A Single Conscience v. the State
By BOB HERBERT
Katharine Gun has a much better grasp of the true spirit of democracy than Tony Blair. So, naturally, it's Katharine Gun who's being punished.
Ms. Gun, 29, was working at Britain's top-secret Government Communications Headquarters last year when she learned of an American plan to spy on at least a half-dozen U.N. delegations as part of the U.S. effort to win Security Council support for an invasion of Iraq.
The plans, which included e-mail surveillance and taps on home and office telephones, was outlined in a highly classified National Security Agency memo. The agency, which was seeking British assistance in the project, was interested in "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals."
Countries specifically targeted were Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. The primary goal was a Security Council resolution that would give the U.S. and Britain the go-ahead for the war.
Ms. Gun felt passionately that an invasion of Iraq was wrong — morally wrong and illegal. In a move that deeply embarrassed the American and British governments, the memo was leaked to The London Observer.
Which landed Ms. Gun in huge trouble. She has not denied that she was involved in the leak.
There is no equivalent in Britain to America's First Amendment protections. Individuals like Ms. Gun are at the mercy of the Official Secrets Act, which can result in severe — in some cases, draconian — penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of information by intelligence or security agency employees.
Posted by P6 at January 19, 2004 10:48 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/45
Comments
I hope they throw the book at her. She was given access to privileged information, and she violated that trust in the worst way imaginable. It is the same as if she gave away troop movements.
The thing that swayed me to this opinion is because she didn't do it because she thought the spying was wrong -- she did it because she thought the war was wrong. That isn't for her to decide. She is an unelected civil servant, and has no right or duty to make that decision for the people of Britain.
Do I want to know? Yes. I want the information that I need to make an informed decision. But it isn't up to some lifetime civil servant to decide when it is okay to let me know and when it isn't. That is why we have elections.
Posted by Phelps at January 19, 2004 11:47 AMWhat is she being punished for? Her objection to the war, or the manner in whcih she chose to express that objection?
What she did would have been punishable under US law as well; her punishment isn't a consequence of some draconian law unique to Great Britain.
As Phelps said, she violated a trust, and in the UK, as in the US, that is punishable by law.
The tone of the article seems to suggest that she is exonerated by her moral objection to the US spying on UN delegates. But as it is made clear later, it isn't. It is her opposition to the war. Phelps already addressed this point, so I will simply say that I agree. But what if her actions were based on her principled opposition to spying on UN delegates?
I have some experience in these dark arts, and I can say with authority that spying on delegates is routine not just by US agencies, but by intelligence-gathering agencies all over the world. Whether one considers it right or wrong, it is a very common practice. Diplomats and elegates are very aware of this, and take careful measures to counteract it.
Posted by Brian at January 21, 2004 10:47 AM