Betrayed: how the Guardian muled the names of GCHQ personnel to American bloggers and papers

Image

 

The Guardian has lied to the British people. They HAVE passed to foreign papers and blogs the names and identities of GCHQ agents, having lied and stated they did not to avoid prosecution, and to dupe other papers, police and some MPs into thinking that all they did was report on data collection, never giving up the names of British intelligence officers.

 

From the start of this affair, and the ‘David Miranda is only a journalist’s spouse’ lie, the Guardian has sought to deceive its fellow papers and the public. But I confess that even I did not believe they would just dump out the identities of our intelligence personnel, copying those files and smuggling them to foreigners.

We already know Alan Rusbridger and Janine Gibson have duplicated and muled abroad the Snowden files, handing them to the New York Times and some bloggers at ProPublica.

For some months, I have been asking the Guardian to admit if they betrayed the names, or identifying details, of anybody working at GCHQ to foreign papers in order to boost their online readership while their paper sales are crumbling to insignificance.

 

It was not surprising that they refused to answer me, because communicating material identifying any person that works at GCHQ, and which could be of use to terrorists, is itself a terrorist offence under British law. Not just publishing the names, mark you – communicating them. To anybody.

 

I’ve blogged before about how the editors of the Guardian boasted they were above the law, so I won’t reiterate it here. They are also very fond of giving self-congratulatory online interviews and talking to lapdogs at the BBC, as well as giving unwittingly revealing profile access to friendly magazines. Nobody at the Guardian is willing to give even a single interview to a challenging paper.

 

In a nutshell then in the past month or so we have had:

 

Alan Rusbridger saying he is above the law: that he decided to ship the files to foreigners because of a “threat” to go to law: that he would not let British judges rule on the files: that he knows better than judges and security experts; and that Sen. Feinstein of the US Senate Security Committee knows less than him about it because she is, and I quote, “an eighty year old woman.”

 

US editor Janine Gibson boasting of the trafficking they did “By far the hardest challenge has been the secure movement of materials. We’ve had to do a great deal of flying of people around the world.”

 

And a New Yorker profile that stated that James Ball, formerly of Wikileaks and an Assange devotee, 27, was chosen to be the physical mule that carried the data to New York. Ball was threatened with exposure of emails between himself and the Wikileaks hacker Jacob Appelbaum, by Appelbaum, if he did not publish a story on Tor. Days later his byline appeared on the story that blew up GCHQ’s efforts to decrypt the Tor network on which child pornography, illegal arms and drugs like crack are traded.

 Ball has recently been moved by the Guardian from London to New York in the wake of that New Yorker story, presumably to avoid  arrest if the New Yorker was correct on his role.

Throughout, in between breaks from pouring scorn on the British judiciary and laws, the Guardian have been busily lying to the British public. Saying that what they are doing is only journalism they have squirmed when asked (by me on Twitter, directly to @Arusbridger) and by the MP Julian Smith in Parliament, if they have passed over and sold out the names of British intelligence personnel working at GCHQ.

When the idea that they had revealed not just data collection news but actually given up the names of our intelligence agents surfaced, the paper started to panic. They denied it to the Daily Mail on October 9:

“The newspaper also said that the files it FedExed to America did not contain any names of British spies.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456843/MI5-concerns-The-Guardian-sending-secret-files–Fedex-Newspaper-used-public-courier-firm-post-data-country.html#ixzz2je7dOu7r

 

This was a lie. It didn’t matter if the names of our spies were in the 100 documents the Guardian FedExed to America. Ball had already taken them to New York, and Brazil, at least according to the story the New Yorker:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/10/07/131007fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

 

The idea that the Guardian handed over only 100 documents was yet another lie. There may have been ‘only’ 100 top secret documents in that FedExed memory stick (Dear God).  But there were over 50,000 GCHQ documents muled abroad by Rusbridger and Gibson.

 

Think about that for a minute. Fifty. Thousand. Fifty thousand top secret GCHQ documents, and they are lying to the Daily Mail that none of these contain the names of any of our spies.

Yesterday in New York that lie was exposed, and the breathtaking extent of the Guardian’s disregard for our agents’ lives was laid bare.

