Britse undercoveragenten stalen identiteit van 80 dode kinderen

Agenten van de Britse Metropolitan Police, de grootste politiedienst van het
land, hebben tussen 1968 en 1994 de identiteit van ongeveer 80 dode kinderen gestolen. Ze gebruikten de aliassen bij undercoveroperaties zonder dat de ouders van de overleden kinderen op de hoogte waren van deze werkwijze. Dat blijkt uit een onderzoek van The Guardian.

Het lijkt op een spionagethriller maar over het Kanaal was het gedurende drie decennia een vaak gebruikte manier om personen te volgen: de identiteit stelen van kinderen die het leven hadden gelaten in een ongeval of kinderen die bezweken waren aan de gevolgen van een slepende ziekte.
1968

De praktijken zouden begonnen zijn in 1968 met als doel het bespioneren van groeperingen die protesteerden tegen onder meer kernenergie, racisme, oorlog en het kapitalisme. Agenten van de Metropolitan Police gaven leden van de speciale eenheid Special Demonstration Squad de toestemming om de aliassen te gebruiken. De agenten kregen zelfs (valse) officiële documenten als paspoorten en rijbewijzen en gingen kijken bij de huizen waar de kinderen waren opgegroeid.

Het hele proces werd “jackal run” genoemd, naar de roman ‘The Day of the Jackal’, waarin auteur Frederick Forsyth zulke praktijken omschrijft.
Stasi

Een voormalig lid van de Special Demonstration Squad – de dienst werd in 2008 ontmanteld – vergelijkt de praktijken zelfs met die van de Stasi, de geheime dienst van de DDR.

…

05/02 Buitenland

Find this story at 5 February 2013

©1994-2013 Concentra Media Groep N.V.

Scotland Yard ‘eco-spy’ Mark Kennedy dragged into French anarchist plot

A former Scotland Yard officer who infiltrated groups of environmental “terrorists” has been dragged into a high-profile investigation in France over claims he provided “fantasist” information leading to 10 activists’ arrest.

Mark Kennedy, 42, who spent seven years posing as “ecowarrior” Mark Stone, was exposed as a police spy in Britain last year following the collapse of a prosecution against environmental activists.

During his undercover life, he visited 11 countries on more than 40 occasions, fielding information to the UK’s National Public Order Intelligence Unit, now the National Domestic Extremism Unit.

Since he was unmasked, 20 convictions in cases he was involved in against activists have been quashed in the court of appeal. He was also sued by three female eco-activists for being “duped” into having sexual relations with a policeman.

Now his name has cropped up in the investigation into French activists over an alleged anarchist plot to overthrow the state.

Their lawyers insist that the investigation is unfairly based on information Mr Kennedy allegedly provided to his UK police unit, including claims the activists discussed and “practised” building improvised explosive devices.
Related Articles
Undercover police must be allowed to have sex with activists, says minister 14 Jun 2012
‘Undercover cop left firebomb in Debenhams’ 13 Jun 2012
Undercover police can have sex with suspects 13 Jun 2012
Mark Kennedy ‘showed undercover police rules were inadequate’ 02 Feb 2012

The French leftists are under formal investigation for allegedly sabotaging high-speed train lines – seen as a high-profile symbol of the French state – in November 2008, causing massive delays but no injuries. They deny any wrongdoing.

Mr Kennedy’s role in the inquiry could see the case quashed.

The so-called “Tarnac affair” erupted in November 2008 when 100 French police raided the tiny rural village of Tarnac, arresting anti-capitalists running a communal farm and village shop.

The government of then President Nicolas Sarkozy alleged they were dangerous “anarcho-terrorists” hoping to overthrow the state.

French sociology graduate Julien Coupat was accused of being the group’s “ringleader” and author of a seminal work, The Coming Insurrection.

It has now emerged that British police helped French prosecutors build a case against the campaigners by confirming Mr Coupat’s presence at two activists’ meetings in France and one in New York. In one of them, it said, “the making of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) was both discussed and practised”.

…

By Henry Samuel, Paris

7:17PM GMT 08 Nov 2012

Find this story at 8 November 2012

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2013

[Le Procès du Forgeron] « Qui vole un œuf, viole un bœuf » Procès du forgeron de Tarnac : « On incrimine ma volonté »

Pour avoir refusé de donner son ADN aux officiers de l’anti-terrorisme, Charles Torres, « le forgeron de l’affaire Tarnac », lavé de tous soupçons depuis, est passé devant la justice. Le délibéré sera rendu par le tribunal de grande instance de Rouen le 6 mars 2013.

Mercredi 6 janvier 2013, Charles Torres était jugé pour refus de se soumettre au prélèvement d’ADN. Prélèvement demandé par la cellule anti-terroriste lors d’une garde-à-vue justifiée par sa possible appartenance à l’affaire Tarnac. Au moment de cette garde-à-vue, le 23 février 2012, Charles Torres, forgeron de profession, est soupçonné d’être l’artisan des crochets qui auront servi en 2008 à saboter des caténaires de la SNCF.

Le palais de justice de Rouen accueille donc le jour de l’audience du « Forgeron de Tarnac », tous ses soutiens, sa famille et une bonne dizaine de journalistes alléchés par cette audience connexe à l’affaire Tarnac. Quelques policiers, arnaché de gilets pare-balles et de talkie-walkies. Normal, c’est le procès d’une personne qui soupçonnée début 2012 d’association de malfaiteurs dans une entreprise terroriste.

La juge aura dû, en début d’audience faire taire le public venu en nombre pour soutenir Charles Torres. Celui-ci a souhaité lire devant le tribunal « sa plaidoirie » car il n’est « pas très à l’aise à l’oral ». L’homme de 28 ans, spécialisé dans la forge médiévale, a commencé son diatribe timidement, posant la question qui le taraude : « Pourquoi suis-je ici devant vous aujourd’hui ? Je ne le sais pas, personne ne le sait. À part peut-être, l’officier de la DCRI que j’ai vu arpenter ce tribunal aujourd’hui, avec une veste de moto. »

Le forgeron a eu à cœur de pousser les traits d’ironie, malgré sa gêne à parler publiquement. Il s’est même retourné une fois vers l’assemblée pour chercher du regard un soutien. « Adressez-vous au tribunal », le reprendra la juge. Après avoir raconté sa garde à vue, Charles Torres, cultivé et aux mots littéraires, donne ses hypothèses sur les raisons de sa présence devant le tribunal, s’appuyant sur sa connaissance du droit, de l’histoire et sa culture politique. « Dans refus de se soumettre au prélèvement biologique, il y a refus de se soumettre », commence-t-il, « On incrimine ici ma volonté. »

Le forgeron de Roncherolles-sur-le-Vivier explique ensuite pourquoi il s’est refusé à ce prélèvement d’ADN : « Je m’oppose au fichage génétique. » Il rappelle l’historique du Fichier national automatisé des empreintes génétiques (Fnaeg) initialement mis en place en 1998 pour ficher les délinquants sexuels, donc les personnes jugées coupables par la justice. Voulant prouver le ridicule de sa présence au tribunal, il se joue de l’adage « Qui vole un œuf, vole un bœuf » : « Qui vole un œuf, viole un bœuf. »

Sans désarmer, Charles Torres continue de justifier son refus de se soumettre, rappelant l’affaire Élodie Kulik, violée puis assassinée (2002). En 2011, les gendarmes parviennent à confondre l’un de ses agresseurs grâce à l’ADN de son père déjà fiché. Le forgeron s’appuiera sur ce détournement du Fnaeg : « Aujourd’hui, donner mon ADN, c’est donner celui de mon frère jumeau, mes parents et mes descendants ». Il conclut : « L’ADN est un instrument de contrôle. » Ce quart d’heure de discours est applaudi par l’assemblée.

Contre Charles Torres, le procureur a requis une peine « d’avertissement » : un mois de prison avec sursis. Ce qui ne suffit évidemment pas à Me William Bourdon et Me Marie Dosé, avocats de la défense. Ils s’appuient sur la pauvreté du dossier entre les mains du tribunal de Rouen. « Le tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre vous a confié un dossier de misère. Ce que vous savez, c’est ce que la presse vous a dit et ce nous vous disons », argumente Me Dosé.

Au dossier, quelques procès-verbaux, parfois non datés, ou des notifications de mise en garde à vue de Charles Torres. Le tribunal n’a pas accès au dossier de l’affaire Tarnac dans lequel figurent les raisons pour lesquelles le forgeron a été soumis à une garde à vue. « On vous empêche de vérifier s’il y avait des raisons plausibles pour le détenir » et donc pour lui demander son ADN.

Et Me Dosé d’avancer : « Dans la procédure Tarnac, Charles Torres n’est rien sauf les conséquences de son refus » de se soumettre au prélèvement biologique. Dans leur plaidoirie, les deux avocats du forgeron frôlent la violation de l’instruction judiciaire, sans jamais vraiment tomber dedans. « Les policiers mentent au tribunal, il n’y avait aucune raison pour le mettre en garde à vue, vous devez sanctionner cette manipulation judiciaire », reprend Me Bourdon qui considère le dossier Charles Torres comme « un vide intersidéral ».

Le tribunal rendra son délibéré le 6 mars 2013.

L’affaire du Forgeron soulève une question de constitutionnalité

Charles Torrès est jugé pour avoir refusé de donner son ADN aux policiers de l’anti-terrorisme dans le cadre de l’affaire Tarnac. Pour aller plus loin, ses avocats ont tenté de mettre en doute la constitutionnalité du prélèvement ADN à répétition et du fichage de tout un chacun. Le délibéré sera rendu le 6 mars 2013.

Le procès de Charles Torres, s’est ouvert ce mercredi 6 janvier 2013, au tribunal de grande instance de Rouen. Il est jugé pour avoir refusé de donner son ADN lors d’une garde à vue dans le cadre de l’affaire Tarnac. Ses avocats, Me William Bourdon et Me Marie Dosé, tous les deux au dossier de l’affaire Tarnac, essaieront de poser une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (QPC).

Entrée en vigueur en 2010, la QPC permet de mettre en doute la constitutionnalité d’une loi déjà promulguée. Elle peut être posée par n’importe quel citoyen. On la pose devant un tribunal qui décide ou non de la transmettre à la cour de cassation.

Dans l’affaire de Charles Torres, ses avocats mettent en doute la constitutionnalité de l’article 706-56 du code de procédure pénal. Cet article encadre le prélèvement de l’empreinte biologique. Pour Me Bourdon, le dossier de Charles Torres, si petit et si peu extraordinaire soit-il, permettrait « d’envoyer un message puissant aux législateurs ». L’avocat remet en question l’alinéa 4 de l’article. Cet alinéa qui permet qu’en cas de refus de prélèvement, les officiers de police judiciaire peuvent récupérer l’ADN s’il est détaché du corps. « Lorsque Charles Torres refuse de se soumettre, il ne sait pas, que dans son dos, ou plutôt dans ses cheveux, on prélèvera la particule magique », plaide Me Bourdon, « S’il avait su que les policiers de la Sdat pouvaient faire cela, il aurait pu ajuster son comportement ». Ici, l’avocat pointe du doigt la faille de la loi qui peut conduire un citoyen à s’auto-incriminer sans être en mesure de se défendre.

L’avocat parle aussi « d’un cambriolage de l’enveloppe corporelle« , qui porte atteinte au droit de chaque citoyen de disposer de son corps. Enfin, pour plaider le dépôt de cette QPC, Me Bourdon pointe le « laisser-aller, la paresse » des policiers qui ne prennent pas le temps de vérifier si la personne concernée est déjà fichée qui peuvent conduire à une succession de prélèvements ADN sur un même citoyen.

Sans compter que le tribunal de Nanterre qui s’est dessaisi en 2012 de cette affaire, a omis de prévenir le tribunal de Rouen que la justice était bien en possession de l’ADN de Charles Torres… jugé pour avoir refusé de le donner.

La procureur refuse la QPC au motif que l’article 706-56 du code de procédure pénale aura déjà été jugé constitutionnel, dans sa globalité, par la cour de cassation. Le tribunal est allé dans ce sens et a refusé de transmettre la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité. Le procès de Charles Torres a donc bien eu lieu mercredi 6 février et les débats se sont donc poursuivis pour celui qui risque 15’000 euros d’amende et un an de prison ferme.

Publié par des larbins de la maison Poulaga (Zoé Lauwereys, Grand-Rouen.com, 7 février 2013)

Rencontre avec le « Forgeron » de Tarnac

Charles Torres a été « enlevé » par la police début 2012 dans le cadre de l’affaire Tarnac. Il est soupçonné, à ce moment là, d’être complice du sabotage de caténaires en 2008. Aucun fait n’aura été retenu contre lui. Pourtant, il est jugé mercredi 6 février 2013 au tribunal de grande instance de Rouen pour avoir refusé son ADN au moment de la perquisition.

Nous l’avons rencontré la veille de son procès pour refus de prélèvement génétique du 6 février 2013 au tribunal d’instance de Rouen. Avec son pull marin, ses cheveux en bataille, sa moustache et sa chevalière rehaussée d’une pierre blanche, il nous rejoint à la Conjuration des Fourneaux au 149 rue Saint-Hilaire. Le restaurant soutient Charles dans ses déboires judiciaires. Il nous raconte ces trente heures de garde à vue pendant lesquelles il a refusé de parler.

Ce matin du 23 février 2012, Charles Torres dort dans sa chambre, chez ses parents, à Roncherolles-sur-le-Vivier, près de Darnétal. À 28 ans, il y revient de temps en temps pour travailler. Son père, monteur en bronze, lui a installé dans son atelier, une forge pour qu’il puisse exercer son activité d’auto-entrepreneur forgeron. Il est 8 heures du matin quand une trentaine de policier de la sous-direction de l’anti-terrorisme (Sdat) frappe à la porte. « On a eu de la chance, il n’était pas 6 heures du matin et ils n’ont pas défoncé la porte », ironise celui que la presse surnommera le Forgeron dans l’affaire dite « de Tarnac ». Ce matin-là, les policiers de l’anti-terrorisme viennent perquisitionner. Ils pensent avoir trouvé celui qui a fabriqué les crochets en fer à béton responsables du sabotage de caténaires de la SNCF en 2008.

Pour ces faits, qui deviennent très vite l’affaire de Tarnac, dix personnes ont été mises en examen, pour « association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste » et « dégradations en réunion en relation avec une entreprise terroriste ». Les principaux accusés dans cette affaire sont Julien Coupat et sa compagne Yldune Lévy. Le rapport entre Tarnac et Charles Torres ? Ce dernier se l’explique facilement. « Je suis colocataire dans une maison, rue de Constantine, à Rouen, où plusieurs habitants, ont été mis en examen en 2008. Mais je n’étais même pas un des potes de Julien Coupat. Tarnac ce n’est même pas une bande de copains. Concrètement, on me soupçonnait d’avoir un comportement plus ou moins subversif d’un point de vue politique. » Charles avoue même ne pas connaître vraiment le dossier Tarnac, seulement ce que les mis en examen lui auront dit et ce qu’il aura lu dans les journaux. Il délivre son analyse : « Tarnac est devenu un groupe suite aux accusations. Il a fallu donner un cadre, d’où le nom. Ce qui fait que tu es dans le dossier ou pas, c’est ta place dans le scénario de la police. »

Quatre ans après le début de l’affaire de Tarnac, devenu au fil des années un bourbier judiciaire, la Sdat pense donc avoir trouvé un nouveau complice du sabotage. Ce 23 février 2012, « des flics de haut-vol » fouillent donc la maison des parents du forgeron après lui avoir signifié sa mise en garde à vue. Une garde à vue qui durera 35 heures. La perquisition aura fait beaucoup rire Charles qui avoue avoir eu « envie de plaisanter » mais s’être retenu par « peur qu’ils me prennent au premier degré ». « Ils ont fouillé toute la maison, ont retourné ma chambre, ont scruté mes bouquins, mon bureau, mes affaires de fac. Mais ils n’ont rien saisi dans ma chambre », se rappelle-t-il. « Pour prouver l’association de malfaiteurs et me lier aux mis en examen de Tarnac, ils ont saisi de vieux téléphones portables. » Rien non plus n’aura été saisi dans la forgerie, pourtant l’endroit le plus à même de receler des indices du sabotage. Et pourquoi pas quatre ans plus tard ? Charles se rappelle d’un détail qu’il raconte goguenard. « Dans la chambre de mon frère, ils ont trouvé deux cagoules trois trous. Elles avaient été utilisées pour l’enterrement de vie de garçon d’un copain », rit-il encore.

Charles Torres préférait ne pas être pris en photo.

La perquisition terminée, les policiers le menottent et l’emmènent « à 200 kilomètres/heure » à Levallois-Perret, dans les Hauts-de-Seine. Avant d’atteindre le siège de la Sdat, il rapporte avoir eu les yeux cachés par un masque de sommeil. « Là, j’ai senti que l’on descendait de cinq étages sous terre. Arrivés dans les locaux, on est passés de sas de sécurité en sas de sécurité »… jusqu’à la salle de garde à vue. Pendant ces 30 heures de garde à vue, Charles refusera de répondre aux questions : « J’ai décliné mon état-civil, sinon j’ai répondu des blagues ». La meilleure solution pour quelqu’un qui ne sait pas ce qu’on lui reproche, mis à part la vague « association de malfaiteurs ». « Ils n’avaient rien pour me mettre en garde-à-vue, il n’était pas question pour moi de leur donner de quoi me mettre en examen ». L’ancien étudiant en histoire se rappelle de quelques questions posées par la police. « Ils m’ont demandé ce que je pensais de la société capitaliste marchande ou quelles étaient mes opinions politiques », évoque-t-il. En lui présentant des photos des crochets utilisés pour saboter les caténaires, on lui aura même demandé s’il les avait fabriqués. Charles répondra avec l’ironie qui lui semble chère : « Vous m’amenez le modèle et je vous fais un devis ».

En fin de garde à vue, on lui demandera de donner son ADN, justifié par « des motifs graves ou concordants » dans l’affaire pour laquelle il était entendu. Chose qu’il refusera. Par conviction. « Je n’ai pas envie de faire partie d’un fichier ADN des catégories politiques », affirme-t-il. Pour lutter contre le « flicage », il refuse aussi d’avoir un téléphone ou une carte bancaire. Ce qu’il ne sait pas, à ce moment-là, c’est que la police a pris soin de nettoyer de fond en comble la salle de garde à vue, revèle Laurent Borredon, dans Le Monde du mardi 5 février 2013 : « Ce matin-là, les policiers ont nettoyé à fond les locaux de garde à vue, à l’aide d’une solution hydroalcoolique. Le bureau et le sol. Dans quelques instants, Charles Torrès va être entendu pour la quatrième fois. Les policiers souhaitent récupérer son ADN et il faut que tout soit immaculé. » Selon Le Monde qui s’est procuré le procès-verbal de la garde à vue, Charles fait bien en sorte ce jour-là de consommer « sa brique de jus d’orange sans en utiliser la paille » puis d’en « laver soigneusement l’extérieur, de sorte à n’y laisser aucune trace biologique. » Charles aura aussi mangé sans utiliser de couverts, « directement au moyen de ses doigts », pour être sûr de ne laisser aucune trace. Les policiers récupèrent tout de même quelques cheveux sur le sol du local où il était interrogé.

L’absurde du procès du mercredi 6 février 2013 ? La justice est en possession de l’ADN de Charles Torres mais on lui reproche de ne pas avoir voulu le donner. Il risque 15’000 euros d’amende et un an de prison ferme. Sur son blog, il appelle ses soutiens à « venir rire » au TGI de Rouen à 13h30, « parce qu’on ne peut que se réjouir de chaque humiliation que l’antiterrorisme s’inflige à lui-même ».

Publié par des larbins de la maison Poulaga (Zoé Lauwereys, Grand-Rouen.com, 6 février 2013)

Tarnac : un homme jugé pour refus de donner son ADN, déjà prélevé à son insu

Les policiers de la sous-direction antiterroriste (SDAT) de la police judiciaire n’ont pas peur de la contradiction. Le 24 février 2012, à 11h15, ils ont recueilli l’ADN de Charles Torrès, 28 ans, à son insu. Puis, à 11h35, ils ont lancé une procédure contre le jeune homme gardé à vue dans le cadre de l’affaire de Tarnac pour… refus de prélèvement génétique. Charles Torrès doit être jugé, mercredi 6 février, par le tribunal correctionnel de Rouen. Il risque, au maximum, un an de prison et 15’000 euros d’amende. À la suite de sa garde à vue, il avait été relâché sans charge, mais cela n’empêche pas d’être dans l’obligation de laisser son ADN. Il suffit qu’existent des “indices graves ou concordants” contre la personne entendue, indique le code de procédure pénale.

Ce matin-là, les policiers ont nettoyé à fond les locaux de garde à vue, à l’aide d’une solution hydroalcoolique. Le bureau et le sol. Dans quelques instants, Charles Torrès va être entendu pour la quatrième fois. Les policiers souhaitent récupérer son ADN et il faut que tout soit immaculé. Les enquêteurs veulent vérifier si le jeune homme, interpellé la veille près de Rouen, n’a pas forgé les crochets qui ont servi à saboter des lignes de TGV, à l’automne 2008.

“DÉLOYAUTÉ”

Charles Torrès est aussi prudent que les policiers sont méticuleux : il a “consommé sa brique de jus d’orange sans en utiliser la paille, puis en [a] soigneusement lavé l’extérieur, de sorte à n’y laisser aucune trace biologique (…). À l’heure du déjeuner, il a été constaté qu’il mangeait sans utiliser de couverts, directement au moyen de ses doigts”, note le lieutenant de la SDAT, dans son procès-verbal, que Le Monde a pu consulter.

Mais le stratagème réussit : les hommes de la police technique et scientifique parviennent à récupérer “les prélèvements de traces de contact” là où il “a apposé ses mains”. Encore mieux, “à l’aplomb du siège où [il] s’est assis, des cheveux jonchent le sol”. Précis, le policier indique “que la présence de ces cheveux au sol résulte de la propension qu’a manifestée Charles Torrès à se passer (nerveusement) les mains dans les cheveux”. Trente heures de garde à vue dans les locaux de la SDAT, c’est un peu stressant…

Comment justifier une procédure pour refus de prélèvement d’ADN quand on vient de le recueillir ? En faisant comme si de rien n’était : le procureur qui poursuit puis les magistrats qui vont juger le dossier “ADN” n’ont accès qu’aux pièces du dossier Tarnac que la SDAT veut bien leur transmettre. Le PV de recueil de traces génétiques a été opportunément exclu. Au contraire, une enquêtrice justifie la procédure en assurant que le prélèvement demandé à Charles Torrès “aurait utilement permis de déterminer le profil génétique de l’intéressé aux fins de comparaison avec les empreintes génétiques à ce jour non identifiées”.

“Il s’agit d’un symptôme de plus de la déloyauté qui contamine tout le dossier”, estime Me William Bourdon, l’un des avocats de Charles Torrès. Il souhaite déposer une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité, mercredi. Pour lui, les articles de loi sur les prélèvements d’ADN sont “défaillants” face au principe de libre disposition de son corps : l’officier de police judiciaire n’a pas d’obligation d’informer qu’il peut y avoir un prélèvement clandestin, puis que ce prélèvement a eu lieu — ce qui interdit tout recours — et, enfin, il n’est pas obligé de vérifier que le gardé à vue est déjà fiché, avec le risque d’une multiplication des prélèvements.

Et la comparaison des empreintes génétiques ? Au final, elle n’a rien donné.

Publié par des larbins de la maison Poulaga (Laurent Borredon, LeMonde.fr, 5-6 février 2013)

Pourquoi j’ai refusé de livrer mon ADN

Le 6 février 2013, Charles Torres comparaît au tribunal de Rouen pour avoir refusé le prélèvement de son ADN lors d’une garde à vue de 35 heures début 2012. Forgeron, on le soupçonnait de complicité dans l’affaire de Tarnac et d’avoir fabriqué les crochets qui servirent à bloquer des TGV en 2008.

Le 23 février 2012, je fis bien malgré moi une entrée fracassante dans l’affaire dite « de Tarnac ». Une escouade de policiers de la Sous-Direction antiterroriste (SDAT), avec à leur tête le médiatique juge Fragnoli, vint me sortir du lit de bon matin. Bien qu’habitant la Seine-Maritime, je devins ce jour-là « le forgeron de Tarnac ». À défaut de pouvoir établir le moindre lien entre les mis en examen et les fameux crochets, le juge voulait à toute force insinuer un lien entre eux et quelqu’un qui aurait pu les fabriquer. Je fus donc, avec mon père de 86 ans, soupçonné le temps d’une garde à vue d’avoir confectionné les crochets qui servirent à bloquer des TGV une nuit de novembre 2008.

On sait que le storytelling antiterroriste ne s’embarrasse guère de la vraisemblance, et les différents articles parus dans la presse lors de mon arrestation le reproduisirent fidèlement. Il n’y eut d’ailleurs à peu près personne pour mentionner le fait que je fus libéré au bout de 35 heures sans la moindre charge ; et ni le juge ni les policiers ne me présentèrent leurs excuses pour m’avoir ainsi kidnappé sans raison valable. Faute d’excuses, je pensais qu’ils auraient à cœur de se faire oublier pour ces 35 heures de séquestration légale. Sur ce point, c’est bien moi qui me suis trompé.

Comme je le précisais plus haut, des amis harcelés par l’antiterrorisme, j’en ai quelques-uns, à Rouen comme à Tarnac. Je lis la presse aussi. De ce fait, je sais comme tout un chacun que tout ce que l’on peut déclarer dans une garde à vue a vocation à être déformé et utilisé contre vous. Je réservais donc mes réponses aux questions des policiers sur mes idées politiques au juge en charge de l’enquête. Malheureusement, il ne crut pas bon de me recevoir. Quelques jours plus tard, je fis tout de même l’effort de lui écrire afin de ne laisser aucun doute quant à l’erreur manifeste que représentait mon arrestation. Le jour même où cette missive devait paraître, le juge, qui allait être dessaisi, la recouvrit de l’annonce de son autodessaisissement. Il fit ainsi d’une pierre deux coups, et la missive ne parut jamais.

Pas plus que je n’avais de raison d’être en garde à vue à Levallois-Perret, n’avais-je de raison de livrer mon ADN à la police, qui de toute façon alla le récupérer lamentablement sous la forme d’un cheveu laissé sur le sol d’une salle d’interrogatoire. Je refusai donc. Faut pas pousser.

