GCHQ arrest over Observer spying report

The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 03/09/03 | Martin Bright

[Pokey78]

An employee at the top-secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been arrested following revelations in The Observer last weekend about an American 'dirty tricks' surveillance operation to win votes at the United Nations in favour of a tough new resolution on Iraq. Gloucestershire police confirmed last night that a 28-year-old woman was arrested last week on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act. The woman, from the Cheltenham area, has been released on police bail pending further inquiries. More arrests are expected.

A top-secret memo from the National Security Agency, which monitors communications around the world, was passed to this newspaper by British security sources who objected to being asked to aid the American operation. The leak marks a serious breach between the Blair government and elements of the intelligence community opposed to using British security resources to help the US drive towards war.

Officials at GCHQ, the electronic surveillance arm of the British intelligence service, were asked by the Americans to provide valuable information from 'product lines', intelligence jargon for phone taps and e-mail interception. The document was circulated among British intelligence services before being leaked.

A GCHQ spokesman confirmed last night that the woman was an employee.

[MindBender26]

More BS. This British version of the Weekly World News ("Satan and Elvis Sighted Near World Trade Center Rubble") is simply trying to make us beleive their original BS story. No names, no addresses, no quotes, no verification, all BS.

[maestro]

............ More arrests are expected.

:-)

[gcruse]

That doesn't explain the Britishisms used in the document itself. An intercept doesn't take on the local patois.

[maestro]

That doesn't explain the Britishisms used in the document itself. An intercept doesn't take on the local patois.

:-)
:-(

BTTT

[Int]

More BS. This British version of the Weekly World News ("Satan and Elvis Sighted Near World Trade Center Rubble")...

Perhaps you're confusing The Observer paper with that the Sunday UK tabloid The News of the World? I can see some dodgy aspects of this particular story (supposedly they didn't want to show the actual doc because the person would be identified yet if the story about the arrest is true that should now be possible) but the Observer doesn't generally just make things up out of thin air (as I understand the Weekly World News does).

Would The Times believe a story from the "Weekly World News"?

Some here have said the Observer & stablemate the Guardian are virently anti-American foreign policy which would explain the publishing of this claim. However, the Observer layed out its view of the Iraqi situation in January 2003 Leader opinion piece, saying: "War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force... It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world." (Iraq: the case for decisive action)

Some other Guardian/Observer pieces supporting US policy:

Strike deep, strike broad (September 2001)
Saddam's destruction is now a matter of honour (February 2002)
Bush is right about Arafat (July 2002)
The US has got it right: the case for war is irresistible (August 2002)
The only way to peace (March 2003)

Again, I am skeptical about this article (particularly the bit about the wording "members (minus US and GBR of course)...") but the equating the whole newspaper with the WWN? Nah.

[MindBender26]

Perhaps not the WWN, but certainly virtually any non-sourced tabloid.

This was a very poor attempt, from the get go, to publish a lie. This newest story is an even worse attempt to add some verification to the first lie.

Why did they do it? To make money by selling papers. The first lie gave them a sales bump, as will this one.

[Just mythoughts]

Could it be the original document so claimed was a plant of disinformation to smoke out leakers?

If in fact someone has been arrested, this sounds like someone took bait and now getting stung.

This doesn't tell where the document originated, could have come from anywhere, maybe someone has gone fishing and hooked a leaker.

Time will tell if there is any there there.