Claire Short

Claire Short, a former member of Tony Blair's cabinet has publicly stated that she saw documents which showed that the British Intelligence Service bugged Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations. She claims to have seen transcripts of private conversations.

This material would be classified as Top Secret and she has announced it in public. If a Civil Servant had done this there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been arrested and prosecuted. My question is, should she also be arrested and prosecuted ?

My answer is yes, the rules are for everyone. She may have done this for what she believes to be good motives, lots of people do, however she should not be immune from the same rules as everyone else.

10 years ago i would have agreed with you.

Now, however, they have the "Public Interest" defence, and would not be automatically prosecuted....as that defence will then give more publicity to what the Government doesnt want let out. Its more likely they would be moved to a crappy job no one wants...which doesnt apply to Ms Short.

As Mr Blaire is under scrutiny about lying to the public, i would consider this in the Public Interest, and doubt any Court would convict a Civil Servant for doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 February 2004 - 13:44
10 years ago i would have agreed with you.

Now, however, they have the "Public Interest" defence, and would not be automatically prosecuted....as that defence will then give more publicity to what the Government doesnt want let out. Its more likely they would be moved to a crappy job no one wants...which doesnt apply to Ms Short.

As Mr Blaire is under scrutiny about lying to the public, i would consider this in the Public Interest, and doubt any Court would convict a Civil Servant for doing this.

---

Public interest has a fairly strict definition and does not equate to, "of interest to the public". The Public Interest allows certain agencies and bodies to share intelligence under certain circumstances and controlled conditions. It does not allow former Ministers to make Top Secret material public knowledge.

My God, how stupid can Blair be?

What a thundering waste of good resources, spying on Kofi Annan. ;)

Tony Blair is a big dummy. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
My God, how stupid can Blair be?

What a thundering waste of good resources, spying on Kofi Annan.

Tony Blair is a big dummy

---

Taking into account who your current President is.. I'd be careful about throwing stones in that glass house of yours. :lol:

btw are you aware that it was your Gvt who asked us for help with this little operation?

Its good to know that our taxes are being spent wisely by the intelligence services. Can you imagine what would happen if we didnt spy on Koffi Annan? My God... our National Security would be in tatters within days. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftism+28 February 2004 - 05:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 28 February 2004 - 05:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
My God, how stupid can Blair be?

What a thundering waste of good resources, spying on Kofi Annan.

Tony Blair is a big dummy

---

Taking into account who your current President is.. I&#39;d be careful about throwing stones in that glass house of yours. :lol: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Agragjag

I would agree with you that the OSA should be applied equally across the board. It has, over the last 30 or so years, become common practice for Ministers to leak when it suits them and to decrie it when it doesn&#39;t.

Claire Short has, despite the somewhat foaming at the mouth response in some sectors of the press, only given credence to what has been fairly common knowledge (inside the UN as well as outside).

The response that she has put agents at risk is frankly silly. For a start the transcripts almost certainly originated from GCHQ through electronic eavesdropping rather than James Bond sneaking around in the dark and secondly even if a physical bug were found in the UN H.Q. how would that relate to a UK operative as opposed to a US or French or Chinese etc., etc.,

A breach of the new OSA (as opposed to the old OSA where it was an offence to disclose which type of tea we favoured at Tiffen) is supplying material evidence to an enemy that is detrimental to the interests of our country. To highlight an illegal activity by our own government in support of an aim which in itself had dubious international support is hardly a crime. If she had named an operative or disclosed the techniques used that would constitute a breach.

In summary, it is extremely unlikely the Government will risk the embarrassment of a court case in pursuing Claire Short.

Biggles,

I agree that it is unlikely any action will be taken, however that is not the point. Neither is confirming that which many others may have suspected anyway. The world is full of things we all "know", this does not give others the right to confirm them. The point, in my opinion is that she was in a position of enormous trust, granted her by the people of this country. She has broken that trust, to further her own ends, that in my opinion is heinous.

The material she had access to when in the Government was not available to her as a private person, it was available to her in her capacity as a Minister. As such she had no right to broadcast it, then or now. I think her obvious dislike for the PM has caused her to go way beyond the pale.

