Latest / UK Column Radio / A Defence Of Necessity- Breaching The Official Secrets Act—with Katharine Gun

Transcript

A Defence Of Necessity- Breaching The Official Secrets Act—with Katharine Gun · UK Column Radio

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Hello, I'm Charles Mannett with a UK column interview I
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: have with me today Katherine Gunn. In two thousand and three,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Catherine was charged under Section one of the Official Secrets
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Act whilst working at the Government Communications Headquarters GCHQ. Catherine,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: thank you very much indeed for joining me. Welcome to
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: UK column.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: Thank you Charles, and thanks very much for inviting me on.
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: It's a pleasure to be here, not at all now.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: There will be members of the audience that are familiar
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: with your case and indeed your life, since there will
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: be many that are not. But I think it bears
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: such enormous relevance to what's going on in the world
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: today that i'd like to go a little bit further
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: back to effectively that the time when you became part
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: of the setup at GCHQ, and if it is possible
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: to just bring us into the picture of your world
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: then in terms of what it was like being in
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: GCCHQ at a time when you know, we were supposedly
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: under the specter of global terror and all this sort
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: of thing. So what was it that took you to
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: GCCHQ and how was it working there at that time?
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Well, I joined while I was accepted into GCCHQ in
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: January two thousand and one. And yeah, I was a
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: really well not such a recent graduate. I'd worked in
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: Japan for a while prior to that, and also in
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: the UK for about eighteen months before I started. But
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: actually my application process to gcch you talk about eighteen
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: months because the security procedure, you know, for my background,
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: because I grew up overseas, and they want to interview
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: someone who's known you at every point of your life
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: to verify who you are, what kind of person you are,
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: and so because I had moved, I had lived in
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: I'd grown up in Taiwan, and then I'd moved back
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: to the UK for higher education, and then I'd studied
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: or rather taught in Japan for a couple of years.
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: So they basically they wanted somebody from every part of
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: my life, and so the whole process took quite a
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: long time, and of course there are exams, and so
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: I was accepted in January two thousand and one along
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: with a cohort of linguists, about eleven of us, and
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: we were all sort of young, mid twenties, recent graduates,
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: and we all joined into GHQ at the particular level
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: that we went into the category, and yeah, it was exciting,
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: you know, I felt like I was starting a proper job.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: And I like Cheltenham. You know when I when I
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: first went to Cheltenham, I thought, wow, you know, it's
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: such a beautiful part of the countryside, of the British countryside,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: and the people seem so friendly, you know, not like
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: London or or most of the sort of south, And yeah,
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: I was looking forward to it. It was you know,
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: I forged friendships immediately with the cohort of people that
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: I joined with, and that was the that was the.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Feeling, and you know that's great to sort of hear
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: that background and to get the feel of the place
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: and the sort of the work ethos of work work
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: life ethos.
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: But then of course to bring us up.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: To where I had explained in the introduction in I
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: think it was January two thousand and three, you received
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: an email that has in effect changed the course of
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: your life. What did that email say and what did
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: you what did you do in the immediate often half
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: of receiving it.
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: Well, so before we get to there, perhaps obviously I
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: was already working at G two when September eleventh, happened
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: in the US, and actually I was at work at
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: the time. I was you know, so I saw it
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: on the TV screens at work, and yeah, and at
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: the time it was it was just it was shocking.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: And of course, of course the DCHQ immediately had to
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: reorganize its workforce. So prior to that event, GHQ was
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: sort of organized in such a way that there was
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: a heavy sort of still Soviet bloc, so there were
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: still a lot of Russian linguists who were focusing on
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: that sphere of things, and then there was just this
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: hodgepodge of other linguists who did a bit of everything
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: and were sort of spread across the whole globe. And
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: after this event happened, there was this massive recruitment process
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: and language training process to get Arab and Persian speakers
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: up to speed because there were just insufficient numbers of them.
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: So consequently, some of the cohorts, my friends who joined
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: in January two thousand and one, were then rapidly a
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: couple of them were rapidly retrained in these languages, like
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: in Pashtun and you know, in various various languages of
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: the region. And so, you know, I watched as the
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: invasion of Afghanistan took place, and this movement, this sort
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: of sentiment that after nine to eleven saw the whole
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: globe basically unite in support of America, in support of
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: the people of America and thinking, you know, this is
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: terrible and we feel for you and we'll do everything
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: to help you. And the US government, the US executive
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: branch quickly turned that around and created this you're either
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: with us or against us. That I mean, that's what
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: uh George Bush famously said right in his speech and
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: divided the world between those who support America and those
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: who are against America. And so this whole politicization of
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: of of people's minds seemed to happen at that point.
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: And when they talked about the you know, when Iraq
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: first came into into the frame, when they were once
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: they'd sort of deployed to Afghanistan and there was all this,
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was terrible what they did to Afghanistan
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: as well, you know, and that general that sort of
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: gets even I have to admit I really didn't understand
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: what was going on then, you know, I didn't really
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: pay much attention to that. But then when they directed
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: her attention to it. I sort of started to think,
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: what on earth has ir art got to do with
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: nine to eleven? You know? And I did actually in September,
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: and this was this is I've mentioned it in a
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: few of my interviews before, but in September of two
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: thousand and two, Yeah, I went with my line manager
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: to San Diego for a conference intelligence. So all the
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: intelligence personnel FBI, AN, SA, CIA, GHQ, I six, everybody
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: was there. And it was for this big conference and
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: we were invited one day onto an American aircraft carrier
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: in San Diego on our day off at the Naval
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: air base there, Naval base there, and you know, this was,
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: like I said, September two thousand and two. And so
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: there were all these young mariners running about on the ship,
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: really young. I mean I was in my mid twenties,
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: but they looked even younger than me, and so we
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: sort of asked them, like, what are you guys doing,
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: and they just sort of stood to attention and said,
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: we're deploying to them. We're deploying to the golf, ma'am.
