Katherine Gun, a GCHQ translator who leaked documents concerning the british secret services attempts to bug UN delegates in order to enable the US to better 'negotitate' support from smaller countries for invading iraq is due in court today for a pre-trial hearing.
naturally this is seemingly only reported* in the new york times.
"Katharine Gun has a much better grasp of the true spirit of democracy than Tony Blair. So, naturally, it's Katharine Gun who's being punished.
Ms. Gun, 29, was working at Britain's top-secret Government Communications Headquarters last year when she learned of an American plan to spy on at least a half-dozen U.N. delegations as part of the U.S. effort to win Security Council support for an invasion of Iraq.
The plans, which included e-mail surveillance and taps on home and office telephones, was outlined in a highly classified National Security Agency memo. The agency, which was seeking British assistance in the project, was interested in "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals.""
* as p. lukasiak [comments] has pointed out this was not a news report by the nytimes but rather the subject of an opinion piece by one of thier regular columnists (21.01.04)
one correction.
The Gun story was not "reported" in the New York Times, it was the subject of one of the Times' regular columnists.
In other words, no Times reporter has covered the Gun story, and it has not appeared in the "news hole."
Posted by: p. lukasiak on January 21, 2004 02:41 PMyou are of course completly correct p lukasiak, i shall pay closer attention to the wording in future!
Posted by: flambingo on January 21, 2004 03:28 PMi have only seen one reference to this in The Oberver last Sunday. Why is there not more media coverage in wake of hutton etc? is there embargo during trial?
Posted by: boyland on January 21, 2004 08:20 PMi haven't been able to discover if theres an embargo or if the press are only doing one scandal at a time and leaving it until after Hutton. bear in mind that this was a pre-trial hearing and we can, hopefully, expect a significant level of disclosure for the trial itself. especially in view of the levels of disclosure through the hutton enquiry.
there is some more stuff on Gun here
accuracy.org and the observer article here and indymedia's tuppence
We can thank Attorney General Ashcroft and the "you are either with us or against us" mentality of the Bush Administration for spying on memebers of the UN Security Council. We should not be surprised that a President who called the UN Security Council "the so called security council" treats this august body with contempt.
Posted by: Peter on January 22, 2004 04:26 PMDear Ed,
When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times, he blew the whistle on the deceptions and lies of the Nixon Administration and other forms of official misconduct relating to the war in Vietnam. He was "viciously harassed" and his psychiatrist's office was burglarized.
The Nixon Administration tried to destroy him and also charged him with treason, theft and conspiracy. The prosecution failed on the grounds of government misconduct but no case was filed against the Nixon Administration for treacherous violation of the allegiance owed by the State to protect the righteous conduct, privacy and personal dignity of the individual. Deceptions and lies in officialdom with or without conspiracies which impinge on national interests or the conduct of a state in international affairs and utilize public funds or tax payor's money is "treason against the public".
In other words, the "vicious harassment" of the State as in the case of Daniel Ellsberg is the betrayal of the individual by the State and a criminal act not endorsed by any constitution or moral code. So, it becomes inherently essential to ask all Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates this question, "Sir, if you are elected President (or Prime Minister), and if you or your Administration carries out an act or a misconduct or an illegal act by deception or lies to the public, and if I blew the whistle by leaking documents to the media, would you or your agents or servants harass me?" And, then we wait in pregnant silence to listen to the answer.
Now comes the real voice of conscience - Katherine Gun who "passionately felt that an invasion of Iraq was morally wrong and illegal". In fact the invasion of Iraq is going down in history as the War by False Pretexts and an illegal invasion.
Katherine "deeply believes in democratic principles" that moved her to take the courageous step blow the whistle when she leaked a memo to The London Observer. Her conduct did not undermine democratic principles or conscionable conduct but it "deeply embarrassed the US and British Governments" and she was arrested for violating the Official Secrets Act.
The Official Secrets Act can be used in a mean, base and vicious manner because it is supposed to protect anything and everything in a file classified as official secret including deceptions, lies and conspiracies and conduct or misconduct or illegal acts associated with those deceptions and lies although no law is actually conceived for such purposes and is deemed against public policy and the moral duty of law and no court is set up to protect officials who take an oath to serve the public and the nation but later act to deceive and set up lies or conspiracies more so when such lies, deceptions, conspiracies or misconduct or illegal acts may be treason or otherwise treacherous betrayal of national or public interest.
