A big furore burst forth in the Netherlands recently, when allegations surfaced that the Dutch secret service, the AIVD, had placed phone taps on murdered politician Pim Fortuyn. This was vehemently denied by Klaas de Vries, who was secretary of the Interior at the time and who would have had to give his permission for any taps. However, it now seems that he could be lying and the AIVD could be lying, and it's all perfectly legal. Apparently the AIVD and the secretary are allowed to keep the commission investigating the murder of Pim Fortuyn in the dark, if the information is categorized as a "state secret." So the AIVD can tap and observe people, and there is no way for the public ever to know if they consider it a state secret.

It is somewhat scary that nobody seems to exert any oversight at all over the doings of the AIVD. I understand that secrecy is necessary in some cases to protect the security of the state (much as I hate to admit it), but the fact that nobody is in a position to exert any oversight is worrying. I am not quite sure how to solve this dilemma. On the other hand, in cases such as the investigation into the security of Pim Fortuyn, where past actions of the secret service are at issue, more transparant access to the doings of the secret service must be possible, and should be made possible by law. It's preposterous to have a situation where even in retrospect, the actions of the secret service cannot will not be divulged. That's just an invitation for abuse.