Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control

Article SOURCE Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control Daily Mail Quitting EU would make Britain SAFER, says former MI6 chief: Sir Richard Dearlove suggests Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016     Former head of MI6 demolished the security case for staying in the EU     Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists     Added British intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return     Washington was a more important counter-terror ally than the EU, he said By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016 The former head of MI6 yesterday demolished the security case for staying in the EU – saying Britain could be safer out. Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders. He added that Europe could not turn its back on Britain if it left the EU because our intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return. In any event, Washington was a more important counter-terror ally, he said. The former spy chief also dismissed suggestions that Brexit would harm our relationship with the US and likened the EU's various intelligence bodies to the 'leakiest ships of state' and colanders riddled with holes. David Cameron and other senior ministers have relied heavily on claims that Britain is more secure inside the Brussels club because of measures like the European arrest warrant. But, in a devastating intervention, Sir Richard said: 'Few would notice its passing.' His assessment was backed by a government minister and London Mayor Boris Johnson – who warned EU judges were making it harder to throw out fanatics. Sir Richard, who was chief of the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004, wrote in the current affairs magazine Prospect: 'Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. 'Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights – remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque – and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.' He adds: 'Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. 'It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK.' He says liaison between allies is partly driven by 'moral considerations' – so that if Germany learns of a terrorist plot against London, it would not withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not in the EU. Sir Richard concludes: 'Would Brexit damage our defence and intelligence relationship with the United States, which outweighs anything European by many factors of 10? I conclude confidently that no, it would not. 'There would be disapproval of Brexit in Washington, and some disappointment too, but the practical consideration of living in a dangerous world and depending on true friends would win out. In short, Europe would be the potential losers in national security. But if Brexit happened, the UK would almost certainly show the magnanimity not to make its European partners pay the cost.' Theresa May yesterday said EU membership – and access to its intelligence – was 'of benefit' in thwarting terror plots. The Home Secretary told MPs: 'I think there are a number of mechanisms that we are part of within the EU that do enhance our security.' But Boris Johnson and farming minister George Eustice both warned that EU membership was harming national security. The London Mayor told MPs: 'I've seen various people quoted as saying that remaining in the EU is essential for security. 'I think it's important to put a countervailing point which is that there are some ways now that the European Court of Justice is militating against our ability to control our borders in the way we want to and indeed to maintain proper surveillance. 'If you look at the case of Abu Hamza's niece, who tried to smuggle SIM cards to him in prison, we couldn't deport her not because of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights but because of the European Court in Luxembourg, which is now able to adjudicate on the entire corpus of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.' Mr Eustice said the Schengen zone of passport-free travel on the continent meant terrorists could move more freely within the EU.' Yesterday Belgium's ambassador to the UK, Guy Trouveroy, also conceded that free movement increased the risk of terrorist attacks. He said: 'There is no hiding... It is an issue.' But No.10 pointed to comments by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terror laws, and former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who both insisted Britain would be safer inside the EU. Mr Anderson told the BBC that the UK, which is not in the Schengen zone, is 'much easier to defend' because of our sea border despite the huge cost and inconvenience to travellers. Last night former Home Secretary Lord Howard called the EU a 'failing project' that is 'failing to keep its people safe'. The former Tory leader said Schengen was akin to 'hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe'. Attempts by some Out campaigners to link the EU's free movement rules to the atrocity were criticised by Mr Cameron, who said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506991/UK-safer-Europe-says-former-MI6-chief-Sir-Richard-Dearlove-suggests-Brexit-make-easier-deport-terrorists.html -------/\/\/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT It's the perfect time to push the issue that Dave Cameron's trying to dismiss: "Mr Cameron ... said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points." Even though the ex-MI6 guy, Richard Dearlove, is associated with what they call the 'sexed up' intelligence report ahead of the Iraq invasion 2003, what he says re Brexit makes perfect sense. That David Cameron is a slimy weasel. Sir Malcom Rifkind doesn't sound much better: "Two years later, Rifkind advocated British military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with or without a mandate from the United Nations." [source] Rifkind was also involved in lobbying for the destruction of Libya, by 'neutralisation' of Gaddafi's conventional forces. So Europe probably has him to thank for the tidal wave of non-Europeans pouring into Europe, together with the terrorists among them. Why is he so bent on remaining in the EU, when Dearlove has made it plain that Brexit's the go and the security gains outweigh the non-existent costs? Rifkind was appointed Chairman of Armor Group (US-owned), one of the largest security groups in Iraq -- here. So this is the British-American revolving door? There's something unseemly about such an appointment, as it gives the impression that former politician war-hawks get rewarded by the sector that they previously enriched by lobbying for war while in office. Perhaps Rifkind has an American bias, now that he works for an American firm? Americans are described as likely to be 'disappointed' should Britain exit the EU, so the EU thing must serve them and their interests. Bet the Americans are behind the invasion of Europe -- as in, they're most likely funding and arranging the mass movement, whether directly, through third parties, or in partnership. Read somewhere that the US and Britain want a weakened German EU partner.  But that doesn't explain the destruction of Sweden. Maybe they just want a weak European native population?

