Category Archives: National Security

Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, National Security, Politics, Society

Secret courts: The need to balance security with individual freedom…

(From the archives) Originally posted on April 4, 2012 by markdowe

BALANCING SECURITY AND LIBERTY

Keeping citizens safe and free is the primary role of the state. In attempting to achieve this it must properly balance the requirements of national security with the principles of liberty. In Britain, this tension runs like a thread throughout its history. Over the centuries, the executive has sought to arrogate further powers to itself – usually in the name of protecting the people – while Parliament and the judiciary have acted as a check on its presumption. Invariably, parties in opposition believe the government of the day is acting in an illiberal fashion; yet when they take office, they discover that achieving the right balance is harder than they imagined.

When in opposition, the leaders of the two parties now making up the Coalition were vehemently critical of Labour’s plans for a substantial extension of the state’s surveillance powers. But having flip-flopped, the Conservative-LibDem coalition are now making precisely the same supportive arguments as their predecessors. The problem with this kind of volte-face is that it erodes public trust in government, and makes it harder for ministers to do anything in the name of security without being denounced for their illiberal instincts. This is one reason why the Government’s proposals for ‘secret courts’ have received such a sceptical, if not hostile, reception. In a report published today the joint parliamentary committee on human rights adds its criticism, saying that plans outlined in a Green Paper last year to hear some civil actions involving the security and intelligence services behind closed doors are based on ‘spurious assumptions’ and are ‘inherently unfair’.

The Government is seeking to extend the so-called evidence procedures following the claims for damages brought by Binyam Mohamed and others, who alleged that Britain had ben complicit in their mistreatment whilst in Guantanamo Bay. Rather than disclose information that might damage national security, the Government withdrew from the action and paid substantial compensation. Under plans put forward by the Coalition, a judge would see the evidence and hear arguments from special advocates with appropriate clearance. However, no one else – including the plaintiffs – would be entitled to know what was being discussed. This should go without saying that this is not open justice. The question, though, is whether it is justified.

On balance perhaps it is – so long as these procedures are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and not at all in inquests. There are times when the national interest requires secrecy; it would be naïve to pretend otherwise. But Parliament must ensure that the law is properly framed to balance the requirements of fairness and security.

Standard
Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

Britain’s Military and the 2015 Defence Review…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 23, 2013 by markdowe

 2015 SECURITY & DEFENCE REVIEW

Intro:-

David Cameron should use the next defence review in 2015 to develop a more ambitious strategy that builds on the unrivalled skills of our Armed Forces. Give the Armed Forces the support they need

Following the hostage crisis in Algeria and Britain’s support for French intervention in Mali, David Cameron warned the House of Commons on Monday that this country faces an existential threat from al-Qaeda and its affiliates: we must steel ourselves, he said, for a “generational struggle” that could last for decades. Yesterday, the Government announced the latest tranche of military cuts, with 5,300 jobs to go in the Army, many through compulsory redundancy. The Ministry of Defence also confirmed that soldiers serving in Afghanistan are likely to be sacked when the fourth and final round of cuts is implemented in a year or so.

Such infelicitous timing has served to raise renewed doubts about the extent to which the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review can meet the challenges outlined by the Prime Minister. When he published that review, Mr Cameron insisted it was not simply a cost-cutting exercise, but was about “taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead”. That is not how it is working out. As he has shown in Mali and in Libya, Mr Cameron is prepared to intervene militarily in distant conflicts if he deems it to be in Britain’s national interest. Yet he is reluctant to will the means. Many analysts have long argued that to protect any government budget is a mistake at a time when spending needs to be reined in everywhere – but to safeguard departments such as health and international development while leaving defence to face the axe is positively perverse. The same sentiments were expressed yesterday by Lord West, the former security minister.

Our military clout is one of the reasons this country punches above its weight globally. The values we espouse as a mature liberal democracy are widely admired, and the fact that we are ready to fight for them if necessary is important. But as General Stanley McChrystal, America’s former commander in Afghanistan has previously warned, Britain will be shut out of key decisions if it does not maintain a credible capability.

Mr Cameron cannot have it both ways. Either he must restrain his ambitions and accept that Britain is destined to become just another middle-ranking European power, or he should use the next defence review in 2015 to develop a more ambitious strategy that builds on the unrivalled skills of our Armed Forces. We should favour the second course. Britain is in danger of losing the ability to fight alone – without ever having had a proper discussion about whether that is something we can or should live with. In a dangerous world, that leaves us ill-prepared to cope with the unexpected.

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Society, Terrorism

The reintroduction of treason laws is no solution in dealing with Islamic State terrorists…

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE THREAT OF IS ATTACKS ON THE STREETS OF BRITAIN

 The recent disclosure by Britain’s intelligence and counter-terrorism chiefs that an ‘exceptionally high’ number of terror plots by British citizens against Britain’s people and institutions are being investigated should chill everybody.

Such reports are no-doubt alarming, but does it justify, as one senior government minister has suggested, that those who accused of planning terrorist acts are prosecuted under the laws of treason?

We should need no reminder of the type of terrorist threat we are now faced with. It is one unlike any that Britain and the rest of the western world have so far faced, with barbarous killings and beheadings staged live on social media by Islamic State, the extreme fundamentalist sect against which war is now being waged in Syria and Iraq. Some of the suspects implicated in the terror cases which have gone to court are people who have returned to Britain after being trained in merciless terror tactics by IS – people who seem clearly intent on putting into practice what they have learned at terrorist training camps and madrassas while in the Middle East.

As many as 2,000 young British Muslims, including about 60 young women, have been radicalised by what they have learned from extremist preaching over the internet. After heeding the call of IS to wage jihad many have headed to the Middle East in pursuit of establishing an Islamic caliphate. A few have been sickened by their experiences there, but far too many have not.

We should not underestimate either that many recruits to the IS cause may also have taken up their methods without ever having left Britain’s shores, as well as those who may have been recruited and indoctrinated by those Islamists returning. It seems only too real and likely that the dreadful trademark of IS, the ghastly beheadings, along with shootings and bombings, is repeated on British streets.

In responding to this challenge Britain clearly needs to be ready. Counter-terror officers are already under severe strain as they attempt to monitor every conceivable avenue in foiling an attack. If more resources need to be allocated, either by training additional staff or by acquiring better equipment and technology they need, then so be it. National security and the safety of British citizens must rank high on the government’s agenda.

But what use would it serve, as Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary has suggested, for those caught planning such offences to be charged under treason laws? These are laws which date back some 600 years and which were last used more than half a century ago to prosecute Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce), who became notorious as a Nazi propagandist during the Second World War.

If such laws were reintroduced they would hardly serve as a deterrent. Treason is not punishable in the UK by the death penalty because that was abolished in 1965, but rather by a sentence of up to life imprisonment (the same as for murder). For any committed jihadist, a charge of treason to a state, for which they have a stated aim in destroying, is hardly likely to make them think twice.

Mr Hammond’s mere mention of reintroducing treason laws looks like a sign of panic amongst the political elite who have no clear idea of how to handle this particular threat within existing legal and moral boundaries.

A firm resolve and necessary resources are needed, which might also include the tightening of borders and entry points to the UK. For those seeking to gain access to Britain by harming us the tightening of security at air and seaport terminals should be underpinning all other aspects of national security.

Standard