The Times
Sean O'Neill Crime and Security Editor
Secrecy is the watchword of our intelligence and security services — an essential component of their work, which arouses intense suspicion and spawns countless conspiracy theories.
MI5, MI6, and bodies such as Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command have to keep hidden much of what they know. They don't publicise the information they gather about the nuclear capabilities of hostile states or the activities of terrorists. However, in an age where transparency, accountability and instant access are in demand, that secrecy is being called into question more and more. The battle between keeping things secret and being answerable is increasingly fought in our courts.
The Guantánamo detainees' case was not the only secrecy suit being heard yesterday. The Government was also told that it must reveal "sensitive" information to a Customs officer who was suspended from his job after his cousin was arrested in the airline bomb plot investigation.
The situation has made the security world jittery. In a letter to The Times yesterday, three former leading lights of that world expressed concern that the Lib Dems "are seemingly willing to expose our intelligence and security services to relentless inquiry and investigation".
The concern is not only about the Lib Dems, but also about pressure groups, persistent lawyers and the possibility of public inquiries that pore over the minute details of past events. It will be a tricky act for a new government to decide how it balances that public demand for openness with the requirement that much of the work done to keep us safe remains shrouded in secrecy.
Previous Article
Post a Comment