The Dutch security services AIVD and MIVD broke the rules on phone tapping several times when they listened in to both journalists and lawyers without prior approval, according to the official regulator. The AIVD wrongly recorded and wrote up three phone calls involving lawyers without first clearing the taps with officials. In addition, the transcripts do not show any implications for national security, which would have legitimized the taps, the CTIVD said in its annual report. In turn, the MIVD transcribed an interview between a suspect and foreign lawyer even though there were no national security implications in their conversation.
Security service officials also tapped someone s communications for a period of six months in an effort to find out which journalist he was talking to. It is not clear if this is illegal and jurisprudence is still being developed in this field, the CTIVD said. The watchdog says journalists should be covered by the same legislation as lawyers, which means that taps need to have prior approval. Home affairs minister Ronald Plasterk and defence minister Jeanine Hennis say they have no plans to include the extra check, the Volkskrant reported. New legislation on phone and internet taps which is awaiting approval in the senate does not include such additional safeguards against abuse.
There are four newish insights into what Brexit means to Theresa May in her letter to Donald Tusk, that initiates Brexit talks. First and most important is that she wants to “agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation”. The letter then says – ominously – “in security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened”.
Now it is difficult to believe that other EU leaders won’t see that as a threat, that if they don’t give proper access to the EU’s markets to our businesses then she’ll make sure our security services and police aren’t quite as helpful to them as they could be. Hmmm. The problem with that apparent threat is that it cuts both ways: it is not obviously in our interest to work half-heartedly with the security services on the continent, even if we think our expertise and resources are superior.
That said, she also tried to be emollient in respect of one important element of future talks on a free trade agreement with the EU – in that she explicitly accepted that British businesses would have to adhere to EU rules and regulations if they want to export to the EU. Which was quite a brave thing for the PM to say, in that there are many on her benches in the Commons who want a so-called bonfire of EU regulations, and they won’t be thrilled at her deployment of a fire extinguisher. She also placated businesses, and alienated the arch Brexiteers, by saying she would not impose a cliff-edge of brand new trading rules on British companies, and that full exit from the EU would only come after what they call several years of transition and she calls a period of implementation.
Finally, and as I reported yesterday, she is insistent that the trade and security partnership with the EU that she wants must be negotiated alongside the formal divorce: that is she won’t agree what we owe the EU under our budget commitments or what the residence rights of EU citizens living here would be as a precursor to talks on our future relationship. For her exit terms and the future are all part of one package, to be sorted over the next 18 months. Importantly and by contrast, for the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, there can be no deal on trade or security until our liabilities are crystallised and the status of EU migrants is established.
So these talks will begin in the traditional EU way – with a huge and difficult gulf to bridge, and the impression that it’ll all break down and fall apart immediately.
Which of course it won’t, because if the EU is defined by anything, it is brinkmanship that turns out to be sound and fury that rarely leads to a total collapse in jaw-jaw.
March 29, 2017
Charles William Chuck Schaefer, Jr., 91, of North Beach passed away March 25, 2017 in Washington, D.C. He was born November 26, 1925 in New York City and was raised in Queens, later moving with his family to Virginia. He attended public schools and worked on the family farm and business, Schaefer s Market. He entered the USMC February 23, 1944, serving during World War II until his discharge July 26, 1946 as a Corporal. Chuck married Virginia Lee Brady on February 20, 1958 and they lived in Virginia and North Beach, moving there permanently in 1958. He was employed as a warehouseman at the American Hospital Supply in Washington, D.C., and later as a security guard at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. He was also employed as a supervisor of contract janitorial workers at the Navy Research Lab in Chesapeake Beach. He was a member of North Beach Union Church and Bayside Baptist Church. In his leisure time Chuck enjoyed bowling, attending church activities and animals, especially his dogs Belle and Oliver. Chuck is survived by his wife Virginia Lee Schaefer, a daughter Evelyn Joy Jenkins of Virginia, a grandson David Miller of Virginia, and brothers William J. Schaefer and wife Helen of Ft. Washington, MD and Thomas G. Schaefer and wife Daisy of Florida. Time of Service: 3/31/2017 11:30 AM
Service Location: Rausch Funeral Home Owings