And another thing…

I read the piece by Craig Murray following your Tweet. I am not surprised that Murray has taken this stance having followed his writings closely for some time.

I think this outing is foolish and unnecessary. A former MI^ operative, or indeed any officer serving our country in the SIS or other security services – including soldiers and police – should be entitled to retain their secrecy in terms of their past.

I can see no justification for outing him. It probably won’t put the gentleman in question at risk – but that is not the point. It might

I would have thought it in our country’s interest to have an MP – of whatever political persuasion – with a background in covert intelligence work. For my part, the better informed MPs are from all walks of life the better the quality of work being done in Parliament on our behalf.

I’m all for civil liberties and one of those civil liberties is providing continuing discretion and, if necessary, protection to those who served in difficult situations. I understand that high profile government ministers enjoy protection for some time after they leave office? Rightly so – if there is any risk of harm to them.

I agree with you here Tom. Second time in a week, I’d better go back to party HQ for some “re-education”. Or you had…

Regardless, no-one whose work for the country might leave them in danger if it were to be public knowledge should be “outed” in a political campaign. That’s just downright grubby. Something akin to using a candidate’s religion, race or sexual-orientation against them. Even in those cases, there’s an argument that the electorate have a right to know if said background is likely to affect their voting in Parliament etc. But you can’t use said info against them, merely letting the public know is possibly, possibly ok (dependant on circumstances here). But the fact they used to serve the country, possibly doing [classified] in places like [classified] or [classified], that’s not something the voter should expect to know, reasonably.

I may be many bad things, but I am a patriot. I know we need a secret service, which should be, erm, secret.

If Craig Murray has outed this man, then Craig Murray is not a patriot.

I probably agree he should not have outed Stewart. But Murray never sat comfortably in any Residence, like the ordinary Ambassador. He showed enormous personal courage in the field in Sierra Leone, Ghana and Uzbkeistan.

Wrinkled Weasel is spot on. I am appalled at Murray outing Stewart – the ramifications could be serious; shades of Scooter Libby with Valerie Plame……??

As far as Murray is concerned, surprised that someone with his pedigree is unable to correctly spell ‘ensconced’.

Craig Murray’s actions are a disgrace. He was a principled Ambassador to Uzbekistan who I respected for his human rights stance, but he seems to have lost the plot ever since returning to the UK.

I forgot to mention a very important point:

Paddy Ashdown was ex-MI6 when he joined the House of Commons.

I challenge anyone to disagree with me when I say that that Paddy Ashdown was a positive force for British politics.

The outing of the CIA agent Valerie Plame was one of the most heinous acts of the Bush II administration. Following its footsteps is not a good move.

Just another leftie, What do you expect.

Great piece from Frank Field today about street problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6248946/Let-the-decent-citizens-reclaim-our-streets.html?

To suggest that it is acceptable for a prospective MP to hide their past employment is amazing. Voters have the right to know who they are voting for. How can a democracy hope to be functional otherwise? If ex-spooks want to keep their past secret then don’t go into politics!

@ Math Campbell:
“Something akin to using a candidate’s religion, race or sexual-orientation against them.”

Sorry, but using a candidate’s religion against them is 100% justified. Religion is something we choose, or choose not to choose, and this makes it an entirely valid basis for criticism and gives an insight into the thought processes of someone you are choosing to represent your views and interests in parliament.

I was working under the assumption that everyone knew how self-absorbed Craig Murray has become now that he’s putting his efforts into political campaigning?

I used to enjoy his investigations into crooked politicians but this sort of nonsense is really out of line.

The ‘revelation’ seems to me rather less shocking – if our intelligence services didn’t at least try to recruit someone of Stewart’s abilities, they’d have been doing something badly wrong – than the fact that Murray, who after all once held a reasonably responsible job himself, clearly hasn’t the vaguest idea what ‘neo-Conservative’ [sic] means – unless perhaps he’s attempting a weak sort of pun on the fact that Stewart is a fairly recently addition to our own homegrown Conservative Party, which is actually just a bit silly, as Stewart’s been entirely clear about that from the start.

And what’s so bad about being in MI6, anyway, assuming of course that this ‘relevation’ of Murray’s is in any sense true?

Not concerned about him being a spook. Am concerned about him being given such broadcast air time to push his lunatic neo-con views on AfPak.

You’re more wrong than old fashioned, Tom. As a voter, I need to know. End of story. Whether or not Craig Murray is a tit is immaterial.

I wonder if “Pantywaite” Warner on the Dully Tele blogs will have owt to pronounce on this.

Best I offer dutch courage to my pet rodents and send them for a shifty . . . They’ve the stomachs for that kind of work . . .

The voters have a right to know. Craig Murray has done the right thing by making this public, especially if Rory Stewart is indeed being presented as a “former diplomat”.

Former intelligence officers do deserve discretion, but democracy must take precedence; if Stewart now wishes to be an MP, he must forfeit that discretion.

If the gentleman wished to keep his past a secret then standing as an MP would not be the most intelligent thing for an ex-member of the intelligence services to do.

He must surely have known that his past was likely to be revealed.

What I find very strange is that, as you probably have many many more readers than Mr Murray it would seem that you have done much more to advertise Mr Stewart’s previous employment than he has.

I’d never heard of you before following the link from Craig Murray’s site. You are obviously more interested in having a go at Mr Murray (you must be a good friend of the Justice Secretary) than in restricting knowledge of Mr Stewart’s previous occupation. Voters have every right to know this information as it is bound to influence Mr Stewart’s opinions.

The presence of Alastair Campbell and of Blackburn Labour Party on your blogroll and a glance at your voting record on Iraq tells me all I need to know. You and your ilk make me ashamed of ever having voted Labour.

Oh what a pompous tit this MP is. What security risk does this pose exactly, please elaborate? As for Charon QC’s comment that “I’m all for civil liberties and one of those civil liberties is providing continuing discretion…” pure piffle. (Well I’m all for democratic process and one part of that democratic process is withholding information from the electorate. Um. Yes. Where were we?) Murray may be a little polemical and over-the-top, but by god, I’d vote for him over you any day. And

Hanhg on, did anyone think that Rory Stewart was anything other than an MI6 officer?

Whereas the BBC’s Frank Gardner, he can’t be MI6 – as he’s denied it.

http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Frank_Gardner

Or now, is it me being naive?

[...] diplomat” but in fact ex-MI6 has left Tom Harris apoplectic. The MP splutters on his blog that: I believe former employees of the security services should be allowed any degree of discretion [...]

On outing, I doubt it needs the intellect of the FSB to investigate someone with a career of Army then FCO Indonesia, Balkans, Iraq; them walking across Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Not exactly a hidden profile.

And anyway Rory Stewart himself earlier name-dropped this into his The Observer profile of 17 May 2009: “He is still surreally well-connected, mentioning an email he has just received from a former head of MI6 asking who will win the Afghan elections”.