Panorama, SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0019707 via @bbciplayer
NO UK TROOPS ARE ABOVE THE LAW, CLAIMS THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER – WHEN THE BRITISH ARMY INCLUDING THE SAS MURDERED WITH IMPUNITY IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND
MI5 has been illegally allowing its informants to commit serious crimes, potentially including murder, kidnap and torture, for decades, a tribunal has heard.
Four human rights organisations are taking legal action against the UK Government over a policy they claim ‘purports to permit MI5 agents to participate in crime’ and effectively ‘immunises criminal conduct from prosecution’.
The groups argue the effect of the policy, which they say ‘has been in place since at least the 1990s’ and was ‘kept secret for decades’, is ‘for the executive to grant itself the power, in secret, to dispense with the criminal law enacted by Parliament’.
Privacy International, Reprieve, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre are asking the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to declare the policy unlawful and grant an injunction ‘restraining further unlawful conduct’.
At the start of a four-day hearing in London yesterday, Ben Jaffey QC said ‘the Security Service (MI5) are permitted under the policy to ‘authorise’ criminal conduct for a variety of purposes including any national security purpose, or maintaining the economic well-being of the United Kingdom’.
He added that ‘the agents in question are not officers of the Security Service, but they are ‘recruited and given directions by MI5’.
However, he said those MI5 officers could become criminally liable as an accessory.
Mr Jaffey said the issues raised by the case are ‘not hypothetical’, submitting that ‘in the past, authorisation of agent participation in criminality appears to have led to grave breaches of fundamental rights’.
He pointed to the 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, an attack later found to have involved collusion with the state, and the case of Freddie Scappaticci, ‘who is alleged to have been a senior member of the IRA and a security service agent working under the codename ‘Stakeknife”.
Mr Jaffey told the tribunal that the Government had ‘refused’ to confirm that such serious criminal offences ‘could never be lawfully sanctioned under their
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Government, said in written submissions that it would be ‘impossible’ for MI5 to operate without covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) ‘also known as agents’.
‘They are indispensable to the work of the Security Service, and thus to its ability to protect the public from the range of current threats, notably from terrorist attackers,’ Sir James submitted.
He added: ‘Given the covert nature of CHIS, and given the types of person with whom and entities with which they have relationships, they need to behave in certain ways and participate in certain activities.’
Sir James said that ‘this behaviour by CHIS is an inevitable and neccessary part of their ability to function as providers of vital life-saving intelligence, and in order to seek to protect their own lives and safety from the hostile, dangerous actors on whom they are providing intelligence’.
He submitted that MI5 ‘does not, and does not purport to, confer immunity from criminal liability’, adding: ‘A prosecution remains possible.’
Sir James concluded that ‘the underlying conduct – namely the participation in possible criminal activities by agents – was widely known and entirely obvious’, describing it as ‘an unavoidable part of their maintaining their cover and acquiring vital intelligence’.
The tribunal, led by IPT president Lord Justice Singh, is due to hear submissions over four days and is expected to reserve its judgment.
Follow this link to find out more: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2587810658117521&id=2496147257283862
With many thanks to the: Daily Mail and Lara Keay for the original story
Labour’s shadow chancellor claimed he had not seen or signed the controversial missive, but a picture has emerged of him holding the list of demands
John McDonnell, Labour’s shadow chancellor, called for MI5 and the UK’s armed police force to be scrapped in a controversial campaign letter.
A picture has emerged showing Mr McDonnell holding the letter earlier this year, despite claims that he had never seen or signed it.
It demands that special police squads – like those that hunt terror suspects – be disbanded, as well as the Monarchy and the House of Lords.
The letter, organised by The Socialist Network as part of their “Socialist Campaign For a Labour Victory” was also signed by a group of Labour-supporting unions.
Mr McDonnell was present at the meeting where the demands were drawn up, despite claims made by his spokesman that he had not seen the letter.
In a tweet accompanying a picture of him holding the list of demands Labour’s shadow chancellor said the campaign: “Is important for ensuring a clear program of socialist demands on a Labour government”.
Socialist Campaign
@SCLV_UK
“SCLV is important for ensuring a clear program of socialist demands on
a Labour government.” @johnmcdonnellMP
7:48 PM – Apr 2, 2015
Twitter Ads info and privacy
46 people are talking about this
And a report about the meeting where the letter was agreed claims Mr McDonnell gave a speech.
The Socialist Campaign report added: “John talked about developing a left policy agenda for the Labour Party, but also the need for a politically solid network of socialist activists to create a “head of steam” around it.
“We discussed the draft statement launching the SCLV and agreed to add demands on the vital issue of childcare.”
“Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police,” the letter states
He said: “Has it not come to something when the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is not sure what the police’s reaction should be when they are confronted by a Kalashnikov-waving terrorist?”
Labour MPs responded to the letter with fury, with one telling the Sun: “We are about half an inch away from meltdown”.
The letter also called for deportation of failed migrants to be scrapped, an end to tuition fees, high taxes for “the rich”, “free abortion on demand”, big cuts to military spending and Trident to be scrapped.
With many thanks to: The Telegraph and Kate McCann, Senior Political Correspondent for the original story
Theresa May says she will change human rights laws if they “get in the way” of tackling terror suspects.
She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects.
The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953.
Labour said the UK would not defeat terrorism “by ripping up basic rights”. The Lib Dems said it was a “cynical” move ahead of Thursday’s election.
Rival parties have been criticising the Conservatives over police cuts following the terror attacks in London and Manchester.
Live: Follow the latest developments in the campaign
Last push for votes in election campaign
Manifesto guide: What the parties are promising
Speaking after Saturday’s London attack, Mrs May said “enough is enough” and that “things need to change” in the terror fight.
Nick Clegg tells Today Theresa May’s comments about human rights laws aren’t supported by evidence
Addressing activists in Slough on Tuesday evening, she did not make any specific new policy proposals but said: “I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offences.
“I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it.”
Sources suggest if elected on Friday, Theresa May might consider ideas of curfews, controls on who people can visit and suspects’ access to communications.
More controversially,
Labour has immediately cried foul, claiming another manifesto U-turn, at almost the last minute of the campaign.
Tory sources deny that flatly, saying they would not pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights but instead, seek fresh derogations – essentially legal opt-outs.
Theresa May’s team say she is not, at this late stage, making up last-minute policy, but that the terror risk has changed so fast since the start of the election, that she wanted to make clear that if re-elected she is prepared to toughen the law.
Read more from Laura
In an interview with The Sun, Mrs May said she would also consider extending the time suspects could be held without charge to 28 days, after it was reduced to 14 days in 2011 under the coalition.
“We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they [the police and security services] think is necessary for us to do.”
What powers do the police have?
What new anti-terror powers could be used?
The Conservative manifesto committed the party to remaining in the European Convention on Human Rights – which is separate to the EU and which the UK helped to establish after World War Two – for the whole of the next Parliament.
Conservative sources say they would not withdraw from the ECHR but would seek temporary opt-outs called “derogations” from certain aspects.
This could possibly include Article 5 – which guarantees individuals’ rights to liberty and security and the right to a trial “within a reasonable time”, while protecting against unlawful arrest and detention.
During last year’s Conservative leadership campaign, Mrs May said she personally backed leaving the ECHR, saying it made it harder to deport terror suspects and criminals. But she later said she did not believe there was enough support in Parliament for the move.
‘Cynical’
The Conservatives have said they will reconsider the UK’s human rights legal framework after leaving the EU but that the 1998 Human Rights Act will remain in place until that time. The party has long proposed replacing it will a British Bill of Rights.
Sir Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions who is now Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, told Today the Human Rights Act “had not got “in the way of what we were doing” during his many years prosecuting serious crime.
He warned against “throwing away the very values that are at the heart of our democracy and everything we believe in”.
Media captionDamian Green tells Today it is possible to have derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights
Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said laws were already in place to deal with people, including foreign nationals, who presented a threat and that the government must always act “within the law”.
What is the European Convention of Human Rights?
Judges on the European Court of Human RightsImage copyrightECHR
The ECHR is a treaty between the 47 Council of Europe member states and is intended to protect the human rights of the 822 million people who live in its jurisdiction
All European states, except for Belarus, are members of the convention. It includes right to life, prohibition of torture, slavery and forced labour, and the right to a fair trial
Cases are heard in the European Court of Human Rights, which was established in 1959 in Strasbourg
The cases that European judges rule on include allegations of human rights abuses, discrimination, the improper conduct of trials and the mistreatment of prisoners
Former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said the PM was making a “very cynical” attempt to appeal to UKIP voters, telling the BBC “attacking the principles of human rights legislation is not the right way to keep us safe”.
Speaking on Today, he denounced the “explosive claim, free from any evidence, that the problem lies with human rights legislation”, saying the prime minister had a “track record” of making “ludicrous” claims about the impact of the laws.
He said ministers’ focus should be on the fact that one of the perpetrators of the London Bridge attacks had been on a Italian terror watchlist and whether this information had been properly shared and acted upon.
Linking Brexit to security, he added: “I think we need to enhance our use of those EU-wide databases which are proving to be the most sophisticated pool of information about would-be criminals.”
“It would be illegal for 27 other countries in the European Union to share data with us if we in the future, under Theresa May’s plans, rule out abiding by European Union data protection rules.”
UKIP has already backed extending pre-charge detention to 28 days. Their immigration spokesman Jon Bickley said the UK had to “stop being so tolerant of other people’s intolerance”.
With thanks to the: BBC
YOU probably didn’t notice and there’s no reason why you should, but the same day that a certain loyalist blogger and serial self-publicist was giving evidence to Stormont’s Nama inquiry the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) snuck out its policy paper on implementing the Stormont House Agreement.
Needless to say it got it got virtually no coverage in the tidal wave of sensational allegations made about the alleged recipients of money from the Cerberus deal. If you’ve ever wondered why the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) decided to draft the Stormont House Agreement Bill 2015 and bring it through Westminister rather than allow the clowns in the big house on the hill to legislate, once you read the policy paper all becomes clear. Quite simply the British government intends to control the Historical Inquires Unit (HIU), on what information it can have and what it can reveal. Anyone who beleives that the Policing Board will hold the HIU accountable is living in cloud-cuckoo land. “The secretary of state will have oversight of the HIU regarding reserved and excepted matters.” The UK government will prevent disclosure of any material or information ‘likely to prejudice national security (including information from the intelligence services)’. None of this material can be published ‘without the consent of the secretary of state’. Now as we all know from past experience, ‘likely to prejudice national security’ is whatever our proconsul for the time being decides is national security. When you look at the policy paper you see it begins with a questionable statement and continues to ignore all suggestions and recommendations made by interested parties, nationalist political parties, NGOs like the Committee for the Administration of Justice and university academics. In short, it’s a classic NIO document. It begins with the unconvincing claim that ‘the institutions have the needs of the victims and their families are at their heart’. No. The needs of secrecy in the Ministry of Defence, the NIO and the Home Office are at their heart. It has never been any different in the secretive British state.
For example it was only in 2002 after Freedom of Information requests that details of Special Branch investigation into Charles Stewart Parnell and other Irish MPs were released and even then only in restricted fashion. The names of informers (touts) and amounts paid are still secret 125 years after the fact. Academics at QUB, Sinn Féin (Shame Fein) politicians and the CAJ among others recommended that former RUC and RUC Special Branch personnel be not employed in the HIU partly because they may have been complicit in collusion or cover up or both. The great merit of the Historical Enquiries Team was that its personnel were seconded from English forces and we all know why. However, ignoring all that, ‘the bill does not prohibit the HIU from recruiting persons who have previously served in policing or security roles in the North of Ireland.’
So the HIU won’t work and the NIO has made sure it won’t work because it will only investigate and publish what the NIO allows it to invstigate and publish. Then there’s the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR). It’s modelled on the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains (ICLVR) which has worked extremely well. However, the NIO policy paper goes out of its way to make clear that while information given to the ICIR is inadmissible in court, if that information is obtained or can be obtained by other means then prosecution may follow.
That puts the kibosh on the ICIR because given the record of the PSNI over the past four years, starting with the Boston College fiasco (all hearsay) and continuing with their apparent trawling after the killing of Kevin McGuigan with almost a score of people arrested and released, who is going to risk giving information to the ICIR to pass to families? Inevitably individuals in the PSNI/RUC would be working backwards from the material a family recieved. In mitigation it has to be said on the basis of evidence so far, that’s only likely in the case of prominent Sinn Féin figures. Buried in the policy paper is our proconsul’s admission that ‘on some detailed questions covered in the bill, there is not yet a clear consensus between the five main North of Ireland parties. Work will continue to build consensus on remaining points of difference.’ Yeah right.
With many thanks to: Brian Feeny, for the origional story, The Irish News.
seachranaidhe1 
You must be logged in to post a comment.