Is it OK for only the secret services to disobey the law

[pdq1]

Our government keeps insisting that we must abide by the court of law but behind their backs we are told the secret services have been involved in torture and now secret renditions. Do you have the feeling we are operating in parallel universes? It now turns out that maybe Jack Straw was instrumental in agreeing to rendition. So instead of pussyfooting about our whiter than white image should we come out and admit our failings?

[murraymints]

No but don't be so naive...we are better off not knowing what goes on in the name of security...did you watch the fixer ???

[Gromit]

The last Labour Government have much to answer for in regard to our conduct and actions in our foreign conflicts. From start to hopefully soon finish we slavishly followed US Foreign Policy, often to the detriment of our own interests. I hope Jack Straw gets everything he deserves if he did send a man to Gadaffi torturers.

[pdq1]

There has been talk for many years that Blair knew about renditions and the secret services cannot do anything without the consent of the Prime minister. So if the government is trying to portray itself as anything but white they are fooling not just you and me but the whole of the country.

Paying out these £1m compensation claims do nothing to eradicate the role that the government has been involved in.

With more honesty we could then deport the likes of Qatada without feeling we have to stick to this false reputation.

[Old_Geezer]

It's not ok, but the consequences to us if they obey every law would not be ok either. It's a case of having to live with the lesser of two evils for pragmatic reasons. What could possibly be gained by putting unilaterally ourselves in a poor light whilst every other country clings to its 'much better than we really are' image ?

[Gromit]

The much better than we really are attitude doesn't work though. It may please a domestic audience for a short time, but denying our mistakes often leads to far worse consequences.

Everytime a school, market or wedding is mistakenly bombed by US planes in Afghanistan, and the US at first deny it, then it makes the mission 10 times more difficult. A puts us in more danger.

[friedgreentomato]

Without the secret services we would not have won the 2nd WW - I for one are glad we have the SS.

[Old_Geezer]

Everyone markets themselves with a rosy image. Occasionally something comes to light.

[New Judge]

The people and organisations plotting terrorist activities against the UK and other western nations insist they are fighting a war. I'm happy to agree with that contention. So we should note that in war slightly different rules apply.

[youngmafbog]

If you think we can protect our Nation by going 100% by the rule book then thinkk again.

The hand-wringing liberals will bleat over their coffee in Islington but they have no concept of the consequences of not having secret services.

We need them but they perhaps need to be Governed by another set of rules. This may well be happening as it should not be known what the rules are or it would give our enemies (and the hand wringing liberals) knowledge of how we work.

[Zeuhl]

^^^

L O L

Perhaps youngmafbog should tell Oil of Ulay about the additional sales opportunities in Islington.

All that wringing must play havoc with people's hands

[Davethedog]

I don't understand this post, seriously. We are dealing with people who would kill you and yours in their beds, without thinking about it.

Whatever rules you play by in this world cannot be the same as ours. Its all very well to think of these things in isolation or retrospect but this isn't a novel its peoples lives and possibly the safty of this nation.

It reminds of those people who say during the trial of a householder who's killed a burgler "he shouldn't of done it".

Sometimes the realities of life are not as pleasent as you would like them to be.

[Gromit]

New Judge

There are no Slightly different rules, there are laws. If you break the law, then you are liable for prosecution, that applies to Jack Straw the same as it applies to you or me.

The case in question involves a Libyan Oppostion leader being captured by the CIA and handed to Gadaffi's henchmen. This was only possible with the help of the UK. He was then tortured. This was illegal under UK law. No different rules apply.

[Gromit]

Youngmafbog

Surprised to see you supporting Noo Labour in helping to suppress the Opposition to Gadaffi in Libya. Didn't have you down as a Gadaffi supporter.

[DTCwordfan]

May as well prosecute the Labour party leaders and Alex Salmond and his henchmen/woman over the release of Al Meghari. Due legal process was ignored, even if he was innocent. Just goes to the heart of how corrupt and morally bankrupt Blair, Brown and their cronies were - and many of them sit in the Labour seats of leadership today.....Frightening.

[Gromit]

Davethedog
// I don't understand this post, seriously. We are dealing with people who would kill you and yours in their beds, without thinking about it. //

No we are not. The case against Jack Straw is that he helped to hand a man opposed to Gadaffi's regime in Libya to Gadaffi's torturers. That was against British law and rightly so.

You are supporting an MP to break the law to help the Gadaffi regime. Is that really what you want?

[Gromit]

DTCrosswordfan

Al Meghari's release was lawful. Due legal process was not ignored.

It did however prevent Al Meghari's appeal from proceding and kept potentially embarrassing material secret.

[DTCwordfan]

It was immoral and he should have been released after a re-trial. Treasonable behaviour by the Labour party. Prosecute Blair and Brown - and while we are at it, do Brown as well for treason in his injudicious sale of our gold reserves (what is the delta now - over $12 bkn).

And they/you talk about Bush being a maniac - these two are just as mad.

[Gromit]

It was not unlawful for Brown to sell off the Gold. It was unlawful to be complicit in torture.

Equally, it was injudicious to flog our Gas, Electricity and Water assets off to foreigners for a knockdown price, but somehow, I don't suppose you will be calling Thatcher to account for that.

[DTCwordfan]

No, I don't as they continue to employ large numbers of folk in the UK and pay UK tax.

[New Judge]

Quite agree, Gromit, that the law is the law. Except during war where, as I maintain, slightly different rules apply. If not, there would be six hundred murder cases stemming from the Falklands conflict and many millions stemming from WW2. These people say they are at war with the west, so they cannot expect the same protection as they might be afforded if they were not.