Master thesis | Crisis and Security Management (MSc)
open access
De AIVD en MIVD nemen uit hoofde van hun taak in het belang van de nationale veiligheid regelmatig strafbaar gedrag waar, maar maken daarvan niet altijd melding bij de opsporingsautoriteiten. Ze...Show moreDe AIVD en MIVD nemen uit hoofde van hun taak in het belang van de nationale veiligheid regelmatig strafbaar gedrag waar, maar maken daarvan niet altijd melding bij de opsporingsautoriteiten. Ze zijn weliswaar verplicht om hun bronnen, methoden en kennisniveau af te schermen, maar dat verklaart niet waarom zij hun discretionaire bevoegdheid om het te melden, in de woorden van een AIVD-hoofd, ‘soms wel en soms niet’ gebruiken. Met deze studie is geprobeerd om in kaart te brengen wat zo’n inlichtingen- en/of veiligheidsdienst (verder: dienst) tot verstrekking van inlichtingen aan justitie drijft, en wat hem daarvan weerhoudt. Derhalve is de hypothese - dat diensten slechts verstrekken met het oogmerk om de aan hen gestelde taak en behoeftes te bevorderen - getoetst, en is geprobeerd andere drijfveren af te leiden. Hiertoe zijn getuigenverklaringen van oud-diensthoofden en ruim 500 ambtsberichten geanalyseerd, en zijn vraaggesprekken met betrokken ambtenaren gevoerd. Ter contextualisering is aan de hand van haar wetsgeschiedenis de institutionele verhouding tussen inlichtingen en opsporing in Nederland geschetst. Uit het onderzoek volgt dat de AIVD noch de MIVD een eenduidig verstrekkingsbeleid heeft of beleeft, en dat de hypothese te rigide is: Hoewel er ter bevordering van de nationale veiligheid verstrekt wordt, kan ook of slechts zijn beoogd om een ander belang te dienen. Zo kan zij door politieke of technocratische prikkels gedreven worden. De afdelingsculturen en het geweten van individuele medewerkers bepalen of verstrekking van inlichtingen wegens niets dan hun strafvorderlijke relevantie überhaupt overwogen wordt. Ingeval deze conclusie als problematisch zou worden gezien, wat omwille van het voorzienbaarheidsbeginsel voorstelbaar is, wordt aangeraden om niet tot verstrekking te verplichten, maar hooguit voor te schrijven in welke gevallen verstrekking overwogen dient te worden. / The Netherlands’ intelligence and security services AIVD and MIVD regularly witness, by virtue of their task in the interest of national security, crimes; crimes they do not always report to the criminal justice authorities. Although they are obliged to shield their sources, methods and knowledge level, this does not explain why they, in the words of a former AIVD-chief, ‘sometimes do and sometimes do not’ use their discretionary competence to report. This study tried to map by which variables an intelligence and/or security service (further: service) is driven towards reporting such intelligence, and which restrain him from it. Therefore, the hypothesis - that services disseminate only for the purpose of advancing their set task and requirements - was tested and was tried to deduce other drivers. Hereto, witness testimonies of former intelligence chiefs and some 500 intelligence products were analysed. Moreover, involved civil servants were interviewed. For contextualisation, the institutional relation between intelligence and law enforcement in the Netherlands was drawn by assessing its parliamentary history. This research shows that neither the AIVD nor the MIVD maintains a clear dissemination policy, and that the hypothesis is too rigid: Although intelligence is indeed disseminated for the purpose of fostering national security, it is done also or sorely for the sake of other interests. Thus, dissemination could be driven by political or technocratic incentives. The organisational cultures and the conscience of individual officers determine whether reporting of intelligence for no reason but its prosecutorial relevance is considered at all. In case this conclusion is viewed as problematic, which is understandable in light of the principle of foreseeability, it is recommended to - at most - prescribe the conditions in which reporting should be considered, instead of obliging dissemination.Show less
Throughout American history, there has been tension between the fundamental liberties granted by the United States Constitution and the need for government to protect its citizens. Many scholars...Show moreThroughout American history, there has been tension between the fundamental liberties granted by the United States Constitution and the need for government to protect its citizens. Many scholars have written about this conflict and have compared the pressures that exist today—post September 11—with those that existed previously. Much of this earlier work looks at counter-terrorism legislation and the response of courts worldwide to the infringement of civil liberties. Others have reviewed the literature and legal discourse in an effort to determine whether civil liberties have been infringed upon to a dangerous extent. What is missing is research gauging public opinion about whether a loss of rights is being experienced and if so, whether it is justified in the federal government’s effort to ensure the safety of its citizens. Accordingly, this paper asks: What is the opinion of American political science students regarding the possible loss of free speech rights as a consequence of fighting the “war on terror”? Although only a starting point for measuring public opinion on a broader scale, this study has tangible implications for increasing awareness among policymakers.Show less
