Neazor report proves inadequate cover for Key

83 comments on “Neazor report proves inadequate cover for Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kotahi Tāne Huna 1

   29 September 2012 at 9:30 am

   The most recent attack on New Zealand that our spies could have taken action over is that perpetrated by the Hollow Men.

   If they aren’t going to protect NZ from treachery, what good are they?
   • sukieDamson 1.1

     29 September 2012 at 5:44 pm

     and shamelessly loitering on a variation to the meme

     planet mon-Key-suit: read no prejudicial, hear no prejudicial, speak no prejudicial

     http://imgur.com/a/l0aep
     • Jokerman 1.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 8:04 pm

       😉
       Right-of-political-spectrum SpeakPrejudicial (when it suits)
2. muzza 2

   29 September 2012 at 9:44 am

   Good commentary etc on this HERE also
   • deuto 2.1

     29 September 2012 at 10:05 am

     Thanks for the link, muzza. Good commentary and also good one source of many of the video links I had been meaning to catch up on over the weekend.
   • Jokerman 2.2

     29 September 2012 at 8:14 pm

     Right-of-political-spectrum See prejudicial Hear prejudicial Speak prejudicial
     when it suits to loiter

     (freakin browser and freakin edit function gonna be the end of me)
     • BloodyOrphan 2.2.1

       29 September 2012 at 8:15 pm

       Do the edits in the article page , the RSS is just slow.
3. BloodyOrphan 3

   29 September 2012 at 9:48 am

   When I think back to when John Key announced himself as the “Director” of GCSB, I remember thinking this kind of outcome was inevitable.

   He’s playing Cowboys and Indians, Bang Bang your dead says John Key playing in his backyard with the lives of New Zealanders.
   He took the mantle of directorship on a job that needs 24/7 supervision and he’s a prime minister, a serious conflict of time.

   Quite simply a recipe for disaster and those kids he was in charge of are now paying the price.

   The FACTS are they have many people qualified for these jobs, but because of “Off the Record” allegiances they hired “NewBies” in the hope they could build “Their Own”.

   If you want this organisation to function properly you should be using the QUALIFIED people that already exist in the police force, and that means the POLICE are in charge of everything.

   I don’t think I’ve met Neazor, but it will be the same problem, they need more captains and it’s about legwork, the computers become relevant later, I’m sure from his responses he’s been in this industry for a long time, but would quietly say he’s out of date, and he needs to read those drug squad reports again, if he’s serious about finding qualified people.

   And if their busy (Not Surprising), then you should ask them for recommendations about leadership.

   They need full time managerial direction, not some Cowboy.

   I did read the ACT when they first released it, and I thought the main direction of it was to control the GCSB and thought it a worthy document, but it’s not an operations manual, which is where those kids went wrong(it implied directions which were not about their role).
   • BloodyOrphan 3.1

     29 September 2012 at 9:58 am

     There was only one qualified person on that dotcom affair (I heard ya bud), they’ve pulled in two more @ my prodding, and all three are good men.
4. Frida 4

   29 September 2012 at 11:23 am

   A note to Insider who scoffed at my comment the other day that Key would have been briefed by GCSB under the ‘no surprises’ principle, well before he claims to have been briefed. A greater constitutional mind than either of us, my former boss and a former PM Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has said as much in the NZ Herald today.
   • deuto 4.1

     29 September 2012 at 11:46 am

     Totally agree, frida.

     There is just no way, in my experience, that Ministerial ‘no surprises’ briefings would not have taken place right from the start – both in respect of the GCSB and the Police to their respective Responsible Ministers (ie the PM in the case of GCSB and the Minister of Police). DPMC would have also been in the briefing loop. In light of the earlier Ministerial involvement in decisions on KDC’s residency and wishes to purchase the Coatsville mansion – and the lack of Ministerial unanimity/changes in some of those decisions – I also believe that Ministers including the PM would have been briefed on who Dotcom was/is, his previous ‘history’, etc etc under the no surprises procedures well before the GSCB supposed first involvement in Dec 2011. Ministers get briefed on situations, people etc of much lower consequence, interest etc than this one.

     IMO therefore, Key and other Ministers’ claims of not knowing who KDC was, and not being briefed right along the line ring very hollow – and totally overplayed.
     • Frank Macskasy 4.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 12:02 pm

       Indeed, Frida, Deuto…

       It’s actually inconceivable that Key wasn’t briefed – considering that OFCANZ (which organised the raids) is linked to the GCSB through ODESC – and the latter reports to the Prime Minister’s department. But I explain it better here: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/spy-vs-politician/

       At any rate, Neazor’s “report” is simplistic codswallop that doesn’t evenb ask the right questions.
       • deuto 4.1.1.1

         29 September 2012 at 1:14 pm

         Excellent blog, Frank. I had not had time to read Neazor’s report until now and found it very light – an understated description in fact.

