THE SMOKING GUN AT
GCHQ
25 Feb 2004
It was arguably
an abuse of power by US intelligence operatives who asked for phone and
email taps of some UN member officials. A great deal was at stake.
Those who wished the UN to assume its responsibilities were becoming
exasperated and needed to know if its failure was for genuine or
trivial or devious reasons, but in the view of most people the request
was inappropriate and ill advised. It fits into a whole category of
behaviour which has caused public opinion to harbour contradictory
opinions and emotions about the US and its current administration.
Whereas from time to time it has been fashionable to suppose that US
Intelligence services habitually operate at a level of autonomy to
permit denial of their actions by the President and his close advisers,
today the perception would be that instructions came from (at least)
Donald Rumsfeld. In addition, just as with the speech about an 'axis of
evil', this is seen as a failure of diplomacy.The advice to speak
softly and carry a big stick has gone out the window as the rhetoric of
swagger, supposedly engaged to rally good people to a fine cause, is
carelessly used in a way that causes offence to innocent people caught
up in the age-old game of national survival and domestic politics that
gives rise unintended international effects
But Catherine
Gun's reasons for her actions are unbelievably arrogant and a much more
serious abuse of privilege. What makes this naive woman think that the
inside of her head is the forum in which the merits of the future
of Saddam Hussein, Iraq and the contingent political realities
can be judged, rather than all the parliaments, seminars,
organisations, universities that make up the structure of democratic
states. No operation of its kind was subject to more transparent
discussion. The UK Prime Minister and his cabinet and foreign office
experts listened and took note of every argument raised in favour of
leaving Saddam in power without his acknowledging and complying with UN
authority. Those arguments included those voiced by Ms Gun.The Attorney
General gave his opinion, and that is what he is appointed to do.
Catherine Gun was also given an important job. But she failed to do it
and decided that the Attorney General was wrong. Instead of taking her
concerns to her supervisor she went to the Observer. Our democracy
depends, for its proper functioning, on people doing the job they have
committed themselves freely and knowingly to do, with the safeguards
that are officially in place to satisfy their personal consciences.
It is pretty
clear why the prosecution has decided to drop the case. In a country
where 80% of the public think Princess Diana was assassinated, where
they will believe anything the BBC says even if it is the output of a
single reporter from single misquoted source, the chance of a jury
finding Catherine Gun, a pretty face that clearly has ambitions to
overrule elected governments through telegenesis, it is a waste of
time. There is not sufficient evidence to win, which is the official
reason that has been given. Even that appears to be too much for the
media gurus to understand ( don't think ! ).
We have now got
to the stage where the Home Secretary is asking the above public how he
should do his job. When he does not take their advice, they will no
doubt accuse him of not listening. The fact that he might have listened
carefully but be better informed than most of them won't cross their
minds. We are even thinking of reducing the voting age so that
smartarses with even less experience and understanding can influence
who gets elected to parliament. In a society where numeracy and
literacy are inadequate, where is the logic?
It is now being suggested by some that Gun is not guilty because the
case has been dropped, even though she has admitted guilt. The level of
absurdity is reaching dramatic proportions. If a single person breaks
the law on a manner of conscience, which they are perfectly entitled to
do, they must face the consequences. In this case, Gun has been lucky
enough to be spared a trial because, as I have noted above, in a
country where the public are so out to lunch that 80% think the
intelligence services assassinated the Princess of Wales, the only
thing to do with this silly woman is to ignore her before we end up
wasting more time and at the end being saddled with an acquittal based
on emotion and prejudice which would leave the law in a state of
breakdown.
It is ironic that Gun claims it is right to break oaths and commitments
and the law on grounds of conscience when, if her own interpretation of
events is correct (which it is not), the governments of ALL the
coalition countries broke international law on exactly the same basis,
but before doing so engaged not the single brain of a naive and
incredibly ignorant woman but teams of the most dedicated and informed
political, economic and military specialists ever known on this
planet. Gun denies to the legitimate leading bodies of society
the right that she claims for herself. This is he equivalent of holding
the individual right to take life on the grounds of, say, 'crime
passionelle' while accusing a state, that imposes capital punishment
for certain crimes, of murder. That
this absurd argument is able to be sustained for more than a day would
be depressing if it were not for the fact that reductio ad absurdum is
sometimes the only way to clarify the thinking of uneducated and
inexperienced people, or those whose continual pursuit of a political
line has blinded them to free but rational thought.
UPDATE FEB 26
Now we have Clair Short doing the same thing. Her justification is
still that it was wrong to go to war, that Iraq is a mess, that the US
timetable for war was unnecessary. What a dreamer. Like all of her
persuasion she has no understanding that the situation in Iraq, however
bad, is improving. Before the war, it was getting worse and there was
no acceptable future for it of any sort. Like all of her persuasion she
has not looked at the consequences of backing down on the enforcement
of the UN resolutions in this case. The UN will be furious with
Short for the way she has handled her own conscience, as it is highly
prejudicial to their operations. She could have done it very
differently. That is why the PM has called her irresponsible. I once admired Clair
Short. No longer.