Michael Perelman asks:
Does anyone know about this or is it just conspiracy fodder?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061258269.html
The Age (Melbourne) October 10 2002
Media gag on alleged plot to kill Gaddafi
By Paul Daley
"Mr Shayler - a 36-year-old
former MI5 officer who is accused of
disclosing government secrets to
the media and in a book"
By bringing this charge, the British Government
is in fact admitting the truth of the allegation
London – The British media have been gagged from reporting sensational
courtroom evidence of former MI5 spy David Shayler, including his
alleged
proof that the British secret service paid $270,000 for al Qaeda
terrorists
to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 1986.
In its efforts to contain Mr Shayler's allegations to the privacy of the
court, the government has even stopped the media from reporting its
successful attempt to win a gag order.
The decision by an Old Bailey judge to stop the media from reporting
parts
of Mr Shayler's evidence came on Monday after two senior ministers,
David
Blunkett and Jack Straw, signed Public Interest Immunity certificates.
The certificates, which were submitted to the court, insisted that the
media
and the public leave the court if the activities of the security and
intelligence agencies were raised by the defence.
The then Labour opposition strenuously opposed the Tory government's use
of
the certificates during the arms-to-Iraq prosecution in the early '90s.
Some
guilty verdicts were subsequently overturned on appeal because the
defence
successfully argued that it had been deprived of relevant information.
When such certificates are issued, it is standard practice for the judge
to
read the applications and publicly hear the arguments for and against a
gagging order, before ruling. But in the case of Mr Shayler - a
36-year-old
former MI5 officer who is accused of disclosing government secrets to
the
media and in a book - the government wanted the judge, Justice Alan
Moses,
to consider the application in private.
The British media widely reported on Monday that lawyers acting for Mr
Shayler had accused the government of trying to "intimidate" Justice
Moses.
But on Tuesday the newspapers - many of which had mounted their own
legal
case against the application of the certificates - reported simply that
the
court had heard legal arguments relating to Mr Shayler's trial. "The
judge
ruled that they (the legal arguments) cannot be reported," The Guardian
reported.
Although Mr Shayler's jury trial is expected to begin next week in the
Old
Bailey, any evidence relating to sensitive security or intelligence
matters
will be kept private. After the judge's ruling on Monday, several
articles
detailing Mr Shayler's anticipated evidence - and the government's
efforts
to keep it secret - were withdrawn from newspaper websites across the
country.
It is believed the government successfully applied to have parts of the
trial heard in camera. This applies to evidence on "sensitive
operational
techniques of the security and intelligence services".
It is also believed that the court agreed to keep the identities of MI5
agents secret and to allow them to give evidence from behind screens.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
