Katharine Gun: The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War
Tuesday 07 April 2009
by: Marcia Mitchell, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Katharine Gun worked at the British intelligence agency when she discovered
an NSA memo that she used in an attempt to stop the invasion of Iraq. (Photo:
The New Statesman)
Pigeons are coming home to roost in the prestigious halls of the United Kingdom's
Parliament building. Whether they make it across the Atlantic to the US Capitol
is a matter that should be of interest to all Americans.
On March 19, Katharine Gun testified before British lawmakers, asking them
to commit to a full public inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq. Gun is
well-known to Members of Parliament. She was the young British secret service
officer who was arrested for leaking an illegal US spy operation against members
of the UN Security Council debating the decision for war. The operation, mounted
by the NSA, targeted six nations whose vote for a preemptive strike was considered
essential to winning broad international support for war.
"What we were being asked to do was to politicize intelligence, and we
subsequently found out … that policy was being fixed around intelligence,"
Gun said in her testimony last week.
The plot she revealed was conceived in America by an American intelligence
agency whose director at the time repeatedly assured the US public – and the
Congress – that the NSA "does nothing unlawful." Others saw it differently.
Manipulating intelligence to fit policy was one thing, albeit both disgraceful
and outrageous; manipulating people was tantamount to blackmail.
If Gun and others seeking a new and full Iraq war inquiry are successful, the
NSA misadventure will once again be a matter of investigation, at least in Great
Britain. Not a slap dash of whitewash, but true scrutiny. And, because the United
Kingdom agreed to join in the illegal spy operation at the request of the United
States, a related issue will once again be back on the front burner – that of
American influence over British decision-making at the highest levels.
Five years ago, on the day following its collapse at the Old Bailey, members
of Parliament hotly debated issues surrounding the Katharine Gun case. Especially
troubling, and certain to be troubling again, was this question of whether the
Americans led the British not only into spying against the UN, but also into
an unpopular – and perhaps illegal – war.
The words of MP Colin Challen, spoken during that earlier, historic debate,
will come back to haunt this time around:
"The substantive issue is whether or not we acted at the behest of the
American government." The possibility of having been so seriously flummoxed
by politicians across the pond was, and continues to be, painfully disturbing.
The illegal spy operation and the preemptive strike against Iraq were linked
in an enduring relationship by Challen and his colleagues. To reexamine one
act is to reexamine the other.
Earlier investigations into pre-war intelligence issues, such as those reported
by Lord Butler and Lord Hutton in the UK and by the Iraq Intelligence Commission
in the US, have not answered the most compelling questions about how and why
the US and the UK went to war without a clear UN mandate and with reliance upon
egregiously flawed intelligence. Neither have they addressed the issue raised
in the Gun case from the beginning – the legality of the war.
Hopefully, a new investigation into the how and why of it all will remind the
world that "getting rid of Saddam Hussein," so often touted as the
justification for war, ignores the existence of international accords prohibiting
a preemptive invasion for the purpose of regime change. Thus far, few have taken
notice of this inconvenient truth, especially in the mainstream US media – which
essentially ignored the Gun case – and in certain high places on both sides
of the Atlantic.
The US Iraq Intelligence Commission was empanelled to explore, among its other
mandates, the quality and value of pre-war Iraq intelligence. The problem was
the mandate the commission did not have – one that relates directly to what
happened a few days ago in London, and to those pesky pigeons winging their
way to the House of Parliament.
What the commission lacked, according to its own report, was the power "to
investigate how policy makers used the intelligence they received."
And there's the rub.
It's going to take investigating decisions of the policy makers and intelligence
manipulators, not the intelligence collectors – if the truth is to be revealed.
Investigators need to knock on doors on Downey Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Former UK diplomat Carne Ross, who left the UK Foreign Office over questions
about the validity of pre-war intelligence and the legality of the war, agrees.
He told Members of Parliament last week that, "There should be a full public
inquiry … into the decision-making that took place."
Katharine Gun agrees. Standing strong at the time, the young intelligence officer
challenged the decision to go to war based on its legality and risked years
in prison for doing so. She has outraged many by saying, "I have no regrets.
I would do it again." This was her mantra even as the government was preparing
to try her for high crime. It is her mantra today.
Testifying with Carne Ross and others, she told Members of Parliament – who,
as noted, remember her well, that "Working on the inside, there are people
whose views are similar to my own, but they dare not speak their mind."
If there is a significant paradigm switch, if truth becomes the essence of
hope and the recorder of history, others, in both the United States and Great
Britain, may find the courage to speak up.
Gun has a platform in the UK and people are listening. In Washington, DC, she
was featured last September at an American University symposium centered around
publication of Gun's story in the US, "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War,"
written by Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, a former FBI agent.
Marcia Mitchell is co-author with Thomas Mitchell of "The Spy
Who Tried to Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq
War" and "The Spy Who Seduced America: Lies and Betrayal in the Heat
of the Cold War."
Indeed.
Imagine the
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 20:13 — Blue (not verified)
the right to control and profit from all that 'American' oil under
Iraq's sands.
When is the Americna public going to smarten up to what is being done
in their name???? Illegal immoral wars…unconditional support for the
brutal occupation of Arab land by Israel….and the bloody unnecessary
invasions of those countries who stubbornly refuse to give up their
lands and their resources to Israel without a fight. This will all come
back to bite the U.S. in the butt done day.
You cannot investigate the
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 19:41 — David Spaetheica (not verified)
reexamining 9/11. An impartial and sufficiently deep investigation into
9/11 will reveal U.S. complicity and pre-knowledge, perhaps even direct
participation in that catastrophic event. The pivotal condition for the
(later) invasion of Iraq was an profoundly under-investigated 9/11.
Three letter reason for
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 17:07 — AKPatriot (not verified)
economic power. The sad truth of the matter is most people don't have
any understanding of who controls this power. Good Night and Good Luck.
The job of our congress is
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 17:05 — Larry Milton (not verified)
are made at the highest levels, and retify them or not, based on the
interests of the Country of The United States. They have not been doing
this. They cater to the highest bidder, and lobbying (and PACs) should
be totally illegal. Why should we merely limit something so outrageous
and immoral?
Thank goodness for stand-up
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 16:47 — Peter White (not verified)
Gun. Where is the collective spine of consciousness and conscience in
the midst of all propaganda, disinformation and object-worship driven
corporatized culture? Again, thank you Katharine for pointing out the
true nature of the Emperor's used fabric(ations)…
"Downey Street"?
Anyway,
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 16:22 — dpeck (not verified)
Anyway, bring it on! Vive Baltasar Garzon!
There is no dought about it,
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 16:09 — radline9 (not verified)
too low to justify the War in Iraq. In fact, we have truly destabilized
the entire region, having far greater consequences for the world's
safety than if we had left Iraq alone. In other words, we made it 100
times worse! We allowed Pakistan to harbor the same criminal Al Qaida
network and introduced it into Iraq. The Bush strategy was a total
failure and then some. You fight an army with an army and you fight a
terrorist organization with police action. Now it seems impossible to
extricate ourself from the tarbaby we allowed to swallow our military
whole. Exactly what Al Qaida wanted. Bush fell for Osama bin Laden's
trap and remains free.
Spain. Now maybe Brittain.
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 16:06 — Anonymous (not verified)
will eventually step up and do the honorable thing of investigating the
lawlessness of the past administration and holding some (most?) of
those people accountable for known illegal acts. Treason? Inquiring
minds simply want to know who did what when. Spying, torture, lying, it
just goes on and on and on. Can we ever believe the statements of the
Executive Branch again when we have no will to impose transparency on
so many evil acts?
The US government has
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 15:40 — Anonymous (not verified)
British people certainly have a right to be angry with this. It's
interesting that some of the most objective reporting about this war
was written in the UK. Maybe this will help trigger an investigation
here. Footnote: the "9/11 Commission" that so many people admire was a
useless whitewash.
To quote the subject, "Bring
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 15:17 — Americonned (not verified)
The intelligence was not
Tue, 04/07/2009 – 15:03 — Anonymous (not verified)
was not and is not a threat to the US. Iraq is currently occupied
because US based oil companies want Iraqi oil back after it was
nationalized in 1972. That is why Mr. Obama has backpedaled from his
promise to exit–the job isn't done yet. Those pesky Iraqis have some
strange idea that they can sell their energy resources to whoever they
want.