Britain - Illegal MI5, MI6 & GCHQ Spying on Parliamentarians

SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying In the last year MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have followed eight different policies governing the interception of parliamentarians communications, court told Caroline Lucas: MPs need to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers Caroline Lucas argues there is a strong likelihood her communications have been intercepted. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Ian Cobain Thursday 23 July 2015 23.42 AEST Last modified on Thursday 23 July 2015 23.45 AEST The UK’s intelligence agencies have been operating unlawful surveillance policies that have failed to adequately protect the confidential communications of members of parliament, a court has heard. Officers of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have been operating under eight different policies in the last 12 months alone, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) heard on Thursday. Most of these policies have failed fully to comply with the law, or with the 50-year-old political convention known as the Wilson doctrine that was thought to prohibit the agencies from eavesdropping on MPs or members of the House of Lords, Ben Jaffey, counsel for the Green party parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones told the IPT. The Wilson doctrine is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told the Commons in November 1966 that parliamentarians would not be spied upon and that if this policy needed be changed for national security reasons, the PM would announce this in due course. Lucas, Jones and former Respect MP George Galloway argue there is a strong likelihood that their communications have been intercepted as a consequence of the surveillance programmes exposed by the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The IPT – a secretive court that hears complaints about the UK’s intelligence agencies – is being asked to confirm that the Wilson doctrine has force in law. The parliamentarians also say that agencies have breached the European convention on human rights. Some elements of the government’s defence against the legal challenge are being kept secret and the court is likely to sit in camera, with the public and media excluded, if it comes to consider evidence of actual surveillance of MPs and peers. Jaffey told the IPT that MI5 operated one policy governing the interception of parliamentarians’ communications from April 2012 to September 2014, when it was rewritten after Lucas and Jones lodged their challenge. It was rewritten again last February after government lawyers drafted their “open response” – or non-secret defence – to the claim. David Miliband, when foreign secretary, authorised an MI6 policy which allowed the agency to intercept parliamentarians’ communications without the prime minister being notified, the IPT was told. This policy was rewritten last February, bringing it closer in wording to the MI5 policy. GCHQ’s policy was rewritten in March this year and again three months later. Jaffey said the various policies “fail fully to comply with the law and they fail to comply with public statements as to safeguards”. It was not the parliamentarians’ case that MPs and members of the Lords should never be intercepted, he said, and there may be exceptional national security grounds for doing so. However, MPs needed to be able to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers. He said: “Strict safeguards to protect parliamentary communications are an important bulwark for the protection of the public interest.” Although the Wilson doctrine requires the prime minister to make a statement if the policy were to be reversed, all three agencies were operating internal policies that did not require them to inform prime ministers that they were intercepting MPs’ communications, the IPT was told. These were changed only once Lucas and Jones embarked upon their challenge. When GCHQ rewrote its policy last month, it did so in a way that removed all protection for communications data and for members of the devolved parliament and assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Lucas and Jones argue that intercepts which capture the communications of parliamentarians should require the authorisation of a judge. SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Caroline Lucas Jenny Jones, Green Party (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb)  George Galloway, fmr Respect Party  Is the government spying on politicians? ‘Blanket surveillance’ probed in court hearing  Prison staff have recorded 3,150 prisoner calls to MPs and downloaded 280 for playback since 2006. http://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/ --------------------- COMMENT UK's a creepy surveillance state & the conduct of its spy agencies provides further justification for whistleblower publishers, I would think.

TOTALITARIAN WESTERN ELITES, UKRAINE, PROPAGANDA & THE PATH TO WAR

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (from RUSSIAN) Yarosh threatened to blow up a grenade at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada   Views: 574 In an interview with reporters Yarosh said that he would come to the next session of the Verkhovna Rada with a grenade in his pocket. He added that he felt calmer near some deputies, having a weapon. "For me to stay there, especially in the same room with outspoken enemies of Ukraine - it's uncomfortable - the leader of Ukrainian nationalists. - No, well, I have a grenade, I'll throw it in a pinch. Seriously, with a burden. They have no right to search us, deputies. Security asked me if I had a gun, and I say that there is no pass. " Previously, "Right Sector" refused to pass under the control of the Ministry of National Defense. As told local media adviser to the president of Ukraine, Yuri Biryukov, members of the armed group were offered a few "legalization schemes", in particular, the service contract. However, the "right quadrant" rejected all offers. Social movement "Right Sector" was formed in December 2013 in the wake of Euromaidan. It includes several right-wing groups, and headed "Right Sector" the former leader of the nationalist association "Trident" Dmitry Yarosh. Later, on the basis of the "right sector" was established under the eponymous political party, and he Yarosh elections in 2014 was a member of the Verkhovna Rada. In Russia, "Right Sector" has been recognized by the court as an extremist organization, whose activities are prohibited in the country. Against the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Yarosh filed two criminal cases - on charges of inciting terrorist activities and links with Chechen separatists in the early 1990s. He put on the international wanted list. SOURCE:  http://info-patriot.com/novosti/politika/yarosh-prigrozil-vzorvat-granatu-na-zasedanii-verhovnoy-rady.html ------------------------------------------- COMMENT Obviously, the US will support any type of extremist, as a stepping stone to attaining their regional agendas. Here's Yarosh's Interpol wanted notice and a Telegraph article:  'Interpol's dilemma over Russian 'red notice' request for Right Sektor leader'. Not that interested in Yarosh, I must admit.  Just posting mindlessly to occupy myself for the moment. The Telegraph article is written as if the charge that Yarosh is an extremist is somehow unwarranted and that it is Russian exaggeration: Mr Yarosh, 42, is a long-term Ukrainian nationalist campaigner, whose stated aim is for the country to be affiliated neither with Russia nor Europe.  Critics claim his group has Far-Right sympathies and connections to gangsterism, and he himself has admitted that they possess weapons.  He also claims that a war with Russia is probably inevitable because it sees Ukraine as part of the “Moscow Empire”.  Telegraph addresses a THUG as 'mister' and refers to him as a 'Ukrainian nationalist campaigner'.  Yeah, much like Hitler was. That says it all about the Western press. It's all about conning the public and supporting the corporate/political agenda of the Western elites. Refer to Belarus, Russia and Iran as having dubious human rights records.  Oh, really?  Coming from the establishment that has Assange in detention on trumped up allegations for 4 years now (without charge), that is responsible for murder galore all over the Middle East, arming extremists in the Middle East and the general mayhem in the Middle East -- oh, and let's not forget the CIA rendition and torture; the mass surveillance GLOBALLY; the harassment and undercover surveillance of legitimate political groups in Western countries; the misuse of the legal process and misuse of law and surveillance powers, generally, including surveillance on Western reporters. How can these disgusting hypocrites cite 'human rights' records elsewhere when they themselves not only violate human rights on a mass scale; they do so all over the globe with zero regard for national boundaries -- or boundaries of any kind. ------------------------------------------- * UK - Dead newborn’s identity stolen by UK police to spy on protesters Found the infiltration & surveillance of left-wing groups an outrage.  Where they got the ID is a non-issue.  Scum.  That's all I can say.  Long history of this kind of scummy lowlife abuse of human rights that you would expect from the Gestapo.  * UK - Police spies: in bed with a fictional character * UK - Police misuse of Ripa powers to spy on journalists is systemic, MPs told * UK - Surveillance state - QC: RIPA codes of practice will not protect journalists from police surveillance * UK - Mass surveillance ruled legal in UK (wouldn't expect anything less of totalitarian state capitalism) * UK - Like The NSA And GCHQ, Germany's Foreign Intelligence Agency Uses A Legal Loophole To Spy On Its Own Citizens * UK - Revealed: Police using pre-charge bail to muzzle protesters [Gross violation] More is available online for anybody who cares to search. As for Telegraphs's 'Mister' fascist: * Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: “Right Sector” Leader Dmitriy Yarosh * German public broadcaster criticised over biased report on Ukraine Got an old Nazi to vouch for Ukraine:  Waffen-SS Galician division and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and, laughably: Yarosh explains in the report that he sees himself as a Ukrainian nationalist, and by no means a fascist or Nazi. Although Zoerper noted that Right Sector members greet each other sometimes with the Hitler salute, he allows Yarosh’s remark to pass without comment. Germany has a military agenda happening & the media puppets act as propaganda instruments to bring the public around.  That's what the Western media is for.

Privacy International Lodges Legal Challenge To Official Secrecy Surrounding GCHQ Spying

Privacy International Lodges Legal Challenge To Official Secrecy Surrounding GCHQ Spying Although the scale of the surveillance being carried out by the NSA and GCHQ is daunting, digital rights groups are starting to fight back using the various legal options available to them. That's particularly the case for the UK, where activists are trying to penetrate the obsessive secrecy that surrounds GCHQ's spying activities. Back in December, we wrote about three groups bringing an action against GCHQ in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and how Amnesty International is using the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) to challenge the spying. Another organization that filed a complaint against the UK government at the IPT is Privacy International. But not content with that, it has now taken further legal action, this time in order to obtain information about GCHQ's role in the "Five Eyes" system, the global surveillance club made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: In order to shed light on this secret intelligence-sharing agreement, which effectively binds the Five Eyes as one intelligence agency, Privacy International, represented by Leigh Day & Co solicitors, filed a legal challenge against the British Government in the European Court of Human Rights. Europe's highest human rights court is the most appropriate venue for such an international agreement, and has a strong history of ensuring intelligence agencies are compliant with human rights law. This follows repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain this information using traditional channels: The challenge comes after Privacy International filed Freedom of Information requests in all Five Eyes countries compelling them to release the details of the agreement, which has a profound impact on the enjoyment and fulfilment of human rights around the world. Governments in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand denied to publish the secret agreement. In the United Kingdom, GCHQ invoked a blanket exemption that excuses it from any obligation to be transparent about its activities. The same exemption was also invoked by the agency when Privacy International asked for mundane information such as GCHQ's cafeteria menu. Privacy International obviously hopes that the ECHR will issue a judgment that the UK government is wrong to withhold the information about how GCHQ operates within the Five Eyes system. The trouble is, even if the ECHR does rule in favor of Privacy International, it's extremely unlikely that the UK government will take much notice. But as a way of ensuring that the spotlight remains on the disproportionate and unconstrained way that GCHQ is spying on citizens in the UK and around the world, it's as good as any. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140909/08452028462/privacy-international-lodges-legal-challenge-to-official-secrecy-surrounding-gchq-spying.shtml

Thought this was interesting.

But it looks like the outcome isn't much to look forward to, if the decision of the court can be ignored.