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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Days after he was sentenced to 30 months in prison, John Kiriakou — the first CIA official to be jailed for any reason relating to the torture program — denounces President Obama’s appointment of John Brennan to head the CIA. “I’ve known John Brennan since 1990,” Kiriakou says. “I worked directly for John Brennan twice. I think that he is a terrible choice to lead the CIA. I think that it’s time for the CIA to move beyond the ugliness of the post-September 11th regime, and we need someone who is going to respect the Constitution and to not be bogged down by a legacy of torture.”

Find this story at 30 January 2013

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to talk about John Brennan right now, President Obama’s nominee to become the next chief of the CIA. The news agency Reuters is reporting that Brennan had detailed information on the agency’s torture program while serving there under President George W. Bush. Official records apparently show Brennan received regular internal CIA updates about the progress of torture techniques, including waterboarding. It’s unclear if Brennan raised any objections at the time he was made aware. Brennan’s confirmation hearing will be February 7th. In 2006, he gave an interview with Frontline on PBS where he said it was right for the Bush administration to, quote, “take off the gloves” after the 9/11 attacks.

JOHN BRENNAN: The war, or the campaign against terrorism, is going to be a long one, and that the opposition, whether it be al-Qaeda or whether it be Iraq, doesn’t play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, and therefore, you know, the U.S., in some areas, has to take off the gloves. And I think that’s entirely appropriate. I think we do have to take off the gloves in some areas, but within bounds, and at the right time, in the right way, and for the right reason, and with full understanding of what the consequences of that might be.

AMY GOODMAN: That was John Brennan in 2006. When President Obama was first elected in his first term, he wanted to—John Brennan to be his director of Central Intelligence. There was such an outcry in the human rights community that John Brennan pulled his name out. Now, four years later, President Obama has officially nominated John Brennan once again to head the CIA. Our guest, John Kiriakou, is about to go to jail, was sentenced to 30 months in prison, worked for the CIA, there while John Brennan was there. Can you respond to what John Brennan knew, when he knew it, and the fact that President Obama wants him to be head of the CIA?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Sure. Obviously I can’t read John Brennan’s mind, but I can tell you that at the time that the torture techniques were being implemented, John Brennan was President Bush’s director of the National Counterterrorist Center. He was also, a little earlier than that, the deputy executive director and then, I believe, executive director of the CIA. That’s the number three ranking position in the CIA. So, he would have had to have been intimately involved in—not necessarily in carrying out the torture techniques, but in the policy, the torture policy—either that or he had to be brain dead, because you can’t be in positions like that, director of the National Counterterrorist Center and executive director of the CIA, without knowing what the CIA’s torture policies are.

Now, I’m surprised, frankly, also, at the fact that there’s no outrage in the human rights community now that Mr. Brennan’s nomination has been made official. There was a great hue and cry in 2009 when he was initially floated for the position of CIA director. And I’m not sure why there’s a difference between four years ago and now. John Brennan certainly hasn’t changed.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakou, I want to read a comment made by the judge at your sentencing hearing. Judge Leonie Brinkema sentenced you to 30 months in prison last Friday, saying, quote, “This case is not a case about a whistleblower. It’s a case about a man who betrayed a very solemn trust, and that is a trust to keep the integrity of his agency intact and specifically to protect the identity of co-workers. … I think 30 months is, frankly, way too light, because the message has to be sent to every covert agent that when you leave the agency you can’t just start all of a sudden revealing the names of the people with whom you worked,” the judge said. John Kiriakou, can you comment on that statement?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Sure. When Judge Brinkema accepted the plea deal in October, she called 30 months fair and appropriate. I can only think that with a courtroom packed full of journalists last Friday, she decided to seize the moment and make a statement that would be carried in the papers. I don’t know what changed between October and January, other than the fact that she and the prosecution had had several ex parte communications. What that means is the prosecutors were able to meet with the judge, related to my case, without the defense, my attorneys, being present. So we have no idea what it was that the prosecution told the judge. We were not allowed to defend ourselves. Indeed, Judge Brinkema denied 75 motions that we made asking for declassification of information so that I could present a defense. In August of 2012, after our motions had been denied, my attorneys and I walked out of the courtroom, and my attorney said, “We have no defense. She won’t let us say anything. She won’t let us defend you.” And so, we were forced into plea negotiations. But again, I’m not sure why the judge changed her position between October and January; it was inexplicable to me.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what that’s like in the courtroom, when they invoke national security, that the prosecutor can come forward and speak privately with the judge without your defense attorneys being there.

