If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
Sensational. Incredible stuff... On BBC Radio this morning:
Clare Short, former UK minister, admits Britain illegally spying on the UN - "having read the transcripts" (26FEB): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...t_20040226.ram (7min01sec to 10min00sec in the interview) , following the release of Katharine Gun (GCHQ whistle blower) (26 FEB): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...n_20040226.ram --- GEOFF HOON, Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio): Original Interview (O5 FEB): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram Clarification and exposure of the lies (O5 FEB): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...n_20040205.ram MOD statement (pitty excuse) for the minister's shameless lies (O6 FEB): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...d_20040206.ram --- KATHERINE GUN: GCHQ whistleblower cleared Spy case casts fresh doubt on war legality Dramatic new evidence pointing to serious doubts in the government about the legality of the war in Iraq was passed to government lawyers shortly before they abandoned the prosecution of the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. The prosecution offered no evidence yesterday against Ms Gun, a former GCHQ employee, despite her admitting that she leaked information about an American spying operation at the UN in the run-up to the war. She said she acted to try to prevent Britain illegally invading Iraq. But the prosecution at the Old Bailey said there was no "realistic prospect" of convicting her. She was arrested nearly a year ago and charged eight months later under the Official Secrets Act. The leading prosecutor, Mark Ellison, said it would not be "appropriate" to go into the reasons for dropping the case. But the Guardian has learned that a key plank of the defence presented to the prosecutors shortly before they decided to abandon the case was new evidence that the legality of the war had been questioned by the Foreign Office. It is contained in a document seen by the Guardian. Sensitive passages are blacked out, but one passage says: "The defence believes that the advice given by the Foreign Office Legal Adviser expressed serious doubts about the legality (in international law) of committing British troops in the absence of a second [UN] resolution." It is understood that the FO legal team was particularly concerned about the lack of a second UN resolution authorising the use of force and pre-emptive military action. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a former deputy head of the legal team at the FO, has confirmed publicly for the first time that she resigned last year because she was unhappy with the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith's legal advice to the government on the legality of the Iraq war. He argued that the series of consecutive UN resolutions provided a legal basis for the military action. But Ms Wilmshurst told the Guardian: "Some agreed with the legal advice of the attorney general. I did not." She refused to discuss the details of the advice. She left on the eve of the war after 30 years on the FO's legal team, and deputy legal adviser since 1997. She is now at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, specialising in the legality of military intervention. Yesterday James Welch, a solicitor for the civil rights group Liberty and Ms Gun's lawyer, said the final decision to abandon the case was taken after they had warned the prosecution that they would demand the disclosure of the attorney general's advice on the legality of the war. "Our case was that any advice the government received on the legality of war was relevant to Katharine's case and we were prepared to go before a judge and argue for it to be disclosed," he said. Ms Gun, 29, said after her brief appearance at the Old Bailey: "I have no regrets and I would do it again." In an interview with the Guardian she described her reaction when she first saw the US National Security Agency email asking for GCHQ's help in bugging the offices and homes of UN diplomats. "I thought, 'Good God, that's pretty outrageous'." She felt she had no choice but to do what she did. The UN was being undermined. She thought about the destruction of people's lives in Iraq. "I didn't feel at all guilty about what I did, so I couldn't plead guilty, even though I would get a more lenient sentence," she said. She remembered her husband telling her: "Do nothing and die, or fight and die." But the prospect of a criminal trial, "of having the whole government machine after you", was scary, she said. Asked at a press conference what her advice would be to anyone responding to the recently announced recruitment to the intelligence services, she said: "The intelligence services do important and necessary work, but listen to your conscience is what I would advise." She continued: "I know it's very difficult and people don't want to jeopardise their careers or lives, but if there are things out there that should really come out, hey, why not." --- How a US bugging operation was exposed by one lone whistleblower Katharine Gun, the former British intelligence officer, walked free from the Old Bailey yesterday and rekindled the debate over the war in Iraq. Her arrest for disclosing an unethical - and potentially illegal - US-British bugging operation against friendly countries raises new questions about the events running up to the Iraq war, the behaviour of the intelligence services, and the validity of the legal advice