Printable View
Agrajag
Apologies if my last was less than clear.
I do agree that poltical expediency is the order of the day and there are few absolutes reagrding this issue anymore.
However, I think the changes intoduced to the OSA are by and large an improvement even if they do cause embarrassment to the Government of the day. I think your position was relevant under the old rules, but has much less of a case under the revised guidance.
I am sure it was perfectly clear to those of a sharper wit than I.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@28 February 2004 - 16:09
Agrajag
Apologies if my last was less than clear.
I do agree that poltical expediency is the order of the day and there are few absolutes reagrding this issue anymore.
However, I think the changes intoduced to the OSA are by and large an improvement even if they do cause embarrassment to the Government of the day. I think your position was relevant under the old rules, but has much less of a case under the revised guidance.
Changes in the Act matter not one jot to me. It is the actions which I find abhorrent, rather than their legal status. Just because you can do something does not make it right to do so. I am sure she took plenty of legal advice with regard to whether she would be prosecuted were she to make this grand gesture.
However in my world there are things you simply do not do. This sort of breach is one of them. I fully accept that this is an old fashioned view, but I am old fashioned. Not all change is good, not all traditions are bad. It just shows that she is not proper person.
I think this applies more to the bugging of Kofi Annan rather than Claire Shorts revelations.Quote:
Originally posted by Agrajag
It is the actions which I find abhorrent, rather than their legal status. Just because you can do something does not make it right to do so.
To me, if people like Claire Short and Katharine Gun were not willing to put their necks on the line to let the public know what is going on, the intelligence services would be a law unto themselves.
Oh sorry, they already are :)
I fail to see how bugging Kofi Annan safeguards the UK's national security.
The fact is that neither Claire Short nor Katharine Gun put our national security at risk. They just highlighted the abuse that goes on every day, in our name and with our tax money.
I think the public have a right to know about this, as these people are meant to work for us. Its about time they remembered that, and if these revelations improve their memory without putting our national security in danger, then its all good.
I disagree. She had no right to make the details public. People in certain positions must put their personal issues to one side and do the job they chose to do.
If she saw the materaial whilst a Minister, some time ago now, then why has she only just spoken about it, other than for her own personal reasons. She did not speak up at the time. In my view it would not have been any better, at least it would have been more honest.
Quote:
Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I disagree. She had no right to make the details public. People in certain positions must put their personal issues to one side and do the job they chose to do.[/b]
In that case who is going to hold these people to account? Where do you draw the line between duty to your job and morality? If bugging Koffi Annan isnt a good enough reason to break the silence, what is? Giving the security services unlimited scope and 0 responsibility for their actions is a slippery slope indeed.
In fact if the security services and their masters did the job they chose to do then none of this would have occured in the first place. The fact that these revelations have nothing to do with our national security is a clear indicator that they are not only doing the job they are meant to be doing. It makes you wonder what other dirty tricks are being payed for by our taxes.
<!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
If she saw the materaial whilst a Minister, some time ago now, then why has she only just spoken about it, other than for her own personal reasons. She did not speak up at the time. In my view it would not have been any better, at least it would have been more honest.[/quote]
I think the timing is related to the collapse of the court case against Katharine Gun. Her timing is certainly astute, but I dont think its dishonest.
They are held to account by the ministries which control them and by the Government which controls those ministries. They are not held to account by rogue MPs who decide that they can disclose this type of material to the press. It is not a matter for Mrs Short to decide what is and is not permissible. If she chooses to wage a campaign based on her sense of morality, good on her I back her all the way. That does not give her the right to use material which was top secret and only available to her as a Minister.
It is quite obviously a matter of national security. When a country is deciding to go to war then it is important to have as much intelligence as possible with regard to all parties that may be involved, particularly the main players. To have intelligence regarding what Kofi Annan is likely to say and do is a vital part of the intelligence gathering process, as it will have a direct effect on what other people will say and do.
That is what they chose to do and that is what they are paid to do. There are loads of things being paid for with our taxes. I would be absolutely stunned if we were not intelligence gathering with regard to the leaders of the United States, I would expect they are doing the same with us.
Quote:
Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They are held to account by the ministries which control them and by the Government which controls those ministries.[/b]
The point here is that they are clearly not being held to account by anyone. Or if they are being held to account, then those doing the accounting are themselves breaking International Law.
Who's going to guards the guards if we dont have people like Katharine Gun and Claire Short? As you yourself stated, when "politicians are above the law" it is not a good state of affairs. If they cannot do their jobs properly and ensure that the security services operate within the law, then Im glad we have people like Claire Short ready to expose their dishonesty and incompetence.
Sometimes "following orders" is not the moral or correct thing to do.
I dont think it is at all. Kofi Annan is not a threat to our national security. He is not an enemy. What Mr Anann says to various heads of state has a bearing on diplomacy within the UN but it doesnt affect British security at all.Quote:
Originally posted by agrajag@
It is quite obviously a matter of national security. When a country is deciding to go to war then it is important to have as much intelligence as possible with regard to all parties that may be involved, particularly the main players. To have intelligence regarding what Kofi Annan is likely to say and do is a vital part of the intelligence gathering process, as it will have a direct effect on what other people will say and do.
To put it in another way, if we didnt bug Kofi Annan, would our national security be compromised, would it put Britian in any danger? Of course not.
Furthermore, if this really were a matter of national security then these revelations would have damaged our national security. Clearly, they have not. The UK is in no more danger now than it was a week ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
I would be absolutely stunned if we were not intelligence gathering with regard to the leaders of the United States, I would expect they are doing the same with us.[/quote]
We are not. After the second world war Canada, Australia, the USA and the UK all agreed that they would share intelligence with one another but would not spy on one another. afaik there has only been one case where the US spied on a British officer but he was working for the UN at the time and was being spied on as an officer working for the UN, not as an officer working for the UK.
If anything actions such as these weaken our power within the UN. We go to the UN and effectively say "trust us, we're the good guys here, our intentions are as pure as the driven snow so you should support our cause". That argument is going to look a little weak the next time we want to go to war with someone and will put us at an obvious disadvantage in any future UN related diplomacy.
To put it simply, no security operation can restore our lost credibility within the UN.
I have to disagree, as I stated in my last it is important for our national security to have all intelligence, with regard to the thoughts of the major players, when going to war. I realise that this is only re-stating what I have already said, however I can do no more than that. To me this position is so obviously self-evident that there is no point in arguing it. I simply concede that your position is entirely different from mine. No problem with that.
I would however be interested to know which International Law Ministers of the UK have broken and what actions are likely to be taken against them. Could you elucidate. Presumably as Mrs Short was privy to the intelligence she will also be indicted for the crimes of which you speak, are you aware who else will be held responsible ?
Quote:
Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have to disagree, as I stated in my last it is important for our national security to have all intelligence, with regard to the thoughts of the major players, when going to war. I realise that this is only re-stating what I have already said, however I can do no more than that. To me this position is so obviously self-evident that there is no point in arguing it. I simply concede that your position is entirely different from mine. No problem with that.[/b]
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. :)
My perspective is that if we didnt bug the UN it wouldnt put us in any danger, therefore its not a matter of National Security. Even if it were, its against International Law to bug the UN, something that we're meant to uphold.
Quote:
Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would however be interested to know which International Law Ministers of the UK have broken and what actions are likely to be taken against them. Could you elucidate. Presumably as Mrs Short was privy to the intelligence she will also be indicted for the crimes of which you speak, are you aware who else will be held responsible ?[/b]
At a bare minimum these conventions have been broken.
1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Article II@ Section 3 of the 1946 Agreement
The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-Article 27 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes.
2. The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.
[/quote]
I am not a lawyer and could not tell you whether merely being privy to the correspondence is enough for Claire Short to be indicted. It would, however, seem quite clear that those who ordered the communications to be intercepted in the first place would certainly be in breach of International Law.
I do not know who gave these orders, although one would assume that unless the security services do as they please, it would include senior members of the cabinet with full security clearance. This includes the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister but not the Secretary of State for International Development (Claire Shorts previous role).
For me the real issue here is this. Being unable to guarantee confidentialty when dealing with heads of state clearly undermines the role and strength of the UN when engaging in diplomacy.
I dont believe this is a good thing, I dont believe we have the right to do it (morally or legally) and I certainly dont believe it strengthens our national security.
I agree on the disagreeing thing, cool.
I have to question the International Laws, or indeed conventions you have quoted. Are you certain that it was actually premises of the United Nations which were bugged ? As I understand it we are talking about interception of communications. This would not normally have been achieved by any interference with premises. Unless of course you have more information on the actual process which was carried out. If so I would love to hear it, or a source.
With regard to your diplomatic argument, is Kofi Annan actually of diplomatic status ? If so does he represent a country as a diplomat, or the United Nations ? Does the concept of being a diplomat for the United Nations actually make sense ? I ask because I really don't have any idea.
In any case I think the second thing you quoted relates to diplomats resident in another country, (hence "receiving State") for example the US Ambassador to the United Kingdom is afforded these privileges (as you quoted). Bearing in mind they are privileges, the receiving state does not have to allow and embassy there at all. It only has to follow these conventions if it chooses to.
It's difficult if not impossible to comment on whether Mrs Short would be guilty of any offence (or anyone else for that matter) without knowing what offence one is talking about. Some offences are absolute, some require mens rea. So you would have to mention a specific offence, bearing in mind that not all Laws, Regulations, Statutory Instruments or Conventions actually contain criminal offences within them.