COMMENTARY: Security Police stretch legal room to manoeuvre to extreme

print this

By Tuomo Pietiläinen
     
      The headline that the Ministry of the Interior chose for its Friday announcement appeared deliberately dull and uninviting: "The Security Police has not acted illegally with respect to the Stasi material". The title has more symbolism than the ministry might have imagined. The Security Police (SUPO) use the wiggle-room that the law offers to its full extent, and utilises the exceptions granted in the statutes to a greater extent than other police units do.
      Good examples of this can be found in reports that the Ministry of the Interior drafts on the inspections carried out at the Security Police. The inspections, which are carried out twice a year, have not uncovered any illegalities committed by SUPO, but certain practices at the Security Police raise some questions.
      SUPO has, for instance, failed to disclose telecommunications surveillance information, such as wiretapping, to the targets of the surveillance. This may be technically legal, but very questionable in the light of overall protection under the law.
      In Finland, it is currently possible to come under surveillance without even being informed about it after the fact.
     
A second example is that SUPO and other police units can question people without telling them where they stand in the investigation. In these cases, the targets do not yet know if they are witnesses, injured parties, or possibly even suspects.
      SUPO has not launched very many actual criminal investigations. In this decade there have been only a few.
      However, various kinds of surveillance work by questioning people is routine for SUPO. This partly results from the nature of the work of SUPO in fighting terrorism and espionage, but undoubtedly part of it is due to force of habit.
     
For instance, in the Stasi investigation, three out of four suspected sources of information had to answer SUPO questions in an interview. One in four suspects had to undergo an actual preliminary investigation - which meant that they had the right to silence - the right not reveal self-incriminating information.
      Naturally, the problem with Stasi investigations is money. Even though SUPO noted that the individuals had committed ordinary espionage, this was not a sufficient reason to warrant the launch of an investigation. After five years have elapsed only charges of aggravated espionage can be prosecuted.
     
As SUPO uses exceptional methods in its work, it must submit to closer scrutiny than usual. Public inspections are a first step in this.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 25.8.2007


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Supreme Police Command finds no fault with Security Police procedures in Stasi matter (27.8.2007)
  Supreme Police Command to study Stasi material of Security Police (10.8.2007)

TUOMO PIETILÄINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
tuomo.pietilainen@hs.fi