jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (02/25/86)
Concerning my recent question to a Canadian citizen: >>> I'm Canadian. The Queen is Canada's sovereign, represented by the >>> Governor-General. >> >> Would you please expand on this statement? What are the duties, rights >> and privileges of the "sovereign". What real power does the sovereign or her >> representative have in making the decisions of government? How do these >> rights compare with the rights of the average Canadian citizen? When there >> is a difference of opinion on matters of government, whose will prevails >> under various scenarios? Tom Tedrick asks: > In my ignorance, I was surprised to discover that during WW2 the > "Sovereign" played a role as a kind of special advisor to secret > intelligence agencies. Does anyone know about this? Do such things > still go on? Tom, a couple of people have stated that the "sovereign" has no power or influence in the British government and is a complete figurehead. I know that the "sovereign" has access to classified information. In the U.S. there is no access to classified information unless the individual has an established "need to know". This means that the person receiving the information must perform a necessary function such as information gathering, analysis or decision making. These necessary functions imply that the individual has some power in influencing events. If the person has no influence on events, then they have no established "need to know". A few years ago the story of Sir Anthony Blunt appeared in the New York Times. It turns out that Sir Anthony had acted as a spy for the U.S.S.R. over a period of some thirty-five years while also serving as a member of the British "intelligence" community. Furthermore, Sir Anthony was a personal friend of the "sovereign" and when the "sovereign" found out about Sir Anthony's long work for the Soviet Union, she moved him from his "intelligence" job to a job at the palace as her personal art advisor. This was all done without any punishment to Sir Anthony for his betrayal of the western alliance and no adverse publicity since it was all covered up until an inquisitive researcher uncovered it much later. The question that naturally arises is: if the "sovereign" is supposed to have no power in government, how was she able to so blatantly obstruct justice and interfere with the British judiciary to prevent Sir Anthony from being prosecuted for his crimes? And how was she able to prevent the "intelligence" community from following its own course of action with Sir Anthony? And how was she allowed to endanger the defense posture of the entire western alliance by her cover-up of the affair? J. M. McGhee
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/27/86)
In article <693@sftig.UUCP> jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes: > A few years ago the story of Sir Anthony Blunt appeared in the New York >Times. It turns out that Sir Anthony had acted as a spy for the U.S.S.R. over >a period of some thirty-five years while also serving as a member of the >British "intelligence" community. Furthermore, Sir Anthony was a personal >friend of the "sovereign" and when the "sovereign" found out about Sir >Anthony's long work for the Soviet Union, she moved him from his "intelligence" >job to a job at the palace as her personal art advisor. This was all done >without any punishment to Sir Anthony for his betrayal of the western alliance >and no adverse publicity since it was all covered up until an inquisitive >researcher uncovered it much later. > The question that naturally arises is: if the "sovereign" is supposed >to have no power in government, how was she able to so blatantly obstruct >justice and interfere with the British judiciary to prevent Sir Anthony from >being prosecuted for his crimes? And how was she able to prevent the >"intelligence" community from following its own course of action with Sir >Anthony? And how was she allowed to endanger the defense posture of the entire >western alliance by her cover-up of the affair? Perhaps the queen's actions were exactly what the intelligence community asked her to do. Regarding spy cases, the view from outside is usually highly uninformed as to what is going on and why. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/06/86)
In article <693@sftig.UUCP> jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes: > Tom, a couple of people have stated that the "sovereign" has no >power or influence in the British government and is a complete figurehead. >I know that the "sovereign" has access to classified information. In the U.S. >there is no access to classified information unless the individual has an >established "need to know". I suspect I am one of those you are referring to as having stated that the British monarch is a complete figurehead. That isn't what I said, and anyway it isn't true. What I did say, and is true, is that the Queen has very little power, and that Britain is essentially a democracy in spite of this. (Not a pure democracy, but there are no pure democracies.) The theory of the British government is that all power is derived from the sovereign. Most of that power has been irrevocably delegated to the Parliament, but the sovereign is still the head of state. The "need to know" doctrine is based on the idea that no one is completely reliable, and therefore the fewer people who have access to information, the better. The British sovereign constitutes a legally identifiable class for whom this consideration really does not apply. Furthermore, he or she *is* the head of state. In practice, the President of the United States has access to any intelligence information he desires (and whose existence he is aware of, of course -- but *that* problem applies to everybody). He need simply declare that he has a need to know, and no one can gainsay him. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/09/86)
>The "need to know" doctrine is based on the idea that no one is completely >reliable, and therefore the fewer people who have access to information, >the better. Also, in case an individual is captured by an enemy, he has less damaging information to reveal.