         Putting aside its findings etc, what I actually found particularly interesting was the wording of Key’s letter (including the typos) and of Neazor’s report. Key’s letter IMO was thrown together in a hurry with a main focus on not suggesting any timings of activities, any reference to other contacts on the matter (I fully expect that there were telephone calls to Neazor at the very least before the letter was drafted and sent). Certainly not a letter that went through the normal drafting process for such letters of being drafted at a lower level and then undergoing checks and changes at higher levels before being signed off at the top.

         The style and wording of Neazor’s report (again including typos etc) also suggests to me that it had hasty editing prior to its release as it does not flow consistently in places.

         I feel somewhat sad for Judge Neazor, who is presumably now very close to the end of a long and otherwise distinguished career. From what I have read, his role as Inspector has been a part-time one with only part-time support. I fully expect to hear in the near future once the heat has died down a litte of his retirement.
         • BloodyOrphan 4.1.1.1.1

           29 September 2012 at 1:22 pm

           I think he achieved a lot, this kinda thing would’ve been “Vanished” by now usually.
           It’s a problem of authority, which we have all been highlighting for a long time.
           Coal face versus the House of Parliament “Understandings”.
           If you add “Undercover” to anything, an unqualified person can run rampant.
         • Frank Macskasy 4.1.1.1.2

           29 September 2012 at 1:35 pm

           Indeed, Deuot… As you suggest, Neazor may be out of his depth. And being “Old School”, his reverance for The Establishment and serving God, Queen, & Country may may him a most pliant tool for Key’s needs.

           Something you mentioned about Key’s typos…

           Reminds me of another email. Time for a bit of research.
           • BloodyOrphan 4.1.1.1.2.1

             29 September 2012 at 1:46 pm

             Indeed, I’ve been having De Javu moments …. just can’t quite place it.
5. Mary 5

   29 September 2012 at 11:35 am

   Norman’s compared the breach with Key’s complaint against Ambrose. The offence carries a maximum prison term of 2 or what-ever-it-is years. With Key’s complaint there’s clearly a natural person who’d potentially be facing the penalty. Who’d that be in the GCSB case? Could this be a clue as to jurisdiction?
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.1

     29 September 2012 at 11:45 am

     there’s clearly a natural person who’d potentially be facing the penalty

     If BloodyOrphan is telling the truth, that person is John Key.
     • BloodyOrphan 5.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 11:47 am

       Assuming Management takes ultimate responsibility … yes
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.1.1.1

         29 September 2012 at 11:48 am

         He shouldn’t have told them to investigate a NZ resident – your exact words.
         • BloodyOrphan 5.1.1.1.1

           29 September 2012 at 11:50 am

           Yes, and it’s based on observed data, pritty obvious and logical.
           He would’ve been aware of Dotcoms desire to be a resident,
           If the man openly says he wants to live here, then that’s got to be a given.
           Which will be why those boys sought approval from the man himself, and he dodged it again.
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.1.1.1.1.1

             29 September 2012 at 11:54 am

             Oh, I get the narrative, I just think SNAFU is more likely. Or “The GCSB are incompetent and the whole set-up (including overall policy) needs more democratic oversight” if you prefer.
             • BloodyOrphan …

               29 September 2012 at 12:03 pm

               I personally think it really is much more serious.
               It truly highlights his lack of compassion and skill.
               He is not a director and there are grounds at a bare minimum of stripping him of the title “Honourable”.
               There’s only one way to do that, sack him as a prime minister/mp.
               Do we want a freshly convicted man running our country right now?
               Imagine what it would do to his Denial complex.
               • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                 29 September 2012 at 12:22 pm

                 As to Key’s personal involvement (or more likely, disinterest to the point of negligence), any decent person in his position would resign. Any decent person.
                 • BloodyOrphan …

                   29 September 2012 at 12:27 pm

                   Ae
   • Eddie 5.2

     29 September 2012 at 12:44 pm

     the guilty people would be any persons who actually did the illegal spying and anyone who authorised or assisted them or tried to cover it up would be guilty as parties to the offence.
     • BloodyOrphan 5.2.1

       29 September 2012 at 1:01 pm

       Sounds reasonable too me.
       In the end he was playing a “Boardroom Politics” game with NZers’ lives,
       The only thing on his mind was evasion of responsibility.
6. captain hook 6

   29 September 2012 at 11:53 am

   Kweewee is starting to get ambitious and he thinks that he can actually carve out some sort of historical niche as PM but so far he is no better than some callow office boy with responsibilities that are too big for him.
7. Pete 7

   29 September 2012 at 11:57 am

   The winds have definitely changed with respect to Key in the popular press. He’s seen as too relaxed, too dismissive. Even callous. Out of touch, certainly. Hopefully this will show up in the polls.
   • Frank Macskasy 7.1

     29 September 2012 at 12:04 pm

     Pete, ask, and ye shall receive: http://www.3news.co.nz/Opposition-overtakes-Govt-in-latest-poll/tabid/1607/articleID/270820/Default.aspx

     I trust that’ll give you a happy weekend? 🙂
     • karol 7.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 7:57 pm

       Interesting photo of Johnny-boy with that 3 news article about the government’s slump in the polls – high angle shot:

       

       Usually such shots make a person look less powerful.

