Tags:
katherinegun
un
whistleblower
iraq
war

Katharine Gun, Hero
February 27, 2004 3:36 PM Subscribe

The Brave Tale of Katherine Gun, aka The Conscience of the Individual versus the State, aka "How the 'Land of the Free' Stopped Worrying about Legality and Liberty, and Learned to Love Wiretap and Manipulation": "Katharine made the disclosure because she believed that it was necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi citizens and British and American soldiers would die or be maimed.""I have only ever followed my conscience," she said. Pentagon Paper's author Daniel Ellsberg described the leak as "more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers. Truth-telling like this can stop a war." Norman Solomon asks " To what extent is the "special relationship" between the two countries to be based on democracy or duplicity? How much do we treasure the substance of civil liberties that make authentic public discourse distinct from the hollowness of secrecy and manipulation? How badly do we want to know what is being done in our names with our tax money? And why is it so rare that conscience takes precedence over expediency?"
posted by fold_and_mutilate (63 comments total)

Wait a minute......... It came out last March that the administration was asking the NSA to spy on UN members' homes so that it could collect intel it could use to sway their vote? How did I miss this?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:50 PM on February 27, 2004

We need more Guns in this world.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:07 PM on February 27, 2004

iirc there a similar post on this topic last week, if so can it be linked to this thread?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:38 PM on February 27, 2004

?.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:39 PM on February 27, 2004

Okay, I COMMAND you all to read more Non-US papers,
A repost yes, but please Fellow Americans read outside you little box!, (that was liberating)
posted by Elim at 4:41 PM on February 27, 2004

The Conscience of the Individual versus the State

Common Dreams' tagline is "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community." I always thought "Progressives" were just as Statist as "Conservatives," only on different issues. I must have been mistaken.

Congratulations to Ms. Gun, though. It's stories like this that give me a bit of hope.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:07 PM on February 27, 2004

Good grief. It is a revelation that nations bug one another's delegations? Okay, I "command" you all to grow up just a little bit. The only people this is remotely suprising to are those that believe the world of modern diplomacy exists in some abstract, ideological, world. And the only people wanting to make a big deal of this are those who have very definiate ulterior motives.

But any diplomatic delegation of any importance whatsoever takes it for granted that all manner of nations are using all manner of tactics and technology to gain an informational edge, and are circumspect about what they say to whom, in what locations. If you want to accuse Blair, or the US - then accuse everybody. The nation with the reputation for being the worst - in fact - is France. (It is well known that if you are going to conduct business in Paris, you keep you mouth shut on the plane - because the French bug the Business and First Class cabins of international flights. They have for years. Same goes for Chinese hotel rooms ... etc., etc. This stuff is explained in bloody PowerPoint presentations that multi-nationals give traveling executives for goodness sake.)

Jesus, what's going to be next? "Stunning announcement! My conscience leads me to make the remarkable allegation the some people are mean, and in some multinational negotiations, some diplomats may actually say things for political reasons! Oh no - they are actually acting out of expediency instead of self-righeous conscience! The horror! The horror! However, you luckily have me to boldly go public and set the record straight! And while almost every nation on earth does it - I'll only mention two or three. Of course I have no political motive at all - I'm pure and clean and my only motive is to make a stand for the individual conscience against the evils of the state!"

The only people for whom this FPP contains stunning revelations are those that are really naive about international politics. And the only ones trying to make a big deal about it are those who themselves find it "expedient" to do so ... for their own political ends.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:15 PM on February 27, 2004

The only people for whom this FPP contains stunning revelations are those that are really naive about international politics.

From a man who derives his platinum standard of living from what I've gleaned to be his own profitable involvement with institutionalized subterfuge, I would expect nothing more than a few condescending bars of "There, There Pollyanna, That's Just the Way It Is".

Do you have an opinion on all of this, or does the fact that it exists render opinion irrelevant?
posted by Opus Dark at 7:41 PM on February 27, 2004

MI8, the State Department's cryptanalytic office, run by Herbert Yardley, was shut down in 1929 by Secretary of State Henry Stimson because "gentlemen don't read each other's mail."

There are lots of aspects to intelligence that appear unpleasant or ungentlemanly to civilians. Often in much the same way they do not understand why someone would fight an ungentlemanly unconventional war, or why fanatics cannot be soothed with group therapy and persuaded of the value of mutual respect.

In other words, it is the JOB of a spy to spy on everyone, foe and friend, at all times. Only by doing so are surprises avoided--dangerous and unpleasant surprises--betrayals, duplicities, corruptions and inhumanities.

Spies *prevent* wars from happening, and they also keep wars from spreading and hasten the peace.

The "conscience" of Gunn is the same as the "conscience" of Benedict Arnold. Or perhaps the "conscience" of the dictator whose military coup overthrows a democratically elected government they find "intolerable."

In 1983, a young clerk who worked for the Ministry of Defence, Sarah Tisdall, was prosecuted for sending to the Guardian newspaper documents revealing when American cruise missiles would arrive in Britain. Her "conscience" was opposed to nuclear weapons.
Had she been a Russian in Russia, she would have been executed for treason; as it was, she got six months.
posted by kablam at 7:52 PM on February 27, 2004

f_&_m, he was riffing on Elim's "I COMMAND you all to read more Non-US papers."

FWIW, I have never believed the "business class/hostess bars/Park Hyatt Shinjuku rooms are routinely bugged" shibboleth. I'm not even sure I believe in Echelon. Why? Workflow, bandwidth, and what I know firsthand about the sheer unwieldy nature of intelligence apparati make it hard for me to believe that much of utility could be recovered from these intercepts. Not even in all the time left until the sun explodes.

I mean, maybe if you're Colin Powell or Carla Hills. Certainly not if you're Adam Greenfield.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:28 PM on February 27, 2004

Like The Mayor of Toronto once said, "Tell me, have you ever seen the United States take blame for anything?"

