Who ya gonna call?

Those Basters? …

Originally posted by The Register:

MPs launch probe of massive net snooping project

Unrealistic, disproportionate and misleading, experts say

By Chris Williams. Posted in Government, 17th June 2009 06:02 GMT

MPs and Lords will launch an investigation into the Home Office's £2bn plan to store details of every online communication… Representatives from all sides of both Houses will use the report as the starting point of a probe into the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) in July.

The LSE's academics today questioned whether the government had fully appreciated the legal and democratic implications of IMP. They said thousands of planned Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) probes to harvest data on web browsing, email, VoIP calls and instant messenger conversations from inside ISP networks would blur the legislative and ethical lines between communications data and communications interception.

In its consultation document on IMP, published after delays in April, the Home Office emphasised that the system would only collect information on who contacts whom, when, where and how. It would not, then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said, monitor the content of communications.

Anyone not know why the Honourable Whacky Jacqui is no longer "Home Secretary" (ie senior minister in charge of the secret police etc.?)

Furballs R us.
Let's hope her minions are masters of equivocation when they delve deep into the nation's psyche. If they are not unofficially doing so already.

As if.
We all know that corruption is only skin deep; especially in the secret passages.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Who ya gonna call?

  1. I have found myself feeling that when everyone is suspect it is sign of problems not with everyone, but the few.

  2. This is the whole article that appeared in Originally posted by The Guardian:

    Tony Blair was aware of the ­existence of a secret interrogation policy which ­effectively led to British citizens and others, being ­tortured during ­counter-terrorism investigations.The policy, devised in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, offered ­guidance to MI5 and MI6 officers ­questioning detainees in Afghanistan who they knew were being mistreated by the US military.British intelligence officers were given written instructions that they could not "be seen to condone" torture and that they must not "engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners".But they were also told they were not under any obligation to intervene to prevent detainees from being mistreated."Given that they are not within our ­custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this," the policy said.The policy almost certainly breaches international human rights law, according to Philippe Sands QC, one of the world's leading experts in the field, because it takes no account of Britain's obligations to avoid complicity in torture under the UN convention against torture.Despite this, the secret policy went on to underpin British intelligence's ­relationships with a number of foreign intelligence agencies which had become the UK's allies in the "war against terror".The policy was set out in written instructions sent to MI5 and MI6 officers in January 2002, which told them they might consider complaining to US officials about the mistreatment of detainees "if circumstances allow".Blair indicated his awareness of the existence of the policy in the middle of 2004, a few weeks after publication of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.It was around this time, David ­Miliband, the foreign secretary, told MPs on ­Tuesday, that the policy was changed, becoming more "comprehensive and formal".In a letter to the intelligence and ­security committee (ISC), the group of MPs and peers that provides political ­oversight of the UK's security and ­intelligence ­services, on May 24 2004, Blair said that rather than considering making a ­complaint, "UK intelligence personnel interviewing or witnessing the interviews of detainees are instructed to report if they believe detainees are being treated in an inhumane or degrading way".The Guardian has learned from a ­reliable source that MI5 officers are now instructed that if a detainee tells them that he or she is being tortured they should never return to question that person.It remains unclear what Blair knew of the policy's consequences. The Guardian has repeatedly asked him what role he played in approving the policy, whether he was aware that it had led to people being tortured, and whether he made any attempt to change it.His spokesman said: "It is completely untrue that Mr Blair has ever authorised the use of torture. He is opposed to it in all circumstances. Neither has he ever been complicit in the use of torture."For the record, also, Mr Blair believes that our security services do a superb job of protecting our country in difficult ­circumstances and that it is not surprising following the attacks of September 11, 2001 that there was a heightened sense of the dangers the country faced from terrorism. None of this amounts to condoning the use of torture."[Not if anyone bothered to ask me there wasn't. And I was being manipulated to believe it. So maybe they failed to convince us the same way the shambles in the top jobs in the USA singularly aided total disbelief.]When the Guardian pointed out to Blair that it had not suggested he had authorised the use of torture but had asked whether he had played any role in the approval of a policy that led to people being tortured, his spokesman replied:"Tony Blair does not condone torture, has never authorised it nor colluded in it at any time."But there is growing evidence of MI5's ­collusion in the torture of British ­terrorism suspects in Pakistan, where officers of the Inter-Services Intelligence ­directorate (ISI) an agency whose routine use of ­torture has been widely documented, were asked by MI5 to detain British ­citizens and put questions to them prior to an ­interrogation by MI5 officers.Two high court judges say they have seen "powerful evidence" of the torture of Binyam Mohamed, the British ­resident who returned from Guantánamo Bay in February, before he was questioned by an MI5 officer in May 2002.In a separate case, a court has heard that MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up a list of questions to be put to another man, Rangzieb Ahmed, who was detained by the ISI in August 2006, despite having reason to believe that he was in danger of being tortured.By the time Ahmed was deported to the UK after a lengthy period of unlawful detention three of his ­fingernails were missing.[Presumably they thought giving him time to regrow the others was enough?]Several other men have come forward to say they were questioned by British intelligence officers after suffering brutal torture at the hands of Pakistani agents and there have been similar allegations of British collusion in the torture of ­British citizens in Egypt, Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.While a small number of the victims were subsequently tried and convicted in the UK, most were released without charge.International concern about ­Britain's involvement in torture has been ­mounting for some time. In February Martin Scheinin, a UN special rapporteur on human rights, reported that British intelligence ­personnel had "interviewed detainees who were held incommunicado by the Pakistani ISI in so-called safe houses, where they were being tortured".Scheinin added that this "can be ­reasonably understood as implicitly condoning torture."[What else could it be understood as? Begging for it? Paying for it?]In March, after the Guardian disclosed the existence of the interrogation policy, and reported on the growing number of allegations of British collusion in torture, Gordon Brown announced that the policy was to be rewritten by the ISC.In what was seen at Westminster as an acknowledgement that the secret policy had been open to abuse, Brown also pledged that the rewritten policy would be made public and that a former appeal court judge would monitor the ­intelligence agencies' compliance with it, and report to the prime minister each year.[Once an year? WTF?]On Tuesday Miliband said the existing policy, as amended in 2004, would not be published.[No prizes for guessing why. Let's just hope some eagle eyed passenger spots it before the cleaning staff of London's public transport do.]But the discovery that Blair was aware of the secret interrogation policy appears certain to fuel the growing demand for an independent inquiry into aspects of the UK's role in torture and rendition.So far, those who have called for such an inquiry include the Conservative and Liberal ­Democrat leaders David ­Cameron and Nick Clegg;Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions;Lord ­Carlile of Berriew, the government's ­independent reviewer of counter-­terrorism ­legislation;Lord Howe, who was foreign secretary between 1983 and 1989 in the Thatcher government; andLord Guthrie, a former chief of defence staff.