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: And we sort of looked at each other, me and
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: my line manager, and they said, yeah, we're gonna whip
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: some Iraqi yeahs. And so immediately that got my you know,
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: my antenna up because I was thinking, why are they
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: they deploying hardware, military hardware to the golf when nothing's
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: been established. You know, they're still sending out weapons inspectors.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: They're still trying to determine whether, you know, Iraq is
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: in fact a threat. And this is what they were
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: trying to cook up, this story that Iraq was a threat.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: And so we had all sorts of things going on.
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: But you know, they sent un weapons inspectors Hans Blix
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: and Scott Ritter at the time to go and really
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: look in Iraq to see what was what. And so
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: I from that point onwards, I was really aware, and
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: I was trying to find out more information about Iraq
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: and why Iraq was being targeted and and so I
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: watched the escalation. I watched how the war propaganda escalated.
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: And in fact, you know, now we look at Tucker
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: Carson and we see how, you know, suddenly he seems
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: to be much more open dialogue about different issues. But
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: at the time, you know, Fox News and all these
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: networks were pumping out all this warping that was so
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: it was appalling, and yet it was glamorizing war. It
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: was you know, it was this very nauseating, in my view,
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: attempt to normalize this military aggression against a state that
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: had nothing to do, nothing at all to do with
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: nine to eleven, was any threat in Europe or America.
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: So yeah, I have to say when that email, which
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: it was a Friday on the end of January, January
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: thirty first of two thousand and three, I received this
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: email along with about one hundred other people at GCQ.
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: And by the way, all you have to do is
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: con and U N dirty tricks and you'll pull up
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: the Observer article that was published and the memo. Right
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: there's a link to the memo. That's all you have
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: to do is type und dirty tricks and that's the
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: first thing you'll see. Now the email, I've got it
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: written down here because you know, I'm on my phone,
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: so I can't look at my phone. The email basically
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: had this one quote. It says it was from the
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: National Security Agency in the US NSA and g c
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: HQU obviously is the sister partner of NSA, very closely linked,
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: as you'll see from the email. You know, so it
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: says we're asking for the whole gamut of information that
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: could give US policy makers an edge in obtaining results
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: favorable the US goals or to head off surprises. So
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: first of all, you've got to ask yourself, this is
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: the American Intelligence Service asking the British Intelligence Service to
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: aid them, right, to help them? And for what reason
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: in order to obtain results favorable to US goals. Doesn't
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: say results favorable to our goals, right or US and
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: gb goals. It's just US goals. That is just gives
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: you a flavor of it. And then it says we
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: also it. So they want wanted GCHQ to provide any
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: information they could glean from their product lines. In other words,
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: the surveillance that they did on UN Security Council members.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: The nations that were non permanent members of the UN
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: Security Council at the time were Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea,
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: and Pakistan. And so they wanted our assistance to spy
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: on those delegates and then to use to gain, you know,
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: any information that we could. And so I understood that,
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: and it said also their networks there product lines, both
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: domestic and official. So it meant targeting their home communication
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: systems and their office communication systems, and basically any information
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: that could be used. This is how I understood it,
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Any information that could be used to persuade those delegates
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: to vote in favor of the UN Resolution fourteen forty one,
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: which would authorize the invasion of Iraq. Yeah, it just
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: it just First of all, what it did was it
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: peeled back the curtains for me. So for the first
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: time I realized that we're not just here to get
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: information in order to advise our government officials on best
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: policy and so on. Now we're not just doing that.
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: What we're actually doing is gaining information in order to
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: enable them to manipulate this situation to get what they want.
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: And what they wanted in this instance was to invade
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: it up. And even though you know, at the time
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: they were still publicly they were still claiming that, oh,
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: you know, we haven't we're not you know, all the
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: options are still on the table, you know, and and
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: if Saddam Hussein complied, and if this and if that
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: so they were they were trying to maintain this idea
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: that an invasion was not a feth how complete it was.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: They were still deciding what they were going to do,
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: but that's not true. We now realize, we now know
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: that the goal all along was to invader Raq and
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: how they were going to do it. And you know,
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: it's it's taken years for this information to come out.
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: But so that email came out on the thirty first
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: of January, and in the email they actually talk about it,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: says it said in the email, I suspect you'll hear
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: more along these lines in terms of gathering intelligence in
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: four more channels, especially as this effort will probably peak
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: in the middle of next week following the Secretary of
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: State's presentation to the UN Security Council. So what they're
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: referring to there is Colin Powell gave a speech to
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: the Security Council on the fifth of February, a week
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: after this email, where he's seen dangling some file right
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: talking about Yellowcake, talking about weapons of mass destruction, all
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: of which was false, cooked up intelligence we now know
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: from sext up dossier's right, all of which has come
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: out subsequently. But that happened and they desperately So what
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: we also know now from further revelations is that on
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: the fourteenth of January, So this is two weeks prior
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: to the email that I received on the fourteenth of January,
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: the Attorney General Goldsmith advised Blair that an invasion of
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: Iraq would be illegal under UN and you know, there's
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: no humanitarian reasons for an invasion whatsoever. And he submitted
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: this five page draft legal advice to Tony Blair, and
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: Tony Blair accepted it, but he passed it on apparently
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: to Jack Straw, who was Foreign Minister, and to Sir Greenstock,
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: the UN Ambassador, British Ambassador to the UN, and they
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: were not happy with this at all, apparently, so they
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: started to try and influence Attorney General Goldsmith's opinion. And
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: later it turns out that on the tenth of February,
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: so this is five days after Colin Powell's presentation to
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: the UN Security Council on the tenth of February, Attorney
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: General was still not really convinced, not by the efforts
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: to draw and he is sent to the US to
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: meet with the senior government lawyers in the US, Dick
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: Cheney's lawyers and Donald Rumsfelt's lawyer, and condoleez A Rice,
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: who was a national security advisor, and they spun it.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: They spun an a legal argument for same that in
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: fact there was a reason that it could be justified,
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: and so consequently he rewrote his legal advice. It went
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: from a five page document to a single page document
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: a five and that was what was presented to the parliament.
