View Single Post
  #4  
Old February 29th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Oelewapper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default UK's GCHQ Whistle-blower case also impacts Greenpeace protesters (Katherine Gun)


"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...
GREENPEACE.ORG.UK STATEMENT ON IRAQ WHISTLE-BLOWER CASE:
Whistle-blower case has 'huge implications' for Greenpeace protesters


The GCHQ connection

· GCHQ, founded in 1946, was based on the Government Code and Cipher School
(GC&CS), which began in 1919 with 25 cryptologists in Bletchley Park,
Buckinghamshire. It was here that the supposedly unbreakable Enigma codes
were broken. It moved to Cheltenham in 1952.

· Its staff patrol global cyberspace 24 hours a day to eavesdrop on millions
of telephone conversations, emails, faxes and coded messages.

· Two-thirds of Britain's intelligence comes from this single building.

· Last year GCHQ moved into its new Cheltenham headquarters which cost £337m
to build and is big enough to house the old Wembley. It is nicknamed 'the
doughnut'.

· Many of its 4,500 staff are skilled mathematicians and linguists.

· Until 1983, when one of its officers, Geoffrey Prime, was charged with
spying for the Russians, the Government had refused to reveal what GCHQ 's
real role was.

· In the 1990s 'Echelon', an American system, was given to GCHQ, enabling it
to tap into any telephone conversation anywhere across the globe.

· GCHQ is accountable to Parliament and senior members of the judiciary and
its activities are governed by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, amended
recently by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.


Leader

We must have the truth on Iraq war
Secrecy is poisoning the body politic

Exactly a year ago, The Observer published a story that the United States,
whose plans for war were in full swing, had requested British assistance to
bug the United Nations as it deliberated about the crisis in Iraq. Our
report was followed up across the world, in countries whose ambassadors had
suffered the indignity of learning that their phones and emails had been
bugged and their private conversations passed on to the US Administration.

In London, the report was officially ignored, meeting the routine government
response that the authorities never comment on intelligence matters. Large
sections of the British media also remained uninterested, driven partly by a
widespread cynicism that such operations are to be expected, particularly
given the tensions of that pre-war time. However, the dramatic collapse of
the case brought under the Official Secrets Act against Katharine Gun, the
GCHG translator, raises concerns that that cynicism cannot easily dispel.

It now seems incontrovertible that, in the period running up to the invasion
of Iraq, the US spied on the UN Secretary-General, on key members of the
Security Council, and on Hans Blix, head of the Iraq Weapons Inspection
team, all in apparent contravention of the 1946 Vienna Convention that
designates the UN a spying-free zone. Moreover, it seems likely that Britain
colluded in this effort. The email we published a year ago detailing the US
request for British assistance is powerful evidence; the insistence of
former Minister Clare Short last week that she saw transcripts of Kofi
Annan's conversations, though compromised by her enmity towards the Prime
Minister, adds weight to the claims.

Last week, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, withdrew the threat hanging
over Ms Gun because, he said, there was no realistic chance of conviction.
As she celebrates her freedom, she deserves our thanks and congratulations
for her bravery and powerful commitment to the public interest.

Not only did she risk imprisonment to put critically important information
into the public domain, she established the breakthrough precedent that
defendants in Official Secrets Act trials can argue that the contested
action was necessary in order for the defendant to avoid being forced into
an illegal act. As a result the draconian machinery protecting official
secrets is now looking increasingly unworkable; a review has been set up and
reform seems inevitable. Ms Gun has been an important agent for change.

But though the case will now not go ahead, the questions raised by her
actions and her strong belief that Britain was being dragged into an illegal
war, still require answers.

A trial, though personally harrowing, would have flushed out more crucial
detail about the circumstances surrounding the Iraq war. In order to press
home the 'necessity' case, Ms Gun's lawyers would have forced the Government
to release Lord Goldsmith's advice to the Prime Minister about the legality
of the Iraq war in the absence of a second, supportive UN Resolution.

We now know, following a statement last week from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the
former deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office who resigned on the eve of
war, that the legal team believed that the war was illegal. Her statement
adds weight to the growing evidence that the Government may have been
advised that it was launching an illegal war and that the Attorney General
was reluctant to continue with the prosecution of Ms Gun because a trial
would have revealed evidence of this advice.

Many were implacably opposed to war with Iraq on any grounds. But many who
supported war were reassured that it was within the envelope of legality,
even in the absence of a second UN Resolution. It is vital to the health of
political life in this country that the air is now cleared over this
question. Lord Butler, charged with investigating intelligence in the wake
of the Hutton inquiry, must follow the trail of intelligence documents into
the Attorney General's office if his investigation is not to be seen as a
whitewash.

Few would dispute the necessity of spies or of bugging in the war against
terrorism. Even spying on allies may sometimes be deemed necessary though
those who sanction it must be prepared to defend their disregard for treaty
commitments. But the real poison in the body politic, undermining the
authority of government, is a growing belief that the Government has not
been telling the truth. As a nation we need to move on from the war that
divided us. That can only happen following full disclosure of the
circumstances surrounding Britain's decision to go to war.

Sunday February 29, 2004
The Observer





Tony Blair faces further embarrassment in less than a fortnight, when
fourteen Greenpeace volunteers appear in court on charges relating to an
anti-war protest. Their case has taken on great significance since the

Crown
Prosection Service (CPS) claimed the case against Katherine Gun was

dropped
because they could not "disprove the defence of necessity" -- that is to
say, they could not counter the defence that her actions were justified to
save lives.

The so-called Marchwood Fourteen occupied tanks at the Southampton

military
port in February last year. Throughout their case the defendants - all
Greenpeace volunteers - have argued that their actions were necessary to
prevent loss of life. With the CPS now saying they could not have

disproved
such a defence in the Gun case, Greenpeace lawyers wonder how the CPS will
proceed against the fourteen.

In a further development Greenpeace has today written to the CPS asking it
for the Attorney-General's full advice to government on the legality of

the
war. Lawyers for the group claim access to the full advice is vital if the
defendants are to be allowed a proper defence. Greenpeace has given the

CPS
24 hours to produce the full advice, otherwise the group will renew its
request for the advice in court on the first day of the trial, set for

March
9th.

Greenpeace legal adviser Kate Harrison said, "The protesters thought the

war
was illegal. We think it is essential for a fair trial that they see the
full Attorney General's legal advice and the basis on which it was made."

"Since the Katharine Gun trial it would appear that the Attorney General
probably thought at the time of the protest that the war would be unlawful
and that the Foreign Office and other advisors thought so too."

The case against the fourteen will be held at Southampton Magistrate's

court
from March 9th.

Further information
Greenpeace opposed the war in Iraq and campaigned actively to prevent it.

We
joined the Stop the War coalition and made submissions to the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee on the illegality of the war, see
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk...0219to0222.pdf

For more information contact the Greenpeace press office
on 020 7865 8255 or 07801 212967 or 07801 212968
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/Multime...eport/6206.pdf