       Usually we get low angle shots looking up at dominant Dear Leader… more like this.

       

       And TV3 News tonight seemed to me to be 2 or 3 stories in which questions are raised about the government: on GCSB and other things.

       [lprent: inserted the images ]
   • mike 7.2

     29 September 2012 at 3:12 pm

     It finally seems like Key shrugging his shoulders and saying “I’m not bovvered,” doesn’t have the magical power it once did.

     These days Key is commonly shown acting like he thinks he is on trial instead of doing his job and informing the public. “Dunno,” and “can’t tell,” is starting to look bad.
     • Frank Macskasy 7.2.1

       29 September 2012 at 7:50 pm

       Yeah, Mike. That “boyish charm” has become more of a precocious irritant.
       • mike 7.2.1.1

         29 September 2012 at 9:31 pm

         That boyish charm has served the Smiling Assassin well thus far, but I don’t think he has much of a coping mechanism for when that asset suddenly becomes a liability. His personality is so shallow that he doesn’t know any other way than to keep on with what has now become a precocious irritant as you put it.

         It’s a short trip from precocious irritant to dismissive arrogance, which is what it has always been and how many of us have always seen it.
       • Tim 7.2.1.2

         30 September 2012 at 5:13 am

         a sign of jonky being a member of the nouveau riche club? gotta larf aye! Jerry almost swallowed his teeth too when it all broke! He’ll be weighing his options as well. Can all this be kept under wraps just long enough for him to keep his pension and retire? Smitchim etchim schmozzle goan forwid….oim relexed….are you jealous? (yet)
8. prism 8

   29 September 2012 at 11:59 am

   Pete
   Does the Peter Principle come to mind do you think when thinking about Jokey Hen?
   • Tim 8.1

     30 September 2012 at 5:19 am

     Not only does it come to mind…. it’s the very DEFINITION of the Peter Principle!
9. marsman 9

   29 September 2012 at 1:36 pm

   My feeling is that John Key knew all about the Dotcom fiasco well before it was played out including the fact that Dotcom is a NZ citizen. He would have been drooling at the prospect of giving favours to the USA and been too arrogant to give a toss about any legalities thinking he is able to get away with whatever he does and or lie his way out of it. Key and his gang of sneaky, smug, Hollow Men thugs are in my opinion as corrupt as all hell and are or are very close to being a fascist ( extreme right wing authoritarian- Oxford Dictionary ) regime.
   I have nothing to back up my assertions but the numerous democracy-removing manoeuvres, constant lying and bullying and secrecy and scapegoating add up to a nasty mix of behaviours by people who cannot be trusted or believed.
   • marsman 9.1

     29 September 2012 at 1:39 pm

     Of course John Key would not want a full inquiry and unfortunately there seems to be no way of getting one without his say so (?).
     • mike 9.1.1

       29 September 2012 at 3:03 pm

       “Labour has written to Key calling for a much wider-ranging investigation into the Dotcom spying affair…”

       Yep it seems a bit odd that the guy ultimately responsible for the GCSB is also the guy who decides whether there will be an investigation which could implicate he GCSB. I guess that’s why the Greens are more onto it going directly to the police.
     • Anne 9.1.2

       29 September 2012 at 6:02 pm

       My feeling is that John Key knew all about the Dotcom fiasco well before it was played out including the fact that Dotcom is a NZ citizen.

       I’d bet my life on it. Which is why he’s been looking so shit-scared all week.
10. Fortran 10

    29 September 2012 at 1:37 pm

    We should be overjoyed that at last the Key Poppy head has been knocked off by Dotcom.
    It should have been done by Shearer, but Norman seems to have taken the opposition lead.
    Dotcom should be invited as a speaker to the Labour Party conference in November to give lessons how to kick key.
    As he will be getting a substantial payment from the taxpayer (to pay his legal bills) he will be able to demonstrate his entreprenurial skills, from which his huge fortune has been made, to the Party, in time for the 2014 election.
    Key has been stunned by the GCSB/Police debacle now is the time, before the year end recess, to put the boot further in.
    The media have had enough of Key since the Ambrose affair, and are now in a position to extract Utu, which they have been trying all year to do.
    Look forward to the decline in Nats support, at last.
    • BloodyOrphan 10.1

      29 September 2012 at 4:29 pm

      The fact is John Key doesn’t understand …

      1.) The Governence Engine of New Zealand.
      2.) The POLICING Engine of New Zealand.
      3.) A simple business engine, with simple accounting.

      And he has peoples’ lives in his hands everyday.
      He is an expert at dodging the bullet, nothing more.
      It’s obvious he just can’t do that level of calculus.
      • Tim 10.1.1

        30 September 2012 at 5:31 am

        The difference between animal cunning and human intelligence perhaps? The difference between ideology (learned parrot feshun) and critical thinking with an ability to apply logic?
      • R 10.1.2

        30 September 2012 at 2:35 pm

        exactly, well said. That’s what’s appalling and sickening about this whole mess.
11. Huginn 11

    29 September 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Four CEOs in a year . . . this is a disaster waiting to happen, and it may only be the tip of the iceberg.

    The GCSB oversees inter- governmental communications. This work is essential. Maybe we need to be asking Key what he did to address the problems that the GCSB were signalling to him?

    Or was this another report that Key excused himself from having to read?

    ‘ . . . former GCSB acting director Simon Murdoch warned his political masters that the bureau was under strain just four months before its work on the Dotcom case.

    In its annual report last October, Mr Murdoch wrote that it had been through four CEOs in a year, there had been several efficiency reviews, a fiscal tightening, and an office move.

    He said these “stresses” were the primary factor behind a workforce survey that showed “staff concern about levels of drive, clarity and alignment”.

    He also wrote that in some of its intelligence-gathering work “GCSB struggled to make headway because of critical staff absences”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10837316
    • BloodyOrphan 11.1

      29 September 2012 at 6:10 pm

      Another exceptionally Good man is Sir Geoffrey Palmer.
      We are not alone LADS!.
    • McFlock 11.2

      29 September 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Fascinating.
             
      I thought the tories were just doing the standard “run everything down until it can be sold, left to the private sector or cut, and thereby make more millions for yourself and your mates”. But the cardinal rule is to not do that to the institutions that protect you from the people you’re exploiting. 
           
      What game are these fuckers playing? They’re either far more stupid/arrogant than them that have gone before, or they’re a new flavour of tory sociopath with different objectives. Any ideas?
      • BloodyOrphan 11.2.1

        29 September 2012 at 6:57 pm

        They’ve risen to their highest level of incompetence yet.
        It’s amazing how far board room games can take ya,
        it’s obvious they/he don’t understand the concept of “People Engine” at all.
        Like I said in another post, they/he simply can’t do the calculus required.
      • mike 11.2.2

        29 September 2012 at 6:58 pm

        Yes I’m also curious. What exactly is Murdoch refering to here: “staff concern about levels of drive, clarity and alignment.”?

        Are they just too incompetent and/or arrogant to even keep their guard dogs happy?
        • McFlock 11.2.2.1

          29 September 2012 at 7:12 pm

          Seemed to mean the same old same old in any organisation – the funding gets cut and people aren’t replaced, so the stuff that experienced people knew how to do gets done more slowly and less well by the others who have bigger loads on their plates anyway. Staff begin to ask “wtf do they want – a good job or not? If not, I’ll just phone it in because my job is pointless anyway”.
             
          CEO becomes a stepping stone rather than the culmination of a career: move on as quickly as possible when it becomes apparent that something like Dotcom is inevitable.
                 
          So yeah, it looks like they don’t give a shit about the guard dogs. Which probably means the gang in charge is planning to skip with the loot before the guard dogs get so hungry they bite.
               
          Either that, or they plan to shoot the dogs and replace them with something more profitable – private intelligence services, anyone? Although looking at Key, I figure he’s set to bail soon anyway.
          • mike 11.2.2.1.1

            29 September 2012 at 8:58 pm

            “Although looking at Key, I figure he’s set to bail soon anyway.”

            He has that look like he’s just waiting for the asset sales to go through, then he’ll collect his bonus for doing so from his mates, say “Ackshully New Zilund, I’ve been great,” and fly off to the plush job waiting for him at Goldman Sachs.

            I see can almost see him thinking: “Sell the assets, I’m gone. Sell the assets, I’m gone. Sell the assets, I’m gone…”
        • BloodyOrphan 11.2.2.2

          29 September 2012 at 7:25 pm

          I think the actual truth is they had no idea what was coming.
          They just blindly do what they’ve always done in the boardroom.
          And the “Beast” you see is a headless one, making it much more dangerous and unqualified.
          That’s what denial is all about after all.
          A good general would’ve stomped in a fixed it all.
          But a captain wouldn’t have the “Power”, hence many CEO’s etc
12. karol 12

    29 September 2012 at 8:23 pm

    I am in no way knowledgeable about law, but there are some questions I have about the GCSB investigation of Dotcom, that goes beyond his status as resident.