Mais refuser de donner son ADN est un délit, en soi. C’est-à-dire que même lorsque l’on vous l’a pris malgré vous, qu’on l’a analysé, qu’il vous a dédouané et que vous êtes à l’évidence lavé des soupçons qui avaient justifié qu’on vous le demande, vous êtes encore et toujours coupable d’avoir refusé. C’est cela la loi sur l’ADN, et c’est pour cela que je comparaîtrai au tribunal de Rouen ce mercredi 6 février.

De prime abord, on pourrait penser que je suis, ici, victime de l’un des effets pervers d’une loi mal formulée et qu’il suffirait d’un peu de bon sens pour que tout rentre dans l’ordre. C’est tout le contraire que mon procès révèle.

On peut ainsi remettre en question l’efficacité de l’ADN, et la mystification qui consiste à corréler une trace souvent partielle avec un acte. On peut évoquer ce professeur d’EPS récemment accusé d’avoir tiré sur la police à Amiens car son ADN avait été retrouvé sur une arme : il avait eu le malheur de revendre sa voiture à quelqu’un du quartier insurgé longtemps auparavant. Coup de chance, il put prouver qu’il était en Bretagne la nuit des tirs. On peut avancer le cas de cette chimiste assermentée de Boston, Annie Dookhan, qui par zèle a bidonné, des années durant, ses « expertises », ce qui aboutit à la remise en cause de dizaines de milliers de condamnations dans le Massachusetts. On peut faire valoir que les traces génétiques que partout nous déposons se mêlent et s’entrelacent avec toutes celles de tous ceux que nous croisons, que nous aimons. Que l’existence est toujours collective et qu’aucune analyse génétique ne permettra jamais de décrypter le monde tel qu’il est vécu.

On peut tout autant s’indigner du fait que ce qui fut initialement vendu comme le « fichier des violeurs » comporte aujourd’hui plus de 2 millions d’identifications. On peut même tomber des nues en lisant dans Le Monde du 21 février 2012 que désormais la police, grâce à un « vide juridique », détourne les garde-fous du FNAEG pour retrouver des gens grâce à l’ADN de leurs parents (ce qui fait évidemment exploser le nombre de personnes effectivement fichées à des dizaines de millions).

…

Les invités de Mediapart, 5 février 2013

Posted on 9 février 2013 by juralib

Find this story at 9 February 2013

Britische Spitzel in Erklärungsnot

Auch ein UN-Gesandter kritisiert die sexualisierte Informationsbeschaffung britischer verdeckter Ermittler. Der Guardian enthüllte am Wochenende, wie die Polizisten Identitäten toter Kinder stehlen

Britische verdeckte Ermittler haben in den letzten Jahrzehnten in mindestens 80 Fällen die Identitäten gestorbener Kinder und Jugendlicher angenommen. Dies berichtete der Guardian am Wochenende. Die Spitzel bzw. deren Vorgesetzte suchten sich jene Kinder aus, deren Geburtsdatum etwa ihrem eigenen entsprach. Mit der jetzt vielfach kritisierten Praxis sollte das Auffliegen der Spitzel erschwert werden, da diese neben Geburtsdokumenten auch eine Biographie vorzeigen konnten.

Zur Ausgestaltung der falschen Identitäten unternahmen die Polizisten bisweilen Ausflüge in die frühere Umgebung der Toten, um auf etwaige Fragen antworten zu können. In keinem Fall wurden die Eltern der Kinder hiervon benachrichtigt. Die Verwandten der Gestorbenen tragen aber im Falle des Auffliegens der Spitzel ein beträchtliches Risiko, wenn etwa wütende, ausgeforschte Demonstranten bei ihnen vorstellig werden. Nach der Veröffentlichung bemühte sich die Polizei um Schadensbegrenzung: Angeblich würde der Identitätsdiebstahl nicht mehr angewandt.

Spitzel zeugen Kinder und tauchen ab

Der Skandal wirft ein weiteres Schlaglicht auf die dubiosen Methoden der britischen Polizei. Heute befasst sich der Innenausschuss des Parlaments in einer Anhörung mit Spitzeln, die mit den von ihnen ausgeforschten Ziel- oder Kontaktpersonen jahrelang emotionale Bindungen eingingen und Sexualität praktizierten. Dies hatte in der britischen Öffentlichkeit für Entsetzen gesorgt.

Elf Frauen und ein Mann brachten die Fälle letztes Jahr vor Gericht und verwiesen darauf, dass die Polizisten dabei mindestens drei Kinder gezeugt hatten (Emotionaler und sexueller Missbrauch durch Polizisten wird öffentlich). Die zwischen sieben Monaten und sechs Jahre dauernden Beziehungen endeten aber mit dem plötzlichen Abtauchen der vermeintlichen Partner, wenn deren Einsatz abgebrochen wurde. Die Klagen richten sich gegen die britische Metropolitan Police und die halbprivate “Association of Chief Police Officers”, die für die klandestinen Ermittlungen zuständig war.

Die Zivilklage betont unter anderem die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, die in Artikel 8 das “Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens” behandelt. Der zuständige Richter verglich das sexuelle Gebaren mit dem Geheimagenten James Bond, was in Großbritannien zu Debatten geführt hatte. Zwar unterstrich der traditionell gelockte Richter die Glaubwürdigkeit der Klagen, beschloss aber gleichzeitig, dass diese in Teilen nicht-öffentlich verhandelt werden. Derartige Geheimverfahren waren bislang nur für den Geheimdienst MI5 vorgesehen. Für die Klägerinnen bedeutet dies, dass sie nicht auf Einlassungen der Polizisten reagieren können.

Vom Geheimverfahren betroffen sind die Einsätze des bekannten Spitzels Mark Kennedy, der jetzt in den USA lebt. Mit seinem Kollegen, der unter dem Namen “Marco Jacobs” auftrat, unterwanderte Kennedy die linke Mobilisierung gegen den G8-Gipfel in Heiligendamm 2007 und den NATO-Gipfel in Strasbourg 2009 (Polizeispitzel belügen Staatsanwaltschaften und Gerichte).

Bundesregierung verweigert Aufklärung

Der geltungssüchtige Kennedy, der seine Spitzelei sogar in einer Doku-Fiction zu Geld machte, hatte sich letztes Jahr selbst zum Opfer erklärt: Öffentlichkeitswirksam nutzt er die Klagen der Frauen, um seinerseits Schadensersatz von seinen früheren Vorgesetzten zu fordern. Da diese ihn nicht an den sexuellen Affären und Beziehungen gehindert hätten, sollen sie ihm den dadurch entstandenen posttraumatischen Stress mit rund 120.000 Euro vergüten.

Im Januar schlug sich der UN-Berichterstatter für Versammlungsfreiheit und Vereinigung, Maina Kiai, auf die Seite der betroffenen Frauen. Der Kenianer richtete eine Protestnote an die britische Regierung, in der er eine öffentliche Untersuchung zu den Vorfällen fordert. Dies würde auch ein neues Licht auf den Spitzeltausch mit Deutschland werfen.

…

Matthias Monroy

Find this story at 5 February 2013

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

Senior Met officer quizzed by MPs over undercover police – as it happened

Metropolitan police’s Patricia Gallan gives evidence to MPs following Guardian revelations about undercover policing – along with victims’ lawyers and reporter Paul Lewis

The identities of an estimated 80 dead children have been used by undercover police. A police operative who used the alias Pete Black to spy on protest groups explains how they did it

Hello and welcome to live coverage of the Commons home affairs select committee’s hearing into the Guardian’s revelations about undercover policing.

Patricia Gallan, a deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the Metropolitan police’s investigation into the controversy, faces questions from MPs about the scandal, which this week widened to include the stealing by police of the identities of dead children.

Before Gallan appears, the public hearing will begin at 3.15pm with evidence from solicitors for women who feel they were duped into having relationships with undercover officers. Eleven women are currently bringing legal action against the Metropolitan police for damages. The lawyers appearing before the committee today are:

• Harriet Wistrich, solicitor, Birnberg Peirce & Partners
• Jules Carey, solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors
• Marian Ellingworth, solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors

Also speaking will be my colleague Paul Lewis, who along with fellow Guardian reporter Rob Evans two years ago broke the story that led to these hearings when they reported that police officer Mark Kennedy had lived for seven years undercover in the environmental protest movement, establishing sexual relationships with activists during the course of his work. One woman was his girlfriend for six years.

Lewis and Evans went on to report that, of nine undercover police identified by the Guardian over the past two years, eight were believed to have slept with the people they were spying on. In at least three cases, relationships between police and the women they were spying on resulted in the birth of children.

Kennedy will also give evidence today – but in private.

In a further development, this week Lewis and Evans reported that police secretly authorised undercover officers to steal the identities of around 80 dead children over three decades. (Kennedy is not thought to have done this.) In this video, a police operative who used the alias Pete Black to spy on protest groups explains how they did it.

Keith Vaz, the chair of the home affairs committee, has said he is “shocked” at the “gruesome” practice, and has said the police should inform parents whose children’s identities were used. Scotland Yard has announced an investigation into the controversy, and has said the practice is not “currently” authorised. Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, has called for a public inquiry into undercover policing following the revelations.

We’ll be covering the hearing live here, and you can watch it on the parliament website.
Updated at 3.21pm GMT
3.21pm GMT

The committee seems to be running late – or the live broadcast is not working. Apologies.
Updated at 3.30pm GMT
3.36pm GMT

The live stream has begun. Sorry for the delay.
3.38pm GMT

Keith Vaz, the committee chair, says the committee has sat in private to take evidence from witnesses.

Now the lawyers are here to speak in public.

He starts with the issue of police using dead children’s identity.

Lawyer Jules Carey says he has been instructed by one family whose son Rod Richardson’s name was used by an undercover police officer, who infiltrated various political groups.
Updated at 3.38pm GMT
3.39pm GMT

Carey says his client wants to understand why he child’s name was used. He says he is also representing a number of women who are concerned that such operations are still carrying on.

He says he has submitted a written complaint to the police, which he believes is the complaint that has triggered a police investigation.
3.40pm GMT

Vaz asks lawyer Harriet Wistrich if there is any justification for police to use undercover tactics.

She says there is no justification for them to use sex in their work.

That is the issues she is concerned with: the “overwhelming damage” that has been caused.

All the women involved have been “very, very seriously psychologically harmed” as a result of what the police did to them, Wistrich says.

The police were aware of this, she says.
3.46pm GMT

Vaz quotes from Mr Justice Tugendhat’s recent judgment about undercover police, in which the judge used James Bond as context for police using sex during undercover work.

Wistrich asks what controls we can put on undercover police.

She says MPs could not have meant sexual relationships to have been part of the Regulation of Investigatory Practices Act.

Does the law need to be changed, Vaz asks lawyer Marian Ellingworth.

Ellingworth says sex should not be sanctioned.

Carey says RIPA cannot approve sexual relationships. The structure of the act does not envisage sexual relationships, he says. The words “personal and other relationships” cannot have been meant to include sex – they are too vague for that.

You cannot legislate to breach a fundamental right such as “bodily integrity”, Carey says.
3.49pm GMT

Tory Lorraine Fullbrook asks what the absolute legal limit should be on undercover police officers’ behaviours.

Wistrich says you have to completely stop before a sexual relationship.

Fullbrook tries to pin her down on the “absolute legal limit”, but Wistrich says that depends on the circumstances.

Vaz says Fullbrook is looking for a list of what is and isn’t acceptable.

Wistrich says again there are circumstances when different things are acceptable – for example to stop a child trafficking ring.

Carey says undercover officers shouldn’t be deployed unless it’s necessary and proportionate – political groups wouldn’t be covered, he says.
3.51pm GMT

Tory Michael Ellis repeats Tugendhat’s point that undercover policing wouldn’t surprise the public.

These kind of sexual relationships “probably happen more often to men” than to women, he claims, citing the example of Mata Hari.

He accuses the lawyers of wanting to tie the police’s hands unreasonably.
3.54pm GMT

Wistrich says using sex in this way is massively beyond the bounds of a civilised society.

Labour’s Bridget Phillipson asks if police were directed to form these relationships or did so of their own volition.

Ellingworth says the police won’t even confirm that the men in question were undercover officers, let alone say whether they were following orders.

Wistrich says the police have not yet tried to come up with a circumstance that they say are justified.

Phillipson asks if female officers have had relationships with men.

Carey says they are aware of one female officer who has been deployed in this way. None of the lawyers are instructed by males.

Wistrich says there are always exceptions, but this is really a form of “institutionalised sexism”.

The impact is massively upon women, she says.
3.57pm GMT

Labour’s David Winnick asks if it’s naive to believe the police were not aware sexual relationships were taking place involving undercover officers.

Wistrich says she believes they were, officially or unofficially.

Carey says there is a striking similarity in terms of how many of these relationships started and ended. Many of their clients felt these relationships were entered into by design by the officers. That suggests senior officers were aware of it.

Carey says the public would expect police officers to behave like James Bond if we lived in a world full of Dr Nos. But we don’t, he says.

There is no necessity for these actions, Carey says.
3.59pm GMT

Winnick raises the adopting of the names of dead children. Was this authorised?

Wistrich says she felt this would have been authorised.

Winnick asks if the lawyers consider that a particularly despicable act.

Carey says every aspect of this policing operation is “utterly depraved”. It’s very hard to quantify particular aspects.

“It’s utterly despicable,” says Wistrich.

Ellingworth agrees.
4.02pm GMT

Labour’s Chris Ruane asks how the police can be held to account here.

Wistrich says that’s what the lawyers are aiming to do.

They have met with “a complete barrage of obstacles” from the police. The police have asked for information from them but given none in return.

Wistrich says she has written to the IPCC, which is supervising an investigation into some of these issues, but got no response.

Ruane asks what the key questions that need to be answered. Wistrich suggests:

Why were the police involved in these people’s lives? What information did they gather? How can this be stopped from happening in the future?
4.05pm GMT

Carey says the principal question he would ask is whether they have read the nine principles of policing from 1828.

He reads one out: the police’s actions depend on public approval of those actions.

They’ve lost public respect through these actions, Carey says.

Tory Mark Reckless asks whether the deception by the officers means the sex they had with activists was non-consensual.

Wistrich says that’s a very good point. She’s written to the CPS but got no reply.

Vaz asks for copies of all these letters.

Carey says he is representing a client who had a child from one of these relationships.
Updated at 5.31pm GMT
4.11pm GMT

The Guardian’s Paul Lewis takes his seat.

Vaz asks how Lewis and Rob Evans discovered all this information.

Lewis says they spoke to police officers while working on a book related to this. He says the police officers were not just using the names of dead children, they were adopting many aspects of that person’s identity.

Where does the figure of 80 officers using this tactic come from, Vaz asks.

It’s an estimate, says Lewis. He’d like to hear from the Met police about this. It’s possible it could be fewer or more than 80 officers.

Carey’s complaint comes from 2003, he says.

Vaz says it’s a “pretty gruesome practice” and that it must be “heartless and cruel” for the parents not to have been informed.

Lewis ask if this was limited to the Special Demonstration Squad or was used more widely.
4.13pm GMT

Lewis says he has spoken to people whose children’s identities have been used in this way.

He says the Met police have placed the families of these children at some risk. Other activists could try to track down the undercover officers and seek out the family of the child whose identity was stolen. Far right groups were infiltrated in this way, Lewis says.

Vaz asks if the Met police have asked Lewis for this information.

Lewis says he has an obligation to protect his sources. He’s confident that the police know all the children’s identities.
4.15pm GMT

Vaz asks him to accept that in some circumstances the police are justified in using undercover agents.

Lewis says some undercover operations are justified, but raises the issue of proportionality. He mentions far right groups and violent animal rights groups. But in the main we are talking about non-violent activists, he says.
4.18pm GMT

Tory Michael Ellis asks if the public have a human right to be protected from crime and suggests senior officers are best-placed to decide when it’s right to use undercover officers.

He says he agrees with that.

But he begs to differ that the public would be unsurprised by officers using sex in this way.

Ellis says it was Tugendhat who said the public would be unsurprised, and he has great experience.

Lewis says Tugendhat was not referring to the public’s view, but to MPs’ view when they passed the relevant law.
4.21pm GMT

Ellis asks if Lewis has heard any account of absence of consent in these sexual relationships – discounting the overall deception.

Lewis says men and women have had sex with undercover police officers. They may argue that they did not have the necessary information to give informed consent – although Lewis says he doesn’t agree with that.

He says police say this behaviour was only happening among “bad apples”.

But he and Evans have identified nine undercover officers, and eight were having sexual relationships with activists. One officer was a woman, he says.

One undercover policeman told Lewis that of a team of 10 nine were having sexual relationships with activists.

Fullbrook asks if senior officers knew about this. Lewis says it’s likely. One undercover officer says he was told by a senior officer to use contraception. That implies the senior officer knew.
4.24pm GMT

Labour’s Bridget Phillipson says the length of the relationships involved shocked her.

Lewis says having met the victims he has found it difficult to convey their pain. He suggests the committee’s MPs think about how they would feel if their own partner turned out to be an agent of the state.

At least four children have been born as a result of these relationships, Lewis says.

Lewis says he does not believe MPs intended this in the RIPA, and would have used the words “sexual relationships” rather than “personal relationships”, and he certainly does not think they would have imagined children resulting from these relationships.
4.25pm GMT

Winnick asks if undercover agents could have done this job without embarking on sexual relationships with activists.

Lewis says some officers did not do this, so the answer is yes.
4.28pm GMT

Was it a rogue operation?

Lewis says some senior officers were unaware of the existence of the Special Demonstration Squad.

How can the police clean up this matter and restore confidence?

Openness and transparency, says Lewis. Over the last two years, the Met police have offered “very little help”.

We are heavily reliant on sources who have the courage to come forward, Lewis says.

At some stage the Met police will have to think about the best strategy to regain trust, he says.

The truth tends to come out eventually, he says.
4.30pm GMT

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan of the Met police takes her place next.
4.33pm GMT

Vaz says there will be an open session and then a private session.

He says he was pretty shocked to learn about the use of dead children’s identities. Was she equally shocked?

Gallan tries to outline her role instead.

Vaz insists she answers the question.

Gallan says we are investigating something that has been going on since 1968 and it is important to understand the context.

She says she is overseeing the operation examining past practices relating to this.

She says she does not know if the figure of 80 children’s identities being used is accurate. She knows of two cases. More evidence will probably come to light, but she does not want to prejudge the investigation.

But she is very concerned at what she has heard, she says.

That is why the Met have asked the IPCC to supervise.
4.35pm GMT

Gallan says it is looking at the activities of the SDS over 40 years.

There are more than 50,000 documents to sift through and retired officers to speak to. They want to hear from anyone who has any evidence, she says.

But was she shocked, asks Vaz.

Gallan says she was “very concerned” because “it is not practice as I know it”.

That doesn’t sound very condemnatory, Vaz says.

It isn’t still happening, Gallan says. It has been confined to the SDS and the NPOIU (National Public Order Intelligence Unit).
4.38pm GMT

Vaz asks who is dealing with the operational matters regarding undercover policing. The commander of cover policing, Richard Martin, she says.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley is above him, she says.

She can’t give a date when the practice of using dead children’s identities stopped, she says. But it is not sanctioned today among the Met or any other police force in the country, she says.

Should the children’s parents be informed, Vaz asks.

Gallan says it’s important to find out all the circumstances and whether they are accurate.

She says ethical and legal issues also need to be considered.

Would it affect any operatives whose positions would be exposed, she says.

Vaz says some members of the committee have heard this kind of thing regarding phone-hacking.
4.39pm GMT

Vaz stresses that where the police have names and addresses now, they should inform parents now.

Gallan says she can’t give a blanket yes or no.
4.42pm GMT

It has never been practice within most areas of undercover policing to take identities in this way, she says. Only the SDS and National Public Order Intelligence Unit did this.

Thirty-one staff are working on Operation Hearn, looking into the issue of undercover police regarding the SDS, including 20 police officers.

The estimated cost to date is £1.25m.

Vaz says that sounds like a lot of money and a lot of officers, implying that they can probably get through all those 50,000 documents more quickly than they are.

Vaz asks if when she has completed her operation she will inform the parents.

Gallan says she needs to consider all the issues and can’t give a yes or no answer.
4.44pm GMT

Vaz asks if she would like to apologise for this scandal.

Gallan says at the appropriate time statements would be made.

Until she knows all the facts she can’t do anything like that, she says.
4.46pm GMT

The admission that a second unit, the NPOIU, has used dead children’s identities is very important, since that unit was only formed in 1999.
4.48pm GMT

Vaz asks if the Guardian revelations broke the news to her of the use of children’s identities. She knew of one example in September last year.

Since then has she informed the parents, Vaz asks. She says she hasn’t and she’ll explain why in closed session.

Gallan is asked again about apologising. She says there are live proceedings ongoing and the Met police will decide at the end.
4.49pm GMT

Michael Ellis asks what rank of officer was in charge of the SDS or the NPOIU.

Superintendent, Gallan says.

Were they rogue units?

Gallan says from what she has seen the practices in place weren’t following national guidelines. We need to get all the evidence, she says, so she doesn’t want to go further than that.
4.51pm GMT

Ellis asks if taking children’s identities was not accepted practice even at the time.

Gallan says it was not standard procedure.

Ellis says these were unauthorised practices even at the time. He suggests these were rogue units or units operating outside their protocols.

That’s one of the things we’re investigating, Gallan says.

A senior officer cannot authorise something that is outside of procedures at the time, Ellis says.
4.53pm GMT

Winnick asks if Gallan thinks it was in the public interest for the Guardian to give the names of some of the dead children?

She says she believes in the free press.

Has the reputation of the press been harmed?

Gallan says when used appropriately undercover work is very important, and they are worried about anything that undermines confidence in that.

Asked the same question again, she says: “I think it is.”

I’ll take that to be a yes, says Winnick.
4.55pm GMT

How far is it possible for undercover work to take place without sexual relationships, Winnick asks.

Gallan says she doesn’t believe you can authorise such activities, morally.

If something like that does happen it should be reported immediately.

Winnick asks if it’s right to assume the officers were not not told to engage in sex.

Gallan says she might be able to explain that in closed session, but it was not authorised.
4.59pm GMT

Metropolitan police commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has said it is “almost inevitable” some undercover officers will have sexual relationships in this way although he wouldn’t encourage it, Vaz says. Doesn’t that contradict Gallan’s view?

Nick Herbert, the policing minister, has said that to ban such actions would provide a ready-made test for the targeted group, Vaz says.

What is her view?

Gallan repeats that there is a moral issue. Legally, the law is silent on that, and she will explain that in closed session, she says.

The Met police does not authorise that conduct, she repeats.

She says she cannot envisage under any circumstances a commander authorising this kind of behaviour.
5.02pm GMT

But was it prohibited, asks Vaz.

In the closed session, she will explain more, says Gallan.

Tory James Clappison suggests that some of these relationships went on for so long that senior officers must have known what was happening.

Vaz says he is disappointed that Gallan has not sent out a message that the Met police is sorry that the practice of using dead children’s identities has taken place.

Winnick adds that the committee is disappointed.

Vaz says he is concerned that she has known about one incident since September and still has not got to the bottom of it.

One of the victims followed the trail and turned up at the house of the dead child’s parents. They weren’t there, but imagine their grief if they had have been, Vaz says.

Gallan repeats her “concern” and says she is keeping an open mind about the facts.

It would be inappropriate to rush to make statements in haste, Gallan says.
5.03pm GMT

Does she have a timetable for the conclusion of Operation Hearn, Vaz asks.

Gallan says it would be wrong to put a timescale on it.

We are determined to go where the evidence takes us, she says.
5.03pm GMT

With that the committee goes into closed session.
5.36pm GMT
Summary

Here is a summary of what we have learned from that committee session.

• The use of dead children’s identities by undercover police officers was not confined to the Special Demonstration Squad, but was also a practice employed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, a unit that was only set up in 1999, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan of the Metropolitan police revealed to the Commons home affairs committee.

• Gallan knew about one case of a child’s identity being used in this way in September last year. The practice is not sanctioned today among the Met or any other force in the country, she said.

• Including the case that came to light in September, she knew of only two cases of this happening, she said, and did not know if the Guardian’s estimate of 80 cases was accurate. But she felt that more cases would probably come to light.

• Keith Vaz, the chair of the committee, said he was “disappointed” that Gallan would not apologise for the police’s actions, saying only that she was “very concerned” at the allegations and wanted to wait until all the facts had been established before rushing to make a statement.

• Vaz was also extremely concerned that Gallan had not informed the parents in the case discovered in September last year, and wanted her to promise she would inform all the parents involved as soon as possible. Gallan would not agree to this.

• Police officers having sex with activists in groups they infiltrated was not authorised, and could not justified morally, Gallan said. She could not envisage any circumstances under which a commander would authorise this.

• She admitted the Metropolitan police’s reputation had been harmed by the scandal.

• Thirty-one staff are working on Operation Hearn, looking into the issue of undercover police, including 20 police officers. The estimated cost to date is £1.25m.

• Lawyers for women who feel they were duped into having relationships with undercover officers attacked the practice as being “depraved”, “dispicable” and beyond the bounds of a civilised society. MPs on the committee broadly seemed to agree, although Tory Michael Ellis drew attention to Mr Justice Tugendhat’s contention that such relationships would not surprise the public, accused the lawyers of wanting to tie the police’s hands unreasonable. He asked if the public had a human right to be protected from crime and suggested senior officers were best-placed to decide when it was and was not right to use undercover officers.

That’s all from me. Thanks for all your comments.
Next
Previous
Blog home
Related information
UK news
Police ·
Politics
House of Commons · Keith Vaz ·

Police must inform parents of children whose IDs were used by spies, says MP

4 Feb 2013

Keith Vaz says it would be heartless not to tell affected parents, and asks Theresa May to investigate whether practice was legal

4 Feb 2013

Police spy: ‘How we stole dead children’s identities’ – video

30 Jan 2013

Chief police officers criticise recruitment and promotion reforms

30 Jan 2013

If China lifts its game console ban, what will adults panic about next?

Should outsiders be allowed fast-track entry into the police?

30 Jan 2013

Home secretary Theresa May will today announce plans to allow police forces to recruit senior officers from outside the service, meaning business leaders, for example, could quickly move into top jobs rather than having to start as constables pounding the beat. Many police are opposed. Do you support the move?

