
MI5 agents can commit crime in UK, government reveals - dsr12
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/02/mi5-agents-are-allowed-to-commit-in-uk-government-reveals
======
lorenzhs
Quoting Matt Tait (former GCHQ) here: " _Also worth remembering that "agent"
here means "recruited source" and not "employee""_
([https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/96997040775861862...](https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/969970407758618625)),
and further " _This is kind of necessary, since being a member of a proscribed
international terror organization is a crime, and were it not so, Mi5 would be
unable to recruit sources inside them_ " and " _And also worth noting it is
guidelines on the use of sources who participate in criminality. It is not
about the government directing sources to participate in criminality._ " The
second-to-last paragraph of the article only makes sense using this reading: "
_The MI5 website says agents are “one of the most significant information
gathering assets we have”, adding “intelligence from our agents is critical to
keeping the UK safe”._ "

It seems the entire discussion here is based on a misunderstanding, the vast
difference between what MI5 calls an "agent" and what the public understands
when we hear "an MI5 agent", and thus misses the point by about a mile?

There's an interesting debate to be had about the questions posed by the
article, it's just not what's being discussed here right now. For example, in
Germany, an attempt to have the far-right ultra-nationalist NPD banned for
being anti-constitutional in 2003 was rejected by the Federal Constitutional
Court because a large number of agents (called V-Männer in German) were active
in the party leadership. This raised the question of whether some of the
evidence against the party might actually be influenced by agents of German
secret services. Since the secret services did not want to fully disclose
their agents' identities and activities, the court found the case to be
impossible to decide.

~~~
ShorsHammer
I've seen this line of reasoning quite frequently in the last few hours and am
a tad suspicious.

Let's frame it this way: Can the police pay criminals to commit crime in order
to arrest other people?

Here is a lovely example of my own wealthy first world country scamming one of
the poorest nations on earth out of their oil reserves for a handsome profit.
The man (Nick Warner) behind it all lives in luxury guarded by guns and the
bureaucratic evil protecting him and his ilk. The minister at the time
(Alexander Downer) afterwards went on to work for Woodside Petroleum, one of
the biggest oil companies in the world who coincidentally was the main
beneficiary of the shady deal.

May history judge them all appropriately.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–East_Timor_spying_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–East_Timor_spying_scandal)

~~~
primitur
Duplicity is a norm within the structures of the power elite. We, the people,
don't like to ever admit it - it interrupts our comfortable lives - but both
sides are regularly played by those who have the advantage of technological,
legislative and bureaucratic power. Australia's imperial adventures pale in
comparison with those of its allies in the 5-eyes nations, but its still just
playing by the same rulebook of its cousins.

"Play both sides, for power." Now, the UK is freely admitting it does this.

------
jimnotgym
Whilst discussing this with friends there was a feeling that MI5 certainly
need some sort of 'special powers'. I don't see why those special powers
should not be in the Act itself and agreed before parliament. For instance the
'Snoopers Charter' grants amazing powers to the security services, but
parliament did agree it.

When the executive still feel the need to break the law in order to operate,
it gives one a clear picture of their attitude to the rule of law

~~~
admax88q
This isn't very dissimilar to being an undercover detective.

If there were very clear rules spelled out in law about what you can and
cannot do, then criminals could use these to develop a robust litmus test for
undercover operatives.

While I agree its unsettling that government agents could be committing crimes
legally, I can also see the argument for leniency if it helps them penetrate
further into criminal enterprises and bring them down more effectively.

~~~
pjc50
On the other hand, if there _aren 't_ any rules then the security services can
simply murder dissidents.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane)

Edit: another recent scandal; is it OK for undercover police to have long-term
sexual relations with the people they are informing on?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relationships_scandal)

Until reading that I hadn't been aware that questions had been asked in the
Bundestag about Mark Kennedy; understandably Germany takes a view of both (a)
secret police and (b) foreigners committing arson.

~~~
baddox
I’ll go a step further and say that I am strongly in favor of erring _way_ on
the side of less legal immunity for undercover agents. I don’t think a world
with no undercover agents (especially domestic agents; foreign operatives is a
bit of a different ballgame) sounds particularly horrible, but a world with
domestic agents with significant immunity is pretty much the definition of
dystopia.

------
Joeboy
"Duress of circumstances" is available as a defence for anybody accused of a
crime. I would presume that would cover many cases of undercovers committing
minor crimes to maintain their covers in threatening circumstances.

I'm not aware that it's ever been a real issue, eg. I'm not sure if there's
any suggestion of Bob Lambert being prosecuted for his alleged involvement in
firebombing Debenhams.

Edit: I'm a bit confused about what the actual legal implications of this
"guidance" are. IIUC it's about guidance given to MI5 agents, as such I
suppose in theory the legal implication is that if they commit "authorised"
crimes they could argue in court that it's their employer's responsibility.

~~~
pjc50
No, but the Met did pay nearly half a million quid to avoid going into the
question of whether an undercover policeman sleeping with his target
constituted rape.

~~~
Joeboy
I think, tbf, that was more about dodging the question of child support than
rape. I don't think any of the women targeted by undercover police officers
are pursuing rape cases.

