Time to count the ranks of the faithful

The “for example” points to a post at Harry’s Place. Could you please say where in this post he accuses the anti-war left of “supporting the murder of innocents”? He makes this accusation against one Tariq Ali or, to be precise, “the likes of Tariq Ali.” I’m not knowledgeable enough to judge about this charge, but the rest of the post strikes me as entirely reasonable.

Do you disagree with any of Harry’s 10 propositions?

Could you please say where in this post he accuses the anti-war left of “supporting the murder of innocents”?

I’ve provided a link and so I daresay anyone who’s interested can judge for themselves whether it’s a fair enough precis.

He makes this accusation against one Tariq Ali or, to be precise, “the likes of Tariq Ali.”

And then says “In attacking the likes of Tariq Ali for supporting the murderers of the Iraqi resistance, in highlighting the New Stalinism of the Socialist Workers Party or the retro Stalinism of Andrew Murray, we are accused of ‘smearing’ the entire body of anti-war opinion. […] I am not convinced this is a fair criticism.” And ends with ten propositions that any “reasonable and principled” opponent of the war ought to sign up to, with the implication that if you don’t you’re not “reasonable and principled”. I think I’m being fair enough.

Do you disagree with any of Harry’s 10 propositions?

Not telling you. This is my post, so you show your cards first. What’s your position on Valerie Gun?

BTW, Andrew: D^2’s position is in the comments of that post. No need to show your hole cards first!

2 issues: should she face criminal prosecution? Should she keep her job?

On the first: no. I don’t like to see this kind of prosecution and (an independent issue) this is politically stupid.

On the second: probably she should be in another career. _If_ we want to have spooks and those around them at all, then we also want them to have consciences and to be prepared to blow the whistle sometimes. But my (entirely defeasible) view is that it would be better to have spooks whose go-public-and-expose-wrongdoing trigger is somewhat less sensitive than hers (ie set to go off at massacre and coverup thereof, rather than at bugging UN delegations to seek an advantage). (And for emphasis: I said _if_ we want to have spooks ….)

But lots of legit government activity probably fails the Private Eye rule….

I agree with Chris Lawrence. If she broke the law, she broke the law. Following one’s conscience when it is contrary to the law is the “right” thing to do; but there will be consequences, and in this the law, too, is “right”.

From Plato’s Crito:

Socrates: Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country.” What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not?

Crito: I think that they do.

Socrates: Then the laws will say: “Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.

The law is not always just. The state will err. But respect for the rule of law itself is essential.

She was the one who revealed that the US was spying on people at the UN? You work for an intelligence agency, you agree to certain strictures. You break the rules, you face the consequences. If she broke the rules because someone was plotting something truly horrible, I’d have a lot of sympathy, but her revelations were on the order of “there’s gambling in this establishment?!?”. And, most of the diplomats interviewed at the time seemed to agree from my recollection.

So, I guess you can take away my lefty credentials, not that they really ever existed in the first place. But I still get to hate Bush, no matter what the label.

Generate blog-safe NYTimes links:
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

The problem is the Official Secrets Act, not Ms. Gun. Obviously, it is an act that can only be abused, as in the disparity between the punishment for leaking some information — for instance, the Campbell inspired leaks of who said what to the BBC — and other information, such as Ms. Gun’s. I wonder if there isn’t some equivalent in law to the ill formed sets in logic — laws the enforcement of which involve principles that undermine the law.

Obviously, the whole superstructure of secrecy acts is liable to this comment. Since we can’t even know if it has been applied without discrimination — because to know that would be to know what secrets are top secret, which is itself top secret — the best thing is to cut the law down to the roots. As to the ideological coloration of people who support the Official Secrecy Act — are there really a lot of Leftists out there who support this act? It would surprise me. Certainly I think Conservatives should find it ideologically suspect, too. But I wouldn’t count on seeing the act disappear, because it is a marvellous tool for whoever is in power.

The Ellsberg analogy is somewhat misleading– I don’t think anyone (including Ellsberg himself) denied that he broke the law, and was, consequently, in serious jeopardy of going to jail. But one understands that this is the price one may pay for acting according to the dictates of one’s conscience. If Nixon and his minions had taken the trouble to act within the law, Ellsberg probably would have gone to prison. Doing the right thing is -not- guaranteed to be frictionless.

