We still need the Wilson doctrine.
In light of the revelations that the Labour MP Sadiq Khan was bugged (claims in the Daily Mail tomorrow and on Newsnight right now that he's been bugged for years and while he was working for Liberty, supposedly considered a "subversive" by some within Scotland Yard) while visiting his constituent and friend Babar Ahmed at Woodhill prison, some are asking why the Wilson doctrine is still in place, with MPs considered above us mere mortals, especially with the report released last week that showed 250,000 requests for various intercepts within a 9-month period.
While some have pointed out that there's a reason why it's known as the Wilson doctrine, due to his own paranoia (somewhat justified) that the security services were out to get him, the number one reason why it should stay in place is that it protects both radical and maverick MPs from the attention of those so often and historically opposed to them. Of course, in this day and age radical and MP when put together seem to be an oxymoron, but we also ought to be aware that under an even less scrupulous government than this one, collaboration between politicians and security services would certainly not rule out spying on the opposition.
If the Wilson doctrine were to be even slightly modified or abandoned, there needs to judicial oversight, as Unity eloquently outlines. That this is still left to either politicians or a police officer is archaic and and clearly in need of urgent reform.
While some have pointed out that there's a reason why it's known as the Wilson doctrine, due to his own paranoia (somewhat justified) that the security services were out to get him, the number one reason why it should stay in place is that it protects both radical and maverick MPs from the attention of those so often and historically opposed to them. Of course, in this day and age radical and MP when put together seem to be an oxymoron, but we also ought to be aware that under an even less scrupulous government than this one, collaboration between politicians and security services would certainly not rule out spying on the opposition.
If the Wilson doctrine were to be even slightly modified or abandoned, there needs to judicial oversight, as Unity eloquently outlines. That this is still left to either politicians or a police officer is archaic and and clearly in need of urgent reform.
Labels: bugging, intercepts, Sadiq Khan, security services, Wilson doctrine
| Permalink
"collaboration between politicians and security services would certainly not rule out spying on the opposition."
Except an unscrupulous government in conjunction with the intelligence services wouldn't care whether such a doctrine existed or not. If they got caught they'd be public outrage regardless.
Posted by
FlipC |
Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:02:00 pm
True, but without it they could put a brave face on it and attempt to ride out the storm. With it, Straw was obliged to announce an inquiry.
Posted by
septicisle |
Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:22:00 pm
Post a Comment