Editorial - 01/09/2002

Controlling the security service

For a moment everyone has conveniently forgotten to what extent the security service monitors our conversations and movements.

Unearthing the judges' bribery case makes our cloak and dagger crew seem like a bulwark of justice and fairness. But are they? There is much cause for concern.

This is the first time that the work of the security service has come to light.

Last year we argued that the judiciary should be involved in issuing the security service with warrants for surveillance. The first known catch in the security service’s monitoring turn out to be two judges. Our original proposal has had its deathblow.

The telecommunications companies, Go Mobile and Vodafone are obliged to provide the security service with equipment to monitor hand held telephony.

It does not stop here; they are also constantly it appears pestered to provide details on telephone conversations. The same applies to Maltacom. Who is being monitored? Why? If there is a need for secrets, who should be in on it other than the police themselves?

Crime must be fought, but we should not be expected to trust the police with setting the policy and organising the war against crime. We know who the police are.

Surely some useful phone taps on some police officers would reveal some interesting aspect in the life of police officers!

We need a system of covert surveillance but we cannot have people’s private conversations monitored by ‘unknown’ police officials for just any reason.

The fight against drugs can be won with appropriate policy decisions. It should not be difficult for a decent and honest judiciary to issue warrants for surveillance to the Vice Squad.

But to have a security service that demands to be above the law is unacceptable.

Deferential apologists will scorn such comments. Until, that is, the security service widens its tentacles and becomes curious about fraud, tax evasion and accumulation of income from undeclared sources.

If we wish to portray ourselves as a liberal, democratic country there must be effective safeguards in place. Whom do we trust? If there isn't anybody, should we leave the police with super snoop powers?

Why Malta should chide George Bush

The news that George Bush wishes to invade Iraq is bad news. He does this against the wishes of the Western world and the Arab world. And yet, this colourless American President is set in launching a war on someone he wrongly equates with Adolf Hitler. His defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, issued another statement comparing George Bush to Winston Churchill, a comparison that many historians will find odious for obvious reasons.

George Bush is not only out of synch when it comes to global environmental protection but also more importantly when it comes to understanding world politics.

The Maltese government is non-committal to non-existent on the issue. Our government should take a stand and politely criticise the US government –any such war will destabilise the region, and Malta has nothing to gain from the risk. We should have a right to squeak when our existence is threatened.

We also agree with what George Vella stated on a Super One Radio show, that the government was waiting to see what the European Union had to say on the matter. When it is clear where the country's vital interests lie we should not have to wait for anybody. Tony Blair doesn't wait, why should we? Wait and copy tactics are a good idea when we are not on the frontline. When we are, let's not dither.