Lobster Issue 65 (Summer 2013)
[PDF file]: […] that X lied, or that the CIA screwed the inquiry, might not imply involvement in the assassination. Shaw and Ferrie had all manner of connections to US intelligence that they did not want to discuss; and Garrison’s inquiry was heading off into areas the CIA did not want examined: to name the obvious two, […]
Lobster Issue 79 (Summer 2020)
[PDF file]: South of the border (occasional snippets from) Nick Must Spook joke department ‘UK spies will need artificial intelligence’ reads the headline to a Gordon Corera piece on BBC news online.1 Yes, the gags are pretty much writing themselves now. Deferred prosecution agreements – buying your way out of trouble ‘A deferred prosecution agreement, or […]
Lobster Issue 75 (Summer 2018)
[PDF file]: […] holds any information which falls within scope of your request.’ However . . . exemption 23(5) can only be used when the information relates to fourteen specified intelligence, security and national policing bodies5 – only five of which were in existence at the time of Hilda Murrell’s murder: those five being MI5, MI6, GCHQ, […]
Lobster Issue 75 (Summer 2018)
Lobster Issue 82 (Winter 2021)
[PDF file]: […] coup to seize power for himself. He ‘did little to hide his involvement in drug trafficking’ and, according to an interview with Col. Russell Thaden, the NATO intelligence chief, on one occasion he ‘blew his stack upon learning U.S. and British forces had jointly bombed a large drug lab in northern Afghanistan’. He calmed […]
Lobster Issue 69 (Summer 2015)
[PDF file]: […] handling of the very significant Tyler Kent/Right Club events which might have had a serious impact on WW2, delaying American entry; and the careful debriefing of Soviet intelligence defector Krivitsky, the first of its kind. Versions of these events, based on the same files, are in Christopher Andrew’s Defence of the Realm and had […]
Lobster Issue 72 (Winter 2016)
[PDF file]: […] that disastrous campaign, we heard a fair bit of comment that the Americans should have listened to the Brits because the British state – its military and intelligence – is good at counterinsurgency.2 Newsinger’s account of British CI campaigns since 1945 shows that this is a delusion. With the exception of a couple of […]