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: That was what ministers made their decision on, based on
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: this legal advice that had been h he'd sort of
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: he'd been strong armed into making this legal advice, and
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: in fact, all of his people below him in his
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: you know, in the legal office, nobody agreed with him.
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: He was a lone voice. No one else agreed with
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: that advice. So this is the background that you know,
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: has has emerged years after, and it's been you know,
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: row everybody's roundly condemned all the anyone with any ounce
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: of integrity has said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal,
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: it was a crime against humanity, there was no justification
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: for it.
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you're so right to go back and
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: give the wider context, especially the bit that you relate
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: in the San Diego aircraft carrier, and how well well
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: before there appeared to be any indication that Iraq was
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: in any way involved for a start, or that a
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: military some sort of military operation was in any way appropriate.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: These things were already happening, were already in place, which
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: is totally fascinating.
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: Just a quick one.
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: And I don't know whether you'd necessarily know the answer
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: to this, but given what you said about that oft
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: quoted sort of phrase of bushe's you know, you're either
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: with us or you're against us. The email that was
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: received by you and your colleagues GUGHQ. Are you aware
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: of any such similar email or in d the same
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: going to the security services of any other country?
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: You mean this this precise email?
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean were you know, for example, where the
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: French or the Australians or the Canadians asked to do
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: a perform a similar service.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: I have no idea. I have no idea. It's quite
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: possible the email went out to the Five Eyes community,
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: so that would be including New Zealand and Canada and Australia,
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: whether they Yeah, I think it would have been a
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: very limited one because I think certainly not the French,
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: or because the French in the Germans and well the
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: Russians at the time, who were not as much of
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: a foe to the you know, Anglo American Empire. They
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: were very much against it. They were against it. However,
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: apparently these Americans, senior lawyers, government lawyers who persuaded the
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: British Attorney general, they intimated without proof, that the French
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: would go along with it without a UN resolution. Now
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: they apparently provided no evidence for this, but they claimed it,
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: and so he apparently Godsmith believed it and all of this.
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: You know, I mean, it's just incredible that you could
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: talk in such cavalier terms about the destruction of an
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: entire state, and I mean they made no bones about it.
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: They talked about the military, the generals and all these
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: figures who salivated the idea of dropping bombs on people.
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: You know, they were gleeful about forming Iraq and Afghanistan
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: back to the Stone Age.
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: No, absolutely, you're quite right. And you know, it is
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: extraordinary to think specifically about the role of the attorney general,
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: somebody who has within their gift the ability to be
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: able to direct as to whether there is a legal
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: case for war or not. So in some senses he
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: wields he or she would wield enormous power. But by
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: the same token, by being one individual, as you've just articulated,
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: he or she is, of course terrifically vulnerable. Goldsmith himself afterwards,
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: in relation to this said, having regard to the information
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: on the negotiating history which I have been given, and
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: the arguments of the US administration which I heard in Washington,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: which is the visit that you're talking about, I accept
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: that a reasonable case can be made that there is
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: Solution fourteen forty one is capable in principle of reviving
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: the authorization in six seven eight which approved of military
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: force in the first Gulf ward. Sorry, that's it should
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: be in brackets that bit. He didn't say that without
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: a further resolution. He said that, And then to your
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: point of those being in disagreement with him, I think
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: the most notable was Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy Legal advisor
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: to the Foreign Officers who resigned, and she wrote, she wrote,
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: resolution to revive the authorization given in Security Council or
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Resolution six seven eight. So it remains incredibly murky. Obviously,
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: there's so much to cover. What we should get to
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: really is how the Official Secrets Act was wielded, and
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: not just that, but how you were dealt with as
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: a result of what you did. So just to now
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: go into what it is that you did decide to
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: do with this being the background first of all in
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: your sort of state of mind and what you'd seen
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: going on around you, as in building a case for
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: a war apparently on nothing. And also the thing that
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: we must remember to cover is the in terms of
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: subsequently the defense and indeed the element of public interest,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: because of course that does form such a large part
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: of it. I don't want to overload the question, but yes,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: so you received the email, which, as you say, you felt,
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: made very clear that GCHQ was going to be asked
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: to do something, first of all, that it should not
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: be asked to in the first place, but secondly specifically
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: for US interests, not for allied interest So what did
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: you do after you'd received and sort of considered the
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: contents of the email.
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: I went away and thought about it over the weekend,
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: and I didn't consult anybody, but I had already decided
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: that I felt something had to be done about this email.
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: It needed to be made public, and as it happened,
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: I had to contact who. So I contacted this person.
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: I've never named them. I contacted them and I said, look,
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: I've seen something very very significant. I think it needs
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: to be released to the public. And they said, okay,
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: send it to me. I have an idea who I
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: can you know, give it to. But whatever you do
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: after this, don't ever contact me again, and never speak
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: to this, never speak of this to anyone ever again.
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: And I was like, yes, okay. And so the following Monday,
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: I went into work and I printed off a copy.
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: I was working at my usual desk. I was at
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: a different desk. On Mondays, I went to work in
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: a different area. So I thought, this is a great opportunity.
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: I can print it off a different computer. So I
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: was scheming already. You know, I was trying to avoid detection.
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: But I'm obviously I was a complete naive and you know,
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: totally technical technically not savvy, as all I did was
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: what I knew thought I could do, which was just
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: a copy paste and print off this email. And then
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: I posted it that you know, I took it, snuck
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: it out of work in my handbag. I was absolutely petrified,
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: and then I posted it as soon as I got
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: home into a letterbox, and then I was out of
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: my hands, you know, I basically I didn't know what
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: was going to happen to it after that. I didn't
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: know who my contact was going to give it to.
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: I had no I yea, what was going to happen.
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: And then on the fifteenth of February I went on
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: the anti war March, the big, the big you know,
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: million and a half or whatever person anti war March
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: in London, and like many people there that day, I
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: felt that, Wow, this really had the potential to change things.