    Thursday 18 June 2009Link working as of that date.

  3. If I am in the room with a 10 people I not the smartest guy. But I would ask the question that has not been talked about enough, what if someone tortured was innocent, and its happened. I think torture is abhorrent, it was how I was raised, I think the taking of innocent/civilian lives under any government name or religion is chicken shit. It has at time made me cringe to see what we have done or seem capable of.In the same sense, I am afraid of my own at times, but have decided that to sit quietly makes me guilty. I dont have all the answers, but I know where the answer is not, its not in torture, its not in prevention detention, its not in the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It the whole shebang, the corporate culture, the me before we that "brung us here".I Like capitalism, and free trade, but everything needs checks and balances, specially when it comes to money. We as a people, Failed to elect the right people or participate as we should with our civic duties.I had a mailer come through about the terrorists and it seemed to be just more of the same scare tactics, I dont buy it. here is my replyI disagree with this, we are on a daily basis, deluged with "terrorist" information. The freedoms we have lost in the quest to find terrorists is not worth the trade. It is in my mind a sham and a tool for a government to use against its own people. If we have anything to fear, its those whom propagate fear, or use religion as a tool or wrap themselves in a flag to send a message. I am more afraid of our elected officials than I am anything else, look at where we are. Look at what we have done. after all that, I probably missed the jist of your message, but that is like my. Anywho my thoughts

  4. Originally posted by Unasia:

    have decided that to sit quietly makes me guilty.I probably missed the gist of your message but that is like me.

    No, it's about right.I can't sit and listen to all this crap going on around us either. All this is my two-ha'porth.When there was a meltdown and it was fifty/fifty whether the Houses of Parliament aught to have a discussion first before going to war, Tory B Liar sent in the tanks on some whistled up terrrrst scare and fooled half of London.That probably gave impetus to silly buggers with suicidal tendencies to go the final step and blow up trains in Spain and London.That is not a concerted or well designed threat is obvious from the way things have gone since.And it wouldn't surprise me if there had been some ill-advised collusion with our dirty workers to incite and maybe even lead the peasants to their deaths.The problem with multi service participation is pointed out in the above. Even among services of one's own country they play politics. With the result that things go ignored or over reaction takes place.I believe in god and know that he is very much hands off at the moment. The problem is that I believe there is a mad scientist behind it all that is called Satan who is very much hands on at the moment.All because his time is running out.I try to steer clear of saying such things because they are anathema to most people but in my opinion there is no other possible explanation for all the concerted madness.Just as the White House did, our Cabinet -the inner quorum of shit stirrers AKA "The Government", formulated a get out of gaol card with their chosen advocates.But they will not release any documentation to prove that what they did was all quite legal and above board.All this reminds me of Kosovo where the Serbs committed one genocidal crime after another. Now it hurts to be a Serbian – the pariahs of the world.We know most of them were blind-sided but it still remains a fact that whether they could do something or not, nothing was done.No doubt if there had been any opposition the people involved would have ended up in the lime pits too. As would have happened in the USA were the front man not obviously a total incompetent.As is what I believe happened in Britain when Dr Kelly was murdered and the BBC taken over by the Torybloodyliars. It is still in the hands of those guilty men.Originally posted by Daily Mail in 2007:

    Weapons expert Dr David Kelly was assassinated, an MP claims today.Campaigning politician Norman Baker believes Dr Kelly, who exposed the Government's "sexed-up" Iraq dossier, was killed to stop him making further revelations about the lies that took Britain to war.He says the murderers may have been anti-Saddam Iraqis, and suggests the crime was covered up by elements within the British establishment to prevent a diplomatic crisis.The official Hutton Inquiry [which got the BBC leaders to compromise on the understanding Alastair Campbell Tory B Liar's spin doctor would leave office] into the death of Dr Kelly ruled in 2004 that he slashed one of his wrists with a garden knife and took an overdose after being "outed" as the mole who revealed the flawed argument for invading Iraq.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488662/Iraq-whistleblower-Dr-Kelly-WAS-murdered-silence-says-MP.htmlYou don't commit suicide at the apex of your career for fear you suspect you have done something silly that might lead to peace.And you don't do it with a garden knife AND drug overdoses. You use something nice like any doctor would know and any weapons inspector could get a sample of.I'd expect him to know about knives at least. A man in his position would know people to help him and to arrange a better outcome for his wife.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s