I do appreciate that leaks happen all the time, I am sure you will agree that the bulk of them relate to rather more mundane matters. To officially state that, in your capacity as a Minister you saw evidence that we had bugged Kofi Annan is a whole different ball game. She should, in my opinion be punished for this. At the same time pointing out to others that being an MP does not make you above the law.

Agrajag

I think the fact she will not be prosecuted is pertinent to the point. The Attorney General did not proceed with the prosecution of Mrs. Gun for fear of serious embarrassment to the Government. One normally only proceeds with a case if there is a reasonable liklihood of conviction. If Mrs. Gun (a small fish) was not pursued then Claire Short (a big fish) is liable to be even more difficult to land on the boat. Whilst collective responsibilty is admirable it should not extend to mild acquiesence to illegality - although I have no doubt it often has.

I believe that the Government want to forget about Iraq. It is done, and is now more a liability than anything. High profile court cases in which wrong-doing on the part of the UK Government is exposed will do nothing for the PMs authority or standing and only serve to drag the whole Iraq thing longer than the Government would like.

Claire Short resigned because she believed what was happening was wrong and has said so. She could have secured her Cabinet career on the back of supporting Tony Blair - she chose to sacrifice it on a matter of principle. This is all too rare in Government these days. As to punishing her, what can TB do? He can remove the whip but she may well get elected anyway by her constituency - as happened in Falkirk recently or in London with Ken. He can hardly damage her career as she has already given it up. Furthermore, he is trying to get his party to rally round after the University vote - going after a leading leftwinger is not going to do much for that strategy. I think this is primarily why Tony is so angry and why he resolutely spoke on domestic issues at Inverness.

I myself am torn. I think clearly there has been wrong doing on the part of the Government and that the course they chose was flawed. However, eyes and pins spring to mind when Howard&#39;s name is mentioned. So in a way, I think it is essential that the Shorts and Cooks act as the brakes - as the opposition is so useless and such a ghastly proposition as an alternative. (Apologies to any Conservatives this purely my opinion and not an objective assessment).

Biggles,

I agree with everything you say, at least those parts I understand. However it does not change my view. I find a breach of trust on this scale to be totally indefensible. I realise that nothing will happen because of political expediency. That for me is one of the great sadnesses of the issue. Someone can do this and get away with it, because to take any action would not suit political agendas.

What does that look like to the public eye - politicians are above the law. She can pass on this material and nothing is done. It is appalling, at least to me.

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.

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.

---

I am sure it was perfectly clear to those of a sharper wit than I.

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.

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.

---

I think this applies more to the bugging of Kofi Annan rather than Claire Shorts revelations.

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&#39;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&#39;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.

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.

---

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.

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by agrajag
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.

---

afaik there is no specific information about how the information was intercepted. Most analysts suggest it was "hoovered" up from radio waves and other transmissions via a listening station.

As I understand it this doesnt make a difference though. The "assets of the United Nations" include their communication channels. Mobile phones, landlines etc and as such should be "immune from... any form of interference"

With regards to the rest of your post I wont do the usual quote,answer quote answer routine but I&#39;ll try and cover the issues you raised and explain my position.

I dont think anyone here, myself included, is qualified to talk about the nitty gritty details of International Law, so.. I&#39;m basing my opinions on high ranking UN officials who have categorically stated that intercepting their communications, regardless of the method used, is illegal. They have quoted 3 conventions/agreements, 2 of which I&#39;ve mentioned here. A quick google will provide you with the details.

I, along with most people, would be completely astounded to find out that intercepting UN communications is legal. Although I&#39;m sure some lawyers could play their usual word games and argue that the communications werent " interfered with" but merely "interecepted" :rolleyes:

So the UN says its illegal and I dont see any reason to doubt this.

I have no idea who would/could be prosecuted but I imagine the person who gave the order would be top of the list. According to Katharine Gun this could include NSA officials and/or whoever gave them orders to ask the UK Gvt to help them intercept Annans communications.