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: You know, it was such a historic, historic march, and
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: even political savvy people believed at the time that it
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: would have an effect on Tony Blair anyway. So then
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: we moved forward another couple of weeks and on the
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: fifth of March I went to buy my Sunday copy
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: of The Observer, and not expecting anything, you know, I'd
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: already sort of resigned myself to thinking that it wasn't
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: going to come out, because i'd you know, been sort
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: of waiting for this revelation but nothing had happened, so
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: I'd kind of thought it's not going to happen. And
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: then on the fifth of March or second of the March.
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: I can't remember which I got this Observer, and it
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: was on the front page, you or US dirty Tricks
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: on the front page. And so immediately when I saw it,
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: because it even had a slight a photo copy or
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: an image of the email that i'd photoed copied, you know,
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: and my heart just sank into my gut, while I
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: sank probably down to my feet. I mean, I was
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: just absolutely, utterly, completely terrified. And I ran home to
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: my husband and I basically he was still sleeping, and
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: I threw the newspaper on the bed and burst into tears,
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: and he, you know, that was the first he'd ever
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: heard of it was, you know, so I had to
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: explain to him, and so the ordeal began. What was
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: I going to do now that the information had come out?
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: And of course my first instinct was not to say anything,
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: and of course my husband kept he said, don't, don't
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: say anything, coming from his background, which was also one
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: of authoritarian regimes that you know, disappear people and so on.
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: But you know, that burden, that burden of not telling
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: the truth, that's a very big burden and it's not
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: one that I take easily, especially when it relates to
• 33:09
  Speaker 2: such a massive issue, you know, of going to work
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: every day, living a totally duplicitous life, pretending I had
• 33:18
  Speaker 2: nothing to do with it, and potentially allowing other people
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: to take the blame. I mean, that wasn't necessarily my
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: concern because I thought, if they're innocent, nobody's going to
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: you know, they're not going to charge an innocent person.
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: I was afraid of being found out and I thought,
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: you know, I can't. I just literally couldn't function normally
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: at work knowing that I was the one who had
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: done it. So having denied it in an interview on
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: the second day of interrogations, on the third day, a Wednesday,
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: I went back in this time to confess and that's
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: what I did, and so they immediately, you know, took
• 34:07
  Speaker 2: me away from the office, took me to the security personnel,
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: and then eventually I was transferred to Cheltenham Police Station,
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: where I was held for just under twenty four hours
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: in the cells below the station and interviewed by special
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: Branch The following day, having had my house turned upside
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: down and searched, which by the way, was a property
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: that we were renting from somebody who worked at GCHQ
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: but lived in London, so you know, they were very
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: good about not complaining and actually not intervening at all
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: and not kicking us out because we stayed there for
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: a few more months. Afterwards they charged, they didn't. They
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: arrested me first on suspicion of breaking Section one of
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: the Official Secrets Act and then released me on bail.
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: And I felt very vulnerable and very alone. I didn't
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: want to tell anybody. I didn't want anybody to know.
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: I didn't know who to turn to. As it happened
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: the organization Liberty at the time, it was a different
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: person who was heading it. He kept his eyes on
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: these issues and he kept his ear to the ground,
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: and as soon as he saw somebody had been arrested
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: from GCCHQ, he contacted my union, the union at GCHQ,
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: public Civil Service Union, whatever, and said, I understand, you
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: know you have somebody who's been arrested. I'd like to
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: get in touch with them. So thankfully he got in
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: touch within the week I think of me being arrested
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: and speaking to him in a coffee shop in Cheltenham
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: was the most you know, it really was such a
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: relief to have somebody on my side, it was incredible,
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: and so they said, you know, think about it, but
• 36:37
  Speaker 2: we would like to work with you on this and
• 36:41
  Speaker 2: represent you if necessary, and so on, and so that's
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: what happened. I had other offers, but I declined. I'm
• 36:50
  Speaker 2: glad that I declined those offers because I felt that
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: they weren't as altruistic as Liberty's offer was.
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: Will just come on to the detail of that in
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: a second. I think having mentioned the Official Secret Acts,
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: obviously you know understandably is little used compared with a
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: lot of other pieces of legislation. But I think it
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: would be a good time just to remind people exactly
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: part well certain parts of it. I mean Section one
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: in particular, but just to go back through the history
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: and the first Official Secrets Act was in eighteen eighty nine,
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: and then it was updated in nineteen eleven and nineteen
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: twenty and a few times since, most recently in nineteen
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: eighty nine, and it was under section one of the
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine Act that you would charge and that
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: there's been an evolution over time. And I think one
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: of the things that is not widely understood is that
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: it is not only people who have signed the Official
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: Secrets Act that are bound by it. In fact, everybody
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: is bound by it. I'll just come on to that
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: in a second. But Section one of the eighty nine
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: Act states that a person who is or has been
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: a member of the security or Intelligence services is guilty
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: of an offense if, without lawful authority he discovered is
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: any information, document, or other article relating to security or
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: intelligence which is or has been in his possession by
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: virtue of his position as a member of any of
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: those services, or in the course of his work while
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: the notification is or was in force. Obviously her possession
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: in this case. But so that's how Section one sets
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: it out. And this is why you know earlier I
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: referred to the issue of public interest, because of course
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: the Attorney General states that when making decisions about whether
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: to consent to a prosecution, the Attorney General makes his
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: decision in the public interest and not in the interests
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: of the government. Well, that's highly questionable for one, But
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: the point is it's a one way street in that
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: he gets to decide what is in the public interest
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: rather than in your case, the defendant. So we'll come
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: on to this in a second. The other thing is
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: that Section five of the nineteen eighty nine Act, with
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: regard to members of the public, states that it is
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: also an offense to me make a damaging disclosure of
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: information relating to security or intelligence, defense, or international relations,
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: if the information has come into the person's possession without
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: the authority of that state or organization. And I think
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: that's just one to bear in mind, and not trying
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: to put wind up people, but just the I think
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: it's a common misperception that the Official Secrets Act only
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: binds people that are part of the intelligence and security
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: community or that have signed the Official Secrets Acts, not
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: actually the case, and just gives a good insight into how,
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: like so many pieces of legislation, it's evolved over time
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: to be used as a catchule if necessary, with very
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: little recourse if indeed you are ever charged with it.