given by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to the government. Ms Gun's appearance in the Old Bailey had its origin in New York more than a year ago. In the final fortnight before war in Iraq, six members of the UN security council - Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan, Mexico and Chile - found themselves caught up in a swirl of US-British diplomacy. The British government desperately wanted them to swing behind a resolution on Iraq. But the six were proving difficult to persuade, and the US and British governments urgently wanted any snippets about their likely voting intentions. The US government opted for underhand methods and asked the British government - and its intelligence services, including its listening agency, GCHQ - to help out. Frank Koza, of the US national security agency, sent out a memo and included in the recipients was GCHQ. The memo, marked top secret, asked for information about the voting intentions of security council members, jokingly adding "minus US and GBR of course". He asked for "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises". He asked agents to focus on what had been dubbed at the UN the U6: the undecided six security council members. The memo seems to have been distributed widely within GCHQ. But it is not known whether the agency itself acted on the NSA request. Had it done so, its role would have been to eavesdrop on foreign embassies in London. It is commonplace, though never admitted, for the US and British governments to listen in on friendly states. There is an ongoing row between Britain and Pakistan, one of the six swing states, over an MI5 officer, codenamed Notation, who posed as a builder in the refurbishment of the Pakistan high commission building in 2001 in London in order to bug it. Intelligence analysts said yesterday that it was not surprising that the offices and even homes of the UN swing states were bugged - indeed, some of them have said they assumed that was the case. It only becomes a scandal when the eavesdroppers are found out. The 1994 Intelligence Services Act allows GCHQ to eavesdrop "in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom". The wording can be interpreted extremely broadly. During the fevered diplomacy in New York, the role of the six countries was pivotal. The US public assessment was that they could be brought round. The Foreign Office was privately more pessimistic, especially in regards to Mexico and Chile. James Welch, a solicitor for Liberty, the civil rights group, and Ms Gun's lawyer, said yesterday: "Clearly what was being sought was an edge at a time when they were trying to secure a second UN resolution to the war in Iraq. What the US was asking Britain to do was clearly unlawful in international law. It was a clear breach of the Vienna convention and it is also very arguably unlawful in domestic law." This diplomatic manoeuvring was taking place while another related row was brewing behind closed doors in Britain over whether existing UN resolutions provided a legal basis for going to war. Clare Short, who was in the cabinet at the time, yesterday praised Ms Gun for her bravery. Ms Short, then the international development secretary, said there had been "something smelly, fishy" about the legal advice from the attorney general. She said she suspected the case against Ms Gun had been dropped "because they do not want the light shone on the attorney general's advice". At the time, Ms Short said, cabinet members had been given only two A4 pages of advice, and no discussion was allowed in cabinet. Those pages have been made public but, she said, lots of crucial information related to the advice remained confidential. She wanted to know, for instance, what Lord Goldsmith's brief had been: had he, for instance, been misinformed by No 10 about the threat posed by Iraq? While Ms Gun is fast becoming a cause celebre in Britain, the case has not yet resonated in the US, where the trial has attracted scant attention. It has been a bigger issue in Latin America. Mexico sent diplomatic notes to the US and British government this month seeking information about Ms Gun's allegations. A Chilean government spokesman, Patricio Santamaria, confirmed that in early 2003 wiretaps had been found in most of the phones at Chile's UN mission. --- GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun demanded an explanation today after the case against her of disclosing information and breaking the Official Secrets Act collapsed after the prosecution offered no evidence. Ms Gun, a former translator for GCHQ, the security service's main monitoring centre, had been accused of leaking a memo to a newspaper on an alleged American "dirty tricks" campaign to spy on UN delegates ahead of the Iraq war. Outside the Old Bailey today Ms Gun, 29, said she was "absolutely delighted and extremely relieved" at being cleared but said: "I would like to know why they charged me and then four months later decided to drop it." She said: "I have no regrets and would do it again." During today's hearing, the charge was formally put to her that between January 30 and March 2 last year she disclosed information relating to security or intelligence contrary to the Official Secrets Act of 1989. Then after she pleaded not guilty, prosecutor Mark Ellison told the court the case would not go ahead. He said: "The prosecution offer no evidence against the defendant on this indictment as there is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision." Ms Gun, of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, had been accused of disclosing a request allegedly from a US national security agency official for help from British intelligence to tap the telephones of UN security council delegates during the period of fraught diplomacy before the war. She argued the alleged disclosures exposed serious wrongdoing by the US and could have helped to prevent the deaths of Iraqis and British forces in an "illegal war". After the prosecution offered no evidence, the judge, the Recorder of London Michael Hyam, recorded a formal verdict of not guilty. Then Ben Emmerson QC, representing Ms Gun, demanded an explanation from the prosecution of why, after such a length of time, they had now decided to drop the charge. Mr Ellison refused to say. A full trial could have generated unwelcome publicity for the government and GCHQ, where she had worked until she was sacked in June last year. She was charged in November on an unconditional bail. For her defence, she had planned to seek the disclosure of the full advice from the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, on the legality of the war against Iraq, which could have been potentially damaging and embarrassing for the government. The Guardian reported on Friday that the case against her would collapse. In court, Mr Emmerson told the judge the first issue requiring examination was "whether, by whom and why the decision was leaked to the Guardian six days before it was communicated to the defence. If a decision was made last Friday, why was it not communicated to the defence and if it had not been taken last Friday, what has happened in between?" He pointed out that eight months had elapsed between Ms Gun's arrest and the decision to charge her, and another three months since she was actually charged. "Katharine Gun is entitled to know - and perhaps more importantly, the public are entitled to know." Mr Ellison replied: "You will understand that consideration had been given to what is appropriate for the crown to say. It is not appropriate to give further reasons. I am reluctant to go further than that unless the court requires I do." The judge asked whether there was "any form of inquiry which I would be entitled to make?" He was told by Mr Ellison that apart from making an order for the defence costs, there was not - as the crown had offered no evidence. Outside court, Barry Hugill, a spokesman for human rights group Liberty, said: "Why have they waited until today? Why has she been put through eight months of hell?" Ms Gun has recently attracted the support of Hollywood actors including Sean Penn. He told the Observer at the Bafta awards: "It was a decision of conscience in a world where nobody celebrates that. She will go down in history as a hero of the human spirit. I urge the whole world to angle their eyes in the direction of that courtroom." --- The spy who wouldn't keep a secret In the year since she leaked an explosive email about spying on UN diplomats, GCHQ translator Katharine Gun has been arrested, charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act and transformed into an international cause celebre. As the case against her was dropped yesterday, Oliver Burkeman and Richard Norton-Taylor met an unlikely rebel Working for the intelligence agencies is rarely as glamorous as it sounds, and until last year - when everything changed for ever - Katharine Gun often found it quite mundane. On Friday January 31 2003, at the high-security GCHQ compound on the outskirts of Cheltenham, she was doing her job as usual, translating Mandarin Chinese into English, when an email from America came to her attention. "I thought, 'Good God, that's pretty outrageous'," she recalls. She printed out a copy, put it in her bag, took it home, and spent the weekend stewing about it. She didn't discuss it with anyone. On the Monday she was still just as angry - "indignation was fuelling me on," she remembers - and so she passed the email to a friend on the outside, whom she knew was in touch with journalists. But she heard nothing more, and almost forgot about it. In February, as an opponent of the looming war, she travelled to London, to take part in the march. She bought books about Iraq. But it wasn't until a month later, on Sunday March 2, that a customer visiting Gun's local newsagent would have witnessed a small woman with shoulder-length blonde hair, holding a copy of the Observer newspaper and unable to stop herself shaking. The email, splashed across the paper's front page, came from a US National Security Agency official named Frank Koza and was marked "top secret". As much of the world now knows, it requested British help with what amounted to a dirty tricks campaign: a plan for the bugging of offices and homes in New York belonging to UN diplomats from the six "swing states", countries whose support would be vital if Washington and London were to win a Security Council resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq. Within a week, Gun had confessed to her role as the leaker, left GCHQ, been arrested, and spent a night in police custody. Eight months later, she was charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act, facing the threat of a trial and a two-year prison sentence. Yesterday, at the Old Bailey, the case was finally dropped. The prosecution declined to offer any evidence, prompting speculation that the government was desperate to avoid being forced to reveal, in the course of a trial, details of its own legal advice on the war. "I saw the headline and I was just going 'Oh my God, oh my God,'" Gun says. Today, standing in the cramped south London kitchen of the pressure group Liberty, which took on and fought her case, the 29-year-old is the model of composure. But at the time, she says, she felt physically sick. "This is my doing," she told her husband when she got home. She knew GCHQ would carry out an immediate investigation, and it did. The first time she was questioned, on the Tuesday, she failed to admit her involvement, but by the Wednesday her conscience was preying on her. She found her line manager and told her the truth. Not many months afterwards, of course, David Kelly was to make a similar approach to his employer. But the style of GCHQ's response could hardly have been more different to the Ministry of Defence's. Gun's manager, she recalls, literally let her cry on her shoulder. "We're all humans at the end of the day. She could see how distressed I was. But she obviously knew what her professional duties were, and since I'd come forward, we went ahead and told the security division about it." More GCHQ officials - also "very nice" - took her to lunch in the canteen, as her friends looked on from other tables, wondering why she wasn't joining them as usual. Then she was driven in an unmarked car to Cheltenham police station and formally arrested. Gun was to prove a particularly credible - and therefore, from the government's point of view, dangerous - kind of whistleblower. Unlike some earlier intelligence-agency leakers, she showed no signs of having been attracted to the job because of its cloak-and-dagger aspect. After spending much of her childhood in Taiwan, where her parents still live, she had studied Chinese and Japanese at Durham. Finding language work proved hard, she had responded to a newspaper advert for GCHQ. ("I didn't have much idea about what they did," she says today. "I was going into it pretty much blind. Most people do.") Nor was there anything particularly complex about the case, from the point of view of public understanding ("Blonde who's likely to be a bombshell," screamed Bristol's Western Daily Press, arguably missing the point). You didn't have to be an international lawyer to smell the dodginess in Koza's email - although if you had been, you might well have decided that it seemed in clear contravention of the Vienna Conventions, which regulate global diplomacy. The night in custody was bad enough. "The custody doctor prescribed a sleeping tablet, because I didn't think I'd get through the night without it," Gun says. But there were times during the months afterwards, waiting to discover if she would be charged, that were worse: "I'm a fairly happy-go-lucky person, generally fairly optimistic, but there were points when I was down. For about a week, I was really quite miserable. But I was on the phone to my parents almost every day, and they kept encouraging me, telling me I'm a survivor, all the rest of the stuff parents tell you to keep you buoyed up. So in the end I got through it. I was a housewife, I suppose, and luckily I have a very high boredom threshold." Eventually she enrolled on a postgraduate degree course at Birmingham University, studying global ethics. Some of her friends dropped all contact with her, but her "real friends", including some still working in GCHQ, are "still there". When the charges came, she was shocked, she says - and scared about "having the whole government machine after you" - but still she did not doubt what she'd done. "Do nothing and die, or fight and die," she remembers her husband telling her, but the way she tells it, she never really had much of a choice. "I didn't feel at all guilty about what I did, so I couldn't plead guilty, even though I would get a more lenient sentence," she says. Of Koza's email, she explains, "I wanted to get it out. And I would do it again." A string of US celebrities stepped forward to urge the government to drop the case, among them the anti-war actor Sean Penn, the Rev Jesse Jackson, and Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, who called the Koza email potentially more important than the documents he made public during the Vietnam war. Gun had her defence ready: she had broken the terms of the Official Secrets Act out of necessity, to prevent imminent loss of life in a war she considered illegal. Her decision to follow her conscience sounds almost unthinking - "I didn't want to step back and think, 'But, hey, what happens if I do this, and then this happens and then that happens?'" she says. But she has clearly thought in detail about what made her that way. She calls herself a "third culture kid", using a term first coined by the writer Ruth Hill to describe children raised by expat parents. The lack of belonging that can result is heartrendingly summarised in the title of a guidance document prepared by the US state department, "According to my Passport, I'm Coming Home". But it can also lead to the development of something more positive. "One of the things the research says is that third-culture kids tend to be extremely empathetic, and because they've usually lived in at least one other foreign country, they somehow feel a global alliance, almost ... " Gun tails off, as if embarrassed to make too grand a claim for herself. The last few hectic days have left her relieved and happy, she says, but completely uncertain as to her future. "I jokingly said to somebody the other day that I'll start making babies, but I don't think I'm ready for that yet," she says. Her only certain plan is to go on holiday with her husband. Meanwhile, she seems to have no particular burning desire for the government