Wednesday, January 04, 2006

as I promised I would, more from Craig Murray

On the death of the Official Secrets Act
January 03, 2006
On the death of the Official Secrets Act

It has come as a surprise to some that I am not currently a guest of Her
Majesty. It is plainly a disappointment to others, particularly the
trolls who have been gleefully predicting on Lenin's Tomb that the
agents of the state will come and get us.

We have published what were, undoubtedly, classified British government
documents. Under the notorious Official Secrets Act that is an offence,
and everyone connected with it is plainly guilty. There is no public
interest defence.

But there are problems with the Official Secrets Act. Despite New Labour
attempts to roll them back, British criminal trials still involve
juries, and they are reluctant to convict in OSA trials, where they
often sympathise with the motives of the defendant. Clive Ponting was
acquitted after leaking that the Belgrano was heading home when we sank
it. The jury acquitted him, against the clear direction of the judge.
And that was in the context of the Falklands War, which the British
public supported. What chance of a conviction in the context of the Iraq
war, which the British public oppose?

Katharine Gunn released details of GCHQ's involvement with the NSA in
bugging UN delegations in New York, and the government withdrew the
charges against her rather than face a trial.

There is still time, but to date we haven't even been questioned about
the torture telegrams. This is sensible - no British jury is going to
convict someone for campaigning against government complicity in
torture, in support of George Bush. The publicity surrounding a show
trial is not something the government would relish.

Which is why it is confusing that the government have decided to
prosecute Messrs Keogh and O'Connor for their alleged involvement in the
leaking of the memo about George Bush's proposal to bomb al-Jazeera TV.

So why has that prosecution been brought? There are two vital factors.

Firstly, the UK government has little to fear from publicity. It reveals
Bush as violent and unbalanced, but we knew that already. From a No 10
point of view, it shows Blair in a good light, talking Bush out of one
of his madder schemes. It is evidence that Blair is not just Bush's
bitch. This is a message No 10 are keen to get across, so publicity? No

Secondly, the memo was not successfully leaked. If there was indeed an
effort to leak it, it was made by people operating in the wrong century.
The document wound up at the Daily Mirror, who were too cowardly to
publish and tamely gave it back to the government. The days of heroic
editors and publishers in the deadwood press are long gone. The
mainstream media are completely intimidated by government - especially,
let it be said, the BBC.

By contrast, the torture telegrams were featured on over 4,000 blogs
worldwide within 72 hours.

Over the al-Jazeera memo the government looks to be doing the right
thing in thwarting bush, and the government looks strong and commanding
in suppressing the memo. By contrast, on the torture telegrams, the
government has been caught using material from the World's most hideous
torture chambers. Jack Straw and Tony Blair have been caught lying about
the fact that they do this. And they have been shown to be completely
impotent in their efforts to suppress the truth when faced with blogger
revolt and modern technology.

They can still try to prosecute me if they want, but WE ARE THE PEOPLE!!

And we cannot be suppressed.

Craig Murray

No comments: