A further Parliamentary Service cock up

August 3rd, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

United Future leader is considering legal action and Fairfax Media is alleging a “cover up” after it emerged yesterday that Mr Dunne’s emails with reporter were sent to an inquiry investigating the disclosure of a sensitive report.

The latest twist in the Henry Inquiry saga follows earlier revelations that Vance’s phone records were sent to the inquiry, along with logs of her movements around the parliamentary precinct recorded by a swipecard.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet released all emails relating to the Henry Inquiry late yesterday. One included an attachment containing emails between Vance and Mr Dunne, which was sent to the inquiry by Parliamentary Services on May 21.

About 40 minutes after the message was sent, officials tried to recall the email and asked the inquiry to call urgently.

The head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Andrew Kibblewhite said the file was deleted immediately and could not have been opened because the email system was incompatible with that used by .

Unbelievable. And note it was not authorised:

 Parliamentary Services told the inquiry on May 20 it believed it had the “necessary approvals” to release ministers’ emails. However, the next day, Mr Thorn emailed Chief of staff Wayne Eagleson to ask about Mr Dunne’s emails, adding “I am happy to provide the information as requested.” Mr Eagleson said he told Mr Thorn he was uncomfortable about authorising that because Mr Dunne was not a National Party minister, and Mr Dunne would have to give permission himself.

Which he did not.

The Henry Inquiry had asked for calls made “to and from” the ministers’ phones and Miss Vance’s but specified “we do not want the call logs for (Vance’s phones)” as it was outside conditions of the inquiry.

So twice Parliamentary Service provided private communication details, despite explicit statements that that information was not to be included!

People will try to blame this on the PM or his staff, because that is the nature of the politics game. but really, it looks pretty clear to me that the PM’s Office was very careful not to over-step the mark. The problem lies with Parliamentary Service.

However there is a political management issue here, that may involve both. This info should not be coming out piecemeal. Once it was known such information was sent by mistake, it should have all been disclosed together. But it seems DPMC (seperate to the PMO) only mentioned the e-mail incident yesterday to the PM’s Office.

Tags: , , , ,

89 Responses to “A further Parliamentary Service cock up”

  1. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Two matters relating to Eagleson….

    1.
    The Wayne Eagleson time line says, among other things:

    *** ” Mr Thorn follows up with an email setting out the request (attached). He also indicates to me that as he would be overseas for the coming days there would be an acting GM. ” *** Source: Stuff.

    Question: Unless Thorn was going overseas on PRIVATE business (no Dip or official passport) at his own expense, what the F is the Parliamentary Services GM doing going at taxpayer expense ????

    2.

    If Wayne Eagleson is guilty of anything it is doing what J Key asked…or thought he had asked.

    The calls by idiot Robertson et al for Eagleson to resign are laughable.

    Some time, very, very soon, someone needs to remind them that Simpson pressured Parliamentary Services to cough up almost $500,000 (or was it more? can’t recall offhand) of taxpayers money for labour’s illegal election spending. That should have brought shouts of “Resign, Resign. Resign.” It should have resulted in criminal proceedings. The Vance business is much a ‘do about very little. The bint (also Fairfax and self important Armstrong) protests too much.

    It is amusing, is it not, how someone like Robertson (and its rainbow colleagues) overlooks and “protects” someone like Simpson??

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. BlueGriffon (203 comments) says:

    This is all getting very boring and complicated now. What I do want to know though is how did Winston know of these emails and phone logs right at the start.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    People will try to blame this on the PM or his staff, because that is the nature of the politics game. but really, it looks pretty clear to me that the PM’s Office was very careful not to over-step the mark. The problem lies with Parliamentary Service.

    There’s an important piece of this story missing from the post, as reported by Stuff:

    But in a further development the chief executive of Mr Key’s own Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) has been dragged into the affair after admitting he had known about the email privacy breach for almost a month, but sat on the information and did not disclose it to Mr Dunne, Vance or even Mr Key.

    Mr Key found out about it only yesterday morning.

    “I have checked my records and can confirm that I first became aware of this on July 5. In hindsight, and notwithstanding the inquiry never viewed the email files . . . I acknowledge we could have prompted Parliamentary Services to inform you of their error,” Andrew Kibblewhite said in a message to Vance yesterday.

    This seriously involves the “the PM or his staff”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. niggly (832 comments) says:

    Flipper – well said re point 2 – we shouldn’t forget H2’s (and by association H1’s) role in that sordid affair. More hypocrisy and deception from Labour & Robertson (H3 it seems?) and a forgetful MSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. publicwatchdog (3,118 comments) says:

    How was the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson ‘lawful’, given the VERY different roles of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and the Office of the Prime Minister?

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    “Administrative support to the Prime Minister

    This includes preparation of replies to Parliamentary questions, and dealing with Official Information Act requests and other correspondence.

    A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support.”

    “STRUCTURE

    DPMC formally came into existence on 1 January 1990, as a result of a report which recommended establishing structures to provide two separate streams of advice to the Prime Minister; one, a new government department to supply impartial, high quality advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), and another, a Prime Minister’s Private Office (which is not part of DPMC), to provide personal support and media services, and advice of a party political nature.”

    Biography of John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson.

    http://www.anzsog.edu.au/magma/media/upload/ckeditor/files/Alumni%20Events/Wayne_Eagleson_Bio.pdf

    ” Wayne Eagleson is Chief of Staff to Prime Minister John Key.

    Wayne was Chief of Staff to Mr Key as Leader of the opposition from November 2006 to the last election in November 2008.
    Prior to that Wayne was Chief of Staff to Mr Key’s predecessor Dr Don Brash from November 2005.

    In his role as Chief of Staff, Wayne is responsible for the management of the prime Minister’s office and leads the political
    staff throughout the government.

    He is also actively involved in the management of the relationships with support parties represented in parliament.

    This is Wayne’s second stint as a political advisor.

    Between 1986 and 1993 he worked for National as a researcher, Private Secretary to then Leader Jim Bolger, Director of the party’s Research Unit and as the Campaign Director for the 1993 general Election.

    During his twelve year period out of politics, Wayne held a number of senior public affairs roles, including general Manager
    Corporate affairs at DB Breweries, head of Media relations at Westpac Banking Corporation, and general Manager public
    affairs at Transpower New Zealand Limited. …”

    So – where did Prime Minister John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, get his his training to give ‘impartial, high quality advice’?