to apologise to her. "I understand that they felt they had to charge me, because obviously I hadn't denied breaking the Official Secrets Act," she says. "But, you know - apologies to me? What's that going to achieve? I've been through what I've been through already. And now I'll just carry on from here." --- GCHQ case to be dropped State prosecutors will today ask an Old Bailey judge to drop secrets charges against a GCHQ whistleblower who challenged the legality of the war against Iraq. The unprecedented decision - which has widespread implications for the Official Secrets Act - was taken after it seemed clear that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, would have been asked to release his advice on the legality of the war. Katharine Gun, 29, was charged last November - eight months after she was arrested following the leak of information about a "dirty tricks" spying operation in the UN involving the US National Security Agency (NSA), America's equivalent of GCHQ. In a statement when she was charged, Ms Gun said: "Any disclosures that may have been made were justified because they exposed serious illegality and wrongdoing on the part of the US government, which attempted to subvert our own security services. "Secondly, they could have helped prevent widescale death and casualties amongst ordinary Iraqi people and UK forces in an illegal war." Ms Gun, a fluent Mandarin speaker, was a translator at GCHQ, the government's electronic eavesdropping centre based in Cheltenham. The Guardian reported exclusively last week that the prosecution was preparing to abandon the case. There was concern in GCHQ about the unwelcome publicity from a trial of a former employee who has made it clear she acted out of conscience. Prosecutors were worried she could not get a fair trial because of the refusal of the attorney and GCHQ to disclose relevant evidence to the court. Last Monday, Harriet Harman, the solicitor general, told MPs that the government had no intention of publishing the attorney's advice on the legality of the war. --- Thursday February 26, 2004 (The Guardian newspaper, UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...155681,00.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
Um, in the interview she notes that she doesn't think the spying is illegal.
She also notes, however, that Iraq is a mess by noting "10,000 Iraqis dead". Apparently when exponentially fewer people are killed under the new 'regime' than the old one, it's a disaster. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"t_mark" wrote in message news:eTm%b.2347$Pc.171@okepread02... There's too much spin already,... no need for you to add more. There's more than enough as is. Um, in the interview she notes that she doesn't think the spying is illegal. Actually she says: "I don't know, I presume so. It is odd, but I don't know about the legalities." Here is part of the transcript: --- JH: Pressure is one thing, you expect that I suppose, spinning is another thing - you expect that I suppose, spying, spying in the United Nations is something quite different isn't it? CS: Well indeed, but these things are done. And in the case of Kofi's office it's been done for some time. JH: Let me repeat the question then, do you believe Britain has been involved in it? CS: Well I know, I have seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations. Indeed, I have had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to war thinking 'Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying'. JH: So in other words British spies - let's be very clear about this in case I'm misunderstanding you - British spies have been instructed to carry out operations inside the United Nations on people like Kofi Annan? CS: Yes, absolutely. JH: Did you know about this when you were in government? CS: Absolutely, I read some of the transcripts of the accounts of his conversations. JH: Is this legal? CS: I don't know, I presume so. It is odd, but I don't know about the legalities. But the major issue here is the legal authority for war and whether the attorney general had to be persuaded at the last minute - against the advice of one of the Foreign Office legal advisers, who then resigned - hat he could give legal authority for war and whether there had to be an exaggeration of the threat of the use of chemical and biological weapons to persuade him that there was legal authority - that's the big question. --- She also notes, however, that Iraq is a mess by noting "10,000 Iraqis dead". --- JH: What should happen now? CS: I think the good old British democracy should keep scrutinising and pressing to get the truth out. JH: How? There's been a lot of it and a lot of people are beginning to say look we've heard it all, we've had the war let's put it behind us, Tony Blair certainly wants to put it behind us. CS: Yes, but the tragedy is that Iraq is a disastrous mess. Ten thousand Iraqis have died, American troops are dying, some of our troops have died, the Middle East is more angry than ever. I'm afraid that the sort of deceit on the route to war was linked to the lack of preparation for afterwards and the chaos and suffering that continues, so it won't go away, will it? --- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Oelewapper" wrote in message ... "t_mark" wrote in message news:eTm%b.2347$Pc.171@okepread02... There's too much spin already,... no need for you to add more. There's more than enough as is. Um, in the interview she notes that she doesn't think the spying is illegal. Actually she says: "I don't know, I presume so. It is odd, but I don't know about the legalities." Here is part of the transcript: Actually, if she 'doesn't know about the legalities' then why is she commenting on them in the first place? And even more importantly, why is the disgraced Brit media making so much of a story around someone who, admittedly, is not qualified to comment? You would think that they would have learned their lesson by now. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
