GCSB cover-up an “operational matter”

19 comments on “GCSB cover-up an “operational matter” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   21 March 2013 at 9:43 am

   TS is playing up for me. Can’t access a usable version of open mike, other posts were missing the latest posts, though that is better now.
2. karol 2

   21 March 2013 at 10:21 am

   On 3 News last night, Gower fluffed his lines and said “Labour says it’s a stuff up; Key says it’s a cover up”. Maybe Gower really does know, deep down, that Key is covering up….?
   • Anne 2.1

     21 March 2013 at 10:43 am

     Well, it was a stuff up and a cover-up by all concerned, and it’s a pedantic point when they actually stuffed up and when they covered up. 😉
3. GregJ 3

   21 March 2013 at 10:54 am

   There’s really only 2 conclusions you can draw from this whole saga – either:

   1. Key has failed in his oversight of GCSB (& oversight of the Security Services is one of the few things the PM actually has to do – aside from chairing the Cabinet) in which case he is incompetent and should resign

   or

   2. He has deliberately mislead the House and the New Zealand Public in which case he should resign

   And I’m not being frivolous or “political” about the above – this should be a matter that people are incensed by (glad to hear Gower is actually doing his job properly on this) and they should be demanding accountability and responsibility from the politician in charge – it’s a serious matter and strikes at the heart not only of our freedoms but also at democratic accountability. This is not a matter of politics – it is a matter of integrity.
   • Anne 3.1

     21 March 2013 at 11:00 am

     Agree 100% GregJ.
     Read the link to Martyn Bradbury’s site below.
   • AmaKiwi 3.2

     21 March 2013 at 4:28 pm

     @ GregJ

     “it is a matter of integrity” of which our system is in short supply.
     • GregJ 3.2.1

       21 March 2013 at 11:30 pm

       Sadly I agree – which is why we need to be as active as possible in things like the Consitutional Review to “force” as much integrity on the system as possible!
   • ghostrider888 3.3

     21 March 2013 at 6:00 pm

     yes, an improvement from Gower: if the NZP and the spooks think anybody with any “intelligence” at all still has any respect for them in matters of criminal investigation, then they are in a blue-bottle dream…
     http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdrklUu9amYMkHBq1cEEjSd4_EbVlWSGcTKO4RSpHpo-yg55aM
     (Integrity? whatever old boys)
4. Anne 4

   21 March 2013 at 10:57 am

   Martyn Bradbury sums it up nicely:

   The arrest of Dotcom is an attempt by the US to establish their jurisdiction over cyber space and and cement intellectual property interests of Hollywood into our culture.

   http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/21/what-is-really-behind-the-kim-dotcom-case/
   • Anne 4.1

     21 March 2013 at 11:04 am

     Now why did the PM miss the funerals of three NZ soldiers killed in combat?

     Because he had far more important business to attend to in Hollywood before travelling on to his son’s base-ball game.
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   21 March 2013 at 11:24 am

   The story that they’re sticking to is that a senior legal guy in the GCSB stuffed up, and didn’t know who the GCSB is legally allowed to spy on.

   Now that’s pretty damn implausible right off the bat. It’s not like it was an arcane point about alloawble methods covered by a warrant or some shit. It was about as basic as you can get. “Residents; can we spy on them?”.

   But that’s the story the IG accepted and the PM is sticking to, and as long as they stick to it they are golden as far as that goes.

   The problem is that spying on people is a crime. They have admitted that they broke the law in spying on residents. Their defence of it all being abit of an oopsie isn’t as strong here.

   The police don’t have to take your word on that for starters, and to top it off, ignorance of the law is no excuse (even if you did help write the law, ffs). This should go to a jury to decide IMO. Officers should be charged and the evidence heard in court.

   After those verdicts come in we could decide the political accountabilities of the matter, and work out whether Key’s oversight was good enough before and after the events, bearing in mind that he felt no police investigation was necessary.
   • framu 5.1

     21 March 2013 at 12:08 pm

     isnt the ofcanz officer involved here also the same one who lead the tuhoe raids?
6. ghostwhowalksnz 6

   21 March 2013 at 3:08 pm

   Well Key does have “operational oversight”

   Every warrant the spooks need – which is “some” per year according to the GCSB’s annual report – has to be approved by Key.* The legislation says that he has to exercise “control” over the spies.
   http://thestandard.org.nz/key-needs-to-read-the-gcsb-act
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1

     21 March 2013 at 3:10 pm

     One extra bit;
     From the Act.

     “(3)The performance of the Bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister.”
     • handle 6.1.1

       21 March 2013 at 4:00 pm

       About Key’s “operational” excuse: Russel Norman was reported last year saying Ministerial involvement in this portfolio is more intrusive than all others, hence that unique “control” wording you noted. Time to repeat that point.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1

         21 March 2013 at 7:49 pm

         Yeah see. If they had of acknowledged it was illegal and decided to fess up, that would have been something they’d need to bring to the attention of the PM, but once they decided to put in in a box in the corner and lay a blanket over it, it remained an ongoing operational matter that would be inappropriate to talk to him about.
     • xtasy 6.1.2

       21 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

       We know that in corporations, other business, same as large and not so large government departments, it is very common to punish the “underling” involved in the coal face work for anything going wrong, rather than have the superiors, let alone guys at the very top, disciplined and punished.

       So yes, Key is applying exactly what he learned through his corporate banking and other careers, deny all responsibility and knowledge, and pass the buck.
7. xtasy 7

   21 March 2013 at 4:43 pm

   Yeah right, I just got annoyed with someone at the bus-stop, so told another guy sympathetic to my concerns, to kick the nuisance creating individual in the shin. I am not responsible, as between the kicker and the kicked, that was merely an “operational matter” between the two.
8. Treetop 8

   21 March 2013 at 5:54 pm

   On 20 January 2012 the NZ Police raided Dotcom’s home.

   Key knew that the GCSB had worked with the Police on the 20 January 2012 operation when he was at the GCSB on 29 February 2012 because reference was made, that the bureau had a role.

   What did Key think that the GCSB were doing for the police that the police could not do themselves?

   Possibly surveillance because of the High Court decision being on a case by case basis when it came to using footage/intercepting phone conversations on private property being permissible at trial.

   So police got it wrong, GCSB got it wrong, Key got it wrong that GCSB could lawfully spy on Dotcom.

   A full inquiry is required to establish where the accountability stops.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS