Well, if there was I new guy around and he refused to steal a getaway car while I and my friends were preparing to steal the crown jewels, I know which guy I would be suspicious of. Also if I knew an agent is allowed to steal cars but not to beat up people, I know what I would ask the new guy to do. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs is a different question but if you concluded that it is a net positive then there is at least this argument to not be too public about it.
The argument of the net gain is flawed. A hallmark of modern, free societies is that it's exactly not one for all, but the right and freedom of the individuum.
This is not true at all. All modern societies limit personal freedom in countless ways for the better of the entire society. And those limits are not flaws of the current systems, i.e. you will not get a better societies by abolishing them. There are still some instances where we should abolish limits on personal freedom for the better but this is certainly not the general case.
In all societies at all times there is some system to act against the interest of some people under some conditions. That is trivial. What differentiates modern free societies, then?
Modern free societies are characterized by a system of law that not only the weak must obey, but also the powerful. Everbodies basic rights are protected, even against the government.
Sure, we pay taxes, and cooperate by compromise in countless ways. However, that's not what we are talking about here, at all!
There is simply no way a government can lawfully kill a citizen to help some others, at least not in the EU, whatever the net gain may. That is just one obvious example of how the argument of the net gain is simply overruled by modern principles of basic human rights.
But it is not known which laws they are allowed to break and which not, you just mentioned killing people for the first time, neither I nor the article did this. What about breaking into houses to plant bugs? I would actually be surprised if they were not allowed to do this.
And I picked the example of beating someone up not totally at random, people went to court against the MI5 and MI6 because of their involvement with deportation of British citizens to Guantanamo [1] which may or may not turn out to be a worse fate than getting beaten up in a dark alley.
And last but not least, the licence to kill [2] seems to be an actual thing.
There's a really tough interview process. They make you plan a heists on a whiteboard. 5 rounds of technical interviews. Very merit based though. You don't even need a rap-sheet to get hired.
I'd personally want the guy that's good at not getting caught...
It's funny, back when I used to hang with, umm, "suspect" folks they'd look at me strange when I'd tell them the only time I've ever been in the back of a police car was after I crashed the SuperBeetle and got a ride from the investigating officer while transporting (minor quantities of) marijuana. Not enough street cred I suppose.
> if I knew an agent is allowed to steal cars but not to beat up people, I know what I would ask the new guy to do.
See my other comment. The thing about state actors is resource and information asymmetry. It can be really difficult to pick a "random person to beat up" who doesn't happen to be an undercover agent. Given there's enough of an interest.
It's a little like cheating at cards: it's much easier with two "strangers" working covertly together, than being one person. You can count the card and lose, and your partner just so happens to win...
I believe that this has been the case for some time, but given the context of an authoritarian government I am rather worried about this line of thinking by the government today.
I would prefer that they expand on exactly what they mean by criminal behaviour, because, even the police can engage in some criminal behaviours in their occupation as long as it's sanctioned and it has a limit.
I "know a guy" who worked in CID and it was the case they had more authority to do things unsanctioned. Much more than the standard investigators associated with the police were permitted without formal approval. I sincerely hope that is not the case when you go deeper into the secret services.
While the current UK government is second only to the US in providing that uncanny feeling of both despair and amusement, I would hesitate to call them "autocratic". Save yourself some rhetorical breathing room for when you need it.
Among other things, "autocratic" implies something of a firm grip on power. A quality the current UK government does not seem to have ("get a grip" is probably something Theresa May hears more often than she'd care to admit).
As much as they (current gov) are scarecly clutching to power. They have still managed to pass bills like the Investigatory Powers act and banned use of the open internet without ID (under the guise of blocking porn until the line owner provides an ID proving they're over 18)
I stand by my statement. They're authoritarian. Even if they are very desperately clutching to the power they need to keep pushing the authoritarian agenda.
This should not really come as a shock.
The internal and external state security apparatus of most countries almost certainly operate in a hazy gray area on the edges of the law.
Espionage is illegal in most if not all countries, so essentially anything you do outside of your borders is illegal. If agents from foreign country do the same things in your country that you ask your agents to do in foreign countries, you throw the former into jail and pay the later. It's an interesting philosophical topic.
