Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Truth Tried to Stop War [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)8. Only the Truth could derail the War Train
So Gun's story was too true to broadcast and too dangerous to print, from the watmongers' POV.
The woman who nearly stopped the war
Five years ago, Katharine Gun, a translator at GCHQ, learned something so outrageous that she sacrif...
BY MARTIN BRIGHT
The New Statesman 19 MARCH 2008 12:00
Of all the stories told on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, there is one important episode that took place during the build-up to the conflict that has gone largely unreported. It concerns a young woman who was a witness to something so outrageous, something so contrary to the principles of diplomacy and international law, that in revealing it she believed war could be averted. That woman was Katharine Gun, a 29-year-old Mandarin translator at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham.
On Friday 31 January 2003 she and many of her colleagues were forwarded a request from the US government for an intelligence "surge" at the United Nations (with hindsight, an interesting choice of words). In essence, the US was ordering the intensification of espionage at the UN headquarters in New York to help persuade the Security Council to authorise war in Iraq. The aim, according to the email, was to give the United States "the edge" in negotiations for a crucial resolution to give international authorisation for the war. Many believed that, without it, the war would be illegal.
The email was sent by a man with a name straight out of a Hollywood thriller, Frank Koza, who headed up the "regional targets" section of the National Security Agency, the US equivalent of GCHQ. It named six nations to be targeted in the operation: Chile, Pakistan, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Bulgaria. These six so-called "swing nations" were non-permanent members of the Security Council whose votes were crucial to getting the resolution through. It later emerged that Mexico was also targeted because of its influence with Chile and other countries in Latin America, though it was not mentioned in the memo. But the operation went far wider - in fact, only Britain was specifically named as a country to be exempt from the "surge".
Koza insisted that he was looking for "insights" into how individual countries were reacting to the ongoing debate, "plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies etc". In summary, he added: "The whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers the edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises." The scope of the operation was vast: "Make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/debates/votes," wrote Koza.
Gun was appalled by the email in two ways. First by the seediness of the operation: she believed the clear message was that GCHQ was being asked to find personal information that would allow Britain and America to blackmail diplomats in New York. But second and more importantly, she believed GCHQ was being asked to undermine the democratic pro cesses of the United Nations.
CONTINUED...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martin-bright/2008/03/katharine-gun-iraq-war-gchq
Amazing we know about her at all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Joe Wilson also provided information their reasons for invafing Itaq was false and his reward
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#1
It was Geirge W Bush with the final decision, the ones you listed authorized action
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#5
Well of course it was shrub, that's not the point. Without these traitors siding with
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#10
I read the names, the point I was trying to make to you it would have happened without the support
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#11
That's simply not true. Go look at the records, there were quite a few republicans that opposed
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#12
There was nothing wrong with the Democratic vote on IWR. As I explain in my post below. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, there was. Apparently revising history is not the sole purview of the republicans. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#17
Go ahead and explain away my response then because you have to revise history to be correct. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#19
And here's another republican strategy, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#23
You just revised the Iraq War Resolution below. So I would say you just did the GOP tactic. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#24
Of course you would. It doesn't change the record. Without the votes of those DINOs the act
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#25
You keep trying to pretend facts away, it doesn't work. Deal with the facts or admit defeat.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#27
Every one of them shows that without the Senate vote the acts fails and the rest
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#34
It was a clear as day then what the IWR was about and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#45
I am in favor of the OP, and as I said, cite something that disagrees with me and the article.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#39
Go push your blog somewhere else. You're not the first, nor will you be the
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#40
OpEdNews is not my blog. Let's count how many times you have been wrong or ignored facts
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#41
Think about how illogical that statement is. The provisions in the IWR were not met.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#53
I stand on my previous call outs of your inaccuracies and bad faith efforts. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#54
Of course you do. But it still doesn't change the fact that Democratic Senators
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#64
The republicans were a foregone conclusion, only one of them voted against.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#52
Fact matter, and they are not on your side. Here it is real easy and simple
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
Just as I thought, you are revising history to make your point. Exactly what you accused me of doing
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#22
Things were not clear to lots of folks including a majority of the UN Sec Council Nations
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#28
And as regards the bombing, there were many such escalations, like Operation Desert Fox and
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#58
It was clear at the time what the IWR was...a free ticket for Bush to go to war.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#47
Political ambrition trumps the truth every time. Not to mention money.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#31
The archive.org article did make a factual error. Prescott Bush was George H.W. daddy not....
LongTomH
Feb 2013
#80
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#76