Sun, Jun 30, 2013 - Page 9 News List

Can states that spy on their people be trusted to protect them?

By George Monbiot  /  The Guardian, LONDON

“If you are a law-abiding citizen of this country, going about your business and your personal life, you have nothing to fear.” That is how British Secretary of Foreign Affairs William Hague responded to the revelations of mass surveillance in the US and the UK. Try telling that to Stephen Lawrence’s family.

Four police officers were deployed to spy on the family and friends of the black teenager murdered by white racists in 1993. The Lawrences and the people who supported their fight for justice were law-abiding citizens going about their business. Yet one of the spies now says undercover police were used to hunt for “disinformation” and “dirt.”

Their purpose? “We were trying to stop the campaign in its tracks,” the spy said.

The two unfolding spy stories resonate powerfully with each other. One, gathered by Paul Lewis and Rob Evans, shows how police surveillance in the UK has been comprehensively perverted. Instead of defending citizens and the public realm, it has been used to protect the police from democratic scrutiny and stifle attempts to engage in politics.

The other, arising from the documents exposed by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, shows that the US and the UK have been involved in the mass interception of phone calls and use of the Internet. Hague insists that we should “have confidence in the work of our intelligence agencies, and in their adherence to the law and democratic values.”

Why?

Here are a few of the things we have learned about undercover policing in Britain: A unit led by a policeman called Bob Lambert deployed officers to spy on peaceful activists. They adopted the identities of dead children and then infiltrated protest groups. Nine of the 11 known spies formed long-term relationships with women in the groups, in some cases (including Lambert’s) fathering children with them. Then they made excuses and vanished.

They left a trail of ruined lives, fatherless children and women whose confidence and trust have been wrecked beyond repair. They have also walked away from other kinds of mayhem. On Friday, we discovered that Lambert co-wrote the leaflet for which two penniless activists spent three years in the high court defending a libel action brought by McDonald’s. The police never saw fit to inform the court that one of their own had been one of the authors.

Lambert has been accused of using a false identity during a criminal trial and, using parliamentary privilege, British MP Caroline Lucas alleged that he planted an incendiary device in a branch of Debenhams while acting as an agent provocateur. The device exploded, causing £300,000 (US$456,000) of damage. Lambert denies the allegation.

Police and prosecutors also failed to disclose, during two trials of climate-change activists, that an undercover cop called Mark Kennedy had secretly taped their meetings and that his recordings exonerated the protesters. Twenty people were falsely convicted. Those convictions were later overturned.

If the state is prepared to abuse its powers and instruments so widely and gravely in cases such as this, where there is a high risk of detection, and if it is prepared to intrude so far into people’s lives that its officers live with activists and father their children, what is it not prepared to do while spying undetectably on the private correspondence of its citizens?

This story has been viewed 1577 times.
TOP top