We can't seem to take responsibility for any action, either we are too stubborn or too stupid or just without conscience. And with folks like Midas and Kablam, we never will grow a conscience, Rule of Law My ass!
posted by Elim at 8:38 PM on February 27, 2004

I COMMAND you not to Mock ME!!!! Oh and I command you to send me money, and booze.... and um a virgin....... Yea, I command THAT!
posted by Elim at 8:42 PM on February 27, 2004

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, agreed that secrets charges against the former GCHQ employee Katharine Gun should be dropped after the defence made clear that potentially hugely damaging evidence about the legality of invading Iraq would be disclosed in court, the Guardian has learned.

Serious doubts about the legality of the invasion were expressed in the run-up to war by senior lawyers throughout Whitehall, including the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

The doubts were expressed by the entire FO legal establishment, and not only Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former deputy head of the FO's legal team who has said publicly that she resigned last year because she was unhappy with Lord Goldsmith's legal advice.

The FO argued, partly on the basis of intelligence, that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein did not warrant a pre-emptive strike. It also questioned Lord Goldsmith's interpretation of international law and the standing of past UN security council resolutions.

Fresh evidence about the FO's doubts were sent by Ms Gun's defence lawyers to the prosecution on the day it decided to abandon the case against Ms Gun.

Whitehall united in doubt on war
posted by y2karl at 8:49 PM on February 27, 2004

Elim, what kind of fun can you have with a virgin? Wouldn't you rather Midas send you someone who might be able to show *you* a trick or two?
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:54 PM on February 27, 2004

Midas, we can all appreciate the moral and ethical depths you must have plumbed to come up with the "everyone's doing it (although, as usual, you provide absolutely no bloody documented evidence of it other than your own dumb, irrelevant anecdotes), so it must be OK" theory of law.

As I suspect we all can appreciate the depths you plumb for us all to come up with the daily Bush=evil posts. Really. They're so much fun (though as usual - I notice the FPP is filled with no more than allegations none of which have been proved ... and have backed them with no evidence save your usual dumb links from really one-sided sites ... but of course we're all simply supposed to roll over and assume they're true without discussion ... and move on to the Bush bashing).

Is that what you mean, foldy?

Try a little harder, Midas. I think you said condescendingly "I command you all the grow up a little bit" (Is that another example of the kind of elevated discourse you desire on MetaFilter? I mean, you do whine about the level of discourse here constantly, right? Is that your example for us?)

No. That line was a delibrate answer to a post prior to mine that said "Okay, I COMMAND you all to read more Non-US papers ...". You're right. It was very condescending. Note that it implied several things - that many on MeFi never read anything other than US papers (that, it is implied, never tell the "full truth"). This fellow was apparently arguing that we should all get ourselves a bigger perspective. Curiously enough, you didn't seem to have any problem with his (identical) "condescencion". Perhaps because his "bigger picture" agreed with yours, and the one I provided didn't?

As an apparent authority on growth, perhaps you could advise on any room for growth for someone beyond the "it's ok, everyone does it" school of law, ethics and morality.

As an apparent authority on international diplomacy and espionage, perhaps you could share with us the tactis and tools used by every major country in the world - to give something remotely resenmbling a truthful context within which to discuss this particular issue?

And let's talk about your ethics, shall we? An allegation is made by someone. Certainly hasn't been proven (or even investigated yet), but we are to ignore that, not question what motives the woman might have (everyone in politics has motives - terrible thing that most of the world doesn't live up to your high standards). We're also to ignore the possiblility that almost everyone at the UN tries to spy on almost else at the UN.

Interesting that when the article says "It is commonplace, though never admitted, for the US and British governments to listen in on friendly states. Intelligence analysts said it was not surprising that the offices and even homes of the UN swing states were bugged - indeed, some of them have said they assumed that was the case." ... this is not proven ... but it is not only accepted as the truth - but we are further asked to contemplate how "How the 'Land of the Free' Stopped Worrying about Legality and Liberty, and Learned to Love Wiretap and Manipulation" ... however, when I say virtually the exact same thing ... that it is common knowledge, that almost everyone does it to everyone else, and that they all know it ... you trash talk me.

Why? Because what I pointed out was that you were trying to focus extremely narrowly on one little slice of an issue, for exceedingly obvious political motives.

So far as "growth" goes - are you ever going to grow beyond the "I want to piss on Bush's face" school of law, ethics, and morality?
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:04 PM on February 27, 2004

Bush=evil is a pretty pathetic straw man--especially coming from a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton=evil guy.
posted by y2karl at 9:14 PM on February 27, 2004

You know, I stepped away from the Blue for a while. I come back, and it's just like I never left.
posted by Vidiot at 9:17 PM on February 27, 2004

"Your criticisms of the Bush administration are puerile expressions of a senseless hatred for Bush himself, and are therefore unworthy" is a lame trope trotted with clockwork regularity to avoid actually dealing with criticisms of the government (regardless of whether those criticisms are levelled by someone who is a 'Bush-hater' or not), and I'd expect much better from someone who so regularly bemoans the debasement of intelligent discourse on Metafilter.

Pathetic, indeed.

we all can appreciate the depths you plumb for us all to come up with the daily Bush=evil posts. Really.

Are you including all of Metafilter in your scornfulness, there, MM, or just f_and_m? Because I don't know which website you're reading, but I sure as hell don't see fold_and_mutilate posting 'Bush=evil' screeds every day. Nor do I see that from the community as a whole, actually. The post that started this thread isn't one, and your assertion that it is is more a symptom of your unwillingness or inability to see beyond your preconceived notions about those with whom you disagree than any kind of valid commentary. You'll have to try harder than that.