"Universally symmetrical" ethical platforms fundamentally require shared and understood goals, which most often do not exist on an international scale. And even then, sometimes the shared goal of a strong boat requires you rock it with a little unfairness here and there. We want societies the won't sink in the face of a terrible storm, not because we only take them out on calm waters.
MI5 is internal security, MI6 is external. MI5 doing eg kidnapping, rendition and torture of British citizens on British soil would be a question of "are they allowed to commit such crimes for an alleged greater good?".
Not sure if you already realise that, but MI5 is the internal security service, so they don't do any espionage. Their normal operation isn't illegal by default. You might be thinking of MI6.
I would not have known that from the top of my head, but the comment I replied to mentions internal and external services and that is what I was referring to, not the article and the MI5 specifically.
Whilst discussing this with friends there was a feeling that MI5 certainly need some sort of 'special powers'. I don't see why those special powers should not be in the Act itself and agreed before parliament. For instance the 'Snoopers Charter' grants amazing powers to the security services, but parliament did agree it.
When the executive still feel the need to break the law in order to operate, it gives one a clear picture of their attitude to the rule of law
This isn't very dissimilar to being an undercover detective.
If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives.
While I agree its unsettling that government agents could be committing crimes legally, I can also see the argument for leniency if it helps them penetrate further into criminal enterprises and bring them down more effectively.
Apart from (parts of?) the US - most civilised countries have strong rules against entrapment. It's eg unlikely the first twin tower bomber could've been found guilty, as FBI initiated the plan and provided the explosives.
That doesn't mean police can't do "minor" entrapment in order to roll up a big case; it just means they can expect to sentence people for those acts.
As for a litmus test, I believe maiming or killing bystanders would qualify against most police officers (the trick, then is to make sure the "victim" isn't a carefully placed undercover asset...).
Now, assume a ring of human traffickers have the rape and killing of a victim as part of the initiation process: are there circumstances where we would condone branches of our government to participate in order to bring down such an organisation? I lean strongly towards no; but as has been seen from Japan under us administration to kfor in Kosovo - using war criminals and military/intelligence personell as part of heinous organised crime is a feature of our current world order. How do we fight it?
There certainly is! The bar is quite high though; it's not enough for a police officer to have given you an opportunity to commit a crime, they really have to have tricked someone into it who wouldn't reasonably be expected to normally commit a crime.
I was after a act addressing the issue directly (or revision of another act) or else a clear statute standing alone with a unencumbered commencement order.
I have had the debate while cuffed to a young officer gleefully chirping no such law exists, and I replied as pretty much you have to me.
This below is clarification and I believe supports my originally intended declaration, however I don't think I sufficiently eliminated ambiguity in lay terms from my wording, adequate to claim correctness absolute:
<quote>It is established case law that, while offering significant mitigation at sentence, there is no defence of entrapment in English law (R v Sang [1980] AC 402). However, it is also considered to be an abuse of court process for agents of the state to lure citizens into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. State-created entrapment of this sort will result in a stay of proceedings.</quote>
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapmen...
My statement of law which is now probably not visible was moderated down _after I replied to the response saying I was incorrect, therefore after I established in fact that there is no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK.
There's two parts in English law, statute and case law. Case law such as I cited in my clarification that supports my original comment, obviously is the outcome of a trial.
Because we use a case law system, rather than try to codify the precise outcomes in all events, the established case law is necessarily representative of only the similar cases.
This case law precedent I cited is very well established without any substantial challenge.
My citation says that entrapment as a rule only counts for [very strong] mitigation in sentencing, but otherwise is not a defense.
For the law to prohibit entrapment, then the fact of entrapment must itself be a complete defense to any crime discovered pursuant to entrapment.
Because you cannot rely on the fact of entrapment to acquit you of a crime consequently committed, there is therefore no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK.
If anything, the case law precedent set out in my citation above actually encourages the use of entrapment!
Will moderators please take note that the kind of erasure of the simple but deceptive arguments above actually risk false conceptions that could result in a reader's loss of liberty and worse. This is a dangerous revisionist moderation inconsiderate of human liberties and the quality and consistency of logic one expects of this commentariat. I am disinterested in the moderation in affect upon myself, but thoroughly disquieted by the danger of effect of so seemingly innocent a editorial complication.
Until reading that I hadn't been aware that questions had been asked in the Bundestag about Mark Kennedy; understandably Germany takes a view of both (a) secret police and (b) foreigners committing arson.
One of the most fascinating things (in a repulsive way) I've heard of intelligence agencies doing is keeping an abuse ring running so the participants can be blackmailed.
I’ll go a step further and say that I am strongly in favor of erring way on the side of less legal immunity for undercover agents. I don’t think a world with no undercover agents (especially domestic agents; foreign operatives is a bit of a different ballgame) sounds particularly horrible, but a world with domestic agents with significant immunity is pretty much the definition of dystopia.
>If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives.
They could always ask them to kill a random person. So, should that be allowed?
Yeah, that definitely happened on a number of occasions. I doubt the truth will ever come out, but there are various lists of various levels of plausibility. Both in NI where the security services were routinely shooting people (and in one case blew up a band) and on the mainland which is usually thought of as less of a lawless free-for-all.
"Duress of circumstances" is available as a defence for anybody accused of a crime. I would presume that would cover many cases of undercovers committing minor crimes to maintain their covers in threatening circumstances.
I'm not aware that it's ever been a real issue, eg. I'm not sure if there's any suggestion of Bob Lambert being prosecuted for his alleged involvement in firebombing Debenhams.
Edit: I'm a bit confused about what the actual legal implications of this "guidance" are. IIUC it's about guidance given to MI5 agents, as such I suppose in theory the legal implication is that if they commit "authorised" crimes they could argue in court that it's their employer's responsibility.
No, but the Met did pay nearly half a million quid to avoid going into the question of whether an undercover policeman sleeping with his target constituted rape.
I think, tbf, that was more about dodging the question of child support than rape. I don't think any of the women targeted by undercover police officers are pursuing rape cases.
>I don't think any of the women targeted by undercover police officers are pursuing rape cases.
Why wouldn't you think that?
In fact, they are doing exactly that: "11 women (...) are currently suing the police after being tricked into having sexual relationships with men later revealed to be undercover officers (...)".
Especially when the "women targeted by undercover police officers" are not some hardened terrorists living undercover themselves (who'd avoid going to courts at all costs), but people e.g. belonging to some environmental activists group or some left wing protesters, etc.
The idea of prosecuting for rape definitely came up, but English law defines "rape" too narrowly for deceiving someone into giving consent to count. Interestingly, there is one exception: deceiving someone about what your gender is in order to convince them to have sex with you, and there has even been a prosecution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
Put this recent news in the light of the coverup over ministerial child sexual abuse in the UK .. now they've got a very significant means of getting themselves out of that particular pickle, eh boys?
Quoting Matt Tait (former GCHQ) here: "Also worth remembering that "agent" here means "recruited source" and not "employee"" (https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/96997040775861862...), and further "This is kind of necessary, since being a member of a proscribed international terror organization is a crime, and were it not so, Mi5 would be unable to recruit sources inside them" and "And also worth noting it is guidelines on the use of sources who participate in criminality. It is not about the government directing sources to participate in criminality." The second-to-last paragraph of the article only makes sense using this reading: "The MI5 website says agents are “one of the most significant information gathering assets we have”, adding “intelligence from our agents is critical to keeping the UK safe”."
It seems the entire discussion here is based on a misunderstanding, the vast difference between what MI5 calls an "agent" and what the public understands when we hear "an MI5 agent", and thus misses the point by about a mile?
There's an interesting debate to be had about the questions posed by the article, it's just not what's being discussed here right now. For example, in Germany, an attempt to have the far-right ultra-nationalist NPD banned for being anti-constitutional in 2003 was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court because a large number of agents (called V-Männer in German) were active in the party leadership. This raised the question of whether some of the evidence against the party might actually be influenced by agents of German secret services. Since the secret services did not want to fully disclose their agents' identities and activities, the court found the case to be impossible to decide.
There is also the school of thougt where these agencies were created specifically to rule countries with the national government no more than a cover story.
The influence of one over the other and vis versa seems convincing.
I could tell you more but then I would have to kill you.
I've seen this line of reasoning quite frequently in the last few hours and am a tad suspicious.
Let's frame it this way: Can the police pay criminals to commit crime in order to arrest other people?