Parliament cannot make laws with the intent to protect deception, lies, conspiracies or misconduct or illegal acts or any other misdeeds and the courts will not enforce such laws.
The term "official secret" in the Act shall not mean any act of deception or acts of deception or a lie or lies or any misconduct or acts of misconduct or an illegal act or illegal acts or abuse or misuse of funds or authority. This is also true from direct inference that no official is contracted or elected for such purposes or duties and functions. Such behaviour in official capacities is not professional and it violates the contract of service and the implied terms of serving as an appointed officer or an elected officer and it cannot, on that analysis be protected by any law. It is against public policy to give efficacy to laws or provisions of statute that protect such acts and keep them as official secrets.
So, when information on such acts, lies, deception or misconduct or documents that prove them are leaked, it does not violate The Official Secrets Act. So, quite clearly Gun's arrest is illegal and her detention unlawful. On the other hand, it is the moral duty of every upright citizen to expose misdeeds and illegal acts wherever they may occur and that duty is sacred to society and no law ought to be created or enforced to stand against it, more so to aid democracy.
Fortunately, Katherine Gun is being allowed by the British Courts to plead an unusual "defense of necessity". He defense should properly deal with the legal issue of what the Official Secrets Act can lawfully keep a secret, especially when the societal norm, the norm in national governance and corporate governance is transparency so that as a matter of principle, the public knows the truth, while regulatory bodies have gone so far as to enforce "truth in selling" to protect the consumer.
The British courts should also allow Gun to set up her defense based on "conscionably righteous conduct flowing from democratic principles and values" and it is the type of conduct expected from an upright citizen of upright upbringing.
A victory for Gun would be a victory for all parents who raise their children on the proper adult role model of conscionably righteous conduct at all times. Conscionably righteous conduct flows from democratic principles and values, and the victory of good over evil for laws cannot transgress these principles and values and Katherine Gun showed exemplary courage within this framework to make a sincere effort to prevent an illegal invasion based on deception, lies and false premises.
Should the courts send a contrary message to parents and members of the public? In doing so, the courts will imply to all officials that their lies, deceptions, acts of misconduct or illegal acts will be protected by keeping them as secrets of the State. Was the State created for such purposes?
To convict Gun would be to drop a cluster bomb on the central pillar of moral fabric on which children are raised and on the cornerstone of democratic principles and values which together feed the fountain for conscionably righteous conduct and on the moral duty of law. In Gun's case, the law itself is on trial together with societal values.
Beldeu Singh
MALAYSIA
Thank Beldeu Signh. You state the issues clearly and forcefully. I can only hope that us "peace-promoting" Yanks support K. Gun fully and take up the implications of her case and direct our efforts at yet another exposure of the Bush regime's illegal and immoral behavior.
Posted by: Alex Ztangi on January 24, 2004 11:31 PMan article from today's guardian from Daniel Ellsberg enjoining people to leak against war
"I can only admire the more timely, courageous action of Katherine Gun, the GCHQ translator who risked her career and freedom to expose an illegal plan to win official and public support for an illegal war, before that war had started. Her revelation of a classified document urging British intelligence to help the US bug the phones of all the members of the UN security council to manipulate their votes on the war may have been critical in denying the invasion a false cloak of legitimacy. That did not prevent the aggression, but it was reasonable for her to hope that her country would not choose to act as an outlaw, thereby saving lives. She did what she could, in time for it to make a difference, as indeed others should have done, and still can."
Ellsworth weighs in on this:
http://truthout.org/docs_04/012804I.shtml
Posted by: Charles on January 28, 2004 01:03 AMI believe that there is much more to Katharine Gun's experience which represents only the tip of the iceberg for such espionage being carried out by the US and UK Governments.
It just so happened that NSA targeted six UN Security Council countries at a time when it wanted to influence the outcome of a vote about Iraq.
Thank goodness Katharine Gun leaked the request from NSA to GCHQ for assistance. But, there is much more to the "bugging" these days than what we have understood for decades with regard to electromagnetic radiation surveillance.
I have been the target of a surveilance experimental development programme carried out by two US Government Agents, (Lt?) Colonel Vine and Lt Harry X (both ex-US Marines (retired)), in North Kensington (London) for the past 36 months since February 2001 just after Bush was inaugurated.
This surveillance technology concentrates on brain wave monitoring and feedback activity. It works as I have been able to verify 24/7 for these three years.
