THE
BUGGING OF TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS
FEB 4th 2008
Since there is
so much confusion over the recent case of the MP conversing with the
imprisoned terrorist suspect, I feel obliged to relate the facts.
1. Prisoners
have never enjoyed the same rights as free citizens. Their
conversations are routinely monitored, so that they cannot run their
criminal businesses just as well inside as outside with the added
privilege of free board and lodging, TV and the other amenities.
2, The 'Wilson
Doctrine' of MP/Constituent privilege does not apply in these
circumstances. *
See entry for Feb 21
3. The MP in
question is possibly upset because he did not realise this and told the
constituent in question that their conversation was completely private
and confidential.
4. The MP would
be obliged by law to report any criminal or terrorist intelligence he
gained during such a conversation in any case.
To arouse any
concerns here we have to imagine the case whereby the incarcerated man
is innocent, the conversation is about proving his innocence, and the
police listening in are corrupt. In that case we shall not get any
further in understanding what, if anything, should be done until the
entire content of the bugged conversation is revealed to a trusted
juducial individual or committee.
From the above
you will gather that the current points being made by Cameron, Davis et
al. is the usual load of wind and piss we are used to. There may be a
problem here, though I doubt it. If there is it is certainly nothing
they would have a clue about or know how to remedy.
Some further points:
Client-Lawyer conversations are historically privileged. This is an
important principle in law. However, when we are dealing with terrorism
and the planning of massive crimes against the state, it is absolutely
absurd to rely on historical traditions desingned to protecthe rights
of ordinary criminals. If the police need to protect the public, and
they suspect that a lawyer is colluding with someone capable and
willing to cause massive public damage, they should take steps to
gather intelligence by this means rather than e.g. some older classic
methods such as torture.
Of course it can be said that if the police gain knowledge of the
defence strategy and tactics, they can adjust their prosecution
strategy and tactics. This is a major characteristic of the adversarial
system. However, when we are dealing with terrorism the adversarial
system is itself absurd. There should be full disclosure to the defence
and to the prosecution even if this moves the procedure from the fully
adversarial towards the inquisitorial.
FEB 5th 2008
So now we come to the question of 'Interception evidence' and its
admissability in court. The security services wish to exclude it for
very good reasons. After a few cases it will become public knowledge
what the caabilities and what the weaknesses are in intercept
technology. We would get into very deep water as all sorts of technical
challenges dug deeper and deeper. In addition it could put security
personnel in more danger. A commission examining this has just reported
in favour of changing the status quo and making intercept evidence
admissible. The devil will lie in the detail, but the security services
will in my view avoid using it even if it is allowed. This may mean
that a new way of restraining or ridding the country of declared
terrorists has to be devised. That should not be impossible providing
we can dig the brains of some of our fossilised institutional big-wigs
out of their bumbling ignorance of the changing reaiities of the
globalised society.
FEB 6th: It seems the detail in
the new proposals have been well thought through, will satisfy the
needs of the security services, and are therefore likely to be adopted
in due course. Bear in mind that 'bugging', or monitoring a prisoner,
which was the subject that opened this file, is quite different from
'interception'.
FEB 9th
The legal heavyweights are now up and roaring about the lawyer-client
privilege and how if breached, then all trials ar mistrials, My dear
old buffers, you know all about the law but understand nothing about
terrorism. Our laws are not designed to deal with terrorism. They grew
up in a world that was born out of Judaeo-Christian history and simple
ideas of treason. But even then, when the state was at risk, the law
was always set aside - yes, set aside, There are those who deplore the
phrase 'War on Terror'. Indeed, at the moment George Bush introduced it
publicly it was a great mistake, equal to 'Axis of Evil', as the target
was mistaken by those who thought they were it but were not.
However, partly as a result, we now do have a war on terror. There is
no question now of letting it continue as a a game, with fairness
enough to allow the guilty to get off if they play a shrewder game than
the prosecution. The adversarial must give way to the inquisitrial and
the search for the facts, te truth, the real intentions. By so doing we
can also eliminate the abuse of power by the servants of the state
which also hide within the coverage of the adversarial system. This is
a game that has gone badly wrong.
Oh yes, some say, the terrorists will win because we will be denying
the very human rights and freedoms that we defend, and which they wish
to deny. Er... NO, actually. The lack of transparency in our legal
system neither protects the innocent or deals with the guilty. The
social Contract therefore fails and with it human rights and freedom.
So don't get over excited, or huff and puff with pompous legal
indignation. Let us just grow up.and realise we have have always much
to learn. In this case it is an old, old truth - that every philosophy
if taken to its ultimate conclusion will cause the seeds of its
destruction, ever within, to germinate. Thank goodness for that. The
alternative would be a stultifying creation to which there was a single
answer (e.g: 42), making the whole of existence pointless
FEBRUARY 21st 2008
I think I was perfectly correct in saying that the Wilson Doctrine did
not apply in the situation, even if the prison authorities had known he
was the prisoner's MP. But in addition, in this case, it turns out the
MP was visiting as an old friend of the prisoner and the prison
authorities had not identified him as an MP. Finally, he was not the
target. So the complaints made by David Davis and his claim that the
Prime Minister was a liar are triply absurd and he should apologise.
Instead of that he struggled through a disgraceful attempt on BBC Radio
4's News at 1pm today to defend his miserable behaviour. This man is,
as I have said often, not fit to be on the Tory front bench and never
has been.
nnnn