 In their front-page story, the New York Times laid it all out. It’s a pretty long story, but I’ve read it so you don’t have to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule-for-all-consuming-nsa.html?_r=0

 

“documents taken by Mr. Snowden and shared with The Times, numbering in the thousands and mostly dating from 2007 to 2012, are part of a collection of about 50,000 items that focus mainly on its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters or G.C.H.Q”

 

“Even with terrorists, N.S.A. units can form a strangely personal relationship. The N.S.A.-G.C.H.Q. wiki, a top secret group blog that Mr. Snowden downloaded, lists 14 specialists scattered in various stations assigned to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terrorist group that carried out the bloody attack on Mumbai in 2008, with titles including “Pakistan Access Pursuit Team” and “Techniques Discovery Branch.” Under the code name Treaclebeta, N.S.A.’s hackers at Tailored Access Operations also played a role.

 

In the wiki’s casual atmosphere, American and British eavesdroppers exchange the peculiar shoptalk of the secret world. “I don’t normally use Heretic to scan the fax traffic, I use Nucleon,” one user writes, describing technical tools for searching intercepted documents.

 

But most striking are the one-on-one pairings of spies and militants; Bryan is assigned to listen in on a man named Haroon, and Paul keeps an ear on Fazl.”

 

Did you get that? The Guardian – Alan Rusbridger, and Janine Gibson, editors, and James Ball, of Wikileaks, gave the New York Times and Pro-Publica the names and identities of GCHQ intelligence personnel in the NSA-GCHQ wiki. A bunch of staff at the New York Times can read their conversations and names, and the names of their targets.

 

To see how wide and deep the danger to GCHQ personnel really is, we can turn to the Guardian’s first, grossly irresponsible story on just how much of GCHQ personnel’s names and identities they had access to: they printed it on August 1st:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-snowden

 

a glimpse into the world of the 6,100 people crammed into the open-plan and underground offices at GCHQ; the fact that there is a sports day at all reveals something about the agency which most people outside their bubble could not appreciate.

Last year, GCHQ organised trips to Disneyland in Paris, and its sailing club took part in an offshore regatta at Cowes. It has a chess club, cake sales, regular pub quiz nights and an internal puzzle newsletter called Kryptos. A member of Stonewall since last year, GCHQ has its own Pride group for staff who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

There is also a paranormal organisation. Describing itself as “GCHQ’s ghost-hunting group”, it is open to staff and their partners “whether they are sceptics or believers” for visits to “reputedly haunted properties”.

Staff date themselves on the internal directory, “GCWiki”, by their “internet age”, a measure of how many years they have been adept on the web.

They make friends during annual family open days, or via messages on the agency’s internal version of MySpace, which they have called SpySpace.

Colleagues are likely to find others cut from the same cloth. The agency’s 2010/11 recruitment guide says GCHQ needs high-calibre technologists and mathematicians familiar with the complex algorithms that power the internet. It has room for a sprinkling of accountants and librarians. Classicists need not apply. Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared with the private sector at least – a junior analyst might earn £25,000. “We can offer a fantastic mission but we can’t compete with [private sector] salaries,” one briefing note lamented.”

 

The story goes on and on, talking about the wiki, quoting internal comms, describing the fears of one of GCHQ’s “most senior officers”.

 

All these documents have been muled to the Americans, because Alan Rusbridger doesn’t like British judges. He was paying David Miranda specifically to spread and mule these files on GCHQ – 53,000 of them, the same number cited by the NYT – and now we know just how bad the paper’s betrayal of our GCHQ personnel has been. Worse than even I could ever have imagined.

 

In his article for the Daily Mail recently, David Davis MP defended the Guardian’s selling of British intelligence secrets. How bloody terrifying to think that but for a public meltdown he could have been Home Secretary. And when Julian Smith challenged the Guardian in a Westminster Hall debate, the Tory MP Dominic Raab said that he was scare-mongering. I wonder what those two of my former colleagues would say now. Would they defend the liars at the Guardian who swore they didn’t give out any GCHQ names? Or do they think it’s OK to mule and traffic to Brazil and American bloggers the NSA-GCHQ wiki? Every pair of eyes that sees those names can pass them on to anybody they like.

 

They gave out our intelligence agents’ names, Dominic, David. Is that OK with you?

 

I pray to God it isn’t OK with the Prime Minister, with Theresa May, and with anti-terror police.

 

Back when Miranda was stopped as he muled, Oliver Robbins, the National Security Adviser, said

 

“ ‘A particular concern for HMG is the possibility that the identity of a UK intelligence officer might be revealed.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407152/Lives-MI6-agents-risk-secret-files-seized-Guardian-journalists-partner-Heathrow.html#ixzz2jeKIln00

 

But I’m afraid it was a bit more than just one.

 

Of course, £25,000 isn’t a lot of money to risk your life keeping Britain safe. Alan Rusbridger makes a hell of a lot more money than that. But it wasn’t enough for him, Janine Gibson, or James Ball, or any of the other Guardian staff to show some compassion and keep secret the identities of our agents Snowden, Poitras and Greenwald had endangered. Instead, the millionaire Mr. Rusbridger preened for the cameras, lied to other journalists, and threw GCHQ personnel to the wolves.

 

Mr. Rusbridger says he is above the law. I hope to God the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary – and our anti-terror police, and our judges – have the guts to prove him wrong.

The Terrorism Act 2000 lists various Terrorist Offences. Here is the last of them:

Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1)A person commits an offence who—

(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i)a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii)a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b)on summary conviction—

(i)in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii)in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4)In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

 

Emphasis mine. 

 

 

 

25 comments

  1. Mike Ross (@eruptionchaser) · November 4, 2013

    Wow. There’s a few places I could start with this – but the Terrorism Act 2000 is as good a place as any. The section you cite is the one that’s been draughted so broadly it became infamous as the one that could technically be used to prosecute *anyone* who took a photograph of a police officer.

    After an outcry the government made it clear that the “useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” criterion would only be applied to people who were in fact actual terrorists or their direct supporters.

    I don’t think that journalists, or even your current bete noir, Mr. Rusbridger, could even colourably be described as ‘terrorists’, and neither could the New York Times…

  2. Mike Ross (@eruptionchaser) · November 4, 2013

    As for “[James] Ball was threatened with exposure of emails between himself and the Wikileaks hacker Jacob Appelbaum, by Appelbaum, if he did not publish a story on Tor. Days later his byline appeared on the story that blew up GCHQ’s efforts to decrypt the Tor network on which child pornography, illegal arms and drugs like crack are traded.”… well… that’s simply nonsense.

    The Guardian story appeared on October 4rd:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption

    It was simply a rehash of the story which had already been broken *three weeks earlier* on September 13th, by Kevin Poulsen in Wired:

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/

    Someone’s clearly been giving you duff information there. Nothing was ‘blown up’, the FBI *confirmed* the story. And if anything was blown up, it was Wired that did it in September, not the Guardian the next month; they were definitely late to the party!

  3. FlagOfInconvenience · November 4, 2013

    Mike Ross, the HMG clarification you refer to is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/photography-and-counter-terrorism-legislation

    The supply of information does not need to be to a terrorist; it needs to be ‘useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.’ The material Rusbridger has trafficked is undoubtedly useful to such people. I for one am looking forward to seeing him do time.

    • Mike Ross (@eruptionchaser) · November 4, 2013

      From which:

      “It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the relevant information.

      Important:Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse. Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.”

      On the one hand, we have the reference to ‘legitimate journalistic activity’, on the other hand, we have the mealy-mouthed ‘is likely to’; chilling effect, much?

      In the instant case, I think legitimate journalistic collaboration with reporters and associates overseas, on a story with undoubtedly huge public interest and significance, is a slam-dunk for that defence. I mean there’s no suggestion from anyone that the information was actually passed to terrorists, or their agents or affiliates. This is *journalism*, along very similar lines to the Pentagon Papers, let us not forget that little detail!

  4. Skeptic Medic · November 4, 2013

    Very convincing. Now that we have support from the highest office and it is clear that Ausbridger is a terrorist why has he or guardian not been charged? Is it national policy to let terrorists to run newspapers or is the law enforcement so incompetent that they can’t file a charge sheet. To my knowledge the Metropolitan police has not even approached the cps.

    • flagofinconvenience · November 4, 2013

      Yup, our famed Met. They’ll be fitting up cabinet ministers before we know it…

      • Mike Ross (@eruptionchaser) · November 4, 2013

        We undoubtedly have our differences on the Snowden files, but on this one I think we will likely agree; for my money, Plebgate was pretty damn close to *treason*. I can’t think of of any other term that adequately describes sworn servants of the Crown conspiring to remove a member of Her Majesty’s Government.

  5. glenn · November 4, 2013

    More and more people living in these “democracies” are realizing that they don’t appreciate having their on-line communications collected by secretive intelligence agencies of their own country. You have a tough sell here.

  6. Anonymous · November 4, 2013

    Louise Mensch has been bandying about hyperbolic terms such as ‘treason’ etc ever since this began. The fact is, apart from an MP looking to make a name for himself and Liam Fox looking for some payback, this ‘The Guardian are traitors!’ angle has had little traction.