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Yeah, I had never heard of such a thing before. But in August, when we made our 75 motions, we thought that the judge would block off two days to hear the 75. In fact, there had been a conversation with the prosecution, and so she blocked off an hour to hear the 75 motions. So we knew we were in trouble. And then, at the very start of the hearing, the prosecutor got up and said that he was requesting a Rule 4 conversation. I didn’t know what this was. My attorneys objected and said, “If you don’t want the defendant to hear, at least allow us to hear so that we can represent his interests.” And the judge said, “No, this is a national security case. I’m allowed an ex parte communication with the prosecutors.” So the prosecutors went up to the bench. We could hear them whispering. They came back to their table, and the judge said, “All 75 motions are denied.” And that was the end of it. We got up, and we walked out of court. And my attorneys said, “We have to negotiate a plea.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Jesselyn—

JOHN KIRIAKOU: It was extremely disheartening.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Jesselyn Radack, I wanted to ask about the legal implications of this case and how it fits into the treatment of government whistleblowers under the Obama administration.

JESSELYN RADACK: Absolutely. To get to the point you just raised with John, I think the reason Judge Brinkema changed her opinion between October and last week is because the government submitted a secret statement that John was not allowed to see that played a large role in the sentencing hearing, but neither the public nor the defendant were allowed to see the statement, which is very Kafkaesque.

But in the grander scheme, the prosecution of John Kiriakou and the war on whistleblowers, using the heavy handed Espionage Act, by charging people who dare to tell the truth as being enemies of the state, sends a very chilling message. And Judge Brinkema herself acknowledged that a strong message had to be sent, that secrets must be kept. But apparently, that only applies to people who are trying to reveal government abuses and illegality, because all of the people in the White House and the CIA who revealed classified information and—of undercover identities to the makers of a Hollywood film, Zero Dark Thirty, have done so with impunity and with lavish praise. So—

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, can you say—can you say specifically what you’re talking about, Jesselyn Radack?

JESSELYN RADACK: Yes. Specifically, the White House and the CIA were very involved in the making of Zero Dark Thirty, which pretends to be some kind of neutral film that implies torture led to the capture of Osama bin Laden, which it absolutely did not. In that process, a high-level Defense Department official, Michael Vickers, revealed the identity of an undercover Special Operations Command officer, but was not held to account for that. And the CIA revealed numerous classified pieces of information, including sources and methods. So when—yeah?

AMY GOODMAN: Keep going.

JESSELYN RADACK: So when the United States talks about the sanctity of keeping secrets, and both the judge and multiple statements by United States officials discussed that, they are the biggest leakers of all. And they do so with impunity.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about another whistleblower targeted by the Obama administration who has been former National Security Agency analyst. He’s Thomas Drake. He worked for the NSA for nearly seven years before blowing the whistle. Thomas Drake appeared on Democracy Now! last March.

THOMAS DRAKE: The critical thing that I discovered was not just the massive fraud, waste and abuse, but also the fact that NSA had chosen to ignore a 23-year legal regime, which had been established in 1978, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and which, at NSA, during the time that I was not only at NSA but also in the military flying on RC-135s overseas during the latter part of the Cold War, it was a contract, the one thing you did not do. It was the prime directive of NSA. It was the—the—First Amendment at NSA, which is, you do not spy on Americans—

AMY GOODMAN: And what did you find?

THOMAS DRAKE: —without a warrant. I found, much to my horror, that they had tossed out that legal regime, that it was the excuse of 9/11, which I was told was: Exigent conditions now prevailed, we essentially can do anything. We opened up Pandora’s box. We’re going to turn the United States of America into the equivalent of a foreign nation for the purpose of a—of dragnet, blanket electronic surveillance.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s former National Security Agency analyst Thomas Drake. Jesselyn Radack, he is one of your clients. What happened to him?