Of course, it will never happen :) but I think its a good thing that the public knows that our leaders are prepared to break International Law whilst demanding that others obey it. People need a bit of irony in their lives every now and again :D

Once again you speak of people breaking International Laws, without actually being able to say which particular laws were broken.

Please don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but to accuse people of commiting an offence when you can&#39;t specify the offence is actually very unfair. No-one was ever convicted for "crime, unspecified".

Neither can anyone answer your post when it is this nebulous. Again please don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but there are a lot of words with little subsatnce.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by agrajag
Once again you speak of people breaking International Laws, without actually being able to say which particular laws were broken.

---

I showed you the 2 conventions that the UN said were broken. I showed you the specific articles they stated were broken. What more do you want?

I can only hope this helps...

Quote:

---

UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations said Thursday that alleged British spying on Secretary-General Kofi Annan&#39;s office, if true, was illegal and must be stopped.
It was the world body&#39;s first official reaction to the charge by a former member of Prime Minister Tony Blair&#39;s Cabinet that Britain spied on Annan in the run-up to last year&#39;s Iraq war when Washington and London tried unsuccessfully to get U.N. authorization to attack Saddam Hussein.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the United Nations "would be disappointed" if the allegation by Clare Short were true.

"Such activities would undermine the integrity and confidential nature of diplomatic exchanges," he said. "Those who speak to the secretary-general are entitled to assume that their exchanges are confidential."

Short, who resigned as Britain&#39;s international development secretary shortly after last year&#39;s campaign to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, said in a BBC interview that she had seen evidence of eavesdropping and had read transcripts of Annan&#39;s conversations.

Blair refused to say whether the allegation was true, but called Short "deeply irresponsible."

Eckhard said Britain&#39;s U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry, who is in London, called Annan on behalf of Blair, but the U.N. spokesman provided no details about their conversation.

&#39;Stop It&#39;

The United Nations is "not in a position to determine whether this is true or not," Eckhard said. "We are throwing down a red flag and saying if this is true ... stop it."

"The secretariat routinely takes technical measures to guard against such invasions of privacy, and those efforts will now be intensified," Eckhard said.

"We can take certain steps within our power to protect the confidentiality of phone conversations. We can use secure phones, secure faxes ... We routinely check the secretary-general&#39;s office and other parts of the U.N. premises for any bugging devices. I don&#39;t know that anyone has protection against satellite intercepts," he said.

Asked whether bugging the secretary-general&#39;s office was illegal, Eckhard said, "It is indeed considered illegal."

He said there were three relevant international laws, the most important being the 1946 Convention on The Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which Britain signed the year it was adopted.

It says U.N. premises "shall be inviolable" and "immune from search ... and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action."

The two other laws are the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1947 agreement between the United Nations and the United States regarding the U.N. headquarters in New York. It contains a provision concerning the inviolability of United Nations premises which is an obligation of the host country.

Eckhard was asked whether Annan planned to speak to the United States about the alleged eavesdropping, because London and Washington worked so closely during the run-up to the war.

"This incident seems only to involve the United Kingdom," Eckhard said. "I don&#39;t think the secretary-general intends to speak to anyone else."

The U.N. spokesman stressed that it is the obligation of U.N. member states "to honor their commitments" under international law.

---

source

Leftism,

Sorry, I haven&#39;t explained myself properly which is my fault. What is the offence you are accusing people of. Within Acts, Conventions etc there is a section, normally called something like "Offences" which actually details the crimes which people may be accused of and the penalties for those offences.

If such a thing does not exist within that Act then that law does not have any offences which people can commit. I only ask that you specify the offences so that we can have a reasonable debate on the subject. Your breaking International Laws contention doesn&#39;t really work. It needs to be more specific.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by agrajag
Sorry, I haven&#39;t explained myself properly which is my fault. What is the offence you are accusing people of. Within Acts, Conventions etc there is a section, normally called something like "Offences" which actually details the crimes which people may be accused of and the penalties for those offences.

If such a thing does not exist within that Act then that law does not have any offences which people can commit. I only ask that you specify the offences so that we can have a reasonable debate on the subject. Your breaking International Laws contention doesn&#39;t really work. It needs to be more specific.

---

Wow, I didnt realise that was the case. :o

I suggest you telephone the UN and inform them that you, clearly an expert on International Law, have found out that none of their conventions are worth the paper they&#39;re written on because there is not a specific section entitled "offences".

Ill try and find Fred Eckhard&#39;s number for you. Then you can talk to him directly and tell him why his claims, i.e. that the interception of Kofi Annans communications is illegal, are wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If your going to troll successfully, you have to be waaay more subtle than this agrajag/j2k4 :)

You need to have an element of authenticity. i.e you need to make me believe that you believe what your saying.

Good effort, I found it amusing, but.. better luck next time :)

If you are incapable of simply saying "I don&#39;t know" that is fine, if a bit childish. It really would be more honest than making grand pronouncements, which you cannot back up when asked. You have yet to substantiate the claim that members of our Government broke some International Law, indeed you cannot even identify the people or the offence. To defend this by sarcastically attacking me is just pathetic. I had assumed this place to be more than the serious lounge, perhaps I was mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@29 February 2004 - 10:00
If you are incapable of simply saying "I don&#39;t know" that is fine, if a bit childish. It really would be more honest than making grand pronouncements, which you cannot back up when asked. You have yet to substantiate the claim that members of our Government broke some International Law, indeed you cannot even identify the people or the offence. To defend this by sarcastically attacking me is just pathetic. I had assumed this place to be more than the serious lounge, perhaps I was mistaken.

---

Quite clearly, the UN considers that if the allegations are true then international law has been broken. They are the experts on international law. Do we have to be experts too in order to quote the statements from the UN? I think not.

As to who is responsible for these breaches, I would think that we on this forum are not sufficiently well briefed to be able to say who in government has responsibility for which action, but I am quite certain that those at the top of government know. I suspect Claire Short also knows, but she has refrained from pointing fingers at any individual.

So when you keep asking "which law" and "who did it", your arguments are more than a little specious.

To step backwards a little, we should examine why the case against Ms Gun was dropped. It can hardly have been for lack of evidence since she admitted her revelations. It seems there are two possibilities left. Either she had revealed something which was going to be very embarrassing to the government, and it was therefore "not in the public interest" to proceed. Or what she had revealed was not true, in which case no offence had been committed.

It is probable that Claire Short refrained from commenting earlier for fear of prejudicing the case. If Ms Short had made her revelations earlier the government may have been so embarrassed that continuing with the court case would make no difference. But to have kept quiet after the case had collapsed would have allowed the government to claim that they had dropped the case because Ms Gun&#39;s revelations were not true.

Whether you feel Ms Short should be brought to task over her statements is up to you, but to do so would seem to confirm that the intelligence services did indeed do what they are accused of doing. In fact Tony Blair&#39;s comments that Ms Short has been "deeply irresponsible" would also seem to confirm this. I am quite sure he would have no hesitation in saying her statements were untrue if that were the case. He could do that even if he knew her statements were true, but he can&#39;t be certain that Ms Short doesn&#39;t have some proof hidden away, and Phoney Tony can&#39;t afford to be shown to be a liar yet again. But don&#39;t worry, the security services will find and remove what she&#39;s got and then the field will be wide open again. <_<

Edit: typo

Lynx

Thanks for the comments, well thought out and presented. I don&#39;t agree with everything you say, but like I said it is obviously your own opinion on the matter, presented in a considered manner, in your own words.

If you feel that people are entitled to make allegations which they themselves cannot substantiate then it&#39;s not really for me. There are so many reasons that hearsay is inadmissible it is not even worth going into. I know this is not a court or anything, however I had though this area at least would have some ground rules.

I prefer debate which involves people substantiating their own arguments and not just quoting others. Whatever the perceived status of the person being quoted. Bland statements that people have committed a crime are meaningless, unless someone can say what the actual crime is. Too often the answer is "obviously it&#39;s a crime" or "it&#39;s common sense", that&#39;s not how it really works. Common sense plays no part in the legal system, international or domestic.

To put the record straight before I take my leave, he didn&#39;t actually start this by quoting anyone, he simply made the statement

"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."

He started quoting when asked to substantiate his allegations, but was never able to actually answer the straight forward question, what crime ?

Take care and have fun

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@29 February 2004 - 11:06
To put the record straight before I take my leave, he didn&#39;t actually start this by quoting anyone, he simply made the statement

"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."

He started quoting when asked to substantiate his allegations, but was never able to actually answer the straight forward question, what crime ?

---

Surely this is how we develop debates?

We will quite often make statements which we assume to be self-evident. It is only when someone queries that assumption that it becomes obvious that we should have provided some corroboration. It is then perfectly acceptable to quote from the experts on the matter under discussion.

I could understand your reasoning about "what crime" if lefty were the one making the direct accusations, but afaik the statements about illegality have come directly from the UN itself, so they are the ones who need to show exactly what they mean. Unfortunately it is likely that for the sake of diplomacy the matter will be allowed to quietly drift away and no charges will be brought, in which case your question may never be answered.

To cover your specific point, if, as stated by the UN, the intelligence services have broken International Law, then lefty&#39;s statement is true as a logical consequence. If and when the UN specifies which laws the intelligence services have infringed, we can then folllow the chain of logic to lefty&#39;s statement:
Has International Law been broken?
No - no further action.
Yes - Are the intelligence services being held to account?
...No - case proved against intelligence services and those who should be watching them
...Yes - case proved against those who are watching the intelligence services.

Either way, the government gets it for allowing the intelligence services to do what they are alleged to have done, or for dereliction of duty in not watching over them.

Edit: clarity of levels of No/Yes

Quote:

---

Q. How legal is this sort of intelligence gathering?

My government sources say it is legal.

They are saying everybody does this, that the British UN mission in New York is the target of other people trying to eavesdrop on it.

They&#39;re saying that this is really a bit of a storm in a teacup, that it&#39;s not the same as sort of planting a little microphone on somebody&#39;s lapel.

The Foreign Office says: "GCHQ and MI6 never act outside the law, neither here in Britain, nor abroad."

But there is some debate about this.

Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester, said: "It&#39;s not legal to bug foreign diplomats, certainly not without their consent.

"With regards to the United Nations this is covered by the UN headquarters agreements as well as general diplomatic law and it is certainly not legal."

The UN also says it is illegal.

---

source = bbc ews website

I&#39;m not convinced by either side really, seems like its a bit of a grey spot. I reallly doubt its legal or accepted. But the articles and conventions leftism quoted don&#39;t seem to address the actual offence (if as suggested here it was reception of information that was being broadcast). Though I haven&#39;t seen anything from the general diplomatic law mentioned.

My understanding is that spying is perfectly ok, as long as one doesn&#39;t get caught. (I am talking here about spying on other countries, rather than working as an agent for another country in one&#39;s own country. The latter tends to carry a sentence heavier than most other crimes put together).

Periodically diplomats are asked to leave a country for "activities incompatible with their status". If a spy/diplomat is caught in the UN planting bugs then he will be asked to leave and the country concerned will mumble a few apologies.

If the transcripts were picked up using equipment in the UK then that is a matter for the UN to get better jamming devices.

The political issues surrounding the everyday activities of intelligence gathering is the embarrassing factor for Tony Blair. He made a grand show of working with the UN whereas the Short revelations make it look like he was working against the UN. Of course this may just be appearances and Tony Blair may still have been hoping to work with the UN, but that is probably neither here nor there now.

Clare Short has been sent a letter by the Cabinet Secretary warning her that sho should not give interviews about security matters. Now she has been told that this letter was configential and she should not have revealed it&#39;s contents either.

This sounds like the old "Keep this to yourself, we don&#39;t want everyone to know yet" method often used by some businesses to prevent people from discussing sensitive matters - if you discuss them after being told it is treated as a breach of confidence and, depending on the seriousness the result can range from a warning to dissmissal. Someone tried that one on me - I replied that if they didn&#39;t want me to discuss it then they shouldn&#39;t tell me. It doesn&#39;t look like Clare Short is going to fall for it either.

Tony Blair says he is disappointed that she has discussed the letter. I bet he is.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party have withdrawn their support for the Butler Enquiry, saying he has drawn up the terms of reference far too tightly. Well there&#39;s a surprise.

Just wanted to add don&#39;t assume Claire Short revealed this information for the benefit of the public. She has her own agenda too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skillian@1 March 2004 - 19:19
Just wanted to add don&#39;t assume Claire Short revealed this information for the benefit of the public. She has her own agenda too.

---

Obviously, Blair promised her something so that she didn&#39;t resign before the conflict started. No doubt she later found out that she had been lied to (and who hasn&#39;t?) and then decided she must resign. This left her looking foolish. Tony Blair should have remembered the old saying: "Hell hath no fury like a a woman scorned".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skillian@1 March 2004 - 21:19
Just wanted to add don&#39;t assume Claire Short revealed this information for the benefit of the public. She has her own agenda too.

---

And your thoughts on that are....? :blink:

Just really that she clearly has no love for the Prime Minister, and would like to see him fall.

The increased pressure on Tony Blair, rather than the enlightenment of the British public, is the consequence that Claire Short is concerned with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by skillian
The increased pressure on Tony Blair, rather than the enlightenment of the British public, is the consequence that Claire Short is concerned with.

---

Although I&#39;m sure it played a part in her decision, I don&#39;t think that making Blairs life difficult was her main motivation.

If she were that mercenary and without principle she would have towed the line, not made a fuss about the war, and kept her job in the cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skillian@2 March 2004 - 02:31
Just really that she clearly has no love for the Prime Minister, and would like to see him fall.

The increased pressure on Tony Blair, rather than the enlightenment of the British public, is the consequence that Claire Short is concerned with.

---

Hmmm....seems like wild speculation to me.

I thought that you would have some insider knowledge or at least evidence of previous agendas which have shown Ms Short to be saying one thing whilst really doing another.

I am not a fan of Claires, nor am I a member of the Short bashing league, but I cannot help but have admiration and respect for the ONLY person who seems able to challenge Blair and his cronies. She has bigger balls than any of the other &#39;rebels&#39; in the Labour party at the moment.

Alternative agenda or not...hats off to someone who is willing to put their personal career on the line for the sake of a point of principle...rightly or wrongly. toeing the party line is one thing, but it should only go so far and it saddens me that in today&#39;s political climate, people are pilloried for speaking out and bringing issues to the forefront for debate.

The whole problem at the moment is that everyone is so scared of a &#39;Presidential&#39; Tony that he can pretty much do exactly as he likes without fear of dissent...hmmm....isn&#39;t that a little worrying for the future of democracy?

Maybe if more people had spoken out...the 2nd world war would not have resulted in the holocaust...we will never know, but surely a politician&#39;s job is not only to serve but also to question.

Sara, referring to your 9 month old thread which has just been resurrected, your last post gives me reason to be glad you are still with us.

I have to admit that I have in the past rather thought of Clare as being part of the "loony left" with regard to her style and presentation, and I never thought much of what she had to say. I am surprised to say that my feelings towards her have changed quite dramatically over the past few months.

I rather feel that she put her personal career on the line 12 months ago when, after decrying the moves for war, she decided to stay in the cabinet at the time when Robin Cook decided it was time to leave. It remains to be seen what persuaded her to stay at that time, although I do remember that it was after a personal meeting with Tony Blair. I suppose it must have taken even greater courage to resign at a later stage.

Other than that I think I am largely in agreement with your sentiments regarding the health of democracy in 21st Century Britain. I refer not only to Blair&#39;s style of leadership, but also to what can only be described as extreme measures proposed by David Blunkett.

Although many despotic regimes over the ages (and currently) have been largely based on greed and power, it is interesting to note that the worst large scale attrocities have all been perpetrated by governments with so called socialist tendencies. It is to be hoped we are not seeing the rise of another.