Paul Owen
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 February 2013 14.17 GMT

Find this story at 5 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Verdeckte Ermittler; Ermittlungstaktik, Lust und Liebe

In England hatte ein Undercover-Polizist regelmäßig Sex mit Frauen aus der überwachten Szene. In Deutschland wäre das unzulässig, beteuert das Innenministerium.von Christian Rath

Die Berichterstattung des „Guardian“ über Mark Kennedy brachte den Stein ins Rollen. Bild: screenshot guardian.co.uk

BERLIN taz | Verdeckte Ermittler von Bundeskriminalamt und Bundespolizei dürfen keine sexuellen Beziehungen eingehen, um Informationen zu erlangen. Das erklärte jetzt das Bundesinnenministerium auf eine parlamentarische Anfrage des Linken-Abgeordneten Andrej Hunko.

Anlass der Nachfrage ist der Fall des englischen Polizisten Mark Kennedy, der mit falschem Namen, langen Haaren und Ohrringen einige Jahre lang militante Umweltschützer und Globalisierungskritiker in ganz Europa ausspionierte. Auch in Deutschland war Kennedy aktiv: während des G-8-Gipfels in Heiligendamm 2007 sowie beim Nato-Gipfel in Baden Baden 2009.

Im Rahmen seiner Spitzeltätigkeit unterhielt der Polizist Kennedy auch zahlreiche Liebschaften. Wie die englische Zeitung Guardian aufdeckte, war es durchaus üblich, dass verdeckte Ermittler sexuelle Beziehungen in der von ihr überwachten Szene knüpften. Jetzt klagen zehn Frauen und ein Mann vor dem englischen High Court auf Schadensersatz. Sie hätten ein emotionales Trauma erlitten, nachdem Menschen, mit denen sie „tiefe persönliche“ Beziehungen eingingen, sich als Spitzel entpuppten.
Die Lustfrage

Der Bundestagsabgeordnete Andrej Hunko wollte deshalb von der Bundesregierung wissen, ob sie es für zulässig hält, wenn Verdeckte Ermittler „Sexualität oder sonstige emotional tiefgehende Beziehungen mit ihren Zielpersonen oder deren Kontaktpersonen praktizieren“. Antwort: Die Bundesregierung ist der Auffassung, „dass das Eingehen derartiger Beziehungen aus ermittlungstaktischen Gründen in aller Regel unzulässig ist“. Und Innenstaatssekretär Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, von dem die Antwort stammt, fügt hinzu: „Dies gilt auch für den Einsatz von Mitarbeitern ausländischer Behörden in Deutschland mit deutscher Zustimmung.“

Die Auskunft klingt eindeutig, enthält aber eine wichtige Einschränkung: Unzulässig ist der Ermittler-Sex nur, wenn er „aus ermittlungstaktischen Gründen“ stattfindet – sprich: Wenn der Polizist eigentlich keine Lust hat. Wenn der Verdeckte Ermittler aber aus Lust und/oder Liebe gerne mit einer Ziel- oder Kontaktperson schlafen will, scheint dies nach Ansicht von Staatssekretär Fritsche rechtlich nicht ausgeschlossen.

Dagegen hatte der auf Geheimdienstrecht spezialisierte Anwalt Udo Kauß 2011 im taz-interview gefordert: „Genauso wie ein Verdeckter Ermittler keine Straftaten begehen darf, darf er mit den Zielpersonen und deren Umfeld auch keine Liebesbeziehungen führen.“ Wenn ein Einsatz „aus dem Ruder“ laufe, müsse er abgebrochen werden.
Der deutsche Fall Bromma

In Baden-Württemberg hatte die Polizei 2010 den jungen Beamten Simon Bromma in linke studentische Gruppen eingeschleust. Er sollte herausfinden, ob im Umfeld der Antifaschistischen Initiative Heidelberg (AIHD) Gewaltakte gegen Polizisten und Nazis geplant waren. Er erschlich sich mit seiner freundlichen und hilfsbereiten Art in den Kreisen um die studentische „Kritische Initiative“ zahlreiche Freundschaften, flog dann aber auf, als ihn eine Ferienbekanntschaft erkannte.

Sieben Betroffene aus der bespitzelten Szene erhoben im August 2011 Klage beim Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe. Sie verlangen die Feststellung, dass der Undercover-Einsatz gegen die linke Heidelberger Szene generell rechtswidrig war. Sie seien keine „gewaltbereiten Gefährder“. Außerdem seien die Privatsphäre und die Menschenwürde verletzt, wenn den Aktivisten „ohne eigenes Wissen eine Freundschaft/Bekanntschaft zu einem polizeilichen Ermittler aufgezwungen“ werde.

Das Verfahren kommt allerdings nicht voran, weil der baden-württembergische Innenminister Reinhold Gall (SPD) alle Spitzelberichte Brommas gesperrt hat. Die Arbeitsweise Verdeckter Ermittler müsse geheim bleiben, da die Undercover-Agenten sonst leicht enttarnt werden könnten, argumentierte Gall. Dagegen klagten die Betroffenen in einem Zwischenverfahren und erzielten nun einen Teilerfolg.
Teilweise rechtswidrig

…

04.02.20133 Kommentare

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© der taz

Brother of boy whose identity was stolen by police spies demands apology

Anthony Barker says police could have put family in danger by using identity of brother John, who died aged eight

John Dines, a police sergeant who adopted the identity of John Barker to pose as an environmental campaigner, pictured in the early 1990s

Undercover police were “reckless” when they stole the identity of an eight-year-old boy who had died of leukaemia, according to his brother, who is demanding an apology for putting his family at risk.

Anthony Barker, whose brother John Barker died in 1968, said he was shocked to discover the boy’s identity was resurrected and adopted by undercover police spying on political groups.

The Metropolitan police has admitted that two of its undercover units appear to have used the identities of dead children, a practice which has lasted four decades and was still going on in the 2000s.

The identity of John Barker was adopted by a police sergeant called John Dines, who posed as an environmental campaigner between 1987 and 1992.

“The danger the police put my family in – and all the other families this has happened to – is horrendous,” Barker said. An investigation by the Guardian has established police used the identities of dead children so their undercover agents could pose as real people. Barker said that in doing so, they placed innocent families at risk.

“In our case, we now discover, there was a girlfriend who was left behind when the policeman pretending to be my brother disappeared from the scene,” he said. “Apparently she was so worried about him that she tracked him down to the house we had moved out of a few years earlier.

“Now, imagine that policeman had infiltrated a violent gang or made friends with a volatile person, then disappeared, just like this man did.

“Someone wanting revenge would have tracked us down to our front door – but they wouldn’t have wanted a cup of tea and a chat, like this woman says she did.”

Although many police spies using dead children’s identities were infiltrating peaceful leftwing and environmental groups, many were also deployed in violent far-right groups.

“If we had told those sorts of people that the man they thought they had known for so many years has died as a little boy, they would have thought we were lying,” Barker said. “Who knows what would have happened to us then?”

He added: “These people could have found our family in a heartbeat. That was an absolutely reckless thing for the police to do.”

Anthony Barker, who was born the year after his brother died, said: “My parents always said he was a lovely lad. They could not afford more than one child. They only had me because John passed away.

“It totally shattered my parents when he died. You can see from photographs how much his death aged them. When I was a toddler they looked like my grandparents.”

Barker described the use of dead children’s identities as a “clinical, mechanic way of policing” and morally “horrific”. He believed his parents, who are now deceased, would have been appalled to discover a police officer was posing as their beloved son.

“In my view, these were politically motivated undercover operations. That is what I cannot understand. What kinds of crimes did these political activists commit? We’re not talking about drug dealers or terrorists. These operations must have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and all the while my parents were living in poverty.”

He added: “Not only is it horrendous to steal the identity of a child but by taking that identity into an unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation, they’re putting entire families at risk.”

The Met has declined to say how many dead children’s identities it believes have been used by covert agents, although the force has stressed that the practice is not currently in use.

A document seen by the Guardian indicates that the Special Demonstration Squad, one of two police units known to have used the practice, used the identities of around 80 dead children.

On Tuesday the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner Patricia Gallan told a parliamentary inquiry that a second unit involved in spying on protesters appears to have used dead children’s identities.

The second unit, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, was founded in 1999 and operated throughout the 2000s.

It suggests the total number of dead children’s identities used by police could exceed 100.

MPs expressed their disapproval when Gallan, who is overseeing a £1.25m review of protest spying operations, refused to apologise for any hurt caused until her inquiries were complete.

She also refused to say whether she would contact the families involved, saying there were “legal and ethical issues” to consider.

Barker said: “I strongly believe all the families who this has happened to need to be told. They have been placed at risk. That is the bottom line. These were undercover operations. Anything could have happened.”

…

Amelia Hill, Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 February 2013 16.55 GMT

Find this story at 6 February 2013
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

“Schaf de Staatsveiligheid af”

Renaat Landuyt (justitiespecialist sp.a): “We kunnen beter het federale parket en andere opsporingsdiensten versterken. Die zullen in elk geval nuttiger werk verrichten.” © belga.

Sp.a-justitiespecialist Renaat Landuyt pleit voor een afschaffing van de Belgische inlichtingendienst. “Die harkt toch maar krantenknipsels en roddels bijeen.” PS-senator Philippe Moureaux ziet alvast geen graten in het voorstel van de Vlaamse socialist.

Landuyt is sinds begin dit jaar burgemeester van Brugge. Maar de advocaat staat vooral bekend als justitiespecialist van zijn partij. De Staatsveiligheid functioneert na enkele hervormingen volgens hem al iets beter dan vroeger. “Maar niet in die mate dat ik ervan onder de indruk ben”, klinkt het.

“Ik vraag mij echt af of we een instelling zoals de Staatsveiligheid nodig hebben. In een democratie is er nood aan transparantie. Geheime organisaties zoals onze inlichtingendienst zijn niet meer van deze tijd. De dienst dateert nog uit een tijd dat staten in de eerste plaats vijanden van elkaar waren. Concurreren met die paar inlichtingendiensten in de wereld die er wel toe doen, kunnen we niet.”

Het argument dat je een inlichtingendienst nodig hebt om gevaarlijke organisaties en potentiële terroristen op te volgen, houdt volgens de Vlaamse socialist geen steek. “Net alsof we een Staatsveiligheid nodig hebben om ons tegen terrorisme te beschermen. Dat is eigenlijk opsporingswerk. Het federale parket kan en moet dat doen.”

Door de Staatsveiligheid af te schaffen, kunnen het federale parket en andere opsporingsdiensten worden versterkt. “Die zullen in elk geval nuttiger werk verrichten dan een dienst die toch maar krantenknipsels en roddels bijeenharkt.”

Moureaux, PS-senator en minister van Staat, zal naar eigen zeggen niet minder goed slapen als de Staatsveiligheid verdwijnt en het parket meer macht krijgt. “Ik ben destijds als minister van Justitie verantwoordelijk geweest voor de instelling. Veel respect heb ik nooit voor die mensen gehad”, klinkt het. “Ze werken vaak op basis van geruchten en zijn altijd aan spelletjes te spelen. Ik heb dat eerlijk gezegd altijd een beetje miserabel gevonden.”

Door een gebrek aan middelen zijn de agenten van de Staatsveiligheid eigenlijk niet meer dan veredelde scouts, stelt de Franstalige socialist. “Het beste voorbeeld daarvan is het rapport over politici die betrokken zouden zijn bij Scientology.”

…

Door: Steven Samyn en Martin Buxant
13/02/13 – 06u47

Find this story at 13 February 2013

© 2013 De Persgroep Digital

‘Map met naam Dewinter bevat oud juridisch dossier’; RTBF heeft beelden van dossier Dewinter bij Staatsveiligheid

De beelden van het interview met Alain Winants, de administrateur-generaal van de Staatsveiligheid, die maandag werden uitgezonden in het tv-journaal van de RTBF, tonen een dossier dat de naam van Filip Dewinter draagt. ‘Het betreft in feite een oud dossier betreffende een juridische procedure die door betrokkene opgestart werd’, aldus de Staatsveiligheid dinsdagmiddag in een reactie.

Bart Debie, de gewezen veiligheidsadviseur van Vlaams Belanger Filip Dewinter, zei maandag dat hij drie jaar lang als “mol” van de Belgische Staatsveiligheid binnen de partijtop van het Vlaams Belang heeft gefungeerd.

De RTBF draaide maandag beelden tijdens een interview met Winants. Op het moment dat de topman van de Staatsveiligheid benadrukt dat zijn diensten zich niet bezighouden met politici, filmde de tv-ploeg van de Franstalige openbare televisie een dossier op zijn bureau. Op de farde was te lezen “Dewinter Filip”.

…

dinsdag 12 februari 2013, 13u04 Bron: rtbf

Find this story at 12 February 2013

© De Standaard

Bart Debie et VB: la polémique enfle autour de la Sûreté de l’Etat

ABart Debie, ancien commissaire de police et conseiller de Filip Dewinter au sein du Vlaams Belang, affirme avoir été “une taupe” au sein du parti flamand d’extrême droite. Il aurait en effet fourni durant trois ans des informations sur le fonctionnement interne du parti à la Sûreté de l’État, a-t-il déclaré aux quotidiens De Standaard et Het Nieuwsblad. Filip Dewinter se dit trahi. La ministre de la Justice a rappelé à l’ordre la Sûreté quant à son devoir d’information à son égard.
Et aussi
Sûreté de l’Etat: le dossier “Dewinter Filip” est un “ancien dossier juridique”

“J’ai été recruté comme informateur en 2007. Jusqu’à ma démission du parti en 2010, j’ai rencontré presque tous les mois une personne des services de renseignements”, a déclaré Bart Debie qui était à cette époque une figure-clé du Vlaams Belang.

Bart Debie aurait notamment fourni des informations concernant les soutiens financiers du Vlaams Belang.

Il a décidé de s’exprimer quant à son rôle d’informateur à la suite de déclarations de la ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, qui a affirmé récemment que la Sûreté de l’État n’était pas impliquée dans l’espionnage de parlementaires.

Annemie Turtelboom rappelle la Sûreté de l’Etat à l’ordre

La ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, a rappelé lundi, dans un communiqué de presse, avoir demandé récemment à la Sûreté de l’Etat de vérifier si l’obligation d’information à son égard était bien respectée dans les cas de surveillance de parlementaires.

Une circulaire de 2009 prévoit que le ministre de la Justice doit être immédiatement informé chaque fois que le nom d’un membre actif du parlement fédéral apparaît dans un rapport de la Sûreté. Début février, après plusieurs affaires de surveillance impliquant des politiciens, Mme Turtelboom a demandé au Comité R, chargé de superviser la Sûreté, de vérifier que cette instruction était bien suivie.

Dans un communiqué diffusé lundi, Mme Turtelboom a répété ses demandes.

“A la suite de la fuite de l’analyse de phénomène, la ministre de la Justice a demandé à la Sûreté de l’Etat si toutes les instructions concernant le fonctionnement de la Sûreté de l’Etat sont rigoureusement appliquées”, selon le communiqué.

“Vu l’importance d’une organisation de l’information correcte par les services de renseignements, (elle) a également demandé une enquête de contrôle au Comité R, qui est responsable légalement du contrôle parlementaire sur le fonctionnement de ces services”, est-il précisé.

“Annemie Turtelboom doit s’expliquer”

Colère de Filip Dewinter qui se dit “trahi par un bon ami”. Il fait remarquer qu’il avait aidé Bart Debie par le passé, lors de son procès, que le parti a payé ses amendes et qu’il a été salarié du Belang pendant des années.

L’ancien président du parti d’extrême-droite a également indiqué lundi attendre de la ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, de “très sérieuses explications”. Cette dernière avait affirmé que la Sûreté de l’État ne pistait par les parlementaires.

“Soit elle ment, soit elle n’est pas au courant. Dans les deux cas, c’est problématique”, a-t-il dit.

Au-delà des moyens juridiques dont il envisage de faire usage, le sénateur VB entend placer le débat sur la scène politique. “Utiliser la Sûreté comme un service de renseignement politique, selon le régime en place, cela va beaucoup trop loin. Qui plus est, l’objectif, ici, était clairement de déstabiliser un parti ou un homme politique”, a-t-il souligné.

M. Dewinter exige de pouvoir examiner son dossier à la Sûreté. Il demande également que la Sûreté fasse étalage de ses méthodes et qu’on fasse savoir si d’autres taupes ont infiltré le Belang.

“S’il était informateur, ce serait un délit pour lui de le révéler”, rappelle le patron de la Sûreté

Alain Winants, le patron de la Sûreté de l’Etat, a confirmé lundi qu’il ne souhaitait donner aucune information sur l’éventuel rôle d’informateur qu’aurait joué l’ancien membre du Vlaams Belang Bart Debie. “Je ne peux pas vous parler de nos éventuelles sources, cela serait un délit”, a-t-il dit à Belga. “Mais si Debie était effectivement un informateur, cela serait un délit pour lui aussi” d’en parler, a-t-il ajouté.

Alain Winants a répété lundi que la Sûreté ne suivait aucun politicien pour ses activités parlementaires. “Mais nous sommes compétents pour enquêter sur un certain nombre de menaces, notamment l’extrémisme. La collecte de fonds à l’étranger pour la création de mouvements anti-Islam pourrait tomber sous cette catégorie”, a-t-il dit, sans pour autant confirmer les propos de M. Debie.

Certaines affirmations sont “totalement erronées ou fausses”

“Un certain nombre d’affirmations de monsieur Debie sont totalement erronées ou fausses”, a encore fait savoir la Sûreté de l’Etat dans un communiqué de presse diffusé lundi soir, en réaction à l’aveu par l’ancien membre du Vlaams Belang, Bart Debie, de sa collaboration avec l’agence de renseignements. Elle n’en dit toutefois pas davantage.

“Avant toute chose, nous souhaitons clairement indiquer que le service ne souhaite en aucun cas faire de déclaration concernant le fait que l’intéressé soit ou non un informateur de la Sûreté de l’Etat, étant donné que communiquer à ce sujet est un délit, aussi bien pour les membres du service que pour toute personne qui offre sa collaboration en application de la loi organique des services de renseignement et de sécurité du 30 novembre 1998”, rappelle la Sûreté.

Elle insiste par ailleurs “fermement sur le fait qu’elle ne suit pas, ne screene pas, ne file pas – etc – en tant que tels des partis politiques, des mandataires, des politiciens dans le cadre de l’exercice de leur mandat parlementaire et/ou ministériel”.

“Notons par ailleurs que monsieur Debie, pour peu que l’on croirait son récit, déclare que l’initiative de la prise de contact serait venue de lui-même. En outre, il faut également noter qu’un certain nombre d’affirmations de monsieur Debie sont totalement erronées ou fausses”, ajoute encore la Sûreté, sans préciser lesquelles.

Le Comité R va enquêter

Les “récentes révélations sur des informateurs éventuels dans le milieu politique seront reprises” dans l’enquête que mène actuellement le Comité R sur la manière dont les services de renseignement s’intéressent, le cas échéant, à des mandataires, a indiqué lundi le président de l’organe de contrôle, Guy Rapaille.

“Le Comité permanent R a reçu, ces derniers jours, tant du Sénat que du ministre de la Justice, des missions d’enquêtes relatives aux documents de la Sûreté de l’Etat qui, malgré leur caractère secret, ont été diffusés dans les médias. Il s’agit d’une part d’une note relative à l’infiltration de la communauté congolaise de Bruxelles par le mouvement de la Scientologie, et d’autre part d’un rapport concernant une analyse de phénomène sur des activités d’ingérence non étatiques. Le Comité permanent R a repris les diverses questions de ces autorités dans deux enquêtes de contrôle distinctes”, a-t-il indiqué dans un communiqué.

La première enquête, qui a déjà démarré, mais dont la portée est à présent étendue, traite de la manière dont les documents susmentionnés ont été “préparés et diffusés”, ainsi que de leur “conformité aux règles en vigueur”, a confirmé Guy Rapaille. “L’enquête sur les fuites en tant que telles est en premier lieu du ressort des autorités judiciaires, étant donné qu’il pourrait s’agir de délits”, a-t-il toutefois précisé.

Une seconde enquête, plus générale, traitera “la manière dont la Sûreté de l’Etat et le Service Général du Renseignement et de la Sécurité recueillent, le cas échéant, des informations sur des mandataires politiques, la manière dont ils conservent et utilisent ces informations et la manière dont ils en font rapport aux ministres de tutelle ou à d’autres autorités”, a ajouté M. Rapaille. “Il va de soi que de récentes révélations sur des informateurs éventuels dans le milieu politique seront reprises dans cette enquête”, a-t-il précisé.

Bart Debie et les méthodes musclées

…

BELGIQUE | lundi 11 février 2013 à 4h37

Find this story at 11 February 2013

© RTBF

Rechterhand Filip Dewinter was spion staatsveiligheid

De Belgische Staatsveiligheid heeft jarenlang een ‘mol’ gehad binnen de top van het Vlaams Belang. Dat zegt Bart Debie, ex-politiecommissaris en gewezen veiligheidsadviseur van partijkopstuk Filip Dewinter. ‘De Staatsveiligheid deed onderzoek naar de financiering van de partij en naar de contacten van Filip Dewinter’, zegt Debie. ‘En ik was drie jaar lang hun informant.’

‘Wat ze met andere politici doen, weet ik niet. Maar de Staatsveiligheid heeft het Vlaams Belang jarenlang met héél véél aandacht gevolgd. En ik kan het weten, want ik was er zelf bij betrokken.’

Bart Debie (38) was eigenlijk van plan zijn werk als informant voor de Staatsveiligheid voor altijd geheim te houden. Maar na de uitspraken van minister van Justitie Annemie Turtelboom (Open VLD) vorige week dat de Staatsveiligheid ‘zich niet bezighoudt met het bespioneren van parlementsleden’ doorbreekt hij het stilzwijgen. Turtelboom deed haar uitspraken nadat twee rapporten van de Staatsveiligheid waren uitgelekt. Daarin werd een hele resem politici genoemd die gecontacteerd waren door sekten zoals Scientology. Turtelboom zei dat de Staatsveiligheid geen dossiers bijhoudt van parlementsleden.

‘Van Vlaams Belang alleszins wel’, zegt Debie. ‘In 2007 hebben ze me ingelijfd als informant. Tot mijn ontslag bij de partij in 2010 heb ik bijna elke maand op zijn minst één ontmoeting gehad met mijn vaste begeleider bij de inlichtingendienst.’

’Ik zocht zelf contact’

Debie is jarenlang een sleutelfiguur geweest bij Vlaams Belang. Hij is een voormalig commissaris van de Antwerpse politie die bekend werd met zijn harde aanpak van de criminaliteit op het Falconplein. Maar in 2003 kwam hij in opspraak na een gewelddadig verhoor van vijf Turkse arrestanten. Hij werd geschorst, nam later ontslag en werd in 2007 veroordeeld voor buitensporig geweld en vervalsing van pv’s. Filip Dewinter bood een vangnet: in 2004 lijfde hij Debie in bij Vlaams Belang als veiligheidsadviseur.

‘Voor alle duidelijkheid: het contact met de Staatsveiligheid is er op mijn initiatief gekomen’, zegt Debie. ‘Waarom ik contact zocht? Ik had het al langer moeilijk met bepaalde praktijken binnen de partij. De directe aanleiding was een stunt die Filip Dewinter wilde opvoeren. Ten tijde van de rellen in Brussel, waar met een kalasjnikov-geweer op de politie was geschoten, riep Dewinter me bij zich. Bart, kun jij via je contacten een aantal kalasjnikovs kopen? Hij wilde die op een persconferentie presenteren. Ik heb hem duidelijk gemaakt dat ik dat niet zag zitten, omdat het om strafbare feiten ging. En ik had al een strafblad, door die affaire in Antwerpen. Toen heb ik contact gezocht met de Staatsveiligheid. Deels om mezelf wat in te dekken, deels omdat ik dat soort praktijken binnen de partij kotsbeu was.’

Een paar dagen nadat hij zelf contact had gezocht, kreeg Debie telefoon van iemand die zich voorstelde als commissaris bij de Staatsveiligheid.

…

Lees de rest van het artikel in Het Nieuwsblad van maandag 11 februari.

Joris van der Aa en Tom Le Bacq

Find this story at 11 February 2013

© Nieuwsblad.be werkt samen met De Standaard en L’Avenir

Woman’s 18-year search for truth about police spy who used dead child’s name

When the man known to his activist girlfriend as John Barker disappeared, she embarked on a journey that led her to the former home of a child whose name he used as an alias

John Dines taking part in a race in the early 1990s when he was serving as an undercover sergeant in the Metropolitan police’s special branch

John Barker was an eight-year-old boy who died of leukaemia in 1968. Nineteen years later his identity was quietly resurrected by the police. The man who adopted the boy’s identity, claiming it as his own, was John Dines, an undercover sergeant in the Metropolitan police’s special branch.

In 1987 Dines was tasked with posing as an anti-capitalist protester, feeding intelligence to his handlers in a secret unit called the special demonstration squad (SDS). It was a controversial and morally dubious deployment that lasted five years and will now return to haunt him.

Like many SDS officers, Dines had a long-term girlfriend who was a political activist. She does not want to be identified and has asked to be referred to as Clare.

Her story lays bare the emotional trauma experienced by women whom police have described as “collateral” victims of their spy operations, as well as the risks police were taking by adopting the identities of dead children.

In 1990 the man Clare knew as John Barker asked to borrow money so he could fly to New Zealand for his mother’s funeral. “The night before he got the flight to go there, he stayed at my place and kind of poured his heart out. We became emotionally close. When he got back, we got together.”

There was no funeral in New Zealand and Dines had no need to borrow money. But Clare had known Dines as a fellow protester for three years and had no reason to suspect him. The couple would end up in an intimate relationship for two years.

“He said he wanted to spend the rest of his life with me and I was madly in love with him,” she said. “He said he wanted us to have kids. He used to say he had once seen an elderly Greek couple sitting on a veranda gazing into the sunset, and that he pictured us growing old like that.”

By the summer of 1991, as part of an exit strategy, Dines began exhibiting symptoms of a mental breakdown.

“He kept talking about how he had nobody left apart from me,” Clare said. “His parents had both died. He had no brothers and sisters. The only woman that he had ever loved before me, a woman called Debbie, had left him. He said he was convinced I was going to do the same to him.”

