On the death of the Official Secrets Act: Craig Murray on the 'Torture Telegrams' and 'the al-Jazeera Memo'
Posted January 4th, 2006 by ringverse
Craig Murray, writing on the 'Torture Telegrams', the 'al-Jazeera Memo' and uses and abuses 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 problem.
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
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 problem.
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
The established media has
The established media has much, much more to lose than bloggers when they flirt with the OSA. We know you despise us for what you see as "cowardice" but, together, we can achieve more. It wasn't bloggers that got millions marching against the war.
To Anon journalist: Question
To Anon journalist:
Question 1: You say The established media has much, much more to lose than bloggers when they flirt with the OSA.
Can you explain this please? You may not get the next Blair or Bush interview, admittedly but what else? IMHO bloggers have less protection from excessive and abusive government use of the law, no big media company to back them up with money for decent lawyers if you publish and be damned; bloggers do not have readership/viewers in multiple-millions as the mainstream media does, to disseminate their story. Bloggers have jobs, families and houses to lose, legal fees to pay on their own, lives that can be destroyed in so many little ways. They are very, very brave.
Question 2: Are you actually saying millions marched against the war because Fleet Street/ BBC/ CNN told us too? Because this seems somewhat bizarre statement. We marched because the war was illegal and immoral, and perfectly obviously unwinnable. Iraq was a false target and any fool could see we were being lied to by our leaders. Hans Blix himself did a great job of showing how un-committed to inspections Blair and Bush were, how shallow the WMD arguement for war was.
In addition, many, but not all, established media (EM) outlets don't tell us what is really going on in Iraq. Instead we get fed the line the politicians want the EM to tell us. BBC and much print media's Iraq reporting is appalling. By contrast Dahr Jamail and Juan Cole report news that chills the soul, showing us images of what is being done in our name. It is our war, our countrymen started it and are dying for it. The least our EM can do is get the whole truth out, using first hand testimony and alerting us to the fact journalists in Iraq are working under more restrictions than they did under Saddam era: then we were told each and every time what restrictions were in place. Does having a US master mean this is unneccessary?
Question 3: I agree together bloggers and established media can do great things together, so when will the EM step up to the plate and report what is happening on blogs around the globe?
Why not discuss the positive implications of the internet to free speech, pass the story to a wider audience without having to do the whistleblowing yourselves?
Also why are there so few investigations into the reality of life in UK and US? Why avoid stories, use sloppy language and mis-represent?
As an example, even anti-war EM reporters insist on repeating Walter Wolfgang was manhandled out of Labour Party conference and briefly questioned under terror laws, like it was an aberation and not part of a pattern of abuse. 600 other peaceful protesters and dissenters were stopped and questioned by Police under Section 44 of the Terrorism laws that week in Brighton, for offenses as threatening to national security as walking a dog with anti-Blair/Bush sentiments on its collar.
Established media outlets are less trusted now than at any time in my recollection. So many crucially important truths are totally ignored or rapidly dropped by media moguls with agendas and friends in high places; so many hacks with no appetite for the full, whole and dirty truth. Younger people don't even consider the dead wood press anymore.
Our press is not free, but blogs are.
If you, as a journalist, are brave enough to lay it all on the line to get the truth out there, then do so.
Start by blowing a hole in the government's suppression of the Al Jazeera memo: the OSA is only being used to save Bush's blushes.
Forgive me for being cynical
Forgive me for being cynical but .. could not all this be a taradiddle emanating from the No 10 Spin Machine? It seems entirely possible to me that the whole Al Jazeera story was spun by Downing St. minions from a jocular remark of G.W. Bush's in order to show the Dear Leader in a good light, as the sweet voice of reason facing down the gung-ho American president, that he is nobody's poodle etc. etc..
Surely it would rather drop
Surely it would rather drop George Bush in it, if that was the plan? I don't think dropping Blair's best mate in the brown and steamy* is necessarily top of Number 10's priority list. Makes things a trifle awkward at the next love-in in Washington.
* OK, further in the brown and steamy than he already is