Clare Short

[Giz]

She did not raise the issue, someone else did. She just confirmed it. Britain has been bugging an organisation that is not a threat to it. "everybody else does it" is not an excuse.

Are you suggesting that there would be nothing of interest discussed in the UN?

Or are you still in shock from the disclosure that our spooks actually spy on people? If so look away now!
>Breaking news!
In another embarressing leak, veteran operative J. Bond has disclosed that MI6 operations are just a giddy round of girls, gadgets and double-entendres.

 

[Reginald]

She did not raise the issue, someone else did. She just confirmed it. Britain has been bugging an organisation that is not a threat to it. "everybody else does it" is not an excuse.

There are lots of places that could be considered as no threat. The amusing thing is that we wouldn't know this without some intel.

Or would you rather we all just guess?

That is crazy talk.

To me it seems to show a realistic understanding of the way it is (rightly or wrongly) however it is far from crazy!

 

[richardm]

Spies spying on people? Whatever will they think of next?

Of course, as has been mentioned we have no idea what the source of those transcripts really were. Any minister will have a civil servant listening on the line in order to minute the call. I'm sure similar arrangements exist elsewhere. Was that what she saw? Who knows?

I was, however, intrigued to see Robin Cook popping up to defend the government. I'd have thought he'd be unable to resist the temptation to stick the boot in.

 

[Darat]

That is crazy talk.

It may be, but do you want to tell me why my talk is crazy?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I was, however, intrigued to see Robin Cook popping up to defend the government. I'd have thought he'd be unable to resist the temptation to stick the boot in.

There is a difference here as far as I am considered. Cook did resign at such a time that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did it for moral or ethical or principle considerations.

And in his resignation speech this is what he said about Blair:

...snip...

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
...snip...

I would say that Cook's actions and what he has said since supports that this was a truthful view and his problem was solely that he could not agree about the war; from Claire Shorts actions and words I would say she has a problem with Blair and the war is being used as a convenient and populist platform to try and launch her attacks from.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Would it be right to blow the whistle if the White House - say - organised a burglary or the UK government, for example, were found to be deliberately exaggerating a WOMD threat to justify an illegal war?

Is the OSA a barrier to exposing illegality?

 

[Darat]

I'll reverse your questions as it is easy that way for me answer them.

Is the OSA a barrier to exposing illegality?

Yes. The OSA is not concerned about morality or whether something should be secret or not, if in effect it is stamped "Top Secret" then as far as the OSA goes it mans you can't tell.

Would it be right to blow the whistle if the White House - say - organised a burglary or the UK government, for example, were found to be deliberately exaggerating a WOMD threat to justify an illegal war?

"Right?" – well that would depend on your own morality and ethics, which is how in my opinion it should be. However whether right or wrong if you’ve broken a legal contract or agreement then you have to accept the consequences, so if you break the OSA then you have to realise that there may be serious personal consequences.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Darat
Yes. The OSA is not concerned about morality or whether something should be secret or not, if in effect it is stamped "Top Secret" then as far as the OSA goes it mans you can't tell.

I think it was Yosarian who said something along the lines of
'That's some catch, that Catch 22.'

"Right?" – well that would depend on your own morality and ethics, which is how in my opinion it should be. However whether right or wrong if you’ve broken a legal contract or agreement then you have to accept the consequences, so if you break the OSA then you have to realise that there may be serious personal consequences.

Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? I guess I meant right as in 'responsible to the wider good'. For Clare Short and ?Ms Gunn the consequences are that the government seems to be too frightened of the truth about the legal advice relating to the legality of the Iraq war being made public for the serious consequences to be implemented in practice. Perhaps it would be easier for them to publish the advice and let the public, who actually paid for the war, to assess it's validity in an open and democratic forum instead of hiding behind sham legal actions?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? I guess I meant right as in 'responsible to the wider good'. For Clare Short and ?Ms Gunn the consequences are that the government seems to be too frightened of the truth about the legal advice relating to the legality of the Iraq war being made public for the serious consequences to be implemented in practice. Perhaps it would be easier for them to publish the advice and let the public, who actually paid for the war, to assess it's validity in an open and democratic forum instead of hiding behind sham legal actions?

Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? – Why you and I of course.

Gunn seems to have acted from her convictions I still maintain Short is just someone who has a bad case of "sour grapes" and is using a pretence (e.g. her “moral concerns” about the war) to get her own back or create more publicity for herself. The timing of her actions don't seem to correlate with someone who had a moral or ethical objection to the war.

 

[a_unique_person]

I was just driving along before, thinking about this thread, then it hit me.

The Clare dectractors seem have a strange logic to their thinking. Everyone spies, the UK would be mad not to. Everyone assumes everyone does it. But, whatever you do, don't say that. What is going on here?

 

[Jon_in_london]

There can never be any justification for breaking the OSA.

It is not for individuals to decide when or if something is immoral, illegal or not in the best interests of the country and write in to The Sun.

This is in exactly the same vein as vigilantism- it is simply not for private individuals to decide wether or not someone is guilty and to met out whatever punishment they see fit.

These are central tenants of civilisation and nationhood.

 

[a_unique_person]

There can never be any justification for breaking the OSA.

It is not for individuals to decide when or if something is immoral, illegal or not in the best interests of the country and write in to The Sun.

This is in exactly the same vein as vigilantism- it is simply not for private individuals to decide wether or not someone is guilty and to met out whatever punishment they see fit.

These are central tenants of civilisation and nationhood.

No. People have been saying that there is nothing wrong with spying on someone who is not your enemy, it is necessary for the security of the state, and everyone does it anyway, and all these people assume they'll be bugged anyway, and that they would think their government would be failing them if they didn't bug other countries. But whatever you do, don't say that. Just pretend it doesn't happen. Crazy.

 

[aerocontrols]

I was just driving along before, thinking about this thread, then it hit me.

The Clare dectractors seem have a strange logic to their thinking. Everyone spies, the UK would be mad not to. Everyone assumes everyone does it. But, whatever you do, don't say that. What is going on here?

Along similar lines, one wonders why intelligence agencies bother to make their listening devices difficult to detect at all.

Since you've been thinking about it, spend some time on the differences between these statements:

1) Britain should learn all it can about what goes on at the UN, including spying on people if possible.

2) Britain can hear every word that is spoken in Kofi Annan's office.

3) Britain can read all the documents on Kofi Annan's computer.

Maybe that will help you realize why some people might be angry with Clare.

 

[a_unique_person]

Along similar lines, one wonders why intelligence agencies bother to make their listening devices difficult to detect at all.

Since you've been thinking about it, spend some time on the differences between these statements:

1) Britain should learn all it can about what goes on at the UN, including spying on people if possible.

2) Britain can hear every word that is spoken in Kofi Annan's office.

3) Britain can read all the documents on Kofi Annan's computer.

Maybe that will help you realize why some people might be angry with Clare.

But the response has been, well of course we have to do that. We would be mad not to, and I would expect my country to do just that, and Anan should assume that we are going to do it anyway, and everyone else does it doo.

Just don't say it.

 

[Reginald]

But the response has been, well of course we have to do that. We would be mad not to, and I would expect my country to do just that, and Anan should assume that we are going to do it anyway, and everyone else does it doo.

Just don't say it.

Oh what a lovely world we would all live in if we didn't even have to consider gathering information about other states, organisations and people. We could all sit around and discuss Chekhov and eat cheese and drink wine.

Just remember that the people who signed the OSA didn't have to as such, they chose to. I admit they wouldn't have got the job had they refused, but they didn't. They wanted the job and the money and pension that go with it. Exactly what do people who go to work at an establishment like GCHQ think they are going to be doing with their day? Translating "Teletubbies" for adults?

What next in these moral crusades? Doctors releasing the names of everyone with a STD....so that everyone knows that unprotected sex with that person can lead to infection? Releasing that information could save much suffering, yet I think we would all agree (I hope) that to do so would be a terrible thing.

Sometimes it's simply not possible in the real world to do the morally most correct thing. I would like to live in an ideal world, but I don't...I live in this one.

 

[Darat]

No. People have been saying that there is nothing wrong with spying on someone who is not your enemy, it is necessary for the security of the state, and everyone does it anyway, and all these people assume they'll be bugged anyway, and that they would think their government would be failing them if they didn't bug other countries. But whatever you do, don't say that. Just pretend it doesn't happen. Crazy.

I certainly haven’t been saying that. This is my opinion:

• 
  UK spies on whoever it can
  It is not news that the UK does this.
  Short can not have been so naive to think that the UK didn’t spy on the UN and other organisations/countries/states etc. (She was a cabinet minister!)
  Short's actions are not consistent with someone with a "moral" reason for whistle blowing but are consistent with someone seeking political revenge and public advancement.

The OSD is a slightly different issue and I think from the posts in this thread there is quite a spread of views on whether people think there can be any justification for breaking it.

 

[Reginald]

The OSD is a slightly different issue and I think from the posts in this thread there is quite a spread of views on whether people think there can be any justification for breaking it.

I agree, I can envision reasons to break it, but this IMO isn't one of them. I've stated what I think would be grounds in another post. That may appear inconsistant, but I think it boils down to where you draw the line...a personal thing I think you will agree.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Darat
Gunn seems to have acted from her convictions I still maintain Short is just someone who has a bad case of "sour grapes" and is using a pretence (e.g. her “moral concerns” about the war) to get her own back or create more publicity for herself. The timing of her actions don't seem to correlate with someone who had a moral or ethical objection to the war.

I get the impression Short also acted from her convictions, particularly as there was no national interest in what was done to Kofi Annan and there was no danger to any service personnel by revealing it.

If we indeed guard the guards, as you said, then we have a duty to ensure they act in our real interests rather than neocons in the USA. In this particular matter I see no national interest in discovering if there were enough votes to start a legal war when it clearly didn't matter if there were or not. Because the PNAC wants to carry out its declared objectives whatever the justification or Blair wants to enhance his CV in the USA are not sufficient reasons to do anything.

I recall that, contrary to Blairs ridiculous assertions, the UK was not under any imminent threat from WOMD and the man did not even bother to discover if the weapons he declared were an imminent threat to the UK could actually reach any UK bases, anywhere in the world. Let us direct our security services to proper work, such as paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, not Blair's CV.

As to there never being any justification for breaking the OSA, I wonder if that means the government of the day can commit any illegal act without fear of those it required to sign the OSA from telling the people who pay for it all what is being done in their name?

 

[Darat]

I get the impression Short also acted from her convictions, particularly as there was no national interest in what was done to Kofi Annan and there was no danger to any service personnel by revealing it.

...snip...

Well this is a difference of opinion we have about her reasons for her actions. If this was a "moral" or a question of not agreeing with the government she was part of at the time I would have expected her to speak up about it long before now. The timing smacks of political revenge.

 

[BillyTK]

As with good comedy, the secret is timing; if Short wants to claim the moral highground, why did she disclose this information only after the government had decided to drop the case against Elizabeth Gunn? To this lefty, Short's actions smack of opportunism and an agenda other than the nation's interests. And she's a crap teacher, you wouldn't think she'd want to burn her bridges so quickly!