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?

Because she was asked. The interviewer first asked her about
the claim that British intelligence services had spied on Annan;
she replied that she had seen the transcripts. He then asked about
the legalities, and she answered she didn't know. Short is not
known for showing any restraint in her answers. Admitting to
have seen the transcripts, if this is correct, is probably illegal
in itself, a breach of the official secrets act.

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?

A former government minister, who claims that she has seen the
transcripts, can be reasonably assumed to be qualified to comment
on whether Kofi Annan's office was bugged. Reporting this is
perfectly OK -- not reporting it would be absurd.

As for the 'disgraced Brit media', the Hutton report failed to made
much impact on the public, mainly because his conclusions fitted
the revelations of a very public investigation rather badly. You
can't very publicly wash the dirty linen and then claim that nobody
ever wore it.

The real problem here is the ongoing conflict between the British
government and the BBC to see who calls the shots. The BBC is
an inheritance from the imperial age, in a way the last vestige of
Britain's former greatness: A truly global institution, something
even the Royal Navy can no longer aspire to be. For the government
of a medium-sized West-European nation, that incidentally mainly
relies on the BBC to give its foreign policy statements some real
importance, it is almost as awkward a partner to deal with as
the USA.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:33:48 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

A former government minister, who claims that she has seen the
transcripts, can be reasonably assumed to be qualified to comment
on whether Kofi Annan's office was bugged. Reporting this is
perfectly OK -- not reporting it would be absurd.

Bear in mind Short's position - she's attempting to regain her
credibility amongst her normal constituency in the left of the Labour
party by making Blair as uncomfortable as possible. Meanwhile if she
feels it was such an issue of morality, why didn't she resign or at
least complain when she saw such transcripts? She's trying to reclaim
some moral credibility after the fact of her own personal complicity,
and in the process indulging in some distasteful hypocrisy.

As for the 'disgraced Brit media', the Hutton report failed to made
much impact on the public, mainly because his conclusions fitted
the revelations of a very public investigation rather badly.

Actually, Hutton had a substantial impact amongst large sections of
the populations who looked to his inquiry to vindicate their
prejudices about Blair and were annoyed at the result.

The real problem here is the ongoing conflict between the British
government and the BBC to see who calls the shots. The BBC is
an inheritance from the imperial age, in a way the last vestige of
Britain's former greatness: A truly global institution, something
even the Royal Navy can no longer aspire to be. For the government
of a medium-sized West-European nation, that incidentally mainly
relies on the BBC to give its foreign policy statements some real
importance, it is almost as awkward a partner to deal with as
the USA.

It would be even more difficult for the government to deal with it if
the senior management hadn't assumed a context of reflecting and
amplifying inaccurate public assumptions by passing off grossly
inaccurate speculative journalism as fact and then as nothing worth
bothering about.

Gavin Bailey

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...

Meanwhile if she feels it was such an issue of morality, why didn't
she resign or at least complain when she saw such transcripts?

It is not obvious from her statements that she regarded it as a moral
problem at the time or even claimed it to be objectionable afterwards.
Evenher comments on how possibly her own talks with Annan were
taped, betray amusement rather than anger. She was asked a factual
question and gave a factual answer; admittedly one hugely embarassing
to a goverment whose foreign policy she no longer supports.

It would be even more difficult for the government to deal with it if
the senior management hadn't assumed a context of reflecting and
amplifying inaccurate public assumptions by passing off grossly
inaccurate speculative journalism as fact and then as nothing worth
bothering about.

It seems to me that among all the invective, the syntax of your
sentence got lost somewhere. If I understand it correctly, you
accuse the BBC management of deliberately letting a story be
published although they knew it was inaccurate and speculative.
That is not even supported by the Hutton report. Hutton blamed
the BBC for not applying higher editorial standards on such a
story, but he did not suggest that the management deliberately
lowered its standards on this occasion.

Frankly I think the entire sad affair will make a very interesting
subject for some linguistics student in a not too far future. It was
very much a story on how people use language to express facts
and opinions, and how different people insist on different wording
and apply different standards: Scientists, intelligence chiefs, spin
doctors, journalists, lawyers. People were rephrasing reports
endlessly in search of the most convincing, or most correct wording,
depending on their role. Every time a statement was 'translated'
from one subset of language to another, its meaning changed.
Sometimes subtly, sometimes -- as appears to have happened
between Kelly and Gilligan -- rather coarsely.