Dines gave the impression he wanted to run away to escape inner demons. “I saw him crying loads,” Clare said. “He told me that he had thrown all of his mother’s jewellery into a river because he thought she never loved him. He told me his parents had abused him.”

In March 1992 an emotional-sounding Dines called from Heathrow airport saying he was about to fly to South Africa. After that, Clare received two letters with South African postmarks. Then her boyfriend vanished altogether.

Clare was left distraught and confused. “I was very worried about his mental state,” she said. “I was also sick with worry that he might kill himself.”

Clare contacted the British consulate in South Africa and frantically phoned hostels she thought he may have stayed in Johannesburg. She later hired a private investigator who could find no trace of Dines.

It was the start of a journey for the truth that would last almost two decades and eventually take her to New Zealand. It was not until 2010 that she found out for sure that the man she had loved was a police spy.

For some of the time that Clare thought her boyfriend was missing abroad, he was actually working just a few miles away. When his undercover work finished, Dines changed his mullet-style haircut and returned to a desk job at the Met headquarters in Scotland Yard where, according to a colleague, he appeared “very miserable”.

In her search for clues, one of the first things Clare did was locate a copy of what she assumed was her boyfriend’s birth certificate. The document confirmed the details he had always given her: it named a city in the Midlands where he was born in January 1960. She had no idea that the identity was a forgery, or that the real John Barker had died as a boy.

In April 1993, desperate after a year of searching, Clare decided to visit Barker’s family home in the hope of finding any surviving relatives, but when she knocked on the door of the terrace house there was no answer. She went back later but the occupants said the family no longer lived there.

Looking back, she wonders what would have occurred if the dead child’s parents had opened the door. “It would have been horrendous,” she said. “It would have completely freaked them out to have someone asking after a child who died 24 years earlier.”

It was another 18 months before Clare decided to inspect the national death records. “I just suddenly got this instinct. It was a whim: I thought, I’m going to go in there and look through the death records.”

She recalls her horror when she discovered the real John Barker was dead. “It sent a chill down my spine,” she said. “When I got the certificate itself, it was so clear. The same person. The same parents. The same address. But he had died as an eight-year-old boy.”

The Guardian has been unable to find surviving relatives of the child.

The discovery turned Clare’s world upside down. “It was like a bereavement but it was not something I could talk to people about. Now suddenly he didn’t exist. This was a man I had known for five years, who I had lived with for two years. How could I trust anybody again?”

Clare now knew her boyfriend had lied about his identity, but still had no idea who he was. The idea that he might have been a police spy crossed her mind, but he might also have worked in corporate espionage or had a hidden criminal past. It was another 10 years of searching before she got closer to the truth.

Clare had two clues to go on. One was the name of a woman in New Zealand who Dines had told her was an aunt. The other was a letter in which he had made a curious reference to his biological father being a man he had never met, called Jim Dines.

The woman in New Zealand was not his aunt but, bizarrely, the mother of Dines’s real wife. Stranger still, Jim Dines was, in fact, the police officer’s real father and had brought him up in London.

Clare has no idea why the undercover police officer chose to compromise his deployment by giving Clare cryptic references to people in his real life. Perhaps he was psychologically traumatised by his dual identities and wanted to leave a trail that would allow Clare to find him.

Whatever his reason, the clues led Clare to a public archive in New Zealand. It was there, in 2003, that she made a crucial connection: a document that linked Dines with the woman he married, Debbie.

Clare instantly realised they must have been a married couple. Back in London, she ordered the couple’s wedding certificate. “What hit me like a ton of bricks is that he listed his occupation as a police officer,” she said. “When I read that, I felt utterly sick and really violated. It ripped me apart basically, just reading that.”

Clare was now agonisingly close to the truth. She knew that Dines was a police officer when he married his wife in 1977. But there was still a possibility that he gave up his job before becoming a political activist.

She shared the evidence with friends and family. Some cautioned her against concluding Dines had been a police spy. “I remember my dad and others said: ‘You’re being paranoid – that would never happen in this country.'”

…

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Sunday 3 February 2013 19.21 GMT

Find this story at 3 February 2013
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Met chief summoned to explain why police stole identities of dead children

Deputy assistant commissioner Pat Gallan summoned before MPs to respond to revelations officers used IDs of children

John Dines, an undercover police sergeant, as he appeared in the early 1980s when he posed as John Barker, a protester against capitalism. Dines’s alternative identity used that of a child who had died. Photograph: Guardian

A senior police chief has been summoned to parliament to explain why police secretly authorised undercover officers to steal the identities of around 80 dead children.

Pat Gallan, the Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the complaints department, will respond to the revelations at a parliamentary committee hearing on Tuesday.

An investigation by the Guardian has revealed that police infiltrating protest groups have for three decades adopted the identities of dead children, without informing or consulting their parents.

Two undercover officers have provided a detailed account of how they and others used the identities of dead children.

Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee has said he is “shocked” at the “gruesome” practice.

“The committee will hear from those who have been involved in undercover operations as well as their victims,” he said. “I have asked the deputy assistant commissioner Pat Gallan to deal with the issues that have arisen.”

Gallan is head of the Met’s department for professional standards.

The Guardian has established how police officers were equipped with fabricated identity records, such as driving licences and national insurance numbers, in the name of their chosen dead child. They also visited the family home of the dead child to familiarise themselves with the surroundings and conducted research into other family members.

Scotland Yard has already announced an investigation into the controversy. It said it had received one complaint – believed to be a reference to a suspected police officer who was undercover in 2003 – and said it could “appreciate the concerns that have been raised”. The force said that the practice of using the identities of dead children is not currently authorised.

The operation is known to have been orchestrated by the Special Demonstration Squad, a secretive Met unit disbanded in 2008. Dozens of SDS officers are believed to have searched through birth and death certificates to find a child who had died young and would be a suitable match for their alias.

The officers then adopted the entire identity of the child as if the child had never died. One police officer has said the process was like “resurrecting” a dead person’s identity.

The disclosure comes after two years of revelations concerning undercover police officers having sexual relationships with women they are spying on. Eleven women are currently bringing legal action against the Met for damages.

Vaz said: “The activities of undercover police officers caused disbelief when they were revealed in 2011. These revelations [about the use of dead children’s identities] are shocking. I congratulate the Guardian on their investigation. To have used the identities of dead children without the knowledge or consent of their parents astonishes me. It sounds gruesome. ”

…

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 February 2013 12.36 GMT

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Police ‘stole identities of dead children’ to give undercover officers new identities

The Metropolitan Police covertly stole the identities of about 80 dead children for use in operations by undercover police officers, according to a new investigation.

The practice, condemned as “gruesome” by Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, carried on for three decades as a means for police to infiltrate anti-racist, anti-capitalist and far-right protest groups. Officers obtained passports, driving licences and national insurance numbers under their new identities.

…

Tim Hume
Monday, 4 February 2013

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© independent.co.uk

Police spies stole identities of dead children

Exclusive: Undercover officers created aliases based on details found in birth and death records, Guardian investigation reveals

John Dines, an undercover police sergeant, as he appeared in the early 1990s when he posed as John Barker, a protester against capitalism

Britain’s largest police force stole the identities of an estimated 80 dead children and issued fake passports in their names for use by undercover police officers.

The Metropolitan police secretly authorised the practice for covert officers infiltrating protest groups without consulting or informing the children’s parents.

The details are revealed in an investigation by the Guardian, which has established how over three decades generations of police officers trawled through national birth and death records in search of suitable matches.

Undercover officers created aliases based on the details of the dead children and were issued with accompanying identity records such as driving licences and national insurance numbers. Some of the police officers spent up to 10 years pretending to be people who had died.

The Met said the practice was not “currently” authorised, but announced an investigation into “past arrangements for undercover identities used by SDS [Special Demonstration Squad] officers”.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of parliament’s home affairs select committee, said he was shocked at the “gruesome” practice. “It will only cause enormous distress to families who will discover what has happened concerning the identities of their dead children,” he said. “This is absolutely shocking.”

The technique of using dead children as aliases has remained classified intelligence for several decades, although it was fictionalised in Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal. As a result, police have internally nicknamed the process of searching for suitable identities as the “jackal run”. One former undercover agent compared an operation on which he was deployed to the methods used by the Stasi.

Two undercover officers have provided a detailed account of how they and others used the identities of dead children. One, who adopted the fake persona of Pete Black while undercover in anti-racist groups, said he felt he was “stomping on the grave” of the four-year-old boy whose identity he used.

“A part of me was thinking about how I would feel if someone was taking the names and details of my dead son for something like this,” he said. The Guardian has chosen not to identify Black by his real name.

The other officer, who adopted the identity of a child who died in a car crash, said he was conscious the parents would “still be grief-stricken”. He spoke on the condition of anonymity and argued his actions could be justified because they were for the “greater good”.

Both officers worked for a secretive unit called the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), which was disbanded in 2008.

A third undercover police officer in the SDS who adopted the identity of a dead child can be named as John Dines, a sergeant. He adopted the identity of an eight-year-old boy named John Barker, who died in 1968 from leukaemia. The Met said in a statement: “We are not prepared to confirm nor deny the deployment of individuals on specific operations.”

The force added: “A formal complaint has been received which is being investigated by the DPS [Directorate for Professional Standards] and we appreciate the concerns that have been raised. The DPS inquiry is taking place in conjunction with Operation Herne’s investigation into the wider issue of past arrangements for undercover identities used by SDS officers. We can confirm that the practice referred to in the complaint is not something that would currently be authorised in the [Met police].”

There is a suggestion that the practice of using dead infant identities may have been stopped in the mid-1990s, when death records were digitised. However, the case being investigated by the Met relates to a suspected undercover police officer who may have used a dead child’s identity in 2003.

The practice was introduced 40 years ago by police to lend credibility to the backstory of covert operatives spying on protesters, and to guard against the possibility that campaigners would discover their true identities.

Since then dozens of SDS officers, including those who posed as anti-capitalists, animal rights activists and violent far-right campaigners, have used the identities of dead children.

One document seen by the Guardian indicates that around 80 police officers used such identities between 1968 and 1994. The total number could be higher.

Black said he always felt guilty when celebrating the birthday of the four-year-old whose identity he took. He was particularly aware that somewhere the parents of the boy would be “thinking about their son and missing him”. “I used to get this really odd feeling,” he said.

To fully immerse himself in the adopted identity and appear convincing when speaking about his upbringing, Black visited the child’s home town to familiarise himself with the surroundings.

Black, who was undercover in the 1990s, said his operation was “almost Stasi-like”. He said SDS officers visited the house they were supposed to have been born in so they would have a memory of the building.

“It’s those little details that really matter – the weird smell coming out of the drain that’s been broken for years, the location of the corner Post Office, the number of the bus you get to go from one place to another,” he said.

The second SDS officer said he believed the use of the harvested identities was for the “greater good”. But he was also aware that the parents had not been consulted. “There were dilemmas that went through my head,” he said.

The case of the third officer, John Dines, reveals the risks posed to families who were unaware that their children’s identities were being used by undercover police.

During his covert deployment, Dines had a two-year relationship with a female activist before disappearing from her life. In an attempt to track down her disappeared boyfriend, the woman discovered the birth certificate of John Barker and tried to track down his family, unaware that she was actually searching for a dead child.

She said she was relieved that she never managed to find the parents of the dead boy. “It would have been horrendous,” she said. “It would have completely freaked them out to have someone asking after a child who died 24 years earlier.”

The disclosure about the use of the identities of dead children is likely to reignite the controversy over undercover police infiltration of protest groups. Fifteen separate inquiries have already been launched since 2011, when Mark Kennedy was unmasked as a police spy who had slept with several women, including one who was his girlfriend for six years.

…

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Sunday 3 February 2013 19.13 GMT

Find this story at 3 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Nestlégate: success in civil lawsuit against NESTLÉ and SECURITAS

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3.000 Swiss francs (3.238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27.000 Swiss francs – 29.145 US dollars).

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3.000 Swiss francs (3.238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27.000 Swiss francs – 29.145 US dollars).

Both a criminal and a civil case were filed after Swiss television revealed on 12 June 2008 that an ATTAC workgroup in Canton Vaud, which was preparing a book on NESTLE’s policies («Attac contre l’empire NESTLE», 2004), had been infiltrated and spied on by a SECURITAS employee on behalf of NESTLE. The woman had joined the ATTAC workgroup in 2003 under the false name of “Sara Meylan”, had attended private meetings (sometimes at the members’ homes), gathered confidential information and prepared detailed reports on the authors as well as on third parties for NESTLE. On September 26th, 2008, ATTAC discovered and denounced to the examining magistrate another SECURITAS spy, who was still active in ATTAC in 2008 under her real name.

The criminal proceedings were dropped on July 29th, 2009. The investigating judge mainly relied on the statements made by NESTLE and SECURITAS AG and found that the only infringement that may constitute an offense – a violation of the federal law of data protection – falls under the three-year statute of limitation. We regret the superficial investigation conducted during this criminal investigation, which Alec Feuz has well documented in his book « Affaire classée».

We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities. Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.

Through a general increase of espionage and spying activities, basic democratic rights like the freedom of opinion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly are called into question. The activities of NGOs, trade unions and critical political organizations are limited by private corporations, which perceive non-violent campaigns and action from civil society as a threat to their commercial interests. These transnational corporations thus try to reduce basic democratic rights and often profit from the fact that the State turns a blind eye to these infringements.

It is important to be able to fight for a just and egalitarian society, to oppose injustice around the world by means of free and independent research into the dealings of transnational corporations, without being surveyed or spied on.

Find this story at 28 January 2013

Chocolade spionnen

De Zwitserse afdeling van Attac heeft op 20 juni 2008 de autoriteiten van het Kanton Vaud, Zwitserland, gevraagd om de infiltratie van Attac door de multinational Nestlé te onderzoeken. Nestlé is het bedrijf van onder andere KitKat, After Eight, Bros en Nespresso. Acteur en regisseur George Clooney is de belichaming van het hippe kopje koffie. Attac heeft een aanklacht ingediend tegen een onbekende persoon wegens schending van de persoonlijke levenssfeer van de auteurs van het kritische boek over Nestlé: ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ (Nestlé – Anatomie van een multinational) en van de overtreding van wetgeving ter bescherming van persoonsgegevens. Volgens Attac, een wereldwijde organisatie die het economische systeem wil veranderen met onder andere de slogan ‘de wereld is niet te koop’, vond de infiltratie plaats van september 2003 tot en met juni 2004. Nestlé lijkt met de infiltratie geprobeerd te hebben op de hoogte te blijven van het onderzoek van Attac naar de betrokkenheid van Nestlé bij genetisch gemanipuleerde gewassen, de privatisering van water en de behandeling van de vakbonden door het bedrijf.

Het zal geen verbazing wekken dat in de aanloop naar en tijdens de G8 in Evian, Zwitserland, in de zomer van 2003, infiltraties in organisaties van anti globalisten door politie en bedrijfsleven plaatsvonden. Zo geeft de politie van Waadtland in een uitzending van het televisieprogramma Temps Présent toe dat zij op de hoogte waren van infiltratiepogingen door het private recherchebureau Securitas AG (Zwitserland) in allerlei solidariteitsgroepen. Of Nestlé ook daadwerkelijk de opdracht heeft gegeven blijft een misterie. Securitas AG zou ook de infiltratie in Attac hebben uitgevoerd. Deze begon echter pas na de G8 top in Evian. Securitas AG is overigens niet onderdeel van het internationale bedrijf Sercuritas waartoe het Nederlandse bedrijf met dezelfde naam behoort.

Securitas AG zou een vrouw, met de schuilnaam ‘Sara Meylan’, hebben ingehuurd om deel te nemen aan de redactievergaderingen voor het boek ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ (Nestlé – Anatomie van een multinational). Het boek is uiteindelijk in 2005 verschenen. ‘Sara Meylan’ meldde zich in de lente van 2003 en deed mee aan de protesten tegen de G8 voordat ze in het schrijversteam infiltreerde. In de uitzending van Temps Présent van 12 juni 2008 willen beide bedrijven niet op de concrete beschuldigingen van het televisieprogramma ingaan. Nestlé gaf wel in een verklaring aan dat zij Securitas AG had ingehuurd voor de beveiliging van haar staf en faciliteiten tijdens de G8. Het bedrijf verwachtte een confrontatie met de demonstranten. Securitas AG baas, Reto Casutt, gaf toe dat medewerkers van het bedrijf onder valse naam aan bijeenkomsten van verschillende solidariteitsorganisaties hebben deelgenomen. Hij noemt het zelf ‘niet sympathiek’, maar ook ‘niet verboden.’ Een maand later beweerde Casutt dat de omstandigheden van de G8 top in Evian te vergelijken waren met militaire omstandigheden en dat de inzet van de agent voor hun cliënt Nestlé slechts noodweer was. Securitas AG moest een informatievoorsprong hebben in verband met toekomstige acties. Casutt voelde zich gedwongen om te reageren op de negatieve berichten in de media.
‘Sara Meylan’ had maandenlang aan het boek van Attac meegewerkt en was na de publicatie spoorloos verdwenen. In e-mails aan de schrijvers meldde de agente dat ze het ‘super vond wat ze deden.’ Of ze veel aan het onderzoek en het boek heeft bijgedragen valt te betwijfelen. Zij deed niet mee aan discussies en kwam op de vergaderingen vaak laat en ging eerder weg. Wel kwam ze te weten met wie Attac contact onderhield in bijvoorbeeld Colombia waar Nestlé de vakbonden niet in haar fabrieken toelaat. Toen de publicatiedatum naderde begon ze afstand te nemen en wilde niet op de foto. Plotseling was ze toen verdwenen en onbereikbaar.

De agente van Nestlé werkte een jaar mee aan het boek. Ze kwam bij de zeven onderzoekers over de vloer, las de verschillende proefdrukken en hoorde de namen van de mensen die Attac van munitie voorzagen tegen het Zwitserse bedrijf. Volgens Jean-Philipp Ceppi van het televisieprogramma Temps Présent dat het nieuws in juni 2008 bracht, vond er een ontmoeting plaats tussen de agente ‘Sara Meylan’ en haar ‘runner’ (coach/begeleider) van Securitas AG en het hoofd beveiliging en het hoofd van de communicatie afdeling van Nestlé in maart 2004. Volgens Ceppi duidt dit erop dat het voor Nestlé een zaak was van veiligheid en van beeldvorming. Volgens hem zou dit verklaren waarom de infiltratie van Attac pas na de G8 top in Evian begon, want enige relatie tussen de redactievergaderingen van Attac voor het boek en de protesten tegen de G8 in Evian was er niet.

Nestlé heeft al een imago van een brute Zwitserse chocoladebeer, maar het bespioneren van een onderzoeksgroep die een boek over het concern schreef, lijkt iedereen te ver gaan. Naar aanleiding van de televisie uitzending schreef de privacy waakhond van Zwitserland Schweizer Datenschutz Securitas AG aan over de activiteiten van het beveiligingsbedrijf voor en tijdens de G8. “Nestlé geeft aan maatregelen te hebben getroffen voor de veiligheid van personen en faciliteiten met het oog op een eventuele terroristische aanslag tijdens de G8. De strijd tegen het terrorisme is echter een staatsaangelegenheid en niet een zaak van een privéonderneming,” vertelde woordvoerder Kosmas Tsiraktsopulos de SDA nieuwsdienst. Over de spionage van de schrijversgroep van Attac merkt hij op dat het om een “problematisch geval” gaat.

Niet alleen de privacy waakhond is verbolgen over het optreden van Securitas AG en Nestlé. Ook de VSPB, de vakbond van Zwitsers politiepersoneel, haalde hard uit naar Securitas AG. De vakbond vraagt zich in een schrijven af of Securitas AG wel een acceptabele partner voor de politie kan zijn. De politie heeft echter zelf ook geen schone handen. Terwijl in de uitzending van Temps Présent de politie aangeeft op de hoogte te zijn geweest van de activiteiten van Securitas AG in de aanloop en tijdens de G8 top, verklaarde een week later de veiligheidscoördinator van het kanton Waadt, Jacqueline de Quattro, dat de politie op de hoogte was van de infiltratie van een vrouwelijke medewerker van Securitas AG in Attac. Enkele maanden later wordt duidelijk dat de Dienst für Analyse und Prävention (DAP), de dienst voor analyse en preventie, in 2003 rond de G8 top bij toeval op de infiltratiepoging was gestoten. De baas van de DAP heeft toen aan de directie van Securitas AG gemeld dat de infiltratie problematisch was.

Op 23 juli 2008 zag Nestlé zich genoodzaakt na een hoorzitting een verklaring af te leggen over haar samenwerking met Securitas AG rond de G8 en Attac. Hans Peter Frick stelde dat Nestlé in de toekomst zulke maatregelen niet uitsluit. Aanleiding voor het opereren van Nestlé en Securitas AG rond de G8 top was een manifestatie op 28 maart 2003 bij het hoofdkantoor van Nestlé. Bij die manifestatie was ook José Bové aanwezig, de Franse boer die tegen de globalisering ten strijde trekt. Attac nam ook deel aan de manifestatie. Tussen de honder en vier honderd boeren uit verschillende landen wilden het hoofdkantoor van Nestlé binnendringen. Het liep enigszins uit de hand volgens Nestlé. Er sneuvelde een ruit van een voordeur en er werden leuzen op de ramen geschilderd. De politie verhinderde dat de demonstranten het hoofdkantoor betraden en de actie duurde niet lang. Frick vond dat deze manifestatie genoeg reden was om hardere maatregelen rond de G8 top te nemen. Blijkbaar was het bedrijf bang dat de media de verkeerde conclusie zou trekken uit de opmerking dat het bedrijf ook in de toekomst zulke maatregelen zou treffen. Het concern liet enkele uren later een woordvoerder duidelijk maken dat Frick niet de infiltraties voor ogen had bij zijn opmerking. Volgens hem behoort infiltratie niet tot de standaardoperaties van het bedrijf, maar het bedrijf sluit infiltratiepogingen echter ook niet uit.

In dezelfde verklaring legde Frick de verantwoordelijkheid voor het optreden van ‘Sara Meylan’ bij Securitas AG. Het beveiligingsbedrijf was met het idee gekomen en Frick had slechts zijn fiat gegeven. Tijdens de hoorzitting van 23 juli 2008 speelden beide partijen een slim spel. Nestlé bezat een dossier van 77 pagina’s over de opdracht aan Securitas AG. Securitas AG zelf had geen enkele documentatie met betrekking tot de zaak aangezien zij alle stukken aan het levensmiddelenbedrijf hadden overlegd. De advocaat van Nestlé stelde dat het dossier bestond uit alle stukken die de beveiligingsafdeling van het bedrijf van Securitas AG medewerkster ‘Sara Meylan’ heeft gekregen van september 2003 tot en met mei 2004. Attac liet het daarbij niet zitten en vorderde alle documenten. Volgens de organisatie zaten in het dossier van Nestlé niet de belangrijke stukken. Vooral het eindrapport van ‘Sara Meylan’ ontbreekt volgens Attac. Dit rapport moet volgens Attac aantonen dat de persoonlijke levenssfeer van de schrijvers van ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ is geschonden. Op 15 augustus 2008 wees de rechtbank van Lausanne deze vordering af, daarmee ook een schadevergoeding. De rechtbank oordeelde dat de documenten die beide bedrijven op tafel hadden gelegd voldoende waren.

Op de dag van de uitspraak van de rechtbank in Lausanne zag Peter Brabeck, voorzitter van de raad van commissarissen van Nestlé, zich genoodzaakt te reageren op alle beschuldigingen aan zijn bedrijf. Hij onderstreepte nogmaals dat het initiatief voor de infiltratie niet van Nestlé was gekomen, maar van Securitas AG. ‘Als iemand mij vertelt dat wij een infiltratiepoging gaan uitvoeren, dan zal ik de nodige maatregelen nemen, want dit is niet in overeenstemming met ons beleid,’ vertelde Brabeck Radio RSR. Wat het beleid van Nestlé precies is wordt door de afgewezen vordering niet duidelijk, maar dat Nestlé de laatste jaren flink onder vuur ligt is wel duidelijk.

Vooral de activiteiten van het bedrijf in Colombia zijn een punt van kritiek. En in 2003 startte de Verein Multiwatch de voorbereidingen voor een hoorzitting van de Colombiaanse vakbonden over Nestlé. De hoorzitting vond op 29 oktober 2005 plaats, maar voordien vond er een inbraak in het kantoor van Multiwatch plaats waarbij geen waardevolle artikelen werden ontvreemd. Ook werd een van de vakbondsmensen vlak voor vertrek naar Zwitserland om deel te nemen aan de hoorzitting, vermoord. Beide gebeurtenissen kunnen toeval zijn en niets met Nestlé te maken hebben. Een inbraak kan altijd plaatsvinden en in Colombia zijn moordaanslagen eerder regel dan uitzondering.

De hypothese van Jean-Philipp Ceppi van Temps Présent dat Nestlé aan contra spionage doet om imagoschade af te wenden, is echter niet geheel onlogisch. Bij de voorbereidingen voor de hoorzitting over Nestlé in Colombia door Multiwatch zag het bedrijf zich genoodzaakt geregeld te reageren op de mogelijke beschuldigingen. Nestlé vond de beschuldigingen of uit de duim gezogen of getuigen van een gebrek aan kennis over de Colombiaanse situatie.

De kou lijkt echter niet uit de lucht voor Nestlé. Mensenrechtenactiviste Marianne Aeberhard nam deel aan twee conferentie in Freiburg en Vevey waar ook Colombiaanse vakbondsleden spraken. Aeberhard was niet een van de auteurs van het boek van Attac. Op grond van de Zwitserse wet op de bescherming van persoonsgegevens eiste zij van Nestlé de documenten die op haar betrekking hebben. De agente ‘Sara Meylan’ had namelijk over beide bijeenkomsten gerapporteerd. Nestlé weigerde Aeberhard de informatie zonder opgaaf van reden, wat er op zou kunnen duiden dat Attac toch gelijk heeft dat het dossier dat bij Nestlé ligt dikker is dan 77 pagina’s. Ook van Franklin Frederick, een activist in Brazilië, zijn e-mails door ‘Sara Meylan’ onderschept ten behoeve van het snuffelen voor Securitas AG. Frederick is vooral interessant gezien zijn rol in de strijd tegen de privatisering van water in Brazilië. Hij is erg succesvol en onderhoudt contacten met zowel kerkelijke als niet kerkelijke organisaties in Zwitserland en Brazilië in de strijd tegen de privatisering.

De rol die Securitas AG speelt is er een van informatiemakelaar. Het bedrijf zegt de volledige verantwoordelijkheid voor de infiltratiepoging te dragen. De agente was echter niet alleen geïnteresseerd in de schrijversgroep, maar bezocht ook bijeenkomsten van andere Attacleden en fora van andere organisaties over de activiteiten van Nestlé in Latijns Amerika.

En niet alleen Attac had last van een agente, ook de Gruppe Anti-Repression (GAR) uit Lausanne maakte gewag van een informante. GAR komt op voor het demonstratierecht en is een politieklachtenbureau. Op 8 september 2008 rapporteerde het programma ‘Mise au Point’ over de infiltratie van GAR. Ook GAR diende een klacht in tegen een onbekende persoon in verband met schending van de persoonlijke levenssfeer. Het zou gaan om de agente met de schuilnaam ‘Shanti Muller’. Zij was werkzaam voor Securitas AG en zij was tussen 2003 en 2005 actief binnen de anti-repressiegroep en andere alternatieve groepen zoals organisaties die zich verzetten tegen het Wereld Economisch Forum in Davos. Ook de dierenrechtenorganisatie LausAnimaliste stond op het lijstje van Muller. Ze zou tot in 2008 betrokken zijn geweest bij de organisatie. Het bedrijf zou informatie aan de politie hebben doorgespeeld. In wiens opdracht ‘Shanti Muller’ infiltreerde is nog niet bekend. ‘Muller’ had haar identiteit wel verder uitgebouwd. Ze zou de dochter van een Franse ontwikkelingswerker in Djibouti zijn en zelf 20 jaar in India met straatkinderen en Lepra slachtoffers hebben gewerkt. In de zomer van 2005 verdween ze plotseling, net als ‘Sara Maylan’ Attac plotseling Attac de rug toekeerde. ‘Muller’ gaf wel een reden aan voor haar vertrek. Ze zou haar ernstig zieke moeder in Frankrijk moeten verzorgen.

Om aan alle speculaties over de betrokkenheid van de politie bij de infiltratie pogingen te ontzenuwen was een oud rechter, François Jomini, aangesteld om de rol van de politie te onderzoeken. Zijn conclusie was simpel. De politie heeft geen privébedrijf ingehuurd om te spioneren en de informatie is ook niet bij de politie terechtgekomen. Het onderzoek van Jomini maakte in ieder geval duidelijk dat de politie wel degelijk op de hoogte was van de infiltratie. Tijdens de G8 top was er een speciale politie-eenheid die de informatiestromen coördineerde. Tijdens een bijeenkomst met het hoofd beveiliging van Nestlé is de politie ingelicht over de infiltratie van groepen die zich tegen de globalisering te weer stellen door Securitas AG. Volgens Jomini is de politie niet verteld over welke organisaties het precies gaat en over de infiltratie na de G8 wist de politie in het geheel niets. Of toch wel, want de DAP, dienst voor analyse en preventie van de politie, was op ‘Shanti’ gestoten en had Securitas AG op de vingers getikt. Of niet? Jomini schrijft in zijn rapport dat de politie de informatie over de infiltraties via de media moest vernemen. Dan blijft het wel vreemd dat Securitas AG na 2003 informatie over organisaties die kritisch staan tegenover globalisering aan de politie probeerde te verkopen. De politie ontkent dit weer niet. Volgens Securitas AG heeft zij in de herfst van 2005 de eenheid die verantwoordelijk is voor de infiltraties opgeheven. Deze beëindiging zou samenhangen met opmerkingen van de politie dat deze activiteiten niet behoren tot de taken van particuliere beveiligingsbedrijven.

En dan duikt plotseling in november 2008 de naam van een derde agente van Securitas AG op. ‘Le Matin Blue’, zoals haar schuilnaam luidt, zou ook in opdracht van Nestlé in Attac zijn geïnfiltreerd. Zij schreef rond de tien rapporten voor Securitas AG en Nestlé over Attac. Securitas AG weerspreekt het verhaal niet, maar verweert zich door te stellen dat de vrouw onder haar eigen naam aan openbare bijeenkomsten van de organisatie heeft deelgenomen. De derde infiltrant lijkt de publieke verontwaardiging te hebben aangewakkerd. Op 28 november 2008 ondertekenden 76 prominenten een manifest dat Nestlé en Securitas AG oproepen op te houden met het besnuffelen van mensen die gebruik maken van het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting. De autoriteiten worden opgeroepen het Nestlé Securitas AG schandaal grondig te onderzoeken.

Find this story at 20 January 2009

 

Nestlé Found Guilty of Spying on Swiss Activists

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, has been found guilty of spying on Swiss activists in 2003 with the help of Securitas, a private security company. Jean-Luc Genillard, president of the Lausanne civil court, told the two companies to pay 3,000 Swiss Francs ($3,267.55) to each of nine victims.

Vevey, Switzerland, based Nestlé sells $91 billion worth of products a year such as Nescafé coffee, KitKat chocolates and Maggi noodles. The company has frequently been criticized for marketing baby food in poor countries in violation of a 1981 World Health Organization code that regulates the advertising of breast milk substitutes. It has also come under fire from Greenpeace for using palm oil grown on deforested land in Borneo and buying cocoa beans from plantations that used child labor in Cote d’Ivoire in a film entitled “The Dark Side of Chocolate.”

In 2003, a group of activists with the Association pour la Taxation des Transactions pour l’Aide aux Citoyens (ATTAC) in Vaud, Switzerland, started working on a book on the global policies of Nestlé. A Securitas employee infiltrated the group under a false name (Sara Meyland) in order to attend the ATTAC meetings about the planned book.

In June 2008, Temps Présent, a Swiss TV program, revealed that the Securitas agent had briefed Nestlé security personnel as well as corporate communications staff about the meetings that she attended including ones held in private homes. Securitas also provided this information to the local police.

ATTAC members sued Nestlé after the news report was aired. “We are revolted by this practice, which overturns the principles of freedom of expression and basic democratic rights,” a press release from the group stated. “We condemn the role played by Securitas. This private security company, whose activities traditionally consist of guarding buildings and car parks, accepted a contract to spy on a group of people who in no way represented a threat or a danger, except for the fact that the results of their research activities could not be controlled by the transnational Nestlé.”

In recent years Nestlé has started to respond directly to some complaints of activist groups like Greenpeace, according to the Financial Times. “For a company like ours to prosper over the long term we have to create value for the communities in which we operate,” Janet Voûte, Nestlé’s global head of public affairs, told the newspaper. “And we fundamentally believe we cannot create shared value – not just for shareholders but for society – alone.”

Despite the new public relations strategy to contain activists, the company has been unable to quash the Vaud group. Although ATTAC dropped a criminal case against the two companies in 2009, it continued to press a civil claim in Lausanne courts which it dubbed “Nestlégate.”

“We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities,” ATTAC said in a press release issued after the judge ruled against the companies last week. “Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.”

Nestlé reacted to the court ruling “with disappointment” although it added that “incitement to infiltration is against Nestlé’s corporate business principles.”

by Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch Blog
January 30th, 2013

Find this story at 30 January 2013

Nestlegate: Successful civil lawsuit against NESTLE and SECURITAS

Press release issued by ATTAC Switzerland, 26 January 2013

(English translation provided by ATTAC Switzerland – click here for German version)

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3,000 Swiss francs (3,238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27,000 Swiss francs = 29,145 US dollars = 18,570 pounds sterling).

Both a criminal and a civil case were filed after Swiss television revealed on 12 June 2008 that an Attac workgroup in Canton Vaud, which was preparing a book on Nestle’s policies («Attac contre l’empire Nestle», 2004), had been infiltrated and spied on by a Securitas employee on behalf of Nestle. The woman had joined the Attac workgroup in 2003 under the false name of “Sara Meylan”, had attended private meetings (sometimes at the members’ homes), gathered confidential information and prepared detailed reports on the authors as well as on third parties for Nestle. On September 26th, 2008, Attac discovered and denounced to the examining magistrate another Securitas spy, who was still active in Attac in 2008 under her real name.

The criminal proceedings were dropped on July 29th, 2009. The investigating judge mainly relied on the statements made by Nestle and Securitas AG and found that the only infringement that may constitute an offense – a violation of the federal law of data protection – falls under the three-year statute of limitation. We regret the superficial investigation conducted during this criminal investigation, which Alec Feuz has well documented in his book « Affaire classée».

We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities. Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.

Through a general increase of espionage and spying activities, basic democratic rights like the freedom of opinion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly are called into question. The activities of NGOs, trade unions and critical political organizations are limited by private corporations, which perceive non-violent campaigns and action from civil society as a threat to their commercial interests. These transnational corporations thus try to reduce basic democratic rights and often profit from the fact that the State turns a blind eye to these infringements.

It is important to be able to fight for a just and egalitarian society, to oppose injustice around the world by means of free and independent research into the dealings of transnational corporations, without being surveyed or spied on.

Find this story at 26 January 2013

Nestlégate; Nestlé in court for surveillance of ATTAC

On 24 and 25 January 2012, the multinational food-industry corporation Nestlé and the Swiss private security firm Securitas were in court in Lausanne, Switzerland, defending themselves against a civil suit for spying on the “anti-globalization” movement ATTAC. This trial, which has been delayed for a long time, has finally lift the veil of secrecy that has been draped over this spying scandal.

Nestlé and Securitas are accused of illegal surveillance and violations of privacy of ATTAC and its members. The charges were filed after Télévision Suisse Romande revealed on 12 June 2008 that a group of ATTAC members in Canton Vaud, who were working on a book on Nestlé’s policies, had been infiltrated and spied on by a Securitas employee on behalf of Nestlé. The woman joined the ATTAC group in 2003 under the false name “Sara Meylan”, attended working meetings (sometimes in the homes of members), and prepared detailed reports on them for Nestlé. As a member of the group, she had access to internal information, and to all the research by the authors, and to their sources and contacts, both in Switzerland and abroad.

On 26 September 2008, the plaintiffs denounced to the examining magistrate another Securitas spy, who was still active in ATTAC in 2008 under her real name. Nestlé and Securitas had claimed initially that the spying had been ended with the departure of “Sara Meylan” in June 2004. When this second secret agent was discovered, the companies said that this agent had not written any more confidential reports for Securitas and Nestlé since 2005.

The criminal proceedings were dropped on 29 July 2009 after a faulty investigation. The Canton examining magistrate at the time accepted the statements by Nestlé and Securitas and gave as one reason for dismissing the case the three-year statute of limitation of the Data Privacy Act – although the second Nestlé-Securitas agent had still been active in ATTAC in 2008!

Find this story at 24 January 2013

Agentenprozess in Stuttgart; Das geheime Leben von “Pit” und “Tina”

Mehr als 20 Jahre lang sollen zwei russische Agenten in Deutschland gelebt haben: Sie nannten sich Andreas und Heidrun Anschlag, studierten, arbeiteten, heirateten, bekamen eine Tochter und spitzelten wohl durchweg für Moskau. Wie geht das?

Kann es richtiges Leben geben in einem falschen? Welche Regungen sind echt, welche Entscheidungen aufrichtig, welche Handlungen gehören einem selbst? In dem Moment, als in Saal 18 des Stuttgarter Oberlandesgericht die Geburtsurkunde ihrer Tochter verlesen wird, bricht die Frau, die sich Heidrun Anschlag nennt, in Tränen aus. Sie presst ein Taschentuch vor das Gesicht und schluchzt hinein. Der Mann, den sie vor 22 Jahren im österreichischen Altaussee geheiratet hat und der sich Andreas Anschlag rufen lässt, schaut ausdruckslos ins Leere.

Die Eheleute heißen in Wirklichkeit anders, kolportiert werden die Namen Sascha und Olga, doch bestätigt sind auch die nicht. Festzustehen scheint jedoch, dass die beiden russische Staatsangehörige sind und vor mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten als Spitzel des KGB in die Bundesrepublik entsandt wurden. Später spionierten sie dann wohl für dessen Nachfolgeorganisation SWR, im Herbst 2011 flogen sie auf. Die Bundesanwaltschaft hat die Anschlags daher unter anderem wegen geheimdienstlicher Agententätigkeit angeklagt, ihnen drohen im Falle einer Verurteilung bis zu zehn Jahre Gefängnis.

Mit Handschellen gefesselt wird Andreas Anschlag in den Raum geführt. Die Haare des mutmaßlichen Agenten sind kurz und grau, sein Gesicht ist fahl. Den offenkundig falschen österreichischen Personalpapieren zufolge ist der Mann 1,80 Meter groß, 53 Jahre alt und wurde im argentinischen Valentin Alsina geboren. Anschlag trägt einen schwarzen Pullunder, ein schwarzes Hemd und Jeans.

Auch seine Frau ist eine unauffällige Person, 1,60 Meter groß, blonde Haare, orangefarbener Pullover zu hellblauer Jeans. Ihre Legende besagt, sie sei im peruanischen Lima geboren und inzwischen 47 Jahre alt. Während ihr Mann in Aachen Maschinenbau studierte und später als Diplomingenieur bei verschiedenen Automobilzulieferern arbeitete, war Heidrun Anschlag nach außen vor allem Hausfrau. Sie kümmerte sich um die gemeinsame Tochter.

Im Unterschied zu Spionen, die als Diplomaten in ihre Einsatzgebiete reisen, arbeiten mutmaßliche Agenten wie Heidrun und Andreas Anschlag nicht im Schutz der Botschaften. Diplomaten droht im schlimmsten Fall die Ausweisung – allen anderen eine langjährige Haftstrafe. Aufgrund des hohen Risikos werden sie in russischen Geheimdienstkreisen als “Wunderkinder” verehrt. Einem Staatsschützer zufolge ist mit weiteren Spähern in Deutschland zu rechnen.

Die Bundesanwälte werfen den Eheleuten vor, sie seien “hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter des russischen Auslandsnachrichtendienstes SWR”. Demnach stehe Andreas Anschlag im Rang eines Abteilungsleiters und beziehe monatlich 4300 Euro, seine Gattin sei stellvertretende Abteilungsleiterin und erhalte 4000 Euro – die Ersparnisse der Eheleute sollen sich auf etwa 600.000 Euro belaufen. Das “Ausforschungsinteresse” der Agenten mit den Decknamen “Pit” und “Tina” habe sich auf “politische, militärische und militärpolitische Aufklärungsziele” konzentriert, heißt es in der Anklageschrift. Vor allem sei es den beiden um Informationen aus Nato- und EU-Kreisen gegangen.

Botschaften in “toten Briefkästen”

Zu diesem Zweck führten die Anschlags laut Bundesanwaltschaft von Oktober 2008 bis kurz vor ihrer Festnahme im Herbst 2011 den niederländischen Diplomaten Raymond P. als Quelle. Der Beamte des Den Haager Außenministeriums, Deckname “BR”, soll in dieser Zeit mehrere hundert vertrauliche Dokumente geliefert haben und dafür mit mindestens 72.200 Euro entlohnt worden sein. Die Übergabe der Papiere erfolgte zumeist in den Niederlanden, danach deponierte Andreas Anschlag die Akten in “toten Briefkästen” im Raum Bonn, wo sie anschließend von Mitarbeitern der russischen Botschaft abgeholt wurden.

Laut Anklage handelte es sich dabei unter anderem um

einen Sitzungsbericht des Nordatlantikrates zur Zusammenarbeit der Nato mit Russland im Bereich der Raketenabwehr,

Dokumente zur Strukturreform der Nato,

Papiere zur Nato-Strategie während der Revolution in Libyen,

Berichte über den Isaf-Einsatz in Afghanistan.

Darüber hinaus besuchte Andreas Anschlag der Bundesanwaltschaft zufolge über Jahre Tagungen der Deutschen Atlantischen Gesellschaft, der Clausewitz-Gesellschaft, der Gesellschaft für Wehr- und Sicherheitspolitik sowie der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, über die er Moskau fortlaufend Bericht erstattete. Zudem wies er seine Geheimdienstkollegen auf mögliche Informanten hin, die er bei den Veranstaltungen kennenlernte. Auch seine Arbeitgeber spähte er laut Anklage nach “wissenschaftlich-technischen Informationen” aus.

Für die Kommunikation mit der Zentrale soll vor allem Heidrun Anschlag zuständig gewesen sein, so die Bundesanwälte: Sie war es, die in ihrem angemieteten, 200 Quadratmeter großen Haus im hessischen Marburg geheime Direktiven aus Moskau erhielt. Dazu nutzte sie einen Kurzwellenempfänger, der mit einem Decoder und einem Computer verbunden war. Die Rückmeldungen erfolgten über Textnachrichten, die per Satellit verschickt wurden. Auch mittels YouTube tauschte sich Heidrun Anschlag als “Alpenkuh1” mit ihren russischen Kollegen aus. Dazu nutzten die Geheimdienstler offenbar codierte Kommentare.

…

15. Januar 2013, 15:44 Uhr
Von Jörg Diehl, Stuttgart

Find this story at 15 January 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Alleged Russian spy couple in ‘Cold War’ trial

A married couple accused of spying for the Russian secret services for more than 20 years went on trial in Germany on Tuesday, in one of the biggest espionage court cases since the Cold War.
Germany charges two alleged Russian spies – National (28 Sep 12)
Russian spies suspected of stealing car secrets – National (25 Oct 11)
Suspected Russian spy pair arrested – National (22 Oct 11)

The pair, identified only by codenames Andreas and Heidrun Anschlag (which means attack in German), are said to have been planted in West Germany from 1988 by the Soviet Union’s KGB and later used by its SVR successor secret service.

The defendants declined to confirm any details about their real identities or the charges against them as the trial got underway in the higher regional court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart.

Defence lawyer Horst-Dieter Pötschke said they had Russian citizenship.

Prosecutors say one of them arrived in still divided Germany in 1988 — a year before the Berlin Wall fell — and the other in 1990, posing as Austrian citizens who had been born and grew up in South America.

According to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, light could only be shed on the final three years of their alleged activities as agents.

They had “the mission from SVR headquarters to obtain NATO and EU political and military secrets”, federal public prosecutor Wolfgang Siegmund said, adding: “Particularly also geo-strategic findings on the relationship of NATO and the EU with the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.”

Prosecutors say the couple set up a “middle-class existence” to cover up their activity for the secret services.

Andreas Anschlag studied engineering and worked in the auto industry while Heidrun was a housewife. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly, even their own daughter had no idea about their double lives.

The couple allegedly passed on documents they obtained from a Dutch official in the foreign ministry between 2008 and 2011.

The court heard that the official, Raymond Valentino Poeteray, obtained several hundred pages of classified, partly secret documents from different Dutch embassies and received more than €72,000 for his efforts.

The accused left the documents in “dead-letter boxes”, for example under certain trees, from where they were picked up by employees of the Russian consulate general in the western city of Bonn, according to the federal prosecutor.

Heidrun Anschlag was responsible for communicating with the SVR via short-wave radio, the court heard.

The pair, who were allegedly jointly paid around €100,000 a year, communicated with their Moscow masters using text messages, satellite phones and hidden messages in comments in YouTube videos under agreed names, it heard.

In mid-2011, Siegmund said the pair had received orders to withdraw from Germany because of the risk of being exposed and were preparing to do so when they were arrested in October of that year.

They face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty.

On the sidelines of the trial, defence lawyer Pötschke said the documents in question were “of average quality” and “so, no so-called grave damage occurred” to Germany.

…

Published: 15 Jan 13 11:25 CET | Print version
Updated: 15 Jan 13 15:58 CET

Find this story at 15 January 2013

© The Local Europe GmbHc

Court tries couple in suburban spy thriller

A spectacular trial has begun at a Stuttgart court involving a German-based couple accused of spying on NATO and the EU for decades on Russia’s behalf. Neighbors say they knew something was fishy.

It reads like a John le Carre novel: “dead mail boxes,” secret radio signals, encrypted messages hidden in plain sight on the Internet.

According to accusations, a married couple has been spying in Germany for more than 20 years – first at the behest of the Soviet Union and thereafter for its post-Soviet incarnation, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.

On Tuesday (15.01.2013) the trial against 54-year-old Andreas Anschlag and his 48-year-old wife, Heidrun, opened up in Stuttgart. Federal prosecutors accused them of “secret agent activity” and of “forgery of documents.”
The former KGB building is today’s Foreign Intelligence headquarters

As to whether those are the real names of the accused, however, there is reason to doubt. In an interview with DW, the couples’ defense lawyer, Horst-Dieter Pötschke, did not deny that “Anschlag” might not be the true surname of the suspected agent pair. He also responded evasively to questions about the accusations themselves. What the Munich lawyer did say, however, is that the potential ten-year sentence is nothing short of excessive.

In cases of espionage, Pötschke is on familiar ground. In the 70s and 80s he defended former agents who had fled the Soviet KGB or the East German state security apparatus, the Stasi. One of his most well-known cases involved Günter Guillaume, a speaker for former German Chancellor Willy Brandt who also turned out to be an East German spy. When Guillaume’s true identity was revealed in 1974, Chancellor Brandt resigned.

A discrete life

The history of the purported agent couple begins at a time when the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War was still cold. According to accusations, Andreas Anschlag traveled to West Germany in 1988 with the help of a forged Austrian passport. His wife did the same in 1990. Both were supposed to have been born in South America. The two settled in Aachen, close to the western border with Belgium, where Mr. Anschlag studied mechanical engineering.

With the birth of a daughter their German disguise was complete. The couple moved to a popular neighborhood of Meckenheim, a small town of 24,000 inhabitants close to the former West German capital of Bonn. There they lived discreetly. Neighbors describe them as friendly, if a bit distant.
The house in Michelbach in which the accused “Anschlag” couple lived

“They didn’t have much contact with others,” a neighbor said. “I never saw the husband, even though we lived close to each other.”

NATO documents for Moscow

For their informant, the couple managed to recruit a Dutch diplomat, says the German Attorney General. The diplomat, in turn, is supposed to have provided dozens of secret documents from NATO and the EU. Among the topics covered within those documents were issues relating to Russia.

The files were delivered via “dead mail boxes,” according to official charges, to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service in Moscow. The couple apparently received further commands through an agent radio network and sent their own messages via satellite and through an internet video platform.

When they were arrested in October 2011, the German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that the woman was sitting in front of a shortwave receiver, writing down secret messages. At that point the pair was living in a house in Michelbach, a small community in the German state of Hesse.

“Suddenly we had this spy thriller taking place right outside our window – it was better than the movies,” one of the neighbors told DW.

The husband was arrested on the same day 200 kilometers (120 miles) away in the town of Balingen. For days thereafter, German criminal officers – with the help of special electronic devices – searched the house and the foundation of the supposed “agent couple.”

A post-judgment exchange?

How can it be that the Russian agents could work in Germany for so many years without their cover being blown? A neighbor in Michelbach claims to have recognized the pair’s eastern European accent. The story about the “Austrian” couple’s Latin American origins appeared suspicious, some now say, as did a few of the pair’s habits. “The wife usually went into the backyard to make telephone calls, even in winter,” a woman said.
The entrance to the Upper Regional Court in Stuttgart, where the trial is taking place

…

Date 14.01.2013
Author Mikhail Bushuev / rg, cd
Editor Gabriel Borrud

Find this story at 14 January 2013

© 2012 Deutsche Welle

Germany Tries Couple on Spy Charges

The two accused spies, their faces not shown due to a court order, appearing in a German courtroom Tuesday.

Germany put a married couple thought to be in their mid-40s on trial this week on suspicion that they spied for Russia for more than two decades under the cover of being an ordinary middle-class family.

The case of Andreas and Heidrun Anschlag, names believed to be aliases, is likely to add pressure to Berlin’s troubled relations with Moscow until June.

The court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart is planning to hold 31 hearings over five months, according to a schedule on the court’s website.

Prosecutors say the pair collected sensitive information from NATO and the European Union for Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service while posing as Austrian nationals with Latin American heritage.

Their names and passports are thought to be fake, but the judge said at the initial hearing Tuesday that she would continue to address them as Herr and Frau Anschlag “to make communication easier,” local media outlets reported.

The couple, who face up to a decade in prison if convicted, denied guilt but declined to make any further statements. The hearing continued Thursday with the questioning of a federal police investigator, court spokesman Stefan SchЯler said by e-mail.

The case has been linked to the “deep cover” sleeper agents uncovered in the U.S. in 2010. According to a report by German weekly Der Spiegel, the Anschlags’ October 2011 arrest was made possible when the FBI passed on information from Alexander Poteyev, a Foreign Intelligence Service colonel who reportedly acted as a U.S. mole.

Poteyev, who ostensibly betrayed the spy ring even as he ran it, fled Moscow just days before the FBI rolled up the operation on June 27, 2010. In 2011, a Moscow military court sentenced him in absentia to 25 years in prison on charges of treason and desertion.

Analysts have speculated about why the Anschlags’ case went to court while the U.S. spy ring was whisked off to Russia within weeks in a Cold War-style spy swap.

German media reported last year that Berlin had decided to press charges after the Kremlin failed to react to a German offer for a spy swap.

…

18 January 2013 | Issue 5049
By Nikolaus von Twickel

Find this story at 18 January 2013

© Copyright 1992-2013. The Moscow Times

UN official calls on British government to investigate undercover police scandal

Maina Kiai says he is ‘deeply concerned’ about use of officers such as Mark Kennedy to infiltrate non-violent groups

Mark Kennedy, an undercover police officer who infiltrated a group of environmental protesters. Photograph: Philipp Ebeling

A senior United Nations official has called on the British government to launch a judge-led public inquiry into the “shocking” case of Mark Kennedy and other undercover police officers who have been infiltrating protest groups.

Maina Kiai, a UN special rapporteur, said the scandal involving undercover police cultivating intimate sexual relationships with political activists over long periods of time had been as damaging as the phone-hacking controversy that prompted the Leveson inquiry.

He said he was “deeply concerned” about the UK’s use of undercover police officers in non-violent groups exercising their democratic rights to protest.

“The case of Mark Kennedy and other undercover officers is shocking as the groups in question were not engaged in criminal activities,” Kiai told a central London news conference. “The duration of this infiltration, and the resultant trauma and suspicion it has caused, are unacceptable in a democracy.

