able to warn government agencies, councils and devolved administrations about people on their radar before the suspects are deemed dangerous enough to be placed under surveillance.

Prison terms for terror offences would be extended, and more intensive monitoring introduced when people are released from jail, under a new counter terror bill.

Theresa May

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We do not comment on leaked documents. The updated counter terrorism strategy, which is still being finalised, will be a comprehensive and cross-cutting response to the evolving threat from domestic and international terrorism.

“The home secretary has made crystal clear her determination to leave no safe space for terrorists to act or recruit and to keep our families, communities and country safe.”

The government’s current Prevent strategy – one of four strands of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy called Contest – is aimed at supporting people at risk of joining extremist groups and carrying out terrorist activities.

It calls on faith leaders, teachers, doctors and other community leaders to report suspicions about people who may be leaning towards radicalisation to a local Prevent body.

The updated counterterrorism strategy, part of the National Security Capability Review, will also aim to tackle organised criminals, including “corrupt elites”.

The blueprint involves a “whole-of-government” approach to national security, utilising every ministry and agency to tackle threats ranging from terrorist attacks to the use of chemical agents and serious and organised crime.

The KGB

(КГБ), tr. Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, IPA: [kəmʲɪˈtʲet ɡəsʊˈdarstvʲɪnːəj bʲɪzɐˈpasnəsʲtʲɪ] (listen)), translated in English as Committee for State Security, was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991. As a direct successor of preceding agencies such as Cheka, NKGB, NKVD and MGB, the committee was attached to the Council of Ministers. It was the chief government agency of "union-republican jurisdiction", acting as internal security, intelligence and secret police. Similar agencies were constituted in each of the republics of the Soviet Unionaside from Russia, and consisted of many ministries, state committees and state commissions.

In 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the KGB was split into the Federal Security Service and the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.

After breaking away from Georgia in the early 1990s with Russian help, the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia established its own KGB (keeping this unreformed name).[3]

Mode of Operation of the KGB

A Time magazine article in 1983 reported that the KGB was the world's most effective information-gathering organization.[4] It operated legal and illegal espionage residencies in target countries where a legal resident gathered intelligence while based at the Soviet embassy or consulate, and, if caught, was protected from prosecution by diplomatic immunity. At best, the compromised spy was either returned to the Soviet Union or was declared persona non grata and expelled by the government of the target country. The illegal resident spied, unprotected by diplomatic immunity, and worked independently of Soviet diplomatic and trade missions, (cf. the non-official cover CIA officer). In its early history, the KGB valued illegal spies more than legal spies, because illegal spies infiltrated their targets with greater ease. The KGB residency executed four types of espionage: (i) political, (ii) economic, (iii) military-strategic, and (iv) disinformation, effected with "active measures" (PR Line), counter-intelligence and security (KR Line), and scientific–technological intelligence (X Line); quotidian duties included SIGINT (RP Line) and illegal support (N Line).[5]

The KGB classified its spies as agents (intelligence providers) and controllers (intelligence relayers). The false-identity or legend assumed by a USSR-born illegal spy was elaborate, using the life of either a "live double" (participant to the fabrications) or a "dead double" (whose identity is tailored to the spy). The agent then substantiated his or her legend by living it in a foreign country, before emigrating to the target country, thus the sending of US-bound illegal residents via the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, Canada. Tradecraft included stealing and photographing documents, code-names, contacts, targets, and dead letter boxes, and working as a "friend of the cause" or as agents provocateurs, who would infiltrate the target group to sow dissension, influence policy, and arrange kidnappings and assassinations.[6]

History of the KGB

Further information: Chronology of Soviet secret police agencies

KGB Regulation seen in the Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights in Vilnius

Mindful of ambitious spy chiefs—and after deposing Premier Nikita Khrushchev—Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and the CPSU knew to manage the next over-ambitious KGB Chairman, Aleksandr Shelepin (1958–61), who facilitated Brezhnev's palace coup d'état against Khrushchev in 1964 (despite Shelepin not then being in the KGB). With political reassignments, Shelepin protégé Vladimir Semichastny (1961–67) was sacked as KGB Chairman, and Shelepin himself was demoted from chairman of the Committee of Party and State Control to Trade Union Council chairman.

In the 1980s, the glasnost liberalisation of Soviet society provoked KGB Chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov (1988–91) to lead the August 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt to depose President Mikhail Gorbachev. The thwarted coup d'état ended the KGB on 6 November 1991. The KGB's main successors are the FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service).

KGB In the USA

Between the World Wars

The GRU (military intelligence) recruited the ideological agent Julian Wadleigh, who became a State Department diplomat in 1936. The NKVD's first US operation was establishing the legal residency of Boris Bazarov and the illegal residency of Iskhak Akhmerov in 1934.[7] Throughout, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and its General Secretary Earl Browder, helped NKVD recruit Americans, working in government, business, and industry.[citation needed]

Other important, low-level and high-level ideological agents were the diplomats Laurence Duggan and Michael Whitney Straight in the State Department, the statistician Harry Dexter White in the Treasury Department, the economist Lauchlin Currie (an FDR advisor), and the "Silvermaster Group", headed by statistician Greg Silvermaster, in the Farm Security Administration and the Board of Economic Warfare.[8] Moreover, when Whittaker Chambers, formerly Alger Hiss's courier, approached the Roosevelt Government—to identify the Soviet spies Duggan, White, and others—he was ignored. Hence, during the Second World War (1939–45)—at the Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945), and Potsdam (1945) conferences—Big Three Ally Joseph Stalin of the USSR, was better informed about the war affairs of his US and UK allies than they were about his.[9]

Soviet espionage was at its most successful in collecting scientific and technological intelligence about advances in jet propulsion, radar and encryption, which impressed Moscow, but stealing atomic secrets was the capstone of NKVD espionage against Anglo–American science and technology. To wit, British Manhattan Project team physicist Klaus Fuchs (GRU 1941) was the main agent of the Rosenberg spy ring.[10] In 1944, the New York City residency infiltrated top secret Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico by recruiting Theodore Hall, a 19-year-old Harvard physicist.[11][12]

During the Cold War[edit]

The KGB failed to rebuild most of its US illegal resident networks. The aftermath of the Second Red Scare (1947–57) and the crisis in the CPUSA hampered recruitment. The last major illegal resident, Rudolf Abel (Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher/"Willie" Vilyam Fisher), was betrayed by his assistant, Reino Häyhänen, in 1957.[13]

Recruitment then emphasised mercenary agents, an approach especially successful[citation needed][quantify] in scientific and technical espionage, since private industry practised lax internal security, unlike the US Government. One notable KGB success occurred in 1967,with the walk-in recruitment of US Navy Chief Warrant Officer John Anthony Walker. Over eighteen years, Walker enabled Soviet Intelligence to decipher some one million US Navy messages, and track the US Navy.[14]

In the late Cold War, the KGB was successful with intelligence coups in the cases of the mercenary walk-in recruits FBI counterspy Robert Hanssen (1979–2001) and CIA Soviet Division officer Aldrich Ames (1985–1994).[15]

In the Soviet Bloc[edit]

It was Cold War policy for the KGB of the Soviet Union and the secret services of the satellite states to extensively monitor public and private opinion, internal subversion and possible revolutionary plots in the Soviet Bloc. In supporting those Communist governments, the KGB was instrumental in crushing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the Prague Spring of "Socialism with a Human Face", in 1968 Czechoslovakia.

During the Hungarian revolt, KGB chairman Ivan Serov personally supervised the post-invasion "normalization" of the country. In consequence, KGB monitored the satellite state populations for occurrences of "harmful attitudes" and "hostile acts;" yet, stopping the Prague Spring, deposing a nationalist Communist government, was its greatest achievement.

The KGB prepared the Red Army's route by infiltrating to Czechoslovakia many illegal residents disguised as Western tourists. They were to gain the trust of and spy upon the most outspoken proponents of Alexander Dubček's new government. They were to plant subversive evidence, justifying the USSR's invasion, that right-wing groups—aided by Western intelligence agencies—were going to depose the Communist government of Czechoslovakia. Finally, the KGB prepared hardline, pro-USSR members of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (CPC), such as Alois Indra and Vasiľ Škultéty, to assume power after the Red Army's invasion.[16]

The KGB's Czech success in the 1960s was matched with the failed suppression of the Solidarity labour movement in 1980s Poland. The KGB had forecast political instability consequent to the election of Archbishop of Kraków Karol Wojtyla as the first Polish Pope, John Paul II, whom they had categorised as "subversive" because of his anti-Communist sermons against the one-party PUWP régime. Despite its accurate forecast of crisis, the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP) hindered the KGB's destroying the nascent Solidarity-backed political movement, fearing explosive civil violence if they imposed the KGB-recommended martial law. Aided by their Polish counterpart, the Służba Bezpieczeństwa (SB), the KGB successfully infiltrated spies to Solidarity and the Catholic Church,[17] and in Operation X co-ordinated the declaration of martial law with Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski and the Polish Communist Party;[18] however, the vacillating, conciliatory Polish approach blunted KGB effectiveness—and Solidarity then fatally weakened the Communist Polish government in 1989.

Suppressing internal dissent

During the Cold War, the KGB actively sought to combat "ideological subversion" – anti-communist political and religious ideas and the dissidents who promoted them – which was generally dealt with as a matter of national security in discouraging influence of hostile foreign powers. After denouncing Stalinism in his secret speech On the Personality Cult and its Consequences in 1956, head of state Nikita Khrushchev lessened suppression of "ideological subversion". As a result, critical literature re-emerged, including the novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was code-named PAUK ("spider") by the KGB. After Khrushchev's deposition in 1964, Leonid Brezhnev reverted the State and KGB to actively harsh suppression; house searches to seize documents and the continual monitoring of dissidents became routine again. To wit, in 1965, such a search-and-seizure operation yielded Solzhenitsyn manuscripts of "slanderous fabrications", and the subversion trial of the novelists Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel; Sinyavsky (alias "Abram Tertz"), and Daniel (alias "Nikolai Arzhak"), were captured after a Moscow literary-world informant told KGB when to find them at home.[19]

In 1967, the campaign of this suppression increased under new KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov. After suppressing the Prague Spring, KGB Chairman Andropov established the Fifth Directorate to monitor dissension and eliminate dissenters. He was especially concerned with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, "Public Enemy Number One".[20] Andropov failed to expel Solzhenitsyn before 1974; but did internally exile Sakharov to Gorky in 1980. The KGB failed to prevent Sakharov's collecting his Nobel Peace Prize in 1975, but did prevent Yuri Orlov collecting his Nobel Prize in 1978; Chairman Andropov supervised both operations.

KGB dissident-group infiltration featured agents provocateur pretending "sympathy to the cause", smear campaigns against prominent dissidents, and show trials; once imprisoned, the dissident endured KGB interrogators andsympathetic informant cell-mates. In the event, Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost policies lessened persecution of dissidents; he was effecting some of the policy changes they had been demanding since the 1970s.[21]

Notable operations[edit]

With the Trust Operation (1921–1926), the OGPU successfully deceived some leaders of the right-wing, counter-revolutionary White Guards back to the USSR for execution.
NKVD infiltrated and destroyed Trotskyist groups; in 1940, the Spanish agent Ramón Mercader assassinated Leon Trotsky in Mexico City.
KGB favoured active measures (e.g. disinformation), in discrediting the USSR's enemies.
For war-time, KGB had ready sabotage operations arms caches in target countries.