Here is a lovely example of my own wealthy first world country scamming one of the poorest nations on earth out of their oil reserves for a handsome profit. The man (Nick Warner) behind it all lives in luxury guarded by guns and the bureaucratic evil protecting him and his ilk. The minister at the time (Alexander Downer) afterwards went on to work for Woodside Petroleum, one of the biggest oil companies in the world who coincidentally was the main beneficiary of the shady deal.
Duplicity is a norm within the structures of the power elite. We, the people, don't like to ever admit it - it interrupts our comfortable lives - but both sides are regularly played by those who have the advantage of technological, legislative and bureaucratic power. Australia's imperial adventures pale in comparison with those of its allies in the 5-eyes nations, but its still just playing by the same rulebook of its cousins.
"Play both sides, for power." Now, the UK is freely admitting it does this.
58 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 92.3 ms ] threadIn all societies at all times there is some system to act against the interest of some people under some conditions. That is trivial. What differentiates modern free societies, then?
Modern free societies are characterized by a system of law that not only the weak must obey, but also the powerful. Everbodies basic rights are protected, even against the government.
Sure, we pay taxes, and cooperate by compromise in countless ways. However, that's not what we are talking about here, at all!
There is simply no way a government can lawfully kill a citizen to help some others, at least not in the EU, whatever the net gain may. That is just one obvious example of how the argument of the net gain is simply overruled by modern principles of basic human rights.
And I picked the example of beating someone up not totally at random, people went to court against the MI5 and MI6 because of their involvement with deportation of British citizens to Guantanamo [1] which may or may not turn out to be a worse fate than getting beaten up in a dark alley.
And last but not least, the licence to kill [2] seems to be an actual thing.
[1] http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_kill_(concept)
Doesn't necessarily make a society good (aka righteous).
I guess I'd suggest not considering crime as a profession.
I'd personally want the guy that's good at not getting caught...
It's funny, back when I used to hang with, umm, "suspect" folks they'd look at me strange when I'd tell them the only time I've ever been in the back of a police car was after I crashed the SuperBeetle and got a ride from the investigating officer while transporting (minor quantities of) marijuana. Not enough street cred I suppose.
See my other comment. The thing about state actors is resource and information asymmetry. It can be really difficult to pick a "random person to beat up" who doesn't happen to be an undercover agent. Given there's enough of an interest.
It's a little like cheating at cards: it's much easier with two "strangers" working covertly together, than being one person. You can count the card and lose, and your partner just so happens to win...
I would prefer that they expand on exactly what they mean by criminal behaviour, because, even the police can engage in some criminal behaviours in their occupation as long as it's sanctioned and it has a limit.
I "know a guy" who worked in CID and it was the case they had more authority to do things unsanctioned. Much more than the standard investigators associated with the police were permitted without formal approval. I sincerely hope that is not the case when you go deeper into the secret services.
Among other things, "autocratic" implies something of a firm grip on power. A quality the current UK government does not seem to have ("get a grip" is probably something Theresa May hears more often than she'd care to admit).
I stand by my statement. They're authoritarian. Even if they are very desperately clutching to the power they need to keep pushing the authoritarian agenda.
Widely entrenched Child-sex rings among the MP's, covered up in the name of 'national security'. Too damn right they're authoritarian.
- Doesn't sound so noble to me, honestly.
When the executive still feel the need to break the law in order to operate, it gives one a clear picture of their attitude to the rule of law
If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for undercover operatives.
While I agree its unsettling that government agents could be committing crimes legally, I can also see the argument for leniency if it helps them penetrate further into criminal enterprises and bring them down more effectively.
That doesn't mean police can't do "minor" entrapment in order to roll up a big case; it just means they can expect to sentence people for those acts.
As for a litmus test, I believe maiming or killing bystanders would qualify against most police officers (the trick, then is to make sure the "victim" isn't a carefully placed undercover asset...).
Now, assume a ring of human traffickers have the rape and killing of a victim as part of the initiation process: are there circumstances where we would condone branches of our government to participate in order to bring down such an organisation? I lean strongly towards no; but as has been seen from Japan under us administration to kfor in Kosovo - using war criminals and military/intelligence personell as part of heinous organised crime is a feature of our current world order. How do we fight it?
I was after a act addressing the issue directly (or revision of another act) or else a clear statute standing alone with a unencumbered commencement order.
I have had the debate while cuffed to a young officer gleefully chirping no such law exists, and I replied as pretty much you have to me.
