Once again I’ve had the experience of having to reconsider some of my fondest convictions. This time I had my lesson from Eliza Manningham
Buller, former head of the British security service, MI5, in one of her BBC
Reith lectures this year.
Ex-spook chief with remarkable insights |
The unease that comes from feeling personally targeted came
when she referred to those sceptics who tended to see security and freedom as
opposed, with her firmly on the side of the former. That was, I shamefacedly
had to admit, certainly my position, to classify among those inclined to limit
rather than to defend liberty.
Her view is that there is no contradiction between security
and freedom. For her, MI5’s mission is to protect both. As she pointed out,
twice to stress the point, the stated objective of the organisation is to
defend parliamentary democracy.
Within this general framework she made two specific points
that struck me particularly.
On the use of waterboarding by the United States, she said ‘torture is illegal in our national law and
in international law. It is wrong and never justified.’
Like quite a few opponents of the use of torture, I’ve
tended to argue that it doesn’t generate good intelligence. She on the other
hand believes that it sometimes does, but points out that the argument that
lifesaving intelligence was sometime obtained by it, ‘and I accept it was, still does not justify it. Torture should be
utterly rejected even when it may offer the prospect of saving lives. I am
proud my Service refused to turn to the torture of high-level German prisoners
in the Second World War, when, in the early years, we stood alone and there was
a high risk of our being invaded and becoming a Nazi province. So if not then,
why should it be justified now?’
It was chastening to listen to her. The argument over
whether torture is effective or ineffective is irrelevant – it’s quite simply
wrong. Turning to a utilitarian justification only weakens the moral argument,
which is more than strong enough on its own.
As it happens, though, she comes out with something close to
a utilitarian argument herself, almost as an afterthought.
I believe that the
acquisition of short-term gain through water-boarding and other forms of
mistreatment was a profound mistake and lost the United States moral authority
and some of the widespread sympathy it had enjoyed as a result of 9/11. And I
am confident that I know the answer to the question of whether torture has made
the world a safer place. It hasn’t.
Giving up the moral high ground weakens us and attracts more
recruits to the ranks of our enemies.
But Manningham-Buller made another point that struck me
almost as strongly and much more personally. It concerned the rule of law. She declared:
The Security Service
Act of 1989 was long overdue - the government of Mrs Thatcher was not, at
first, convinced of its necessity - but its importance was critical. The
Service’s experience of working on a proper legislative basis has been wholly positive.
But even at that early stage in 1989 we knew its importance.
Like most people, I would have expected the spooks to do all
in their power to resist legal oversight. So it was a bit of a surprise to find
that Manningham-Buller was, on the contrary, only too pleased to have a proper
legal framework for her work.
Funnily enough that chimed with a personal experience of my
own, though not perhaps at quite her level.
My work involves using large quantities of healthcare
information, often including confidential material about identified patients. Following
a series of scandals some years ago – you know, the usual things: lost USB
keys, stolen laptops, all the mundane disasters that can happen with unsecured
data – regulations were so massively tightened that it became almost impossible
to do my job.
Recently, though, good sense has prevailed. Regulations have
been revised and intelligent procedures put in place. People have realised that
there is no point in having a system so restrictive that it’s
impossible to do the very things they regard not only as legitimate, but
actually necessary for the sake of good healthcare.
For instance, a key thing when
looking at how an individual case has gone is to be able to look at other cases
for the same patient – but that means knowing who the patient is, which in turn
means working with ‘patient identifiable data’, the very stuff the regulations had
originally made inaccessible.
The problem's been met by setting ways of doing things that mean that, as long as we stick to rules about who can see what, how it needs to be
handled, how long it is kept and so on. And, funnily enough, I find it
surprisingly relaxing to work that way: I know that what I’m doing is within
the rules, it isn’t going to expose me to any unpleasant consequences with the
law, and at the same time it’s making sure that patient confidentiality is
preserved.
And since, in other conditions, I’m a patient myself, I’m really
rather happy about that last point.
So it’s good to be able to say with Mannigham-Buller that my
‘experience of working on a proper
legislative basis has been wholly positive’. I know what she means.
On the bigger points, though, about the morality and nature
of a security service – well, I can’t claim to have anything like her insight –
only, despite myself, to rather admire her point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment