Interception Modernisation Programme

[PeteM]

Roland Perry wrote  on 12-07-08 17:41:
> In article <487886BF.16805.A22E8@davidh.spidacom.co.uk>, David Hansen 
> <davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>> "The objective of the interception modernisation programme (IMP) is to
>> maintain the UK's lawful intercept and communications data
>> capabilities in the changing communications environment. It is a
>> cross-government programme, led by the Home Office, to ensure that our
>> capability to lawfully intercept and exploit data when fighting crime
>> and terrorism [snip]"
>>
>> He is referring to systems both now and in the future. He makes the
>> assertion that these things are used to fight crime.
> 
> You are misreading the statement.
> 
> "THE objective of the IMP is....
> 
> "It [will] ensure ... A and B ...."
> 
> But it will also ensure X, Y and Z.
> 
> Perhaps you disapprove of it ensuring X, Y and Z, but it's not 
> misleading Parliament to leave them out.

Is it not? Let's substitute in some different values in for the 
variables; instead of "IMP" we will insert "Invasion of Iraq", for "A 
and B" write "Removal of illegal WMD"  and for "X, Y and Z" we will 
substitute "Removal of regime disliked by Washington, advancement of 
Western military control of the Middle East, securing of US access to 
enormous oil reserves, improving Israel's security".

It seems to me it clearly *was* misleading Parliament not to mention 
these objectives, and therefore Roland's Theorem as stated above is false.

-- 
Pete Mitchell