MI5 – for us or against us???

So once again we see reported in the Media the unedifying spectacle of a senior member of the Judiciary doing his level best to undermine the security of this country with outrageous accusations directed against MI5 (the Security Service).

For those that are interested, below is the full statement (not just the highlights, selectively reported) so you can judge for yourselves whether MI5, the Security Service is for us or against us.

@Jonathan Evans – DG of MI5 wrote:

It is rare that the intelligence services comment in public, but some of the recent reporting on the supposed activities and culture of MI5 has been so far from the truth that it couldn’t be left unchallenged, particularly against the backdrop of the current severe terrorist threat to this country.
As head of the security service, I know that the reason the Government appealed against the Divisional Court judgment in the Binyam Mohammed case was not to cover up supposed British collusion in mistreatment, but in order to protect the vital intelligence relationship with America and, by extension, with other countries. We cannot protect the UK without the help and co-operation of other countries. The US, in particular, has been generous in sharing intelligence with us on terrorist threats; that has saved British lives and must be protected.
The “seven paragraphs” now published are, in fact, less politically explosive than some commentators had imagined. The Government would not have objected to their publication in themselves, despite the unacceptable actions they describe. But the appeal was necessary because the paragraphs were received on intelligence channels and provided on the basis that they would not be disclosed.
The United States does not have to share intelligence with us. Nor do other countries. The US government has expressed its deep disappointment at the publication of the paragraphs and has said that the judgment will be factored into its decision-making in future. We must hope, for our safety and security, that this does not make it less ready to share intelligence with us.
There have also been a series of allegations that MI5 has been trying to “cover up” its activities. That is the opposite of the truth. People who choose to work in the service do so because they want to protect the UK and its liberties. We are an accountable public organisation and take our legal and oversight responsibilities seriously. The material our critics are drawing on to attack us is taken from our own records, not prised from us by some external process but willingly provided by us to the court, in the normal way. No cover-up there.
Likewise, we co-operate willingly with the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can fulfil its oversight role, which we support and which benefits the service. Sometimes the ISC draws attention in its reports to aspects of our work that it believes fall short of what it, and through it the public, might expect. That is right and proper in a democratic system. One shortfall it highlighted in 2005 and again in 2007 was that the British intelligence community was slow to detect the emerging pattern of US mistreatment of detainees after September 11, a criticism that I accept.
But there wasn’t any similar change of practice by the British intelligence agencies. We did not practise mistreatment or torture then and do not do so now, nor do we collude in torture or encourage others to torture on our behalf.
Meanwhile, some commentators have given the impression that there is a lack of accountability for the actions of the intelligence agencies when interviewing detainees after September 11. This again flies in the face of the facts. A string of civil cases has been brought against the Government and the agencies by former detainees who claim that their rights have been infringed.
The issues involved are serious and complex: it is right that they should be considered by the courts and we, with others on the Government side, are co-operating fully in the process. Inevitably this will take time, but all involved will get the chance to put their case.
Nor are only civil claims being pursued: an allegation has been made that one of my officers might have committed a criminal offence. That allegation (and it is no more than an allegation) is being investigated by the police. As the Government has said repeatedly, if serious allegations are made, they will be investigated appropriately. And these are not just fine words. It is happening. Both the Government and the Opposition in the House of Commons on Wednesday underlined how important it is that Britain lives up to its legal and moral responsibilities in countering terrorism. If we fail to do so, we are giving a propaganda weapon to our opponents. I fully agree with that judgment.
As a service, and working closely with partners here and abroad, we will do all that we can to keep the country safe from terrorist attack. We will use all the powers available to us under the law.
For their part, our enemies will also seek to use all tools at their disposal to attack us. That means not just bombs, bullets and aircraft but also propaganda and campaigns to undermine our will and ability to confront them. Their freedom to voice extremist views is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy, and it is a price worth paying because in the long term, our democracy underpins our security.
But we would do well to maintain a fair and balanced view of events as they unfold and avoid falling into conspiracy theory and caricature.
Jonathan Evans
12 February 2010