“It is a clear violation of basic rights protected under the Human Rights Act, and more generally under international law, such as the right to privacy.”

He added: “This is not a James-Bond-type movie issue. I think it is unacceptable that the state can pay somebody who will use women, and be part of their lives and then just devastate them and leave them. That’s unbelievable.”

Kiai is the latest senior figure to call for a full investigation into the controversy since the Guardian began revealing details of the spy operation two years ago. The undercover policing controversy will be raised in parliament next month during a special hearing hosted by the home affairs select committee.

Undercover police have been living double lives for several years among protest groups, sometimes even residing with female activists and spending weeks abroad with them on holiday. At the end of their deployment, the police spies vanish without a trace.

The surveillance operation, which has continued to plant long-term spies in protest groups despite recent controversies, comes under the remit of an initiative to combat what police call domestic extremism. Many of the targets of the operation have turned out to be law-abiding anti-capitalist campaigners or protesters against global warming.

In at least three cases, relationships between police and the women they were spying on have resulted in the birth of children.

The UN rapporteur’s preliminary report follows a 10-day fact-finding mission to London, Belfast and Edinburgh. Kiai met campaigners, senior police, civil servants and the home secretary, Theresa May. He said she told him a full inquiry into undercover policing was “not something on the agenda”.

However, Kiai, who has responsibility in the UN for the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, said he believed the case of Kennedy and others had left a “trail of victims and survivors in its wake” who deserved answers.

Eleven women and one man are bringing a high court legal action for the emotional trauma suffered as a result of “deeply personal” relationships they formed with men who turned out to be police officers.

A judge ruled last week that some of their claims should be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, an obscure body that usually deals with complaints against MI5 and MI6.

Mr Justice Tugendhat cited the fictional case of James Bond to argue that when parliament introduced legislation allowing covert police to have personal relationships with targets, they must have assumed they may have sexual encounters.

Rejecting the idea that it could be a “James Bond movie issue”, Kiai said: “I therefore call on the authorities to undertake a judge-led public inquiry into the Mark Kennedy matter, and other related cases, with a view to giving voice to victims, especially women, who were deliberately deceived by their own government, and paving the way for reparations.”

The government has so far resisted calls for a judge-led inquiry, instead choosing to back a host of other separate reviews into the conduct of Kennedy and related issues.

…

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Wednesday 23 January 2013 16.49 GMT

Find this story at 23 January 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Women who had relationships with police spies win partial legal victory

Judge rules half of the women’s cases can be heard in open court but half must be first heard by secret tribunal

The judge said that claims against two police officers – Mark Kennedy (pictured above) and a second spy who posed as Mark Jacobs – should first be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Photograph: Philipp Ebeling

Ten women who say they were deceived into having sexual relationships with undercover police officers have won only a partial victory in their fight to have their case heard in the high court.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the lawsuit alleged “the gravest interference” with the fundamental rights of women who had long-term relationships with police officers sent to spy on their political groups. The judge rejected an attempt by the Metropolitan police to have the whole case struck out of the court.

However, in a mixed ruling, the judge said that half the cases in the legal action should first be heard by a secretive tribunal that usually deals with complaints against MI5.

The case relates to a joint lawsuit brought by 10 women and one man who claim they suffered emotional trauma after forming “deeply personal” relationships with the police spies.

In his ruling, Tugendhat acknowledged that the allegations made by the women were “very serious”. He added that the case appeared to be unprecedented. “No action against the police alleging sexual abuse of the kind in question in these actions has been brought before the courts in the past, so far as I have been made aware.”

The judge drew a comparison with James Bond, the fictional member of the intelligence service who “used relationships with women to obtain information, or access to persons or property”.

Although Ian Fleming, the writer of the Bond series, did not dwell on “psychological harm he might have done to the women concerned”, the judge said fictional accounts such as these point to how “intelligence and police services have for many years deployed both men and women officers to form personal relationships of an intimate sexual nature”.

Lawyers for the Met had attempted to have all 11 cases struck out of the court, arguing they constituted an abuse of process and should instead by heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a little-known complaints body.

However, they achieved only a partial victory.

In his ruling, the judge said that claims against two police officers – Mark Kennedy and a second spy who posed as Mark Jacobs – should first be heard by the IPT. Both of these officers were deployed after 2000, and some of the claims allege their activities constituted a breach of the Human Rights Act, which came into force in October that year.

However, the judge said that other claims for damages under common law, including torts of misfeasance in public office, deceit, assault and negligence, should be heard by the high court.

He temporarily stayed high court proceedings pending the conclusion of cases at the IPT. The special tribunal was introduced in 2000 to examine complaints from the public about unjustified state surveillance within what it calls “a necessary ring of secrecy”. Complainants do not see the evidence put forward by the state and have no automatic right to an oral hearing. Neither can they appeal its decision.

Lawyers for the some of the women described the decision to send half of the cases to the tribunal as an “outrage”.

Harriet Wistrich, of Birnberg Peirce, said: “We brought this case because we want to see an end to sexual and psychological abuse of campaigners for social justice and others by undercover police officers. We are outraged that the high court has allowed the police to use the IPT to preserve the secrecy of their abusive and manipulative operations in order to prevent public scrutiny and challenge.”

…

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 January 2013 14.01 GMT

Find this story at 17 January 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

The Jonathan Pollard Spy Case: The CIA’s 1987 Damage Assessment Declassified

Washington, DC, December 14, 2012 – When Naval Investigative Service analyst Jonathan Pollard spied for Israel in 1984 and 1985, his Israeli handlers asked primarily for nuclear, military and technical information on the Arab states, Pakistan, and the Soviet Union – not on the United States – according to the newly-declassified CIA 1987 damage assessment of the Pollard case, published today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org).

The damage assessment includes new details on the specific subjects and documents sought by Pollard’s Israeli handlers (pages 36-43), such as Syrian drones and central communications, Egyptian missile programs, and Soviet air defenses. The Israelis specifically asked for a signals intelligence manual that they needed to listen in on Soviet advisers in Syria. The document describes how Pollard’s handler, Joseph Yagur, told him to ignore a request, from Yagur’s boss, for U.S. “dirt” on senior Israeli officials and told Pollard that gathering such information would terminate the operation (page 38).

Under the heading “What the Israelis Did Not Ask For,” the assessment remarks (page 43) that they “never expressed interest in US military activities, plans, capabilities, or equipment.”

The assessment also notes that Pollard volunteered delivery of three daily intelligence summaries that had not been requested by his handlers, but which proved useful to them, and ultimately handed over roughly 1,500 such messages from the Middle East and North Africa Summary (MENAS), the Mediterranean Littoral Intelligence Summary (MELOS), and the Indian Ocean Littoral Intelligence Summary, in addition to the more than 800 compromised documents on other subjects that Pollard delivered to the Israelis in suitcases.

The damage assessment also features a detailed 21-page chronology of Pollard’s personal life and professional career, including his work for the Israelis, highlighting more than a dozen examples of unusual behavior by Pollard that the CIA suggests should have, in retrospect, alerted his supervisors that he was a security risk. Prominent on the list were false statements by Pollard during a 1980 assignment with Task Force 168, the naval intelligence element responsible for HUMINT collection. Pollard is now serving a life sentence in prison for espionage.

The CIA denied release of most of the Pollard damage assessment in 2006, claiming for example that pages 18 through 165 were classified in their entirety and not a line of those pages could be released. The Archive appealed the CIA’s decision to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, established by President Clinton in 1995 and continued by Presidents Bush and Obama. The ISCAP showed its value yet again as a check on systemic overclassification by ordering release of scores of pages from the Pollard damage assessment that were previously withheld by CIA, and published today for the first time.

Today’s posting, edited by Archive senior fellow Jeffrey T. Richelson, includes more than a dozen other declassified documents on the Pollard case, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency biographic sketch of Pollard’s initial Israeli handler, Col. Aviam Sella. Among many other books and articles, Richelson is the author of The U.S. Intelligence Community (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2011, 6th edition), which the Washington Post called “the authoritative survey of the American cloak-and-dagger establishment.”

Jonathan Pollard: Fantasist and Spy
By Jeffrey T. Richelson

Nineteen-eighty-five became known as the “Year of the Spy” in the United States after a series of arrests and one defection revealed several serious penetrations of the U.S. intelligence and defense establishments by foreign intelligence services. On November 22, Larry Wu-Tai Chin, a long-time CIA employee, was taken into custody by the FBI and accused of spying for the People’s Republic of China. Two days later, former National Security Agency employee Ronald Pelton was arrested and charged with having provided the Soviet Union with details of five signals intelligence operations. Those arrests followed the apprehension, in May, of a former member of the U.S. Navy, John A. Walker, Jr., who had started turning over highly-secret documents to the KGB in 1968. And in September, before he could be arrested, former CIA officer Edward Lee Howard absconded to Moscow.1

But no arrest was more stunning than that of Jonathan J. Pollard, a thirty-one year old analyst for the Navy’s Anti-Terrorist Alert Center (ATAC). Pollard was detained on November 21, after a futile attempt to gain access to the Washington, D.C. embassy of Israel – to one of whose intelligence services, the Scientific Liaison Bureau (LAKAM), he had been delivering a vast assortment of documents. News of Pollard’s arrest was not the first time that the issue of Israeli intelligence activities directed against U.S. targets had been in the press. That subject had been the subject of press coverage several years earlier after the CIA’s study of the organization and operations of Israel’s intelligence and security services (Document 1) had become public, after it had been recovered from the U.S. embassy in Tehran during the November 4, 1979 takeover.2

The outlines of Pollard’s personal and professional life, as well as details of the nature of the material he turned over to Israel became the subject of both newspaper and magazine reports, books, and official, sometimes heavily redacted, internal documents (Document 3, Document 11) as well as declarations prepared for the court by both the government and defense in aid of sentencing (Document 6, Document 7, Document 8). Both official and media reports indicated that Pollard had first expressed his willingness to provide Israel with highly-classified documents during a late May 1984 meeting with Israeli Air Force officer Aviam Sella (Document 2a, Document 2b, Document 9). Until his arrest, Pollard delivered approximately 800 documents, many of which were classified top secret or codeword. In addition, he stole an estimated 1,500 current intelligence summary messages.3

The documents provided information on PLO headquarters in Tunisia; specific capabilities of Tunisian and Libyan air defense systems; Iraqi and Syrian chemical warfare productions capabilities (including detailed satellite imagery); Soviet arms shipments to Syria and other Arab states; naval forces, port facilities, and lines of communication of various Middle Eastern and North African countries; the MiG-29 fighter; and Pakistan’s nuclear program. Also included was a U.S. assessment of Israeli military capabilities.4

Pollard’s disclosures were alarming to U.S. officials for several reasons, some of which were noted in their official declarations (Document 6, Document 8). One, despite the fact that both the U.S. and Israeli considered each other legitimate intelligence targets, was Israel’s willingness to run a human penetration operation directed at the U.S. government. Another, was the damage to the intelligence sharing arrangement with Israel – since its acquisition of material from Pollard weakened the U.S. position vis-a-vis intelligence exchanges with Israel. In addition, there was no guarantee that such documents, revealing both sources and methods as well as assessments, would not find their way to the Soviet Union via a Soviet penetration of the Israeli intelligence or defense community – as had happened with a number of other allies. Further, since Israel was a target of U.S. intelligence collection – particularly technical collection – operations, the documents could be used by Israeli counterintelligence and security organizations to help Israel neutralize or degrade U.S. collection operations.

Of all the spy cases from 1985, the Pollard case has been the one that has had the longest life in terms of media coverage – in part because of efforts, both by private citizens and the Israeli government to have his life sentence commuted. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s 1993 appeal to President Bill Clinton resulted in a letter from defense secretary Les Aspin expressing his opposition and stressing three points: the requirement to maintain control over the disclosure of intelligence to foreign governments, the damage done by Pollard’s disclosures, and Pollard’s alleged inclusion of classified information in letters from prison. In 1998, in an attempt to facilitate his release, the Israeli government publically acknowledged (Document 13). Pollard’s role as an Israeli asset. And, former Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet reports that the subject was raised by the Israeli government in 2006, and he threatened to resign if Pollard was released. As recently as January 2011, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked President Barack Obama, without success, to free Pollard.5

Relevant to that debate and as well as the historical record are the specifics of the Pollard’s professional career, what he compromised, and the assessment of the damage from the compromised material. While some of that information has been disclosed, either officially or unofficially, much of the official record has been redacted from released documents. The recent release of a significantly less-redacted copy of the damage assessment performed by the DCI’s Foreign Denial and Deception Analysis Committee (Document 11b) thus, even if it has no impact on views concerning Pollard’s fate, adds significantly to the historical record concerning his activities.

Among the specific items of note in the newly released assessment are an account of Pollard’s claim (p. I-18) upon his late arrival for an interview, that he spent the weekend rescuing his wife from the Irish Republican Army after they had kidnaped her. Pollard’s connection with a naval intelligence unit, Task Force-168, responsible for human intelligence activities is also among the topics discussed in the damage assessment. The committee’s report also provides new insight to exactly what information the Israelis wanted and why – as well as what information they did not want (pp. 38-46), including U.S. capabilities or plans. With regard to Syria, for example, Pollard was requested to provide documents concerning a suspected research and development facility, an electronics intelligence (ELINT) system, remotely piloted vehicles, a national command, control, and communications center in Damascus, Syrian military units with attached Soviet advisors, and medical intelligence on Syrian president Hafiz al-Assad. A common denominator for Israeli requests concerning Syria and other countries was the predominant focus on military intelligence relevant to Israeli security.

The study also describes (on p. 38) an incident involving LAKAM chief Rafi Eitan, in which he requested documents or information from Pollard on a variety of topics. According to Pollard, his case officer, standing behind Pollard, shook his head “no” in response to many of Eitan’s requests – including those for information on the PLO’s Force 17, CIA psychological studies or other intelligence containing ‘dirt’ on senior Israeli officials, as well as information identifying the “rats” in Israel (by which he apparently meant Israelis who provided information to the United States).

The study also reports (p. 60) on Israeli use of the NSA’s RASIN (Radio Signal Notation) manual, which was requested on at least two occasions, in assisting its monitoring of a communications link between the Soviet General Staff and the Soviet military assistance group in Damascus.

THE DOCUMENTS

Document 1: Central Intelligence Agency, Foreign Intelligence and Security Services: Israel, March 1979. Secret.

Source: http://niqnaq.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cia-1979-israel-foreign-intelligence-security-services.pdf

This 47-page study of the Israeli intelligence was part of an ongoing effort by the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff to prepare surveys of foreign intelligence communities of interest. It covers the functions, organizations, administrative practices, and methods of operation of the Mossad, Shin Bet, and AMAN (Military Intelligence) as well as discussing the Foreign Ministry’s intelligence unit and the national police. Notably absent from the study is any mention of LAKAM, the unit which was responsible for running Jonathan Pollard.

Document 2a: Department of Defense, Report Number: 6 849 0139 79, March 12, 1979. Classification Redacted.

Document 2b: Defense Intelligence Agency, IR 6 849 0557 79, LTC. AVI SELLA, – BIO REPORT, October 18, 1979 . Classification Redacted.

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release.

These reports are part of the continuing collection of biographic information by Defense and military service intelligence units on foreign military leaders, including those below the level of general. Document 2b notes Sella’s current position, his physical description, family, and military career.

Document 3: [Deleted], Deputy Director of Security, Personnel Security and Investigations, Central Intelligence Agency, Memorandum for: The Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Subject: Jonathan Jay Pollard, January 2, 1986. Secret.

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release.

This memo provides details on Pollard’s activities during a June 1984 visit to the CIA, including his attendance at a briefing on anti-terrorism efforts and his access to documents.

Document 4: William Taft, Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Damage Assessment – Pollard Espionage Case,” February 13, 1986.

Source: Editor’s Collection.

This brief memo notes, in relation to the Pollard damage assessment, that any documents acknowledging the fact that the U.S. gathered intelligence against specific non-Soviet Bloc nations should be classified, at a minimum, CONFIDENTIAL – NOT RELEASBLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS.

Document 5: [Deleted], Counterintelligence Branch, Special Activities Division, Central Intelligence Agency, Subject: Recent Meeting on Pollard Case, July 8, 1986. Secret.

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release.

This memo reports on a meeting which focused on the desire of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger to be able to communicate to the U.S. District Court his perception of the extent of damage resulting from Pollard’s espionage activities and provides details on support to be provided in production of the affidavit.

Document 6: Caspar Weinberger, Declaration of the Secretary of Defense, United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard, 1986. Secret.

Source: Editor’s Collection

This heavily redacted declaration by Secretary of Defense Weinberger, prepared to influence the judge’s sentencing decision, discusses the damage to national security (including to intelligence sharing arrangement), and the significance of the disclosures (including harm to U.S. foreign policy, the compromise of sources and methods, and the risk to U.S. personnel).

Document 7: Robert A. Hibey and Gordon A. Coffee, “Defendant Jonathan J. Pollard’s Second Memorandum In Aid of Sentencing,” Criminal No. 86-0207, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, March 2, 1987. Classification Not Available.

Source: irmep.org/ila/pollard/04021987Pollard_Sentencing_memo2.pdf.

This classified memorandum, from Pollard’s defense team, discusses damage to the United States, Pollard’s access to classified documents and his decision to provide information to Israel, his limitations on the delivery of information, Israeli payments to Pollard, charges that he repeatedly disclosed classified information to others, and the possibility of parole.

Document 8: Supplemental Declaration of Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard, Criminal No. 86-0207, United States District Court of Columbia, March 4, 1987. Unclassified.

Source: www.irmep.org/ila/pollard/03041987weinberger.pdf.

This short declaration supplements Weinberger’s more extensive classified 1986 statement (Document 6) concerning Pollard’s activities, in response to Pollard’s second memorandum (Document 7) in aid of sentencing.

Document 9: Defense Intelligence Agency, “Biographic Sketch: Colonel Aviam Sella,” May 20, 1987. Secret.

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release.

This biographic sketch is one of many routinely prepared by DIA of foreign military officials. Prepared after Pollard’s arrest and U.S. protests of plans to promote Sella to commanding officer of the Tel Nov airbase, it discusses Sella’s significance, provides personal data, and reviews his career from the time he joined the Israeli Air Force in 1964.

Document 10: James P. Lynch, Director of Security, Central Intelligence Agency, To: Director, Public Affairs, Subject: U.S. News & World Report Story on Jonathan Pollard, May 21, 1987. Secret.

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release.

In this memo, the CIA’s director of security addresses an upcoming U.S. News & World Report story on Pollard. The format for its two pages specifies each “expected allegation” followed by “fact.” The final page discusses the suggested response to press inquiries.

Document 11 A-B: Foreign Denial and Deception Analysis Committee, Director of Central Intelligence, The Jonathan Jay Pollard Espionage Case: A Damage Assessment, October 30, 1987. Top Secret/Codeword.

A: Released by CIA in 2006 in response to a Mandatory Declassification Review request.

B: Released in 2012 by the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel in response to the Archive’s appeal of CIA’s 2006 withholding.

This assessment was one of two prepared in the aftermath of Pollard’s arrest (the other was prepared for the Department of Defense by several naval intelligence and security organizations). Two versions of the CIA document are included here to show the amount of material the agency excised in 2006, compared with what ISCAP released in 2012.

The main body of the study examines Pollard’s personal history and espionage career, Israeli intelligence priorities and requests, material provided by Pollard, as well as losses and vulnerabilities. Supplemental tabs provide a detailed chronology and a summary of security and counterintelligence lessons learned. Portions that were redacted in 2006 are enclosed in rectangles.

Document 12: Bruce Riedel, “Book Review: The Territory of Lies,” Studies in Intelligence, 33, 3 (Fall 1989). Unclassified.

Source: CIA Historical Review Program.

This review by a senior CIA intelligence analyst focuses on what Riedel describes as “the first in-depth assessment of this case in the public arena by an Israeli.” It notes that the book adds new details on LAKAM and that its “most important contribution” was “to refute the Israeli Government’s official position that the Pollard operation was a rogue mission.” Riedel also addresses the question of whether LAKAM would be replaced by another covert intelligence organization.

Document 13: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Government Statement on Jonathan Pollard – 12 May 1998,” May 12, 1998, Unclassified.

Source: www.mfa.gov.il.

As part of an attempt to obtain Pollard’s release, this note on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website acknowledges Pollard’s role as an agent for the LAKAM.

Document 14: National Counterintelligence Executive, CI Reader: An American Revolution into the New Millennium, Volume 3, n.d., accessed December 11, 2012, Unclassified (Extract)

Source: www.ncix.gov/publications/ci_references/docs/CI_Reader_vol3.pdf

This extract concerning Jonathan Pollard is drawn from a multi-volume study performed for the National Counterintelligence Executive, a component of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It summarizes Pollard’s activities, the reaction of the Israeli government, the legal consequences for Pollard, and Pollard’s quest for clemency.

NOTES

[1] Jeffrey T. Richelson, A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford, 1995), pp. 388-403.

[2] Scott Armstrong, “Israelis Have Spied on U.S. Secret Papers Show,” Washington Post, February 1, 1982.

[3] The most significant media account on Pollard is Wolf Blitzer, Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied On His Country For Israel And How He Was Betrayed (New York: Harper & Row, 1989). With regard to the count of stolen documents, see Director of Central Intelligence Foreign Denial and Deception Analysis Committee, The Jonathan Jay Pollard Espionage Case: A Damage Assessment, October 30, 1987, p. 45.

[4] Richelson, A Century of Spies, pp. 401-402.

[5] Ibid., p. 403; George J. Tenet with Bill Harlow, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA (New York: Harper Collins, 2007), p. 67; M.E. “Spike” Bowman, “The Drumbeats for Clemency for Jonathan Jay Pollard Reverberate Again,” Intelligencer, Winter/Spring 2011, pp. 7-10; Jonathan S. Tobin, “The Pollard Spy Case, 25 Years Later,” Commentary, March 2011, pp. 37-43.

Posted – December 14, 2012

Edited by Jeffrey T. Richelson

Find this story at 14 December 2012

Contents of this website Copyright 1995-2011 National Security Archive. All rights reserved.

Capturing Jonathan Pollard

De Amerikaanse voormalig spion Jonathan Pollard zit een levenslange gevangenisstraf uit. Als werknemer bij de VS Marine Inlichtingendienst stal hij honderdduizenden geheime documenten en verkocht die aan Israël. De man die hem ontmaskerde, schreef er een boek over.

Bradley Manning wordt verdacht van het lekken van geheime documenten van de Amerikaanse overheid. Deze documenten werden openbaar gemaakt voor Wikileaks. Nog voordat Manning een eerlijk proces heeft gekregen, zit hij al een ruim een jaar in eenzame opsluiting.

De omvang en gevoeligheid van de Wikileaks-documenten vallen echter in het niet in vergelijking met het aantal geheime stukken dat Jonathan Pollard begin jaren ’80 aan de Israëliërs heeft overhandigd. Pollard werkte voor de Naval Intelligence Service. Van juni 1984 tot zijn aanhouding in november 1985 wandelde hij bijna dagelijks het gebouw van de Naval Intelligence Command uit met een tas vol top secret documenten.

De Amerikaanse overheid schat dat hij ruim een miljoen stukken aan de Israëliërs heeft overhandigd. Een van de stukken was het tiendelige boekwerk Radio-Signal Notations (RASIN), een gedetailleerde beschrijving van het netwerk van de wereldwijde elektronische observatie door de Amerikanen.

Pollard onderzocht

Capturing Jonathan Pollard werd in 2006 door de Naval Institue Press gepubliceerd. Het boek is van de hand van Ronald Olive, destijds werkzaam voor de Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). Als medewerker van de NCIS kreeg Olive in 1985 de taak om te onderzoeken of Pollard geheime stukken lekte.

Het onderzoek volgde op een tip van een medewerker van de Anti-Terrorism Alert Center (ATAC) van de NIS, de afdeling waar Pollard werkte. Deze man zag Pollard het gebouw uitlopen met een stapel papier. De stapel was verpakt in bruin inpakpapier en tape met de code TS/SCI, Top Secret/Sentive Compartmented Information. TS/SCI is een nog zwaardere kwalificatie als top secret.

Pollard stapte met de stukken bij zijn vrouw Ann in de auto. Nog even dacht zijn collega dat Pollard naar een andere inlichtingendienst, zoals de DIA (Defense Intelligence Service) zou rijden om daar de documenten af te geven. Dit leek onwaarschijnlijk omdat Pollard eerder tegen hem had gezegd dat hij verkeerde documenten had besteld bij het ‘archief’ en dat hij deze nu moest terugbrengen en vernietigen. Pollard en Ann reden echter een geheel andere kant op.

Olive beschrijft vervolgens de ontmaskering van Jonathan en Ann. In Pollards werkruimte wordt een camera opgehangen die registreert hoe de spion een aktetas vol TS/SCI documenten propt en het gebouw verlaat. Pollard en zijn vrouw ruiken onraad en proberen de sporen van spionage te wissen. Ann moet een koffer vol super geheime documenten, die in hun huis liggen, vernietigen. Zij raakt in paniek en de koffer belandt bij de buren.

Gevoelige snaar

Het boek van Ronald Olive is nog even actueel als het eerste boek dat over deze spionagezaak is verschenen in 1989, Territory of Lies: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed.

Begin dit jaar wordt een petitie, ondertekend door meer dan 10.000 Israëliërs, aan de Israëlische president Shimon Peres gezonden. Hierin roepen politici, kunstenaars en andere bekende en onbekende Israëliërs de president op om Pollard vrij te krijgen. Op 1 september 2010 berichtte de LA Times zelfs dat de vrijlating van Pollard de bevriezing van de bouw van Israëlische nederzettingen in de bezette gebieden zou verlengen.

Pollard raakt kennelijk een gevoelige snaar, zowel in Israël als in de Verenigde Staten. Schrijver Olive op zijn beurt bevindt zich in een gezelschap van allerlei mensen die er voor ijveren om de spion zijn gehele leven achter slot en grendel te houden, hoewel levenslang in de Verenigde Staten niet echt levenslang hoeft te zijn. Bij goed gedrag kunnen gevangenen na dertig jaar vrijkomen.