As for 'inaccurate public assumptions', the fact remains that there
clearly indeed was a body of opinion among knowledgeable people
(Dr Kelly, but also people within the intelligence services) who
were of the opinion that the report on Saddam's WMD did not
accurately reflect the best possible interpretation of the intelligence
material available at the time. And it appears they were right. Now
one may judge, as Lord Hutton did, that this was not the result of an
explicit demand from the government, but that does not absolve the
British government of responsibility -- certainly not parliamentary
responsibility -- for mishandling intelligence.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:38:28 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...

Meanwhile if she feels it was such an issue of morality, why didn't
she resign or at least complain when she saw such transcripts?

It is not obvious from her statements that she regarded it as a moral
problem at the time or even claimed it to be objectionable afterwards.

That was certainly my understanding of her response to questioning as
to her attitude on the BBC Today programme when I listened to it.

Evenher comments on how possibly her own talks with Annan were
taped, betray amusement rather than anger. She was asked a factual
question and gave a factual answer;

One that she had no business answering, given that she was a cabinet
minister in the very same government and held collective
responsibility for the policy she now comments adversely upon. Her
opportunity to dissent involved resignation, otherwise she's complicit
in collective governmental responsibility.

admittedly one hugely embarassing
to a goverment whose foreign policy she no longer supports.

Strange that she made no effort to disassocate herself from this
policy before resigning over something distinct and seperate from the
legitimacy of the war and British intelligence-gathering at the UN
beforehand. As I said, she's out to recapture the goodwill she lost
in her normal political constituency by refusing to resign at an
earlier stage. She can't have it both ways - manoevering to
appropriate the moral credit for disagreeing over the legitimacy of
all aspects of governmental policy can't be done after the fact of
consenting to it.

It would be even more difficult for the government to deal with it if
the senior management hadn't assumed a context of reflecting and
amplifying inaccurate public assumptions by passing off grossly
inaccurate speculative journalism as fact and then as nothing worth
bothering about.

It seems to me that among all the invective, the syntax of your
sentence got lost somewhere.

It would have been more difficult for the government to challenge the
BBC if the BBC hadn't provided them with a narrowly-focused dispute
over the accuracy and withdrawl of Gilligan's allegations which was
easily winnable for the government.

If I understand it correctly, you
accuse the BBC management of deliberately letting a story be
published although they knew it was inaccurate and speculative.

No, I accuse the BBC of being happy to provide a forum for inaccurate
and speculative journalism without sufficient accountability, provided
it satisfies their axiomatic assumptions about what is a valid story.

That is not even supported by the Hutton report. Hutton blamed
the BBC for not applying higher editorial standards on such a
story, but he did not suggest that the management deliberately
lowered its standards on this occasion.

Frankly I think the entire sad affair will make a very interesting
subject for some linguistics student in a not too far future. It was
very much a story on how people use language to express facts
and opinions, and how different people insist on different wording
and apply different standards: Scientists, intelligence chiefs, spin
doctors, journalists, lawyers. People were rephrasing reports
endlessly in search of the most convincing, or most correct wording,
depending on their role. Every time a statement was 'translated'
from one subset of language to another, its meaning changed.
Sometimes subtly, sometimes -- as appears to have happened
between Kelly and Gilligan -- rather coarsely.

I think it rates 5 minutes in a journalism course, on the basics of
checking facts and sources. I note with interest that another BBC
journalist refused to sieze upon Kelly's apparent allegations about
Campbell's involvement in distorting the dossier, in the process
exercising a professional and adult critical judgement that escaped
Gilligan and the editors at "Today" who jumped at the chance of a
story which pressed the right emotional buttons. I'll bet that
instance of good journalistic practice gets swiftly forgotten amongst
the frenzy of popular and inarticulate resentment that the government
somehow got away with something in the Hutton report.

As for 'inaccurate public assumptions',

The relevant sections of the public expected and anticipated an
outcome from Hutton which disregarded the factual basis of remit of
the inquiry. Nobody wanted to hear about sloppy journalism, they
wanted their prejudices about Blair vindicated, which is why the
outcome was so intolerable for them.

the fact remains that there
clearly indeed was a body of opinion among knowledgeable people
(Dr Kelly, but also people within the intelligence services) who
were of the opinion that the report on Saddam's WMD did not
accurately reflect the best possible interpretation of the intelligence
material available at the time.

