The Lebanese army has said it has dismantled two Israeli spy systems planted in the mountains above Beirut.
The army said it was alerted to the long-range surveillance devices by the Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah. One of the devices bore writing in Hebrew.
Meanwhile, an explosion in the southern port of Sidon late on Wednesday sparked reports of a possible Israeli attempt to destroy a third device there.
Israel denied any involvement, saying there had been “no unusual activity”.
Fake rocks
On Wednesday, the Lebanese army released a statement saying troops had located two sophisticated, Israeli-made surveillance devices in the mountains of Sannine and Barouk, north and south of the capital, Beirut.
Pictures on the army website showed devices concealed inside large fake rocks on the slopes of the mountains.
The system found in Sannine included a camera, a device to send images and a third to receive signals, the army said.
The device found in Barouk was “more complicated”, it added.
The army urged citizens to inform it about any suspicious objects they found
The system was placed at a height of 1,715m and made up of two artificial boulders.
One boulder contained equipment for transmitting and receiving signals, which covered the towns of the western and central Bekaa Valley – a Hezbollah stronghold – towns in southern Lebanon, and parts of Syria.
It had the ability to communicate with wireless transmission stations in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, the army said.
The other boulder contained a large number of batteries which would have provided power for the equipment for a number of years, it added.
One picture showed a device bearing the words “mini cloud” in Hebrew, along with the name of the manufacturer – “Beam Systems Israel Ltd” – in English.
One picture showed a device bearing the words “mini cloud” in Hebrew
The army said it planned to remove the cameras and urged citizens to inform authorities about any suspicious objects they found.
Earlier this month, Hezbollah said it had discovered an Israeli device spying on its private telecommunications network.
In a speech late on Wednesday, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said underground Israeli spy radars were sending pictures “day and night”.
He told supporters that Hezbollah was ready to fight any Israeli attack on Lebanese sovereignty, despite internal divisions over a UN-backed tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
More than 100 people in Lebanon have been arrested since last year on suspicion of collaborating with Israel.
Hezbollah fought a 34-day war against Israel in 2006 that left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead. Lebanon and Israel remain officially in a state of war.
Israel and the US have accused Syria of helping Hezbollah rearm. Earlier this year, Damascus denied it was supplying Scud missiles to the group.
The Justice Department would have no problem distinguishing WikiLeaks from traditional media outlets, if it decides to charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with violating the Espionage Act, a former federal prosecutor told lawmakers Thursday.
“By clearly showing how WikiLeaks is fundamentally different, the government should be able to demonstrate that any prosecution here is the exception and is not the sign of a more aggressive prosecution effort against the press,” said Kenneth Wainstein (pictured at right), former assistant attorney general on national security, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing about WikiLeaks and the Espionage Act on Thursday.
The hearing was the first to publicly address WikiLeaks. It consisted of testimony from legal scholars and attorneys as well as former Green Party presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Testimony focused primarily on whether the 1917 Espionage Act should be revised to make it easier to prosecute recipients of classified information.
But Wainstein’s remarks, coming from a former prosecutor, hint at arguments the Justice Department is likely to make if it proceeds with prosecuting Assange under the existing Espionage Act.
Wainstein was addressing the strong First Amendment challenges that would arise if the government prosecutes Assange for publishing classified information. Free-press defenders say if WikiLeaks can be charged with espionage for publishing such information, there is no reason why a similar prosecution couldn’t be lodged against other news organizations for publishing similarly classified or sensitive information.
But Wainstein said that WikiLeaks has shown itself to be fundamentally different in three ways and is therefore vulnerable to prosecution.
While traditional media outlets focus on publishing newsworthy information to educate the public, WikiLeaks focuses on obtaining and disclosing any official secrets. The media also gather news about sensitive areas of government operations through investigative reporting, he said, while WikiLeaks uses encrypted digital drop boxes to encourage disclosures of sensitive government information and circumvent laws prohibiting such disclosures.
The media also typically limit disclosures only to sensitive information that specifically relates to a particular story deemed to be of public importance, Wainstein said. WikiLeaks, however, releases troves of documents with little or no regard for their relevance.
In his written statement to the committee (.pdf), Wainstein also cited Assange’s oft-quoted remark that he “enjoy[s] crushing bastards” as evidence that his release of sensitive information is “more personal rather than simply a public-minded agenda.” Furthermore, WikiLeaks’ distribution of an encrypted “insurance” file, containing secrets that would be revealed if anything happens to Assange, “reflects a willingness to use his leaked documents for extortion and personal protection rather than simply to advance the values of transparency and public awareness,” Wainstein argued.
