David Shayler- whistleblower or traitor?

BillieTheBot · November 2002

David Shayler, the former MI5 agent who leaked state secrets to newspapers, has been jailed for six months for breaching the Official Secrets Act. The prosecution argued, amongst other things, that the lives of British agents had been compromised by Shayler's actions.

So should one always put country first, or raise the alarm about wrongdoings comitted by your government? On the Gaddafi issue alone, I think he was right to disclose the files (if it happens to be true). No country has the right of seeking regime change on another nation, least of all by attempting to assassinate its leader.

I think there was always going to be a guilty veredict. The government has too much at stake. If agents' lives were compromised what Shayler did was wrong. But as I said, we should not be engaging in dirty operations or assassinations of heads of state. On that issue I think he acted with the right motives.

Former Member · November 2002

Right motives, wrong way. He didn't need to make a public issue and get money for it. There are ways of doing it through channels.

Former Member · November 2002

I place more sanctity in the lives of British citizens than foreign ones, in the same way Americans look after their own, and the French, Germans e.t.c.
If someone carries out an action that threatens the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of lives of people from this country then they are traitors.

Former Member · November 2002

Re: David Shayler- whistleblower or traitor?

Originally posted by Aladdin
I think there was always going to be a guilty veredict. The government has too much at stake.

I think there was always going to be a guilty verdict because he broke the law. I really cannot see any defence there at all, his claim that he was putting the public interest first is irrelevant.

Former Member · November 2002

I think he did the right thing... Although I admit that in this case doing the right thing involved haveing to eventually go to prison.

If a country says "these are the things we are and are not allowed to do by law" and then breaks those rules they should be held accountable.

Unfortunatly the onyl way of doing this is to bring it to the public eye. Any other way would have been delt with internally, which effectivly means no-one is held responsible.

And as for accepting money, he was expecting to have to go on the run (he was in fear of his life, apparently... I believe that actually), so i don't hold his attempt at gaining some finaces against him.

Former Member · November 2002

He broke the law, and hes been puniched for it. However, the arguments about the 'public good' obviously were true, otherwise hed have been sent down for a lot longer.

The official channels are shite, DJP. No government is gonna admit it was wrong, not to anyone. The only way to do it is to SHOW to the media that they are wrong.

Oh, and Whowhere, will you stop banging on about national security? Please? A life is a life regardless of what nation you were randomly assigned to- those Iraqis you seem so happy to kill didnt CHOOSE to be Iraqis, same with Libyans, Afghans, etc. Youre a fucking stuck record- has Thatcher taken over your body and soul?

I wonder what your parents must be like for you to be so bigoted at such a young age. Are they BNP?

Former Member · November 2002

yup, maybe his motivation for revealing what he did was unstandable, but i'm afraid he broke the law doing it.

so, his morals wouldn't let him conceal the fairly dodgy things that have been done in our name...that's totally fair enough, but what did he expect? i think he'd have to have a blinkered view of the intelligence community to be surprised by this.

and his 'defence' was farcical. attempting to use Ian FLeming (and indirectly James Bond) as some sort of 'characterlwitness' against the Official Secrets Act was hairbrained. It's no good debating the small print of the OSA if you've already signed it. you're bound by that document.

so however good his motives were, the man's a fool for doing what he did. and the fact that he actually 'sold' his info just makes his defence look all the more idiotic.

Former Member · November 2002

Originally posted by Kermit
The official channels are shite, DJP. No government is gonna admit it was wrong, not to anyone. The only way to do it is to SHOW to the media that they are wrong.

To be fair, I don't know anything about the channels.

If, however, it's being released in the public good, and that's his motive, then he shouldn't have received money. Simple.

Former Member · November 2002

Originally posted by Kermit

The official channels are shite, DJP. No government is gonna admit it was wrong, not to anyone. The only way to do it is to SHOW to the media that they are wrong.

Governments have.

Former Member · November 2002

I agree with Kermit on all his points except the one that Greeny pointed out, but I still believe he was right to go public because though governments sometimes admit wrongdoing it is pretty rare............

Former Member · November 2002

Greenhat
Governments have.

I've learned by this point that you are pretty good at supplying sources when asked... but i'm still asking.

Specifically for the UK government, but i'll settle for anything where the gov. or gov. agancy has admitted breaking major laws or commiting immoral acts when there was no media pressure for them to do so.

Like i say, i am expecting an answer.

Former Member · November 2002

In the case of the UK government, it's actually pretty easy. The government admitted to at least some of the moles that the Russians had in the Intelligence services when they could have hidden them away. I'm not going to bother to search up links, any decent history of the Intelligence services will have the information.

I also think you will find it was the Government that prosecuted and admitted to the massacre of a village in India.

David Shayler- whistleblower or traitor?

Comments