    The Neazor Report talks of gathering “foreign intelligence”. Now, I may be hopelessly naive, but I would have thought such foreign intelligence would relate to security issues like (so-called) terrorism, government official documents etc. Not issues of copyright violation.

    GCSB was called in to monitor Dotcom’s movements prior to arrest by the police. like, is this really what he have spies and all that sophisticated digital data collection for?

    Why couldn’t the police do their own pre-arrest surveillance and information gathering? It’ not like Mr KDC is so inconspicuous, no-one notices up Coatesville way when he’s out and about.

    Or is Mr KDC actually a very clever spy, hiding in plain sight, undermining our national security and security services?
    • BloodyOrphan 12.1

      29 September 2012 at 8:41 pm

      I’d expect at some point he would’ve spoken his past, to some degree, to someone.
      A spy he isn’t, they wouldn’t be hunting him if he was.

      I’d expect the truth behind Dotcom to be more along the lines of …

      “He was giving away software to students and or russian/european businesses.”
      He would have justified it by saying they need the help and they were broke.
      He would’ve discovered the ability by “Hosting” corporate MS licenses I’d expect.
      And as they had a policy of “Digital” compression to save space, they were tinkering in places theoretically illegal.
      (Hence his partners quiting)
      He needs to fess up to that, and offer to pay it off in some way.

      His obvious failure to disclose the “End Users” is what got him into this mess, and Microsoft/Other corps deserve too know that much at least.

      I doubt any of them would’ve had a problem giving that software away.
      At this point it is more the underhanded nature of it all, that they want justice for.
      • karol 12.1.1

        29 September 2012 at 8:54 pm

        Well, indeed, BloodyOrphan.

        But what I’m actually asking is, regardless of KDC’s NZ resident status, what the frak do KDC’s charges have to do with the kind of intelligence GCSB should be focused on?

        I assume GCSB is part of what gets labelled the echelon network:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

        ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UK–USA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS and Five Eyes)

        This was uncovered by Nicky Hager’s investigations. And part of his argument was that this network was straying from its legitimate area of spying and getting into spying on corporate entities:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

        Intelligence monitoring of citizens, and their communications, in the area covered by the AUSCANNZUKUS security agreement has caused concern. British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.
        • BloodyOrphan 12.1.1.1

          29 September 2012 at 8:56 pm

          Sorry excellent point …. Nothing.
      • Kotahi Tāne Huna 12.1.2

        29 September 2012 at 9:00 pm

        Be that as it may, the poor handling of the practical aspect of the case by NZ authorities make it a lot less likely that any of that will end up in a US courtroom.
    • BLiP 12.2

      29 September 2012 at 9:27 pm

      .

      . . . The Neazor Report talks of gathering “foreign intelligence”. Now, I may be hopelessly naive, but I would have thought such foreign intelligence would relate to security issues like (so-called) terrorism, government official documents etc. Not issues of copyright violation . . .

      The definition of national security now includes threats to economic performance of resident businesses. Hollywood earns the US billions but its business model is flimsy when it comes up against the internet’s “self-organised criticality”. Industry lobbyists now have the US government wound up in a frenzy of panic looking for non-existent mass copyright infringements and the likes of those shadowy mysterious terrorist hackers on steroids Anonymous. Megaupload is the FBI / Hollywood head-on-a-spike – an example. Its functions were probably monitored for months before the take-down and, more than likely, GCSB was involved in data harvesting for this. Unfortunately for Kim Dotcom, John Key’s National Ltd™ government doesn’t know what it is doing, nor does the GCSB, and the New Zealand police force has gone rogue. Spending – what d’ya reckon, $150,000 – on organising an armed raid complete with helicopters to execute an illegal search warrant obtained, in part, on the basis of illetgally gathered information and then illegally sending the seized material to the FBI. . . you can’t make this shit up.

      /rant
      • BloodyOrphan 12.2.1

        29 September 2012 at 9:33 pm

        They should’ve given the 150 grand to me, I could of written that report in my sleep.
        Don’t need the guys hardware, what are yas on about, this is a civil case M8!.
13. BLiP 13

    29 September 2012 at 8:55 pm

    .