    Oh – that’s right.

    He didn’t?

    Not his job, as the Chief of Staff for the Office of the Prime Minister – that’s the job of the DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET?

    This MESS gets bigger by the day in this country New Zealand – ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt’ in the world……..

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption/anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the government/parliamentary agencies, this has become the very worst moment in time for an incredibly intrusive, highly contentious, deeply unpopular Bill to be rammed through with the slimmest possible majority.

    If the government wants to restore a sliver of trust with the public, and some integrity to the political process, it should now withdraw the GCSB Bill, go back to first principles, and reach a consensus that has a decent majority of parliament behind it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Peter (1,694 comments) says:

    The media, and the beltway, has disappeared even further up it’s own arse than thought possible.

    Churnalists churning churn about themselves. And Peter Dunne.

    The nation – not the TV programme – yawns.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    This seriously involves the “the PM or his staff”.

    Yeah, looks like the advisor is the fall guy. Still, shows Key engenders such loyalty in his staff that they are willing to fall on their swords to protect him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Paid your Council rates yet, Penny poo?

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    This seriously involves the “the PM or his staff”.

    Andrew Kibblewhite is the chief executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). He was formerly from the Treasury (being Deputy Chief Executive there). He is a public servant, not a political helper. If it had been Wayne Eagleson or anybody in the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) who had been aware then you might have had an point.

    Ironically the person who was acting chief executive until he took up the position was one Rebecca Kitteridge.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    So – where did Prime Minister John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, get his his training to give ‘impartial, high quality advice’?

    He doesn’t, because that isn’t his job. He is a political helper (very much like Heather Simpson). His influence on the DPMC is lawful in that he represents the Prime Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    I have a question. Suppose I worked for, say, MSD. And suppose I had some sort of gripe about beneficiaries, so I’d zipped up a database full of beneficiary details and e-mailed it to Whaleoil who’d published details on his blog. MSD suspected me of being the leaker. Would people be standing up for protection of a journalist’s sources and this being essential to a free press? Because any action that MSD took to review my e-mail or phone records to see if I’d e-mailed or called Whaleoil would BY DEFINITION involve the review of e-mail and phone records of the journalist I had leaked to. So all MSD could do to investigate the leak without trampling over the confidentiality of sources and a free press would be to ask me if I’d done it. I’d say “no”, and then laugh at them. And then maybe I’d run off to the media to protest about how MSD had tried to violate my right to privacy, and how they wanted to trample on democracy or something.

    Dunne is still hiding something. He could release all his correspondence with Vance and this would all be cleared up. That he doesn’t do so speaks volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    metcalph>Ironically the person who was acting chief executive until he took up the position was one Rebecca Kitteridge.

    Kitteridge and Eagleson went to school together. IT’S ALL A GIANT CONSPIRACY!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Emails show the service recalled the emails within an hour of them being sent and Mr Kibblewhite said they were not opened because the file format could not be opened by the DPMC server.

    Heh, yeah right. So Key does know what was in those emails. Presumably that’s why he so readily accepted Dunny’s resignation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gravedodger (1,575 comments) says:

    The once very proud albeit maligned apolitical Public Service has, by it’s serious takeover as a political arm of the socialist left, become infested with an arrogant meme of a badly warped concept of the public good.

    The John Key Government’s only involvement here is a reluctance to discover incompetence/mediocrity, attitudes, unreliability in the PS and cauterise them.

    Pete George your manic obsessive comments on this makes you the lead candidate for the philu award for July.
    Your comments may have some relevance at times but the sheer number, regular inanity and your continual failure to acknowlege any stupidity on the part of your mentor and patron for allowing himself to be compromised by a passibly attractive and extremely manipulative reporter trained by the shitheads at the News of The World school, means a quick page down at every comment you place for this KB follower.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (10,396 comments) says:

    The file was incompatible with the PM’s email system?

    Why??

    Shouldn’t the PM’s office be using the same email system as everyone else?

    What strange email system is the PM using then?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    mails show the service recalled the emails

    How do you “recall” an electronic file. something that may be copied and leaves an electronic trace on the disk where it resides even if deleted?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yvette (2,758 comments) says:

    All this angst over freedom of the press, and protection of journalist’s sources is because Vance and Fairfax printed stolen material.

    And Dunne, confessing to his own utter stupidity for some unexplained actions, but denying he gave the report to Vance, means the person who leaked the Kitterage Report is “still out there”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    The email trail shows:

    Monday 21 – request email contents
    Tuesday – send email contents]
    Wednesday – acknowledge problems opening email contents PST
    Thursday – ask to get authorisation but to continue working around the PST access problem
    Monday 27 – “Just to confirm (I can’t remember exactly what I said in voice mail) – we’ve only got authorisation to see the non-minister’s emails. Not Dunne’s.

    And this questions the “recalled within an hour” claim.

    The email email trail – Henry inquiry emails on emails

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. publicwatchdog (3,118 comments) says:

    http://www.ssc.govt.nz/appt-ce-dpmc-may12

    Last updated: 29 May 2012

    The State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, today announced that current Treasury Deputy Chief Executive Andrew Kibblewhite has been appointed Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC).

    Mr Kibblewhite, who has previously served as Director of the DPMC’s Policy Advisory Group replaces Maarten Wevers, who leaves the Department on 13 June.

    Iain Rennie described Mr Kibblewhite as an outstanding manager with a strong policy and central agency background.

    “Andrew has demonstrated notable leadership and is an effective proponent for change and improvement across the government sector,” Mr Rennie said. “He has trusted relationships across the Public Sector, particularly with Chief Executives, and his proven insight, energy, drive, and commitment complements his collaborative abilities.”

    “Along with me as Head of State Services, and the Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew will have a pivotal role in the Government’s groundbreaking Better Public Services programme to ensure accountability and transparency across the Public Service,” Mr Rennie said.

    The Better Public Services Programme is the next phase in the Government’s Public Sector reforms and is focused on getting the system working to deliver better results.

    Rebecca Kitteridge, currently the Secretary of the Cabinet, will be the Acting DPMC Chief Executive until Mr Kibblewhite takes up his new position on 25 June 2012.

    ENDS.

    For more information on the DPMC: http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    For more information on Better Public Services: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-background-material

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Red…
    You say:
    ***Shouldn’t the PM’s office be using the same email system as everyone else?

    What strange email system is the PM using then? ***

    True, but they want to keep information gathered at our expense (dollars, not ego) secret, do they Not? :) One wonders whether the PMO can access all departmental email services. The PM’s office is a political, not departmental operation. My impression is that it is far LESS repressive than it was under Clark/Simpson.

    It will be amusing to watch the SSC squiggle and wiggle on this at the PC hearing.

    En passant, one good outcome of that hearing would be to subject the Parl Services to OIA requests. .Another would be to abolish the risible “security” nonsense in the (our) H o Reps,. and bring it into line with the US Senate and H o Reps.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    Redbaiter>Shouldn’t the PM’s office be using the same email system as everyone else?

    What “same” system? Agencies use a mixture of Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    John Key has released this statement:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    The haste with which Vance’s emails were offered belies a motive.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Henry’s timeline…

    8 May 2013

    4:45pm
    Parliamentary Service emails Ministerial Services and asks them for written confirmation from each Minister they are happy to make available information relating to staff as it believes Ministers are the employer.

    5:15pm
    Ministerial Services emails Parliamentary Service to advise DIA are the employer of all Ministerial staff and all staff had signed a Code of Conduct so the Inquiry doesn’t need written authorisation. However, with respect to Ministers, Parliamentary Service has asked Ministerial Services to provide authorisation for each Minister individually and please hold cellphone records for each Minister in the meantime.

    Eagleson’s timeline…

    May 8 or 9: Ministerial Services advises me that Parliamentary Service requires the necessary approvals before meeting the inquiry’s request for information on ministers.

    May 9: After a phone conversation with [Parliamentary Service general manager) Geoff Thorn, I send him an email in effect authorising the release of material. My email and telephone conversation related solely to ministers and their staff.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8996411/Emails-given-to-inquiry

    back to Henry’s timeline…

    16 May 2013 3:24pm
    Parliamentary Service emails Henry Inquiry Administrator with external Ministers’ email metadata, including Peter Dunne’s.

    Meaning…they already had Dunne’s emails to Vance from the 16th and upon reading them, without Dunne’s express permission, they wanted Vance’s emails TO Dunne in the later request.

    Monday 20 May 2013 2:25pm
    Henry Inquiry Administrator lodges formal request for all emails between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne between 22 March and 9 April

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1308/S00039/dpmc-releases-email-correspondence-relating-to-henry-inquiry.htm

    The question is…

    Where does Eagleson get the authority to act on behalf of the speaker in authorising Thorn/Parliamentary services to do anything ?… Unless he’s going rogue, Key gave his express authority to Eagleson and must have been kept informed along the way.

    Eagleson’s emails hold the truth of who is responsible for the cock ups and who should really be held accountable.

    Nice of Kibblewhite to offer himself up to be next victim thrown under the bus though eh ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    BERLIN (AP) — Germany canceled a Cold War-era surveillance pact with the United States and Britain on Friday in response to revelations by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden about those countries’ alleged electronic eavesdropping operations.

    The move appeared largely symbolic, designed to show that the German government was taking action to stop unwarranted surveillance directed against its citizens without actually jeopardizing relations with Washington and London. With weeks to go before national elections, opposition parties had seized on Snowden’s claim that Germany was complicit in the NSA’s intelligence-gathering operations.

    Government officials have insisted that U.S. and British intelligence were never given permission to break Germany’s strict privacy laws. But they conceded last month that an agreement dating back to the late 1960s gave the U.S., Britain and France the right to request German authorities to conduct surveillance operations within Germany to protect their troops stationed there.

    http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/351918/Germany-ends-Cold-War-spying-pact-with-US–Britain.html?isap=1&nav=5030

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:


    16 May 2013 3:24pm
    Parliamentary Service emails Henry Inquiry Administrator with external Ministers’ email metadata, including Peter Dunne’s.

    Meaning…they already had Dunne’s emails to Vance from the 16th and upon reading them, without Dunne’s express permission, they wanted Vance’s emails TO Dunne in the later request.

    Wrong. The Inquiry only had the metadata of the ministerial emails sent to and received from Vance sent to them on the 16th. They did not have the content of those emails.

    Where does Eagleson get the authority to act on behalf of the speaker in authorising Thorn/Parliamentary services to do anything

    He didn’t. He issued an authorization on the behalf of the National Ministers and their staff. Peter Dunne and John Banks had to be asked separately.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (10,396 comments) says:

    What “same” system? Agencies use a mixture of Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange.

    Why the hell would they want to do that?

    OK, which of those systems was the Henry inquiry using and what was the format of the email file?

    Should be an easy question to answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    Redbaiter>Why the hell would they want to do that?

    Same reason some agencies use Oracle databases and others Microsoft. Government IT isn’t monolithic and agencies do their own procurement. Altho why anyone would choose Lotus Notes is completely beyond me as it is possibly the world’s most awful software product.

    Even if both agencies in question used the same e-mail system (and I have no idea if they did or not) there are plenty of other reasons that someone couldn’t open the e-mails. Not having the right technical skills, for instance. Or the files might have been zipped and encrypted and the receiver didn’t have the key. It’s quite common to zip and encrypt sensitive files before sending them, and the key is SMSed to the receiver.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    metcalph @ 11.31

    The email contents:
    Monday 20 – requested
    Tuesday 21 – sent
    Wednesday 22 – can’t open
    Thursday 23 – asking for authorisation, still trying to open
    Monday 27 – acknowledge no authorisation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    oh chur metcalph :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    And Peter Dunne says “my approval was never sought – first I knew they had been accessed was when I met Henry for the first time on 23 May”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. frankdb (150 comments) says:

    “People will try to blame this on the PM or his staff, because that is the nature of the politics game. but really, it looks pretty clear to me that the PM’s Office was very careful not to over-step the mark. The problem lies with Parliamentary Service.”

    Bullshit, That long streaky piece of shit knows exactly what has happened and it is only a matter of time that all his lying deceiving carry on becomes too much and he drowns in his own crap.

    And I will be only to happy to push his head back under with a sharpened stick if he somehow makes it back to the surface.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Pete George.

    I referred to a false characterization of an email on the 16th. Your sequence starts on the 20th. Is there a relevant point you were trying to make?