On preview : s'truth, Vidiot. And that's half the fun!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:30 PM on February 27, 2004

...trotted out, that is.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:31 PM on February 27, 2004

midas, naivete has nothing to do with it. we don't like your "international politics", your status quo, we think it's corrupt and self-serving and we intent to snuff it out. we don't give a fuck if everybody is doing it. that just makes them as foul as you.
posted by quonsar at 10:14 PM on February 27, 2004

And the only ones trying to make a big deal about it are those who themselves find it "expedient" to do so ... for their own political ends.

Gee, guess that leaves ME out.

I thought society exists as the rule of law, and it crumbles when the rules are 'different' for different people.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:24 PM on February 27, 2004

I thought the most interesting point was that the UK prosecutors decided to drop the case against Ms Gun. Secondly, the revelations that came from UK MP Claire Short of illegal spying (yes, illegal - there's treaties about the extent of this kind of stuff), in responding to this issue. Perhaps the interest in these issues, and several others that seem to have arisen simultaneously (like the disputed legal advice on Iraq given by the UK's Attorney-General), is due to the insight it is giving the general public into how the war was really begun, which differs from the official proclamations of fervent belief from the members of the Coalition of the Willing.
posted by Onanist at 10:26 PM on February 27, 2004

The only people this is remotely surprising to are those that believe the world of modern diplomacy exists in some abstract, ideological, world. And the only people wanting to make a big deal of this are those who have very definite ulterior motives.

Well, the wiretappers also have very definite ulterior motives, so you'll excuse my lack of sympathy for their plight, and maybe note my preference that people keep their ulterior motives right where I can see 'em, while we're at it.

Just because spying is a dirty job and someone's gotta do it doesn't mean it's in our interest to let spying become easy or convenient.
posted by furiousthought at 10:34 PM on February 27, 2004

Oh, now the whole sequence of events are just allegations.

Shit Midas, "allegations?" Didn't someone posting under your handle just go off on a little tirade about how naive we all are....about "everyone's doing it?" And now you want us to ignore the nightly news and believe "everyone's doing it".... EXCEPT the U.S. and Britain?

Ya'll talking out of both sides ya mouth?

Allegations....

....like that a whistleblower was arrested, charged with a crime, and those charges have now been dismissed?

....like the actual text of the email sent out to crank up the illegal spying? You know, the email that seemed to do a bit more than "allegedly" (since we can read the goddamned thing for ourselves) ask for "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises".

....like "Hans Blix's conversations were bugged by the U.S. or the U.K. whenever he was in Iraq while working as the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported today, citing Australian officials familiar with their country's intelligence service."

....like "Aguilar Zinser claimed that the intervention could only have come as a result of surveillance of a closed diplomatic meeting where the compromise was being hammered out. He said it was clear the Americans knew about the confidential discussions in advance. 'When they [the US] found out, they said, "You should know that we don't like the idea and we don't like you to promote it."'

....like " According to the Colombian daily, El Tiempo, Zinser said that six countries-- Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan—met in New York to discuss a compromise U.N. resolution that would bridge the differences between antiwar France and Germany and prowar U.S. and Britain. The next morning, Zinser says he was surprised to receive a phone call from a U.S. diplomats who told him, "We appreciate that you are looking for new ideas but it's not a good idea. Don't attempt it.'" "It was very obvious," said Zinser, "that the countries that were participating in discussion about Iraq were being observed and that our conversations were probably tapped for the benefit of the United States."

You mean those kinds of "allegations"? Really, Midas, obviously there's more here than just "he said, she said". Feel free to provide links that tell a different story.

...and have backed them with no evidence save your usual dumb links from really one-sided sites...

Oh, ok, Midas...really....one sided sites.... CNN...Findlaw....The Fucking Fourth Amendment of the United States....Electronic Surveillance Law....The Observer.... Bloomberg....Washington Post...San Francisco Chronicle...yeah, yeah....those are truly one-sided sites.

One sided if they don't correspond with your obvious ulterior political motives, right?

But hell, I'll play your silly little game. Point out where any of these "one-sided" sites provide erroneous information or erroneous analysis, ok? I'm serious. Where are the errors?

Buddy, let me give you a little advice about the real world. It doesn't really matter if you happen to think a source is "one-sided" or not. Trying to refute the issues raised by just labeling a source providing info you don't like as "one-sided" just doesn't cut it. It's weak. It's kind of on the same level as you labeling every criticism of Bush that rattles your little world as "Bush hate" or "Bush bashing". You're the one who keeps decrying MetaFilter for it's "one liners", and yet every time someone dares criticize the powers that be (a noble cornerstone of democracy), you bleat "Bush hater" instead of trying to refute the criticism. You are merely ducking the legitimate issues, time after time after time.

Certainly hasn't been proven (or even investigated yet), but we are to ignore that, not question what motives the woman might have

Kindly point out where I asked you to ignore anything. I'm serious, Midas. Where have I or anyone insisted you ignore anything? Point it out. And then kindly describe for us these motives the woman has, if you have any knowledge of them. Provide links that describe them, if you know of any. Give us background on her, on the spying scandal, or on any fucking relevant thing you want. Nobody's stopping you, but you haven't provided anything to back up what you say. Nada. Hell, give us some business journal articles that talk about how serious the business bugging problems is (irrelevant to the discussion, but it would be better than your currently impossible-to-verify anecdotes). Give us anything in the way of links.

You've not provided any such thing so far. Your post basically elucidated the, um, moral principle (which you continue to push) that "it's ok: everyone does it". According to some of the articles I linked to, other countries spy too. Nobody argues that (although there is no evidence provided by you or the linked articles of other nations gaining any specific advantage for their interests on this pre-war issue, as the United States and Britain obviously did). What you are apparently arguing, however, is that you don't mind the United States potentially circumventing the law in order to preemptively invade another country....to go to war....to kill....simply because "everyone is doing it".

Again, I ask you, what moral and ethical depths are plumbed by such a stance? Is that what we're all about?

Again I ask you about America, not the rest of the world: what does America stand for, if not the rule of law?

So far as "growth" goes - are you ever going to grow beyond the "I want to piss on Bush's face" school of law, ethics, and morality?

"Bush hate." "Bush bashing." Now, any political criticism that you don't approve of is "pissing in Bush's face". We already got ya on that one, Midas. If you don't pack the gear to refute, label.

Labeling. That the kind of Metafilter you have in mind for us, Midas?

This fellow was apparently arguing that we should all get ourselves a bigger perspective.

Yep, he was. And you're arguing against that? Nice. His recommendation and my own is that we all read more widely. Pretty radical advice, um, right?

If that doesn't fit in with your own particular philosophy of education and/or decision-making process, I think you'll find yourself at an increasing disadvantage in the real world.

And the difference in the two "commands", dear Midas, is that for some reason he didn't feel it necessary to imply that we we're all somehow children, as you do when you say "I command you all to grow up just a little bit". I repeat: is that the style of discourse you want to see on MetaFilter: "GROW UP" as argument? Maybe you'd consider taking your own advice on manners here?

you trash talk me.

~chuckle~

Nah. Take a deep breath and relax. You'd know it if I was really trash-talkin' ya. My trash-talk is a bit more forceful than "I command you all to grow up just a little bit."

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:42 PM on February 27, 2004

THAT IT! I Really Really COMMAND in the Harshest terms and with "Stern Resolve" you all to read more Non-US papers, Or fear My vengeful wrath!

Better?
posted by Elim at 10:43 PM on February 27, 2004

You know, I stepped away from the Blue for a while. I come back, and it's just like I never left.

We aim to please.

Homie. Never leave us like that again. We've been worried sick.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:47 PM on February 27, 2004

Well I'll look at it like this, I lead them to water but they seemed to dumb to avoid dying of thirst.

Can't Say I didn't try.....
posted by Elim at 10:48 PM on February 27, 2004

Wasn't a President nearly impeached as a result of spying? I bet it was all the rage in those days too.....Can you imagine a person on trial for drugs using the phrase "but your Honor...everyone's doing it!" Yeah that would get the charges dismissed.
posted by SweetIceT at 10:50 PM on February 27, 2004

and lying, if I remember...... Ah how the worm does turn....
posted by Elim at 10:51 PM on February 27, 2004

We used not to be the way, in WWI we Loathed Spying, thought it unsportsman like and not some thing an honorable soldier wound be found doing, even in war time.

Pershing more inclined to use OP/LPs and Photography and such that "sneak and Peek" as he called it,
(I knew History Channel would come in handy)
posted by Elim at 10:57 PM on February 27, 2004

The view that because something is unsurprising it's therefore OK or acceptable is a fairly bogus argument. Also it kind of disturbs me sometimes what MeFi-ers consider unsurprising so I thought for laughs I'd compile a quick list of other things that are in no way unusual at all. Are we the most jaded people on the web?

An American woman is killed as a human sacrifice in Malaysia to try and get winning lottery numbers. This, apparently, is unsurprising

MidasMulligan not surprised that Americans are considered stupid by smart people

TroutFishing "not surprised" (at great length) that a human can function without a brain

Professor was "extremely smarmy and egotistical" so it's not surprising he falsified data

It's hardly surprising that Republicans threatened to support an opposition candidate of congressman's son (also a Republican) to secure votes for reform bill. You know, because they're so corrupt and all

Apparently it's not surprising that a fictional country is the 77th richest in the world

It's not surprising that someone collects porn for just it's historical purpose

Parrots can talk. This is not surprising

It's not surprising that Dr Dre doesn't like people trading his music on the internet. Topical!

Ikea in Chicago don't sell copies of Fight Club. This surpises nobody at all

If people can't fly kites in Afghanistan it's hardly surprising the internet is banned

It's not surprising that Escher had "partaken of the sacrament" (LSD that is)

If vacuum cleaners have personalities it's hardly surprising that robot dogs have them too

It's "not totally surprising" that Tom Clancy doens't write his own books

It's not surprising that the Army is using computer games to recruit children (when they're older, obviously)

It's not surprising that poets bite the hand that feeds them. It is even less surprising considering what those hands dole out. And what cunts thought they'd get poems about Bush's gravitas?!?!? Morons!

It's not surprising that the Russian mafia is rigging skating events

It's not surprising that 38% of Americans believe in ghosts

The swiss are such good clock makers it's hardly surprising they built stonhenge

It's dissapointing but not surprising that Hutton was a whitewash

Apparently there's a French law that insists that Gerard Depardieu must appear in every French film ever made. This is unsurprising. (except to those of us who've seen french films - and no, Green Card doesn't count)

New born children in Spain are being laid on the ground and jumped over by a guy dressed as Satan. Yawn, how unsurprising.
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:33 AM on February 28, 2004 [6 favorites]

i just want to say that if it weren't for f&m's thoughtful post and Elim's heartfelt enthusiasm (you should really try out for the cheerleading squad), i would never have embraced this so deeply. fold_and_mutilate, i just want to say 'thanks', and that you've made a difference - however small - in one person's life. where's the tissue?
posted by poopy at 3:37 AM on February 28, 2004

poopy wants a tissue. heheheheheheheh /grade school Beavis
posted by y2karl at 4:37 AM on February 28, 2004

transcript from super-secret listening posts:

--PRC Listening Post
Agent 1: why do they keep mentioning this...fold and mutilate guy?
Agent 2: fucked if I know.
Agent 3: [scratches nutsack]
Agent 4: [rigor mortis]
Agent 5: dude, call the French. They'll know.
Agent 1: 'kay. [calls]

--FRA Listening Post
[phone rings]
FRA Agent 1: Get that phone; I'm busy cooking this delicious gourmet meal.
FRA Agent 2: 'kay. [answers]
FRA Agent 2: what up dawg.
PRC Agent 1: dude.
FRA Agent 2: dude.
PRC Agent 1: dude.
FRA Agent 2: oh, it's you again. what now.
PRC Agent 1: We're having a problem identifying a certain 'fold and mutilate' character. He sounds like a deeply troubled individual and we'd like to assist him in his agitprop.
FRA Agent 2: Spiffy. [puts hand over mouthpiece] Idiots. Get over here, dude.
FRA Agent 1: but, dude!! The sauce will be ruined!
FRA Agent 2: [into mouthpiece] 'kay. We'll get back to you.
PRC Agent 1: Don't let him overcook the chicken again. [hangs up]
FRA Agent 2: [hanging up] Who do we got in the states?
FRA Agent 1: er, try this MidasMulligan guy. He likes to talk.
FRA Agent 2: 'kay. [dials]
MidasMulligan: [answering] I was hoping you'd call. Let me be the first to tell you that I am not surprised in the least. By anything.
FRA Agent 2: ooo-kay.
MidasMulligan: Furthermore, I should like to add that you might as well take for granted that in the scheme of things, the big picture shall we say, that the informational edge goes to those willing to assume the greatest risk of--
FRA Agent 2: stuff it, jackass. [hangs up] Who else we got?
FRA Agent 1: hrm, try Linnwood.
FRA Agent 2: 'kay. [dials]
Steve_At_Linnwood: [answering] mmm, that food smells goood.
FRA Agent 2: dude.
Steve_At_Linnwood: yeah
FRA Agent 2: This is France calling. We need your assistance in identifying a person, alias is 'fold and mutilate'. Will you assist us?
Steve_At_Linnwood: Hell no, you're....French! I'm supposed to hate you and stuff. And I still have a 50 pound sack of Freedom Fries to get through. [shakes fist]
FRA Agent 1: Tell him we'll buy him a Mac.
FRA Agent 2: We'll buy you a Mac. A G5. Word.
Steve_At_Linnwood: sorry man, I save all my intel for MeFi.
FRA Agent 2: dagnabbit. [hangs up]
FRA Agent 1: okay, call christian.
FRA Agent 2: right. [dials]
christian: [picks up phone]
FRA Agent 2: Hello?
christian:
FRA Agent 2: Hello?
christian: heh.
FRA Agent 2: French intel calling. Can you assist us?
christian: i can't discuss things with you.
christian: because i feel you are insane.
FRA Agent 2: well, I never...
christian: yes, I know. and your buddy there overcooked the chicken. Again. [hangs up]

--end transcript
posted by attackthetaxi at 6:19 AM on February 28, 2004

You'd know it if I was really trash-talkin' ya.

ooh, you're so rough & tough. can I ride on the back of your bike, fonzie?
posted by jonmc at 6:53 AM on February 28, 2004

Midas, you're embarrassing yourself. You're an intelligent guy, you should be able to come up with something better than an unconscious parody of Colonel Blimp. "Stuff and nonsense! All this talk of corruption, exploitation, this so-called Amritsar Massacre—what do they think it takes to run an empire? Dashed impudence, I call it; if you haven't been to Sandhurst you'll never grasp how the world works, and you should keep quiet and pay your taxes. Harrumph."

But at least you're not kablam, who embarrases the entire site.
The "conscience" of Gunn is the same as the "conscience" of Benedict Arnold.
Dude! Impressive historical analysis!

Homie. Never leave us like that again. We've been worried sick.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:47 AM EST on February 28
f&m made a joke! Keep that up and you may finally be accepted as one of the gang.

attackthetaxi: Ha!
posted by languagehat at 7:01 AM on February 28, 2004

uh, thanks for your concern, f&m. (Lack of free time sucks.)
posted by Vidiot at 7:10 AM on February 28, 2004

attackthetaxi is my Hero Of The Day™! Well done, sir.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:22 AM on February 28, 2004

I just wish Bill O'Reilly invites f&m over, one of these days.

languagehat: Roger Livesey rules

what about a gold star for attackthetaxi?
posted by matteo at 8:12 AM on February 28, 2004

attackthetaxi, if you didn't already have the gold star and 'Hero of the Day' award, i would give you the biggest wettest sloppiest kiss, right on the mouth, tongue and all. unfortunately, it looks like you're preoccupied :)

oh, and midas and steve@, you can go to hell! to helllll!!!!!
posted by poopy at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2004

thanks, taxi for lightening the mood.

Regardless of how intelligence is obtained, perhaps the more important issue is the ethics of its use.....Agency of Ethical Use of Unethically Obtained Intelligence?
posted by dreeed at 10:05 AM on February 28, 2004

steve@, you can go to hell! to helllll!!!!!
Where is his comment in this thread?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:21 AM on February 28, 2004

christian: because i feel you are insane.
Did I miss something, "christians" are wiretapping too?
Thought their God is Omniscient & Omnipresent.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:27 AM on February 28, 2004

"turning over stones invariably lets a hard sunlight onto some creatures of the shadows. There are many intelligence officers and government officials, in all regimes, who prefer to keep their role and decisions secret, and thrive on secrecy in order to protect their careers and way of life. it guarantees their incomes, their status and their pensions. secrecy is everything to them....Like their political masters, good intelligence officers should always have the the courage of their convictions, and be ready to show moral courage. Intelligence is, after all, about predicting the most likely future, not just regaling concerned decisions-makers with recent events. CNN and the BBC World Service do that far better, as every professional modern intelligence officer knows. When careers are at stake, however, the past always seems easier to explain than the future."

"...Yet surprise is one of the cardinal principles of war. every military academy and staff college in the world teaches the need to achieve surprise-and to guard against it- to every single student of the military art."

So, who was caught by surprise, who benefits from the knowledge that the U.N. Sec. was spied upon.

this everybody does it debate is funny. all doctors do intelligence work (for the most) ordering tests, checking under the hood so to say.
spies do the same. To equate a moral question on this is silly. Of course it is wrong to spy. of course it is wrong when a doctor misses something and a patient becomes much more sick or dies.

Dude! Impressive historical analysis!

i do not see history in this analogy, i see a psychological analysis, how ever far reaching it may be, being made. The mindset if you will.

Do you have an opinion on all of this, or does the fact that it exists render opinion irrelevant?

this is the best question.

my opinion is that deflection will prevail. The hmmm over why kofi was spied on will prevail over the who. Plus, do we even know if it was Kofis office. perhaps alot of people he talked too were being bugged and that is where the transcriptions came from?

besides, dodgygeezer gets it better then the reat of us. nice work sir.

midas may appear to be col. Blimp
better then col. klink.

the attachment to bush hate/bush yada-yada upon foldy is also wrong. i happened to restain myself from cheering with glee along side him in a recent post about pain killers being reclassified. He was dead on so to say and was right. The suffering will suffer while the criminals get new ways to dodge the law.
posted by clavdivs at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2004

I'm not even sure I believe in Echelon. Why? Workflow, bandwidth, and what I know firsthand about the sheer unwieldy nature of intelligence apparati make it hard for me to believe that much of utility could be recovered from these intercepts

so AG, you have done intelligence work.....REALLY? Sure, the volume of new stuff is massive. But the system is designed to add data to dossiers already made. So it is like having individual files updated. You do not believe that all the data coming in has to hand routed do you?
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on February 28, 2004

Isn't the issue here more about the cushy number that the ECHELON participants have with one another to ensure that domestic surveillance can be subcontracted in order to circumvent legal restrictions? The NSA can't tap US-based phone conversations without a warrant; it outsources that to GCHQ. Same thing happens with Menwith Hill in the UK, which is a dubiously-leased RAF base run by the US, which just happens to have the largest density of incoming fibre-optic in the country. Throw in the Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis, and you have a nice little buck-passing network.

This is just the equivalent of a bunch of 14-year olds getting an older brother to go into the off-licence and buy a gallon of strong cider. Buy your own cider, kids. Slap on some make-up and speak in a deep voice.

Similarly: Do your own bloody spying, people. If it breaks the law, then it breaks the law, and you can try to make the 'national security' defence. Don't try and say 'oh, well, we didn't do the spying; we just made it clear that if the British were going to do the spying, could you possibly send the transcripts our way'?

The point isn't that we're 'shocked' by espionage, but by the brazen attitude of our leaders towards it. If you're into the politics of dirty tricks, then you should at least show a little bit of embarrassment when you're caught.

(And, of course, there's the small matter that the UN building is sovereign territory, and that it's a bit rich to claim a UN-based mandate when you're undermining its process. But there you go.)
posted by riviera at 5:05 PM on February 28, 2004

Since I know some, like clavdivs, are into history, I think folks might want to take a look at the linked article in Ramparts that gives some perspective on another time when illegal surveillance had some questionable outcomes.

taxi....strong work...laugh...

f&m made a joke! Keep that up and you may finally be accepted as one of the gang.

languagehat buddy, I spend half my time here trying to get people to see the humor around them, but I think subtlety is lost on many. If people, including the long-suffering MidasMulligan, can't see just a wee bit of humor or at least irony in a nation pridefully insisting its brand of "democracy" is best for the world, while that "democracy" is simultaneously practicing some of the excesses of them there old time gulag fellows, I'm not too sure making outright jokes is gonna help much.

And again, even when my admittedly dry sense of humor doesn't come across well (which is my fault), I was under the impression that open political criticism in a "democracy" was what kept the "democracy" sound and strong. I thought them there old time gulag buildin' fellows were the only ones who thought the law didn't apply to the state itself, and wanted a bunch of bootlickin' sycophants around 'em all the time....and insisted on sending the "Stalin/Bush bashers" off to Siberia? Ah well, some folks ain't gonna find that parallel humorous in the least either, although it actually is.

I ain't too big on "acceptance" as goal, but,uh, thanks for the sentiment.

ooh, you're so rough & tough. can I ride on the back of your bike, fonzie?
posted by jonmc at 6:53 AM PST on February 28

~shrug~

Wasn't me that characterized comments as "trash-talkin'" or told everyone to "grow up", but thanks anyway for your substantive contribution to the thread. But since you're now bringing up "rough & tough"....hmmm....I guess if one wanted to really be "rough & tough", one could always bravely start "trash talkin'" an individual over and over in a thread in which that individual wasnt even participating or aware. Person doing that kinda "trash talkin'" would have gonads so big they probably couldn't even get ON a bike, ya think?

~enormous-wink-and-a-grin~

(And my "rough and tough" remark goes for getting poor ol' Steve@Linnwood involved in this thread, too...although I'm not sure he'd mind except maybe for the "go to hell" part)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:51 PM on February 28, 2004

languagehat's comment: [this is good]
posted by cell divide at 10:19 PM on February 28, 2004

I ain't too big on "acceptance" as goal

Believe me, you're probably the last MeFite I would characterize as "big on acceptance." I was just tickled by the lapse from your usual hauteur. (I enjoy the dry wit as well.) Keep it up, in whatever mode. Too few people here can see beyond the immediate issues. (And clavdivs is certainly one of them.)
posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on February 29, 2004

languagehat: you suggest that my comparison between Gun and Arnold is laughable. But except for the last what?, five or ten years, she *would* have been prosecuted by most nations for being a traitor, not a "hero". And in most times and places she would have been executed for it.

