I didn't want to drone on yet again on the subject of security measures versus individual liberty, really I didn't, so I blame that Lord Carlile! Lord who? I hear you mutter! No, I hadn't heard of him either until I saw him on Sky News this morning. He is, I suggest, a perfect example of the exception that does not disprove the general rule. That rule, I sh0uld make clear, is the one that states that all Lib-Dems are brain-dead plankton! On the basis of a three or four minute interview - oh yes, it doesn't take an old hand like me long to judge the cut of a fella's jib (whatever a 'jib' is) - I would say that Lord Carlile, a Lib-Dem, himself, has more brain cells in his toes than Cameron and Clegg together have in their silly noodles.
No-one knows what the government have in mind (assuming that they actually possess one) in regard to secret intelligence being used in trials of suspected terrorists because they haven't bothered to tell us, thus allowing the media to run wild with this or that speculation. However, as Carlile pointed out, there is a real problem to be solved. Suppose you have a terrorist gang coming up in court accused of plotting an atrocity. There are two main reasons why you have been able to catch them. The first is that you have a source who is part of the community from which they are recruited. He has risked his life to provide you with the information. Also, he has the connections to possibly provide you with further information on another gang. Secondly, having broken their codes you have signals intercepts to a foreign power who is helping the gang in their planning. Other than that , you have nothing because as yet they have not broken the law or at least, you can't prove they have.
The question is simple but deadly. Do you blow your sources to prove their guilt or not? If you do not, they will go free and probably sue the government (in effect, you and me) for huge amounts of compensation. You cannot even disclose the sources of information to the defence team because they will not necessarily be trust-worthy.
So there's the problem - and the answer is . . . ?
In the meantime, I am starting a 'Carlile for Prime Minister' campaign!
I can see where this is heading, and my answer is this: the price you are proposing we pay is too high for the benefit.
Risks can be accepted as well as mitigated; this one ought to be.
I refer you to the famous Ben Franklin quote about security and freedom.
I also give you a comment by Michael Portillo which seems relevant: "I having been in government have every reason for believing that the government routinely abuses the powers it has. It's not a matter of the last resort, it's the first resort. It isn't something that happens exceptionally, it happens all the time."
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Wednesday, 04 April 2012 at 12:42
Fair enough, Andrew, so you would let them go and pay them compensation.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 04 April 2012 at 13:00
Better to leave the court system unsullied and just quietly bump the buggers off.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, 04 April 2012 at 13:49
Problem is, DM, that '007' is the old boy shuffling ahead of me in the queue in the Post Office for his Old Age Pension!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 04 April 2012 at 15:30