My understanding of Kelly's opinion is that it was not divergent in
any substantive way from the dossier. I am tired of the whingeing of
individual spooks being lapped up by a credulous public who would be
far more sceptical of their assertions over any subject other than the
Iraq war.

And it appears they were right.

No. The broad mass of British intelligence experts on Saddam's WMD
position appear to have been wrong - and that includes Kelly.

Now
one may judge, as Lord Hutton did, that this was not the result of an
explicit demand from the government, but that does not absolve the
British government of responsibility -- certainly not parliamentary
responsibility -- for mishandling intelligence.

Of course not. On the other hand, Blair has accepted the primacy of
parliamentary judgement from the very beginning. Hutton was a
cul-de-sac, which the BBC was idiotic enough to contest a specific
unsupported allegation on grounds of the government's chosing, and the
sections of the public were stupid enough to inflate into a judgement
on the larger political and intelligence processes behind the decision
to go to war.

Gavin Bailey

"Brian Colwell" wrote in message
news:QTx%b.626023$ts4.537678@pd7tw3no...
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.

I don't find it shocking, just saddening. What possible justificatoin could
there be under the grounds of national security for spying on the head of
the UN? Unless they doubt his impartiality or credibility, the only reason
seems to be to help us load the decks in our favour during negotiations,
knowing what conversations he'd had with other council members or his own
private advisors. Maybe we should ask ourselves whether we'd be as happy as
our governments seem to be at brushing it aside if for example it had been
Iraq, Syria, or even France or the Russians that had been caught at it? I
very much doubt it would be being treated so casually by Downing Street or
Washington if the culprits weren't members of our allied Axis of Angels.

Si

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:33:48 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

on whether Kofi Annan's office was bugged. Reporting this is
perfectly OK -- not reporting it would be absurd.

It would be even more difficult for the government to deal with it if
the senior management hadn't assumed a context of reflecting and
amplifying inaccurate public assumptions by passing off grossly
inaccurate speculative journalism as fact and then as nothing worth
bothering about.
Gavin Bailey

Why do you keep referring to the BBC Hutton saga: that story is no longer
relevant, since the original Gilligan report is now widely accepted to have
been correct and accurate, despite Hutton's original whitewash report. None
so blind as those who would not see, none so deaf as those who would not
hear... with or without Kofi Annan's eavesdropping transcripts... "in the
interest of our nation".
Now here is what happened on the BBC Radio4 Today Programme, on May 29
2003 - the program you are referring to:

---
Andrew Gilligan
"What we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up
that dossier was that, actually the government probably knew that that
45-minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in _ Downing
Street, our source says, ordered a week before publication [for the dossier]
to be "sexed up", to be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be
discovered.
"Our source says that the dossier, as it was finally published, made the
intelligence services unhappy, because ... it didn't reflect the considered
view they were putting forward - that's a quote from our source - and
essentially, the 45-minute point was probably the most important thing that
was added.

and also:

John Humphrys
Are you suggesting [the dossier] was not the work of the intelligence
agencies?
Andrew Gilligan
The information which I'm told was dubious did come from the information
agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn't think it should
have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and
they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had
got it wrong. They thought he'd misunderstood what was happening. Let's go
throughout this. This is the dossier that was published in September last
year, probably the most substantial statement of the government's case
against Iraq. You'll remember that the Commons was recalled to debate it,
Tony Blair made the opening speech. It is not the same as the famous dodgy
dossier, the one that was copied off the internet, that came later. It was
quite a serious document that dominated the news agenda that day, and you
open up the dossier and the first thing you see is a preface by Tony Blair
that includes the following words:
"Saddam's military planning allows for some WMDs to be ready within 45
minutes of an order to deploy them."
Now, that claim has come back to haunt Mr Blair because, if the weapons had
been that readily to hand, they probably would have been found by now. But
you know, it could have been an honest mistake. But what I have been told is
that the government knew that claim was questionable even before the war,
even before they wrote it in their dossier.
I've spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the
dossier and he told me that in the week before it was published, the draft
dossier produced by the intelligence services added little to what was
already publicly known. He said:
"It was transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier.
The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were
ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original
draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn't
reliable. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that
was single sourced, and we believe that the source was wrong."
Now this official told me the dossier was transformed at the behest of
Downing Street, and he added:
"Most people in intelligence were unhappy with the dossier because it didn't
reflect the considered view they were putting forward."
for more information and audio files see also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/hutton_audio_timeline_20040128.shtml
---
Almost every claim by Gilligan immediately turned out to be accurate, except
for the so-called 'controversial claim' (dramatically stirred up by Tony
Blair's press office) when Gilligan is reporting on the information he got
from his source: "actually the government probably knew that that 45-minute
figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in", which anyway turned
out to be correct (Tony Blair pretending to be completely ignorant about the
45min WMD claim and Geoff Hoon already being exposed as a shameless liar) -
which consequently means that the BBC management (which has since been made
to resign) was absolutely right to defend its reporter, by 'as a matter of
principle' standing by the bottomline story in his report - despite the
possible remarks and criticism made about its journalistic methodology
(single source) - for which the BBC has long apologized/given a reasonable
explanation. Anyway, the bottom line remains: the controversial claim was
true, as comes clear out of the hereabovementionedto interview with Geoff
Hoon, Defence Secretary, following the revelation that Prime Minister Tony
Blair didn't even know what the 45min. claim and/or the WMD claim were all
about in the first place, despite having inserted it himself in the foreword
to the infamous "September Dossier".