JESSELYN RADACK: Yes, I represented both Tom Drake and John Kiriakou. The government dropped all 10 felony counts against Tom Drake, and he pled guilty to a minor misdemeanor, the equivalent of a parking ticket. I find it appalling that the two men who revealed the biggest scandals of the Bush administration—namely warrantless wiretapping and torture—are the only two who have been criminally prosecuted for it, and not the people who secretly surveiled the communications of Americans, and not the people who were involved in the torture program, all of whom have been conferred immunity by either the president or by acts of Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: John Kiriakou, you’re now—we are now—the president is President Obama. Did you see a change between President Obama and his predecessor, President Bush? And also, when you were talking about John Brennan, do you think he should head the CIA? What message do think that sends? And what has changed in the last four years, when he withdrew his name for consideration?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: In 2010, when my book came out, I was giving a speech in Los Angeles, and a woman asked me a question about the difference between President Obama and President Bush. And I’ll never forget the question, because it was just so crazy. She said, “Can you explain the CIA’s position on the jihadization of American foreign policy under President Obama?” And I laughed, and I said, “Ma’am, with all due respect, President Obama’s foreign policy is an extension of President Bush’s foreign policy. If there’s any difference at all, President Obama is killing more people overseas than President Bush ever did.” So, no, I don’t think there’s any difference at all between the Bush foreign policy and the Obama foreign policy, which I think really is a shame for us, because there was a wonderful opportunity to take a different path and to reclaim our position as a moral leader in the world. So I’m disappointed in that.

With regard to John Brennan, I’ve known John Brennan since 1990. I worked directly for John Brennan twice. I think that he is a terrible choice to lead the CIA. I think that it’s time for the CIA to move beyond the ugliness of the post-September 11th regime, and we need someone who is going to respect the Constitution and to not be bogged down by a legacy of torture. I think that President Obama’s appointment of John Brennan sends the wrong message to all Americans.

AMY GOODMAN: You worked with him, directly for him. Did Brennan receive regular internal CIA updates about the progress of torture techniques, including waterboarding, as Reuters is reporting?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: I worked for him when he was a—an analytic manager. It was before he really hit the big time under George Tenet. But again, I think that it’s impossible for him to not have gotten these briefings, for him to not have been intimately involved in the policy, by virtue of his senior positions, some of the senior-most positions in the CIA. It’s just impossible that he didn’t know what was going on.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakou, you’ll shortly be going to prison. Do you know exactly when your prison sentence will begin? And how are you preparing for this? You’re the father of five children.

JOHN KIRIAKOU: I’m the father of five. I don’t know exactly when this will be. It will be sometime in the next four to six weeks. I’ll have to report to a prison somewhere. I don’t know where. It’s, frankly, very hard to prepare. You have to do things like arrange a power of attorney, arrange child care. I mean, there are so many things to do, it’s just overwhelming. My wife, thank God, is very strong and very tough and very supportive. And we are treating this like temporary duty overseas. It was not unusual for me to go overseas for many months at a time, sometimes as long as two years at a time, two-and-a-half years. So we’re treating this like an overseas deployment. I can call my children virtually every day. If I’m close enough, they can come and visit me. And I’m just hoping for the best.

AMY GOODMAN: How old are your kids, John?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: I have two sons from a first marriage who are 19 and 16, and then my wife and I have three children: an eight-year-old boy, a six-year-old girl and one-year-old boy.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do they understand?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Well, they know that I’ve been involved in a fight with the FBI for the last year. And I told them, “You know I’ve been fighting the FBI. And unfortunately, I lost. And so, because I lost, my punishment is I’m going to have to go away for a couple of years, and I’m going to try to teach bad guys how to get their high school diplomas. And when I’m all done with that, I’ll come home, and we’ll live as a family, and everything’s going to be OK again.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakou, quickly, before we conclude, what advice would you give to whistleblowers now, given what’s happened in your case?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: I made mistakes in my case. I would say, first, go through the chain of command, which I didn’t do, I should have done. I would say, if you get no satisfaction through your chain of command, go to the congressional oversight committees. But do not remain silent. If you see waste, fraud, abuse or illegality, shout it from the rooftops, whether it’s internally or to Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: John, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for being with us. John Kiriakou spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and case officer. He’s going to jail for two-and-a-half years.