|
01 Mar 04 - 02:24 AM (#1126693) Subject: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Shanghaiceltic I find myself in a moral dilema. Claire Short is whistle blowing on the bugging of the UN by British spooks. She is still a member of the Privy Council and therefore should keep silent on matters of security, but has not. However I find it hard that someone like Kofi Annan deserves to be spied upon. 25 years ago during the Cold War with Russia I was in submarines. We were often playing where we should not have. As crew members we sometimes speculated how much the opposition knew. The game is still going on today. If Ministers decide to blow the gaff on sensative information then it is not just a government that gets caught out, but potentially puts lives at risk. When is a revalation not a revalation? Should Ministers who sign documents to retain state information honour their word? Or should Ministers be able to decide themselves when and what they want to keep secret? |
|
01 Mar 04 - 02:51 AM (#1126700) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: GUEST,Clint Keller My belief is that you cannot make a hard and fast rule. Generally you should keep promises; it's important to be dependable. But: If you break a promise you are responsible for breaking it. If you do not break it you are responsible for keeping it. Some years ago two drunken young men agreed that women were no dam good and they'd go home and kill their wives. The one that was married to a cousin of mine kept the agreement and stabbed her to death and left her in a field. The other one broke his oath & didn't kill his wife. Well, the correct morality in that situation is a lot easier to see than in Claire Short's case. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion, but she has to make the same decision those boys had to: which is the lesser evil? You cannot sign your conscience over to another person or to a rigid abstract principle. You have to look at it case by case. clint |
|
01 Mar 04 - 03:13 AM (#1126704) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Jim McCallan ...and I'm hoping that Claire Short did just that. What kind of sensitive information has she made public, though? I haven't heard enough about this either, but from the reports I've read and seen, the trouble seems to concentrate on the fact that Kofi Annan's was bugged, somehow. Not on what was disclosed. Hans Blix has come out independently and said that his mobile phone was tapped. It may well end up in Tony Blair disclosing the advice that the British Attorney General gave to him, in the lead up to the war. And what with the acquittal of that officer from the Listening Center last week, it would seem that this story just wont go away. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 03:25 AM (#1126711) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: GUEST,lies,goddamliesandwinningelections Sometimes, people just can't sleep at night. they know too much. they strongly disagree with acts taken which lead to gross human rights violations. they do the right thing according to their workplace and keep quiet. and they feels sick inside until they just have to do something about it, like speak out. this state is called a "messiah complex" in some PTSD counselling therapy, its a dysfunctional state where the person takes on the guilt and responsibility of their government's actions and decides to speak out. in other philosophies, its called doing the right thing.. but for the person involved, its about sleeping at night. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 03:58 AM (#1126728) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Bobjack Claire Short is an embarrassment and should never have been made a Minister. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:06 AM (#1126733) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Jim McCallan Be that as it may, but was she right to do this? |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:10 AM (#1126735) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Bobjack No! A lot of naughty things are done in our name in order to preserve the status quo of our society. It is naive to expect otherwise. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:21 AM (#1126741) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Jim McCallan I agree entirely. Where I would be inclined to draw a line though, is if some of these things are done in order to preserve a political status quo, rather than for the more serious reason of National Security. I'm sure there have been many flies on Kofi Annan's wall, and on his predecessors, over the years. It is really just a matter of what this information is used for, in my opinion. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:24 AM (#1126743) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Nigel Parsons Alternately, Yes! her 'crime' of whistle blowing could be considered the lesser evil when compared with the 'security services' bugging the United Nations. The government have neither confirmed nor denied her claims, merely stated that she has abused her position of trust. They believe she has broken the law, but Tony Blair has stated that the security services have not. Informed opinion from the UN and elsewhere appears to be that bugging the UN would be a breach of the international treaties under which it was set up. One could assume that Mr Blair's claim must mean that the bugging did not take place (or he has a completely different view of the rule of law) Nigel |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:36 AM (#1126756) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Jim McCallan Personally I think all of this is a good thing. I kinda do trust people of resposibility to be responsible in matters of State, but this whole Iraq affair has shone certain spotlights in places that have never really undergone any public scrutiny before, because of the obvious nature of their work. But until the public is satisfied that they are sending their sons and daughters to fight a 'justified' war, I think some of those who make these descisions should be accountable as to how they use and interpret this intelligence. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 04:36 AM (#1126757) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: harvey andrews It's "my country, right or wrong". If you subscribe to that view then Short betrayed her country. If you find that view abhorent, then she's done something good and heroic on behalf of us all. Good old Clare, says I! |
|
01 Mar 04 - 05:26 AM (#1126774) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: sledge When Tony Blair continues to lecture us all on the rule of law, international or domestic and then seems to break it himself then he deserves all he gets, Clair Short has shown great courage in doing this. Sledge |