... Actually, if she 'doesn't know about the legalities' then why is she commenting on them in the first place? I think you are missing the point. The reality is that the UK government have as good as admitted that they spied on Annan. Sure, they use weasal wording to try to put a spin on it by saying that they never did anything illegal, but most importantly they are not denying they did it. This is at odds with the UN who state that it would be illegal. Claire Short left government (she is an ex-minister) under a cloud because she did not think going to war was legitimate. She is well known in the UK as hot head who shoots from the hip. That's the way she is. I don't share her politics, but at least I feel I could trust her far more than the rest of them. It's another embarrassment for the UK government, especially in the manner they let the case drop on the GCHQ whistleblower yesterday. They suddenly realised that they would have to disclose the findings of the lawyers investigating the legality of going to war in order to win the case. Funny they then promptly dropped the case. And even more importantly, why is the disgraced Brit media making so much of a story around someone who, admittedly, is not qualified to comment? You would think that they would have learned their lesson by now. Interestingly, that is not the view in the UK. Here it is generally believed that the 'disgraced Brit media' aka the BBC was a victim of the government whitewash called the Hutton Report. Quite honestly, the British electorate feel patronised by their own governent. The spin doctors still think we're stupid. Sadly there is little viable opposition. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who stated "it's completely clear to me that these are weapons of mass destruction" when showing satellite pictures trying to convince the US and the world that war was justified? Still waiting to see those nearly a year later... Regards, Howard |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Howard Long" wrote in message ... "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message ... I think you are missing the point. The reality is that the UK government have as good as admitted that they spied on Annan. Sure, they use weasal wording to try to put a spin on it by saying that they never did anything illegal, but most importantly they are not denying they did it. They "as good as" did nothing of the sort. Blair followed the normal policy of not commenting one way or the other about any allegations relating to the security services. Once ministers start commenting about such drivel, there is no end to it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
... Actually, if she 'doesn't know about the legalities' then why is she commenting on them in the first place? And even more importantly, why is the disgraced Brit media making so much of a story around someone who, admittedly, is not qualified to comment? The only people who consider the BBC disgraced is the incumbent government. They think if they by trying to make someone else look bad it can only serve to make themselves look better. Si |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Mike O'sullivan" wrote in message
... They "as good as" did nothing of the sort. Blair followed the normal policy of not commenting one way or the other about any allegations relating to the security services. Once ministers start commenting about such drivel, there is no end to it. Rather he used a weasley excuse to dodge an awkward question. He owes his public an answer on something that is very definitely in the public interest to know. He's a snake, and not even a very convincing one. Si |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Mike O'sullivan" wrote in message
... Once ministers start commenting about such drivel, there is no end to it. But they already did... Regards, Howard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SHOCKING (BBC Radio): UK Minister admits spying on Annan - Katherine Gun released
"Simon Robbins" wrote in message ... "Mike O'sullivan" wrote in message ... They "as good as" did nothing of the sort. Blair followed the normal policy of not commenting one way or the other about any allegations relating to the security services. Once ministers start commenting about such drivel, there is no end to it. Rather he used a weasley excuse to dodge an awkward question. He owes his public an answer on something that is very definitely in the public interest to know. He's a snake, and not even a very convincing one. Si It just amazes me how everyone seems to be surprised by these recent events, every country is constantly carrying out security (spying) operations on a continuous basis. The only thing different in this case, was the leakage of information. I find it very disturbing that someone employed in a highly sensitive occupation would go public. The ramifications of this type of behavior in a world that is vulnerable to terrorist attacks is, in my opinion, criminal. BMC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio) | Oelewapper | Air travel | 53 | February 11th, 2004 04:34 AM |