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: But so to go back to then your dealings with
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: liberty and indeed putting forward some sort of defense, obviously
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: public interest was something was a course of action that
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: wasn't actually open to you. So how did your discussion
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: evolve and and how where did you arrive with a
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: with a defense?
• 40:06
  Speaker 2: Well, of course they didn't charge me for eight months,
• 40:09
  Speaker 2: so for eight months, I was on tenterhooks. And now
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: I understand that this could be described as law fair.
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: So you know, this is deliberate. It's a deliberate part
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: of the process of making life difficult for you, making
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: an example of you, basically over retaliating against you. So
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: rather than swift justice, they draw it out. And so
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: for eight months, I you know, I was just I
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: didn't know. I didn't know what was going to happen
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: to me, and this happens to a lot of people.
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: And then so in November they finally they bring charges.
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: And of course by this time, you know, we we've
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: had me and the team at Liberty. You know, we'd
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: had several conversations. I'd gone up to London, I'd met
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: with them several times, and you know, they were as
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: much in the dark as I was. But when the
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: charges came, we sort of that put the wind in
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: our sails, you know, so now we can finally get
• 41:34
  Speaker 2: our teeth into this thing. And so we had discussions
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: and I explained to the lawyers and I said, look,
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: I really I don't want to do any sort of
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: plea bargaining. I don't want any mitigating, you know, circumstances
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: based on a guilty Please, I don't feel guilty. I
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: don't want to say I'm guilty, you know, because I
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: think I did the morally right thing, the ethical thing,
• 42:07
  Speaker 2: And and so they agreed, They said, yes, okay, you know,
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: we stand by you on that, and so we must
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: now think of a way to defend you, because unfortunately
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: there is no defense there is, you know, Official Secrets
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: Act has no defense a part, as they sort of
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: came to the realization after a while, apart from the
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: defense of necessity, which isn't quite the same as a
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: public interest defense. But the defense of necessity is one
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: in which you could claim that you break the law
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: in order to save lives, right, So, I mean there
• 42:58
  Speaker 2: are common common practices, you know. The most obvious is
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: breaking breaking the speed limits, or crashing through red lights
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: in order to take your wife to the hospital because
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: she's in labor, you know, or something like that, or
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: saving a life, trying to save a life to get
• 43:21
  Speaker 2: to hospital in time. This was obviously a much more
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: difficult proposition whereby we were attempt we were going to
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: attempt to prove that what I had been doing was
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: attempting to stop an illegal invasion of a country and
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: saving British military personnel lives and also Iraqi lives and
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: doing so and so trying to make that case would
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: have been quite a challenge, but we were prepared to
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: do it. And the team had at some point heard
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: that Elizabeth Wilmshurst had resigned and the reason for her
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: resignation was this apparent difference in opinion, but that was
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: not well known and it was very hush hush, But
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: they got wind of this somehow and they started digging,
• 44:26
  Speaker 2: and that's when it sort of came to light that
• 44:31
  Speaker 2: in fact there had been a difference of opinion and
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: that possibly the legal opinion had changed. At some point,
• 44:41
  Speaker 2: the legal team set out a request and said we
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: want to see all available legal advice presented to the
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: government part of the defense, and then quite extraordinarily, quite
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: out of the blue, shortly thereafter, I can't recall exactly
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: how many days it was, but I do believe it
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: was after the request for legal advice that they set
• 45:27
  Speaker 2: a date for me to attend at the Old Bailey,
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: and at that date they said we offer no evidence,
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: were dropping the charges. So yeah, in February they dropped
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: the charges against me, so, you know, I was suddenly
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: I was a free person. That that thing that's been
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: looming over me, oh, pressing me, it was gone, just
• 46:01
  Speaker 2: like that, It's all gone forgotten. And it was just
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: incredible really because on the one hand, once again I
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: felt this enormous, enormous amount of relief. But on the
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: other hand, it was sort of an anti climax because
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: I had girded my loins, as they say, you know,
• 46:25
  Speaker 2: I was prepared for this conflict, and it was going
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: to be a massive, massive trial if it had gone ahead, potentially,
• 46:38
  Speaker 2: you know, with putting the Holy Iraq War on trial,
• 46:42
  Speaker 2: putting those who prosecuted the war on trial. How different
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: things would have been if that had actually gone ahead,
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: you know, even if even if the jury found me guilty,
• 47:01
  Speaker 2: how different that the whole lay of the land would
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: be now.
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: Potentially absolutely yeah, I mean that's a very very sort
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: of profound consideration, of course, and unfortunately hypthescal one, because
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: it seems that no matter how hard anybody might try,
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: trying to stick that particularly diarly to the wall, is
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: seems to be beyond everybody's wit or capability.
• 47:26
  Speaker 3: So far, of course, we will hold out hope.
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: Actually, just to talk about the defense, you know, using
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: the defense of necessity, I think it's really worth stating
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: or making it clear that's a common law defense. And
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: just to go back to the legislation and how it's
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: manipulated and wielded. You know, you use the word manipulation.
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: And we see so much legislation coming out now with
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: the specific purpose of repealing or to replace parts of
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: common law. And you can see with a defense like necessity,
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: which is a common law defense, exactly why the establishment
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: would want to change it, because of course it may
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: be applied regardless of the particular piece of legislation. It's
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: a very good point that you make now you spoke
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: about lawfair. I think one part of probably many is
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: during the eight month period before you were actually charged,
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: and I think I've got the chronology right. Would you
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: just describe the treatment of your husband as a foreign
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: national and what happened to him during that time.
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: Well, actually this happened after I was charged, so that
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: is interesting. But I don't think it was deliberate, So
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: I don't think that was I think it was two strands,
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: two different parts of the government doing their own thing.
