GCHQ Goes Stasi
- June 17, 2013
We all know that the cradle of democracy would never behave like Russia or China, don’t we? And there is absolutely no possibility that our intelligence services could act like the Stasi or the KGB, and like, spy on people – except for the evil ones that is, who unlike ‘law-abiding citizens’, deserve to be spied on.
How do we know this? Good God man, we’re British. And, unlike those ghastly commie totalitarian societies that have been thrown onto the trash heap of history, we British live in a democracy with a transparent and fully accountable government that is subject to checks and balances and the rule of law and all the other things that make Britain a beacon to the world.
After all, as our trusty man-of-the-people foreign secretary told parliament when the Edward Snowden story broke last week, the UK’s information-sharing relationship with the US is ‘essential to the security of the country’ and has ‘saved many lives.’
Hague also insisted that
‘Our intelligence-sharing work with the United States is subject to ministerial and independent oversight and to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Our agencies practise and uphold UK law at all times, even when dealing with information from outside the United Kingdom.’
And Lord Snooty also gave his seal of approval, when he declared ‘I’m satisfied that we have intelligence agencies that do a fantastic job to keep us safe and operate within the law.’
Well you know when Lord Snooty is satisfied with something, that he will have subjected it to the most rigorous and impartial analysis beforehand. But what’s this? Goodness gracious, it now turns out, thanks to Snowden’s revelations, that the British government, spied on foreign diplomats and politicians during the 2009 G8 Conference.
Not only did British intelligence services monitor their computers and telephones, but they also got the objects of their attention to use internet cafes set up by …British intelligence services, so that they could read their email traffic more easily. And this surveillance doesn’t seem to have been aimed at the evil ones, nor was it intended to ‘keep us safe.’ On the contrary, according to a briefing document given by GCHQ officials to their director before the conference:
‘The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG’s desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it.’
To ensure that this information reached HMG and its ‘customers’, GCHQ did its work so well that afterwards its officials boasted that they ‘were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after conference has finished.’ The diplomats placed under surveillance included the Russian foreign minister and the Turkish finance minister, who was bugged in order ‘to establish Turkey’s position on agreements from the April London summit.’
And all this was done, it seems, with the knowledge and approval of our Presbyterian socialist prime minister Gordon Brown, the man who saved the world, and the Blairites would-be-contender and then foreign secretary David Miliband. Well I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.
After all, it wasn’t so long ago that governments across the world – including our own – were working themselves into a state of righteous indignation because Wikileaks had supposedly violated the ancient codes of secret diplomacy through which state business is conducted.
Now it seems that Her Majesty’s Government was itself in violation of these codes. No wonder the British government has ordered British airlines not to allow Edward Snowden into the UK. Because we can’t have any Tom, Dick or Harry wandering around telling the public that governments are spying on diplomats.
If that happened, then the public might just conclude that its government was run by liars and hypocrites. It might start wondering whether ‘national security’ has become a smokescreen and a pretext for lawless and unaccountable surveillance that has nothing to do with ‘keeping us safe.’ It might even start demanding that its government becomes more transparent and accountable, and that real checks and balances are put in place to limit the powers that the ‘secret state’ has arrogated for itself over the last decade.
And that wouldn’t be good for anyone, would it?