    Mensch is attempting to create her own little subplot in the Snowden affair to feed her gigantic ego, hence the shrill, emotive and hammy references to ‘our agents’ being compromised. All the charges laid here are characterised and framed by Mensch’s subjective and highly dubious interpretation of the facts and laws regarding terrorism.

    Snowden has uncovered how the security services have used terrorism as a fig leaf for unrestrained and invasive surveillance on an industrial scale. Freedom entails risk. Surveillance must be curtailed to prevent us living in a Big Brother type dystopia.

    Mensch is a prime example of how right wing establishment shills will scream blue murder at government interference, only to parrot security service propaganda when it suits.

    The Guardian has played a crucial role in amongst other things, exposing the criminal activity at the heart of Rupert Murdoch’s News International. (coincidentally Louises’ boss) We should thank them for facilitating a worldwide debate on the behaviour of our security services. Its called good journalism. Working at the Sun, its no surprise she doesn’t recognise it.

  7. Bob Stevens · November 4, 2013

    There have been no threatened or actual prosecution or arrests. Mensch has dug a big hole, is making it even bigger, and will not get out of it. It appears that her self confessed mental health problems due to historical consumption of class A drugs are manifesting in a serious error of judgement. Just stop it Mensch, there is no doubt that as days pass, the truth will out, and you will look even more stupid than you do already. Go back to your semi erotic chick-lit fantasies, and leave the whistle blowers alone, they are doing a fine job. We need more of them.

  8. Mike Ross (@eruptionchaser) · November 4, 2013

    An earlier post by me is STILL stuck in moderation. Thinking about it, maybe the fact that I had two URLs in it twitted the spam filter – so I’ll repost it with munged URLs. You can fix them if you’re curious enough 🙂

    As for “[James] Ball was threatened with exposure of emails between himself and the Wikileaks hacker Jacob Appelbaum, by Appelbaum, if he did not publish a story on Tor. Days later his byline appeared on the story that blew up GCHQ’s efforts to decrypt the Tor network on which child pornography, illegal arms and drugs like crack are traded.”… well… that’s simply nonsense.

    The Guardian story appeared on October 4rd:

    w w w theguardian com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption

    It was simply a rehash of the story which had already been broken *three weeks earlier* on September 13th, by Kevin Poulsen in Wired:

    w w w wired com/threatlevel/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/

    Someone’s clearly been giving you duff information there. Nothing was ‘blown up’, the FBI *confirmed* the story. And if anything was blown up, it was Wired that did it in September, not the Guardian the next month; they were definitely late to the party!

  9. Pingback: Edward Snowden’s Insurance Policy Likely Means Life Or Death For Several Unnamed People | Lord of the Net
  10. Pingback: vortrus | Edward Snowden’s ‘Insurance Policy’ Likely Means Life Or Death For Several Unnamed People
  11. Pingback: Edward Snowden’s ‘Insurance Policy’ Likely Means Life Or Death For Several Unnamed People | the usual sources
  12. vote · February 16, 2014

    Hi there, just wanted to mention, I loved this blog post.
    It was funny. Keep on posting!

  13. เสื้อpolo · March 4, 2014

    Marvelous, what a blog it is! This web site provides useful data to us, keep it up.

  14. chiropractor apex · April 3, 2014

    Interviews with chiropractors during the 1918 influenza epidemic reveal their
    practice picked up. The chiropractic services must never be mistaken to be some type of physiotherapy or massage treatment.
    The best thing about marketing chiropractic service is that
    everybody can be given of chiropractic care or treatment.

  15. the pirate bay · April 7, 2014

    It started with i – Phone and contains now gone to live in i – Pad 2;
    the reason- deficiency of availability. Mostly a brief history of business
    was able to control various inventions and technologies.
    The free Lyrics Search app can be acquired at the
    Android Market.

  16. plants vs zombies · April 18, 2014

    Appreciating the hard work you put into your website and detailed information you
    provide. It’s great to come across a blog every once in
    a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed material.
    Fantastic read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my
    Google account.

  17. poptropica cheats · April 18, 2014

    Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know
    a lot approximately this, such as you wrote the guide in
    it or something. I think that you just can do with a few percent to pressure the message house
    a bit, however other than that, that is great blog.
    A great read. I’ll definitely be back.

  18. mduyczyqp@gmail.com · August 15, 2014

    purse. Weighing you down all the time. Maybe you’ve taken some time off from reading because the
    Oakley Half Jacket Sunglasse http://www.ebuyaccessories.com

  19. http://www.tripadvisor.com · September 19, 2014

    You can certainly see your expertise within the work you write.
    The arena hopes for even more passionate writers like you who
    aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s