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: And however, it worked in our favor. So my husband
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: was at the time an asylum seeker. His asylum claim
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: had been rejected, and so for many months he had
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: been signing on at the police station on a weekly basis.
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: And so after after I had been charged, one of
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: these days, I drove him to the police station and
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: for this signing on process, and then all of a
• 49:27
  Speaker 2: sudden he didn't come out, and I waited and waited,
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: and then I went into the police station and said, well,
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: actually a girl had come out from the police station,
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: a young girl, and said, oh, something like are you
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: waiting for that tall man in the police station? And
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: I was like yeah, and she goes, they've taken him,
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: and I was like what. And so I dashed into
• 49:53
  Speaker 2: the police station and he wasn't anywhere in the entrance,
• 49:58
  Speaker 2: and so I said, you know, what have you done?
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: What where's my husband? And they said, oh, you know,
• 50:04
  Speaker 2: nothing to do with us. It's a border control and
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: they're deporting him. So he's going to be sent back
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: to Turkey. Yeah, And I was just I was like,
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: oh my god, what do I do now? What do
• 50:24
  Speaker 2: I do now? But luckily i'd got prior to all
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: of this I'd been in touch with our MP at
• 50:31
  Speaker 2: the time and Libdem MP Nigel forgot his last name
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: at the minute, brilliant, really lovely chap And so he
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: knew us. He knew us because I'd approached him before
• 50:46
  Speaker 2: to talk about our you know, asylum and this sort
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: of thing, and it was only through his intervention. So
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: he contacted the Minister Home Affairs. I think it was
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: Beckett at the time. No, no, anyway, I can't remember
• 51:06
  Speaker 2: he was, but she said he said something like this
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: looks like state bullying, you know. And by this time
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: he was already at some detention center in Heathrow or
• 51:21
  Speaker 2: in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport, and they were about
• 51:24
  Speaker 2: about to place him on the plane. And yeah, he
• 51:28
  Speaker 2: had no money on him, no money. He didn't have
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: a jacket or anything because he'd gone in the car
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: and it was middle of winter. He'd gone in the
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: car to sign on. He had only the clothes he
• 51:43
  Speaker 2: was standing in and they were just going to deport
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: him with no id, no money, nothing to not even
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: hit the airport closest to where any of his relatives live,
• 51:59
  Speaker 2: just to anchor as far as I understand, And you know,
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: what was he going to do there, and anyway, with
• 52:07
  Speaker 2: no documents, how would the Turkish authorities deal with him?
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: You know, this is the other thing when they deport people.
• 52:14
  Speaker 2: So she intervened and said, this looks like he said.
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: He intervened and said, this looks like state bullying. You know,
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: don't you think it's not a good look. And so
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: she literally called the detention center and said, have you
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: got this person in your waiting room? Can you release
• 52:40
  Speaker 2: them please? And actually they don't release them. So he
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: was put into another detention center in Oxford and he
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: was there for about three days before they finally released
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: him back only because only because they'd taken my passport
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: because I was facing a criminal prosecution, you know, so
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: I couldn't leave the country and join him if he
• 53:09
  Speaker 2: was deported. So it was against our human rights, the
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: rights to a family life. That literally at that point
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: they intervened and stopped him from being deported, and then
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: we had to go through the laborious process of applying
• 53:23
  Speaker 2: for a spousal user, which we did.
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: Gosh, Nigel Jones, I think, was it?
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: I think, yeah, yeah, I think Notre Jones, Yeah, I mean,
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: you know, that does illustrate I would say beyond reasonable
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: doubt that there was anything accidental about it. I mean,
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: that is and I think that's a very relevant part
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: of the story, particularly you know, in this day and age. Okay,
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: as I say, far less so obviously the Official Secrets Act,
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: but certainly the in twenty twenty four we saw this
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: done a lot with terrorism legislation and how bits of
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: law are being used sort of well outside of their
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: usual or perhaps intended consequence. Is it sorry intended purpose
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: rather with very poor consequences for all involved. Now, the
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: other point to make, which we spoke about just before
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: we started recording, is that, by extraordinary coincidence, the then
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: Director of Public Prosecutions Ken MacDonald has recently recorded a
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: podcast in which he spoke about your case, and I
• 54:31
  Speaker 1: think there were two extraordinary things that dropped out that.
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: First of all, his utterly glib reference to the timing
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: of it, and I wrote it down. He's described that
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: period early two thousand and three as being at a
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: time we and the Americans were trying to persuade the
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: Security Council to back an invasion of Iraq, And as
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: we said earlier, this was just such an extraordinary thing
• 54:58
  Speaker 1: to hear because this was just a springboard into his story,
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: as though it merited no further consideration to talk about
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: something of such significance. I mean that I would like
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: to hear your comment on, but also his refusal to
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: accept that the Goldsmith advice and indeed how it may
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: have changed on his visit to Washington, was in any
• 55:28
  Speaker 1: way relevant or worthy of any further discussion.
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: Certain people in this story who are most culpable and
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: who are probably the least savory of characters. You know,
• 55:47
  Speaker 2: I'm thinking Tony Blair, for instance, principally above all else.
• 55:55
  Speaker 2: And you know, I think it was the one of
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: the editors at The Observer, Kemal Ahmed, and I think,
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: who was very pro the invasion, and others, you know,
• 56:14
  Speaker 2: various others who really seemed to have no conscience. I mean,
• 56:25
  Speaker 2: I don't really know what goes on in these people's heads,
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: but they somehow. You know, there's been no repercussions, no
• 56:38
  Speaker 2: repercussions at all for any of these people, in spite
• 56:42
  Speaker 2: of the things that have become so apparent subsequently that
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: it was in fact an illegal invasion, that there were
• 56:50
  Speaker 2: no weapons of mass destructions destruction, none whatsoever, you know,
• 56:57
  Speaker 2: even if they had any, they were completely degraded and
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: would you couldn't use them, and they certainly didn't have
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: a forty five minute range of whatever they were trying
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: to claim, and you know, any of the human humanitarian
• 57:14
  Speaker 2: reasons that they tried to gin up to persuade the public.
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: The reality the result is that, you know, Iraq is
• 57:30
  Speaker 2: still reeling to this day from the consequences, you know,
• 57:34
  Speaker 2: and in fact, it was I think recently revealed by
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: an Iraqi minister or some insider that in fact, the
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: Iraqis are not in control really of their own country,
• 57:50
  Speaker 2: principally because their oil revenue is held in an American bank.
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: You know, it's not even in their own country. They
• 58:04
  Speaker 2: don't have access to their own funds. And there are
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: numerous military bases, US military bases still in Iraq, you know,
• 58:21
  Speaker 2: the country at one time prior to the First Golf
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: War and then the ten years of egregious genocidal sanctions,
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: which you know, again is just something else that's just
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: brushed over, even though that awful, awful woman said she
• 58:43
  Speaker 2: thought it was worth it. You know, the deaths of
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: half a million Iraqi children, Albright and Madeline Albright. Yeah, Oh,
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: we think it's worth it, worth it for who? Now?
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: It just these people make me furious. And so there's
• 59:06
  Speaker 2: Ken McDonald's character, who apparently is a sir. Right, I
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: don't think I need to say what my feelings are
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: about people like that.
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: Now we are drawing towards the close of what is
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: a completely compelling narrative chapter in your life, because what
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: you've done is bring us up to speed. Now, I
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: was minded of the parallels when you were describing the
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: aftermath of September the eleventh and sort of whether you
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: were with us or against us, and how in effect
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: it gave America carte blanche to do what they wanted
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: as far as the international community was concerned, because of
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: the sympathy for them. And we think back to October
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: the seventh, twenty twenty three, and how the world has
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: reacted to Israel's actions following that name, and I mean
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: there are parallels, without a doubt. How do you see
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 1: things going from here, particularly with the Trump presidency about
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: to begin again, And indeed, Starmer and you know, who's
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: very much obviously pro Israel, and not that I want
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: to concentrate particularly on Israel, but how do you see
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: things going from here and what influences are sort of
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: especially at play.
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: Oh well, that's a very big, big question. I think
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 2: we could go on for another hour, but you know, really,
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: what I think is happening globally, there are so many
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: different angles. For me, I've come to the conclusion that
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 2: most everything is economic and control and power. It's about economy,
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: power and control. And I've recently come to the realization.
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: So I'm going to start a lecture now, but I've
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: recently come to a realization, and I'm still trying to
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 2: feel my way. And it's maybe completely obvious to a
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: lot of people, but I think there are people who've
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 2: begun to explore this is the fact that at the
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 2: dawn of the industrialization of Europe where it started, and
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 2: the sort of liberal capitalist marketplace, the economy that was
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: evolving at that time, what happened was, it seems as
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: sort of the Marxist critique then of what was going on,
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 2: was this commodification of land and labor. So prior to that,
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: there are people who argue, in the medieval period, even
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 2: though there was a marketplace and there was trade and
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 2: so on, but in the industrialized world, it rapidly changed
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: into something else, and so the things that had never
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 2: really had a sort of value attached to them suddenly
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 2: had value attached to them. So land and labor or
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 2: other time, human time and skill was commodified and financialized.
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 2: This then accelerated and by doing that wealth, enormous wealth
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: was generated. Enormous wealth was generated by the commodification of
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: land and labor, and then subsequently this has accelerated to
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: the point where other things were commodified and financialized in
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: the twentieth century, So throughout the nineteen hundreds, this commodification
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: process of everything. Everything became commodified, financialized, and so this
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: sort of pyramid Ponzi scheme has developed in this financial
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 2: world that's basically it's just rapidly expanding all the time,
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 2: and yet it's really based on nothing, nothing of real value.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 2: And because it is this completely disproportionate Ponzi scheme where
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 2: it's all now sort of debt based and imaginary, fanciful
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 2: schemes that they cook up where they derive profit from
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 2: all these schemes, they have to create other things. They
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: have to commodify other things, and so now what they're
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 2: commodifying is data. While they've done it already, so you know,
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 2: we are the new oil. As they say, our data
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 2: is the new oil, so that they've commodified data. And
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 2: of course as part of the climate thing, they're commodifying
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: financializing nature, so all of nature which previously had no
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: value attached to it, right, and it never entered our
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: consciousness that you could attach value to nature, but they're
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: doing it. And furthermore, they're going to financialize I believe,
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 2: our genes and ourselves, you know. So they're constantly creating
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 2: new markets whereby they can commodify everything attached value, rent
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: it or sell it back to us. And that's what
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: they're trying. That's what this beast has become. And anybody
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 2: who tries to resist it in any way, So countries
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 2: like Iraq, like Syria, like North Korea, like China, like Russia,
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: who finally come to the realization they don't want to
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 2: become they don't want their countries to be controlled by this. However,
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: I think to some extent, those global staff nations, those
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 2: brigs nations, they're not critiquing it in this way. So
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: for them, you know, technology and the future of all
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: this biotech and all the rest of it. AI and
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: so on is this bright new future with so much potential,
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: and they want to be part of it. But the
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: danger is that the people manipulating this market, the people
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 2: who are in control of it at the moment, are
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 2: people who are simply trying to extract more value from
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 2: it and further to control and dominate those of who
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 2: they're extracting it from. So I'm just exploring this, but
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: I think, you know, this is the nature of the conflict,
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: and some and so some people are still stuck in
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: the commodification of land and resources fight. So there's a
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: fight over who can control those things. In our world,
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: it's moved on, you know, to this new type of
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: commodification which I'm talking about, and.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 3: So the.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: I think, not maybe I'm deluding myself, maybe everybody knows
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: about this, but I think it needs to be something
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: that more of us are aware of and to critique
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 2: what's going on from that angle, because the traditional left,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: I think, don't get it. You know, they're stuck in
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: this critiquing of land and labor and not realizing that
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 2: things have moved on much much further. And you know,
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: most of them support the climate narrative, and you know,
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: net zero policies because that got hijacked, Like every good movement,
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 2: it gets hijacked by the you know, status quo executive,
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 2: the power elite, and they turn it to their advantage.