“The Ellsberg analogy is somewhat misleading— I don’t think anyone (including Ellsberg himself) denied that he broke the law, and was, consequently, in serious jeopardy of going to jail.”

Not true; leaking classifieds documents results in revocation of your security clearances. There’s nothing actually illegal about it, Nixon trying to nail him to the wall not withstanding.

“…..while Ms. Gun was apparently the perpetrator of a definitely criminal act).”

Say what? She exposed another country’s intelligence operation; the only reason it’s illegal in the UK is the Offical Secrets Act. By contrast, if she was a US government employee and exposed a UK operation, it wouldn’t be illegal at all.

Let’s cut to the chase here — Gun’s actions are meritorious because she blew the whistle on conduct of the US and UK govts which was utterly reprehensible. What, democracy stops at the borders? what the fuck ever happened to being a light on the hill unto other nations?

If we couldn’t make a winning case in the UN on its merits, that’s a damn good sign that our case sucked. Considering the amount of legal pressure the US can put on other nations (through grant and loan funds and a zillion other ways), the fact that we needed the dirty laundry in order to swing votes should have been a big old warning sign that us “exceptionalists” (see, e.g. winds of change) were not so exceptional, but were instead flat wrong.

Sure there’s a need for spies. I want my spy agency to know both the capabilities and intentions of every foreign government and ngo of concern. And yes, the very nature of spy work means that abuses will be impossible to prevent. (cispes? cointelpro?)

but i’m with d2. the US and UK were FLAT WRONG to attempt to blackmail foreign countries into a declaration of war against a third country. even in a world of realpolitik this is not a close call. christ almighty, what kind of precedent are we setting? And are our own ambassadors and diplomats so much purer than the rest that we aren’t concerned about getting some payback?

p.s. These are my answers to Harry’s 10 Questions, for what they’re worth.

1. Iraq is better off due to regime change and the Iraqi people now have a more hopeful future without the Ba’athist dictatorship in power.

Likely, but unknown. A really gruesome civil war also appears to be a growing possibility. The losers in the civil war will probably think that things were better under Saddam

2.I am very pleased that Saddam Hussein was captured and now faces justice.

Yes.

3. The Iraqi ‘resistance’ offers no hope for the Iraqi people and needs to be defeated.

Probably wrong on both clauses. As to no hope: Those Iraqis that desire a strict Islamic state are likely strong supporters of components of the resistance. As to needing defeat: a popular insurgency cannot be defeated; they will bring supporters to their cause faster than we can kill them off.

4. Support needs to be given to both the Iraqi governing council and the coalition forces in their struggle against these reactionaries.

No on council, yes on troops. According to voices like Riverbend and Juan Cole, the IGC is hopelessly corrupt. Increasing their power may only aggravate the likelihood of civil war. As to the troops, no I’m not a monster. I do not wish death on any of them.

5. I hope that defeat of the ‘resistance’ will allow for a progress towards free and fair elections and democratic self-government in Iraq.

Sure, as an expression of hope. I also hope to win the lottery, even though I don’t play. So long as we don’t even understand who we’re fighting against, we cannot possibly know the consequences of our battles against the resistance. Also, keep in mind that free and fair elections held today would probably put in power a theocratic, anti-woman and virulently anti-US government.

6.The Coalition troops should stay as long as they are needed to assist the transition to democracy and independence in Iraq.

Yup.

7. I hope that a successful, democratic Iraq will be an inspiration to democrats throughout the middle-east.

Sure. But at the moment it’s more likely to inspire fundamentalists to rise up against their corrupt monarchies to install anti-american govts.

8.I hope that the capture of Saddam and the fall of his regime will inspire other peoples who are fighting against dictatorship.

Sure. Let’s just hope also that the cure isn’t worse than the disease. see, e.g. Algeria.

9.And that the end of his regime may warn off others who are considering developing or hiding WMD programmes.

You must be kidding. the phones must be ringing off the hook in Pakistan these days. We sent the clearest possible message to second-rate dictatorships — join us in the war on terror until you have your own nuke, at which point you can just pretend to help while actually telling us to fuck off.

10.All of the above are more important to me than the success or otherwise of the political careers of Tony Blair or George W Bush.