    Who can investigate the GCSB, the police, and the Prime Minister? No one. That’s who. New Zealanders are now at the mercy of the courts if we are to learn what this is all about. First thing Monday, the High Court should recall Wormwald to the witness stand for a “please explain” and remand him in custody while consideration is given to his apparent perjury, neglect of duty, and seeiking to pervert the course of justice. A bemch warrant should be issued for the detention and compulaory psychological assessment of Neazor. And as for John Key – IMHO, his performance as a Minister has been so woeful as to leave him with no ethical option other than to resign and fuck off.
    • karol 13.1

      29 September 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Who can investigate the GCSB, the police, and the Prime Minister?

      Gordon Campbell looks at this in his latest article:

      http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/09/28/gordon-campbell-on-the-failures-of-the-neazor-report/

      In fact, a string of security service bungles in the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia and here has shown that the main purpose of the secrecy that is routinely dropped over security matters (like a blanket over a budgie cage) is the stifling of public debate about the relationships involved, and the purposes being served. ‘…
      To dispel the secrecy mystique, we need a properly resourccd, truly independent office of the Inspector-General with its own in-house investigative staff. Just as the intelligence agencies maintain a network of contact with their brother agencies overseas, so should our watchdog office be actively liaising in parallel with similar organizations overseas (eg, Liberty in the UK, or its equivalent organization, Justice) that evaluate legislation on security, policing and immigration issues and actively contribute to public debate on trends in those matters.
      • BloodyOrphan 13.1.1

        29 September 2012 at 9:18 pm

        I’ve been saying this all along, no one has done the leg work to finding any definitive answers.

        The last thing people want is another “Cold War” style international information network, so they are trying to reign in the power those people have/had.

        Those MP’s worldwide aren’t qualified, and Cowboys and Indians isn’t cutting it.

        “Generals” are what built the CIA and other organisations,
        So they’re obviously standing back at this point and hoping someone with brains actually thinks it through in the name of peace not war.
    • mike 13.2

      29 September 2012 at 9:22 pm

      John Key… Ethical option… Yeah…
    • prism 13.3

      29 September 2012 at 10:39 pm

      blip
      +1 Everything you said in last two commrnts.
14. gobsmacked 14

    29 September 2012 at 9:30 pm

    There’s obvious political gain for Key in announcing an inquiry. That’s why we have to wonder why he won’t.

    You can write the Monday announcement for him … “I’m committed to transparency and accountability … no stone unturned … New Zealanders need to have confidence in their institutions …” etc.

    If I were his political adviser (as opposed to Shearer’s!) I’d tell him to co-opt Geoffrey Palmer, and if Palmer doesn’t want to head the inquiry (he’s getting on in years), ask him to nominate a Labour-acceptable person, maybe somebody who served under Clark. Even get Shearer to sign off on the choice and terms of reference (he probably would, unfortunately), so you’ve got political cover. Of course not all critics would be satisfied but who cares? Divide and rule, get the media back onside and silence Labour. Once it’s “bi-partisan” the story goes away.

    If the inquiry reports back in six months and it’s all about “systemic failures” or “poor communication” and all the usual bureaucratic bungles, then Key would take a minor hit, but outweighed by his decision to have set up the inquiry in the first place. It would only be devastating to him and National if it reveals thatKey has lied.

    If he has, then there won’t be an inquiry.

    I’m picking, there won’t be an inquiry. Draw your own conclusions.
    • mike 14.1

      29 September 2012 at 9:44 pm

      On Banks: “I won’t read the report. The opposition are being dicks.”

      On the GCSB: “There won’t be a report. The opposition are being dicks.”

      John Key – Piss on your face ethical standards.
      • BloodyOrphan 14.1.1

        29 September 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Ae 🙂
        And I doubt even the legendry inquiry will help now.
        There aren’t any more facts to bear out.
        • mike 14.1.1.1

          29 September 2012 at 11:13 pm

          There aren’t any more facts to bear out.

          I don’t see how you can know this. The way I see it there are a lot of questions that the public deserves answered. An independent inquiry is the only way to get there. A we-done-a-whoopsie letter from Neazor doesn’t cut it. The more Key stonewalls on this the more guilty he looks. The more afraid of an inquiry he looks.
          • BloodyOrphan 14.1.1.1.1

            29 September 2012 at 11:16 pm

            Fair enough, but I and everyone else could predict the outcome with some accuracy.
            (Could always be wrong of course, a lot of supposition in what I say, but it is observed facts.)
            And details would obviously put it to rest, but “Off The Record” will likely twist it for ever.
            (i.e John Key will never admit to anything)
            • mike 14.1.1.1.1.1

              29 September 2012 at 11:54 pm

              Your cynicism is not unwarranted, but it’s the fact that Key refuses to go there when he so obviously should that is the salient point.

              Of course Key would never admit anything until he has to. But you’re assuming an inquiry would hinge on only that? How do you know?

