GCHQ urged to come clean about terrorist information
DETAILS of secret terrorist bases are being found by GCHQ staff to pass on to American bombers, it has been claimed.
Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, believes there is "pretty compelling" evidence to suggest the Cheltenham-based Government listening post is passing information to the US to help locate targets for drone attacks.
-
CALL FOR ANSWERS: The GCHQ building
Lord Macdonald is now demanding bosses at the base own up to their work in passing on the information to the Americans.
He said the British people had a right to know if the agency was helping American secret services find the al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan.
Dyson DC50i - Bagless upright vacuum cleaner - BALL Technology -...
View detailsThisi is Dyson's smallest upright vacuum cleaner with the performance of a full size upright machine. The DC50i has Dyson's most advanced cleaner head technology and 2 Tier RadialTM cyclones.
Terms: LIMITED STOCK OFFER. FREE delivery to most UK postcodes - Next working day dispatch.
Contact: 01664 491439
Valid until: Monday, May 27 2013
Pakistan has repeatedly protested over the unmanned attacks, claiming it is a "violation of its sovereignty and international law".
Lord Macdonald told The Times: "The evidence is pretty compelling that we are providing that kind of information to the Americans.
"The British people have a right to know about the policies being pursued by their Government. I've been to Pakistan and I have seen what drone strikes can do.
"Innocent people do get killed as a result of misplaced strikes. It is also succeeding in creating a new generation of people with huge resentment against the West, fuelling the kind of terrorism we are trying to fight.
"The fact this is one-sided, mechanised and robotic gives these strikes a particularly sinister dimension.
"It strikes me as difficult for the Government to sustain the position that they are not going to comment."
Earlier this year David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislations, warned the Government faces a raft of civil cases over possible complicity.
A spokesman for GCHQ refused to be drawn on the issue.
He said: "In line with long- standing practice, GCHQ does not comment on intelligence matters."
Comments
by Joe_Sucksmith
Tuesday, September 25 2012, 8:38PM
“Out of sight, out of mind... ;-)
No, we are not at war. Western governments are simply doing what they have done for centuries: invade other countries to gain control over natural resources and secure geostrategic advantage... the associated slaughter rationalised through an essentially racist discourse that extols the virtues of "our boys", while dehumanising "the enemy" ("the terrorists do not differentiate between civilians, women, and children", "I really don't care if 10,000 terrorists are killed for every one person that died as a result of 9/11", "the Taliban have such a low opinion of women and children", and so on, ad nauseum).”
by IsitJimKerr
Monday, September 24 2012, 1:12PM
“Joe_Sucksmith...............we're at war, anything goes, like shooting your unarmed comrades, aka, green on blue attacks.
And has been said, the Taliban have such a low opinion of women and children. In fact, as we all know, women are the stronger sex, and many uneducated think that 'those that bleed' are a threat, which of course they are.
Lastly, just compare my and others feedback to yours.”
by tykelip
Sunday, September 23 2012, 9:40PM
“Dodgy logic, Lord Mac.
We and our allies need to keep each other informed about the enemy's whereabouts and activities at all times. If we started witholding such information because it might be used for drone attacks, we would automatically prevent our allies from using it for all other purposes, including force protection.”
by Walker100
Sunday, September 23 2012, 8:22PM
“Excellent job, well done.
And Joe_Sucksmith, I really don't care if 1000, or even 10,000, terrorists/insurgents are killed for every one person that died as a result of 9/11 or 7/7.
As for collateral damage, the people living around the insurgents/terrorists know who these people are, what they are doing and support them. If they get killed then perhaps they should have thought long and hard about who and what they were supporting.”
by Bonkim2003
Sunday, September 23 2012, 8:15PM
“Afghanistan has been a lawless land for centuries. Yes there is colateral damage when terrorist bases/groups are hit - now the terrorists themselves do not differentiate between civilians, women, and children - in their zeal anything/anyone against them are legitimate jihad targe - women are second class in their eyes and the normal rules of engagement/Geneva conventions do not apply in such situations. The only way to keep them down (you will not eliminate them completely because of their zeal/numbers) is to hit - keep up the attrition and make life hell for them. Ignore human rights bleeding hearts. Not humans.”
by Joe_Sucksmith
Sunday, September 23 2012, 7:51PM
“IsitJimKerr,
"these cowardly insurgents, or terrorists as we know them as, heard all the women and children around the vulnerable attack zones"
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
"Consequently, when they don't spot them, and quite legally strike..."
Proclaimed so confidently, I assume you've looked at the legal basis for the airstrikes quite closely. Please elucidate.
"I would like to see all Western troops out..."
Well at least we agree on something. ;-)”
by IsitJimKerr
Sunday, September 23 2012, 4:12PM
“Joe_Sucksmith.......................you'd better hope they're listening in when you and yours are under threat.
Stupid comparisons like that are worthless, and demean the great job our services do.
And something you neatly omitted, is the fact that these cowardly insurgents, or terrorists as we know them as, heard all the women and children around the vulnerable attack zones, hoping that the spyplanes spot them and don't strike. Consequently, when they don't spot them, and quite legally strike, they blame the attackers for killing the children. Going by your stats then, how come more men aren't killed, or can the Islamic 'law of averages' be blamed on the West as well?
I would like to see all Western troops out, as they are being scapegoated for the problems.
When Pakistan falls to the Taliban, watch it really take off!!”
by Joe_Sucksmith
Sunday, September 23 2012, 12:42PM
“Hey y'all... I've just happened across a really interesting factoid: if you tot up the Afghan civilians, mainly women and children, reported killed by US airstrikes (aided, seemingly, by GCHQ), you get a number that exceeds the death toll on "9-11". Ain't that a thing?”
by Coingrass
Saturday, September 22 2012, 10:16PM
“Interesting fact 2: Over 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed in 2011 alone but nearly 80% of them were killed by anti-government forces ie. Taliban/Al Qaeda. Source: Afghanistan Independant Human Rights Commission.”
by georgette2010
Saturday, September 22 2012, 5:21PM
“Lord Macdonald, keep your nose out of National Security and go back to flipping burgers!”