~~~
coldtea
> _I don 't think any of the women targeted by undercover police officers are
> pursuing rape cases._

Why wouldn't you think that?

In fact, they are doing exactly that: "11 women (...) are currently suing the
police after being tricked into having sexual relationships with men later
revealed to be undercover officers (...)".

Especially when the "women targeted by undercover police officers" are not
some hardened terrorists living undercover themselves (who'd avoid going to
courts at all costs), but people e.g. belonging to some environmental
activists group or some left wing protesters, etc.

~~~
Joeboy
They are pursuing cases, but they are not rape cases. I believe they're human
rights and other cases.

------
PoachedSausage
This should not really come as a shock. The internal and external state
security apparatus of most countries almost certainly operate in a hazy gray
area on the edges of the law.

~~~
danbruc
Espionage is illegal in most if not all countries, so essentially anything you
do outside of your borders is illegal. If agents from foreign country do the
same things in your country that you ask your agents to do in foreign
countries, you throw the former into jail and pay the later. It's an
interesting philosophical topic.

~~~
e12e
MI5 is internal security, MI6 is external. MI5 doing eg kidnapping, rendition
and torture of British citizens on British soil would be a question of "are
they allowed to commit such crimes for an alleged greater good?".

~~~
primitur
"Are these MI5 agents allowed to attend the child sex parties of the MP's, for
an alleged greater good?"

\- Doesn't sound so noble to me, honestly.

------
dijit
I believe that this has been the case for some time, but given the context of
an authoritarian government I am rather worried about this line of thinking by
the government today.

I would prefer that they expand on exactly what they mean by criminal
behaviour, because, even the police can engage in some criminal behaviours in
their occupation as long as it's sanctioned and it has a limit.

I "know a guy" who worked in CID and it was the case they had more authority
to do things unsanctioned. Much more than the standard investigators
associated with the police were permitted without formal approval. I sincerely
hope that is not the case when you go deeper into the secret services.

~~~
shaki-dora
While the current UK government is second only to the US in providing that
uncanny feeling of both despair and amusement, I would hesitate to call them
"autocratic". Save yourself some rhetorical breathing room for when you need
it.

Among other things, "autocratic" implies something of a firm grip on power. A
quality the current UK government does not seem to have ("get a grip" is
probably something Theresa May hears more often than she'd care to admit).

~~~
dijit
As much as they (current gov) are scarecly clutching to power. They have still
managed to pass bills like the Investigatory Powers act and banned use of the
open internet without ID (under the guise of blocking porn until the line
owner provides an ID proving they're over 18)

I stand by my statement. They're authoritarian. Even if they are very
desperately clutching to the power they need to keep pushing the authoritarian
agenda.

~~~
primitur
>They're authoritarian.

Widely entrenched Child-sex rings among the MP's, covered up in the name of
'national security'. Too damn right they're authoritarian.

------
danbruc
Well, if there was I new guy around and he refused to steal a getaway car
while I and my friends were preparing to steal the crown jewels, I know which
guy I would be suspicious of. Also if I knew an agent is allowed to steal cars
but not to beat up people, I know what I would ask the new guy to do. Whether
the benefits outweigh the costs is a different question but if you concluded
that it is a net positive then there is at least this argument to not be too
public about it.

~~~
madez
The argument of the net gain is flawed. A hallmark of modern, free societies
is that it's exactly not one for all, but the right and freedom of the
individuum.

~~~
danbruc
This is not true at all. All modern societies limit personal freedom in
countless ways for the better of the entire society. And those limits are not
flaws of the current systems, i.e. you will not get a better societies by
abolishing them. There are still some instances where we should abolish limits
on personal freedom for the better but this is certainly not the general case.

~~~
madez
This part of the thread is becoming ridiculous.

In all societies at all times there is some system to act against the interest
of some people under some conditions. That is trivial. What differentiates
modern free societies, then?

Modern free societies are characterized by a system of law that not only the
weak must obey, but also the powerful. Everbodies basic rights are protected,
even against the government.

Sure, we pay taxes, and cooperate by compromise in countless ways. However,
that's not what we are talking about here, at all!

There is simply no way a government can lawfully kill a citizen to help some
others, at least not in the EU, _whatever_ the net gain may. That is just one
obvious example of how the argument of the net gain is simply overruled by
modern principles of basic human rights.

~~~
danbruc
But it is not known which laws they are allowed to break and which not, you
just mentioned killing people for the first time, neither I nor the article
did this. What about breaking into houses to plant bugs? I would actually be
surprised if they were not allowed to do this.

And I picked the example of beating someone up not totally at random, people
went to court against the MI5 and MI6 because of their involvement with
deportation of British citizens to Guantanamo [1] which may or may not turn
out to be a worse fate than getting beaten up in a dark alley.

And last but not least, the licence to kill [2] seems to be an actual thing.

[1] [http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-
testi...](http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-
project/testimonies/testimony-of-foreign-intelligence-personnel/guantanamo-
bay-detainee-sues-british-intelligence-agencies-over-torture/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_kill_(concept)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_kill_\(concept\))

------
bookofjoe
aka "black bag jobs":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bag_operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bag_operation)

