Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

UK intelligence chiefs getting such a soft touch is ‘shocking’

Annie Machon is a former intel­li­gence officer for the UK's MI5, who resigned in 1996 to blow the whistle. She is now a writer, public speaker and a Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Published time: November 08, 2013 19:24
Andrew Parker, the new head of British domestic spy agency MI5 (AFP Photo)

The appearance of UK intelligence chiefs before a parliamentary committee was shocking because they were given such an easy ride says former MI5 agent Annie Machon talking to RT.

RT: About this hearing: we’ve listened to a lot of people beforehand, and they didn’t think it would come to much, but there was a hope that it would be a grilling, it turned out to be a bit of a damp squib at the end of the day. I guess you’re not surprised?

Annie Machon: Absolutely not. I mean this is the first time that the intelligence chiefs have actually been called to account in public, and of course they had easy questions because the Intelligence and Security Committee in parliament has historically been toothless, even though it has a few more powers now. But the chairman Malcolm Rifkind, who used to be the Foreign Secretary and in charge of GCHQ and MI6 a few years ago, has already exonerated GCHQ in the wake of the Snowden disclosures about endemic surveillance and things like that. So he’s already been on the record, arguing in favor of what the intelligence agencies do. I had no expectation there would be any difficult questions whatsoever.

RT: So today’s (Friday’s – RT) open meeting was just a PR stand, was it nothing more?

AM: Absolutely. And the intelligence community in the UK has been very much on the offensive over the last couple of months, arguing that, ‘Of course, you know, what Snowden did is going to give a gift to terrorists, of course it would put national security at risk’, all retired, old arguments, which have been trotted out year and decade after decade after decade…

RT: Are you surprised the alleged spying on Angela Merkel wasn’t mentioned?

AM: Absolutely! I mean, this is a European partner. So the fact that they are sending soft balls, not, you know, hard hits, at the intelligence chiefs, it is just shocking. And I also think, what they say about terrorists, it’s crazy because all terrorist groups for the last four decades have known that they could be under surveillance, and they take very good anti-surveillance techniques in order to make sure they are not watched. I mean, the Provisional IRA knew this in the 1980s and 1990s. So, any self-respecting terrorist is going to be very careful about what they do on the internet, so the idea that they [intelligence] are using that as an excuse to drag all the personal surveillance and turn us into a police state is just not feasible. And it’s not just the UK! What GCHQ does in the UK of course impacts people globally and across Europe, with the ‘Tempora’ program which mainlines into fibre-optic cables.

RT: But as a former spy yourself, it’s odd for me to be talking to you. The age-old argument here is that the security service should have as much information as they can get for the greater good or for their own particular country, etc. How can you argue against that?

AM: As a former spy, I would say that the best way to protect your country is actually targeting investigations where you try and watch and survey and investigate people you know are suspects. In fact, we probably lose more information through that endemic surveillance, and we probably put ourselves at greater risk by doing so. And also, by doing so as well, we turn the country into a surveillance state. The UK is unique in the Western world, post-Snowden disclosures, in not having a mature and proper debate, saying, ‘What is the proportionality within the democracy? How can we protect our basic rights to privacy?’ Because it’s not some strange balance between liberty and security. Privacy is the fundamental point here. When you want to be private, when you communicate, when you read, when you meet, when you talk to people on the internet, and that’s what this surveillance is taking from us.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Comments (5)

 

mergon 21.12.2013 11:58

Britain still has the old boy network ,there may be younger players but the old school still rules still apply and thats the strength of the system ,its about old money and the right connections ,and the right clubs ,
its a lot like the words from the Who,s song [wont get fooled again ] = meet the new boss same as the old boss !

 

j.innes 13.11.2013 15:28

I was thinking of the brief overview of the British Empire and all of its tools and then you sort of look at these guys and you do have to ask which terrorists??? What criminals??? Which money launderers??? Exposure is probably good for them while the deconstruction takes place. I am pretty sure lots of international and domestic laws are broken and none once exposed is above the law not even the goons. Being dragged before Parliament is for the entertainment value only. They were all bad at keeping secrets and this is the result. GCHQ violated people who were not citizens of the UK in violation of law and treaty.

 

Ursula Riches 09.11.2013 22:00

Democracy in the UKUS is a total farce.

View all comments (5)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us