Washington’s hand-wringing over WikiLeaks comes as the organization continues to publish from its leaked trove of 250,000 U.S. State Department cables. Unlike earlier releases, the cables are appearing slowly — only 1,600 have been published thus far — and each cable has been read by a journalist, with some names of U.S. diplomatic sources redacted.
Some of the witnesses at the hearing pointed out that many of the cables published so far have contained information that should not have been classified and took aim at the government’s routine over-classification of documents.
“The suppression of information has led to far more loss of life, jeopardization of American security, and all the other consequences now being attributed to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,” Nader said.
Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, indicated that as a result of so much secrecy, leaks to the press had become one of the primary ways for the public to be kept informed about what its government is doing.
He criticized WikiLeaks, however, for being reckless in the releasing of what he called LMD – “leaks of mass disclosure.” Such leaks are “so massive in volume and indiscriminate” that it becomes difficult to assess the overall level of harm they might cause, he said.
Talk also turned to the so-called Shield Act, which Congress has been mulling as an amendment to the Espionage Act. The amendment would make it illegal to publish the names of informants who provide information to the military and intelligence agencies.
However, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said the amendment, as it currently stands, would be unconstitutional if applied to nongovernment persons, as it would suppress their right to free speech.
Photo: Kenneth Wainstein
Courtesy National Criminal Justice Reference Service
If you really want to know why the project you and your team just put six months of your life into ended in disaster, this guy can help.
Peter Earnest is a former CIA spy master who knows how to get information from people or – as he and his co-author call it – use elicitation techniques. Which is a nice way of describing the science of interrogation by way of conversation.
In their new book “Business Confidential: Lessons for Corporate Success from Inside the CIA,” Earnest, who worked for the CIA 36 years and is now executive director of the International Spy Museum, and business writer Maryann Karinch, explain how techniques of our national espionage and intelligence services apply to business success.
The section on gathering intelligence and collecting information on people gets to the heart of getting to the bottom of who did what and what was said. The authors offer up verbatim psychological approaches that may be more productive than the typical post-mortem meeting taking place in companies every day.
Perhaps these approaches which involve “flattery, criticism and using the leverage of someone’s emotions” can be put to work in your office.
For instance, if you are a manager trying to get to the bottom of why the deal of the century fell apart, instead of “Who dropped the ball on this?” you might try “direct questioning” which would sound like this: “What signs did you notice that the deal was falling apart?”
Or there’s the “emotional appeal”: “Your concern for your team has always been evident, so just do what’s best for them. Tell me what went wrong so everyone can learn from it.”
There’s always the when all-else-fails “futility” proposition: “I don’t see any way for you to get out of this mess without your career taking a hit. Why don’t you tell me what happened with the project. Maybe I can make some sense of it.”
The “fear down” overture: “You seem very upset about the failure of the project. Don’t worry. Just calm down and we’ll figure this out and fix the problems.”
The “pride and ego down” approach: “I think you’ve been slipping lately, but maybe other members of the team are making you look bad. Tell me exactly what happened with this project.”
Or the “we know all” position: “A few of the team members have sent me e-mails about the project, so I have a pretty good idea of what went on. Tell me what you think happened here.”
The “silence” approach: “Have a seat. Let’s talk about the project.” Then you say nothing, waiting for the person to start blurting things out. Yes, silence is that awkward.
Your technique for obtaining information in business “will be shaped by whether you want an operational relationship or just a quick bit of information from someone you may never see again,” the authors say.
For example, you can simply throw someone a bone – which is giving information to get it. I must say, I find this technique a bit underhanded. Nonetheless, it goes like this:
You say, “There was a proposal talked about at such-and-such meeting” – knowing darn well the proposal was shot down. But you don’t mention that fact.
“When you talk about something that seems to be confidential, that sense of quid pro quo often takes hold,” they say.
Sneaky stuff? Perhaps. But these techniques, based on an understanding of human nature, can get to information without being threatening. Which goes to show that the intelligence mindset used in the world of espionage can also have value in the world of business.
Andrea Kay is the author of “Work’s a Bitch and Then You Make It Work: 6 Steps to Go From Pissed Off to Powerful.” Send questions to her at 2692 Madison Road, #133, Cincinnati, OH 45208; www.andreakay.com or www.lifesabitchchangecareers.com. She can be e-mailed at: andrea [at] andreakay [dot] com.