Yes (on blair) and no (on bush). Since i blame Bush for the single most foolhardy, dangerous, blinkered, arrogant and just-plain-wrong regime since god knows when, I think that getting bush out of office is probably the single best thing that could happen on the planet for all our long-term safety, french, english, american . . . alike.

cheers.

Francis

FDL wrote:

Let’s cut to the chase here — Gun’s actions are meritorious because she blew the whistle on conduct of the US and UK govts which was utterly reprehensible.

Actually, the only thing reprehensive was Gun’s actions, which have no merit and were boarder line treasonous. Intelligence agents are answerable to the democratically elected officials in the republic and do not have the prerogative to make foreign policy on their own. Unless of course you would like to see generals and spooks starting wars and releasing classified information purely on their own “conscious” without having the checks and balances of elections.

What, democracy stops at the borders?

The UN has as much to do with democracy as the Five Families.

If we couldn’t make a winning case in the UN on its merits, that’s a damn good sign that our case sucked.

You cannot possibly be so stupid or naïve as to believe that the United Nations has ever been about “merit.”

The UN representatives voting on the issue of (yet) another resolution on Iraq based their vote on the interest of their respective nation-states and/or their leaders – dictators, democrats, and republicans alike. If you were in bed with the Baathists like the Germans, French, and Russians you were not going to support Iraqi liberation regardless of the case being made. It became (as it so often does) a bidding war to sway votes which is why so many lesser nations support the United Nations – because it provides a mechanism for extortion.

but i’m with d2. the US and UK were FLAT WRONG to attempt to blackmail foreign countries into a declaration of war against a third country.

Really and how would they be “blackmailed” if they were not doing something wrong (like say violating UN sanctions in Iraq) in the first place?

And, to be clear, I think Gun deserves an OBE, the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a television show based on her career called Rogue Agent. I’d be proud to have her lecture elementary school students on the true meaning of patriotism, perhaps even as a marketing tie-in to the show.

Why is Ms. Gun being unfairly singled out for prosecution?

The journalist who reported the story, the editors who passed on it, should all be prosecuted as well.

And why is the maximum penalty only two years? The naval analyst in the US who leaked a trivial satellite photo of a Soviet aircraft carrier got two years.

Daniel Ellsberg a saint? Tell it to the boat people (and the Cambodians).

Yet the cases are distinguishable: Ellsberg leaked secrets about what the US had done, Ms. Gun leaked secrets about what the US was thinking of doing.

Since I don’t have, and don’t really care to hav, any “left credentials”, could someone who does explain to me how a democracy spying on governments like Angola’s, Cameroon’s, or Pakistan’s, or spying on an organization which weighs the vote of a dictatorship equal to that of a democracy, displays any lack of “committment to democracy”.

re the UN:

last i checked, this country was a charter member of the UN treaty, and the senate ratified it. I may think that the US Senate has as much to do with democracy as the Five Families, but in both cases them’s the rules.

re Old Europe:

before insulting the french, german and russians again, thorley, you really should include in your calculation the fact that THEY WERE RIGHT. Where the hell is the WMD? oh, and by the way, the US press consistently mis-reported the french position on invasion. the french supported reso. 1441 in the fall; they just claimed (rightly) that the UN inspectors were doing their work effectively and that there was no need to rush to war.

re stupid and naive:

congrats on figuring out the umlaut; so your spelling is just as precious and useless as your thinking.

Please note, for example, that the Bush admin is crawling back to the UN right now for assistance in election planning. I agree, asshole, that it’s not about merit. It’s about credibility.

You may think that the US has no need of international credibility. In that case you shouldn’t care what Ms. Gun did.

You’d be wrong, though. Despite your apparent Red-Dawn-inspired desires for america to stand alone, even the Bush admin. is now coming to understand the terrible impact of the loss of credibility. Witness, say, China telling us to pound sand w/ regard to N. Korea.

cheers,

Francis

This is extraordinary. The unanimous position of CT commentors appears to be that the UK government can do what it likes, including telling lies to gain support for a war and blackmailing friendly states, and the duty of anyone who witnesses this behaviour is to keep schtum about it. Even the self-styled “libertarians” appears to be in favour of a law whose main purpose is the protection of government against its citizens.

It’s not even 100% obvious that she has broken the law — presumably that is what the trial is there to do, biased as it may be.

But I agree dsquared that it is extraordinary the general (not unanimous) view that a foreign government (not even the UK government on the whole) can do what it want to other friendly countries and no-one should be allowed to say anything. Surely bugging them is illegal anyway?

d2 : It seems you are jumping to conclusions when you say commentators (including me) think that “the UK government can do what it likes, including telling lies to gain support for a war and blackmailing friendly states”. My comment was directed specifically at the behaviour of Ms. Gun, in relation to her leaking to the press information about eavesdropping on certain U.N. members. Nothing can be inferred, therefore, about what I (and other commentators) think about the U.K. government, or telling lies, or even blackmailing friendly states (since eavesdropping could be used for blackmailing, but need not – it could simply be to see if the other side was making promises, which could then be revealed…).

is your point that the only reason it is illegal is because there is a law that forbids it?

Well, I’d have thought that if there was no law against a thing then by definition it couldn’t be illegal. It could be immoral, or fattening, but that’s another matter…

1. If it makes me a “prick” to object to the veneration of someone who almost certainly committed a crime, and the implicit comparison of someone who was apparently made a political example of with someone who actually did something wrong, so be it.

2. Ms. Gun made a choice that she thought was morally correct. There is a price attached to that choice. To now say “oh, but I get to make that choice without any price because I thought I was right” seems a bit self-serving.

3. The reason Ms. Gun is being prosecuted is that it would harm US-British intelligence relations if US (or British) intelligence could willy-nilly reveal each other’s secrets. I assure you a hypothetical Ms. Gun in the U.S. would have suffered similar consequences had she, for example, revealed British strategy in gaining support for its intervention in the Falklands or in the isolation of Zimbabwe. The relationship between the NSA and GCHQ is a cornerstone of the “special relationship,” whether or not the governments involved like to admit it in public or not. (Without that relationship, NSA would have no compunction against spying on Britain, like it does against every other country on this planet not named “Australia.”)

4. All that said, if Ms. Gun were simply “disappeared,” imprisoned without trial, sentenced to death or life imprisonment, sent to Gitmo, exiled to St. Helena, or otherwise treated outside the norms of the rule of law, I would join your protests–with or without any “leftist” credentials to burnish.

Are we seriously arguing that a democratic government should not be allowed to keep anything secret?

I thought that the correct answer on this doctrine was better known than it apparently is, probably because my background is in central banking.

It is necessary from time to time for a central bank to act secretly — when it executes a devaluation of the currency, or when it provides emergency support for an illiquid bank. However, this is regarded (correctly) in the theory of central banking as a highly uncomfortable and antidemocratic state of affairs, which can only be tolerated on two conditions:

1. The secrecy should be kept for the minimum time possible – secret actions should be made public as soon as doing so is consistent with being able to carry them out.

2. Actions should only be carried out secretly if they are of a general type which the central bank is known to engage in from time to time.

So, it is known that central banks in general provide last-resort lending, carry out market operations, freeze accounts, etc, and so it is okay for them to do so, even though this can often only be done at all if done secretly. But if a central bank were to do something outside its vires, then it ought to be done publicly, so that everyone could judge whether this was an appropriate action to take.

Secret services have vires; there are kinds of actions which they are generally known to carry out. Spying on friendly nations in order to generate support for a motion in the UN is ultra those vires, and therefore shouldn’t be done.

Both points 1 and 2 seem reasonable to me. But it also seems clear that the length of time after which disclosure of a secret action is “consistent with being able to carry it out” is very different for spying than it is for central banking. Certainly Gun’s leaking of the memo before the Security Council vote was taken was inconsistent, for instance, with the NSA being able to carry out its intended action.

Okay, but its intended action was, you argue, not of a type in which intelligence agencies are known to engage in from time to time. Is this really true? If you asked Americans and British citizens if their intelligence agencies spied on “friendly” nations — more accurately, on the equivalent of non-aligned nations, since none of the countries mentioned are in formal alliances with the States — I’m far from convinced most would say that the agencies didn’t spy. It’s not, in any case, an open-and-shut question worthy of a loyalty oath. Now, if you add the proviso “in order to generate support for a motion in the UN,” most people might agree that was wrong, but even then I’m not sure.
Certainly people’s definition of #2 — that is, their idea of the kinds of general actions intelligence agencies can and should carry out from time to time — is justifiably much broader today than before 9/11.

The truth is, though, that this particular defense of Katharine Gun is a red herring. I don’t see any evidence that she leaked the memo because she thought it was in and of itself immoral that the U.S. was spying on friendly UN delegations. She leaked the memo because she thought the war on Iraq was immoral, and that therefore anything which made the war more likely was unacceptable (and anything that made it less likely was not).

What is interesting to me is that there is a rough correspondence between the Gun and Plame matters. The Plame leakers violated the law, in their opinion and that of their supporters, in service to a higher good and in opposition to an intelligence agency and agent acting badly. I happen to think that their motives were in reality more malign (or petty) and Ms. Gun’s more benign (or noble); but that simply is _not_ incontrovertible. What _is_ incontrovertible is that in both cases, a law intended to protect national security interests was violated by someone who (presumably) claims to have been morally justified in doing so (well, the Plame leakers aren’t making that argument, but their defenders are).

I am not prepared to let my political sympathies violate my intellectual consistency, nor—and far more importantly—assert that they subordinate the rule of law.

You know, in the real world, it is not unusual for various benign and noble interests to come into conflict. In my opinion, “Modestproposal” has it essentially correct. A leftist can correctly and consistently argue that she should be convicted of a crime, but that her punishment be very light. And the Plame leakers should also be convicted of a crime, but their punishment more severe.

(Without that relationship, NSA would have no compunction against spying on Britain, like it does against every other country on this planet not named “Australia.”)

Now who’s being naive?

Spying on friendly nations in order to generate support for a motion in the UN is ultra those vires, and therefore shouldn’t be done.

Sorta depends on what the spying is. If it’s capturing representatives and torturing them to reveal their secrets, I’d agree. If it’s acting on an overheard comment in the UN lunchroom, surely even you wouldn’t condemn that.

The notion that “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail” was fine for the 19th Century, but it’s rather out of date in the modern world. That’s not just an American view — that is a universal view. In fact, what prevents the countries who were the targets of this operation from doing the same to the United States is not their ethics, but their capabilities and our prevention and countermeasures.

Is there any suggestion that Ms. Gun tried to object through proper channels — that she went to her superiors and said, “We should try to persuade the Yanks not to do this because it’s ultra vires, not something we ‘good spooks’ should try to do”? I think not.

She’s a betrayer who knowingly broke the law and ought to be punished. Those who can’t see that are simply incredibly naive about the ways of the world.

She’s a betrayer who knowingly broke the law and ought to be punished. Those who can’t see that are simply incredibly naive about the ways of the world.

I wouldn’t go that far. But I do see naivete on the part of some—a _selective_ naivete that is felicitous to an ideologically motivated conclusion.

Keith, your argument there seems to rely so much on swallowing whole a ludicrously overgenerous speculation about the motives of the leakers that I find it hard to believe you’re being serious.

Daniel: I don’t accept that “overgenerous” explanation for the motives of the Plame leakers. But other people do. And other people interpret Gun’s motives in a way which you, no doubt, would find exceedingly ungenerous.

Perfect justice requires omniscience. Since I’m not persuaded that you or anyone else possesses such omniscience (and thus could offer dispensation of perfect justice), I’ll settle for the imperfect sort which requires at least a minimal amount of respect for law qua law.

Curtis LeMay, while he was head of Strategic Air Command, despaired that in an actual atomic war the President—by US law the only individual able to order the use of nuclear weapons—would actually have enough time to do so. So, he made his own seperate and secret arrangements with the the commander that ran the facility where the actual weapons were stored. LeMay also believed that a nuclear exchange with a sifficiently armed USSR would be disastrous to the US and urged a pre-emptive strike during the years before the USSR had built up a large arsenal. Indeed, he not only urged this, he used SAC planes, unknown to the President or the rest of the military, to fly over the USSR in order to provoke a response. SAC also overflew Cuba during the missile crisis, unknown to the President.

Now, if history had proven LeMay right in his paranoid fears, then history would also possibly endorse his actions. But I wouldn’t, and I certainly don’t. Because for every version of a LeMay that is indusputably in the right, there’s twenty others—like him—who would be in the wrong.

I have a certain admiration for LeMay—his courage of conviction and his ability to Get Things Done (see: Berlin Airlift)—but I think he should have been court-martialed. Even if he had been later proven right.

Yes…and, frankly, were I in a position responsible, I’d place nearly as much importance on spying on friends as I would spying on enemies.