Thoughts (words and images), eyesight, hearing, feeling (pain), muscle movement and smell can be accurately monitored through brain waves surrounding the head of the target. Feedback for hearing, thoughts and other neurological brain activity including surreptitiious medication, feelings (pain) and muscle movement can be effected as well.
Since this can be carried out no matter where I am located, I have hypothesised that it is carried out by means of satellite communications.
There has been some verbal confirmation of this as well.
I have such a good knowledge of what is going on because of the nature of the activity being carried out against me: terror and torture interrogation by constantly hearing these people who try to provoke responses which they can then monitor. I can hear their verbal responses to my thoughts and images. They verbally abuse me for these revealing precisly what they are doing.
All of these people are well known to me and also involve locals who are employed as part of this terror and torture activity. It was because of the psychological problems which these people exhibit that I have been able to verify the nature and accuracy of their activity. It all works.
In the case of the UN Security Council or any other target, the individual becomes the bugging device him/herself. What I see through my eyes and hear with my ears can be easily monitored. Very fine print can be seen. What I think can be monitored as I prove this over and over with tests of my own.
By targeting anyone all of their activity can be tracked including all their dealings with other people or whatever they read and/or think about. This is the espionage that exists now and could very easily have been used against the six UN Security Council nations.
When there is a suspicion that information has been obtained, most people look for traditional bugs but don't find them. No phone taps or audio listening devices are needed. Incidently, computers can be monitored and operated in this same way.
That was recently disclosed as "Magic Lantern" used by the FBI in a case against organised crime in New Jersey for keystroke capture to circumvent encryption. The current sophistication of Magic Lantern is well beyond simple keystroke capture and involves remote access without any communication connections to operate and control as well as monitor the computer's activity.
The brain is really just another electromagnetic radiation device like the computer. In my case they are also experimenting with electromagnetic radiation to induce chemical responses in the brain to emulate surreptitious medication in order to debilitate and incapacitate. This too has been done in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the source of administration by the verbal confimations I hear and physical effects I feel.
Feedback also includes memory prodding and dream associations by inducing images into the brain during sleep. This has definite side effects which are potentially lethal. Once again all the activity which I continuously document reveals verbal confirmation of what is going on. Just last night I had a dream for the second time whcih was really a video. There was little doubt about it. Images (photos) are also used to provoke dream associations by prodding memory. This is just another interrogation method.
Kudos to Katharine Gun for leaking this intent to monitor the activity of these countries in the Security Council. But, it might very well be the case that NSA's monitoring has gone well beyond communications and computer monitoring. It was NSA who developed TEMPEST which monitors the computer monitor's screem electromagnetic emissions.
I confirmed this by putting a coloured transparency in front of my notebook computer's screen. They went berserk because they could not read what I was writing. I had changed the frequency by changing colour which then had to be adjusted at the monitoring equipment. It's just like someone changing radio frequency. They called in a technician who very quickly saw what I had done and explained to them how to change the frequency for their reception. It's just like tuning your radio.
NSA and GCHQ's basic job is SIGINT which includes COMINT and ELINT. These have been expanded to capture any electromagnetic radiation emission that they can which is why they developed TEMPEST.
I believe that the brain is a logical extension of this monitoring process and might very well fall under the remit now of NSA and GCHQ although this is just speculation on my part at this point.
What is being done to me and who is carrying it out are facts of existence in my life and are not mysterious in anyway. It is obvious that the US and UK are engaged in a joint programme to develop this brain wave monitoring and feedback activity and have been actively carrying it out for the last 36 months 24/7 in my direct experience.
I suspect that Katharine Gun and her legal team might now very well be subjectd to such surveillance in the interest of national security. I speak as one who, years ago (1961-4), worked in COMINT for the USAF Security Service under operational control of NSA where my reports were sent to NSA and GCHQ.
The ability to completely invade the privacy of an individual totally is now something that must be made known to the world and to Parliament and legislatures everywhere so that effective controls can be brought into place.
The potential for abuse of such technology is clearly obvious in the document leaked by Katharine Gun bless her.
Gary
--
Gary D Chance
London
http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance/index.html
Dear Ed,
The world seems to be ruled by bullets, bombs and missiles. The power of the veto in the UN is backed by the same power of destruction rather than democratic noble values that could be considered the hallmark of an evolved frontal lobe and a highly evolved civilization. The direction of civilization is appalling.
The power of bullets, bombs and missiles enters dialogue sessions, UN sessions, international conferences and sits invisibly on negotiation tables. The destructive power of explosions and military capabilities to deliver it has shaped the mentality of leaders and dictates posturing and policies, economies and the world order. It has only brought about a very uncomfortable situation to people who want to enjoy peace and live and grow in peace. This is extremely disturbing.
The world must deescalate and intelligently diffuse the current mindset regarding explosive power and usher in an era of democratic values as the basis for developing societies and international institutions and as the sole basis of creating win-win solutions that also protect or better still improve international relations.
We must come to believe, once again, in the power of democratic values and in the benefit of creating win-win solutions and their role in shaping the human mind and in shaping human civilization. We must never come to believe in the destructive power of bombs as a means to solve problems or as a means to assert rule on territories that belong to others or to govern them, excepting self-defense when under a real and actual attack.
A belief in the use of military only warps objectivity. It warps human dignity. It warps negotiations based on fair principles and the governing rule of common good. It warps the deployment of resources and expertise, especially the deployment of finance and the development of human capital.
People, the world over must be very careful about the type of leaders and who they choose as leaders in the future. Only proponents of peace who will build a new world order on mutually assured peace rather than mutually assured destruction (MAD) should be elected. This is the unwritten understanding that ought to prevail in societies in every nation.
The world spends USD850 billion annually on acquiring new weapons and maintaining military hardware. If this is scaled down by 50%, we can redeploy USD425 billion for development to improve the standard of living and a significant amount could go into projects that would green our planet, promote reafforestation and fight deserts, create and protect water catchment areas, provide scholarships, provide educational content and materials, reduce pollution, fund clean industries and biodegradable processes and promote better landuse. Sagging economies would begin to perk up as money spreads around into many other industries and spur trade. Beyond that, it will have a positive impact on the need to keep the focus of the human mind on positive values and development for the enjoyment of peace.
In the shadow of World War II, the US engaged in a struggle against communism and whatever it branded as tyranny and the belief in using military means for idealistic ends was cast as noble. Military venture became American nationalism as the American people were fed on heavy doses of the notion of the use of bullets, bombs and missiles and the use of the CIA in covert or overt operations to spread freedom and democracy around the world. We see little success of this idea but the success of programs like the peacecorps was underestimated and undermined as such programs were terminated.
Alexander The Great did not succeed in terms of economic benefits for his conquered lands just as the two world wars. Wars only brought misery and poverty. In contrast, trade in peacetime transformed Japan and Germany and other parts of Europe and South-east Asia. The same economic forces and trade which hold the promise of development and uplifting the living conditions of people gently forced opened the doors of India and China, proving the fact that there are non-military means for idealistic ends.
Big military budgets and huge amounts of money spent on military research and development is dangerous. We have seen reports of nuclear materials ending up in the black market and possibly in the hands of terrorists. Missiles that were made portable for easy handling by the military and defense needs now pose serious threats in the hands of terrorists but there is no law to hold the Governments that funded these developments responsible in the event they are used by terrorists.
The world will be a safer place with fewer weapons provided the preoccupation in the frontal lobe and the neocortex is not aggression but economic development for the enjoyment of peace based on noble and democratic values. These will be the factors that change events on Earth. But, alas, currently there is no such leader who can help divert 50% of the annual military spending into peaceful economic goals for the benefit of mankind in an environment of peace for the peace dividend lies in humanity's blind spot.
So, Kerry must cross the threshold of coming across to the American public as a leader that the American people can trust and show to the American people that has the ability to manage and handle global affairs to ensure peace, security and rengineer the economic landscape in ways that will create jobs. So, Kerry needs also to show the American people that he, indeed is trusted by people outside the US and their leaders and will stride in the footsteps of global statesmanship.
That means, Kerry must speak the language of Truman and Gandhi in the same sentence. He must speak of the power of peace and on the need for the US to be liked and admired by people all over the world. Today's political mantra is the enjoyment of peace.
Beldeu Singh
Selayang, Malaysia.
Dear Ed,
RUSSIAN SHIELD EVADING MISSILE A LESSON IN ARMS RACE FOR BUSH
The Bush Administration was foolhardy enough to believe that it could actually put in space and manage a super shield that would stop Russian missiles launched to hit targets in the US. Well, it might have had limited success of knocking out a certain percentage of the current generation of missiles and many would still get through the shield onto US soil.
That is the type of thinking that prevails in the minds of "experts" who subscribe to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and believe in "overkill" capacity but it did provide (although an unwise stability in the arms race) until Bush push pulled out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, having put his misguided faith in the space shield.
The shield would have cost USD50-100 billion at least. Imagine putting up so much in the sky above us when it is so badly needed on earth. A few bad men seem to be doing insane things or exploring another kind of grandeur in space while the goals of many good men to do good on earth go unheard. And imagine telling the bag ladies and the others who drift on the streets in the US or the middle class that is now so worried about losing more jobs in the wake of globalisation and outsourcing strategies of multinationals (MNCs)that, "We are going to spend that much money to put a shield in space to protect you. So, you can sleep tight tonight. Now you have something to be really happy about."
Well that is one way of defining "government for the people."
The expenditure on the shield in space only adds to the budget deficit with no pecuniary returns on investment but if that amount of money is spent on positive development, it not will create more jobs and wealth but also help to repay.
So, in this context, the Russians did humanity the perfect favour. They did the most expected and logical thing - put some sensors, a faster computer and new software and some fins on their new missile to make post-launch and mid flight changes to evade the US shield and readjusting to the original target and perhaps even "choosing" a new target shortly after the re-entry or within a certain altitude above the US.
Now Bush has a more interesting war toy to play with and its the price for pulling out of the treaty. Its true big boys have expensive toys but should they be allowed to toy with millions of lives and humanity and beyond that should be allowed to toy with mother Earth?
Bush forgot the lessons of the arms race. He rolled the dice and the Russians beat him to it. They came up with a shield evading missile even before Bush could put his shield in space. So, Bush should consider whether or not to take his weaponry onto platforms in space or better still go back to the treaty he abondoned. If political thought goes in favour of going back to the treaty or abondoning an expensive project in space, then the Russian shield evading missile is a good thing. It would have help him relearn the lesson of initiating an arms race.
I must add, there are cheaper ways to learn such lessons. Bush forgot that it is easier and cheaper to make smart missiles to evade and decoys to confuse the shield system and missiles that will target the shield itself but once the Bush shield is up there, it will become expensive to upgrade or change it. Technological changes are too rapid and that alone could the first shield system obsolete within a decade or less.
Bush forgot another thing about playing with nuclear toys and perhaps so has the rest of the world. The US removed the entire population on the Bikini Atoll to test their nuclear weapons. Now the soil on the atoll is contaminated but the US has said that it not responsible for the clean-up job. That, today is one of the biggest and the longest outstanding human rights and humanitarian issues. Perhaps, Kerry would like to add that to his peace agenda.
Cleaning up space in the future would be an expensive process with the ever present dangers of debris falling in cities or water catchment areas or polluting the upper stratas of our atmoshpere or affecting our ozone layers in some way and starting a new round of polluting technology that will not be easy to deal with but again the US may deny responsiblity as it did in the Bikini Atoll.
Mutually assured destruction is insane as it makes peace illusive while the lull of peace that cometh from the barrel of guns is like the eye of a storm. Lets wake up to the possibility for lasting peace. Perhaps, someone will wake up one fine day to chart the map for mutually assured peace. I say, lets give peace a chance. Put your vote for peace and the enjoyment of peace. There is nothing like it.
Beldeu Singh
Selayang
-------------------------------------------------------
28-11-4, Block 28, Jalan 1/2D, TAMAN SRI MURNI
68100 SELAYANG, SELANGOR DE. TEL-012 - 3333356
Dear inthevip,
I do not know what you may be referring to when you say "I think this is not true..." but I presume you are referring to the radiation on Bikini Atoll.
Well, 67 US nuclear weapons were tested there from 1946-1958 under Operations Crossroads. Some clearing of radioactive debris was done in August 1969 and by late 1969, the first phase of the clean-up was completed but you still find radioactive crabs and locally grown food is also radioactive. In 1975, radiological tests revealed "higher levels of radioactivity than originally thought" and appears questionable as to "safety". TY
BELDEU
6774 W. 158th lane apt. 1, Blue 4 plex, drives cream colored Lincoln is using surveillance against me at 1690 Driftwood Drive, apt A. i need help stopping this man. I think he is using sonic waves and air pressure. He says his name is Steve Tokar along w/ Ray Blanchard, Ron Decker, Jamie Casey, Terry Smith. I am not sure that is their real names. Please e-mail me and let me know if you can help.
Posted by: Susan Freeberg on July 29, 2004 09:41 PM