French website interviews the spy who tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq

A French website interviewed the spy Catherine Gunn, who in March 2003 tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq, and asked: Was she a traitor or a heroine? It is a question posed about her story before being asked about the stories of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, when she made the decision - and she was not yet thirty - that would have turned her life upside down, but she failed to turn the world around as she had hoped.

The French website LCI published a meeting with the reporter Martin Bright, who was the first to publish the story, and with the former employee of the British electronic intelligence agency Catherine Gunn, who decided to send to the press a very secret note from the National Security Agency, in which the United States requests the United Kingdom Help gather information for some members of the UN Security Council to force them to vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

The previous translated message in the British Intelligence Service reached the hand of the journalist Martin Bright, who published the exclusive information in the newspaper "The Observer", but without this information having the required effect, because the war in Iraq began a few days later, with what we know of the consequences.

Unusual law
Following this letter, Catherine Gunn was charged under the Official Secrets Act, before charges were dropped the following year.

The film produced an impressive and well-documented film about her story, in which Kira Knightley played the role of the reporter.

Gunn said that what she did was what she believed she should do, and that she had a strong case to prove this, noting that she had lived through a harsh experience, because who falls under the "official secrets law" has no possible defense and no legal means to defend himself, "It is a terrible situation."

The spy considered it difficult to persuade an organization like the National Security Agency of the consequences of reporting its government’s violations, although that would be beneficial to her if she did because it would give a positive impression of her role.

Gunn pointed out that the "Official Secrets Act" from which the film was taken and subjected, was an unusual law that was applied in the beginning of the twentieth century to control Irish terrorism, because it is unusual in British law that there is no defense of the public interest.

Official secrets
Under this law, you cannot say "I did this because it was the right thing to do", nor do you say "I did it because the public had the right to know", because violating this "official secrets" law is a crime in itself.

What Gann did was to unload and leak a document of the intelligence apparatus, and she admitted that, and this is a crime, and there is no defense that can be presented to it, according to the "Official Secrets Law", and even after dropping the cases brought against it, nothing changed and the law remained the same, according to the site.

Catherine Gunn said that the attorney general decided that he could not pursue her case "because I would have demanded a case of necessity (which is permission to take illegal action to avoid a greater threat, namely the war in Iraq) that had never been sought before in such cases, but it could have been Speak if the judge so authorizes. "

Typing error
When asked why her story was not well known as the stories of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden spread, Gunn said that the reason might be a typographical error by one of the Observer employees by replacing the letter Z with the American word with the letter Sein to match the British spelling, which caused the American blogger Drage Report to question the authenticity of the memo. Although all the American media contacted Martin Bright.

Martin Bright saw that the way journalists work changed, as the WikiLeaks and Panama Papers cases showed that there is another way to work, in which British, American and European journalists collaborate on major topics, expressing his regret that they did not think about it, “maybe if we publish information at the same time in The New York Times, Liberation and Le Monde would have been completely different. "

And when the movie asks who the employee’s loyalty is if his country is not sincere with its citizens, Gann said she hadn't thought about it, and that her concern for her was a matter of imminent war coming, and just ending this terrible series of events.

She explained that the memo seemed "highly explosive" because it showed the illegal manipulation of diplomatic methods at the United Nations, and showed how the United Kingdom and the United States intelligence services had planned to blackmail diplomats.

Deception and obstruction
"What caught my attention is that they were unable to get what they wanted in a legitimate way, so they tried to do it in this disingenuous and illegal way. I tried to stop them and block this work."

When asked whether they participated in the movie that tells the story, Martin Bright said that they had already been involved from the start in a different way on the subject, after director Gavin Hood assured them that the script and the movie's work would be as similar as possible to reality, and therefore "what will appear on the screen is very close to what happened Gunn was a consultant while filming the scenes of the intelligence service, and I was a counselor to film what I spoke in the newspaper. "

Speaking to the site, Bright said that this film is above all an entertainment, not a documentary, and it is important because it reminds a story that is almost forgotten in the UK, and she talks about the concept of integrity, where a young woman is determined not to surrender despite all the pressure she tries to prevent from Tell the truth.

Upon noticing the site that the American President is lying today as the British Prime Minister lied yesterday as if nothing has changed, Gan said that if people realize that these things started in 2003, they will be able to understand the problems better today.