Insane Rule That Allows British Spies To Commit Murder

The sun descending into a far-flung and barren spot in Syria is casting long shadows across the decaying city and the dusty streets. This now-forgotten corner of the Middle East is where a high-stakes show is happening with the CIA and the British MI6 in charge of the orchestra. Both organizations have merged their resources for several months and are decided to break the terrorist plan of colossal scale. After scouring the globe for the perpetrators, the MI6 operatives have finally cornered their quarry: four youths, blazing with their ideals, ready to give up their lives for the sake of their beliefs. The organization is founded and headed by a seasoned and calculating figure who strives to completely destroy the UK.

You feel the tension on the air as the British guys look through their pistols and other stuff. There will be no arrests today; the bodies of these men will leave bullets being pumped into their bodies and the death will be legitimate in the eyes of the British Government. MI6's words that their operatives don't kill unintended victims and that they do so only as a last resort is contradicted by the reality. At the end of the day, British spies are covered by section 7 of the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, which gives them a very wide spectrum of activities and virtually unlimited powers, including during assassinations.

The legal framework, however, is not a license to anyone to kill at his own desire, MI6 agents must still operate within the UK law code of conduct, notwithstanding the place of their mission. Nevertheless, if an agent is directed to disregard these legal limits, a written permission from the secretary of state is required for the procedure; after the senior intelligence leadership have reviewed it. This dragnet is meant to balance all the plusses and minuses if the mission go wrong as the impact of the failed mission could be disastrous. Once the operation has failed, a spy gets detained, and as a consequence of the operation failures, the British government can face a diplomatic crisis and a huge embarrassment.

The result of the aforementioned choice is not just a mere 'if', it is a 'truth'. The United States’ intelligence operations, that were revealed by Edward Snowden, had some bad reputation since they also included selectivity and spouse spying for international partners. Unmasking of a British spy during the process of committing illegal activities against the guidelines of the rules would be considered as a major victory for enemies that might solemnly affect the position of UK as an international partner.

The consequences, however, are the same locally: they are just as severe. The mistrust prevails in both countries- Great Britain and the US- coming out of campaigns of kidnappings and jails without proper judicial procedures. The nation's people had lost faith in their intelligence agencies over the worst exploits they had done in the past which were exemplified by the MI6 here with the rendition operations they implemented in Libya. In 2012, it was discovered that British intelligence was collaborating closely with Gaddafi’s regime when some files were discovered by officials in one of the Libyan state offices. It came to light that MI6 assisted the Libyans with the identification of their dissidents and had given intelligence that lead to their captures and interrogations, in turn for which they received access to Libyan oil.

The incident that I would like to refer to here is that of Saami a-Saadi, the administrator of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who mysteriously disappeared along with his family and was then sent back to Libya, where he was tortured and kept in the prison. The operation, alongside MI6, performed as the respect part of the broader deal that Shell signed the gaz exploration agreement having a huge profit with Libya. That incident led to a court case which targeted the British Government, disclosing the problematic aspects of the mentioned kind of deals.

MI6’s questionable endeavours are not a contemporary issue but rather far-reaching one. The historical reports claim that MI6 was the one to assist in the killing of Patrice Lumumba who was first Congolese democratically elected prime minister in 1961. Such assassination, according to reports from different sources, was allegedly done to prevent him from establishing ties with the Soviet Union. The reality of this matter remains a question, however it as well highlights the agency's readiness to undertake extra judicial measures to safeguard the interests of the nation.

The historical parallels with MI6 operations are still abundantly in existence. In the nineties, the agency once considered killing a high-ranking Serbian official in order to put an end to the violence in the Balkans region. It may have been finally put into practice, but the plan itself shows that MI6 is ready to go far and wide to achieve its ends.

MI6-CIA 9/11 coordination played out against the background of extraordinary rendition, seizing and subjecting to interrogation terrorism suspects. A number of such operations which were characterized by severe human rights violations that were actually euphemistically called enhanced interrogation techniques. Human beings would remain fuming with indignation after the revelation of these wrongdoings but very little was done to prosecute or hold those involved liable, If the 1994 Intelligence Services Act was anything to go by.

Today we don’t know the full list of what MI6 does because these activities are shrouded in secrecy. The authority's generic legislation is somehow pronounced causing the perpetrator to act with severe impunity. Though MI6 perpetually claims to stick to the ethical doctrines, the future portrays a trending of grave actions that question the moral lines. With the growing threats changing from global names, the dilemma has not ceased. The question remains will the methods of agency grow with the time change and leave behind the secret and controversial operations or continue to work on the old ways of the past.