In Great Britain, it’s legal for spy agencies to use secret surveillance and eavesdrop on attorney-client relations. That’s just the beginning.
Yesterday, the Government Communications Headquarters’ own classified documents were found. That’s Great Britain’s version of the CIA. The discovered documents state, and I quote, “You may target in principal target the communication of lawyers.” Other agencies have the legal right of way to use surveillance on journalist. Such documents were brought to light in the wake of a case that started 10 years ago. The case was the British government vs. a Libyan family. The family says they were mistreated, even tortured, in a joint British-American operation at the time. Now, this family says they and their lawyers from human rights group Reprieve were spied on to deliberately aid the British government’s case. Legal advocates are worried. Amnesty International legal advocate Richard Logan believes such acts would violate age old English principals that go as far back as the 16th century. However, there are qualifications that must be used before they can spy on lawyers, journalist, and others. Regulations include, “Having reasonable grounds to believe they’re participating in or planning against the interest of national security, the economic well-being of the UK or which in itself constitutes a serious crime.”
That statement sounds reasonable on the surface, but look at the big picture. Look at how broad that statement can be. People and institutions are so on the edge these days that anything can interpreted against national security, even a journalism story and lawyer-client confidentiality. Mr. Logan has an excellent point. It’s funny we learn about these documents and rulings when Britain is in the middle of an incriminating and embarrassing trial. I’m not in Britain,? but I think, and I hope the people raise concerns about this. Is this ruling a great big cover up? Does Britain have the right to spy?