In 2003, the combined forces of the West, consisting of US, UK, Australia and Poland, began the war invasions in Iraq. Was the war right? Did the full fact about the reasons for the war get to the public? specified themes are addressed by the 2019 movie "The Dirty Game".
The communicative directed by South African-born Gavin Hood depicts the communicative of Katharine Gun, a British intelligence staff. The lead character was played by Keira Knightley. In the movie we will besides find specified celebrated actors as Oscar nominees for the function in Schindler's "Letter" and "English Patient" Ralph Fiennes, or known as Dr. Who – Matt Smith.
The action takes place between 2002 and 2003, in the run-up to the start of the Iraq War. Katharine and another staff of the British peculiar Services – Government Communications Agency (GCHQ – Government Communications Headquarters) – receive an email with amazing information.
The National safety Agency (NSA), an American intelligence agency, asked GCHQ to step up surveillance of members of the UN safety Council. In practice, this meant collecting compromising information to blackmail them.
The U.S. secret services wanted to get a adequate number of votes on the resolution on the war with Iraq.
Most of the employees have submitted to warrants. Some, initially shocked, yet shruged their arms and followed instructions. However, Katharine weapon could not accept specified manipulation.
Social Moods Before War
Everything indicated that there would be an invasion of the Persian Gulf. British and American politicians spoke publically on this issue, indicating that the start of armed action is rational.
Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of large Britain, pointed out that Saddam Hussein is in possession of mass demolition weapons—chemical, biological and atomic weapons. George W. Bush emphasized Saddam's relation with Al Qaeda after the September 11 terrorist attacks and talked about the request to defend America from the next blow. On the another hand, Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, argued that Iraq had failed to comply with global agreements relating to the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, thousands of people protested on the streets against starting another war.
Security agency analyst reveals manipulation of peculiar services
Katharine Gun, following a higher interest, decides to forward a copy of the email to the public. The memorandum publishes the paper “The Observer”. That's how Katharine violates the state secret bill.
I'm terrified that her agency is starting an investigation to detect a traitor. The disclosure of top-secret intelligence material will be treated as a treason of the state, for which respective years' imprisonment is threatened. Katharine, incapable to watch her innocent colleagues interrogate her, decides to plead guilty.
A lawyer assigned to you as an lawyer turns out to be an under-experienced lawyer who's been protecting petty street thieves so far. Seeing this, Katharine asks for legal assistance from a non-governmental organization. However, she is intimidated by her agency and prosecutor. She's being reproved that erstwhile she accepted a occupation offer at GCHQ, she signed a data safety agreement. So she was not allowed to talk about the leaked paper with either a detective or an lawyer or anyone else. specified setting up of the case practically prevents Katherine from defending herself, as further disclosure, even to her own defence attorney, would consequence in further accusations and a longer sentence. So it turns out that a individual acting against the system, although in the social interest, is completely helpless...
It's worth noting how hard it was to defend Katharine Gun. She was practically deprived of legal resources to prepare before the court hearing. This is frequently the case with people who are against established order.
Katharine's in custody. After a short time, she is released and then waits for a court proceeding for six months. NGO workers are not giving up. Their lawyers make arguments indicating that politicians deciding to attack Iraq had no right to wage war.
On the day of the hearing, all charges against Katharine are abruptly dropped. The prosecution organization considers that it does not see a real chance to win the court case. Lawyers defending Katharine prove that the war in Iraq was an illegal war.
