New laws to punish whistle blowers

[TRUTH]

JOHN REID, the home secretary, is planning a new official secrets law to punish intelligence officers who blow the whistle on government policy by leaking secret information.

He wants longer jail sentences and the removal of a key legal defence of “necessity” for whistleblowers.

The crackdown is aimed at preventing cases such as that of Katharine Gun, a former translator at GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, who leaked a memo showing that in the months before the Iraq war in 2003 the Americans wanted GCHQ’s help in bugging the homes and offices of UN security council members.

The government dropped its case against her after she threatened to use the necessity defence that she broke the law to prevent a greater “crime” in the form of an invasion of Iraq.

Ministers are also concerned at the growing number of leaks of sensitive documents by dissident officials, including those relating to the MI5 investigation into the July 7 bombings.

It will be the first change to the official secrets legislation since 1989 when the government removed the right of whistleblowers to claim a defence of public interest.

Reid wants the bill to be included in this autumn’s Queen’s Speech so it can be brought into law during the next session of parliament.

The proposals could see the present maximum of two years in prison in the 1989 Official Secrets Act doubled to four.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2252720,00.html

[gypsum]

Another step in the wrong direction...

[Leiff]

4 years with one third remission perhaps some electronic tag time would be worth it for some really 'explosive' information!

[Eckyboy]

its true what they say. No matter how bad things are they can always get worse. It makes me so angry that the US and British government can hide things from us and then claim it is in the interests of National Security. Whatever happened to accountability?

[Annie]

I posted this in the articles section before I saw it here. Apologies.

The forces of darkness are getting rattled...

It is not mentioned here, but David Shayler was the person who won the legal defence of necessity during his trial - although he was not allowed to use it himself and never gets any credit for it.

Interestingly, the article on the front of the Sunday Times was longer than this website version, and mentioned David. However, all that he was credited with having said about MI5 were the files on politicians. No mention of the Gadaffi assassination plot - yet another example of false flag, state sponsored terrorism perpetrated against an oil rich Middle Eastern country. Hmmm.

Leiff, in terms of the electronic tagging, it may not be anywhere near as bad as being banged up in Belmarsh, as Dave was, but it's still pretty balls-aching. Doing it for a whole year would drive you daft!

Regards

Annie