.
.
.
I have experiences with MI-5 dating back to 1986, and continuing to the present. Yes they do torture, but well before the tragic events of 9/11. Especially in my case, and I must assume in the case of other anonymous individuals from the UK. It is a law unto itself, which serves the interests of sections of the UK elite, and their particular whim or fetishes for the day. Therefore its is above the law, and no officer serving in this notorious organization has been prosecuted ever. At best they might be removed from a particular department or quietly retired after some adverse publicity, but serving officers never face criminal charges, and this type of "insulation from the norms of law" creates sheer criminality......going back to the period when they were first created in 1909.
In addition because parliament does not have a comprehensive oversight system over this organization, AND that very often the likes of the Rothschilds, Tesco's and Marks & Spencers uses MI-5 as their private high street security, the level of illegality and criminality increases many fold, to the point where it is more appropriate to describe it as a Mafia organization existing at the tax payers expense.
I wrote about them for my final year law dissertation paper, "The relationship between the state, the security services and the law." submitted in March 1996. My dissertation paper did not take an optimistic view of them, and the very first sentence began like this..........."Trying to control the security services [by parliament] is like trying to grab a slippery eel in a bowl full of slime......."
Policemen are accountable at least in the UK, they can face charges and prison, as can bureaucrats in general...... many of whom resign, protest or go to prison over certain contentious issues. With MI-5 officers this is not the case, since they are anointed with an aura of being above the law. Now this is perfectly fine if its ranks are filled with all wise, all knowing mandarins and public servants who do their utmost for the state......but if they are fallible, if they are human with bouts of anger, greed, racism, paranoia which goes with the job.....especially the longer you serve, just like the rest of us, then the system fails, and we have serious criminality, AND because MI-5 exists in an insulated world where there is hardly any oversight or review by outside public bodies, a certain culture develops based around paranoia and plausible denialability.
In the case of the UK, and plausible denialibility, that means MI-5 contracting out criminal work to private security very often run by the same....."tendering out". The UK would be a lot happier country without MI-5 and its history of mischief within the UK. It is worth less than all the trouble its creates, because of the narrow base of its recruitment from little England, to the far right, most of whom don't usually see or can't see further than their toes, decidedly mediocre and problematic.
States which elevate security, to the center, around which government policy is formulated subsequently, with these pigmies setting the state agenda have always been unhappy, failed states.......Stasi East Germany (DDR) Soviet Union, North Korea, Mullah Iran, Haiti and the Ton Ton Makoot of Papa Doc Duvalier, Baby Doc Duvalier (aka Rothschilds Britain)....and so forth.
And so allegations persist of their "moonlighting" work which has very little to do with protecting internal state security, and everything to do with working as an annex and thus serving sections of the Mafia criminal elite of the UK.
The saga of the East India Company and its business in Opium is well known. What is not so well known, or highlighted due to Victorian morals and the desire not to talk about it....if you don't talk about it or write about it, then it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist then your Victorian values are perfectly intact. Even after the East India Company was disbanded, the Opium Trade continued flourishing......with London being the primary laundering center for the trade to this day, competing with NY. MI-5 so closely linked to the criminal elites of Britain (I'm not talking about the Royal Family, or most of the gentile aristocracy) is very involved with this lucrative trade, which harms hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions in the UK.
The solution around this problem is finding the moral courage of the British state to fully investigate itself, and appoint an independent police investigation into this matter----whilst there are spoiler tactics from the criminal elite that would be expected simultaneously. This is true what I say, very true......one of the reasons why the British army is in Helmand Province. British troops returning don't have to check through customs.
Then there are the other allegations involving little children abducted from around Europe, and elsewhere for ritual sex and then murder, which satisfies the urges of certain sections of the criminal elite in the UK. Then of course there is commercial espionage against foreign and domestic competitors (Julian Pettifer case into 2000), Insider Trading.......and illegal surveillance against anyone and everyone.
And oh, lets not forget false flag ops in the service of Israel in London 7/7 2005 and so forth.....that was clearly MI-5 handiwork. It also of course happens to run most of the Neo-Nazi outfits, as well as the Islamist clowns such as Ajem Chaodhury, from where it gets its fodder for false flag ops......which lead to more Orwellian security legislation in the UK, to "protect" Britain.
Investigating MI-5 for not being so nice to 25 men whilst serious is the least of the problems MI-5 have created over the years which have fundamental negative impacts on the UK state and its security in the original wholesome sense.
"New Labor" under the direction of Crypto-Jew Bliar, and the gaggle of other Jews serving in his administration, such as Straw and Mandelson, backed up by Levy gave the baton of fighting GWOT to MI-5, after 9/11. An interesting choice given the numerous allegations of MI-5 anti Labor activities from its inception in 1909 through to destabilising Harold Wilson's government in the 1970's, and enabling the Conservatives to come to power, and stay in power for four unprecedented terms. (If I were "genuine Labor" I for one wouldn't have picked this organisation-----because such an decision promoted it, gave it greater power, gave it greater resources and greater personnel),
There are some allegations that Bliar was party to the 7/7 acts in 2005 in that he was aware and approved of them, and indeed one could say that the whole prosecution of GWOT over the last 9 years, and MI-5 roles in that including torture of UK nationals etc could not have happened without the knowledge of Bliar and his inner circle, the Home Office, The Foreign Office generally. MI-5 is a rogue organisation, but it is also part of British bureaucracy of the operational kind, and its torture antics in sleazy Third World nations such in Morrocco, Pakistan, Jordan and other such places could not have happened without the substantial knowledge of the British State in a more holistic sense.
As the Iraq Chilcott enquiry has shown the Labor government is not serious about investigating and getting to the bottom of serious state crime, indeed the Chillcott enquiry became a platform for crypto-Jew Bliar to propagate his Jew agenda for his special tribe over Iraq, and even Iran, whilst the panel of six remained silent, fawning like pubescent little girls at their host.
_________________________________
Former attorney general demands 'clarification' from ministers on activities of intelligence agencies.
The former attorney general Lord Goldsmith last night called for an investigation into whether Britain's intelligence agencies or government were complicit in the torture of British terror suspects abroad.
His demand came days after the Court of Appeal's decision last week to release seven paragraphs summarising a US intelligence report which showed that MI5 was aware of the inhumane treatment, including sleep deprivation and shackling, meted out to the terror suspect Binyam Mohamed by his American interrogators in 2002.
"I believe [this issue] needs to be clarified in the interests of the public and the intelligence agencies," he said. "However that clarification comes about – I look forward to hearing how the government proposes that that should be done."
His view is at odds with the Government, which continues to deny there has been any collusion in torture. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, last week dismissed the idea as "ludicrous lies". The Government last week denied it was aware of any cruel or inhuman techniques of interrogation until 2004, after which it changed its guidelines for security officers – although these have never been published.
Despite the denial, there are at least four other troubling cases in which terror suspects claim they have been tortured with the knowledge of the British intelligence services. In some cases security officers were allegedly feeding questions to the American or Pakistan's ISI intelligence service.
Britain's official position is that it does not condone torture, which is against international law. However, evidence is mounting that in the wake of 9/11 there was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy after the Americans decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war on terror. It is claimed that agents entering a room where torture was taking place would simply leave, giving rise to arguments over the definition of "complicity".
Human rights lawyers point out that under the 1994 Intelligence Act agents operating abroad are not secure from prosecution unless a minister has signed off on their actions. The ministers involved are the home and foreign secretaries – David Blunkett and Jack Straw in 2002.
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg alleged yesterday that the knowledge of torture must have gone up to No 10. There are suggestions of a divergence of view between MI5 and the Government following the Court of Appeal's decision, with MI5 fearing it has been hung out to dry. Such sentiment culminated in an extraordinary article, published on Friday, by MI5's boss Jonathan Evans, in which he drew attention to the probity of his staff.
One former MI5 official told the IoS yesterday: "I find it inconceivable that the Government would not know. Security officers were making their concerns known about the use of torture in 2002. It is beyond belief that such complaints would not be passed up."
The United Nations has just completed a study, which accuses Britain of "taking advantage of the situation of secret detentions by sending questions to the state which detains the person or by soliciting or receiving information from persons who are kept in detention".
Martin Scheinin, a UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights, told the IoS: "I am very disappointed at the defensiveness of the British government. When there is strong prima facie evidence of UK complicity in torture, they should be helping uncover the truth but instead they are just blaming others and citing 'conspiracy theories' about anyone who raises suspicions."
Another authoritative intelligence source added: "Between 2002 and 2005 the UK was probably the most opportunistic partner of the US, picking the fruits of extraordinary rendition, torture and secret detention. Current American officers are quite bitter about this, saying that while they did all the dirty work the UK sneakily sent questions and interrogators."
Lord Goldsmith, who was Britain's legal chief in 2002, added that he was keeping "an open mind" as to the form the clarification should take, but that it was "important in the light of what the Court of Appeal said and what senior ministers have said this week".
Asked yesterday if he had discussed torture in 2002 he said: "it was an issue of importance to make sure we did not take part, of course, but to be sure that we didn't do anything that might condone or be complicit in it". "I'm very troubled by what actually happened," he said recently, "and that's why I've said yes, these are matters which ought to be investigated. If there was complicity, it's important that people are brought to book."
(It won't happen under this Labour government.)
