Category Archives: National Security

Britain, Defence, European Court, Government, Military, National Security

ECHR verdict for British troops on the battlefield…

BRITISH troops could be prevented from carrying out vital missions after an explosive human rights ruling.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP, said military commanders will be ‘living in fear’ of being prosecuted.

Mr Hammond believes our forces risk being reduced to Continental-style peacekeeping roles – which see some countries refuse to let their personnel go out after dark – after judges in Strasbourg at the European Court decreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies on the battlefield.

The Defence Secretary is understood to be so furious at the Supreme Court ruling that he is considering demanding a revocation – and believes it strengthens the case for Britain quitting the ECHR. Mr Hammond said:

… We can’t have troop commanders living in fear of how lawyers back in London might interpret their battlefield decisions that are vital to protecting our national security.

… There could be serious implications for our ability to work with international partners not bound by the ECHR.

If the ECHR ruling applies to personnel on operations it is feared that commanders may be reluctant to make decisions in the field that will then be second-guessed by lawyers sitting behind a desk in London. Commanders will not want to be tied up by health and safety rules that prevent troops patrolling at night or only with certain items of equipment.

Families of some British soldiers killed or injured fighting in Iraq have been given the go-ahead to bring compensation claims against the Government.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases of troops killed while driving Land Rovers could be brought under the ‘right to life’ enshrined in article two of the ECHR. This potentially outlaws future deployment of troops with outdated equipment.

It also ruled that families of soldiers killed by ‘friendly fire’ from Challenger tanks could sue for negligence.

The mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, said it meant soldiers could no longer be treated as ‘sub-human with no rights.’

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, a lawyer, and who seeks reform of human rights law, said:

… The Supreme Court ruling will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Afghanistan, said:

… We cannot allow a constricting health and safety culture to creep in and prevent the vital job our soldiers do.

COMMENT 

Is it still a matter of great shame to Britain’s political class that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were sent to fight and die without being properly equipped?

But, there is a dichotomy. While it is vital that ministers should be held to account, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that soldiers in warzones should, for the first time, be given protection under the Human Rights Act.

Doubtless, the judges felt that giving soldiers and their families the right to sue the Ministry of Defence would focus the minds of the Government and Army on minimising risk.

On the face of it, it appears that they have failed to accord due weight to the fact that military commanders are regularly tasked with making instant life-or-death decisions. Any fear of future litigation which might cause them to hesitate for even a moment could have disastrous consequences.

What is more, if the Defence Budget is drained by fighting vexatious claims brought by city lawyers, there will inevitably be less to spend on equipment and training.

The great fear of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is that the ruling could diminish Britain’s standing in the world, as our forces are reduced to that of a peacekeeping role. He understandably questions how we can continue to work side-by-side with our US allies, when they are not beholden to the same human rights edicts.

Standard
Britain, Government, Intelligence, National Security, United States

US spying programmes are being used by British spies to snoop on UK email accounts…

COVERT INTELLIGENCE GATHERING ON UK CITIZENS

British spies and intelligence agents have had access to a US government programme that monitors the web activity of millions of Britons.

Secret documents published suggest the US National Security Agency (NSA) has direct access to data held by internet giants including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube, Skype and Apple.

The documents – which appear to be slides from a training presentation for intelligence agents – suggest the agency can access email, photographs, social network information, chat records and other ‘stored data’ held by the companies, as part of its ‘Prism’ project.

They also suggest that the British government’s listening centre, GCHQ, has had access to the system since at least June 2010. During this period the project generated nearly 200 intelligence reports. It is unclear whether other agencies, such as MI5 and MI6, were also involved, meaning the true extent of the snooping could be higher.

A spokesperson for GCHQ said:

… We do not comment on intelligence matters… (but) our work is carried out in accordance with strict legal and policy framework.

Privacy campaigners warned that the revelations suggested the creation of a ‘Snooper’s Charter by the back door’. They come after a proposed plan to pay internet companies to collate user data from UK computers was dropped only last month in face of opposition from Conservative backbenchers and Liberal Democrats.

Labour has called on David Cameron to come clean to MPs on the extent of Britain’s role. Yvette Cooper MP, Shadow Home Secretary, said:

… In light of these reports, the Prime Minster should brief the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) on what ministers know and should ask the ISC to report on the UK’s relationship with the Prism programme, the nature of intelligence being gathered, the extent of UK oversight by ministers and others, and the level of safeguards and compliance with the law.

The Guardian, a London based newspaper, said it has obtained slides from a whistleblowing intelligence officer worried about invasions of privacy.