You may rant and rave about how "right" it is for her to do what she did, now; but be aware that her "rightness", if any, is just a trendy fluke. I, for one, think that what she did was treacherous--placing her own opinions *over* those of hundreds of elected and appointed officials senior to her--on the assumption that SHE KNEW BETTER.

I, for one, think it is a rotten idea that a minor functionary thinks that they should, with impunity, be able to distort or change the policy of an ELECTED GOVERNMENT, just because they don't agree with it.

No powerful government can tolerate having its actions compromised by a single hothead or a person with insider information. Gun was *not* a "whistleblower."

I can cite the justifiable outrage of democrats who recently had a political memo of theirs leaked by republican staffers. It DIDN'T MATTER that the memo showed the democrats acting with duplicity. What MATTERED is that the memo was an important tactical document, for democrat eyes only.

The republican staffers should go to prison. And only because their actions didn't compromise National Security. Had they done so, they should go to prison for life or get the death penalty.
posted by kablam at 6:57 AM on February 29, 2004

"Chust follow orders, you hear, swine?" Jawohl, mein Kommandant.
posted by languagehat at 7:19 AM on February 29, 2004

Molly Ivins on Ms Gun:

The thing would have leaked as a matter of course in Washington. It's not as though any damage was done like, say, exposing a CIA agent who worked abroad without diplomatic cover.

As a rule, it is not a good idea to set things up so that people get punished for telling the truth -- or even re-elected for telling lies.

Americans are in no position to lecture other countries on freedom these days, given the Patriot Act and attendant damage to the Fourth Amendment. But given Gun's dicey situation, it's worth dropping a line to the British Embassy at 3100 Massachusetts Ave., Washington, D.C. 20008, or via a group in the United States supporting Gun: the Institute for Public Accuracy at solidarity@accuracy.org.

Gun probably is guilty under the misbegotten Official Secrets Act (the e-mail she leaked was marked "Top Secret"), but one wonderful thing about the system of justice we inherited largely from the Brits is that a jury doesn't have to follow the law -- a jury can do what it thinks is right.

I can think of at least 536 really good reasons why I wish American government employees had blown their whistles before we went to war over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.

(Via MonkeyFilter.)
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on February 29, 2004

so LH, Agee is acceptable, Ames, Hanssen? The Yardley observation is spot on. Yardley even asked his old boss for a loan before he wrote his little book. I do not like this woman. She wants $. wait and see. If she had real courage and conviction, she would have leaked while being a member of Intel. AND were in the blazes is all the outrage about Dame whatshername spying on Jack Straw. That is, is, is WIERD.

she wants a book deal kablam, and this makes her worse then yardley. (minus the real damage Yardley did) look, most in the intel biz knew kofi was bugged, most U.N. GSs' are. (first i recall was Dag)

molly ivins, the voice of pure reason.....

Americans are in no position to lecture other countries on freedom these days, given the Patriot Act and attendant damage to the Fourth Amendment

"your a bad country for enslaving people to flood the world with cheap goods"

As a rule, it is not a good idea to set things up so that people get punished for telling the truth -- or even re-elected for telling lies.

really, that is in the constitution? well, i doubt anyone would ever get elected.

It's not as though any damage was done like, say, exposing a CIA agent who worked abroad without diplomatic cover.

To be fair, that was bad ass nasty what happened with that leak, someone should go to jail. but, these diplomats are safe and sound and raking in the dough so...

I can think of at least 536 really good reasons why I wish American government employees had blown their whistles before we went to war over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.

but how does she know they do not exist.

nice use of the dead, molly... so, everyone plays dinah and the war would have been prevented?

where the Official Secrets Act is used to scare the bejeezus out of people.

ah yes, the secret bejeezus act of 1947.

"Chust follow orders, you hear, swine?" Jawohl, mein Kommandant.

i understand what you mean and imply which is why i find it not fitting to the discussion, in fact worse then any of kablams' gun vs. arnold stuff. Many brave germans blew the whistle and payed for it, even before the war.

this woman may have earned the title of brave if she would have done this while still in service. But not now.
IMO, she does not deserve prison, believe me, she destroyed her own life and will most likely have to work for china or sell a book or take a charity job from someone who sympathized with her plight.

So gun can go shack up with Shayler
because he lost his appeal but not for an audience

but we miss one thing about american and england, where else can old spooks join the media.
posted by clavdivs at 9:19 AM on February 29, 2004

Many brave germans blew the whistle and payed for it, even before the war.

Yes, and kablam would say they deserved to be hanged. That's exactly my point.
posted by languagehat at 3:55 PM on February 29, 2004

nihil novi sub sole, by the way:

Toga & Dagger: Espionage in Ancient Rome
By Rose Mary Sheldon for MHQ: A Quarterly Journal for Military History Magazine

In the days preceding modern "technical" collection--whereby sound recording devices, hidden cameras, and satellites gather data--people were the only means commanders and political leaders had to collect the vital information they needed to survive the plots of their enemies. Before bugging devices, there were eavesdroppers behind curtains, and the toga and dagger might indeed have been symbols for the way the Romans carried out their domestic and foreign policy objectives.

The modern process of intelligence gathering has four elements: direction or targeting, collection of data, analysis of data, and dissemination to the users of the information. Good intelligence analysts know that not all information is "intelligence." Intelligence is restricted to crucial information about the target or enemy--his strength, location, likely intentions, and capabilities. Also, good intelligence has a time factor; it must be quickly collected, analyzed, and delivered in time for the user to act upon it. The last step is dissemination.

------------------

Intelligence in the Internet Era
A. Denis Clift

What are the goals being laid out for US intelligence in the face of this on-rushing development and implementation of information technology? For the Director of Central Intelligence, the goal is for the Intelligence Community to provide a decisive information advantage to the President, the military, diplomats, law enforcement, and the Congress. For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the goal, as stated in Joint Vision 2010, is information superiority—i.e.,“the capability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.” [11]

The need for information superiority is, in many instances, causing US intelligence to take dramatically new approaches. The Internet era has become the Intelligence Community’s new strength as well as its new challenge. Cold War assumptions driving intelligence collection and analysis—that enemy targets were closed societies and that superpower rivalry trumped all other issues—are assumptions of the past.