According to declassified documents, the KGB aggressively recruited former Nazi intelligence officers after the war.[22] The KGB used them to penetrate the West German intelligence service.[22]

In the 1960s, acting upon the information of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the CIA counter-intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton believed KGB had moles in two key places—the counter-intelligence section of CIA and the FBI's counter-intelligence department—through whom they would know of, and control, US counter-espionage to protect the moles and hamper the detection and capture of other Communist spies. Moreover, KGB counter-intelligence vetted foreign intelligence sources, so that the moles might "officially" approve an anti-CIA double agent as trustworthy. In retrospect, the captures of the moles Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen proved that Angleton, though ignored as over-aggressive, was correct, despite the fact that it cost him his job at CIA, which he left in 1975.[citation needed]

In the mid-1970s, the KGB tried to secretly buy three banks in northern California to gain access to high-technology secrets. Their efforts were thwarted by the CIA. The banks were Peninsula National Bank in Burlingame, the First National Bank of Fresno, and the Tahoe National Bank in South Lake Tahoe. These banks had made numerous loans to advanced technology companies and had many of their officers and directors as clients. The KGB used the Moscow Narodny Bank Limited to finance the acquisition, and an intermediary, Singaporean businessman Amos Dawe, as the frontman.[23]

Bangladesh[edit]

On 2 February 1973, the Politburo, which was led by Yuri Andropov at the time, demanded that KGB members influence Bangladesh (which was then newly formed) where Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was scheduled to win parliamentary elections. During that time, the Soviet secret service tried very hard to ensure support for his party and his allies and even predicted an easy victory for him. In June 1975, Mujib formed a new party called BAKSAL and created a one-party state. Three years later, the KGB in that region increased from 90 to 200, and by 1979 printed more than 100 newspaper articles. In these articles, the KGB officials accused Ziaur Rahman, popularly known as "Zia", and his regime of having ties with the United States.[24]

In August 1979, the KGB accused some officers who were arrested in Dhaka in an overthrow attempt, and by October, Andropov approved the fabrication of a letter in which he stated that Muhammad Ghulam Tawab, an Air Vice-Marshal at the time, was the main plotter, which led the Bangladesh, Indian and Sri Lankan press to believe that he was an American spy. Under Andropov's command, Service A, a KGB division, falsified the information in a letter to Moudud Ahmed in which it said that he was supported by the American government and by 1981 even sent a letter accusing the Reagan administration of plotting to overthrow President Zia and his regime. The letter also mentioned that after Mujib was assassinated the United States contacted Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad to replace him as a short-term President. When the election happened in the end of 1979, the KGB made sure that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party would win. The party received 207 out of 300 seats, but the Zia regime did not last long, falling on 29 May 1981 when after numerous escapes, Zia was assassinated in Chittagong.[24][better source needed]

Afghanistan[edit]

KGB special operative Igor Morozov sits on top of the BTR-80 armoured vehicle during his assignment to the Badakhshan province, c. 1982

The KGB started infiltrating Afghanistan as early as 27 April 1978. During that time, the Afghan Communist Party[25] was planning the overthrow of the imperially appointed Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud Khan. Under the leadership of Major General Sayed Mohammad Gulabzoy and Muhammad Rafi – code named Mammad and Niruz respectively – the Soviet secret service learned of the imminent uprising. Two days after the uprising, Nur Muhammad Taraki, leader of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, issued a notice of concern to the Soviet ambassador Alexander Puzanov and the resident of Kabul-based KGB embassy Viliov Osadchy that they could have staged a coup three days earlier hence the warning. On that, both Puzanov and Osadchy dismissed Taraki's complaint and reported it to Moscow, which broke a 30-year contract with him soon after.[24][26]

The centre then realized that it was better for them to deal with a more competent agent, which at the time was Babrak Karmal, who later accused Nur Muhammad Taraki of taking bribes and even of having secretly contacted the United States embassy in Kabul. On that, the centre again refused to listen and instructed him to take a position in the Kabul residency by 1974. On 30 April 1978, Taraki, despite being cut off from any support, led the coup which later became known as Saur Revolution, and became the country's President, with Hafizullah Amin as Deputy-Prime Minister and Vice-President. On 5 December 1978, Taraki compared the April revolt to the Russian Revolution, which struck[clarification needed] Vladimir Kryuchkov, the FCD chief of that time.[24][26]

On 27 March 1979, after losing the city of Herat, Amin became the next Prime Minister, and by 27 July became Minister of Defence as well. The centre though was concerned of his powers since the same month he issued them a complaint about lack of funds and demanded US$400,000,000. Furthermore, it was discovered that Amin had a master's degree from Columbia University, and that he preferred to communicate in English instead of Russian. Unfortunately for Moscow's intelligence services, Amin succeeded Taraki and by 16 September Radio Kabul announced that the PDPA received a fake request from Taraki concerning health issues among the party members. On that, the centre accused him of "terrorist" activities and expelled him from the Communist Party.[24][26]

The following day General Boris Ivanov, who was behind the mission in Kabul along with General Lev Gorelov and Deputy Defense Minister Ivan Pavlovsky, visited Amin to congratulate him on his election to power. On the same day the KGB decided to imprison Sayed Gulabzoy as well as Muhammad Watanjar and Asadullah Sarwari but while in captivity and under an investigation all three denied the allegation that the current Minister of Defence was an American secret agent. The denial of claims was passed on to Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev, who as the main chiefs of the KGB proposed operation Raduga to save the life of Gulabzoy and Watanjar and send them to Tashkent from Bagram airbase by giving them fake passports. With that and a sealed container in which an almost breathless Sarwari was laying, they came to Tashkent on 19 September.[24][26]

During the continued investigation in Tashkent, the three were put under surveillance in one of the rooms for as long as four weeks where they were investigated for the reliability of their claims by the KGB. Soon after, they were satisfied with the results and sent them to Bulgaria for a secret retreat. On 9 October, the Soviet secret service had a meeting in which Bogdanov, Gorelov, Pavlonsky and Puzanov were the main chiefs who were discussing what to do with Amin who was very harsh at the meeting. After the two-hour meeting they began to worry that Amin will establish an Islamic Republic in Afghanistan and decided to seek a way to put Karmal back in. They brought him and three other ministers secretly to Moscow during which time they discussed how to put him back in power. The decision was to fly him back to Bagram airbase by 13 December. Four days later, Amin's nephew, Asadullah, was taken to Moscow by the KGB for acute food poisoning treatment.[24][26]

On 19 November 1979, the KGB had a meeting on which they discussed Operation Cascade, which was launched earlier that year. The operation carried out bombings with the help of GRU and FCD.[26] On 27 December, the centre received news of the Darul Aman Palace, that KGB Special Forces Alpha and Zenith Group, supported by the 154th OSN GRU, also known as Muslim battalion and paratroopers from the 345th Guards Airborne Regiment stormed the Tajbeg Palace in Afghanistan and killed Afghan President Hafizullah Amin and his 100–150 personal guards.[27] His 11-year-old son died due to shrapnel wounds.[28] The Soviets installed Babrak Karmal as Amin's successor. Several other government buildings were seized during the operation, including the Ministry of Interior building, the Internal Security (KHAD) building, and the General Staff building (Darul Aman Palace). Out of the 54 KGB operators that assaulted the palace, 5 were killed in action, including Colonel Grigori Boyarinov, and 32 were wounded. Alpha Group veterans call this operation one of the most successful in the group's history. In June 1981, there were 370 members in the Afghan-controlled KGB intelligence service throughout the nation which were under the command of Ahmad Shah Paiya and had received all the training they need in the Soviet Union. By May 1982 the Ministry of Internal Affairs was set up in Afghanistan under the command of KHAD. In 1983 Boris Voskoboynikov became the next head of the KGB while Leonid Kostromin became his Deputy Minister.[26]

August 1991 coup[edit]

Main article: 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt

On 18 August 1991, Chairman of the KGB Vladimir Kryuchkov, along with seven other Soviet leaders, formed the State Committee on the State of Emergency and attempted to overthrow the government of the Soviet Union. The purpose of the attempted coup d'état was to preserve the integrity of the Soviet Union and the constitutional order. President Mikhail Gorbachev was arrested and ineffective attempts were made to seize power. Within two days, the attempted coup collapsed.[29]

The KGB was succeeded by the Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK) of Russia, which was succeeded by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB).[30]

Organization[edit]

Republican affiliations[edit]

Head of KGB in Lithuania Eduardas Eismuntas, January 1990

Erkebek Abdulaev, author and former KGB lieutenant colonel

The former building of the KGB in Lithuania.

The republican affiliation offices almost completely duplicated the structural organization of the main KGB.

KGB of Belarusian SSR / KDB of Belarus (see State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus)
KGB of Ukraine / KDB of Ukraine (see Committee for State Security (Ukraine))
KGB of Moldovan SSR / CSS of Moldova
KGB of Estonian SSR / RJK of Estonia
KGB of Latvian SSR / LPSR Valsts drošības komiteja (VDK)
KGB of Lithuanian SSR / VSK of Lithuania
KGB of Georgian SSR / KSU of Georgia
KGB of Armenian SSR
KGB of Azerbaijan SSR / DTK of Azerbaijan
KGB of Kazakh SSR
KGB of Kyrgyz SSR
KGB of Uzbek SSR
KGB of Turkmen SSR
KGB of Tajik SSR
KGB of Russia (created in 1991) (see Federal Security Service)

Leadership[edit]

The Chairman of the KGB, First Deputy Chairmen (1–2), Deputy Chairmen (4–6). Its policy Collegium comprised a chairman, deputy chairmen, directorate chiefs, and republican KGB chairmen.

Directorates[edit]

First Chief Directorate (Foreign Operations) – foreign espionage. (now the Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR in Russian)
Second Chief Directorate – counter-intelligence, internal political control.
Third Chief Directorate (Armed Forces) – military counter-intelligence and armed forces political surveillance.
Fourth Directorate (Transportation security)
Fifth Chief Directorate – censorship and internal security against artistic, political, and religious dissension; renamed "Directorate Z", protecting the Constitutional order, in 1989.
Sixth Directorate (Economic Counter-intelligence, industrial security)
Seventh Directorate (Surveillance) – of Soviet nationals and foreigners.
Eighth Chief Directorate – monitored-managed national, foreign, and overseas communications, cryptologic equipment, and research and development.
Ninth Directorate (Guards and KGB Protection Service) – The 40,000-man uniformed bodyguard for the CPSU leaders and families, guarded critical government installations (nuclear weapons, etc.), operated the Moscow VIP subway, and secure Government–Party telephony. President Yeltsin transformed it to the Federal Protective Service (FPS).
Fifteenth Directorate (Security of Government Installations)
Sixteenth Directorate (SIGINT and communications interception) – operated the national and government telephone and telegraph systems.
Border Guards Directorate responsible for the USSR's border troops.
Operations and Technology Directorate – research laboratories for recording devices and Laboratory 12 for poisons and drugs.

Former KGB officer Sergei Ivanovmeets with former CIA director Robert Gates, April 2007

Other units[edit]

KGB Personnel Department
Secretariat of the KGB
KGB Technical Support Staff
KGB Finance Department
KGB Archives
KGB Irregulars
Administration Department of the KGB, and
The CPSU Committee
KGB Spetsnaz (special operations) units such as:
Alpha Group
Vega Group
Zenith Group
Kremlin Guard Force for the Presidium, et al., then became the FSO

Mossad

Intelligence agency

Mossad, short for HaMossad leModiʿin uleTafkidim Meyuḥadim, is the national intelligence agency of Israel. It is one of the main entities in the Israeli Intelligence Community, along with Aman and Shin Bet. Mossad is responsible for intelligence collection, covert operations, and counterterrorism. Wikipedia

Headquarters: Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel

Founder: David Ben-Gurion

Founded: December 13, 1949

Agency executive: Yossi Cohen, Director

Number of employees: 1,200 (est)

Jurisdiction: Israel

Mossad (/məˈsæd/; Hebrew: הַמוֹסָד, IPA: [ha moˈsad]; Arabic: الموساد‎, al-Mōsād, IPA: [almoːˈsaːd]; literally meaning "the Institute"), short for HaMossad leModiʿin uleTafkidim Meyuḥadim (Hebrew: המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים, meaning "Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations"), is the national intelligence agency of Israel. It is one of the main entities in the Israeli Intelligence Community, along with Aman (military intelligence) and Shin Bet (internal security).

Mossad is responsible for intelligence collection, covert operations, and counterterrorism. In contrast to the government and military, the goals, structure and powers of the Mossad are exempt from the constitutional laws of the State of Israel. However, its activity is subject to secret procedures that have never been published. Its director answers directly to the Prime Minister. Its counter-terrorist unit is known as Kidon.

Organisation

Executive offices

The largest department of Mossad is Collections, tasked with many aspects of conducting espionage overseas. Employees in the Collections Department operate under a variety of covers, including diplomatic and unofficial.[2] The Political Action and Liaison Department is responsible for working with allied foreign intelligence services, and nations that have no normal diplomatic relations with Israel.[2] Additionally, Mossad has a Research Department, tasked with intelligence production, and a Technology Department concerned with the development of tools for Mossad activities.[3]

History

Mossad was formed on December 13, 1949, as the Central Institute for Coordination at the recommendation of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to Reuven Shiloah. Ben Gurion wanted a central body to coordinate and improve cooperation between the existing security services—the army's intelligence department (AMAN), the Internal Security Service (Shin Bet), and the foreign office's "political department". In March 1951, it was reorganized and made a part of the prime minister's office, reporting directly to the prime minister.

Motto

Mossad's former motto, be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh (Hebrew: בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎) is a quote from the Bible (Proverbs 24:6): "For by wise guidance you can wage your war" (NRSV). The motto was later changed to another Proverbs passage: be-'éyn tachbūlōt yippol `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rov yō'éts (Hebrew: באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ‎, Proverbs 11:14). This is translated by NRSV as: "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety."

Counter-terrorist units

Metsada

Metsada is a unit responsible for attacking the enemy. Metsada runs "small units of combatants" whose missions include "assassinations and sabotage".[4]

Kidon

The Kidon is a unit which belongs to the Caesarea department (one of Mossad's eight departments). It is described by Yaakov Katz as "an elite group of expert assassins who operate under the Caesarea branch of the espionage organization. Not much is known about this mysterious unit, details of which are some of the most closely guarded secrets in the Israeli intelligence community." It recruits from "former soldiers from the elite IDF special force units."[5] This unit has been a part of Israel's policy of assassinations, a policy that Israel has used more than any other country in the West, with Ronen Bergman stating it has carried out at least 2,700 assassination missions.[6][7][8]

Venture capital

Mossad has opened a venture capital fund, in order to invest in hi-tech startups to develop new cyber technologies.[9] The names of technology startups funded by Mossad will not be published.[9]

Operation Harpoon

Together with Shurat HaDin, they started Operation Harpoon, for ”destroying terrorists’ money networks.”[10][11]

Directors of Mossad

Reuven Shiloah, 1949–53
Isser Harel, 1953–63
Meir Amit, 1963–68
Zvi Zamir, 1968–73
Yitzhak Hofi, 1973–82
Nahum Admoni, 1982–89
Shabtai Shavit, 1989–96
Danny Yatom, 1996–98
Efraim Halevy, 1998–2002
Meir Dagan, 2002–2011
Tamir Pardo, 2011–2016
Yossi Cohen, 2016–present

Operations

Africa

Egypt

Provision of intelligence for the cutting of communications between Port Said and Cairo in 1956.
Mossad spy Wolfgang Lotz, holding West German citizenship, infiltrated Egypt in 1957, and gathered intelligence on Egyptian missile sites, military installations, and industries. He also composed a list of German rocket scientists working for the Egyptian government, and sent some of them letter bombs. After the East German head of state made a state visit to Egypt, the Egyptian government detained thirty West German citizens as a goodwill gesture. Lotz, assuming that he had been discovered, confessed to his cold warespionage activities.
After a tense May 25, 1967, confrontation with CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden, who warned that the United States would help defend Egypt if Israel launched a surprise attack, Mossad director Meir Amit flew to Washington, D.C. to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and reported back to the Israeli cabinet that the United States had given Israel "a flickering green light" to attack.[12]
Provision of intelligence on the Egyptian Air Force for Operation Focus, the opening air strike of the Six-Day War.
Operation Bulmus 6 – Intelligence assistance in the Commando Assault on Green Island, Egypt during the War of Attrition.[citation needed]
Operation Damocles – A campaign of assassination and intimidation against German rocket scientists employed by Egypt in building missiles.
- A bomb sent to the Heliopolis rocket factory killed five Egyptian workers, allegedly sent by Otto Skorzeny on behalf of the Mossad.[13]
- Heinz Krug, 49, the chief of a Munich company supplying military hardware to Egypt disappeared in September 1962 and is believed to have been assassinated by Otto Skorzeny on behalf of the Mossad.[13]

Morocco

In September 1956, Mossad established a secretive network in Morocco to smuggle Moroccan Jews to Israel after a ban on immigration to Israel was imposed.[14]

In early 1991, two Mossad operatives infiltrated the Moroccan port of Casablanca and planted a tracking device on the freighter Al-Yarmouk, which was carrying a cargo of North Korean missiles bound for Syria. The ship was to be sunk by the Israeli Air Force, but the mission was later called off by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.[15]

Tunisia

The 1988 killing of Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), a founder of Fatah.[16]

The alleged killing of Salah Khalaf, head of intelligence of the PLO and second in command of Fatah behind Yasser Arafat, in 1991.[17]

The 2016 alleged killing of Hamas operative, Mohammad al-Zawahri, in Tunisia. Mohammad Zawari, known to Israel's security echelon as "The Engineer", was a Hamas affiliated engineer who was believed to be constructing drones for the group. He was shot at close range.[18][19]

Uganda

For Operation Entebbe in 1976, Mossad provided intelligence regarding Entebbe International Airport [20] and extensively interviewed hostages who had been released.[21]

South Africa

In the late 1990s, after Mossad was tipped off to the presence of two Iranian agents in Johannesburg on a mission to procure advanced weapons systems from Denel, a Mossad agent was deployed, and met up with a local Jewish contact. Posing as South African intelligence, they abducted the Iranians, drove them to a warehouse, and beat and intimidated them before forcing them to leave the country.[22]

Sudan

After the 1994 AMIA bombing, the largest bombing in Argentine history, Mossad began gathering intelligence for a raid by Israeli Special Forces on the Iranian embassy in Khartoum as retaliation. The operation was called off due to fears that another attack against worldwide Jewish communities might take place as revenge. Mossad also assisted in Operation Moses, the evacuation of Ethiopian Jews to Israel from a famine-ridden region of Sudan in 1984, also maintaining a relationship with the Ethiopian government.[citation needed]

Americas

Argentina

In 1960, Mossad discovered that the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann was in Argentina. A team of five Mossad agents led by Shimon Ben Aharon slipped into Argentina and through surveillance, confirmed that he had been living there under the name of Ricardo Klement. He was abducted on May 11, 1960 and taken to a hideout. He was subsequently smuggled to Israel, where he was tried and executed. Argentina protested what it considered as the violation of its sovereignty, and the United Nations Security Council noted that "repetition of acts such as [this] would involve a breach of the principles upon which international order is founded, creating an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust incompatible with the preservation of peace" while also acknowledging that "Eichmann should be brought to appropriate justice for the crimes of which he is accused" and that "this resolution should in no way be interpreted as condoning the odious crimes of which Eichmann is accused."[23][24] Mossad abandoned a second operation, intended to capture Josef Mengele.[25]

United States

During the 1990s, Mossad discovered a Hezbollah agent operating within the United States in order to procure materials needed to manufacture IEDs and other weapons. In a joint operation with U.S. intelligence, the agent was kept under surveillance in hopes that he would betray more Hezbollah operatives, but was eventually arrested.[26]

Mossad informed the FBI and CIA in August 2001 that, based on its intelligence, as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into the United States and planning "a major assault on the United States." The Israeli intelligence agency cautioned the FBI that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable."[27] However, "It is not known whether U.S. authorities thought the warning to be credible, or whether it contained enough details to allow counter-terrorism teams to come up with a response." A month later, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the largest terrorist attack in history.[27]

Uruguay

Mossad assassinated Latvian Nazi collaborator Herberts Cukurs in 1965.[28]

Asia

Central and West Asia

A report published on the Israeli military’s official website in February, 2014 said that Middle Eastern countries that cooperate with Israel (Mossad) are the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The report claimed that Bahrain has been providing Israel with intelligence on Iranian and Palestinian organizations. The report also highlights the growing secret cooperation with Saudi Arabia, claiming that Mossad has been in direct contact with Saudi intelligence about Iran’s nuclear energy program.[29][30][31]

Iran

Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1978–79, SAVAK (Organization of National Security and Information), the Iranian secret police and intelligence service was created under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957.[32][33] After security relations between the United States and Iran grew more distant in the early 1960s which led the CIA training team to leave Iran, Mossad became increasingly active in Iran, "training SAVAK personnel and carrying out a broad variety of joint operations with SAVAK."[34]

A US intelligence official told The Washington Post that Israel orchestrated the defection of Iranian general Ali Reza Askari on February 7, 2007.[35] This has been denied by Israeli spokesman Mark Regev. The Sunday Times reported that Askari had been a Mossad asset since 2003, and left only when his cover was about to be blown.[36]

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi has accused Mossad of assassination plots and killings of Iranian physicists in 2010. Reports have noted that such information has not yet been evidently proven. Iranian state TV broadcast a stated confession from Majid Jamali-Fashi, an Iranian man who claimed to have visited Israel to be trained by Mossad.[37]

Le Figaro claimed that Mossad was possibly behind a blast at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Imam Ali military base, on October 12, 2011. The explosion at the base killed 18 and injured 10 others. Among the dead was also general Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, who served as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ missile program and was a crucial figure in building Iran’s long-range missile program.[38] The base is believed to store long-range missiles, including the Shahab-3, and also has hangars. It is one of Iran's most secure military bases.[39]

Mossad has been accused of assassinating Masoud Alimohammadi, Ardeshir Hosseinpour, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan; scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program. It is also suspected of being behind the attempted assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Fereydoon Abbasi.[40] Meir Dagan, who served as Director of Mossad from 2002 until 2009, while not taking credit for the assassinations, praised them in an interview with a journalist, saying "the removal of important brains" from the Iranian nuclear project had achieved so-called "white defections," frightening other Iranian nuclear scientists into requesting that they be transferred to civilian projects.[12]

In early February 2012, Mossad director Tamir Pardo met with U.S. national security officials in Washington, D.C. to sound them out on possible American reactions in the event Israel attacked Iran over the objections of the United States.[41]

In 2018 the Mossad broke into Iran's secret nuclear archive in Teheran and smuggled over 100,000 documents and computer files to Israel. The documents and files showed that the Iranian AMAD Project aimed to develop nuclear weapons.[42] Israel shared the information with its allies, including European countries and the United States.[43]

Iraq

Assistance in the defection and rescuing of the family of Munir Redfa, an Iraqi pilot who defected and flew his MiG-21 to Israel in 1966: "Operation Diamond". Redfa's entire family was also successfully smuggled from Iraq to Israel. Previously unknown information about the MiG-21 was subsequently shared with the United States.

Operation Sphinx[44] – Between 1978 and 1981, obtained highly sensitive information about Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor by recruiting an Iraqi nuclear scientist in France.

Operation Bramble Bush II – In the 1990s, Mossad began scouting locations in Iraq where Saddam Hussein could be ambushed by Sayeret Matkal commandos inserted into Iraq from Jordan. The mission was called off due to Operation Desert Fox and the ongoing Israeli-Arab peace process.

Jordan

In what is thought to have been a reprisal action for a Hamas suicide-bombing in Jerusalem on July 30, 1997 that killed 16 Israelis, Benjamin Netanyahu authorised an operation against Khaled Mashal, the Hamas representative in Jordan.[45] On September 25, 1997, Mashal was injected in the ear with a toxin (thought to have been a derivative of the synthetic opiate Fentanyl called Levofentanyl).[46][47] Jordanian authorities apprehended two Mossad agents posing as Canadian tourists and trapped a further six in the Israeli embassy. In exchange for their release, an Israeli physician had to fly to Amman and deliver an antidote for Mashal. The fallout from the failed killing eventually led to the release of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual leader of the Hamas movement, and scores of Hamas prisoners. Netanyahu flew into Amman on September 29 to apologize personally to King Hussein, but he was instead met by the King's brother, Crown Prince Hassan.[46]

Lebanon

The sending of letter bombs to PFLP member Bassam Abu Sharif in 1972. Sharif was severely wounded, but survived.[48]

The killing of the Palestinian writer and leading PFLP member Ghassan Kanafani by a car bomb in 1972.[49]

The provision of intelligence and operational assistance in the 1973 Operation Spring of Youth special forces raid on Beirut.

The targeted killing of Ali Hassan Salameh, the leader of Black September, on January 22, 1979 in Beirut by a car bomb.[50][51]

Providing intelligence for the killing of Abbas al-Musawi, secretary general of Hezbollah, in Beirut in 1992.[52]

Allegedly killed Jihad Ahmed Jibril, the leader of the military wing of the PFLP-GC, in Beirut in 2002.[53]

Allegedly killed Ali Hussein Saleh, member of Hezbollah, in Beirut in 2003.[54]

Allegedly killed Ghaleb Awwali, a senior Hezbollah official, in Beirut in 2004.[55]

Allegedly killed Mahmoud al-Majzoub, a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Sidon in 2006.[56]

Mossad was suspected of establishing a large spy network in Lebanon, recruited from Druze, Christian, and Sunni Muslim communities, and officials in the Lebanese government, to spy on Hezbollah and its Iranian Revolutionary Guard advisors. Some have allegedly been active since the 1982 Lebanon War. In 2009, Lebanese Security Services supported by Hezbollah's intelligence unit, and working in collaboration with Syria, Iran, and possibly Russia, launched a major crackdown which resulted in the arrests of around 100 alleged spies "working for Israel".[57] Previously, in 2006, the Lebanese army uncovered a network that allegedly assassinated several Lebanese and Palestinian leaders on behalf of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.[58]

Palestine

Caesarea tried for many years to assassinate Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, a job later tasked by Israel's Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon to a military special ops task force code named "Salt Fish," later renamed "Operation Goldfish," specially created for the job of assassinating Arafat,[7] with Ronan Bergman suggesting that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat.[59]

Syria

Eli Cohen infiltrated the highest echelons of the Syrian government, was a close friend of the Syrian President, and was considered for the post of Minister of Defense. He gave his handlers a complete plan of the Syrian defenses on the Golan Heights, the Syrian Armed Forces order of battle, and a complete list of the Syrian military's weapons inventory. He also ordered the planting of trees by every Syrian fortified position under the pretext of shading soldiers, but the trees actually served as targeting markers for the Israel Defense Forces. He was discovered by Syrian and Soviet intelligence, tried in secret, and executed publicly in 1965.[60] His information played a crucial role during the Six-Day War.

On 1 April 1978, 12 Syrian military and secret service personnel were killed by a booby trapped sophisticated Israeli listening device planted on the main telephone cable between Damascus and Jordan.[61]

The alleged death of General Anatoly Kuntsevich, who from the late 1990s was suspected of aiding the Syrians in the manufacture of VX nerve-gas, in exchange for which he was paid huge amounts of money by the Syrian government. On April 3, 2002, Kuntsevich died mysteriously during a plane journey, amid allegations that Mossad was responsible.[61]

The alleged killing of Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil, a senior member of the military wing of Hamas, in an automobile booby trap in September 2004 in Damascus.[62]

The uncovering of a nuclear reactor being built in Syria as a result of surveillance by Mossad of Syrian officials working under the command of Muhammad Suleiman. As a result, the Syrian nuclear reactor was destroyed by Israeli Air Forces in September 2007 (see Operation Orchard).[61]

The alleged killing of Muhammad Suleiman, head of Syria's nuclear program, in 2008. Suleiman was on a beach in Tartus and was killed by a sniper firing from a boat.[63]

On July 25, 2007, the al-Safir chemical weapons depot exploded, killing 15 Syrian personnel as well as 10 Iranian engineers. Syrian investigations blamed Israeli sabotage.[61]

The alleged killing of Imad Mughniyah, a senior leader of Hezbollah complicit in the 1983 United States embassy bombing, with an exploding headrest in Damascus in 2008.[64]

The decomposed body of Yuri Ivanov, the deputy head of the GRU, Russia's foreign military intelligence service, was found on a Turkish beach in early August 2010,[65] amid allegations that Mossad may have played a role. He had disappeared while staying near Latakia, Syria.[66]

Mossad was accused of being behind the assassination of Aziz Asbar, a senior Syrian scientist responsible for developing long-range rockets and chemical weapons programs. He was killed in a car bomb in Masyaf on August 5, 2018.[67]

United Arab Emirates

Mossad is suspected of killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas military commander, in January 2010 at Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The team which carried out the killing is estimated, on the basis of CCTV and other evidence, to have consisted of at least 26 agents traveling on bogus passports. The operatives entered al-Mabhouh's hotel room, where Mabhouh was subjected to electric shocks and interrogated. The door to his room was reported to have been locked from the inside.[68][69][70][71][72] Although the UAE police and Hamas have declared Israel responsible for the killing, no direct evidence linking Mossad to the crime has been found. The agents' bogus passports included six British passports, cloned from those of real British nationals resident in Israel and suspected by Dubai, five Irish passports, apparently forged from those of living individuals,[73] forged Australian passports that raised fears of reprisal against innocent victims of identity theft,[74] a genuine German passport and a false French passport. Emirati police say they have fingerprint and DNA evidence of some of the attackers, as well as retinal scans of 11 suspects recorded at Dubai airport.[75][76] Dubai's police chief has said "I am now completely sure that it was Mossad," adding: "I have presented the (Dubai) prosecutor with a request for the arrest of (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and the head of Mossad," for the murder.[77]

South and East Asia

India

A Rediff story in 2003 revealed that Mossad had clandestine links with the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), India's external intelligence agency. When R&AW was founded in September 1968 by Rameshwar Nath Kao, he was advised by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to cultivate links with Mossad. This was suggested as a countermeasure to military links between that of Pakistan and China, as well as with North Korea. Israel was also concerned that Pakistani army officers were training Libyans and Iranians in handling Chinese and North Korean military equipment.[78]

Pakistan believed intelligence relations between India and Israel threatened Pakistani security. When young Israeli tourists began visiting the Kashmir valley in the early 1990s, Pakistan suspected they were disguised Israeli army officers there to help Indian security forces with anti-terrorism operations. Israeli tourists were attacked, with one slain and another kidnapped. Pressure from the Kashmiri Muslim diaspora in the United States led to his release. Kashmiri Muslims feared that the attacks could isolate the American Jewish community, and result in them lobbying the US government against Kashmiri separatist groups.[78]

In 1996, R.K. Yadav, a former RAW official had filed a disproportionate assets case in the Delhi High Court against Anand Kumar Verma, RAW chief between 1987 and 1990. Yadav listed eight properties that he claimed were purchased illegally by Verma using RAW's unaudited funds for secret operations. Although his petition for a CBI inquiry into Verma's properties was dismissed, Yadav managed to obtain more information using in RTI in 2005 and filed another case in 2009. In 2013, the CBI carried out an investigation of Verma's properties. Proceedings in the Delhi High Court revealed the names of two companies floated by RAW in 1988 - Piyush Investments and Hector Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. The firms were headed by two senior RAW officials V. Balachandran and B. Raman. Balachandran and Raman retired in 1994 and 1995 respectively. The companies were listed as trading houses that dealt in several kinds of minerals, automobiles, textiles, metals and spare parts, and also claimed to produce feature films. The companies purchased two flats in Gauri Sadan, a residential building on Hailey Road, New Delhi in March 1989 for ₹23 lakh.[79]

India Today reported that the two flats were RAW safe houses used as operational fronts for Mossad agents and housed Mossad's station chief between 1989 and 1992. RAW had reportedly decided to have closer ties to Mossad, and the subsequent secret operation was approved by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. India Today cites "RAW insiders" as saying that RAW agents hid a Mossad agent holding an Argentine passport and exchanged intelligence and expertise in operations, including negotiations for the release of an Israeli tourist by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front militants in June 1991. When asked about the case Verma refused to speak about the companies, but claimed his relationship with them was purely professional. Raman stated, "Sometimes, spy agencies float companies for operational reasons. All I can say is that everything was done with government approval. Files were cleared by the then prime minister [Rajiv Gandhi] and his cabinet secretary. Balachandran stated, "It is true that we did a large number of operations but at every stage, we kept the Cabinet Secretariat and the prime minister in the loop."[79]

In November 2015, The Times of India reported that agents from Mossad and MI5 were protecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Turkey. Modi was on a state visit to the United Kingdom and was scheduled to attend the 2015 G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey. The paper reported that the agents had been called in to provide additional cover to Modi's security detail, composed of India's Special Protection Group and secret agents from RAW and IB, in wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks.[80][81]

North Korea

Mossad may have been involved in the 2004 explosion of Ryongchon, where several Syrian nuclear scientists working on the Syrian and Iranian nuclear-weapons programs were killed and a train carrying fissionable material was destroyed.[82]

Pakistan

In a September 2003 news article,[83] it was alleged by Rediff News that General Pervez Musharaf, the then-President of Pakistan, decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC.

Europe

Austria

In 1954, after Mossad received intelligence that an Israeli officer who had access to classified military technologies, Major Alexander Israel, had approached Egyptian officials in Europe and offered to sell Israeli military secrets and documents, a team of Mossad and Shin Bet officers was quickly sent to Europe to locate him and abduct him, and located him in Vienna. The mission was code-named Operation Bren. A female agent managed to lure him to a meeting through a honey trap operation, and he was subsequently kidnapped, sedated, and flown to Israel aboard a waiting Israeli military plane. However, the plane had to make several refueling stops, and he was given an additional dose of sedatives each time, which ultimately caused him to overdose, killing him. Upon arrival in Israel, after it was discovered that he was dead, he was given a burial at sea, and the case remained highly classified for decades.[84]

Mossad gathered information on Austrian politician Jörg Haider using a mole.[85]

Belgium

Mossad is alleged to be responsible for the killing of Canadian engineer and ballistics expert Gerald Bull on March 22, 1990. He was shot multiple times in the head outside his Brussels apartment.[86] Bull was at the time working for Iraq on the Project Babylon supergun.[87] Others, including Bull's son, believe that Mossad is taking credit for an act they did not commit to scare off others who may try to help enemy regimes. The alternative theory is that Bull was killed by the CIA. Iraq and Iran are also candidates for suspicion.[88]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Assisted in air and overland evacuations of Bosnian Jews from war-torn Sarajevo to Israel in 1992 and 1993.[89]

Cyprus

The killing of Hussein Al Bashir in Nicosia, Cyprus, in 1973 in relation to the Munich massacre.[52]

France

Mossad allegedly assisted Morocco's domestic security service in the disappearance of dissident politician Mehdi Ben Barka in 1965.[90]

Cherbourg Project - Operation Noa, the 1969 smuggling of five Sa'ar 3-class missile boats out of Cherbourg.

The killing of Dr. Mahmoud Hamshari, coordinator of the Munich massacre, with an exploding telephone in his Paris apartment in 1972.[52]

The killing of Dr. Basil Al-Kubaissi, who was involved in the Munich massacre, in Paris in 1973.[52]

The killing of Mohammad Boudia, member of the PFLP, in Paris in 1973.[52]

On April 5, 1979, Mossad agents are believed to have triggered an explosion which destroyed 60 percent of components being built in Toulouse for an Iraqi reactor. Although an environmental organization, Groupe des écologistes français, unheard of before this incident, claimed credit for the blast,[44] most French officials discount the claim. The reactor itself was subsequently destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981.[44][91]

The alleged killing of Zuheir Mohsen, a pro-Syrian member of the PLO, in 1979.[92]

The killing of Yehia El-Mashad, the head of the Iraq nuclear weapons program, in 1980.[93]

The alleged killing of Atef Bseiso, a top intelligence officer of the PLO, in Paris in 1992. French police believe that a team of assassins followed Atef Bseiso from Berlin, where that first team connected with another team to close in on him in front of a Left Bank hotel, where he received three head-shots at point blank range.[94]

Germany

Operation Plumbat (1968) was an operation by Lekem-Mossad to further Israel's nuclear program. The German freighter "Scheersberg A" disappeared on its way from Antwerp to Genoa along with its cargo of 200 tons of yellowcake, after supposedly being transferred to an Israeli ship.[95]

The sending of letter bombs during the Operation Wrath of God campaign. Some of these attacks were not fatal. Their purpose might not have been to kill the receiver. A Mossad letter bomb led to fugitive Nazi war-criminal Alois Brunner losing 4 fingers from his right hand in 1980.[96]

The alleged targeted killing of Dr Wadie Haddad, using poisoned chocolate. Haddad died on 28 March 1978, in the German Democratic Republic supposedly from leukemia. According to the book Striking Back, published by Aharon Klein in 2006, Haddad was eliminated by Mossad, which had sent the chocolate-loving Haddad Belgian chocolates coated with a slow-acting and undetectable poison which caused him to die several months later. "It took him a few long months to die", Klein said in the book.[97]

Mossad discovered that Hezbollah had recruited a German national named Steven Smyrek, and that he was travelling to Israel. In an operation conducted by Mossad, the CIA, the German Internal Security agency Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), and the Israeli Internal Security agency Shin Bet, Smyrek was kept under constant surveillance, and arrested as soon as he landed in Israel.[98]

Mossad is alleged to have been involved in industrial espionage in Germany. In the late 1990s, the head of the BfV reportedly warned his department chiefs that Mossad remained a prime threat in stealing the country's latest computer secrets.[82]

Greece

The killing of Zaiad Muchasi, Fatah representative to Cyprus, by an explosion in his Athens hotel room in 1973.[52]

Ireland

The assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh – a senior Hamas military commander – in Dubai, 2010, was suspected to be the work of Mossad, and there were eight Irish passports (six of which were used) fraudulently obtained by the Israeli embassy in Dublin, Ireland for use by alleged Mossad agents in the operation. The Irish government was angered over the use of Irish passports, summoned the Israeli ambassador for an explanation and expelled the Israeli diplomat deemed responsible from Dublin, following an investigation. One of the passports was registered to a residence on Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, on the same road as the Israeli embassy. The house was empty when later searched, but there was suspicion by Irish authorities it had been used as a Mossad safe house in the past.[99][100]Mossad is reported to have a working relationship with Ireland's armed forces' national intelligence service, the Directorate of Military Intelligence,[101] and has previously tipped the Irish authorities off about arms shipments from the Middle East to Ireland for use by dissident republican militants, resulting in their interception and arrests.[102] Mossad is also believed to cooperate with the British government in combating IRA terrorism, including involvement in Operation Flavius, 1988.[103]

Italy

The killing of Wael Zwaiter, thought to be a member of Black September.[104][105]

In 1986, Mossad used an undercover agent to lure Mordechai Vanunu from the United Kingdom to Italy in a honey trap style operation where he was abducted and returned to Israel where he was tried and found guilty of treason because of his role in exposing Israel's nuclear programme.[106]

Malta

The killing of Fathi Shiqaqi. Shiqaqi, a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was shot several times in the head in 1995 in front of the Diplomat Hotel in Sliema, Malta.[107]

Norway

Main article: Lillehammer affair

On July 21, 1973, Ahmed Bouchiki, a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway, was killed by Mossad agents. He had been mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh, one of the leaders of Black September, the Palestinian group responsible for the Munich massacre, who had been given shelter in Norway. Mossad agents had used fake Canadian passports, which angered the Canadian government. Six Mossad agents were arrested, and the incident came to be known as the Lillehammer affair. Israel subsequently paid compensation to Bouchiki's family.[106][108][109]

Serbia

Israel provided weapons to the Serbs during the Bosnian War, possibly due to the pro-Serbian bias of the government of the time,[110] or possibly in exchange for the immigration of the Sarajevo Jewish community to Israel.[111] The Mossad allegedly was responsible for providing Serbian groups with arms.[112]

Switzerland

According to secret CIA and US State Department documents discovered by the Iranian students who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979:

In Switzerland the Israelis have an Embassy in Bern and a Consulate-General in Zürich which provide cover for Collection Department officers involved in unilateral operations. These Israeli diplomatic installations also maintain close relations with the Swiss on a local level in regard to overt functions such as physical security for Israeli official and commercial installations in the country and the protection of staff members and visiting Israelis. There is also close collaboration between the Israelis and Swiss on scientific and technical matters pertaining to intelligence and security operations. Swiss officials have made frequent trips to Israel. There is a continual flow of Israelis to and through Switzerland. These visits, however, are usually arranged through the Political Action and Liaison regional controller at the Embassy in Paris directly with the Swiss and not through the officials in the Israeli Embassy in Bern, although the latter are kept informed.

In February 1998, five Mossad agents were caught wiretapping the home of a Hezbollah agent in a Bern suburb. Four agents were freed, but the fifth was tried, found guilty, sentenced to one year in prison, and following his release was banned from entering Switzerland for five years.[113]

Soviet Union/Russia

Mossad was involved in outreach to Refuseniks in the Soviet Union during the crackdown on Soviet Jews in the period between the 1950s and the 1980s. Mossad helped establish contact with Refuseniks in the USSR, and helped them acquire Jewish religious items, banned by the Soviet government, in addition to passing communications into and out of the USSR. Many rabbinical students from Western countries travelled to the Soviet Union as part of this program in order to establish and maintain contact with refuseniks.

Ukraine

In February 2011, a Palestinian engineer, Dirar Abu Seesi, was allegedly pulled off a train by Mossad agents en route to the capital Kiev from Kharkiv. He had been planning to apply for Ukrainian citizenship, and reappeared in an Israeli jail only three weeks after the incident.[114]

United Kingdom

Mossad assisted the UK Intelligence organisation MI5 following the 7/7 bombings in London. According to the 2007 edition of a book about Mossad titled Gideon’s Spies, shortly after the 7/7 London underground bombings, MI5 gathered evidence that a senior al-Qaedaoperative known only by the alias Mustafa travelled in and out of Britain shortly before the 7/7 bombings. For months, the real identity of Mustafa remained unknown, but in early October 2005, Mossad told MI5 that this person was, in fact, Azhari Husin, a bomb-making expert with Jemaah Islamiyah, the main al-Qaeda affiliate in Southeast Asia. Husin studied in Britain and reports claim that he met the main 7/7 bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan, in late 2001 in a militant training camp in the Philippines (see Late 2001). Meir Dagan, the then head of Mossad, apparently also told MI5 that Husin helped plan and recruit volunteers for the bombings. Mossad claimed that Husin may have been in London at the time of the bombings, and then fled to al-Qaeda’s principal haven in the tribal area of Pakistan, where he sometimes hid after bombings. Husin was killed in a shootout in Indonesia in November 2005.[115] Later official British government reports about the 7/7 bombings did not mention Husin.[116]

In addition, Gideon's Spies also claimed that Mossad conducted industrial espionage in the UK, and that shortly after Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister, MI5 briefed him on Mossad's efforts to obtain British scientific and defense data.

Oceania

New Zealand

Further information: Israel-New Zealand relations

In July 2004, New Zealand imposed diplomatic sanctions on Israel over an incident in which two Australia-based Israelis, Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara, who were allegedly working for Mossad, attempted to fraudulently obtain New Zealand passports by claiming the identity of a severely disabled man. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom later apologized to New Zealand for their actions. New Zealand cancelled several other passports believed to have been obtained by Israeli agents.[117] Both Kelman and Cara served half of their six-month sentences and, upon release, were deported to Israel. Two others, an Israeli, Ze'ev Barkan, and a New Zealander, David Reznick, are believed to have been the third and fourth men involved in the passport affair but they both managed to leave New Zealand before being apprehended.[118]

Also See

Duvdevan Unit – Israel's undercover strike unit
List of Israeli assassinations
Special Activities Division
The Spy Machine (1998), a documentary special about the work of the Mossad
Unit 8200, Israeli Intelligence Corps SIGINT and cyber unit
Yamam, Israel's elite Border Police SWAT Unit

References

1. מיתוס המוסד: כשארגון ביון ומיתוג נפגשים, Ynet, 31 October 2011.

2. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Mossad profile, Global Security. Retrieved October 28, 2006.

3. ^ Mossad profile, Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved October 28, 2006.

4. ^ Workings of Israel's secret service exposed, London Times, 2 August 1996

5. ^ Israel Vs. Iran: The Shadow War, Potomac Books, Inc, 2012, page 91, By Yaakov Katz, Yoaz Hendel

6. ^ Poisoned toothpaste and exploding phones: New book chronicles Israel’s ‘2,700’ assassination operations Ethan Bronner, Saturday 27 January 2018, The Independent

7. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b New York Times, 23 January 2018, "How Arafat Eluded Israel’s Assassination Machine"

8. ^ How Israel’s leaders use targeted killings to try to ‘stop history’ By DAVID HOROVITZ, 26 January 2018, Times of Israel

9. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ISRAEL'S MOSSAD IS LOOKING FOR A FEW GOOD STARTUPS BY HERB KEINON, JUNE 27, 2017, Jerusalem Post

10. ^ OP. HARPOON: HOW THE MOSSAD AND AN ISRAELI NGO DESTROYED TERRORIST MONEY NETWORKS, Jerusalem Post, 7 Nov 2017

11. ^ Following the Money, By Yishai Schwartz, January 18, 2018

12. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Bergman, Ronen (25 January 2012). "Will Israel Attack Iran?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 March 2012.

13. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b The Forward and Dan Raviv And Yossi Melman (March 27, 2016). "The Strange Case of a Nazi Who Became an Israeli Hitman". Haaretz.

14. ^ "Israel Intelligence and covert operations: Chronology 1948 - 1955". Zionism-israel. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

15. ^ Ross, Michael: The Volunteer (2006)

16. ^ Aburish, Said K. (1998). From Defender to Dictator. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 203–210. ISBN 978-1-58234-049-4.

17. ^ Aburish, Said K. (1998). From Defender to Dictator. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-58234-049-4.

18. ^ Report: Hamas operative known as 'The Engineer' assassinated by Mossad in Tunisia By JPOST.COM STAFF, 12/16/2016

19. ^ Tunisia investigating Mossad-suspected assassination Roi Kais, 17.12.16, ynetnews

20. ^ "Mossad took photos, Entebbe Operation was on its way". Ynetnews. 2006. Retrieved July 6, 2009.

21. ^ "Israel marks 30th anniversary of Entebbe." Associated Pressin USA Today. July 5, 2006.

22. ^ Ross, Michael, The Volunteer, pp. 251–272

23. ^ Argentina claimed that the "illicit and clandestine transfer of Eichmann from Argentine territory constitutes a flagrant violation of the Argentine State's right of sovereignty[.]" Bass, Gary J. (2004.) The Adolf Eichmann Case: Universal and National Jurisdiction. In Stephen Macedo (ed,) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes. (ch.4) Philadelphia: U.Penn. Press. In Eichmann's case, the most salient feature from the perspective of international law was the fact of Israeli law enforcement action in another state's territory without consent; the human element includes the dramatic circumstances of the capture by Mossad agents and the ensuing custody and transfer to Israel[.] Damrosch, Lori F. (2004.) Connecting the Threads in the Fabric of International Law. In Stephen Macedo (ed,) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes. (ch.5) Philadelphia: U.Penn. Press. The principle of territorial integrity (in Art. 2(4) UN Charter) At its most obvious level this means that the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction within the territory of another state will be a violation of territorial integrity ³² Note 32: E.g. after Adolf Eichmann [...] was abducted from Argentina by a group of Israelis, now known to be from the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad), the Argentine Government lodged a complaint with the UN Security Council [...] It is however unclear whether as a matter of international law the obligation to make reparation for a violation of territorial sovereignty such as that involved in the Eichmann case includes an obligation to return the offender. Higgins, Rosalyn and Maurice Floy. (1997). Terrorism and International Law. UK: Routledge. (p. 48)

24. ^ "Security Council Resolution 138, "Question Relating to the Case of Adolf Eichmann"". UN. Archived from the original on November 26, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

25. ^ Posner, Gerald L.; John Ware. "How Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele cheated justice for 34 years". Chicago Tribune Magazine. May 18, 1986.

26. ^ Ross, Michael The Volunteer, pp. 168–171

27. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Officials Told of ‘Major Assault’ Plans.

28. ^ "Simon Wiesenthal Center". Wiesenthal. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

29. ^ "Mossad cooperates with Saudis, Bahrain". presstv.ir. February 8, 2014.

30. ^ "Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran". Haaretz.

31. ^ "Israeli army report reveals intelligence and security relations with several Arab and Muslim countries". middleeastmonitor.com. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014.

32. ^ Iran, Library of Congress Country Studies (pp 276). Retrieved August 12, 2015.

33. ^ Ervand Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions (University of California Press, 1999), p. 104

34. ^ "CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY – Encyclopaedia Iranica". www.iranicaonline.org. Retrieved January 13, 2019.

35. ^ Linzer, Dafna. "Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence", The Washington Post, March 8, 2007. Retrieved March 8, 2007.

36. ^ Mahnaimi, Uzi. "Defector spied on Iran for years", The Sunday Times, March 11, 2007. Retrieved March 11, 2007.

37. ^ Edward Yeranian (January 11, 2011). "'Israeli Plot Against Nuclear Scientists'". VOA. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

38. ^ 'Iran mourns missile commander killed in blastt' New York Times November 14, 2011

39. ^ 'Mossad behind Iranian military base blast' Ynet, October 25, 2010

40. ^ "Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Covert Operations in Iran". Stratfor. February 2, 2007. Archived from the original on October 10, 2009. Retrieved February 4, 2007.(requires premium subscription)

41. ^ Daniel Klaidman, Eli Lake and Dan Ephron (February 13, 2012). "Obama's Dangerous Game With Iran". Newsweek Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2012.

42. ^ Mossad’s stunning op in Iran overshadows the actual intelligence it stole Times of Israel, May 1, 2018

43. ^ European intelligence officials briefed in Israel on Iran’s nuclear archive Times of Israel, May 5, 2018

44. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Ostrovsky, Victor (1990), By Way of Deception - The making and unmaking of a Mossad Officer, New York: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0-9717595-0-3

45. ^ McGeough, Paul (2009) Kill Khalid - The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas. Quartet Books. ISBN 978-0-7043-7157-6. Pages 126,127.

46. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Cowell, Alan (October 15, 1997). "The Daring Attack That Blew Up in Israel's Face".

47. ^ McGeough, Paul (2009) Kill Khalid - The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas. Quartet Books. ISBN 978-0-7043-7157-6. Page 184.

48. ^ Guerin, Orla. "Arafat: On borrowed time", BBC News, June 29, 2002. Retrieved October 27, 2006.

49. ^ Barbara Harlow (Winter–Spring 1986). "Return to Haifa: "Opening the Borders" in Palestinian Literature". Social Text. No. 13/14 (13/14): 3–23. JSTOR 466196.

50. ^ Life and Death of a Terrorist, The New York Times, July 10, 1983.

51. ^ Shalev, Noam 'The hunt for Black September', BBC News Online, January 26, 2006. Retrieved March 14, 2006.

52. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Israeli "Hits" On Terrorists, Jewish Virtual Library, last updated December 18, 2007. Retrieved December 24, 2007.

53. ^ Blanford, Nicholas (June 15, 2006). "Lebanon exposes deadly Israeli spy ring". The Times. London. Retrieved August 14,2006.

54. ^ "Beirut blast kills Hezbollah fighter". BBC News. August 2, 2003. Retrieved June 9, 2013.

55. ^ "Beirut bomb kills Hezbollah man". BBC News. July 19, 2004. Retrieved April 21, 2011.

56. ^ Mrque, Baseem (May 26, 2006). "Islamic Jihad Leader Killed in Lebanon". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved January 22, 2010.

57. ^ "Lebanon arrests another 2 over spying for Israel". Ya Libnan. June 28, 2010. Retrieved October 23, 2010.

58. ^ "Lebanon: Israeli spying cell busted". Xinhua. June 13, 2006. Archived from the original on February 11, 2012. Retrieved April 21, 2011.

59. ^ Poisoned toothpaste and exploding phones: New book chronicles Israel’s ‘2,700’ assassination operations Ethan Bronner, Saturday 27 January 2018, The Independent.

60. ^ Our Man in Damascus, 1969.

61. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c ^d Ronen Bergman, The Spies Inside Damascus Foreign Policy, September 19, 2013

62. ^ Hamas member assassinated in Syria News From Bangladesh, September 27, 2004

63. ^ Assassinations: the work of Mossad? Times, February 16, 2010

64. ^ Mahnaimi, Uzi; Jaber, Hala; Swain, Jon (February 17, 2008). "Israel kills terror chief with headrest bomb". The Sunday Times. London. Retrieved February 16, 2008.

65. ^ Top Russian spy’s body washes up 'after swimming accident’, Telegraph

66. ^ Israel's Red Line: Fate of Syrian Chemical Weapons May Trigger WarDer Spiegel, By Ronen Bergman, Juliane von Mittelstaedt, Matthias Schepp and Holger Stark, July 31, 2012

67. ^ "A Top Syrian Scientist Is Killed, and Fingers Point at Israel". The New York Times. 2018-08-06.

68. ^ Dubai Releases Video Of Alleged Assassins In Hamas Chief Killing Huffington Post February 16, 2010, attributed to Associated Press

69. ^ UAE: European team killed Mabhouh Jerusalem Post and Associated Press, February 15, 2010

70. ^ Katz, Yaakov (January 31, 2010). "Analysis: Another blow to the 'axis of evil'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved January 31, 2010.

71. ^ Issacharoff, Avi (February 2, 2010). "Who killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh? / Many wanted Hamas man dead". Haaretz. Retrieved February 2, 2010.

72. ^ Melman, Yossi (February 11, 2010). "10 agents including 3 women, took part in Dubai Hamas assassination" Haaretz. Retrieved February 11, 2010.

73. ^ "Dubai suspects had five fake Irish passports". RTÉ News. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 21, 2010.

74. ^ "Man in photo on Hamas leader hit squad passport not my son, says mum". The Australian. February 25, 2010. Retrieved February 25, 2010.

75. ^ 'U.K. police in Israel to probe passports used in Dubai hit' (Haaretz, February 27, 2010

76. ^ 'Interpol adds suspected Dubai assassins to most wanted list' Haaretz February 22, 2010)

77. ^ Israeli PM's arrest sought over murder News, March 3, 2010

78. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b RAW and MOSSAD, the Secret Link,rediff.com

79. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b "An ex-RAW employee takes boss to unveil a riveting story of safe houses for Mossad, fake firms and secret funds". India Today. March 15, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2016.

80. ^ Rajshekhar Jha (November 15, 2015). "Mossad, MI5 roped in to shield Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Turkey?". The Times of India. Retrieved November 13, 2016.

81. ^ "Mossad may be protecting Modi at Turkey G20 summit, paper claims". The Times of Israel. November 15, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2016.

82. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Thomas, Gordon: Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (Fifth Edition)

83. ^ "RAW & Mossad: The Secret Link". rediff.com. 8 September 2003.

84. ^ Goldman, Jan: Ethics of Spying: A Reader for the Intelligence Professional, Volume 2 p. 63-64

85. ^ Boyes, Roger (June 2, 2005). "Mossad spied on farright Austrian". The Times. London.

86. ^ "Murdered by the Mossad?" (asf). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. February 12, 1991. Retrieved August 30, 2009.

87. ^ Frum, Barbara (April 5, 1990). "Who killed Gerald Bull? (Video) – CBC". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved July 15, 2009.

88. ^ Dr. Gerald Bull: Scientist, Weapons Maker, Dreamer at CBC.ca

89. ^ Traynor, Ian. Cover story: Those who are called, The Guardian10 December 1994

90. ^ Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (1987) The Israeli connection, I.B.Tauris, p. 46.

91. ^ "FRANCE PROTESTS TO ISRAEL ON RAID", The New York Times, June 10, 1981. Retrieved November 16, 2006.

92. ^ Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem (HarperCollins Publishers, 1998, 2nd ed.), p. 118

93. ^ Ford, Peter S., Major, USAF, "Israel's Attack on Osiraq: A Model for Future Preventive Strikes?", INSS Occasional Paper 59, USAF Institute for National Security Studies, USAF Academy, Colorado, July 2005, p. 15

94. ^ Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response, ISBN 0-8129-7463-8

95. ^ ISRAEL The Plumbat Operation (1968) retrieved 10/12/2008

96. ^ Henley, Jon (March 3, 2001). "French court strikes blow against fugitive Nazi". The Guardian. Retrieved October 27, 2006.

97. ^ "Israel used chocs to poison Palestinian". SMH. 8 May 2008. Retrieved 27 February 2013.

98. ^ Ross, Michael, The Volunteer, pp. 158–159

99. ^ Black, Ian (15 June 2010). "Ireland orders Israeli diplomat out of embassy over forged passports". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 May 2014.

100. ^ "Mossad and the Irish connection". Irish Independent. 1 December 2012. Retrieved 10 May 2014.

101. ^ "Secret army squad keeps watch on 60 Al Qaeda in Ireland". Irish Daily Star. 26 March 2013. Archived from the original on August 20, 2014. Retrieved 30 May 2014.

102. ^ O'Hanlon, Ray (16 February 2011). "Inside File The Mossad's long arm". Irish Echo. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

103. ^ "Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad". 2013. Rulit.net. Archived from the original on May 19, 2014. Retrieved May 19, 2014.

104. ^ Johnson, Ken (February 13, 2009). "Material for a Palestinian's Life and Death". The New York Times. Retrieved December 4,2011.

105. ^ ""An Eye for an Eye", Bob Simon". CBS News. November 20, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

106. ^ Jump up to:^a ^b "Capturing nuclear whistle-blower". Haaretz. Archived from the original on February 21, 2009.

107. ^ "Resources". Military. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

108. ^ "Israelis to Compensate Family of Slain Waiter". The New York Times. January 28, 1996. Retrieved December 4, 2011.

109. ^ "TERRORISM: Fatal Error". Time. August 6, 1973.

110. ^ How are Bosnia's Serbs getting Israeli arms?, By Tom Sawicki, The Jerusalem Report, January 1995

111. ^ Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992–1995 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2003), 215.

112. ^ America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims Richard J Aldrich, Monday 22 April 2002, The Guardian

113. ^ "Swiss Courts Gives Israeli Spy Suspended Sentence". Jewish virtual library. July 10, 2000. Retrieved October 23, 2010.

114. ^ "UN confirms Mossad kidnaps Gaza's chief power plant engineer, Dirar Abu Seesi, from Ukraine, suspects Ukrainian help". WikiLeaks Central. March 10, 2011. Retrieved March 11,2011.

115. ^ Thomas, 2007, pp. 520, 522

116. ^ "Israel Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks (Mossad)". History Commons. Archived from the original on August 13, 2011. Retrieved October 23, 2010.

117. ^ "Israeli government apologises to New Zealand". The New Zealand Herald. NZPA. June 26, 2005. Retrieved October 26,2011.

118. ^ Hallel, Amir (October 2, 2004). "At home with the Mossad men". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved October 26, 2011.

Command, control and organisation

ASIO is a statutory body under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 responsible to the Parliament of Australia through the Department of Home Affairs. ASIO also reports to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and is subject to independent review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The head of ASIO is the Director-General of Security, who oversees the strategic management of ASIO within guidelines issued by the Attorney-General. The current Director-General of Security is Duncan Lewis, who assumed office on 15 September 2014.[7] There are also two Deputy Directors-General.

In 2013, ASIO had a staff of around 1,740.[8] The identity of ASIO officers, apart from the Director-General, remains an official secret.[2] While ASIO is an equal opportunity employer, there has been some media comment of its apparent difficulty in attracting people from a Muslim or Middle Eastern background.[9][10] Furthermore, ASIO has undergone a period of rapid growth with some 70% of its officers having joined since 2002, leading to what Paul O'Sullivan, Director-General of Security from 2005 to 2009, called 'an experience gap'.[11]

Powers and accountability

Special investigative powers

The special investigative powers available to ASIO officers under warrant signed by the Attorney-General include:[2]

interception of telecommunications,
examination of postal and delivery articles,
use of clandestine surveillance and tracking devices,
remote access to computers, including alteration of data to conceal that access,
covert entry to and search of premises, including the removal or copying of any record or thing found therein, and
conduct of an ordinary or frisk search of a person if they are at or near a premises specified in the warrant.

The Director-General also has the power to independently issue a warrant should a serious security situation arise and a warrant requested of the Attorney-General has not yet been granted.[2]

An ASIO officer may, without warrant, ask an operator of an aircraft or vessel questions about the aircraft or vessel, its cargo, crew, passengers, stores or voyage; and to produce supporting documents relating to these questions.[2]

Special terrorism investigative powers

When investigating terrorism, the Director-General may also seek a warrant from an independent judicial authority to allow:[2]

the compulsory questioning of suspects,
the detention of suspects by the Australian Federal Police, and their subsequent interrogation by ASIO officers,
ordinary, frisk or strip search of suspects by AFP officers upon their detainment,
the seizure of passports, and
the prevention of suspects leaving Australia.

The Director-General is not empowered to independently issue a warrant in relation to the investigation of terrorism.

Immunity from prosecution

While the Act does not define any activities specifically to be legal, that is, to grant immunity for any specific crime, it does provide exceptions that will not be granted immunity. Section 35k (1)[2] defines these activities as not being immune from liability for special intelligence conduct during special intelligence operations. That is to say, an ASIO operative would be deemed to have committed a crime if they were to participate in any of the following activities under any circumstances:

an activity that causes death or serious injury,
torture,
if the activity involves the commission of a sexual offence against any person, or
if the activity causes significant loss of, or serious damage to property.

Collection of foreign intelligence

ASIO also has the power to collect foreign intelligence within Australia at the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Defence.[12] Known as Joint Intelligence Operations, and usually conducted in concert with the Australian Secret Intelligence Servicethe purpose of these operations is the gathering of security intelligence on and from foreign officials, organisations or companies.[citation needed]

Accountability

Because of the nature of its work, ASIO does not make details of its activities public and law prevents the identities of ASIO officers from being disclosed. ASIO and the Australian Government say that operational measures ensuring the legality of ASIO operations have been established.

ASIO briefs the Attorney-General on all major issues affecting security and he/she is also informed of operations when considering granting warrants enabling the special investigative powers of ASIO. Furthermore, the Attorney-General issues guidelines with respect to the conduct of ASIO investigations relating to politically motivated violence and its functions of obtaining intelligence relevant to security.[2]

ASIO reports to several governmental and parliamentary committees dealing with security, legislative and financial matters. This includes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.[13][14] A classified annual report is provided to the government, an unclassified edited version of which is tabled in federal Parliament.[15]

The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was established in 1986 to provide additional oversight of Australia’s security and intelligence agencies. The Inspector-General has complete access to all ASIO records and has a range of inquisitorial powers.

Relationships with foreign agencies and services

Australia’s intelligence and security agencies maintain close working relationships with the foreign and domestic intelligence and security agencies of other nations. As of 22 October 2008, ASIO has established liaison relationships with 311 authorities in 120 countries.[15]

History

Pre-ASIO

The Australian Government assumed responsibility for national security and intelligence on Federation in 1901, and took over various state agencies and had to rationalise their functions. There was considerable overlap between the civil and military authorities. Similarly, there was also no Commonwealth agency responsible for enforcing federal laws. At the outbreak of World War I, no Australian government agency was dedicated to security, intelligence or law enforcement.[16] The organisation of security intelligence in Australia took on more urgency with a perceived threat posed by agents provocateurs, fifth columnists and saboteurs within Australia.

In 1915, the British government arranged for the establishment of a Commonwealth branch of the Imperial Counter Espionage Bureau in Australia. The branch came to be known as the Australian Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) in January 1916, and maintained a close relationship with state police forces, and later with the Commonwealth Police Force, created in 1917, to conduct investigations independent of state police forces. After the war, on 1 November 1919, the SIB and Commonwealth Police were merged to form the Investigation Branch within the Attorney General's Department.[16]

During World War II, Commonwealth Security Service was formed in 1941 to investigate organisations and individuals considered likely to be subversive or actively opposed to national interests; to investigate espionage and sabotage; to vet defence force personnel and workers in defence-related industries; to control the issue of passports and visas; and was responsible for the security of airports and wharves, and factories engaged in manufacture of munitions and other items necessary for Australia’s war effort. It was also responsible for radio security. In June 1945 it produced a report warning of the danger of the Communist Party of Australia.[17]

One of the foundation directors of ASIO, Robert Frederick Bird Wake, in his son's biography No Ribbons or Medals about his father's work as a counter espionage officer, is credited with getting "the show" started in 1949. Wake worked closely with Director-General Reed. During World War II, Reed conducted an inquiry into Wake's performance as a security officer and found that he was competent and innocent of the charges laid by the Army's commander-in-chief, General Thomas Blamey. This was the start of a relationship between Reed and Wake that lasted for more than 10 years. Wake was seen as the operational head of ASIO.

Establishment and 'The Case'

Following the end of World War II, the joint United States-UK Venona project uncovered sensitive British and Australian government data was being transmitted through Soviet diplomatic channels. Officers from MI5 were dispatched to Australia to assist local investigations. The leak was eventually tracked to a spy ring operating from the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. Allied Western governments expressed disaffection with the state of security in Australia.[18]

On 9 March 1949, Prime Minister Ben Chifley created the post of Director-General of Security and appointed South Australian Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Reed to the post. On 16 March 1949, Chifley issued a Directive for the Establishment and Maintenance of a Security Service.[19] The Security Service's first authorised telephone interceptions were in June 1949, followed in July by a raid on the Sydney office of the Communist Party of Australia. In August 1949, Reed advised the Prime Minister that he had decided to name the service the 'Australian Security Intelligence Organization' [sic].

The new service was to be modelled on the Security Service of the United Kingdom MI5 and an MI5 liaison team (including probable Soviet double agent Sir Roger Hollis) was attached to the fledgling ASIO during the early 1950s. Historian Robert Manne describes this early relationship as "special, almost filial" and continues "ASIO's trust in the British counter-intelligence service appears to have been near-perfect".[18]

The Labor Government was defeated at the December 1949 federal election, and in March 1950 the new prime minister, Robert Menzies, appointed the Deputy Director of Military Intelligence, Charles Spry, as the second Director-General of Security, commencing on 9 July 1950. Wake resigned shortly after Spry's appointment. On 6 July 1950, a Directive of Prime Minister Menzies set out the Charter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, which expanded on Chifley's 1949 Directive. ASIO was converted to a statutory body on 13 December 1956 by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1956 (repealed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the current legislation as amended to 2007). Spry would continue to hold the post until January 1970. The spelling of the organisation was amended by legislation in 1999 to bring it into line with the Australian standard form 'organisation'.

The operation to crack the Soviet spy ring in Canberra consumed much of the resources of ASIO during the 1950s. This operation became internally known as "The Case".[20] Among the prime suspects of the investigations were Wally Clayton, a prominent member of the Australian Communist Party, and two diplomats with the Department of External Affairs, Jim Hill and Ian Milner. However, no charges resulted from the investigations, because Australia did not have any laws against peacetime espionage at the time.

The Petrov Affair

Main article: Petrov Affair

5 February 1951 saw the arrival in Sydney of Vladimir Mikhaylovich Petrov, Third Secretary of the Soviet Embassy. An ASIO field officer identified Petrov as a possible 'legal', an agent of the Soviet Ministry of State Security (MGB, a forerunner to the KGB) operating under diplomatic immunity. The Organisation began gently cultivating Petrov through another agent, Dr. Michael Bialoguski, with the eventual goal of orchestrating his defection. Ultimately, Petrov was accused by the Soviet Ambassador of several lapses in judgement that would have led to his imprisonment and probable execution upon his return to the Soviet Union. Petrov feared for his life and accepted the defection life-line provided by ASIO.

The actual defection occurred on 3 April 1954. Petrov was spirited to a safe house by ASIO officers, but his disappearance and the seeming reluctance of Australian authorities to search for him made the Soviets increasingly suspicious. Fearing a defection by Petrov, MVD officers dramatically escorted his wife Evdokia to a waiting aeroplane in Sydney. There was doubt as to whether she was leaving by choice or through coercion and so Australian authorities initially did not act to prevent her being bundled into the plane. However, ASIO was in communication with the pilot and learned through relayed conversations with a flight attendant that if Evdokia spoke to her husband she might consider seeking asylum in Australia.

An opportunity to allow her to speak with her husband came when the Director-General of Security, Charles Spry, was informed that the MVD agents had broken Australian law by carrying firearms on an airliner in Australian airspace and so could be detained. When the aeroplane landed in Darwin for refuelling, the Soviet party and other passengers were asked to leave the plane. Police, acting on ASIO orders, quickly disarmed and restrained the two MVD officers and Evdokia was taken into the terminal to speak to her husband via telephone. After speaking to him, she became convinced he was alive and speaking freely and asked the Administrator of the Northern Territory for political asylum.

The affair sparked controversy in Australia when circumstantial links were noted between the leader of the Australian Labor Party and the Communist Party of Australia (and hence to the Soviet spy ring). H.V. Evatt, the leader of the Labor Party at the time, accused Prime Minister Robert Menzies of arranging the Petrov defection to discredit him. The accusations lead to a disastrous split in the Labor party.[18]

Petrov was able to provide information on the structure of the Soviet intelligence apparatus in the mid-1950s, information that was highly valuable to the United States. It was by obtaining this information that the Organisation's reputation in the eyes of the United States was greatly enhanced.[18]

In fact, when Brigadier Spry retired, the Deputy Director of the CIA sent the following tribute:

“The relationship between the CIA and ASIO started as a very personal one. The real substantive relationship started with Sir Charles’ visit in 1955... Since Sir Charles’ first visit, the relationships with ASIO have continued to become closer and closer until today we have no secrets, regardless of classification or sensitivity, that are not made available to ASIO if it is pertinent to Australia’s internal security... I feel, as does the Director, a type of mutual trust in dealing with ASIO that is exceeded by no other service in the world today.”[18]

The Cold War

ASIO's counter-intelligence successes continued throughout the Cold War. Following an elaborate investigation between 1961 and 1963, ASIO recommended the ejection of the First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy, Ivan Skripov, and his declaration as persona non grata. Skripov had been refining an Australian woman as an agent for Soviet intelligence; however, she was in fact an agent of ASIO.

In April 1983, ASIO uncovered more Soviet attempts at espionage and Valery Ivanov, who also held the post of First Secretary at the Soviet Embassy, was declared persona non grata. He was ejected from Australia on the grounds that he had performed duties in violation of his diplomatic status.

Penetration by the KGB

These successes were marred, however, by the penetration of ASIO by a KGB mole in the 1970s.[21] Due to the close defence and intelligence ties between Australia and the United States, ASIO became a backdoor to American intelligence. Upon realising ASIO was compromised, the United States pulled back on the information it shared with Australia.[22]

Following a strenuous internal audit and a joint Federal Police investigation, George Sadil was accused of being the mole. Sadil had been a Russian interpreter with ASIO for some 25 years and highly classified documents were discovered in his place of residence. Federal Police arrested Sadil in June 1993 and charged him under the Crimes Act 1914 with several espionage and official secrets related offences. However, parts of the case against him collapsed the following year.

Sadil was committed to trial in March 1994, but the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with the more serious espionage-related charges after reviewing the evidence against him. Sadil's profile did not match that of the mole and investigators were unable to establish any kind of money trail between him and the KGB.

Sadil pleaded guilty in December 1994 to thirteen charges of removing ASIO documents contrary to his duty, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment. He was subsequently released on a 12 month good behaviour bond. It is believed that another ASIO officer, now retired, is suspected of being the mole but no prosecution attempts have been made.

In November 2004, former KGB Major-General Oleg Kalugin confirmed to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners programme that the KGB had in fact infiltrated ASIO in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[23]

ASIO acknowledged in October 2016 that it had been infiltrated.[24]

Sydney 2000 Olympic Games

ASIO began planning for the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, held in Sydney, as early as 1995.[20] A specific Olympics Coordination Branch was created in 1997, and began recruiting staff with “specialised skills" the following year. In 1998, ASIO “strengthened information collection and analytical systems, monitored changes in the security environment more broadly, improved its communications technology and provided other agencies with strategic security intelligence assessments to assist their Olympics security planning.”

The Olympics Coordination Branch also began planning for the Federal Olympic Security Intelligence Centre (FOSIC) in 1998. FOSIC was to “provide security intelligence advice and threat assessments to State and Commonwealth authorities during the Sydney 2000 Games.”

Surveillance of anti-coal activists

In 2012 it was reported that ASIO had been monitoring the actions of Australians protesting against the coal industry, and was increasing its efforts from previous years. Minister Martin Ferguson said that he was particularly concerned about protests relating to the Hazelwood power station in Victoria. An unnamed security source told The Age newspaper that "providing advice and intelligence to safeguard [critical infrastructure] is clearly within ASIO's responsibilities... ASIO has a clear role, including protection against sabotage. And it's clear [environmental] activists pose a greater threat to energy facilities than terrorists." A spokesperson for Attorney General Nicola Roxon described ASIO's responsibility in monitoring political action groups as "limited to activity that is, or has the potential to be, violent for the purposes of achieving a political objective".[25] Australian Greens party leader Bob Brown described ASIO monitoring environmentalists as a "political weapon" used by the Government for the benefit of "foreign-owned mining corporations".[26][27]

Royal commissions, inquiries and reviews

Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, 1974–77

Main article: Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security

On 21 August 1974, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam announced the establishment of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security to inquire into Australia’s intelligence agencies.[20] Justice Robert Hope of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was appointed as Royal Commissioner. In 1977 the First Hope Commission made many findings about, and recommendations on, ASIO in the Fourth Report, some of which had been preempted by the Whitlam and Fraser governments. The commission marked the first review of the organisation and was fundamental to securing it as part of Australia's state defensive apparatus. In a secret supplementary report, much of which remains classified, Hope indicated his belief that ASIO's past conduct was the result of its infiltration by a hostile foreign intelligence agency. In a 1998 interview Hope stated that saw some of his major recommendations as having been wrong.

Protective Security Review, 1978–79

Following the Sydney Hilton bombing of 1978, the government commissioned Justice Hope with conducting a review into national protective security arrangements and into co-operation between Federal and State authorities in regards to security. In the report concluded in 1979, Justice Hope designated ASIO as the agency responsible for national threat assessments in terrorism and politically motivated violence.[20] He also recommended that relations between ASIO and State and Territory police forces be regulated by arrangements between governments.

Royal Commission on Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies, 1983–84

Following the publicity surrounding the expulsion of Valery Ivanov, First Secretary at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, the Government established a Royal Commission to review the activities of Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies.[20] Justice Hope was again Royal Commissioner.

Justice Hope completed his report in December 1984. His recommendations included that:

the security related activities which ASIO should investigate be redefined. References to subversion and terrorism be removed and replaced with politically motivated violence, attacks on Australia’s defence system and promoting communal violence;
ASIO be given additional functions of collecting foreign intelligence and providing protective security advice; and that
a separate office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security be established.

Justice Hope also recommended that amendments to the ASIO Act provide that “it is not the purpose of the Act that the right of lawful advocacy, protest or dissent should be affected or that exercising those rights should, by themselves, constitute activity prejudicial to security”.

Post-Cold War review, 1992

In early 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating commissioned a review “of the overall impact of changes in international circumstances on the roles and priorities of the Australian intelligence agencies”. In the Prime Minister’s statement of 21 July 1992, Mr Keating said:

Consistent with the philosophy of a separation of the assessment, policy and foreign intelligence collection functions, the Government considers that the existing roles of the individual agencies remain valid in the 1990s. The rationale outlined by Mr Justice Hope for ASIO as a freestanding, non-executive, advisory intelligence security agency remains relevant in the 1990s and the Government has therefore decided that ASIO should continue to have the roles and responsibilities laid down in existing legislation.

The Soviet threat certainly formed an important component of ASIO’s activities, but threats from other sources of foreign interference and politically motivated violence have been important to ASIO for some time, and will remain so. However, the implications for ASIO of the changes in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are more far-reaching than for the other agencies. The Government has therefore decided that while ASIO’s capacity to meet its responsibilities must be maintained, there is scope for resource reductions.[20]

The resource reductions mentioned were a cut of 60 staff and a $3.81 million budget decrease.

Inquiry into National Security, 1993

Following the trial of George Sadil over the ASIO mole scandal and from concern about the implications of material having been removed from ASIO without authority, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Mr Michael Cook AO (former head of the Office of National Assessments) to inquire into various aspects of national security. The review was completed in 1994.[20]

Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiries

The Parliamentary Joint Committee completed several reviews and inquiries into ASIO during the 1990s.[20] The first concerned the security assessment process. Another was held in September into “The nature, scope and appropriateness of the way in which ASIO reports to the Australian public on its activities.” The Committee concluded that “the total package of information available to the Australian community about ASIO's operations exceeds that available to citizens in other countries about their domestic intelligence agencies.” Pursuant to this, recommendations were made regarding the ASIO website and other publicly accessible information.

Criticisms, controversies and conspiracies

Opposition to the political left

ASIO has been accused of executing an agenda against the Left of politics since its inception. In the 1960s, ASIO was also accused of neglecting its proper duties because of this supposed preoccupation with targeting the Left. Like other Western domestic security agencies, ASIO actively monitored protesters against the Vietnam War, Labor politicians and various writers, artists and actors who tended towards the Left. Other claims go further, alleging that the Organisation compiled a list of some 10,000 suspected Communist sympathisers who would be interned should the Cold War escalate.[28]

Raids on ASIO Central Office, 1973

Main article: 1973 Murphy raids

Further accusations against ASIO were raised by the Attorney-General following a series of bombings from 1963 to 1970 on the consulate of Communist Yugoslavia in Australia by Croatian far-right militia. Attorney-General Lionel Murphy alleged that ASIO had withheld information on the group which could have led to preventative measures taken against further bomb attacks (however, Murphy was a member of the recently sworn-in Labor government, which still held a deep-seated suspicion of ASIO).

On 15 March 1973, Murphy and the Commonwealth Police raided the ASIO offices in Melbourne. While some claim the raid was disastrous, serving little purpose other than to shake-up both ASIO and the Whitlam government, the findings of such investigations were not published.

The Sydney Hilton bombing allegations of conspiracy, 1978

Main article: Sydney Hilton bombing

On 13 February 1978, the Sydney Hilton Hotel was bombed, one of the few domestic terrorist incidents on Australian soil. The Hotel was the location for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Three people in the street were killed – two council workers and a policeman – and several others injured. Former police officer Terry Griffiths, who was injured in the explosion, provided some evidence that suggested ASIO might have orchestrated the bombing or been aware of the possibility and allowed it to proceed. In 1985, the Director-General of Security issued a specific denial of the allegation. In 1991 the New South Wales parliament unanimously called for a joint State-Federal inquiry into the bombing.[29] However, the Federal government vetoed any inquiry.

Anti-terrorism bungle, 2001

A few weeks after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, mistakes led ASIO to incorrectly raid the home of Bilal Daye and his wife. It has been revealed that the search warrant was for a different address. The couple subsequently sought damages and the embarrassing incident was settled out of court in late 2005, with all material relating to the case being declared strictly confidential.[30]

Kim Beazley-Ratih Hardjono investigation, 2004

In June 2004, Kim Beazley [31] was accused of having a "special relationship" with Ratih Hardjono [32] when he was defence minister.[33] Hardjono was allegedly accused of "inappropriately" photographing a secure Australian Defence facility, working with the embassy ID, and having a close working relationship with her uncle, a senior officer in BAKIN (Indonesian Intelligence).[31] In July, journalist Greg Sheridan contacted the then head of ASIO, Dennis Richardson, and discussed a classified operational investigation.[34] Later in July members of the Attorney General's department were still investigating the original allegation, making Richardson's comments premature and inaccurate. The whole episode was a salient reminder to politicians in Canberra of the British experience of 'agents of influence'and honeypots. Ratih Hardjono was married to Bruce Grant in the 1990s.[35]

Detention and removal of Scott Parkin, 2005

In September 2005, the visa of American citizen, Scott Parkin, was cancelled after Director-General of Security, Paul O'Sullivan, issued an adverse security assessment of the visiting peace activist. Parkin was detained in Melbourne and held in custody for five days before being escorted under guard to Los Angeles, where he was informed that he was required to pay the Australian Government A$11,700 for the cost of his detention and removal.[36] Parkin challenged the adverse security assessment in the Federal Court in a joint civil action with two Iraqi refugees, Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal, who faced indefinite detention on the island of Nauru after also receiving adverse security assessments in 2005.[37]

Prior to his removal, Parkin had given talks on the role of U.S. military contractor Halliburton in the Iraq war and led a small protest outside the Sydney headquarters of Halliburton subsidiary KBR. The Attorney-General at that time, Philip Ruddock, refused to explain the reasons for Parkin's removal,[38] leading to speculation that ASIO had acted under pressure from the United States.[39] This was denied by O'Sullivan before a Senate committee, where he gave evidence that ASIO based its assessment only on Parkin's activities in Australia.[40] O'Sullivan refused to answer questions before a later Senate committee hearing[41] after his legal counsel told the Federal Court that ASIO did not necessarily base its assessment solely on Parkin's activities in Australia.[42][43]

Kidnap and false imprisonment of Izhar ul-Haque, 2007

On 12 November 2007, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed charges brought against a young medical student, Izhar ul-Haque.[44] ASIO and the Australian Federal Police had investigated ul-Haque for allegedly training with Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pakistan, a declared terrorist organisation under the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002.[44][45] However, the case against the medical student collapsed when it was revealed that ASIO officers had engaged in improper conduct during the investigation. Justice Michael Adams determined that because ul-Haque was falsely led to believe that he was legally compelled to comply with the ASIO officers, the conduct of at least one of the investigating ASIO officers constituted false imprisonment and kidnap at common law, and therefore key evidence against ul-Haque was inadmissible.[46]

Archival material

Non-current ASIO files are stored at the National Archives of Australia, and can be released to the public under the Archives Act 1983 after 30 years, unless if they fall into any of 16 exemption categories itemised in section 33 of the Archives Act.[47]

Australia portal

Australian Federal Police (AFP)

- National Security Committee
- Australian Intelligence Community
  - Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)
  - Australian Signals Directorate (ASD)
  - Office of National Assessments (ONA)
  - Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO)
  - Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO)
Oversight bodies
- Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS)
- Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS)
Relevant legislation
- Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act)
- Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA)
- Intelligence Services Amendment Act 2004
Overseas counterparts
- Canada: Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
- New Zealand: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS)
- UK: Security Service (MI5)
- US: National Security Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (NSB/FBI)

MI6_CIA_Mossad_ASIO_KGB

MI5 provides immunity for agents' criminal acts, tribunal told

Edward Snowden Israel Interview -

Mossad & NSA - November 201

Category

Pink Floyd's Roger Waters: WHOLE WORLD Must Focus on Julian Assange Arrest!

Interference China’s covert political influence campaign

in Australia Four Corners(日本語字幕）

Category

The British government has quietly admitted it lets MI5 break the law for national security

How is MI5 different to MI6, what do they stand for and what do the spy agencies do?

What does MI5 do and what are its limitations?

What does MI6 do?

What does MI5 and MI6 stand for?

Early years

Inter-war period

Second World War

Post-war

The Security Service's role in counter-terrorism

Serious crime

Surveillance

Participation of MI5 Agents in Criminal Activity

Directors General of the Security Service

Past names of the Security Service

See also

References

Further reading

Our operations MI6 Die Et Mon Droit

A national and global team MI6 _UK Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SECRET SERVICE BUREAU

Our operations

A national and global team

Foundation[edit]

First World War[edit]

Inter-War period

Second World War

Cold War

After the Cold War

War on Terror

Other activities

CIA activities in the United Kingdom

Counterintelligence

Counter-terrorism

IA Vision, Mission, Ethos & Challenges

Vision

Mission

Key Challenges

CIAVerified account

@CIA

68: THE STUDENTS, THE PRESIDENT, AND THE CIA

El 68: Los estudiantes, el presidente y la CIA

SERGIO AGUAYO # Gandhi Publica.

THE SECRET WAR THAT TRANSFORMED THE CIA

Tibet: The CIA’s Cancelled War

Gandhi Publica

Con Publica tener tu propio libro, imprimirlo y venderlo nunca había sido tan fácil.

¡Regístrate e inicia ya tu historia como escritor!

The Story of My Experiments with Truth

Translator's preface

Introduction[edit]

Part I[edit]

Part II[edit]

Part III

Part IV[edit]

Part V

Publication and later editions

Editions in print[edit]

What is the difference between the CIA and the KGB? Both are survelling the citizens.

CIA vs KGB

Java Films

MI5 and police to be given new anti-terror powers 'to target certain high-risk communities'

Between the World Wars

During the Cold War[edit]

In the Soviet Bloc[edit]

Suppressing internal dissent

Notable operations[edit]

Bangladesh[edit]

Afghanistan[edit]

August 1991 coup[edit]

Organization[edit]

Our operations

MI6 Die Et Mon Droit

A national and global team

MI6 _UK Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)

SERGIO AGUAYO

#
Gandhi Publica.