|
01 Mar 04 - 05:55 AM (#1126790) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Shanghaiceltic But do not forget Claire is on record as voting for the war and then saying she would resign but did not. So her record is not as sparkly as one would like to think. I also read she has a book due out. Pre launch publicity is always good. So I still wonder if it is an honest agenda (if politicians have one)? |
|
01 Mar 04 - 05:56 AM (#1126791) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: freda underhill it does erk when politicians go on about the rule of law, and engage in corrupt activities and blatant abuses of the law. Ministers should keep their lips shut, but then, politicians should be upholding a country's laws, not breaking them and lying about it. should, should, should... |
|
01 Mar 04 - 06:43 AM (#1126822) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Teribus Yes of course they should, that is one of the things they sign up for when they take the job. The correct course of action for her would have been to resign, you subsequently still remain silent on detail, but are free to challenge those argueing the case for the course of action you originally objected to. As someone pointed out above, Clare Short, with all the information she was privy to, did vote for action in the case of Iraq. She threatened to resign but didn't, only finally resigning once Saddam Hussein had been removed from power. She now comes out with the claims about the British Secret Services. Compare that to the actions of Robin Cook - he did it the right way, Clare Short did it the wrong way and she should face the consequences for doing so. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 05:11 PM (#1127242) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Richard Bridge I teach some constitutional law. There are several different conventions in play here. One is cabinet confidentiality, one is the confidentiality of legal advice received by the government, another is that a minister must not mislead parliament or the public. But these "rules" have exceptions, and since they are conventions they are not enforceable in the courts (Crossman diaries, anyone?). The courts may become involved if there is a breach of the Official Secrets Act, but since (I expect) Short's defence would be that she was defending law (or international law) rather than simply followng orders (Nuremberg trials) the government is likely to prefer to avoid the embarrasment of an OSA trial, although in legal theory there is no "public interest" defence to OSA charges. Accordingly it's a matter of who's going to blink first, and that is going to be interesting. If Short is right that the attorney general was told to change his advice about the legality of the Iran invasion because Bush told Blair so, then despite the fact that the decision to go to war is an exercise of the Royal prerogative by the PM on behalf of the crown, I incline to the view that the breach of cabinet confidentiality is the lesser of several evils. It cannot be a threat to our security forces, to talk about the fact of bugging, because all the "professionals" on every side knew that everyone bugged everyone. I am however surprised that the inherent implication that Blair and pals would use the fruits of bugging to blackmail "friendly" powers has not caused more fuss. I think that's much more contentious than exposing the fact of the bugging. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 05:36 AM (#1127506) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Richard Bridge Er- spot my Bushism -----Iraq, not Iran. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 06:41 AM (#1127528) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: mooman It is an abhorrence that the Secretary-General of the UN's private phone should have been tapped by British "intelligence" and I believe she was right to speak out about it, despite what I might think about her non-resignation on the Iraq invasion earlier. As Richard Bridge said above, I believe it was the lesser of two evils and therefore justified. Peace moo |
|
02 Mar 04 - 06:52 AM (#1127532) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: greg stephens The more people in government know about things, the better, i should have thought. Informed decisions are better than ill-informed decisions. So a judicious amount of information gathering is hardly very shocking, indeed I think it's a jolly good idea. And claire Short's inconsistent hypocrisy is just plain nauseating. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 06:59 AM (#1127534) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: mooman ...a judicious amount of information gathering is hardly very shocking Bugging Kofi Annan's phone? Well it shocked me! Peace moo |
|
02 Mar 04 - 07:50 AM (#1127560) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: greg stephens Whatever you think of bugging the UN, letting Clare Short see secret stuff looks a stupendous error of judgement. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 07:59 AM (#1127563) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: GUEST The UN needs to be spied on. The UN should be tried for war crimes too! If you are in a position of authority over national and international affairs, expect to be spied on. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 08:08 AM (#1127574) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: McGrath of Harlow I suppose Shanghaiceltic woudl say that Richard Nixon's staff were quite right to collude with himm in trying to cover-up the Watergate burglary, and it was a scandal that they got into hot water for doing so. However it seems to me that bugging Secretary General of theUnited Nations, and various other friendly governments was a much more serious crime than anything Nixon was ever accused of. But of course that's in America, where at leat they give a tojken nod in the direction of the principle that no Government is above the law, in theory anyway. Here in the UK, anytime the Government plans to break the law, it just needs to wheel out a friendly lawyer and he says it's all legal, and that's OK. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 08:27 AM (#1127591) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: freda underhill just to drift a bit, the bugging of the UN just seems to be symptomatic of a huge problem - the lack of respect that some recent western governments have for the UN and its peacekeeping & mediating role. there has been such a shift in power, with the coalition of the willies acting independently, against the advice of the UN, in invading Iraq. i have heard people say that this disrespect for the UN coincided with the arrival of Kofi Annan as head, and that some countries were fundamentally unable to accept a non-western leader of the UN. tapping, bugging, monitoring, spooking - technology has placed huge power into the hands of controlling elites, allowing them to listen, plan and second guess allies, enemies, and their own civilians. Big brother is indeed watching. the problem with these speaking out dilemmas is that nothing is clear or balck and white - everything can be viewed through various dogmas, political contexts or personal experiences. ministers are not meant to lie to the populace. of course there are continual cover ups, lies, pragmatic moves happening continuously and as a matter of necessity of government. where ministers should speak out I believe is where secret government decisions lead to loss of life or persecution of individuals or particualr groups of people. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 08:33 AM (#1127596) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: GUEST,claire short On second thoughts, I am a bit of a dipstick and should not have done it. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 08:37 AM (#1127600) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Wolfgang Do you have more information than I have? Short has been shown transcripts of a confidential talk. I do not see how she came to the conclusion that the British did the bugging. The best guess is that the locals did the bugging and let the British see some copies of transcripts to influence them in a certain way. I'm not shocked at all, for 'shock' involves a certain amount of surprise, and I'm not surprised at all. Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 04 - 11:16 AM (#1127716) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Tam the Bam (Nutter) if it is in the public interest then everyone should know but if not then shut up. Clare Short is one of heroes. however I support SNP, and we can't be all perfect can we. I like MP's or MSP's speaking out for the truth, instead of the arse likers that just want to keep their jobs and don't care about you or me. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 11:51 AM (#1127743) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: McGrath of Harlow Who are "the locals" in the United Nations building? Surely the USA would count as "the neighbours". Or in this context, the nosy neighbours. In fact I'd think it'd be quite likely that the Americans would have got the British to do the job. After all, remember Watergate. Illegal activities have a nasty way of leaking out. In any case, I can't see any distinction between doing the spying yourself, or getting a mate to do it for you (any more than between doing the torturing yourself, or handing the prisoners over to some obliging ally, which also appears to be current practice.) Of course if the suggestion is that the UK only has those transcripts because they have been spying on the USA, who did the actual bugging, perhaps that would put a different complexion on things. But I can't say that seems too likely. Do you have to be surprised to find something shocking? In that case, nothing that any government gets up to is ever shocking. My reaction here isn't either surprise or shock. I'm afraid it's fairly punitive. I want to see the people responsible for criminal activity of this sort standing in the dock somewhere, in front of an independent tribunal which is not under their control. But if that were ever to happen, that really would surprise me. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM (#1128050) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Gareth Claire Shorts agenda has one item, the promotion of Claire Short. Under Labour Party rules Blair had to give her cabinet rank in 1997. I fear she has gone down the Viscount Stansgate road (1974 to 1979), acept office, take the reward, and complain afterwards. Some of us can remmember her brief position 1996 to 1997 as oposition spokesperson on the Railways. She made it possible for the Conservative Government of the day to give away our British Railways. Incidently if the Gaurdian is to be believed she has now "modified" her position, and that the Kofi Ana transcripts actuallity they were "telephone" intercepts. Gareth |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:17 PM (#1128159) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Shanghaiceltic http://www.private-eye.co.uk/index.cfm/issue.1101 Nice front cover |
|
03 Mar 04 - 05:50 AM (#1128319) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Nigel Parsons As above, Private Eye Cover Nigel |
|
03 Mar 04 - 06:25 AM (#1128335) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Wolfgang For those who think what has happened was anything new: Electronic Surveillance of Foreign Diplomatic Missions from Short's radio interview: Question: Let me repeat the question then, do you believe Britain has been involved in it? Short: Well I know, I have seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations. She knows that Britain has been involved for she has seen transcripts??? I can't follow her logic. Wolfgang |
|
03 Mar 04 - 08:07 PM (#1128771) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: McGrath of Harlow Whether it's happened before or not, it's still an illegal variety of spying and people who are reponsible for authorising it should face trial, and the duty to blow the whistle in this kind of thing has to overule any kind of duty of confidentiality. Or do people see some significant difference between this and Watergate that justifies a cover-up in this case? |
|
04 Mar 04 - 06:53 AM (#1128966) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: freda underhill i follow. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 12:15 PM (#1129837) Subject: RE: BS: Should a Minister keep a secret? From: Ellenpoly We live in dangerous times, and I'm not referring to terrorist threats, but from our own governments. This not only reminds me of Watergate, but of every time in our history where someone has had to say "ENOUGH". Whether or not Claire Short had other motives, she did not start this thing..it began with another young woman who was not in the public eye, and simply thought that she had a higher duty morally than the one in which she signed the official secrets act to protect. Not too soon, more of us may be facing a time when we are asking the same questions of ourselves...do we name names? Are we willing to take the flack? When do we put our beliefs on the line, and how long can we stay silent in the face of such hypocrisy? |