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: And so Israel basically doesn't want to have any neighbors.
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: It doesn't want to have palace. If you look at
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 2: the size of Israel, if you look at you know,
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 2: what they envisaged at the time of a two state solution.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: In reality, no state can really function in that way.
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: You can't have a state with such peculiar borders with
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 2: a neighbor that is antagonistic or there is some antagonism
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 2: between the two neighbors. So, and I've heard this somewhere
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 2: recently in a in a video where the guy was
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: suggesting that once again, you know, just like the invasion
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 2: of Iraq was decided and they wanted they would do
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 2: whatever they could to get achieve that. He suggests that
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 2: in Israel, the Israeli goal is to basically annex Gaza,
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 2: annex the West Bank, make it their own, and to
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: define new Israeli borders, excluding Palestinians from those places, and
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 2: that the US and the UK have agreed and have
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 2: basically given them a certain amount of leeway to achieve it.
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: And when you look at how things are panning out,
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: that's how it looks to me, you know that that
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 2: that looks like how they're going forward with this. But
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 2: also I did want to bring up and I hope
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 2: it's not going to make this too long, but the
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 2: the British state has always been very secret. You know,
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 2: the British state is renowned for its obsession with secrecy,
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 2: and in fact, what it also is exceptionally good at
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: doing is as one academic in the US has described it,
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 2: a process which she's coined it as legalizing lawlessness, and
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: she explains this in her book Legacy of Violence, which
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 2: is about the British Empire. Is that the state deploys
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 2: underhand criminal means, or it uses underhand illegal criminal behavior,
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 2: and when it's found out, it quickly legislates in order
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: to legalize it. Right, And so we've seen this happen
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 2: with Snowden's revelations back in twenty fifteen about mass surveillance
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: and how you know, Intelligence Services was hoovering up data
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 2: on everyone, and what do they do. They go ahead
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: and legalize it with the Investigatory Powers Act, and then
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: what happened with most recently when they passed this awful,
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: awful the worst piece of legislation in the UK, I
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: believe is this CHIS Act, which is the COVID Human
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 2: Intelligen Sources Act. Now, why do they make that piece
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: of legislation because the spy Cops scandal and what was
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: the spy Cops scandal. I'm sure UK column viewers are
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: well aware, you know, the way the police force, undercover
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 2: police force were infiltrating these totally innocuous organizations by animal
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: rights activists and so on, and so what do they
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 2: do when this scandal ruts They develop a piece of
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: legislation that goes way beyond what Spy Cops was, to
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: the point where every single virtually every single government employee
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: now more or less is legalized to use or behavior
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 2: in terms of grooming or you know, in trapping or
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 2: what the heck you want to think of for national security,
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: serious crime, economic well being of Britain. I mean, really
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 2: talk about the ends justifying the means. It's the absolute
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 2: worst piece of legislation in the UK because it's giving
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 2: the UK government and any Tom Dick, Harry, Jill and
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 2: Jane to do anything really, and then they can point
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 2: their finger at somebody else and said they did it.
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 2: So can we really trust anything that happens? Now, this
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 2: is what I'm really worried about. Can we trust any
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: event that happens where they point their f at somebody
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: else and said they did this, and we must do
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 2: this because they did this. And they start passing more
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 2: legislation on the basis that, oh, this happened and that happened,
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 2: when in fact, you know, they set them up to
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 2: do it, and this has happened in the past. Of
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 2: course we know. I think, you know, we need to
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 2: really the best thing we can do, and beginning to
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 2: think now, is to use the legislation against them.
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, I think an awful lot of people would agree
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: with you. And of course, the irony and what you've
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: just been discussing is that your charge under the Official
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: Secrets Act was in effect sort of the opposite of that.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: I mean, you, as you said, as you described, you know,
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 1: you broke the law wilfully, deliberately in order to prevent
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: a catastrophe from unfolding. And yet now we have specific
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: legislation to inhpal people to break the law with absolutely
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: no such consequence. Now, Katherine, unfortunately we are out of time,
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 1: but as you say, we could easily go on for
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: another hour. Now, what we must mention at this point
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: is that the story of your case was turned into
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: a film in twenty nineteen called Official Secrets. So I'll
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: put a note to that I was sorry, linked to
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: that in the notes for this interview. And also please
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: tell us where we can find you. I know you
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: have an excellent Telegram channel, so please just tell us
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: quickly about that.
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know, I've always been a big I've
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 2: been a follower of UK column for a long time,
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 2: and you know it's thanks to UK column that I've
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 2: become more aware of a lot of issues. So you know,
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 2: unlike UK column, I don't have a website or a
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: channel or anything like that. But I, like you said,
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: I do have a Telegram channel under my name, but
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure how you find it really on telegram.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: Well that's fine, I can put a I can put
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 1: a link to that in the notes, so that'll that'll
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: direct people towards your telegram channel.
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 2: Well, there are a couple of other things that I'm doing,
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 2: but one thing I'm doing is teaching Chinese so you know,
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 2: we need more people, more people who understand Chinese these days,
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 2: because obviously China is a massive powerhouse. And on the
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 2: on the other hand, I'm also involved in an organization
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 2: called the Institute for the Public Interest. And again this
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 2: is a fledgling organization, so we'll see how it goes.
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 3: Perfect and I will include details of that. Now.
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: If you are in a position to support UK financially
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: UK column financially, and you're not doing so already, then
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: may I urge you to take a look at our
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: support UK Column pages in order to set up a
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 1: donation or perhaps a membership. And it just remains for
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: me to thank Catherine Gunn very much indeed for an
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: absolutely fascinating interview. Catherine, thank you, Thank you, Charles.
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 2: It was my pleasure.