Isn't it odd that the govt. picked on a single 6.07am unscripted broadcast
containing an accurate and sincere, but 'insufficiantly substantiated'
(because 'single-sourced') claim - whereas Blair&Co. were responsible for
putting out the "Dodgy plagiarised dossier' claiming all kinds of
unsubstantiated stuff about WMD, Uranium and strategic delivery systems,
while for some reason forgetting to react to the Sun's (the nations largest
selling newspaper) banner headline ("Brits 45 minutes from Doom". Cyprus
within missile range. British servicemen and tourists in Cyprus could be
annihilated by germ warfare missiles launched by Iraq, it was revealed
yesterday. They could thud into the Mediterranean island within 45 minutes
of tyrant Saddam Hussein ordering an attack' - The Sun, 25 September 2002)
(http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/sto...90204_s3p4.htm).

Maybe they were too busy rewriting intelligence
(http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=487515) or
otherwise manipulating our newspaper's headlines:

---
"Alastair, What will be the headline in the Standard on day of publication?"
- Jonathon Powell (Tony Blair's chief of staff) email to Alastair Campbell
(communications director at Number 10), 19 September 2002
The answer:
"45 Minutes from attack. Dossier reveals Saddam is ready to launch chemical
war strikes."
- The Evening Standard, 24 September 2002, page 1
(http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/sto...90204_s3p2.htm)
---

Get real, Blair and his government are lying, and they're being caught at
it - over and over again.

Please also have a look at the following links:

---
-*1. Katherine Gun saga, followed by Clare Short's revelations about the
illegality of the war and the spying operations against the U6 (group of 6
undecided nations at UN Security Council) and against Kofi Annan, in the
Observer/Guardian newspaper which first broke the story.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...157538,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...915999,00.html
(check "Iraq war whistleblower" section)
---

---
-*2. Geoff Hoon caught lying on the very same BBC Radio 4 "Today Program",
basically confirming the disputed "The government probably knew"-claim in
Andrew Gilligan's report.
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

BBC: .you knew, did you, that the munitions referred to were only
battlefield munitions . shells, battlefield mortars, tactical weapons of
that kind?
Geoffrey Hoon (GH): Yes, I can recall.
....
Geoffrey Hoon (GH): Well, I was not horrified. I recognised that journalists
occasionally write things that are more dramatic than the material upon
which it is based.
BBC: Can we forget journalists for the moment and concentrate on the members
of the public who are reading it? Will they not be entitled to be given the
true picture of the intelligence, not a vastly inflated one?
GH: I think that is a question you would have to put to the journalists and
the editors responsible.
BBC: But you had the means to correct it, not them. They could not correct
it until they were told, could they?
GH: Well, as I say, my experience of trying to persuade newspapers to
correct false impressions is one that is not full of success.
- Hutton Inquiry, transcript, September 2003
---

Today of course we all know that the 45 minute claim only ever related to
weapons Saddam could fire on a battlefield, which was clearly a matter of
public interest, but - because of the govt's deception - indeed not a matter
of public "controversy", until the truth came out after Gilligan's "Today"
report. Hoon knew - and with him the government's most senior intelligence
officials - that there was no way they could be used to rain down
destruction on Jerusalem and Cyprus. So why didn't Hoon correct those
reports? Why wasn't the Minister horrified to see the dossier misinterpreted
in this way??? Why was there no reaction to the Sun's and the Evening
Standard's articles???