Reports by the newspaper and The Washington Post suggested the FBI and the NSA can tap directly into the central servers of nine leading internet companies.

But a number of them, including Google, Apple, Yahoo and Facebook denied that the government had “direct access” to their servers.

Microsoft said it does not voluntarily participate in any government data collection and only complies ‘with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers’.

Yet one slide appears to be a timeline of when the companies began to participate in Prism, starting with Microsoft in September 2007 and ending with Apple in October 2012.

According to the reports, Prism was established under President George W Bush in 2007 and has grown ‘exponentially’ under President Obama.

The Director of US National Intelligence said that the law ensures that only ‘non-US persons outside the US are targeted’, raising the likelihood that Britons are among those captured in its net.

Revelations about the snooping programme follow separate reports about the NSA being allowed to collect all telephone user data from Verizon, one of the largest telephone firms in the US, for three months.

Standard
Britain, China, National Security, Technology, United States

Is China spying on you through your broadband?

Members of Parliament on the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), Parliament’s intelligence watchdog, have said that China could be spying on British citizens and firms through its supply of broadband equipment to UK telecoms companies. MPs say they have serious concerns about the internet deals signed by BT and O2 with the Chinese telecoms firm Huawei.

A report delivered by the committee says that China could ‘intercept covertly or disrupt traffic passing through Huawei-supplied networks’ and adds that oversight of the firm in the UK is ‘feeble’ and suffers from the ‘absence of any strategy’.

Huawei is known to supply mobile handsets, routers and equipment in telephone exchanges and street cabinets to a string of British telecoms companies.

The scathing nature of the report led the Chancellor, George Osborne, to take the unusual step of issuing a statement in response to the ISCs findings, and has stressed the importance of Chinese investment in Britain.

Mr Osborne, clearly anticipating a diplomatic row, said:

… Inward investment is critical to generating UK jobs and growth. It is a personal priority of mine to increase trade links between the UK and China and I cannot emphasise enough that the UK is open to Chinese investment.

The MPs report even called for staff from the GCHQ listening agency to take over the running of Huawei’s cyber security evaluation centre which it built in Banbury, Oxfordshire.

Eight years ago, Huawei secured a contract with BT as part of the £2.5 billion super-fast broadband deal to supply two-thirds of British homes and companies by 2015. The Chinese firm has also signed deals with O2, TalkTalk and EverythingEverywhere.

National security concerns were sidelined in favour of money as the Chinese had managed to undercut local firms for the contracts.

Members of the ISC were ‘shocked’ that ministers were not even informed about the BT deal until a year after it was signed. Chairman of the committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said:

… Such a sensitive decision with potentially damaging implications should have been handed to ministers. A lack of clarity around procedures, responsibility and power means that national security issues have risked, and continue to risk, being overlooked.

Ahead of the report’s publication, members of the committee had warned that it would be heavily censored because of the Treasury and Number 10’s fears of scaring away Chinese investors – claims which have been denied by Downing Street.

Relations with China have been strained since the Prime Minister, David Cameron, agreed to meet the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, last year. Granting him an audience was seen by Beijing as a snub to China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

In its last annual report, the ISC said that a fifth of detected cyber-attacks against the UK were so sophisticated that they had to be state sponsored or part of an organised crime ring. China is often cited as one of the main perpetrators of state-sponsored cyber-attacks.

Huawei says it is ‘willing to work with all governments in a completely open and transparent manner to jointly reduce the risk of cyber security’.

In a statement issued by BT, the company says that security is at the heart of what it does and will continue to be so in the future. BT says that its testing regime enables the company to enjoy constructive relationships with many of its suppliers across the globe. BT has had dealings with Huawei since 2005.

WELCOMED BY BRITAIN, DAMNED BY U.S.

The mysterious Huawei company has repeatedly insisted that it has no connection to the Chinese state.

But claims persist that it has close links with the military and government, and could be helping to glean and gain information on foreign states and companies – accusations the firm strongly denies.

Despite security fears, the firm’s operations have largely been welcomed by the UK government.

It has had UK headquarters since 2001, and Huawei UK Enterprise Solutions – which currently has 650 employees in Britain – plans to double its workforce in the next few years. Last year, David Cameron welcomed its founder, Ren Zhengfei, a former officer of the People’s Liberation Army, to Downing Street.

At the time, the firm announced it planned to invest £1.3 billion in Britain, although it did not spell out any details.

While it has been welcomed in the UK, Huawei has had a frostier reception in America and Australia.

The Australian government prevented it from working on the country’s broadband network.

And a United States congressional intelligence committee report concluded that it posed a national security threat.

Standard