Demanding the indictment of Julian Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act in a Wall Street Journalop-ed, Senator Diane Feinstein (or her resident ghost writer) quoted everyone’s favorite rationale for restricting speech: “the First Amendment is not a license to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” Actually, like most people, she (or her staffer) misquoted this canard: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic,” (emphasis supplied) Justice Holmes wrote in 1919, in Schenck v U.S. Given the truths exposed by WikiLeaks, you might argue that Assange was truly shouting fire in a crowded theater, and you might even characterize the ensuing “panic” as a kind of heckler’s veto. Â
Not that Holmes would have been at all sympathetic to Julian Assange (at least not in 1919). He offered his famous “falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater” analogy in upholding an early conviction under the Espionage Act. What terrible act of treason did this case entail? Charles Schenck was convicted of circulating pamphlets urging men to resist the draft. According to Holmes (writing for a unanimous Court), these pamphlets presented a “clear and present danger” to the republic.
Today, Schenck is mainly survived by its famous one-liners. It was decided before the First Amendment was regarded as an essential restraint on federal and state power to restrict speech, when Justices Holmes and Brandeis, in particular, were just beginning to articulate theories of First Amendment rights. (In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the Court also upheld the Espionage Act conviction of Eugene Debs who, like Schenck, was prosecuted for speaking against the draft: he told his audience that they “were fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.” Emma Goldman was deported for criticizing the draft.)
I like to assume that the Supreme Court would not uphold the these convictions today, even though it recently re-authorized the criminalization of political advocacy, in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. Still, I don’t think the Court is quite ready to approve the prosecution of anti-war activists for circulating pamphlets or exhorting people not to regard themselves as cannon fodder. (Although the FBI might illegally monitor their activities and police might corral and arrest them.) But if the criminalization of anti-draft rhetoric seems anachronistic, Charles Schenck’s rhetorical defense of liberty was timeless, and could easily be echoed tomorrow by a right or left wing civil libertarian, or even a Tea Party activist, if Congress were to re-authorize a draft (and unleash a strong anti-war movement).
Schenck regarded the draft as an unconstitutional usurpation of power, a violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition on slavery. He insisted that citizens had an obligation to protest the violation of their rights: Â Â Â
In lending tacit or silent consent to the conscription law, in neglecting to assert your rights, you are (whether knowingly or not) helping to condone and support a most infamous and insidious conspiracy to abridge and destroy the sacred and cherished rights of a free people. You are a citizen: not a subject! You delegate your power to the officers of the law to be used for your good and welfare, not against you. … Are you willing to submit to the degradation of having the Constitution of the United States treated as a mere scrap of paper … You are responsibile. You must do your share to maintain, support, and uphold the rights of the people of this country … In this world crisis where do you stand? Are you with the forces of liberty and light or war and darkness?
Waging war in the early 20th century, the federal government naturally saw itself on the side of “liberty and light” and its critics as purveyors of “war and darkness,” as governments waging war invariably do. Today, the U.S. at war is officially engaged in “Operation Enduring Freedom” and the Espionage Act is effectively framed as an instrument of freedom. The House Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings on the Espionage Act this week; too bad its free-speaking victims–Charles Schenck, Emma Goldman, and Eugene Debs — aren’t around to testify. Â
MOSCOW (Reuters Life!) – Russian spy Anna Chapman showed up at President Dmitry Medvedev’s showcase science park on Tuesday, the latest in a long line of celebrities invited to add a touch of glamour to Moscow’s answer to Silicon Valley.
Wearing a knee-length black dress, with a green velvet corset, Chapman said she was enjoying life since the spy scandal which led to her arrest and expulsion from the United States alongside nine other Russian sleeper agents.
The redhead capitalised on her popular “sexy spy” image with a photoshoot and interview in the November issue of the Russian edition of Maxim magazine, where she appeared in lace and leather and waxed poetic about her love of romantic men.
When asked whether she was pleased with her new job as a banking advisor, she told Reuters: “Well, yes.”
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was also present on Tuesday to speak with Russian government leaders about the science park.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came to Russia in October to give a public endorsement to the project, which has also attracted a multi-million dollar investment from Microsoft.
Chapman became one of Russia’s most famous spies when photographs she posted on social networking site Facebook were plastered across the front pages of tabloid newspapers around the world.
Although celebrated by the Kremlin and Russian media, the Russian spy ring was reported to have failed to secure any major intelligence before their arrests.
Medvedev awarded the group of spies the country’s highest state honours in October.
(Reporting by Alexei Anishchuk, Writing by Thomas Grove, editing by Paul Casciato)
The devices were concealed in fake rocks
The army urged citizens to inform it about any suspicious objects they found
One picture showed a device bearing the words “mini cloud” in Hebrew