And why did Tony Blair decide to go after the BBC and Dr. Kelly?? In his
own words: "All we ever wanted was an incorrect story corrected." - Tony
Blair press conference, AM, ABC Radio, 31 July 2003.
(http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/audio/090204_s3a3.ram).

On Iraq, Tony Blair hasn't only committed faul play, both domestically and
internationally; by bugging the U.N.'s Secretary General office he has just
also 'crash-tackled' the referee. It's high time for regime change in
Whitehall.

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

I don't find it shocking, just saddening. What possible justificatoin could
there be under the grounds of national security for spying on the head of
the UN? Unless they doubt his impartiality or credibility, the only reason
seems to be to help us load the decks in our favour during negotiations,
knowing what conversations he'd had with other council members or his own
private advisors.

Depends on how the information was collected.

Bugging his office is one thing, signal intercepts (far more likely) is
something altogether different.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Depends on how the information was collected.

Bugging his office is one thing, signal intercepts (far more likely) is
something altogether different.

Was any of the alleged information collected via MILITARY AIR. If not,
leave us out of the then OFF TOPIC addresses.

Tex Houston

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Brian Colwell" wrote in message
news:QTx%b.626023$ts4.537678@pd7tw3no...
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.

I don't find it shocking, just saddening. What possible justificatoin
could
there be under the grounds of national security for spying on the head of
the UN? Unless they doubt his impartiality or credibility, the only
reason
seems to be to help us load the decks in our favour during negotiations,
knowing what conversations he'd had with other council members or his own
private advisors. Maybe we should ask ourselves whether we'd be as happy
as
our governments seem to be at brushing it aside if for example it had been
Iraq, Syria, or even France or the Russians that had been caught at it? I
very much doubt it would be being treated so casually by Downing Street or
Washington if the culprits weren't members of our allied Axis of Angels.


I think that the US and UK both have tremendous reason to doubt both his
credibility and impartialty.

As it is widely known now, a good deal of high-ranking UN officials were
taking massive kickbacks from Saddam via the corrupted 'Oil-For-Food'
program, and had absolutely no interest in seeing that come to an end.

"Tex Houston" the Boeing Texas Ranger wrote in
message ...

Bugging his office is one thing, signal intercepts (far more likely) is
something altogether different.

Was any of the alleged information collected via MILITARY AIR.

Who knows, probably yes - which gives rise to a lot of political, legal and
in the eventually also military issues...


If not,leave us out of the then OFF TOPIC addresses.


Hmm, indeed, I see what you mean: where is the proof that those bombs that
were dropped over Iraq, and 'might' have killed some 10.000 innocent people,
were actually travelling via MILITARY AIR? And what about those pilots and
service men that are being killed almost every day in an injust war, having
their planes and helicopters shot down - can we be sure that they are
travelling by MILITARY AIR?? And what about the casus belli and the reasons
to proceed with this so-called illegal war, what did they ever have to do
with the military? Since when is a war fought by MILITARY AIR? Who cares if
Britain's defence secretary ever lied to public opinion ("WMD don't travel
by air, they are mere battlefield weapons"), and who says the now dead David
Kelly ever worked for the MOD... ???

Why bother? "Befehl ist Befehl". No need for media leaks, morality or the
"defence of necessity". No need for our politicians to win the elections or
to ever justify their decisions - after all, this IS a democracy. Besides,
hasn't war always been good for business, especially the MILITARY AIR
business??

It's all very clear now indeed: In order to avert the war and to disarm
Saddam, Britain simply had no other choice but to bug the U.N. Secretary
General's office. In fact, that's where they collected all the
"confidential" and very reliable intelligence, that was to be the basis for
General Powel's impressive U.N. presentation.

No need to 'bug' your real friends and military allies. We use their
MILITARY AIR space, and in return we close an eye on Dr. Kahn's wild nuclear
proliferation to countries like Libya and N.-Korea.

Do you realize that the French eat their Freedom fries with 'mayonaise', and
the effect this has on the state of democracy in the Middle-East...

It's important that we all realize that why when people like you are
fighting this war, we're really talking about keeping the peace.

And that the MILITARY AIR never had anything to do with this.


In pace, Iustitia omnibus.