This below is clarification and I believe supports my originally intended declaration, however I don't think I sufficiently eliminated ambiguity in lay terms from my wording, adequate to claim correctness absolute:
<quote>It is established case law that, while offering significant mitigation at sentence, there is no defence of entrapment in English law (R v Sang [1980] AC 402). However, it is also considered to be an abuse of court process for agents of the state to lure citizens into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. State-created entrapment of this sort will result in a stay of proceedings.</quote> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapmen...
There's two parts in English law, statute and case law. Case law such as I cited in my clarification that supports my original comment, obviously is the outcome of a trial.
Because we use a case law system, rather than try to codify the precise outcomes in all events, the established case law is necessarily representative of only the similar cases.
This case law precedent I cited is very well established without any substantial challenge.
My citation says that entrapment as a rule only counts for [very strong] mitigation in sentencing, but otherwise is not a defense.
For the law to prohibit entrapment, then the fact of entrapment must itself be a complete defense to any crime discovered pursuant to entrapment.
Because you cannot rely on the fact of entrapment to acquit you of a crime consequently committed, there is therefore no law prohibiting entrapment in the UK.
If anything, the case law precedent set out in my citation above actually encourages the use of entrapment!
Will moderators please take note that the kind of erasure of the simple but deceptive arguments above actually risk false conceptions that could result in a reader's loss of liberty and worse. This is a dangerous revisionist moderation inconsiderate of human liberties and the quality and consistency of logic one expects of this commentariat. I am disinterested in the moderation in affect upon myself, but thoroughly disquieted by the danger of effect of so seemingly innocent a editorial complication.
Edit: another recent scandal; is it OK for undercover police to have long-term sexual relations with the people they are informing on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio...
Until reading that I hadn't been aware that questions had been asked in the Bundestag about Mark Kennedy; understandably Germany takes a view of both (a) secret police and (b) foreigners committing arson.
The MI5 may have done that: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/belfast-boys...
They could always ask them to kill a random person. So, should that be allowed?
I'm not aware that it's ever been a real issue, eg. I'm not sure if there's any suggestion of Bob Lambert being prosecuted for his alleged involvement in firebombing Debenhams.
Edit: I'm a bit confused about what the actual legal implications of this "guidance" are. IIUC it's about guidance given to MI5 agents, as such I suppose in theory the legal implication is that if they commit "authorised" crimes they could argue in court that it's their employer's responsibility.
Why wouldn't you think that?
In fact, they are doing exactly that: "11 women (...) are currently suing the police after being tricked into having sexual relationships with men later revealed to be undercover officers (...)".
Especially when the "women targeted by undercover police officers" are not some hardened terrorists living undercover themselves (who'd avoid going to courts at all costs), but people e.g. belonging to some environmental activists group or some left wing protesters, etc.
Put this recent news in the light of the coverup over ministerial child sexual abuse in the UK .. now they've got a very significant means of getting themselves out of that particular pickle, eh boys?
It seems the entire discussion here is based on a misunderstanding, the vast difference between what MI5 calls an "agent" and what the public understands when we hear "an MI5 agent", and thus misses the point by about a mile?
There's an interesting debate to be had about the questions posed by the article, it's just not what's being discussed here right now. For example, in Germany, an attempt to have the far-right ultra-nationalist NPD banned for being anti-constitutional in 2003 was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court because a large number of agents (called V-Männer in German) were active in the party leadership. This raised the question of whether some of the evidence against the party might actually be influenced by agents of German secret services. Since the secret services did not want to fully disclose their agents' identities and activities, the court found the case to be impossible to decide.
The influence of one over the other and vis versa seems convincing.
I could tell you more but then I would have to kill you.
Let's frame it this way: Can the police pay criminals to commit crime in order to arrest other people?
Here is a lovely example of my own wealthy first world country scamming one of the poorest nations on earth out of their oil reserves for a handsome profit. The man (Nick Warner) behind it all lives in luxury guarded by guns and the bureaucratic evil protecting him and his ilk. The minister at the time (Alexander Downer) afterwards went on to work for Woodside Petroleum, one of the biggest oil companies in the world who coincidentally was the main beneficiary of the shady deal.
May history judge them all appropriately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–East_Timor_spying_sc...
"Play both sides, for power." Now, the UK is freely admitting it does this.