              I’m wondering for example whether there are minutes or some other record of the topics discussed in Key’s 15 meetings with the GCSB this year. Governement departments leave paper trails. Let’s see it. If it’s a truly independent inquiry who knows what might come out. Maybe you’re right, maybe nada, but maybe not – there’s a lot of details to be put to rest here.
              • BloodyOrphan …

                29 September 2012 at 11:58 pm

                Yeah true, well said.
              • McFlock …

                29 September 2012 at 11:59 pm

                Or if the notes will be scribbled in after the fact, like the SIS did with Goff.
                     
                Of real concern is that key had no interest in what his substitutes were authorising while he was on holiday. Not even a “so, Bill, what did you sign for me when I was gone? Just a quick list…” 
                • mike …

                  30 September 2012 at 12:20 am

                  “So Bill, anything happen while I was gone I should know about?”

                  “Well John, I signed a suppression order to keep the GCSB’s illegal spying on Dotcom secret.”

                  “What’s that you just said Bill?”

                  “I said I signed a…”

                  “What did you just fucking say Bill?”

                  “I… Uh… I didn’t say anything John.”

                  “You thought I already knew.”

                  “I thought you already knew.”

                  “Good boy.”

                  “Thanks John.”

                  “No, thank you Bill.”
    • burt 14.2

      29 September 2012 at 10:17 pm

      gobsmacked

      There’s obvious political gain for Key in announcing an inquiry. That’s why we have to wonder why he won’t.

      You can write the Monday announcement for him … “I’m committed to transparency and accountability … no stone unturned … New Zealanders need to have confidence in their institutions …” etc.

      … ask him to nominate a Labour-acceptable person, maybe somebody who served under Clark.

      Perhaps said Labour person could set the terms so narrow that everyone associated with National gets exonerated – lets hope nobody steps down and says they might stand as an independent… then the courts tear them to shreds.

      Isn’t that how these things work ?
15. burt 15

    29 September 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Eddie

    They would have been better to go straight to the Auditor-General.

    No history of them making ‘bad calls’ so we move on – Dooh !
16. xtasy 16

    29 September 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Eddie:
    “On top of that, there are calls for a ministerial and/or Independent Police Conduct Authority investigation into a) how the Police gave the GCSB false information on Dotcom’s residency and b) the head of the Police’s OFCANZ unit’s apparent perjury when he told a court that no spy agency had been involved in the Dotcom raid.”

    Forget the IPCA, as that is a mickey mouse outfit, which will not seriously offer the scrutiny needed here. Read the Act that this authority has to work under, and you will find that in most cases they hand matters right back to the NZ Police to “investigate” the breaches that are complained about.

    It is like tasking the burglar to investigate his own crimes, kind of, if one wants to be a bit cynical. Well, maybe more like the burglar’s wife to do it, which is about the level of “independence” they apply.

    They also don’t like to deal with matters they may consider not that serious. If there has not been serious abuse of police powers resulting in serious harm to body or mind, or even death, they are likely to frown upon any other complaint.

    So perhaps that only leaves the Auditor General’s office, to look into this all?
17. Jenny 17

    30 September 2012 at 9:12 am

    “You take the high road and I’ll take the low road……”

    Detective Inspector Grant Wormald in charge of the operation and investigation of Kim Dotcom.

    According to court transcripts of his testimony against Dotcom, this senior police officer covering for the illegal involvement of the GCSB, of which he was well aware, lied under oath that “no other agency had been involved in the surveillance” of Kim Dotcom.

    This is before documented evidence is brought before the court that reveals that this is not the case.

    ….court documents show the GCSB had been engaged by police to monitor Dotcom – illegally – for at least a month before his arrest in January.

    Kirsty Johnston Fairfax NZ news

    GCSB staff had also attended a meeting with police including (Chief Inspector) Wormald…..

    Kirsty Johnston Fairfax NZ news

    But instead of coming clean. Cover up and evasion is still the preferred tactic by Key and the police.

    What they should keep in mind is;

    “The cover up will always be worse than the original error.”

    By trying to cover up, the evasions and lies will pile on top of each other, and it will be harder to keep the story straight. The dishonourable prostrate forelock tugging before the Americans which led to this behaviour by our authorities will come to look more and more ridiculous. And if they keep up their persecution of Dotcom based on this sort of public record, our own institutions will become to look dishonourable, disreputable and tarnished.

    Time for those in authority to grow a spine and announce to the US that our sovereignity and laws are inviolate. Quit trying to subvert our authorities. If you want to prosecute Dotcom, you will have to go through the proper New Zealand legal channels. On conviction and sentencing you can apply for extradition.

    No extra legal activities and spying on New Zealand residents!

    No hearings without proper evidence being presented against the accused!

