Are you aware of 'Death on the Rock' when the UK govt authorised the assassination of three IRA members in Gilbraltar? That was the year before the Finucane murder and if the govt had to authorise that doesn't it follow that they would also have to authorise something like a collusion killing? I'm not aware of any patterns where the Secret Service have been involved with civilian killings on their own. I am aware of a succession of cover-ups and sneaky establishment tactics though. Again, to get some sort of truth the relatives of the Gibraltar three had to go to the European Court of Human Rights because the govt deliberately mislead the public.

You don't have to agree with me btw but I don't think I've suggested anything that's a stretch given the previous behaviour of UK govts.

I'm not saying it is a stretch, what I was questioning is the op's stance that the report had to be wrong to because he didn't agree with it.

Not a good week for the British image of justice and fair play, has it?



What with this and paying off the victims of our "deliver a dissident" work on behalf of the Gadaffi regime. Without admission of liability, obviously

[url=http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/apology-for-pat-finucane-not-enoughSo the army's Force Research Unit enlisted an ex-soldier, Brian Nelson, to streamline the UDA's killing machine. De Silva describes Nelson as "to all intents and purposes a direct state employee" – a remarkable admission. MI5 used him to orchestrate arms shipments from South Africa to distribute among loyalists. The state, it seems, took control of re-tooling the paramilitaries.[/url

Former secret service operatives such as Ray McGovern, John Stockwell, Phil Agee, Bob Baer (and even the notoriously cryptic Peter Wright of "Spycatcher" fame) have all poured scorn on the "rogue agent" excuse. It's not that spooks aren't encouraged to use their own initiative - far from it. But such people are usually much further up the food chain - giving orders. Footsoldiers, on the other hand, have very little latitude not least because the overwhelming majority of intelligence gathering is procedural, form filling, briefings, de-briefings etc. It's mind-numbing tedium and to take a you need half a dozen signatures in triplicate.



I mean, sure, it’s [ipossible[/i that a low-ranking operative was put into a position where he could execute a political target (the political blowback from which would have fallen not on him but his superiors), but is it [iprobable?[/i



As Peter Wright said, senior politicians (such as the PM, Home Secretary etc.) and decision-makers in MI5 & MI6 wouldn’t dream of authorising the assassination of a political figure unless they were protected from being held accountable in a court of law at some point in the future. Orthodox methods of record-keeping are subverted so that those involved always retain plausible deniability.



If the political fallout is too extreme then it’s the easiest thing in the world (as well as the oldest trick in the book) to throw some low-ranking officer to the wolves. Regrettable to be sure. But entirely necessary if we are to maintain order and stability.