If the semaphore was the signals intelligence breakthrough at the time of Napoleon, the Internet and its communications channels are at the forefront of the signals intelligence challenges of the 21st century. With new transnational adversaries—international terrorists foremost among them—the flood of new information technologies, the easing of export controls on encryption technology, and global access to the Web, the National Security Agency (NSA) is charting new directions in the ways it identifies, gains access to, and successfully exploits target communications. It is also developing new ways of gauging our information security, given the openness of our society early in the cyber era, the global dimensions of that openness, and the enhanced exploitation capabilities that information technology and the Internet give our adversaries. NSA’s Director, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, has placed this challenge in the following context: “Forty years ago, there were 5,000 stand-alone computers, no fax machines and not one cellular phone. Today, there are over 180 million computers—most of them networked. There are roughly 14 million fax machines and 40 million cell phones, and those numbers continue to grow. The telecommunications industry is making a $1 trillion investment to encircle the world in millions of miles of high bandwidth fiber-optic cable.” [12] At the same time, Gen. Hayden reminds, the new information technologies are an enhancement and an enabler, as NSA seeks outs and exploits the current era’s targets.

oh, and by the way I just think it's a shame that clavdivs never posted a link on the front page.
really.
posted by matteo at 4:19 PM on February 29, 2004

Me too.
posted by languagehat at 6:10 PM on February 29, 2004

languagehat: no, what you fail to distinguish is the difference between "would" and "should".

Say, a German working for the Nazi regime betrays information to the Allied forces, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a bombing raid. If the Nazis discovered him, he "would" have been executed. But "should" he have been executed? The Allies would probably say "Yes!", but what would a German family say that had just lost its child to an Allied bomb because of that German "traitor"?

Conversely, a British subject who works in the War Ministry objects to the Allied bombing of military targets in densely populated cities. Therefore, she tips off the Nazis that bombers are coming, so that the civilians can be evacuated.
Unfortunately for the bomber pilots, there are Stukas waiting for them before they arrive.
But this is OKAY, as far as the British "whistleblower" is concerned, because bomber pilots are "war criminals", to HER mind.

Now the British capture *this* spy, and they *would* hang her. But *should* they hang her? I mean, just like Gun, she was acting out of *conscience*.

Change the subject back to Iraq. We know now that Saddam was paying off LOTS of people to support Iraq against the US. We also know that the French and Germans and Russians had LOTS of ulterior motives, of the scabbiest kind, to keep the US from invading Iraq. We ALSO know that both THEY and WE had been arm-twisting these other countries and the UN to get our ways.

If the US or the British had NOT been spying on the UN and its factions, it would have been remiss, and would have deserved to lose those votes to the duplicitous other side.
posted by kablam at 6:12 PM on February 29, 2004

That's exactly my point.

hmmm, languagehat, you want to walk us through what kablam just said or are you done with this thread.
posted by clavdivs at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2004

kablam, clavdivs:
Say, a German working for the Nazi regime betrays information to the Allied forces, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a bombing raid. If the Nazis discovered him, he "would" have been executed. But "should" he have been executed? The Allies would probably say "Yes!", but what would a German family say that had just lost its child to an Allied bomb because of that German "traitor"?

They would say 'Yes!', surely?

Don't you mean that the Allies - who benefitted from the intel supplied by a German working for the Nazi regime - would say 'no'?

Or am I just not cut out for this spying game...
posted by dash_slot- at 9:56 AM on March 1, 2004

please dash, your missing alot. what about that young chap who spotted all that armour before MARKETGARDEN. Ya know, "sorry ole boy, you look tired and all"

well, i will say it. As an aside note. i find no happiness arguing with languagehat, because, well, 99% of the time he is right in this forum. Plus I am biased because I happen to agree with him most of the time and, well he is likeable and wise.

Kablam, you missed the carrot, sorry, but in my MeTa rulebook- #37. do not attempt to prove the HAT wrong. (rule #38 is play with the HUT, do not fight:)

"...would say they deserved..." is what LH said

you did well with the woulda, shoulda.

but
deserved
is the key word you missed.
That reservation that somebody "deserves" something like prison or worse is the bug-a-boo we are trying to etch out here.

would an Iraqi Colonel with information and a promise of co-operation "deserve" a bullet from saddam?
fine, in saddamms mindset, sure.
but thats the trick of intelligence.
easily missed clues right out in the open.

as a citizen of this country, I say no, the colonel does not deserve a bullet and what the fuck is anyone going to do about it if this colonel is in military protection, custody...whatever.
see, when one says someone deserves it, it is like bloodlust at the first thought, revenge, etc.

We know now that Saddam was paying off LOTS of people to support Iraq against the US. We also know that the French and Germans and Russians had LOTS of ulterior motives, of the scabbiest kind, to keep the US from invading Iraq. We ALSO know that both THEY and WE had been arm-twisting these other countries and the UN to get our ways.

i have books published in 1999 that say this. though they seem not so sinister in that reference, scabbiest.

nothing more useful for regional stability then a few armored divisions

so, back to the english broad....clothe shirts i ordered, yeah, thats it.
{runs}

:{)I
posted by clavdivs at 12:19 PM on March 1, 2004

nothing else.....i thought so
posted by clavdivs at 7:58 AM on March 3, 2004

« Older Nara Ehon: Japanese illustrated narrative manuscri... | ultimate flash sonic... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Katharine Gun, Hero February 27, 2004 3:36 PM Subscribe

Katharine Gun, Hero
February 27, 2004 3:36 PM Subscribe