    As for your sequence itself, it contains your typical lies and innuendo. The Vance emails were sent on the 21st. What you do not point out is that the particular email was recalled within the hour after a mistake was made (ie Vance emails shouldn’t have been sent) and that a revised email was sent. It was the *revised* email that the Henry Inquiry Admin responded to by saying that we can’t open the documents.

    You can stop using DPF’s blog to defame people.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Who cares what Peter Dunne says Pete George? He is a silly old duffer who got beguiled by a cunning bit of skirt and made a complete jackass of himself as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (10,396 comments) says:

    ” It was the *revised* email that the Henry Inquiry Admin responded to by saying that we can’t open the documents.”

    So the “revised” email had the same file attached again, or was it something else that could not be opened?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (10,396 comments) says:

    davidp-

    Agree with your comments on Lotus Notes. Why it still exists (apparently) is beyond me.

    However the possible explanations you suggest are a bit implausible. The file would have been sent with the intent of the recipient opening it, so encryption is unlikely, and being a single file it is unlikely it would have been zipped. Although it could have been but even so I can’t believe a zipped file would present a problem to anyone at the Henry inquiry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Emails issue aside, what are press gallery reporters doing using Parliamentary phones in this cellphone age?

    Would Parliament’s watchdogs have been able to track reporters’ calls at all if they weren’t going directly through the Parliamentary switchboard? If so, why are taxpayers funding the MSM’s communications in this way?

    In 2013, the MSM must surely kit out each of its reporters with a cellphone.

    If Parliament wants to lay on landlines to the gallery for each MSM outlet, surely it could put in one of the very cheap separate switches with a lock-out for toll calls. This could interconnect with the main switchboard, allowing the hacks to chat with politicians without the call being logged to any particular report. If MSM outlets based in Auckland wanted their own direct links to their staff in the gallery, they could pay for a dedicated line.

    If the MSM want full security they should pay for it, rather than taxpayers.

    Generally, people I talk to about the issue don’t give a rat’s arse about what happens to a reporter’s email.

    Except to the MSM and Lefties, this emails issue is trivial, and nowhere near as interesting as Peter Dunne’s communications, which began the chain of events.

    As for the emails, the MSM and politicians should acquaint themselves with the free programs readily available that encrypt computer text. These range from mild protections sufficient to keep out casual snoopers to almost unbreakable codes.

    If you are going to use the Internet, your security is up to yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,

    The original email had two attachments, the revised email only one. Both had the same format which the Henry Inquiry Admin couldn’t open.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (10,396 comments) says:

    BTW, they’ve already identified the problem as “incompatibility of email systems” so zipping or encryption are therefore excluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “As for your sequence itself, it contains your typical lies and innuendo.”

    metcalph = no, it is a record of the relevant emails as supplied by the Government yesterday.

    The emails don’t make it clear there are different versions. They do seem to make it clear that there were attempts to access the emails before authorisation was sought (and denied).

    On the Thursday:
    “In the meantime, could I ask that you carry on working around the .pst issue, on the assumption that we will eventually get authorisation to view the emails”.

    That was two days after the (first?) file containing email contents was sent, and four days before they acknowledged there was no authorisation.

    If there is confusion about file versions and revised emails that is due to gaps in the record they supplied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    metcalph = no, it is a record of the relevant emails as supplied by the Government yesterday.

    Yet another Pete George lie.

    The emails don’t make it clear there are different versions. They do seem to make it clear that there were attempts to access the emails before authorisation was sought (and denied).

    Amazing. The emails weren’t clear on one thing so that thing doesn’t exist. The emails do seem to make it clear on another (false) thing so that thing can be asserted as fact. Apply the same standards of evidence and quite wasting our time with special pleading.

    If there is confusion about file versions and revised emails that is due to gaps in the record they supplied.

    The confusion is caused only by a mixture of your ineptitude and deceit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Manolo (14,165 comments) says:

    Who cares what Peter Dunne says Pete George? He is a silly old duffer who got beguiled by a cunning bit of skirt and made a complete jackass of himself as a result.

    Could you clarify, please? Who is what? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Right from the start I was curious how the Henry inquiry got this information. I thought he must gave got it from the GCSB. It seems that the parliamentary Service supplied it not illegally but over enthusiastically. There needs to be a much stronger reinforcement of the independence of the Service. This is not the first time they have been stood over by the Prime M

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “The confusion is caused only by a mixture of your ineptitude and deceit.”

    I thought you were referring to the Henry inquiry and the Parliamentary Service for a second. Most of the criticisms I have seen (and there are many) have been in that direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. peterwn (3,332 comments) says:

    BlueGriffon – Perhaps Winston chatted up the lowly contractor in Parliamentary Services and got the goods that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    Orewa 1 @ 10.29
    “….for an incredibly intrusive, highly contentious, deeply unpopular Bill to be rammed through with the slimmest possible majority.”

    I haven’t been following the full details of this issue but can someone tell me what the Labour/Gweens actually want. What do they actually think is wrong with the proposed Bill ?

    I thought ( probably niavely) this Bill was being put forward to fix the deficiencies in the existing Bill bought in by Labour in the early 2000’s . Specially to clarify the legality of what the GSCB was doing on behalf of the SIS and Police. These deficiences were highlighted by the Dotcom matter and the 80 people who it now seems were illegally spied on ( despite there being warrants in place). In the process of drafting the amendments other issues relating to supervision/governance etc of the GCSB have been raised and are being addressed.

    If my summary is correct what are Labour and the Greens on about ( in relation tothe Bill) ?? or is it just childish political games and stirring up some sort of “fear” in the public who they continue to treat as idiots ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. BlueGriffon (203 comments) says:

    Peterwn, must be the same contractor that gave Don Brash’s emails to Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Ross12 at 2.14pm: “can someone tell me what the Labour/Gweens actually want. What do they actually think is wrong with the proposed Bill?”

    I can’t. But that doesn’t matter – I am generally much more aligned to National’s policies than the left. But I am vehemently opposed to the intrusiveness of the GCSB bill, and to the treatment of Kim Dotcom. So are many of my right-leaning friends.

    Bills that sanction spying on citizens, or create crimes in contentious fields, should never be passed without widespread public support. This one in my observation, falls way short of passing that test.

    Back to the drawing board. Government by the people and for the people means the people of New Zealand – not the spy agencies of some other country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    What Labour actually want (according to a Supplementary Order paper submitted by them) is:

    3A. The amendment to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act to expire 12 months after it receives the Royal assent

    25A. An independent inquiry to report back within 6 months of commencement of the bill.

    27A The amendment to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to expire 12 months after it receives the Royal assent.

    37A The amendment to the Intelligence and Security Committee Act to expire 12 months after it receives the Royal assent.

    So basically inquiry within 6 months and chuck out all the amendments in 12 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    BlueGriffon posted at 2.19:

    …Peterwn, must be the same contractor that gave Don Brash’s emails to Winston…

    Peters wasn’t in the loop. It was likely a leftist gone rogue within GCSB hacked into National’s email, then leaked the Brash emails to Leftist mates.

    The Lefties have ever since been trying to allege it was a National inside job, because they will know what will happen to their source if he’s tracked down. They hoodwinked the unelectronic sleuths in the plod squad, who seem to have accepted it was an inside job.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Peters seemed to be doing similar yesterday on Firstline on the Henry inquiry leaks – claiming he had sources within Fairfax and the Beehive. My guessing is he is trying to divert attention from the actual source.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    So Pete, Labour say they want the existing Bill and all its deficiencies to stay as it is and hold an inquiry into the Bill they put in place. Talk about going in circles.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Ross12 – pretty much. They wanted to oppose National but not oppose the overall aims of the bill (the original one was their’s).

    I like the idea of reviews. But I think it makes sense to tidy up the current bill now, give it a couple of years then review it to see whether further improvements are needed.

    Incremental changes are safer than starting again and then having to sort out inevitable weaknesses and unintended consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    What a boring beltway non-issue. Nookin’s 10.10am comment on GD sums things up very well.

    How unfortunate Peter Dunne has chosen to smokescreen by threatening litigation in order to hide his gross betrayal of New Zealander’s trust. Luckily they seem to have seen through this and he will be out on his arse post 2014 no doubt begging they Key Government for some overpaid, irrelevant sinecure (I wonder if High Commissioner to Tahiti is going?)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    What a boring beltway non-issue.

    The reason that it is a real issue is that it highlights the question of trusting those who deal in secrets. The ostensible reason is that they do what they do to protect the citizen. But the threats used in support of this fail the sniff test at a basic level.

    Take al-Qaeda for example. Born of US intervention in Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion, this organization has been accused of acts of terrorism including the 9/11 attacks. Foreknowledge of those attacks existed with the insider trading (UAL “put” options) of CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard, and with the BBC, who broadcasted that WTC7 had collapsed around 20 minutes before the collapse actually occurred.

    Regardless of this, the nation-states party to the UKUSA agreement (aka Echelon), Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, maintain this security facade which had its beginnings at the end of the second world war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth’s:

    …Take al-Qaeda for example. Born of US intervention in Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion, this organization has been accused of acts of terrorism including the 9/11 attacks…

    Hell’s Teeth, Ugly Truth, al-qaeda acknowledged it committed the 9/11 attacks.

    And your “put option” analogy for what you allege was the position of the CIA executive makes no sense. Here’s the Investopedia definition of a put option:

    An option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying security at a specified price within a specified time.

    And surely al-qaeda is evidence of the need for the five-power electronic intelligence alliance. The more so since our Prime Minister has said some “New Zealanders” are or have been training in Yemen with al-qaeda. We need to revoke the citizenship of these ratbags.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Hell’s Teeth, Ugly Truth, al-qaeda acknowledged it committed the 9/11 attacks.

    I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

    And your “put option” analogy for what you allege was the position of the CIA executive makes no sense.

    It makes sense if you intented to make money from the loss in share price of an airline.

    And surely al-qaeda is evidence of the need for the five-power electronic intelligence alliance.

    What is al-Qaeda? We are told that it is the organisation responsible for serious terrorist activity, yet the use of proxy terrorism by the west since the end of the second war is documented as well as false flag terrorist conspiracy eg Operation Northwoods.

    http://axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/war-on-terror/295-top-10-reasons-911-was-an-inside-job

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    No-one’s blaming all Muslims for al-qaeda terrorism, UglyTruth.

    What evidence do you have to the any put option on an airline’s shares ahead of the 9/11 attack? Which airline? Who took the option? There are always records of such options. Details, please.

    From your post you sound to disbelieve that al-qaeda is a terrorist organisation. Do you say that our Prime Minister, John Key, is a liar when he says some with New Zealand citizenship are attending, or have attended al-qaeda terrorist training camps?

    If you believe him, UglyTruth, do you think “New Zealanders” who have attended such camps should be stripped of their New Zealand citizenship? If not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Reid (16,681 comments) says:

    What evidence do you have to the any put option on an airline’s shares ahead of the 9/11 attack? Which airline? Who took the option? There are always records of such options. Details, please.

    Jack the fact they were placed has been well known for over a decade. How come you don’t know this? What else don’t you know about the 911 FACTS?

    And yes we all know these are normally readily traceable. Strangely, no-one has cashed them in and no-one has revealed who put them. Isn’t that peculiar.

    Like a lot of other things about that incident.

    Educate yourself mate, or alternatively continue in your blind ignorance and maintain your sense of security that is false, because YOU can’t bring yourself to recognise the mountain of evidence which utterly trashes the official story. Compared to that mountain, the put options are a mere boulder on a hillock over there, BTW. And if you don’t even know about the hillock, how could you possibly hallucinate you understand the mountain, which BTW, ushered in the biggest geopolitical change since the beginning of the Cold War. But that’s not important, is it. Much more important to continue your sense of security, that is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, I’ve just tracked down the source of your allegation about Krongard and the put options.

    He managed a financial firm until 1998, which handled (that is acted as placement agent as a sharebroker would for someone buying shares) for someone taking a big position in put options on UAL shares before the 9/11 terrorism. (Thus the contract would have been placed well after Krongard left). The $US2.5 million gain on the options as the share price fell with 9/11 has never been claimed. If someone in the CIA bought the option contract why wouldn’t they have claimed the $US2.5 million?

    If this UAL put option story is true, the logical cause for the $US2.5 million being unclaimed is that the put option was placed on behalf of people connected with al qaeda and who were frightened to put their hands up after America’s resolute response to the terrorism.

