« Least surprising headline this year - so far. | Main | Way to go. »

A Smoking Gun?

I came across the case of Katherine Gun last night.

From Time Magazine:

Sunday, Jan. 25, 2004
Standing in the dock of a London court last week, Katharine Gun was yet another reason why Tony Blair can't put the Iraq war behind him. She was a translator at Britain's secret eavesdropping agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). But last year, as the U.S. and Britain prepared to invade Iraq, she came across an e-mail from Frank Koza, deputy chief of the Regional Targets section of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), asking GCHQ to mount a "surge" of spying against members of the U.N. Security Council whose votes would be crucial to passing a second resolution authorizing war. This request would probably not have shocked most of the target diplomats the NSA is widely known to intercept communications even from allies but Gun was outraged at what she considered an attempt to subvert the U.N.

My thoughts - another bleeding heart who believes her conscience is more important than obeying the law, thank God it wasn't any thing really important she was trusted with, send her down. But a little part of me always admires people who refuse to "just obeying orders" and a bigger part admires anyone who is going to embarrass Tony Blair.

And finally should I be saying any of this? - it isn't being covered in the UK and I can find nothing on the BBC site...
BBC NEWS UKFS - Search Results For Katharine Gun

Comments

Funny how the Guardianistas consider that Section 2 of the Offical Secrets Act doesn't apply to them.

Er, the BBC has this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3243266.stm

But the BBC site's search engine doesn't find that page - but then they built their own at our expense rather than buy in Google!

Weirder than that - sometimes it finds it sometimes it doesn't, try pressing refresh a few times!

The story has been in the Observer this last couple of weekends.

Under Reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treacherous Betrayal by State
By: Beldeu Singh
Independent Media TV Date: 01/23/2004

Printer Friendly Version

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times, he blew the whistle on the deceptions and lies of the Nixon Administration and other forms of official misconduct relating to the war in Vietnam. He was "viciously harassed" and his psychiatrist's office was burglarized.
The Nixon Administration tried to destroy him and also charged him with treason, theft and conspiracy. The prosecution failed on the grounds of government misconduct but no case was filed against the Nixon Administration for treacherous violation of the allegiance owed by the State to protect the righteous conduct, privacy and personal dignity of the individual. Deceptions and lies in officialdom with or without conspiracies which impinge on national interests or the conduct of a state in international affairs and utilize public funds or tax payor's money is "treason against the public".

In other words, the "vicious harassment" of the State as in the case of Daniel Ellsberg is the betrayal of the individual by the State and a criminal act not endorsed by any constitution or moral code. So, it becomes inherently essential to ask all Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates this question, "Sir, if you are elected President (or Prime Minister), and if you or your Administration carries out an act or a misconduct or an illegal act by deception or lies to the public, and if I blew the whistle by leaking documents to the media, would you or your agents or servants harass me?" And, then we wait in pregnant silence to listen to the answer.

Now comes the real voice of conscience - Katherine Gun who "passionately felt that an invasion of Iraq was morally wrong and illegal". In fact the invasion of Iraq is going down in history as the War by False Pretexts and an illegal invasion.

Katherine "deeply believes in democratic principles" that moved her to take the courageous step blow the whistle when she leaked a memo to The London Observer. Her conduct did not undermine democratic principles or conscionable conduct but it "deeply embarrassed the US and British Governments" and she was arrested for violating the Official Secrets Act.

The Official Secrets Act can be used in a mean, base and vicious manner because it is supposed to protect anything and everything in a file classified as official secret including deceptions, lies and conspiracies and conduct or misconduct or illegal acts associated with those deceptions and lies although no law is actually conceived for such purposes and is deemed against public policy and the moral duty of law and no court is set up to protect officials who take an oath to serve the public and the nation but later act to deceive and set up lies or conspiracies more so when such lies, deceptions, conspiracies or misconduct or illegal acts may be treason or otherwise treacherous betrayal of national or public interest.

Parliament cannot make laws with the intent to protect deception, lies, conspiracies or misconduct or illegal acts or any other misdeeds and the courts will not enforce such laws.

The term "official secret" in the Act shall not mean any act of deception or acts of deception or a lie or lies or any misconduct or acts of misconduct or an illegal act or illegal acts or abuse or misuse of funds or authority. This is also true from direct inference that no official is contracted or elected for such purposes or duties and functions. Such behaviour in official capacities is not professional and it violates the contract of service and the implied terms of serving as an appointed officer or an elected officer and it cannot, on that analysis be protected by any law. It is against public policy to give efficacy to laws or provisions of statute that protect such acts and keep them as official secrets.

So, when information on such acts, lies, deception or misconduct or documents that prove them are leaked, it does not violate The Official Secrets Act. So, quite clearly Gun's arrest is illegal and her detention unlawful. On the other hand, it is the moral duty of every upright citizen to expose misdeeds and illegal acts wherever they may occur and that duty is sacred to society and no law ought to be created or enforced to stand against it, more so to aid democracy.

Fortunately, Katherine Gun is being allowed by the British Courts to plead an unusual "defense of necessity". He defense should properly deal with the legal issue of what the Official Secrets Act can lawfully keep a secret, especially when the societal norm, the norm in national governance and corporate governance is transparency so that as a matter of principle, the public knows the truth, while regulatory bodies have gone so far as to enforce "truth in selling" to protect the consumer.

The British courts should also allow Gun to set up her defense based on "conscionably righteous conduct flowing from democratic principles and values" and it is the type of conduct expected from an upright citizen of upright upbringing.

A victory for Gun would be a victory for all parents who raise their children on the proper adult role model of conscionably righteous conduct at all times. Conscionably righteous conduct flows from democratic principles and values, and the victory of good over evil for laws cannot transgress these principles and values and Katherine Gun showed exemplary courage within this framework to make a sincere effort to prevent an illegal invasion based on deception, lies and false premises.

Should the courts send a contrary message to parents and members of the public? In doing so, the courts will imply to all officials that their lies, deceptions, acts of misconduct or illegal acts will be protected by keeping them as secrets of the State. Was the State created for such purposes?

To convict Gun would be to drop a cluster bomb on the central pillar of moral fabric on which children are raised and on the cornerstone of democratic principles and values which together feed the fountain for conscionably righteous conduct and on the moral duty of law. In Gun's case, the law itself is on trial together with societal values.

Beldeu Singh Selayang, Selangor, Malaysia

Original Link: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5240&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported


Copyright 2004 Independent Media TV Printer Friendly Version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Additional Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to view all items by Beldeu Singh

Click here to view all items from Independent Media TV

Click here to view all items about Top Stories Ignored By U.S. Media

Click here to view all items about Bush Administration Corruption, Lies and Deceit

Click here to view all items about United Nations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL information on this website is for educational purposes ONLY.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Post a comment