Drip Drip Drip Drip Drip…


Remember Terry Gilliam’s film ‘Brazil’? I’m thinking particularly about that scene at the beginning of the movie where an innocent man (mistaken for a guilty man), is hooded and arrested for a criminal offence which is never made known. His wife is too traumatised to be bothered finding out where he’s been taken, and so his neighbour finds herself taking up the hobby of first, trying to find out where they’ve taken him and then trying to figure out why they’ve taken him. In the end it all turns out to be a dreadful mistake, the secret police have taken (and killed) the wrong man.

Which is why I admire Edward Snowden and think that what he did was a truly brave thing. To decide to become a whistle blower in the face of the paranoid determination of the U.S government and the NSA to surveillance anything that moved (and had an internet account or an email address) was courageous. For we have all observed how truly forgiving the American Government really is, we’ve seen it with the request for the extradition of Gary McKinnon which was turned down by Teresa May. We’ve experienced it with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden within the borders of Pakistan (and no it hadn’t been annexed by America at the time). We’ve seen it at work, for years, with the ghost ships held off the coast of Diego Garcia, the Salt Pit in Afghanistan (remember Slim Shady?) and the detainees who are still enduring an enforced residency at Guantanamo Bay.


On the day Snowden did as he did, he became a citizen of no country, grateful to receive temporary asylum in the USSR (how ironic) and constantly on the alert for any attempt by the American government to forcibly return him to his country of origin.”In future we are going to be reliant on whistle blowers because they are a very useful means of seeing to it that intelligence services [behave]” said Mr Geiger, former head of the German Secret Service at a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. And so we turn our attention to British Parliament and Teresa May’s devious attempt to sidestep parliamentary scrutiny of the D.R.I.P Bill (Data Retention & Investigatory Powers Bill).

“Drip is far more than an administrative necessity; it is a serious expansion of the British surveillance state. We urge the British Government not to fast track this legislation and instead apply full and proper parliamentary scrutiny to ensure Parliamentarians are not mislead as to what powers this Bill truly contains.”. So say a group of fifteen technology experts in an open letter to Parliament, but what does the government say?

A Home Office spokesperson told the Guardian: “We are not changing or extending any powers to access data or execute intercept warrants.

“Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act these powers already apply to any company providing communications services in the UK, even if they are based overseas. The new Bill simply spells this out and puts it beyond doubt.”

Lest we forget why it has suddenly become so necessary to rush this piece of legislation through, in April of this year the European Court of Justice struck down the European Data Protection Directive. It did so on the following grounds, that it was a wide ranging and serious interference with the fundamental rights of respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. In short, the legislation that the British government would have used to ‘mass trawl’ our emails, telephone calls and internet accounts has been rendered unfit for use which is why they’re trying to sneak through D.R.I.P.


Remember that little criminal organisation we knew little about until Snowden blew the whistle on PRISM? Yes, I’m talking about the NSA, an organisation that ‘intentionally subverted the private protections of E.U States and American citizens against mass surveillance’ (Assange) and is still doing it. Imagine that. The U.S government confirmed in three separate determinations within a six month period, that what they (the NSA) were doing with regards to mass trawling surveillance, had no basis in American law, that it was unconstitutional. The president of the United States of America was forced to spend forty four minutes (Julian Assange timed it), explaining the proposals he would be putting to congress to safeguard the privacy of the American people. A president that has been forced to eat humble pie on behalf of a security agency which like some hard bitten criminal keeps sneaking back to its old ways. If I was Teresa May I’d take the hint and push D.R.I.P through parliament the democratically legitimate way.

Britain's Home Secretary May leaves a cabinet meeting at Downing Street in London

‘The laws of parliament are necessarily subordinate to the physical laws of the universe itself’

– Edward Snowden




The ‘Secret Courts’ Bill-On the QT & Very ‘Hush Hush’

The Justice & Security Act was granted the Royal Assent in April and that has to be a good thing. After all who wouldn’t want the government to ensure that the democracy and freedoms we enjoy are safeguarded? None of us ever wants to hear about or see the consequences of another 7/11, so doesn’t it make sense for the government to enact yet another piece of legislation, in support of our security services ensuring that?

But that’s not what’s really bothering all the Barristers and Queen’s Counsels who might potentially be asked to present cases under this legislation. And it isn’t what both MPs and Members of the House of Lords have objected to, and sought to amend. CMPs, that’s what the lawyers and indeed all of us should be concerned about. The extension and the casual proliferation of CMPs.

Now, to what can I liken a CMP?
Well, I guess you could say it was the equivalent of being arrested, and then charged with murder. You know what you’ve been charged with, but your lawyers have received very little evidence supporting those charges. In fact, all your lawyers have received is a brief summary of the evidence being used to support the charges against you.That is because the prosecution has decided, that to provide full disclosure to the defence counsel would not be a very good idea, and what is more the judge has agreed.

A CMP (Closed Material Procedure hearing) is what counsel for the government can request in extradition hearings: deportation hearings: hearings where the complainant is seeking damages for their mistreatment at the hands of MI6/MI5, in short any civil proceedings in which evidence pertinent to National Security might be disclosed. In the words of one UK civil liberties pressure group this creates a state of affairs whereby,

“The credibility of the civil justice system is impaired, due to one party being routinely favoured over another in these hearings.”

For example,with the advent of CMPs hearsay evidence and indeed claims made by the security services can be presented in court, just not to defendants. As for those facing deportation or extradition, without the evidence adduced against them being disclosed, they’d be effectively defending themselves with one arm tied behind their backs. 57 Barristers, Special Advocates linked to this procedure, have argued that despite the intention to give those subject to a CMP a summary of the evidence against them, these hearings would remain fundamentally unfair. According to these lawyers it would represent,

“A departure from the foundational principle of natural justice, that all parties should be entitled to see and challenge all the evidence relied upon before the court and to combat that evidence by calling evidence of their own.”

Ironically these practitioners argue that a less restrictive regime is currently being employed in America, with a measure of success. When Binyam Mohammed returned from his lengthy vacation, courtesy of Her Majesty’s secret service and the U.S government, he was able to successfully sue the British Government for the collusion of the secret services in his torture by the C.I.A.The government tried to suppress evidence vital to Mr Mohammed’s case, on the grounds of National Security, it failed. Had his case taken place under the shadow of this new legislation, in spite of the injustices he suffered, the British government would have had the upper hand.


Erroneous Rendition- Whoops! Our Bad!


In the words of former CIA Director George J. Tenet ‘Extraordinary Renditions’,

“have shattered terrorist cells and networks, thwarted terrorist plans, and in some cases even prevented attacks from occurring”

But what happens when in ‘some’ cases’ you make a mistake? After all giving a former student a bad grade in an exam should hardly necessitate your being abducted and tortured should it? The CIA has created a novel term for these mistakes,‘Erroneous Rendition’ the abduction of innocent people based on faulty analysis.

So, if for example, a CIA translator, listening in on my telephone conversation, mistranslates the Arabic word for ‘tires’, and comes up with the word ‘air-planes’ instead, I’m likely to find myself rendered to the nearest available torture friendly state, without access to any judicial process whatsoever. Well, how about if I bear a passing resemblance to somebody on the CIA hit list? Khaled EL-Masri would know far better than most what the consequences of that would be.

The German citizen was treated so appallingly that the American Ambassador had to tip toe to the German Interior Minister and sheepishly admit they had made a mistake. He then had to ask him and his government not to press charges. His, is not the only case, the former CIA Inspector General (2002-2009), John L. Helgerson, found himself obliged to look into several other CIA renditions. These were mistakes which had been spotted by congressional investigators, and which they stated appeared to rest on ‘a bad legal footing’, the CIA response?

“[They] looked into them and conceded that, yes, the renditions had been based on faulty analysis, but the renditions would have been approved even if the correct analysis had been used”

On the 13 December 2012, Khaled El-Masri was awarded compensation by the European Court of Human Rights; who ruled that he had been tortured by the CIA ,as a result of his transfer into their hands by Macedonia.To conclude with the words of ‘Radiofreewill’

“The 800Ib elephant in this story is the ‘authority’ that made these renditions happen-so powerful that its decisions were beyond the reach of analysis, or due process.”