In 1987 werd Pollard veroordeeld tot levenslang na een schuldbekentenis en toezegging dat hij de Amerikaanse overheid zou helpen bij het in kaart brengen van de schade die hij door zijn spionage-activiteiten had veroorzaakt. Die schade werd door de toenmalige minister van Defensie Casper Weinberger vastgelegd in een memorandum van 46 pagina’s, welke nog steeds niet openbaar is gemaakt. Pollard’s vrouw kreeg vijf jaar gevangenisstraf voor het in bezit hebben van staatsgeheime documenten.

Capturing Jonathan Pollard is geen spannend fictie / non-fictie boek met een twist, zoals Spywars van Bagley. Olive beschrijft droog het leven van de spion vanaf het moment dat hij bij de CIA solliciteert, tot aan de dag van zijn veroordeling. Natuurlijk is de schrijver begaan met de geheimhouding van Amerikaanse strategische informatie en verbaast het niet dat hij bij het verschijnen van het boek in 2006 een pleidooi hield om Pollard niet vrij te laten.

Niet kieskeurig

Hoewel de volle omvang van het lekken van Pollard niet duidelijk wordt beschreven, blijkt dat Pollard niet bepaald kieskeurig was. De Israëliërs hadden hem lijsten meegegeven van wat zij graag wilden hebben, vooral informatie over het Midden-Oosten, maar ook over de Russen en operaties van de Amerikanen in het Middellandse Zee gebied.

Zodra Pollard echter stukken langs ziet komen die ook voor andere landen interessant zouden kunnen zijn, probeert hij ook daar te winkelen. Zo poogt hij geheime documenten aan de Chinezen, Australiërs, Pakistani en de Zuid-Afrikanen, maar ook aan buitenlandse correspondenten te slijten.

Het gegeven dat landen elkaars strategische informatie en geheimen proberen te stelen, is niet nieuw. Het bestaan van contra-spionage afdelingen toont aan dat geheime diensten daar zelf ook rekening mee houden. De Australiërs dachten dan ook dat Pollard onderdeel uitmaakte van een CIA-operatie. Hoewel ze dat eigenlijk niet konden geloven, vermeed hun medewerker Pollard en werd de zaak niet gemeld bij Amerikaanse instanties.

Als onderdeel van thrillers en spannende lectuur zijn de spionage praktijken van Pollard, zoals Olive die beschrijft, niet bijster interessant, want het leidt af van waar het werkelijk om draait. Daarentegen is het boek van grote waarde waar het gaat om de beschrijving van de persoon Pollard, de wijze waarop hij kon spioneren, zijn werkomgeving, de blunders die worden gemaakt – niet alleen het aannemen en overplaatsen van Pollard, maar ook de wijze waarop geheimen zo eenvoudig kunnen worden gelekt – eigenlijk de totale bureaucratie die de wereld van inlichtingendiensten in zijn greep heeft.

Hoewel deze persoonlijke en bureaucratische gegevens niet breed worden uitgemeten – Olive is zelf een voormalig inlichtingenman – verschaft het boek een veelheid aan informatie daarover. De schrijver lijkt die persoonlijke details specifiek aan Pollard te koppelen, alsof het niet voor andere medewerkers zou gelden.

Opschepper

Dit gaat ook op ook voor de gemaakte fouten van de bureaucratie rond de carrière van de spion. Zo lijkt Pollard van jongs af aan een voorliefde te hebben gehad om spion te worden, of in ieder geval iets geheims te willen doen in zijn leven. Tijdens zijn studie schept hij erover op dat hij voor de Mossad zou werken en had gediend in het Israëlische leger. Zijn vader zou ook voor de CIA werkzaam zijn.

Aan deze opschepperij verbindt Olive een psychologisch element. Het zou een soort compensatie zijn voor de slechte jeugd van Pollard die vaak zou zijn gepest. Ook zijn vrouw zou niet bij hem passen omdat die te aantrekkelijk is. Pollard moet dat compenseren door stoer te doen. Later, toen hij voor een inlichtingendienst werkte, voelde hij zich opnieuw het buitenbeentje. Zijn carrière verliep alles behalve vlekkeloos, regelmatig werd hij op een zijspoor gezet.

Olive schetst een beeld van een verwend kind, dat niet op juiste waarde werd ingeschat en stoer wilde doen. Was Pollard echter zoveel anders dan zijn voormalige collega analisten of medewerkers van de inlichtingendienst? Werken voor een inlichtingendienst vereist een zekere mate van voyeurisme, een gespleten persoonlijkheid. Buiten je werk om kun je niet vrijelijk praten over datgene waar je mee bezig bent.

Dat doet wat met je psyche, maar trekt ook een bepaald soort mensen aan. Het werk betreft namelijk niet het oplossen van misdrijven, maar het kijken in het hoofd van mogelijke verdachten. Het BVD-dossier van oud-provo Roel van Duin laat zien dat een dienst totaal kan ontsporen door zijn eigen manier van denken. Dat komt echter niet voort uit de dienst als abstracte bureaucratie, maar door toedoen van de mensen die er werken.

Roekeloos

Pollard gedroeg zich arrogant en opschepperig, misschien wel om zijn eigen onzekerheid te maskeren. Dergelijk gedrag wordt door de schrijver verbonden aan zijn spionage-activiteiten voor de Israëliërs. Pollard was echter niet getraind in het lekken van documenten en ging verre van zorgvuldig te werk. Hij deed het zo openlijk dat het verbazingwekkend is dat het zo lang duurde voordat hij tegen de lamp liep. Hij zei bijvoorbeeld tegen de Israëliërs dat zij alleen de TS/SCI documenten moesten kopiëren en dat ze de rest mochten houden.

In de loop van de anderhalf jaar dat hij documenten naar buiten smokkelde, werd hij steeds roekelozer. Dat hij gespot werd met een pak papier onder zijn arm terwijl hij bij zijn vrouw in de auto stapte, was eerder toeval dan dat het het resultaat was van grondig speurwerk van de NCIS.

Eenmaal binnenin het inlichtingenbedrijf zijn de mogelijkheden om te lekken onuitputtelijk. Als Pollard wel getraind was geweest en zorgvuldiger te werk was gegaan, dan had hij zijn praktijk eindeloos kunnen voorzetten. Welke andere ‘agenten’ doen dat wellicht nog steeds? Of welke andere medewerkers waren minder roekeloos en tevreden geweest met het lekken van enkele documenten?

Die medewerkers vormen gezamenlijk het systeem van de dienst. Pollard schepte graag op, maar de schrijver van Spy Wars, Bagley, klopte zich ook graag op de borst en, hoewel in mindere mate, Ronald Olive ook. Iets dat eigenlijk vreemd is, als het aantal blunders in ogenschouw wordt genomen nadat Pollard ontdekt was. Alleen omdat de Israëliërs Pollard de toegang tot de diplomatieke vestiging ontzegden, zorgde ervoor dat hij alsnog gearresteerd en levenslang kreeg in de VS. Hij was echter bijna ontsnapt.

Blunders

Het is daarom niet gek dat inlichtingendiensten een gebrek aan bescheidenheid vertonen. Vele aanslagen zijn voorkomen, wordt vaak beweerd, maar helaas kunnen de diensten geen details geven. Het klinkt als Pollard, op bezoek bij Olive, die breed uitmeet dat hij die en die kent op de Zuid-Afrikaanse ambassade en of hij die moet werven als spion. Olive was werkzaam voor de NCIS. Pollard bezocht hem voordat hij werd ontmaskerd. Zijn eigen gebrek aan actie in relatie tot de twijfels over Pollard toont aan dat geen enkel bureaucratisch systeem perfect is, ook niet dat van inlichtingendiensten.

Het is niet verbazingwekkend dat de carrière van Pollard bezaaid is met blunders. Hij werd dan wel afgewezen door de CIA, maar waagde vervolgens een gokje bij een andere dienst en had geluk. Hij werd bij de NIS aangenomen en kroop zo langzaamaan in de organisatie. De fouten die bij het aannamebeleid en bij de evaluaties van Pollard zijn gemaakt, worden door Olive gepresenteerd als op zichzelf staand, maar de hoeveelheid blunders en gebrekkige administratie lijken zo talrijk dat het geen toevalstreffers zijn.

Bij elke promotie of overplaatsing lijkt slechts een deel van zijn persoonsdossier hem te volgen. De NIS wist vanaf het begin niet dat Pollard eerder door de CIA werd afgewezen. Als zijn toegang tot geheime documenten wordt ingetrokken, wacht Pollard net zo lang tot bepaalde medewerkers zijn overgeplaatst of vertrokken. Hij wordt dan wel afgeschilderd als een verwend kind dat met geheimen speelt, regelmatig moet Olive echter toegeven dat Pollard een briljant analist is. Pas in de laatste maanden van zijn spionage-activiteiten, lijdt zijn werk onder de operatie om zoveel mogelijk documenten naar buiten te smokkelen.

Waarom Pollard de Amerikaanse overheid schade toebracht, wijdt Olive vooral aan zijn joodse afkomst. Niet dat de schrijver alle joodse Amerikanen verdenkt, maar een belangrijke reden voor het fanatiek lekken wordt verklaard aan de hand van Pollard’s wens om naar Israël te emigreren. Olive gaat echter voorbij aan het geld dat de spion aan zijn activiteiten verdiende. Aanvankelijk 1.500 dollar per maand, na een paar maanden 2.500 en twee volledig verzorgde reizen met zijn vrouw naar Europa en Israël en tot slot een Zwitserse bankrekening met jaarlijks een bonus van 30.000 dollar.

Los van de Zwitserse rekening schat de Amerikaanse overheid dat Pollard rond de 50.000 dollar aan zijn spionagewerk heeft overgehouden. Eigenlijk niet eens veel in vergelijking met de één miljoen documenten die hij leverde. De onderhandelingen over het geld maken echter duidelijk dat Pollard wel degelijk geïnteresseerd was om zoveel mogelijk te verdienen. De prijs werd gedrukt omdat de Israëliërs niet erg toeschietelijk waren en Pollard ze sowieso wilde helpen.

Afkomst

Zijn joodse afkomst zat hem in de weg, want waarschijnlijk had hij alleen al voor het tiendelige boekwerk Radio-Signal Notations (RASIN) 50.000 dollar kunnen krijgen. Uiteindelijk blijkt Pollard een gewoon mens die de verlokking van het geld niet kon weerstaan. Andere agenten zijn hem voorgegaan en hebben zijn voorbeeld gevolgd.

Het nadeel van zijn afkomst blijkt ook uit het feit dat hij zijn Israëlische runner een ‘cadeautje’ gaf. Aviem Sella had mee gevochten in de zesdaagse Yom Kippur oorlog en was een van de piloten die de Iraakse kernreactor in Osirak bombardeerde. Pollard gaf hem destijds satellietbeelden van die aanval. Sella wordt nog steeds gezocht voor Verenigde Staten voor spionage.

De operatie werd door een andere veteraan, Rafi of Rafael Eitan, geleid. Onder diens leiding spoorde de Mossad Adolf Eichmann op. Eitan en Sella werden rijkelijk beloond voor hun werk met Pollard, maar moesten hun promoties inleveren omdat de Amerikanen eind jaren ’80 furieus reageerden. Na de arrestatie van Pollard beweerden de Israëliërs dat ze helemaal niet zoveel documenten hadden gekregen van de spion en de onderhandelingen over teruggave uiterst stroef waren verlopen.

Uiteindelijk werd maar een fractie van de documenten teruggegeven aan de Amerikanen. De Israëliërs waren vooral bezig om na zijn veroordeling Pollard vrij te krijgen. Premier Nethanyahu sprak vorig jaar de Knesset toe over het lot van Pollard, terwijl de Israëlische ambassadeur in de VS hem juli 2011 bezocht in de gevangenis.

Tot nu toe lijken de Amerikanen niet van zins om hem vrij te laten. Na de veroordeling van Pollard kwam de campagne Free Pollard op gang. Zijn vrouw verdween uit beeld. Niet alleen Israëliërs nemen deel aan de campagne, maar ook Alan Dershowitz, professor aan de Harvard Law School en andere academici. In het laatste hoofdstuk More sinned against than sinning beschrijft Olive enkele andere spionnen die documenten verkochten aan buitenlandse mogendheden.

Capturing Jonathan Pollard was nog niet gepubliceerd toen de stroom Wikileaks-documenten op gang kwam. Die documenten laten echter zien dat een waterdicht systeem niet bestaat en dat mensen voor geld of om andere redenen geheime stukken lekken. De Wikileaks-documenten onderstrepen dat er sinds de jaren ’80 weinig is veranderd. Met als enige verschil de hardvochtige wijze waarop verdachte Manning in deze zaak wordt behandeld en de gebrekkige aandacht die hij krijgt van professoren en andere betrokkenen bij de Wikileaks-documenten.

Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice. Auteur Ronald J. Olive. Uitgeverij US Naval Institute Press (2006).

Find this story at 19 juni 2012

Find this story at 19 juni 2012 als pdf

Jailed US spy gave Israel information on Pakistan nuclear program

An American intelligence analyst, who was jailed in 1987 for spying for Israel, gave his spy handlers information on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, according to declassified documents. Former United States Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Jay Pollard is currently serving a life sentence for selling classified information to the Israeli government between 1985 and 1987. On December 14, the Central Intelligence Agency declassified its official damage assessment of Pollard’s espionage, who some counterintelligence officials believe was the most prolific mole that ever spied on the US government for a foreign country. This was the second time that the CIA declassified the document, titled The Jonathan Jay Pollard Espionage Case: A Damage Assessment, following an appeal by George Washington University’s National Security Archive. Even though this latest version of the declassified document is still heavily redacted, it contains some new information. One new revelation is that Pollard’s Israeli handlers specifically asked him to acquire intelligence collected by the US government on the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. In a section titled “Implications of Compromises: What Israel Gained from Pollard’s Espionage”, the CIA assessment states that Pollard focused on “Arab and Pakistani nuclear intelligence” and gave his Israeli handlers information on a secret Pakistani “plutonium reprocessing facility near Islamabad”. Further information in the declassified report about this subject is completely redacted. The question is, what kind of information on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program did Tel Aviv acquire from Pollard? According to A.Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, Islamabad was able to detonate a nuclear device “within a week’s notice” by as early as 1984. IntelNews has also reported that the US was aware of Pakistan’s plans to build the bomb in the 1970s and had been working along with other Western countries, including the United Kingdom, to prevent Pakistan’s covert attempts to purchase ‘gray area’ technologies for its nuclear weapons program. In 2009, Imtiaz Ahmad, former director of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, spoke of a 1979 ISI operation called RISING SUN, which involved the alleged unmasking of Rafiq Munshi, a US-trained Pakistani nuclear scientist, who Ahmed says was a CIA agent. The operation also resulted in the exposure of several undercover CIA agents, posing as diplomats, stationed in the US embassy in Islamabad and the consulate in Karachi. Another question is whether Israel knew by 1987 that CIA operations against the Pakistani nuclear weapons program ended soon after Ronald Reagan was elected US President. His administration actively supported the Pakistani nuclear program in light of Pakistan’s adversarial relationship with the Soviet Union.

December 18, 2012 by Joseph Fitsanakis 2 Comments

By JOSEPH FITSANAKIS | intelNews.org |

Find this story at 18 December 2012

Schäuble hat sich für Morde nicht interessiert

Berlin – Bundesfinanzminister Wolfgang Schäuble steht nach seinem Auftritt im NSU-Untersuchungsausschuss des Bundestags in der Kritik. Der Ausschussvorsitzende Sebastian Edathy warf dem damaligen Innenminister Desinteresse an der Aufklärung der Morde vor. Schäuble habe sich für die Sache so gut wie gar nicht interessiert, sagte der SPD-Politiker dem RBB-Inforadio. Zudem seien 2006 in Schäubles Ministerverantwortung gravierende Fehlentscheidungen getroffen worden. Unter anderem habe man die Abteilungen für Links- und Rechtsextremismus beim Verfassungsschutz zusammengeführt.

15.12.12

Find this story at 15 December 2012

© Axel Springer AG 2012 – Alle Rechte vorbehalten

Stellungnahme zu Ermittlungspannen vor dem NSU-Ausschuss Ex-Innenminister Schäuble weist Vorwürfe von sich

zBerlin – Der frühere Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) war als Zeuge vor den NSU-Untersuchungsausschuss des Bundestages geladen worden – und wies eine Mitverantwortung für Ermittlungspannen bei der Aufdeckung der Zwickauer Terrorzelle von sich.

„Ich kann nichts erkennen, was mich in irgendeiner Weise belasten würde“, sagte der heutige Bundesfinanzminister.

Ein Minister greife in der Regel nicht in Einzelentscheidungen seiner Behörde ein – er übernehme stattdessen Führungsaufgaben. Er selbst habe sich nicht als „oberster Polizist im Land“ gesehen. „Deswegen bin ich mit diesen schrecklichen Morden amtlich nur sehr marginal befasst gewesen“, sagte der Minister.

Schäuble wies in der Anhörung auch Vorwürfe zurück, er habe die Ermittlungen erschwert, indem er 2006 dem Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) die Ermittlungen nicht übertragen habe. „Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, dass mir ein solcher Vorschlag gemacht worden ist”, sagte der Bundesfinanzminister.

Der Ausschuss argumentierte, dass die Ermittlungen des BKA einen zweiten Blick gebracht hätten und dadurch unter Umständen hilfreich gewesen wären.
NSU-Akten-Affäre

Ungeheuerliche Ermittlungspannen bei der Zwickauer Terrorzelle. BKA-Chef Zierke sagte vor dem Untersuchungsausschuss: „Wir haben versagt”.
mehr…

Schäuble verteidigte vor dem Ausschuss auch die Zusammenlegung der Abteilungen für die Bekämpfung von Links- und Rechtsextremismus beim Verfassungsschutz. Die Gefahr durch den islamistischen Terrorismus sei vor der Fußball-WM 2006 hoch eingeschätzt worden – eine zentrale Terrorbekämpfungsabteilung in Berlin sei für notwendig erachtet worden. Die Gefahr des rechtsextremen Terrors sei dadurch nicht minder berücksichtig worden.

Schäuble war von 2005 bis 2009 Chef des Innenressorts. In dieser Zeit tappten die Ermittler mit ihren Untersuchungen zur rechtsextremen Terrorzelle NSU noch völlig im Dunkeln.

Der Ausschuss befasst sich seit Beginn des Jahres mit den Verbrechen des Nationalsozialistischen Untergrunds (NSU) und den Ermittlungspannen bei deren Aufdeckung. Der Terrorzelle werden zehn Morde zwischen 2000 und 2007 an türkisch- und griechischstämmigen Kleinunternehmern und einer Polizistin zur Last gelegt. Die Gruppierung flog aber erst im November 2011 auf. Die Sicherheitsbehörden kamen ihr jahrelang nicht auf die Spur.

Unterdessen lehnte Beate Zschäpe (37) eine Untersuchung durch einen psychiatrischen Gutachter ab. Das ließ die mutmaßliche Rechtsterroristin dem Oberlandesgericht München über ihre Anwälte mitteilen, ergaben Recherchen der „Panorama”-Redaktion des NDR.

Gerichtspsychiater Henning Saß vom Uniklinikum Aachen sollte herausfinden, ob die Voraussetzungen für eine Sicherungsverwahrung von Zschäpe bestehen. Die Nazi-Braut, die bisher noch keine Aussage gemacht hat, soll ein Gespräch mit dem renommierten Psychiater abgelehnt haben.

Der emeritierte Professor Saß ist einer der bekanntesten Psychiater in deutschen Gerichtssälen. Nun soll Saß auf Grundlage der Ermittlungsakten ein erstes Gutachten erstellen. Dazu wollte das Oberlandesgericht München (OLG) keine Stellung nehmen.

…

14.12.2012 – 17:42 Uhr

Find this story at 14 December 2012

© BILD digital GmbH & CO. KG

NSU-Helfer als Spitzel: “VP 562” bringt Berliner Innensenator in Erklärungsnot

Während sich Berlins Innensenator Frank Henkel im Landtag in der V-Mann-Affäre rechtfertigt, tauchen neue Fragen zu seiner Informationspolitik auf: So bat das BKA nach SPIEGEL-Informationen bereits im Dezember 2011 um Informationen über den V-Mann. Und auch das Vorstrafenregister des Spitzels birgt Zündstoff.

Berlin – In der Affäre um einen früheren Helfer der NSU-Terrorzelle, den das Berliner Landeskriminalamt (LKA) später viele Jahre als V-Mann führte, sind neue Fragen zur Informationspolitik der Berliner Behörden aufgetaucht. So wusste das LKA in Berlin laut Akten, die dem SPIEGEL vorliegen, schon seit Dezember 2011, dass sich die Ermittler des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) bei ihren Recherchen im Umfeld des aufgeflogenen Mord-Trios auch intensiv für den früheren V-Mann Thomas S. interessierten.

Die Akten legen jedoch nahe, dass das LKA die Kollegen vom BKA damals über die langjährige Kooperation mit Thomas S. und mehrere Hinweise, die er auf den Verbleib des Trios gegeben hatte, im Dunkeln ließ. Zwar übersandte das LKA am 15. Dezember 2011 der Besonderen Aufbauorganisation “Trio” des BKA einige Erkenntnisse über S. – über die heikle Verbindung zum LKA oder den Hinweisen mit NSU-Bezug allerdings sind in den Akten keine Vermerke zu finden.

Thomas S. war vom 16. November 2000 bis zum 7. Januar 2011 “Vertrauensperson” des LKA Berlin, die Behörde führte ihn unter der Kennummer “VP 562”. Bei 38 Treffen mit seiner Vertrauten der Behörde gab er zwischen 2001 und 2005 mindestens fünf Mal Hinweise zu dem seit 1998 untergetauchten Neonazi-Trio des NSU und dessen Umfeld. Das letzte Treffen fand 2009 statt, im Januar 2011 schaltete die Behörde Thomas S. als Quelle ab.

Der ehemalige V-Mann des LKA war vor dem Abtauchen von Uwe Mundlos, Beate Zschäpe und Uwe Bönhardt im Jahr 1998 ein enger Freund und Helfer des Trios, seit Januar 2012 wird von der Generalbundesanwaltschaft im NSU-Verfahren als Beschuldigter führt.

Von ihren gewonnenen Informationen gaben die Berliner im Dezember 2011 jedoch erstmal nichts weiter. In ihrer Auskunft vom 15. Dezember teilten das LKA dem BKA lediglich mit, Thomas S. sei im Juni 2001 “als Geschädigter einer Körperverletzung und einer Nötigung” in Erscheinung getreten. Zudem verwies das LKA auf ein Verfahren gegen die inzwischen verbotene Nazi-Band “Landser”, in dem S. als Beschuldigter geführt wurde. Dass er als “VP 562” lange in Berlin als Quelle bezahlt worden war, kommt in der Mitteilung nicht vor.

Massive Kritik an Innensenator Henkel

Die neuen Details erhöhen den Druck auf Innensenator Frank Henkel (CDU), der wegen der Informationspolitik seiner Behörden in dem Fall in der Kritik steht. Bislang argumentierte Henkel, dass das BKA sich Anfang März im Auftrag der ermittelnden Generalbundesanwaltschaft in Berlin nach Thomas S. erkundigt hatte. Er selber sei zwei Tage später von seinen Leuten über den brisanten V-Mann-Vorgang informiert worden.

Erst zu diesem Zeitpunkt gab Henkels Apparat die ersten Informationen aus der V-Mann-Zeit von S. an die Fahnder der Bundesanwaltschaft weiter, einige Tage nach der ersten Anfrage der Ermittler mussten sich Berlins Vize-Polizeipräsidentin, ihr LKA-Chef und dessen Staatsschutzleiter in Karlsruhe erklären.

Im NSU-Untersuchungsausschuss sorgte das schweigsame LKA für Empörung: Das Gremium erfuhr von Henkel und seinen Behörden über Monate trotz diverser Anfragen nichts vom Fall Thomas S. Erst im Juli berichtete die Generalbundesanwaltschaft dem Ermittlungsbeauftragten des Ausschusses über die heiklen Details aus Berlin. Wegen der Sommerpause erfuhr der Ausschuss darüber erst Mitte September und zeigte sich schwer verärgert.

Henkel steht nun massiv in der Kritik, die SPD im Bundestag redete bereits von seinem Rücktritt. “Entweder der Berliner Innensenator übermittelt alle vorhandenen Akten über die Werbung und Abschöpfung des V-Manns unmittelbar dem Ausschuss oder er muss zurücktreten”, sagte Eva Högl am Dienstag, die als Obfrau der SPD im Bundestagsuntersuchungsausschuss sitzt.

Henkel sagte am Mittwoch, dass am Morgen dem Bundestags-Untersuchungsausschuss alle erforderlichen Akten zugeleitet worden seien. Auch die Mitglieder des Abgeordnetenhauses sollen Akteneinsicht bekommen.

“Ich bedauere ausdrücklich, dass es dadurch zu Irritationen gekommen ist”, sagte Henkel. Möglicherweise hätte man im Nachhinein in der Kommunikation etwas anders machen können. Aber aus damaliger Sicht sei es aus Gründen des Quellenschutzes nicht zu verantworten gewesen, die Informationen öffentlich mitzuteilen. Das Vorgehen der Berliner Behörden sei eng mit der Generalbundesanwaltschaft abgestimmt worden. “Nach rechtlicher und fachlicher Beratung habe ich mich an dieses Vorgehen gebunden gefühlt”, sagte Henkel.

V-Mann wurde wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilt

Eine Randnotiz in den Akten des BKA lässt zweifeln, ob Thomas S. als V-Mann geeignet war: Es werden vier Verurteilungen aufgelistet, darunter Beihilfe zur schweren Brandstiftung, Landfriedensbruch im besonders schweren Fall und gefährliche Körperverletzung. Drei Urteile fielen in den Jahren 1993 bis 1999, brisant ist das vierte: Im Jahr 2005 wurde er vom Landgericht Dresden wegen Volksverhetzung zu zehn Monaten auf Bewährung verurteilt. Die Berliner Behörde scheint das nicht weiter gestört zu haben, Thomas S. wurde nicht abgeschaltet.

Heute bestreitet man gar, von einer Verurteilung des V-Manns gewusst zu haben. Aktuell müssen sich Henkel und die amtierende Polizeipräsidentin Margarete Koppers in einer Sondersitzung des Innenausschusses im Berliner Abgeordnetenhaus zu dem Vorgang äußern und erklären, wieso die Dienste von Thomas S. so lange geheim blieben. Auf Nachfrage der Grünen-Abgeordneten Clara Herrmann zu Verurteilungen von Thomas S. in seiner Zeit als V-Mann sagte Koppers, nach ihrem Kenntnisstand seien “keine Straftaten und Verurteilungen bekannt”.

Überhaupt zeigten sich die Verantwortlichen keiner Schuld bewusst, räumten aber ein, dass man bei der Unterrichtung des Ausschusses möglicherweise sensibler hätte agieren müssen. Die Grünen-Politikerin Herrmann erklärt dazu: “Henkel fehlt es anscheinend weiterhin an echtem Aufklärungswillen, es bleiben viele offene Fragen. Man weiß nicht was skandalöser wäre: wenn das LKA von der Verurteilung seines V-Mannes nichts mitbekommen hätte oder wenn die Polizei-Vize-Präsidentin heute im Ausschuss nicht die Wahrheit gesagt haben sollte.”

…

18. September 2012, 16:46 Uhr
Von Matthias Gebauer, Birger Menke und Sven Röbel

Find this story at 18 September 2012

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2012
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

Neonazi-Trio: NSU-Sprengstofflieferant war V-Mann der Berliner Polizei

Erneut geraten die Sicherheitsbehörden in der NSU-Affäre in Erklärungsnot: Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen war Thomas S., einer der 13 Beschuldigten im Verfahren, über zehn Jahre für das Berliner Landeskriminalamt als Informant tätig. Die brisanten Details hielt das LKA sehr lange zurück.

Hamburg/Berlin – Der Mann, der die Ermittlungspannen zum “Nationalsozialistischen Untergrund” (NSU) zur Staatsaffäre machen könnte, lebt zurückgezogen in einer Mehrfamilienhauswohnung in einer verkehrsberuhigten Seitenstraße in Sachsen. Im Garten stehen Tannen, auf dem Sportplatz gegenüber spielen Kinder Fußball. Mit Journalisten will er nicht sprechen: Als der SPIEGEL ihn im August befragen wollte, rief er nur “ich sage nichts” in die Gegensprechanlage.

Dabei hätte Thomas S. Brisantes zu berichten: Der 44-Jährige ist einer von derzeit 13 Beschuldigten, gegen die der Generalbundesanwalt im Zusammenhang mit dem NSU-Terror ermittelt. Von BKA-Ermittlern ließ sich S. inzwischen mehrfach vernehmen und gestand unter anderem, in den neunziger Jahren Sprengstoff an die Terrorzelle um Uwe Böhnhardt, Uwe Mundlos und Beate Zschäpe geliefert zu haben.

Ein zentrales Detail seiner bewegten Vergangenheit findet sich jedoch nicht in den Aussage-Protokollen: Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen wurde Thomas S. mehr als zehn Jahre lang als “Vertrauensperson” (VP) des Berliner Landeskriminalamts (LKA) geführt: Von Ende 2000 bis Anfang 2011.

Fünf Treffen mit V-Mann-Führern

Der Kontakt des LKA zur Quelle S. war offenbar intensiv. Doch erst in diesem Jahr, genauer gesagt im März 2012, informierten die Berliner den Generalbundesanwalt: Zwischen 2001 und 2005 habe S. bei insgesamt fünf Treffen mit seinen V-Mann-Führern Hinweise auf die NSU-Mitglieder geliefert.

Auch wenn die Ermittler mittlerweile recherchiert haben, dass die meisten Tipps von S. nur auf Hörensagen basierten, stellt sich die Frage, ob und warum die Berliner Behörden nicht schon viel früher die Landesbehörden in Thüringen oder auch den Bundesverfassungsschutz informierten. Schließlich wurde das Trio seit 1998 steckbrieflich gesucht.

Von den jahrelangen Verbindungen eines engen Vertrauten des Terror-Trios zu den Behörden erfuhr der Untersuchungsausschuss des Bundestags erst am Donnerstagmorgen – allerdings nicht etwa vom Land Berlin, sondern von der Bundesanwaltschaft, die den Ausschussbeauftragten im Juli abstrakt über die Causa S. in Kenntnis gesetzt hatte.

Einigen im Ausschuss platzt langsam der Kragen nach der schier endlosen Reihe von nicht bereitgestellten Akten. “Es ist unbegreiflich, dass Berlins Innensenator uns nicht über die V-Mann-Tätigkeit von Thomas S. informiert hat”, sagt Eva Högl von der SPD, “das ist ein Skandal, den Herr Henkel nun erklären muss”.

Ein eilig zusammengestelltes Geheim-Fax von Innensenator Frank Henkel beruhigte da wenig. Bis auf die zehnjährige Kooperation mit S. konnte Henkels Apparat auf die Schnelle auch noch nicht viele Details zu dem Fall nennen – zum Beispiel, was S. tatsächlich lieferte und an wen Berlin die Infos damals weitergab.

“Techtelmechtel” mit Beate Zschäpe

Ein mutmaßlicher Terrorhelfer in Staatsdiensten – die Nachricht markiert den vorläufigen Tiefpunkt in einer Affäre, die das Vertrauen in den deutschen Sicherheitsapparat in der Öffentlichkeit inzwischen gegen null sinken lässt. Immer neue Enthüllungen um verschwundene, zurückgehaltene oder eilig vernichtete Akten zum Umfeld der Neonazi-Zelle kosteten bereits den Präsidenten des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz, Heinz Fromm, sowie seine Länderkollegen aus Sachsen, Thüringen und Sachsen-Anhalt das Amt.

Der heute Beschuldigte und Ex-Informant Thomas S. war einst eine Größe in der sächsischen Neonazi-Szene. Er gehörte den sogenannten “88ern” an, einem gewaltbereiten Skinhead-Trupp, der in den neunziger Jahren Chemnitz terrorisierte. S. stieg in die Spitze der sächsischen Sektion des militanten Neonazi-Netzes “Blood & Honour” (B&H) auf. Er war außerdem verstrickt in Produktion und Vertrieb von Neonazi-Rock und frequentierte illegale Skin-Konzerte.

Bei einem Auftritt der Band “Oithanasie”, so erinnerte er sich in einer Vernehmung im Januar, habe er wohl auch Uwe Böhnhardt, Uwe Mundlos und Beate Zschäpe kennengelernt, bevor er wegen Körperverletzung in Haft kam. Nach seiner Entlassung sei er von Ende 1996 bis April 1997 mit Beate Zschäpe liiert gewesen, in seinen Vernehmungen sprach er von einem “Techtelmechtel”.

Erstaunlich zugänglich

Etwa in dieser Zeit, so räumte Thomas S. im Januar 2012 gegenüber dem BKA ein, habe er Mundlos auf dessen Wunsch rund ein Kilo TNT-Sprengstoff beschafft. Das “Päckchen in der Größe eines kleinen Schuhkartons” will er dem Rechtsterroristen in einem Keller übergeben haben. Wenig später flog in einer Garage in Jena die Bombenwerkstatt von Mundlos, Zschäpe und Böhnhardt auf; nach dem Fund der 1392 Gramm TNT flüchtete das Trio und ging in den Untergrund.

Dort, in Chemnitz, half Thomas S. nach eigenen Angaben den Kameraden bei der Suche nach einem Versteck. Er habe herumtelefoniert und das Trio zunächst für ein paar Wochen in der Wohnung des B&H-Sympathisanten Thomas R. untergebracht.

Danach, so S., habe er gehört, dass die drei bei Max-Florian B. wohnten, aber keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm wünschten. Da er ein Verhältnis mit Zschäpe gehabt habe, würde die Polizei bei ihm als erstes suchen. Seit 1998, so S. in seinen Vernehmungen, habe er das Trio nicht mehr gesehen.

Dem Berliner LKA fiel Thomas S. erstmals auf, als er für die Neonazi-Band “Landser” CDs vertrieb und dabei half, die Hass-Musik konspirativ herzustellen. Als die Polizisten ihn ansprachen, war S. erstaunlich zugänglich – und willigte schließlich ein, den Beamten Informationen aus der rechten Szene zu liefern.

“Vertrauensperson” heißen solche Leute bei der Polizei. Es ist allerdings oft nicht ganz klar, wer wem dabei vertraut. Jedenfalls versprach die Behörde, S.’ Identität zu schützen. Auf dieser Zusage soll S. noch im Frühjahr 2012, bei seinen Vernehmungen beharrt haben.

Abgeschaltet im Jahr 2011

Die Berliner verpflichteten S. im November 2000 formal als VP. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatten die drei Rechtsterroristen zwar ihre ersten Verstecke verlassen, hielten sich offenbar aber immer noch in Chemnitz auf. Laut Akten berichtete S. das erste Mal 2001 über das Trio. Was genau, ist bislang noch unbekannt. Seine Rolle bei der Sprengstoffbeschaffung und der Organisation konspirativer Wohnungen verschwieg er dem LKA jedoch offenbar.

2002 schließlich gab er den Berliner Polizisten immerhin den Hinweis, wer Böhnhardt, Mundlos und Zschäpe suche, müsse sich auf den “Landser”-Produzenten Jan W. konzentrieren. Der war bereits von einem V-Mann des brandenburgischen Verfassungsschutzes als möglicher Waffenlieferant des Trios genannt worden. Mit den Informationen aus Berlin hätte sich der Verdacht verdichtet, die Zielfahnder hätten W. noch intensiver als ohnehin schon überwachen können. Bis heute ist unklar, was mit den Angaben, die S. in Berlin machte, geschah.

So ging es weiter. Offenbar drei weitere Male lieferte Thomas S. den Berliner LKA-Beamten Informationen über die untergetauchten Neonazis, zuletzt 2005. Für die Beamten blieb er auch danach noch eine ergiebige Quelle: Er wurde laut den Akten erst im Januar 2011 abgeschaltet – ein dreiviertel Jahr vor dem Auffliegen des “Nationalsozialistischen Untergrunds”. Es sollte aber bis zum 20. März 2012 dauern, bis die Berliner ihre Erkenntnisse aus den Jahren 2001 bis 2005 mit dem Generalbundesanwalt in Karlsruhe teilten.

…

13. September 2012, 21:43 Uhr

Von Matthias Gebauer, Sven Roebel und Holger Stark

Find this story at 13 September 2012

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2012
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

Pannen bei NSU-Ermittlungen: Polizist half Thüringer Neonazis

Im Umfeld der Neonazi-Mörder Uwe Böhnhardt und Uwe Mundlos hat nach SPIEGEL-Informationen offenbar mindestens ein Polizist Geheimaktionen der Sicherheitsbehörden verraten. Konnten die untergetauchten Terroristen auch deshalb unentdeckt bleiben?

Hamburg – Bei den Ermittlungen zur Zwickauer Neonazi-Zelle gibt es neue Erkenntnisse. Akten, die die Thüringer Verfassungsschützer in ihren Panzerschränken fanden, haben es in sich: Ein Beamter namens Sven T. habe an Treffen der Neonazi-Gruppierung Thüringer Heimatschutz teilgenommen und mit den Rechtsextremisten sympathisiert, heißt es in einem geheimen Vermerk des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz vom 30. Juli 1999, den die Kölner Bundesbehörde an die Landeskollegen in Erfurt geschickt hatte.

Laut einem Quellenbericht habe der Neonazi Enrico K., der wie Uwe Mundlos, Uwe Böhnhardt und Beate Zschäpe dem Thüringer Heimatschutz angehörte, von Sven T. wichtige Informationen über geplante Polizeiaktionen erhalten.

Es blieb nicht bei der einen Warnung. Am 17. September 1999 – etwa eineinhalb Jahre nach dem Abtauchen des Neonazi-Trios – meldete sich das Bundesamt ein weiteres Mal. Der Polizist, der aus der Polizeidirektion Saalfeld stamme, sei “national eingestellt” und habe Enrico K. erneut telefonisch über Polizeiaktionen gewarnt. So soll T. den Neonazi aufgefordert haben, vorsichtig zu operieren, um nicht wegen Rädelsführerschaft aufzufallen.

Vom Sympathisant zum V-Mann-Führer

Doch obwohl das Bundesamt die Landesverfassungsschützer in Thüringen auch darüber informierte, geschah offenbar nichts – im Gegenteil: vergangene Woche teilte das Thüringer Innenministerium dem Berliner Untersuchungsausschuss mit, Sven T. sei später sogar zum Verfassungsschutz versetzt worden.

…

24. August 2012, 17:21 Uhr

Von Holger Stark

Find this story at 24 August 2012

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2012
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

Former spy Mark Kennedy sues police for ‘failing to stop him falling in love’

Mark Kennedy, who infiltrated environmental movement until his cover was blown, demands up to £100,000 for ‘personal injury’

Former police spy Mark Kennedy, who was known as Mark Stone, claims the undercover operation ‘destroyed his life’. Photograph: Philipp Ebeling for the Guardian

A former spy is suing the Metropolitan police for failing to “protect” him from falling in love with one of the environmental activists whose movement he infiltrated.

Mark Kennedy, who was known as Mark Stone until the activists discovered his identity in late 2010, filed a writ last month claiming damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 for personal injury and consequential loss and damage due to police “negligence”.

“I worked undercover for eight years,” he told the Mail on Sunday. “My superiors knew who I was sleeping with but chose to turn a blind eye because I was getting such valuable information They did nothing to prevent me falling in love.”

Kennedy says since he was unmasked he has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. His wife, Edel, has filed for divorce, and is seeking compensation for “emotional trauma”.

…

Amelia Hill
The Guardian, Sunday 25 November 2012 16.54 GMT

Find this story at 25 November 2012
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Now undercover PC to sue Scotland Yard for £100,000 ‘because they did nothing to stop HIM falling in love with an activist’

Mark Kennedy, 43, is claiming damages for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’
Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma
The landmark case is due to be heard at the High Court next year

A former undercover police officer is suing Scotland Yard for failing to ‘protect’ him against falling in love with a woman in the group of eco-warriors he was sent to infiltrate.

In a landmark case due to be heard at the High Court next year, Mark Kennedy says his superiors at the Metropolitan Police knew he was sleeping with women he had been sent to spy on, but turned a blind eye because of the quality of intelligence he was providing.

In a writ filed last month, Kennedy, 43, is claiming damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’ due to police ‘negligence’.

Ex-undercover PC Mark Kennedy, 43, pictured, is suing Scotland Yard for failing to ‘protect’ him from falling in love with an activist he was sent to spy on

Mr Kennedy, who went undercover as an eco-warrior for eight years, is now divorcing his wife, Edel, pictured

Kennedy, who went under the alias of Mark Stone, a tattooed climber, is claiming damages for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’

He has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is seeking compensation for the ‘emotional trauma’ suffered.

Last night he said: ‘I worked undercover for eight years. My superiors knew who I was sleeping with, but chose to turn a blind eye because I was getting such valuable information. The police had access to all my phone calls, texts and emails, many of which were of a sexual and intimate nature.They knew where I was spending the night and with whom. They did nothing to prevent me falling in love.

‘When my cover was blown it destroyed my life. I lost my job, my girlfriend and my reputation. I started self-harming and went to a shrink who diagnosed me with post-traumatic stress syndrome. The blame rests firmly at the feet of my superiors at the Met who had a duty to protect me.’

Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma saying they were duped into having sex with undercover officers. Three of the women are ex-lovers of Kennedy.

Their lawsuit states: ‘The men .  .  . used techniques they had been trained in to gain trust and thereby create the illusion they might be a “soulmate” to the women. There is no doubt that the officers obtained the consent of these women to sexual intercourse by deceit.’

Their case hit the headlines last week when police made a controversial bid to have it thrown out of the High Court and heard behind closed doors.

A legal source familiar with Kennedy’s case said: ‘He is as much a victim as the women are. The police failed to look after his psychiatric well-being and as a result he suffered post- traumatic stress for which the Met is responsible.’

Married Kennedy, who is now going through a divorce from his wife Edel, operated under the alias of Mark Stone, a long-haired heavily tattooed climber. The father of two worked for the secretive National Public Order Intelligence Unit. He says he cost the taxpayer £250,000 a year in wages and costs.

The landmark case is due to be heard at the High Court, pictured, next year. Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma

Kennedy was exposed when a £1 million trial against activists who allegedly planned to occupy a power plant in Nottinghamshire fell apart. Taped evidence he had made using a concealed microphone, which would have cleared the men, had not been presented in court.

All three of the women who had relationships with Kennedy have requested anonymity. He fell deeply in love with a red-haired Welsh activist he started sleeping with in 2004 and lived with from the end of 2005 until his cover was blown in 2010.

Kennedy says he had to have sex with the protesters to protect his cover. ‘The world of eco-activists is rife with promiscuity. Everyone sleeps with everyone else. If I hadn’t had sex they would have rumbled me as an informant,’ he said.

…

By Daily Mail Reporter and Caroline Graham

PUBLISHED: 22:00 GMT, 24 November 2012 | UPDATED: 15:09 GMT, 25 November 2012

Find this story at 24 November 2012

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group
© Associated Newspapers Ltd

Statement condemning the Metropolitan Police’s attempt to have case heard in secret

“The police cannot be permitted to hide behind the cloak of secrecy, when they have been guilty of one of the most intrusive and complete invasions of privacy that can be imagined.”

The approach of the Metropolitan Police to the litigation has been obstructive from the outset, refusing to provide any substantive response to the allegations and hiding behind a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy about the activities of their officers. Now, to add insult to injury, following one of the most intrusive invasions of privacy imaginable, the police are attempting to strike out the women’s claim by arguing that the case should have been started in a shadowy secret court known as the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). [1]

The IPT exists for the sole purpose of maintaining secrecy, and under its jurisdiction the case could proceed with the women denied access to and unable to challenge police evidence, and powerless to appeal the tribunal’s decisions. This will mean that neither they, nor the public will ever find out the extent of the violations of human rights and abuses of public office perpetrated by these undercover units. Thus, the women, who have suffered a totally disproportionate, unnecessary and extremely damaging invasion of their privacy, may be denied access to justice by the very legislation which was purportedly designed to protect their rights.

The public outrage at the phone hacking scandal earlier this year focused on the cynical intrusion into lives of individuals by the press and the police. Today’s hearing relates to levels of intrusion far more invasive than phone hacking, yet so far most mainstream politicians remain silent.

What little information the women have garnered indicates that for 30 years or more these undercover units had (and still have) a rolling brief to inform on political movements and keep files on individuals (simply because they are or were politically active), without investigating any specific crime, and with no apparent intention to participate in any criminal justice process.[2] As a part of this, undercover officers lied and manipulated their way into people’s lives whilst their cover officers, back-room teams and the rest of the police command structure monitored and controlled people’s private lives and relationships. In certain cases, the false identity established by the police was able to be exploited by individual officers to continue their deceit after their deployment had officially ended, seemingly with no safeguard for the women involved, even fathering children in the process.

These massive intrusions into people’s lives are reminiscent of the activities of the Stasi in East Germany and those responsible should be brought to public account. These cases are, therefore, being brought in an attempt to expose the damage done by the Metropolitan Police and to make them publicly accountable for their actions.

This is a statement from supporters of eight women who are bringing legal against the Metropolitan Police. The eight women were deceived into long term intimate relationships with undercover police officers. The Metropolitan Police has applied to have the cases heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). [1] The application will be heard at the High Court on Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 November 2012. Read the Press Release here

NOTES FOR EDITORS:
[1] The IPT is a little known tribunal set up under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA, 2000) to deal with claims brought under the Human Rights Act against the police and other security services.
[2] The HMIC report states that “for most undercover deployments the most intense scrutiny occurs when the evidence they have collected is presented at court. Accountability to the court therefore provides an incentive for police to implement the system of control rigorously: but in the HMIC’s view, this incentive did not exist for the NPOIU. This is because NPOIU undercover officers were deployed to develop general intelligence…rather than gathering material for the purpose of criminal prosecutions.” Source: HMIC “A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest” (February 2012) p.7

Find this story at 19 November 2012

Political activists sue Met over relationships with police spies: Women say undercover officers including Mark Kennedy tricked them into intimacy in order to foster emotional dependence

Mark Kennedy, in environmentalist mode: three of the women referred to in court had intimate relationships with him. Photograph: Guardian

Undercover police officers had long-term sexual relationships with political activists and joined them at family gatherings and on holidays to make their targets “emotionally dependent” on them, according to papers submitted to the high court.

The allegations were revealed at the start of a legal attempt by the Metropolitan police to have the claims heard in secret.

Ten women and one man have launched a legal action claiming they were conned into forming “deeply personal” relationships with the police spies.

The case is the first civil action to be brought before a court since the Guardian revealed police officers frequently slept with political campaigners as part of a spy operation over four decades.

Lawyers for the police are applying to have the cases struck out of the high court and moved to a little-known tribunal that usually deals with complaints about MI5.

The solicitor Harriet Wistrich, who is representing most of the claimants, said: “These women are suing for a gross invasion of privacy, and the Met’s response is to try and hive it off into a secret court.”

Most of the claimants had long-term and serious relationships with police spies, one lasting nearly six years. One was a man who had a close personal friendship with a police spy who ended up having a sexual relationship with his girlfriend.

The submissions also refer to the case of a woman who had a child with an undercover officer who was spying on her and who vanished from her life when the deployment came to an end.

Three of the women referred to in court had intimate relationships with Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years living as an environmental campaigner. Details of Kennedy’s deployment were made public last year after activists worked out he was a police mole.

Two other women in the case had sexual relationships with a colleague of Kennedy’s who served undercover alongside him. The police spy claimed to be a truck driver called Mark Jacobs when he infiltrated a small anarchist group in Cardiff until 2009.

As Jacobs, he had taken part in “deeply personal aspects of their lives”, even attending the funeral of one woman’s father after he died of cancer, barristers told the court in their written legal submissions.

“In doing so, he had exploited the vulnerabilities of the claimants and sought to encourage them to rely on him emotionally,” the documents added.

“Jacobs” had instigated a sexual relationship with one of the women, the court was told, while she was going out with another male activist, who is part of the legal action.

“During the course of those relationships, Jacobs purported to be a confidant, empathiser and source of close support to each of the claimants,” the barristers said.

Lawyers for the 10 women involved in the joint legal action against the Met, which had overall responsibility for the deployment of the spies, claim the deception caused their clients “serious emotional and psychiatric harm”.

They told Mr Justice Tugendhat the undercover officers had used the long-term relationships to gather intelligence on the women or for their own “personal gratification”, while pretending to support them emotionally.

They said the “grave allegations” of police misconduct raised serious questions about the “extent to which covert police powers have been and may in future be used to invade the personal, psychological and bodily integrity” of members of the public.

There is confusion over the rules governing the conduct of police spies. Senior officers have claimed it is “never acceptable” and “grossly unprofessional” for undercover officers to sleep with their targets; however, a government minister recently told parliament the tactic was permitted.

The evidence uncovered by the Guardian suggests the practice is routine. Eight of the nine undercover officers identified over the past 21 months are believed to have had intimate sexual relationships with protesters they were spying on.

Documents submitted to the court allege that Kennedy attended intimate family gatherings with all three women and joined them on holidays.

“He discouraged [them] from terminating the intimate sexual relationships,” their barristers said.

Kennedy, who was married with two children, had one relationship with an activist for two years. Another activist, who became his long-term girlfriend, was in a relationship with the police spy for six years.

…

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
The Guardian, Wednesday 21 November 2012 13.05 GMT

Find this story at 21 November 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Scotland Yard accused of ’trying to hide its secrets’ after appealing for police sex case to go to secret court

Scotland Yard has been accused of ‘trying to hide its secrets’ after appealing for a case involving female activists who were ‘conned into sexual relationships’ with undercover police officers to be heard in secret.

One man and 11 women from environmental activist groups are seeking damages from Scotland Yard for the ‘emotional trauma’ they suffered when undercover officers allegedly tricked them into having sexual relationships.

One of the women is planning to sue the Met for the financial burden of bringing up a child, now 27, fathered by an officer, it was reported.

Controversial: Scotland Yard has been accused of ’trying to hide its secrets’ after appealing for a case involving female activists who were ‘conned into sexual relationships’ with undercover police officers to be heard in secret

But it emerged last night that the Metropolitan Police are aiming to move the case against them from the High Court to a secretive tribunal.

The Met is to appeal this week that some of the cases – which were due to be heard in the High Court – should be heard in the little-known Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) instead.

The IPT, which was established in 2000, has the power to investigate complaints about the conduct of Britain’s Intelligence Agencies, including MI5, MI6 and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

But complainants who take cases to the IPT have fewer rights than in court and are not able to choose their own lawyer or cross-examine witnesses.

Most hearings are held in private, no explanation has to be given for the judgement and there is no automatic right of appeal.

The Met claims that because it’s undercover operations were authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act (Ripa), which is monitored by the IPT, the cases cannot be heard in a normal court.

Action: The cases were sparked after activists exposed Met policeman Mark Kennedy, pictured, as an undercover officer

But critics have accused the Met of covering up its ‘dirty laundry’ by trying to have the cases heard by the IPT – which has upheld fewer than 1 per cent of complaints in its history.

Jenny Jones, deputy chairwoman of City Hall’s police and crime committee, which monitors the Met, told The Times: ‘I’m very concerned about this because clearly the Met is trying to hide its dirty laundry.

‘These women deserve to have their stories told and for people to understand that what happened to them was a complete betrayal of trust.

‘There seems to be a trend of the State clearly trying to hide its secrets and that’s not acceptable.’

The cases were sparked after activists exposed Met policeman Mark Kennedy as an undercover officer, leading to the collapse of a case against people charged with planning to invade a power station.

Several women then came forward to say they had had sexual contact with him, without realising he was a policeman.

…

By Rosie Taylor and Tim Shipman

PUBLISHED: 05:26 GMT, 19 November 2012 | UPDATED: 05:29 GMT, 19 November 2012

Find this story at 19 November 2012

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

Met accused of hiding ‘dirty secrets’ in undercover cases

 

Scotland Yard has been accused of trying to “hide its dirty secrets” after it sought secret hearings for cases brought by female activists who had sexual relationships with undercover police officers.

Eleven women and one man are suing the Met for emotional trauma after claiming they were tricked into forming intimate relationships with undercover officers.

One woman claims an undercover officer fathered her child and is planning a landmark legal claim that will test whether the Met should bear some financial responsibility for the child’s upbringing.

The cases have been lodged in the High Court, but the Met argues that some cases should be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

…

Justin Davenport, Crime Edito

Find this story at 19 November 2012

© 2012 Evening Standard Limited