UPDATE - Video - Ex-MI6 Head, Richard Dearlove - Brainwashing at Cambridge University {By Charlie Veitch of 'THE LOVE POLICE' }

ꕤ Video SOURCE A video created by Charlie Veitch of 'THE LOVE POLICE' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZUIDXNhkIE ❤ ❤  COVERT FOOTAGE FILMING PROHIBITED Ex-MI6 Head Richard Dearlove Cambridge University Defends State Secrecy & Slams WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZUIDXNhkIE "By speaking at Cambridge University this elitist scumbag is OBVIOUSLY trying to pollute and brainwash the minds of our country's future leaders, by justifying the very mentality that's turned our country into a police state."  more:  here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- About to watch this ... 'Love Police' is such a great name.  :) ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- UPDATE Annie Machon  Article - RT News Making the case for war: Dearlove doublethink on Iraq? Annie Machon Annie Machon is a former intel­li­gence officer for MI5, the UK Secur­ity Ser­vice, who resigned in the late 1990s to blow the whistle on the spies’ incom­pet­ence and crimes with her ex-partner, David Shayler. Draw­ing on her var­ied exper­i­ences, she is now a pub­lic speaker, writer, media pun­dit, inter­na­tional tour and event organ­iser, polit­ical cam­paigner, and PR con­sult­ant. She is also now the Dir­ector of LEAP, Europe. She has a rare per­spect­ive both on the inner work­ings of gov­ern­ments, intel­li­gence agen­cies and the media, as well as the wider implic­a­tions for the need for increased open­ness and account­ab­il­ity in both pub­lic and private sectors. Published time: 26 Jul, 2013 12:16 Edited time: 26 Jul, 2013 12:19 In a sensational article in a UK newspaper last weekend, the former head of MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence agency, appears to have broken the code of omertà around the fraudulent intelligence case used as the pretext for the Iraq war in 2003. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, contacted the UK’s Mail on Sunday newspaper to say he had written his version of the (ab)use of intelligence in the runup to the US/UK invasion of Iraq.  With the long-awaited and much-delayed official Chilcot Enquiry into the case for war about to be published, Dearlove is obviously aware that he might be blamed for the “sexing up” of the intelligence, and that 'Teflon' Tony Blair might once again shuffle off all responsibility. You’ll no doubt have some vague recollection that, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the British government produced a couple of reports “making a case for war”, as Major General Michael Laurie said in his evidence to the enquiry in 2011: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the [September] dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care.” The first such report, the September Dossier (2002), is the one most remembered, as this did indeed “sexed up” the case for war as the deceased Iraqi weapons inspector Dr David Kelly exposed. It also included the fraudulent intelligence about Saddam Hussein trying to acquire uranium from Niger. It was this latter claim that Colin Powell used to such great effect at the UN Security Council. Rupert Murdoch Also, just six weeks before the attack on Iraq, the “Dodgy” Dossier, based largely on a 12-year old PhD thesis culled from the internet, but containing nuggets of raw MI6 intelligence — was presented by spy and politician alike as ominous premonitory intelligence. Most memorably in the UK, it led to the bogus “Brits 45 minutes from Doom” front-page head­line in Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun newspaper, no less, on the eve of the crucial war vote in Parliament. Interestingly from a British legal position, it appears that Tony Blair and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell, released this report without the prior written permission of the head of MI6, which means that they would appear to be in breach of the UK’s draconian secrecy law, the Official Secrets Act (1989). Thus was made the dodgy case for war.  All lies — millions of deaths and many more maimed, wounded, and displaced, yet no one held to account. Subsequently, there was also the notorious leaked Downing Street memo, where Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying that the intelligence and facts were being fitted around the [predetermined war] policy. On July 23, 2002 at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair and other senior officials on his talks with his American counterpart, CIA Director George Tenet, in Washington three days before. In the draft minutes of that briefing, which were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005, Dearlove explains that George Bush had decided to attack Iraq and the war was to be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”  While then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw points out that the case was “thin,” Dearlove explains matter-of-factly, “the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.” There is no sign in the minutes that any­one hic­cuped — much less demurred — at "making a case for war" and furthering Blair’s determination to join Bush in launching the kind of “war of aggression” out­lawed by the post-world war Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN treaty. The acquiescence of the chief spies helped their political masters main­line into the body politic un-assessed, raw intelligence and forged documents, with disastrous consequences for the people of Iraq and the world. Yet Dearlove long remained unrepentant. Even as recently as 2011, post-retirement and bloated with honours, he continued to deny culpability. When questioned about the Downing Street Memo during an address to the prestigious Cambridge University Union Society by the fear­less and fear­somely bright student, Silkie Carlo, Dearlove tried grandiloquently to brush her aside. But were the remarks in the Memo really “taken out of context” as Dearlove tried to assert? No – the text of the Memo was clear and explicit. So Dearlove could potentially have saved millions of lives across the Middle East if he had gone public then, rather than now as he is threatening, with his considered professional opinion about the intelligence facts being fitted around a preconceived war policy. Would it not be lovely if these retired servants of the crown, replete with respect, status and honours, could actually take a stand while they are in a position to influence world events? Doing so now, purely to preserve his reputation rather than to preserve lives, is even more “ethically flexible” than you would normally expect of an average MI6 intelligence officer. Perhaps that is why he floated to the top of the organisation. Dearlove is right to be worried about how both Chilcot and history will judge him.  These intelligence failures and lies have been picked over and speculated about for years. They are an open secret. But holding the gun of disclosure to the UK government’s head smacks of desperation.  He is quoted as saying that he has no plans to breach the Official Secrets Act by publishing his memoirs. But by publishing an account of the run-up to the Iraq war, he would be still guilty of a breach of the OSA. It has been established under UK law that any unauthorised disclosure crosses the “clear bright line” of the law. And Dearlove seems well aware of this – his original plan was for his account to be made available after his death. Rectum_Defende I can see why he would plan that – firstly he would not risk prosecution under the draconian terms of the OSA, but his account would, in his view, set the record straight and protect his reputation for posterity.  A posthumous win-win. The official motto of the UK spies is “Regnum Defende” — defence of the realm. Serving intelligence officers mordantly alter this to “Rectum Defende” — politely translated as watch your back. Dearlove seems to be living up to the motto.  He must be one very frightened old man to be contemplating such premature publication. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/uk-iraq-intelligence-war-632/ Gee, wonder why this guy's not a WikiLeaks and Assange fan? ...  lol ꕤ

Video - Ex-MI6 Head, Richard Dearlove - Brainwashing at Cambridge University {By Charlie Veitch of 'THE LOVE POLICE' }

ꕤ Video SOURCE A video created by Charlie Veitch of 'THE LOVE POLICE' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZUIDXNhkIE ❤ ❤  COVERT FOOTAGE FILMING PROHIBITED Ex-MI6 Head Richard Dearlove Cambridge University Defends State Secrecy & Slams WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZUIDXNhkIE "By speaking at Cambridge University this elitist scumbag is OBVIOUSLY trying to pollute and brainwash the minds of our country's future leaders, by justifying the very mentality that's turned our country into a police state."  more:  here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- About to watch this ... 'Love Police' is such a great name.  :) ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- UPDATE Annie Machon  Article - RT News Making the case for war: Dearlove doublethink on Iraq? Annie Machon Annie Machon is a former intel­li­gence officer for MI5, the UK Secur­ity Ser­vice, who resigned in the late 1990s to blow the whistle on the spies’ incom­pet­ence and crimes with her ex-partner, David Shayler. Draw­ing on her var­ied exper­i­ences, she is now a pub­lic speaker, writer, media pun­dit, inter­na­tional tour and event organ­iser, polit­ical cam­paigner, and PR con­sult­ant. She is also now the Dir­ector of LEAP, Europe. She has a rare per­spect­ive both on the inner work­ings of gov­ern­ments, intel­li­gence agen­cies and the media, as well as the wider implic­a­tions for the need for increased open­ness and account­ab­il­ity in both pub­lic and private sectors. Published time: 26 Jul, 2013 12:16 Edited time: 26 Jul, 2013 12:19 In a sensational article in a UK newspaper last weekend, the former head of MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence agency, appears to have broken the code of omertà around the fraudulent intelligence case used as the pretext for the Iraq war in 2003. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, contacted the UK’s Mail on Sunday newspaper to say he had written his version of the (ab)use of intelligence in the runup to the US/UK invasion of Iraq.  With the long-awaited and much-delayed official Chilcot Enquiry into the case for war about to be published, Dearlove is obviously aware that he might be blamed for the “sexing up” of the intelligence, and that 'Teflon' Tony Blair might once again shuffle off all responsibility. You’ll no doubt have some vague recollection that, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the British government produced a couple of reports “making a case for war”, as Major General Michael Laurie said in his evidence to the enquiry in 2011: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the [September] dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care.” The first such report, the September Dossier (2002), is the one most remembered, as this did indeed “sexed up” the case for war as the deceased Iraqi weapons inspector Dr David Kelly exposed. It also included the fraudulent intelligence about Saddam Hussein trying to acquire uranium from Niger. It was this latter claim that Colin Powell used to such great effect at the UN Security Council. Rupert Murdoch Also, just six weeks before the attack on Iraq, the “Dodgy” Dossier, based largely on a 12-year old PhD thesis culled from the internet, but containing nuggets of raw MI6 intelligence — was presented by spy and politician alike as ominous premonitory intelligence. Most memorably in the UK, it led to the bogus “Brits 45 minutes from Doom” front-page head­line in Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun newspaper, no less, on the eve of the crucial war vote in Parliament. Interestingly from a British legal position, it appears that Tony Blair and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell, released this report without the prior written permission of the head of MI6, which means that they would appear to be in breach of the UK’s draconian secrecy law, the Official Secrets Act (1989). Thus was made the dodgy case for war.  All lies — millions of deaths and many more maimed, wounded, and displaced, yet no one held to account. Subsequently, there was also the notorious leaked Downing Street memo, where Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying that the intelligence and facts were being fitted around the [predetermined war] policy. On July 23, 2002 at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair and other senior officials on his talks with his American counterpart, CIA Director George Tenet, in Washington three days before. In the draft minutes of that briefing, which were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005, Dearlove explains that George Bush had decided to attack Iraq and the war was to be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”  While then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw points out that the case was “thin,” Dearlove explains matter-of-factly, “the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.” There is no sign in the minutes that any­one hic­cuped — much less demurred — at "making a case for war" and furthering Blair’s determination to join Bush in launching the kind of “war of aggression” out­lawed by the post-world war Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN treaty. The acquiescence of the chief spies helped their political masters main­line into the body politic un-assessed, raw intelligence and forged documents, with disastrous consequences for the people of Iraq and the world. Yet Dearlove long remained unrepentant. Even as recently as 2011, post-retirement and bloated with honours, he continued to deny culpability. When questioned about the Downing Street Memo during an address to the prestigious Cambridge University Union Society by the fear­less and fear­somely bright student, Silkie Carlo, Dearlove tried grandiloquently to brush her aside. But were the remarks in the Memo really “taken out of context” as Dearlove tried to assert? No – the text of the Memo was clear and explicit. So Dearlove could potentially have saved millions of lives across the Middle East if he had gone public then, rather than now as he is threatening, with his considered professional opinion about the intelligence facts being fitted around a preconceived war policy. Would it not be lovely if these retired servants of the crown, replete with respect, status and honours, could actually take a stand while they are in a position to influence world events? Doing so now, purely to preserve his reputation rather than to preserve lives, is even more “ethically flexible” than you would normally expect of an average MI6 intelligence officer. Perhaps that is why he floated to the top of the organisation. Dearlove is right to be worried about how both Chilcot and history will judge him.  These intelligence failures and lies have been picked over and speculated about for years. They are an open secret. But holding the gun of disclosure to the UK government’s head smacks of desperation.  He is quoted as saying that he has no plans to breach the Official Secrets Act by publishing his memoirs. But by publishing an account of the run-up to the Iraq war, he would be still guilty of a breach of the OSA. It has been established under UK law that any unauthorised disclosure crosses the “clear bright line” of the law. And Dearlove seems well aware of this – his original plan was for his account to be made available after his death. Rectum_DefendeI can see why he would plan that – firstly he would not risk prosecution under the draconian terms of the OSA, but his account would, in his view, set the record straight and protect his reputation for posterity.  A posthumous win-win. The official motto of the UK spies is “Regnum Defende” — defence of the realm. Serving intelligence officers mordantly alter this to “Rectum Defende” — politely translated as watch your back. Dearlove seems to be living up to the motto.  He must be one very frightened old man to be contemplating such premature publication. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/uk-iraq-intelligence-war-632/ Gee, wonder why this guy's not a WikiLeaks and Assange fan? ...  lol ꕤ