    No extradition without trial!

    These three things must be our bottom line. Anything less must be greeted with the biggest displays of public disapproval coupled with civil disobedience possible.

    After the law breaking and perjury committed by our authorities against Dotcom on behalf to the American authorities, the least the guy deserves is a fair trial on New Zealand territory.

    Though Kim Dotcom is an unlikely folk hero. It is civil liberties and fair legal process for all that are at stake.
18. deuto 18

    30 September 2012 at 9:13 am

    Stuff reports this morning:

    Police have closed ranks behind the senior officer at the centre of the Kim Dotcom case who is facing allegations he lied under oath about illegal spying on the alleged internet pirate.

    A leading legal expert says the official stance means the officer, Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, will now likely avoid a police investigation into whether he provided incorrect information during a High Court hearing.

    The allegations against Wormald, who led the Dotcom investigation for the Organised and Financial Crime Agency (OFCANZ) arose last week during a hearing centred on the spying revelations. Wormald was accused by Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davison of giving “inconsistent” evidence in court about work undertaken by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) on behalf of police, in which Wormald said no other agency had been involved in the surveillance.

    However, court documents show the GCSB had been engaged by police to monitor Dotcom – illegally – for at least a month before his arrest in January. GCSB staff had also attended a meeting with police including Wormald, US authorities and Crown Law before the raids. Davison said the inconsistencies in the police’s account are “grave” and “significant”.

    But Police Commissioner Peter Marshall has backed Wormald, and says speculation around his actions and those of other police while the case is still before the court is “deeply concerning”.

    The Star-Times understands the police view is that Wormald’s evidence was wrongly interpreted, not untrue.

    University of Law Professor Bill Hodge said if Wormald had top police backing, it was unlikely he would be investigated for perjury.

    “That’s the difficulty with police in that they’re both the prosecutor and the employer so it’s very complicated,” Hodge said.

    “Police might have wanted to pause before giving him complete backing, to take a closer look.”

    …

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7748117/Police-stand-firm-behind-besieged-senior-officer

    Edit – should have made this a reply to Jenny’s at 17, but her comment was not up when I drafted and submitted this.
    • Jenny 18.1

      30 September 2012 at 5:13 pm

      Digging the hole deeper.

      The police know their testimony is given more weight by the judiciary. This is why we should be concerned at news that the Police have “closed ranks” in refusing to investigate allegations that senior police officer, Detective Inspector Grant Wormald lied under oath.

      A leading legal expert says the official stance means the officer, Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, will now likely avoid a police investigation into whether he provided incorrect information during a High Court hearing.

      Kirsty Johnston Fairfax NZ news

      It is truly disturbing that an alleged perjurer is getting the full official backing of the whole police force in getting away without any investigation into his evidence

      What will this mean for all future court cases involving conflicting testimony given by sworn police officers, either as complainants, or defendants?

      Traditionally courts have given more weight to a sworn police officer’s testimony over other witnesses when no other evidence is available.

      Will this case be cited in future court cases as an example that a police officer swearing under oath, unlike any other citizen, will not face any investigation if it is suspected that they have committed perjury?

      Will this precedent devalue all future police testimony in court?

      What does this say for police testimony in past court cases?

      If our whole legal system is not to be discredited. – In the unfortunate event, that no action is taken by the authorities, it may have to fall to civil liberty campaigners to take a civil action against this blatant official excusing of possible police perjury in court.
      • BloodyOrphan 18.1.1

        30 September 2012 at 5:20 pm

        They always close ranks when “Chain of Command” is in question.

        And yes it does devalue their current and previous testimonies.
        But it’s not new, and that police system will usually “recover”,
        with appropriate results because it is a “Qualified” one
        (i.e. They’ve analysed these issues many times in the past).
19. Jenny 19

    30 September 2012 at 5:25 pm

    In refusing to even investigate evidence into the alleged perjury committed by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald. Are the police taking their lead from the Prime Minister, who also refuses to look into matters, or read documents just in case he may find the conclusions, he would be forced to take if he did so, uncomfortable requiring possible further action.
    • BloodyOrphan 19.1

      30 September 2012 at 5:31 pm

      What’s too investigate?, they already know what he didn’t say.
      Like I said his only reason for staying quite is some kind of up the chain “Order”.

      They have to work within those, it’s their lives at stake.

      There are many precedents for this, the thing to remember is an undercover cops’ entire persona is at risk.

      It can take 20 years too build one.
      You may not have realised that most uniformed officers are meant to hate an undercover cop on the street.

      And they achieve that by not telling them of course.

      So who’s gonna investigate it?

      Fact is John Key didn’t have any respect for the lives he endagered with a political stunt designed for the Cameras more than any other thing

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS