I was going to write about this, then noticed an avid and interesting conversation on flambingo.net, where Anno was writing about this over a month ago.
Some other points of view - Guardian interview with Ms Gun, BBC coverage, Independent - questions case for war; full text of email from the Observer.
Then this morning, there was that interview with Clare Short, revealing spying on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, on the Today programme. The Today programme site has audio files and further coverage. Channel 4 news tonight have an interview with Clare Short tonight, which sounds electric.
Katherine Gun affair
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Katherine Gun affair.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://betageek.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1812
Bliar [oops] is looking for more spies. Read More
Our World Our Say have been running a campaign calling for the case to be dropped. Katherine has support from (amongst others) Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower whose Pentagon Papers revelations about US government deception helped end the Vietnam War.
Will be fascinated to see how this develops.
Lucy
I've wrestled with this a little.
On the one hand she broke the Official Secrets Act, the idea of which is that decisions about issues concerning national security and what is in the public interest should be made at a level that is higher than that of individual operatives who only have access to one piece of relevant information. Those at the higher levels, presumably, have access to "the big picture" and are better placed to decide what the public should and shouldn't know.
On the other hand, she (and Clare Short) disclosed distasteful information about the rather disgusting behaviour of the two main proponents for war, behaviour that appears to have been designed to undermine attempts to negotiate peace plans.
The function of the Official Secrets Act seems to rest on our trust in those at the higher levels to make decisions that are in our best interests so that we can rely on them to decide on our behalf whether we should or should not be told something.
Unfortunately I fear that what was disclosed gives us yet another reason NOT to trust those that we put in a position of power and authority. And if we can't trust them, why shouldn't someone on the inside blow the whistle and tell us what's really going on?
I'm still wrestling with this.
The Official Secrets Acts removes the "in the national interests" defence. So no matter what crime the government or security services have perpetrated, how incompetent they are, how much funding they have wasted, how many people that they caused to be killed, any whistleblower with a conscience is looking at a one-way trip to the slammer. And the government-controlled media can be relied on to blacken that person’s name. Suppose as a member or former member of the security services, knew and had proof that MI6 had a hand in Princess Diana's assassination, disclosure would be contravening the Official Secrets Act, and citing national interest could not be put forward as a defence. The US has the Freedom of Information Act, Britain has the Official Secrets Act. I seem to remember that in opposition, Blair said he was for open government. Now as Prime Minister he supports state security. Britain: Nice country, nice people; shame about the government.