    Most Muslims who have come to New Zealand came because they like the material progress of a Western country, the freedom of Western societies, and the welfare cushion provided. If they support al qaeda, however, they should not be in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Reid – you are a conspiracy nutter.

    In another time you would have blamed Churchill for the Nazi murder of the Jews because he was a Freemason.

    Educate your fucking self! If there were such put options it stands to reason why they weren’t cashed in. The holders were scared to put up their hands, or the lawyers for the deceased owners who wanted security for their families were scared to put up their hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Reid, you’re not a Moonie, too, are you? One of those who believe the Americans never really landed on the Moon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    What evidence do you have to the any put option on an airline’s shares ahead of the 9/11 attack?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-attacks-criminal-foreknowledge-and-insider-trading-lead-directly-to-the-cia-s-highest-ranks/32323

    From your post you sound to disbelieve that al-qaeda is a terrorist organisation.

    To be clear, they are a terrorist group run as a proxy.

    Do you say that our Prime Minister, John Key, is a liar when he says some with New Zealand citizenship are attending, or have attended al-qaeda terrorist training camps?

    No. He doesn’t have a lot of options other than to follow the Washington narrative.

    If you believe him, UglyTruth, do you think “New Zealanders” who have attended such camps should be stripped of their New Zealand citizenship? If not, why not?

    It is not so much that I disbelieve him in this as that I disbelieve the MSM/state description of al-Qaeda. While it is prudent to investigate anyone who appears to be preparing to engage in criminal activity or terrorism, a superficial knowledge of the context can lead to the real cause of the problem remaining unresolved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, you haven’t answered whether you think “New Zealanders” who attend al qaeda terrorist camps in Yemen should be stripped of their NZ citizenship. Yes or no?

    If you think al qaeda is NOT a terrorist group, except as a “proxy” who do you think they are proxy for?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    UglyTruth and Reid: I note that the Wikipedia entry on the put options and Krongard is qualified by the editors:

    ..This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources…

    Flaky stuff, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Take al-Qaeda for example. Born of US intervention in Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion,

    Wait, what?

    Normally I would say this was bollocks, but as you seem to consider yourself to be the world’s foremost expert on things historical, knowing things about the law that has escaped scholars for centuries, I had better defer to you on this…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Jack5, it is not really my place to comment on the citizenship thing.

    Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I note that the Wikipedia entry on the put options and Krongard is qualified by the editors

    While Wikipedia is great for general stuff, when it comes to law and geopolitics it is at best seriously spotty.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-contradicts-the-rest-of-the-internet

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    UT,

    quoting Counterpunch and the Grauniad can’t be considered to be authoritative sources of unbiased news…

    And taking perfectly legitimate assistance to a friendly regime prior to the illegal invasion by foreign power (whether anticipated or not) and conflating it to the cause of Al-Qaeda so far fetched that I feel perfectly able to say that such a conclusion is complete bollocks.

    Using logic like that, you can blame the Holocaust on the British because they supported the Polish prior to WW2!

    Anyway, it would appear that Osama Bin Laden himself disagreed with Robin Cook on the meaning of the name Al-Qaeda:

    The name comes from the Arabic noun qā’idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.

    Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:

    The name ‘al-Qaeda’ was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia’s terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

    With regards the meaning, I personally place more reliance on the late founder of the movement than that of Robin Cook.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth’s:

    …it is not really my place to comment on the citizenship thing…

    So you decline to agree that “New Zealanders” who go to al qaeda terrorist camps should have their NZ citizenship revoked.

    Everyone knows that the scumbag Bin Laden was in the mujihadeen who were supported by the CIA in the insurgency against the Russians. But overwhelmingly the mujihadeen dit not later launch terrorist attacks on the USA. It was the wahhabist-led al qaeda faction who led that reinforced by more Arabs and a handful of Western deadheads.

    But the key issue here is whether NZ should tolerate naturalised citizens or children of naturalised citizens who undertake training with al qaeda. You obviously think it should, UglyTruth.

    I also think you are presumptious in your choice of nom-de-plume for Kiwiblog. The first half of the name may or may not be true, the second part is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Reid – you are a conspiracy nutter. In another time you would have blamed Churchill for the Nazi murder of the Jews because he was a Freemason.

    Not at all Jack but you seem to know me better than I do so how could I argue?

    I’m merely a realist who understands geopolitics and fact is, geopolitics isn’t explained by what you read in the media. Believing it is, is a sinecure because you don’t want your world turned upside down so people prefer to get their geopolitics from the media rather than face that. However reality is increasingly encroaching on that sense of security that is false as time passes what with more and more evidence that the politicians don’t act in best interests of the nation they represent and you can say that about the US since Bush 41 and same with all the European politicians since around that same time.

    Now people who get their geopolitics from the media don’t have any explanation for this phenomena which is undeniable, for example Blair’s lies over Iraq and Bush, well, everything and Obama, and Clinton’s murders and his economic mis-management and the list goes on. And on and on and on.

    But I have an explanation Jack. And this is because my mind unlike yours and millions of others like yours, is open to possibility which forms into probability as events play out. And others are just like me and they include many senior politicians and military and intelligence people who all think just like me. For example the link I gave on GD this morning to an article by Paul Roberts, he was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. Last I heard you don’t get posts like that if you’re a “nutter” Jack. But then, you clearly think you know me better than I do, so what would I know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Reid posted at 10.10:

    …I’m merely a realist who understands geopolitics …

    And the rest of us don’t. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    I think you would accuse the rest of us of being too naive to doubt or question mainstream interpretation of history. Conspiracy theorists can also lack beneficial, questioning-type scepticism. In their case it is absence of any smidgen of doubt about their own fallibility.

    Reid, as a matter of interest, do you think the Americans’ moon landings did occur, or are you sceptical about them, too?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    quoting Counterpunch and the Grauniad can’t be considered to be authoritative sources of unbiased news

    Are you accusing Counterpunch and/or the Guardian of making it up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Reid (16,681 comments) says:

    And the rest of us don’t.

    That’s right Jack, you don’t. For example, do you think Syria is a mass uprising against an oppressive ruler or a regime change operation? One of those answers is correct.

    Reid, as a matter of interest, do you think the Americans’ moon landings did occur, or are you sceptical about them, too?

    Yes I do actually Jack, why do you ask? Is it because when YOU think of a “conspiracy theory” you immediately bring to mind a whole lot of associations that the media has implanted into your mind whenever that trigger phrase is raised, such as that? Tell me Jack, do you think JFK was assassinated by LHO acting alone? Careful now. Wouldn’t want people to think you’re a conspiwacy theowist, would you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    But the key issue here is whether NZ should tolerate naturalised citizens or children of naturalised citizens who undertake training with al qaeda.

    No, the key issue is whether or not the state can be trusted to engage in data collection without warrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    And taking perfectly legitimate assistance to a friendly regime prior to the illegal invasion by foreign power

    Why do you say that political interference of the CIA done with the knowledge that it could cause an act of war was perfectly legitimate?

    Anyway, it would appear that Osama Bin Laden himself disagreed with Robin Cook on the meaning of the name Al-Qaeda

    Where the name came from is not important. The point was to show that al Qaeda is a terrorist proxy.

    To paraphrase Edmonds: though the collusion with radical Islam had been going on for decades, it wasn’t until 1996 that a formal decision was made by NATO to abandon their previous secret relationship with neo-Fascists and arch-Nationalists and replace them with Islamists.

    According to Edmonds, since that time the Gladio B operation has expanded and includes the radical Islamisation of Central Asia and the Caucasus region specifically and across the Middle East more generally. Again, much of the available information supports her claims, especially regarding the Gulen Movement, but also NATO’s relationship with Islamist organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and with terrorist groups like Jundullah who are destabilising Iran and the MEK/MKO.

    http://wideshut.co.uk/gladio-b-the-origins-of-natos-secret-islamic-terrorist-proxies/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (10.34 post) continues to refuse to agree that naturalised New Zealanders or children of naturalised New Zealanders who go to al qaeda training camps should be deprived of their citizenship.

    UglyTruth, by repetitively answering with different questions, you reveal the inflexible thinking of one who has been trained in a madrassa, or brain washed by someone who has been trained in a madrassa.

    We don’t want al qaeda trash in New Zealand. Agree or not, that will be the view of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders.

    UglyTruth repeats that “…al Qaeda is a terrorist proxy …” This time he seems to imply al qaeda is a proxy for NATO in place of a former arrangement where neo-Nazis were the proxy of NATO. UglyTruth, this is unbelievable, insane rubbish. The link you give is to Islamicist ravings.

    Reid at 10.39, asks me:

    …Tell me Jack, do you think JFK was assassinated by LHO acting alone?

    My answer: I don’t know, I don’t want to spend time analysing it, so I act on the assumption that the official view is probably right. I don’t care very much whether there was one assassin or several. The terrible deed is enough for me to be aware of.

    I treasure the value of sceptical doubt described by Descartes. I use it to assess conspiracy theorists’ arguments as well as the issues they fret about. Reid, try sceptical doubt on your own views about the 9/11 terrorism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Why do you say that political interference of the CIA done with the knowledge that it could cause an act of war was perfectly legitimate?

    Sure.  I don’t accept that there can be any justification for an invasion by the Soviets based upon the actions of the USA in Afghanistan prior to Soviet invasion.  Moreover, the Soviets were also interfering in the government of Afghanistan, and even more directly than the USA was.  In the context of the Cold War, I have no issue with the activities of the USA in Afghanistan, pretty much at any time.

    Anyway, I had a look at that link that you provided.  It was good for a laugh, especially the bit that said this:

    All forms of urban terrorism were perpetrated, often by neo-Fascists posing as Leftists, in order to terrify the public, polarise public opinion and destroy support for mainstream Leftist political movements.

    That is brilliant!  So the RAF, the PIRA, the Red Brigades, etc, etc, were actually false flag operations by neo-Fascists in order to discredit the left!!!  Thanks for that, I had a great laugh on that one.

    That article is pure conspiracy theory, history re-writing, left-wing apology making, bollocks. 

    By the way, ‘democratic Communist movement’ is an oxymoron.  Unlike the authors of that article, who are just morons.

    The point was to show that al Qaeda is a terrorist proxy.

    You still haven’t said who they are a proxy for, but unless your answer is “Iran” then you will be dead wrong.  Personally, I don’t think that they are a proxy for Iran, their religious ideology is too different, but I do think that Iran has probably assisted Al-Qaeda in Iraq with arms, training, shelter, and money in order to destabilise the democratic government their.  We do know that Iran has assisted the Taliban with arms, training, and money, in order to destabilise the government in that country.

    Al-Qaeda are not a terrorist proxy.  They are a conglomeration of terrorist jihadist groups, with a central command that co-ordinates and assists jihadist groups in many parts of the world. 

    Are you accusing Counterpunch and/or the Guardian of making it up?

    I think that Counterpunch is an extreme left wing conspiracy-theorising website that does not include accuracy, or even truth, among its goals.  

    The article in the Grauniad was by Robin Cook.  His views are well known, but are widely considered to be incorrect and are largely his own.  Views opposite to Cook’s on the origin and operation of Al-Qaeda are much more widely accepted as being accurate.  But the left loves to sheet things home to the CIA, so keep going with it if it makes you happy.

    You will still be wrong, however.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Reid (16,681 comments) says:

    My answer: I don’t know, I don’t want to spend time analysing it, so I act on the assumption that the official view is probably right.

    No of course you don’t want to know. That’s because knowing it would shake up your view of how the world works. But if that’s how the world works then that’s how the world works Jack, and that’s the diff between you and I. I care about knowing that and evidently, you don’t.

    I treasure the value of sceptical doubt described by Descartes. I use it to assess conspiracy theorists’ arguments as well as the issues they fret about.

    So do I.

    Try sceptical doubt on your own mad views about the 9/11 terrorism.

    I do Jack. My views on 911 explain our reality exactly as it has happened since that tragic day. Furthermore it gives me the ability to predict what’s going to happen next. Does yours, or are you surprised when one country invades another or say doesn’t support another in the UN like Russia and China aren’t doing with the West on Syria and you wonder why or you hallucinate it’s because they’re just being difficult? I don’t wonder Jack, plus I predict accurately plus my feet remain as always, firmly on the ground. I’ll put my analysis of any domestic or international political issue up against yours, any day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

     Why do you say that political interference of the CIA done with the knowledge that it could cause an act of war was perfectly legitimate?

    Because it would be wrong to say that it did so.  The Soviet invasion was of Afghanistan, not the USA.  The invasion was initially at the request of the Afghan government, which had unlawfully obtained power for itself through a military coup that deposed the previous government that was also the result of a coup, but was escalated from an intervention into a take-over, as so many Soviet acts of ‘assistance’ had in previous years.

    To sheet home the invasion to the USA is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

    But, to explain my reasoning fully, I don’t accept that there can be any military invasion that can be justified or excused because a third party was ‘interfering’ in the politics, government, or people, of a nation.  That is illegitimate reasoning.  For that reason I don’t believe that the invasion of Iraq was lawful or legally justifiable (although I do think it was a good thing).  I do accept legal arguments supporting the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and its allies, however.

     jack5

    continues to refuse to agree that naturalised New Zealanders or children of naturalised New Zealanders who go to al qaeda training camps should be deprived of their citizenship.

    I don’t agree with such a proposal.  I am happy for a law to be passed making participation in terrorist training, or fighting with such groups (such as in Syria), a criminal offence that will see those people arrested if they return to NZ, in a similar fashion to the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Act, but I do not support stripping those people of their citizenship.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Reid (11.40 post) claims to treasure Cartesian doubt. Then writes:

    …My views on 911 explain our reality exactly as it has happened since that tragic day. ..

    He adds this gives him the power to predict the future.

    AND

    … I’ll put my analysis of any domestic or international political issue up against yours, any day…

    And up against anyone-else’s, too, no doubt.

    Your egotism and self-certainty, Reid, starkly contradict your professed love of Cartesian doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    No, the key issue is whether or not the state can be trusted to engage in data collection without warrant.

    There is a lot that is incorrect about that statement, UT, but just to pick up on a couple of points:

    Firstly, do you perhaps mean to ask whether the state can be trusted not to engage in data collection without warrant?

    Secondly, the government engages in data collection all the time without the need for a warrant of any sort.  Perhaps you mean that the government should not engage in the collection of private data without warrant?

    Or perhaps, as the data at stake does not appear to have been collected illegally, perhaps it is the dissemination of such data without a warrant that is the problem?

    I am not sure, but I don’t think that your statement means what you think it means.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Reid (16,681 comments) says:

    And yet somehow it works for me Jack. Cartesian doubt like any logic depends on the premises by which one operates. Mine are proven by prediction, for example in 2005 I was telling my workmates we were going to have an economic crash and why. The instant Syria happened I knew who was doing it and why and I knew what Russia and China would be doing about it and why.

    I’m sorry you don’t have that perspicacity Jack but it’s not at all difficult. Perhaps if you started educating yourself and stopped listening to what the media is telling you, you might make some progress.

    Notice I said might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Reid (12.14):

    If you could predict financial market crashes you would be fabulously rich (from short selling).

    If you were fabulously rich it’s unlikely you would be blogging at 12.14.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    UglyTruth repeats that “…al Qaeda is a terrorist proxy …” This time he seems to imply al qaeda is a proxy for NATO in place of a former arrangement where neo-Nazis were the proxy of NATO. UglyTruth, this is unbelievable, insane rubbish. The link you give is to Islamicist ravings.

    Sure, those who have faith that the state is there to protect them from terrorists are not going to accept this. I was cautious about describing the nature of the proxy because unless the facts are laid out the average reader just is isn’t going to accept the conclusion. Reid would probably call it cognitive dissonance.

    So, is al Qaeda a proxy for the CIA or for NATO? The answer is 1946. This marks the landmark event which occurred at the end of the second world war which coincided with the total restructuring of the US security apparatus, the formation of NATO, and the start of the cold war.

    During WW2 the USSR was supplied with nuclear materials via the Lend-Lease arrangement. With the cold war came the arms race, which was the first case of the US having effectively manufactured a threat to support the growth of the military-industrial complex. Alongside the arms race was Operation Gladio, which had European origins and was later used by the CIA and NATO.

    In 1990, the Italian Prime Minister had confirmed that Italy’s “stay behind” army, termed “Gladio” (Sword), existed since 1958, with the approval of the Italian government. In the early 1970s, Italy’s communist support was growing, so the government turned to a “Strategy of Tension” using the Gladio network. At a top secret 1972 Gladio meeting, one official referred to making a “pre-emptive attack” on the Communists. As the Guardian reported, links between Gladio in Italy, all three Italian secret services and Italy’s P2 Masonic Lodge were well documented, as the head of each intelligence unit was a member of the P2 Lodge.[3]
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-gladio-cia-network-of-stay-behind-secret-armies/9556

    Allan Francovich on Gladio (BBC)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    That is brilliant! So the RAF, the PIRA, the Red Brigades, etc, etc, were actually false flag operations by neo-Fascists in order to discredit the left!!! Thanks for that, I had a great laugh on that one.

    The Red Brigades

    The Red Brigades were a leftist Italian terrorist organization that was formed in 1970. In 1974, Red Brigade founders Renato Curcio and Alberto Franceschini were arrested. Alberto Franceschini later accused a top member of the Red Brigades, Mario Moretti, of turning them in, and that both Moretti and another leading Red Brigade member, Giovanni Senzani, were spies for the Italian and US secret services.[11] Moretti rose up through the ranks of the Red Brigades as a result of the arrest of the two founders.

    The Red Brigades and the CIA

    The Red Brigades worked closely with the Hyperion Language School in Paris, which was founded by Corrado Simioni, Duccio Berio and Mario Moretti. Corrado Simoni had worked for the CIA at Radio Free Europe, Duccio Berio had been supplying the Italian SID with information of leftist groups and Mario Moretti, apart from being accused by the Red Brigades founders as being an intelligence asset, also happened to be the mastermind and murderer of former Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro. An Italian police report referred to the Hyperion Language School as “the most important CIA office in Europe.”[12]

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-gladio-cia-network-of-stay-behind-secret-armies/9556

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Ha ha, UT, you really do just keep on giving.

    First you are a freeman, then you reveal yourself as being a believer in left-wing conspiracy theory. You just cannot accept historical fact without it being given some sort of ‘alternative’ twist to remove any truth from it, can you?

    Brilliant!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Ha ha

    Yeah, state sponsored terrorism is just hilarious.

    First you are a freeman

    Wrong.

    then you reveal yourself as being a believer in left-wing conspiracy theory

    Boring…

    It was never about left-right politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote