Skip to comments.
Officer ‘leaked email to save lives’
ic Wales ^
| 11/27/2003
Posted on 11/27/2003 8:42:38 AM PST by dighton
A British intelligence officer charged with leaking a top-secret memo to the press has appeared in court.
Katharine Gun, 29, is charged under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act.
Mrs Gun, from Moor End Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire worked for the Government communications headquarters GCHQ as a translator at the security services main monitoring centre in Cheltenham.
It is claimed she leaked an email from American spies asking British counterparts to tap telephones.
Mrs Gun appeared in the dock at Bow Street Magistrates Court, central London only to confirm her name and address.
Ben Emmerson QC, representing Mrs Gun, said: We will be entering a not guilty plea. I shall make it clear that she does not dispute she is responsible for leaking an email, the subject of this charge.
Her defence will be her actions were justified by a defence of necessity. The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens.
Edward Brown, prosecuting, said the case raised some potentially very complex issues and legal questions. The court heard that there were issues over what instructions the defendant can give to her defence solicitors.
Mrs Gun was sacked from GCHQ in June. She was charged on November 13.
Senior district judge Timothy Workman granted unconditional bail to Mrs Gun until January 19 for a further appearance at Bow Street before the matter is transferred to Crown Court.
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: espionage; gchq; iraq; katharinegun; nsa; securitycouncil; treason; unitednations
1
posted on
11/27/2003 8:42:38 AM PST
by
dighton
To: dighton
I wish she were here so we could hang her.
To: dighton
She is a disgrace.
3
posted on
11/27/2003 9:03:06 AM PST
by
MEG33
To: dighton
Her defence will be her actions were justified by a defence of necessity. The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens. What a twisted person... she should be hung for endangering the lives of servicemen and civilians.
4
posted on
11/27/2003 9:05:51 AM PST
by
grimalkin
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: aculeus; general_re; BlueLancer; Poohbah; Catspaw; hellinahandcart; All
The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens.Sorry, not buying that as a defense or that as fact.
7
posted on
11/27/2003 9:18:04 AM PST
by
dighton
To: dighton
Whose lives, exactly, was it that were being "saved"?
Not the victims who otherwise would have suffered under a growing repression that would have been practiced by Saddam Hussein who had NOT been removed from power. Not the vast numbers of "soft" targets that would have otherwise been struck by terrorists not engaged in a futile attempt to defend what remains of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq.
Certainly, a number of soldiers have been engaged in these firefights, and occasional ambushes, and have died, with more maimed as a result of these confrontation. Some civilians have died or suffered casualties in the crossfire. Large numbers of irregular combatants have died in defense of a failed cause.
But what benefit would result in reversal of the sentence of doom that has been pronounced upon the Ba'athist regime of Iraq? Humbling of the US Bush Administration? And whom would that help? Anybody we should like?
To: dighton
prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizensThere is no telling how many lives she cost. This pig must do hard time for life if she is not executed.
To: dighton
Her defense will be her actions were justified by a defense of necessity. The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens.
Since when is faith a defense?
"I had conviction when I stabbed her to death, your honor. I felt I was doing the right thing. I am not guilty. I think I may have even saved lives."
There are so many flaws in this defense council's argument that he should just stay home when this case comes to trial. And the prosecutor had better show effort in the trial, and quit mumbling that half-assed "complex issue" blather.
10
posted on
11/27/2003 9:37:45 AM PST
by
APFel
To: Lancey Howard
This woman has no right to make a ministers, or more probably, a Prime Ministers decision.
Imagine the chaos if everyone in the chain of command or gov't could just decide to do as they please!
How many people in a Nation even have a big enough "picture" to justify their decision, three or four? The hubris here is unbelievable!
The only justifyible claim would be that routing this to the proper minister would have taken too long the damage was imminent and so she took matters into hand. AND IS CONTENT TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT! What do you want to bet that she wants to get off?
A PREDICTION::::As they lose traction and power this is just the beginning of the left's descent into rage. They will begin terrorist activities in America and Britian WITHIN three years. That's what they ALWAYS do. Remember, you read it here, or, as an intelligent, observant Conservative, you predicted it yourself recently!
11
posted on
11/27/2003 9:46:45 AM PST
by
TalBlack
("Tal, no song means anything without someone else...")
To: dighton
The facility she worked at is a main center for British Intelligence operations. Kinda like the equivalent to our NSA. Very hush hush.
The British Official Secrets Act once was very strictly enforced. Cases of its violation usually never made it to the press. Times do change. I expect a conviction;sentenced to 10 yrs and she will be out in 3-4. We'll see.
12
posted on
11/27/2003 10:01:36 AM PST
by
Khurkris
(Ranger On...)
To: dighton
The guy who did a pre-employment background check on her should be sacked as well!!!
13
posted on
11/27/2003 10:09:12 AM PST
by
Robert Drobot
(God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
To: All
14
posted on
11/27/2003 10:23:45 AM PST
by
dighton
To: grimalkin
Her defence will be her actions were justified by a defence of necessitySounds like a good defense to pursue in the Senate Intelligence committee memo leak.
To: dighton; aculeus; BlueLancer; Poohbah; Catspaw; hellinahandcart
The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens. Wellnow, there's a novel defense - "the ends justify the means". Might as well try to run the table if you're going to pull that one out of your dark and stinky place - no doubt releasing the e-mail also ended homelessness, cured cancer, and saved Christmas....
16
posted on
11/27/2003 8:01:04 PM PST
by
general_re
(Take away the elements in order of apparent non-importance.)
To: general_re; dighton; BlueLancer; Poohbah; Catspaw; hellinahandcart
This nitwit was under the influence ...
... of Harold Pinter and his sock puppet, former scientist Richard Dawkins.
17
posted on
11/27/2003 9:22:58 PM PST
by
aculeus
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson