FD - Intelligence Oversight

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
As proposed by Haor Chall:

TNP Constitution @ Article III:
C - There is to be a North Pacific Intelligence Agency whose duties are to collect and analyse confidential intelligence information relating to matters of the security for the benefit of the Regional Government and the region as a whole. The Prime Minister shall appoint the leadership of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency after consultation with the personnel of that agency. Any matter concerning the Agency's activities and personnel, except in the case of a criminal prosecution, shall be discussed in confidence without reference in any public record; however, there must may  be disclosure of confidential information if it is to be used in connection with a criminal or impeachment proceedings. The Prime Minister shall chair a body, consisting of the Minister of Defence, the Minister of External Affairs and two members of the Security Council selected by Security Council vote. This body will be responsible to the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly for the ongoing oversight of the Agency. The Legal Code may provide for a code of ethics in the NPIA enforced by the aforementioned body.
Click to expand...

And yes I do realize that there is another proposal on the table in the private hall, however since this debate has been more maturely developed and the proposal more thought out; I'm moving this along.

In this proposal, the nominee for who runs the North Pacifc Intelligence Agency is chosen by the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, and 2 Security Council members. Also it strips the power of SOLE civilian oversight from the ONLY the Prime Minister to this new group of 4, whihc includes the Prime Minister (MoD, PM, 2 SC members.)
 
The more substantial problems is that Haor Chall's proposal (the so-called "part I") was offered before the NPIA revised its internal structure and procedure. The proposal is out-of-date and clearly has not been reviewed in light of the disclosures made by the NPIA to the RA. It needs to be revisited because under the current NPIA process as disclosed to the RA, the proposed oversight committee is excessive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It has not been amended because the information "revealed" was diddly squat. The internal structure of the NPIA is not relevant to this proposal and, to be honest, is not meaningful in any way shape or form unless it were to be enacted as part of the Legal Code (which it isn't). I mean, "Court of the NPIA"? Please.


The real purpose of the so-called part 1 is to destroy the NPIA as a meaningful and useful tool for the benefit of the region and its institutions. That is wy it was a bad proposal when it was first ffered, and continues to be a bad idea now.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.
 
I would like to repeat that I support this proposal. It incorporates the NPIA as a part of the region which is responsible to the region. It does not destroy the NPIA or impede it in any unnecessary manner.

The NPIA code mentioned could as well be incorporated as part of the Legal Code increasing trust in the NPIA later on.

I will note that I believe that who is on that supervisory group is probably still changeable in this proposal. For instance, if people think one of those two ministers has no place on that committee the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs could take their place.
 
however, there may  be disclosure of confidential information if it is to be used in connection with a  criminal or impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...

What this says is "if evidence is used in a trial, then the NPIA MUST disclose who gave us the information."

I repeat, if this goes through, then our sources of information will largely dry up. I am sure Shoeless Joe would not have approached us With information of the Limitless Events/Lexicon plot has this been in force, since anonymity was a condition of his initial disclosure.

Without Shoeless Joe's information and help at that time, it is likely that now we would not have a constitutional government.

I strongly oppose this change to our law. If this passes we might as well not have a NPIA. I speak as one who has been closely involved in the NPIA since its inception.

If this passes, we might as well not have an intel agency. Which is probably the point.
 
That is such crap Flem, and you know it. You keep bringing up Shoeless and Limi but Limi did not face a trial, did he? So it isn't relevant and hardly shows that this would "destroy" the NPIA.

Stating that evidence must be provided to be able to convict someone- rather than just saying "he did it, you just gotta trust us"- is the basis of a fair and just judicial system.

And I'm sorry if being accountable to the democratic and elected institutions of this region is such a bad thing for the NPIA, but then in all honesty we would be better off with out it.
 
With the greatest of respect, HAor, you were not involved in the debrief of Shoeless Joe - I was. Even though Limi did not come to trial, that outcome was not known at the time.

Shoeless Joe requested anonymity as a condition of giving us information. We were able to make that assurance, which is pretty common in intel work. I can think of at least three other occasions in the life of TNP where similar conditions have been put by informantd on the disclosure of information.

If this change to the law had been in place back then, we would not have been able to make any assurances of anonymity to Shoeless Joe. Probably, therefore, we would not have got information vital to the security of the region.

That is what happened, Haor, you can dismiss it as crap if you want, you can deny that is what happened if you want. You weren't there and you wern't involved. Take it from those who were.
 
flemingovia:
With the greatest of respect, HAor, you were not involved in the debrief of Shoeless Joe - I was. Even though Limi did not come to trial, that outcome was not known at the time.

Shoeless Joe requested anonymity as a condition of giving us information. We were able to make that assurance, which is pretty common in intel work. I can think of at least three other occasions in the life of TNP where similar conditions have been put by informantd on the disclosure of information.

If this change to the law had been in place back then, we would not have been able to make any assurances of anonymity to Shoeless Joe. Probably, therefore, we would not have got information vital to the security of the region.

That is what happened, Haor, you can dismiss it as crap if you want, you can deny that is what happened if you want. You weren't there and you wern't involved. Take it from those who were.
Click to expand...
I was in cabinet during those briefings and total anonymity was not only kept but during the early proceedings against Rostum brought by Maximus I never recieved the name of sources even as MoJ. This law has nothing to do with sources since privilege rules already apply.

This law does nothing but increase civilian oversight to those elected officials who were elected to handle with these types of situations. The Prime Minister's job is wide but is not exclusive to security, while the Security Council is.
 
More to the point, the NPIA can still offer guaranteed anonymity, but if it does the information gained, unless later revealed, cannot be used to convict someone. That doesn't stop them being able to collect the information, to build up a picture of security threats, etc it just means any such information cannot be used in court. If necessary, it may be that if this proposal passes we look to implement some kind of closed court proceedings to allow classified information (or at least some of it) to be used in court.
 
So (and I am just trying to be practical here) if this passes the NPIA has to work out, before we accept the information, whether the information might be used in a trial, and then refuse it if this seems likely .... or accept the information and also accept that there would probably never be enough evidence to go to trial with?

Sorry - this is coming across more and more as a crap, unworkable idea. If you have to scratch around for ideas like closed courts to make it work, then I still say vote against.
 
I may not be absolutely opposed to the idea if, as I'm reading it, evidence that is obtained using information obtained from confidential sources are still permitted to be filed without having to reveal the name of the informant that led to information?

I have to admit, though, that I am more predisposed towards Tresville's proposal in private chambers. The intelligence community have always seemed to be more pragmatic than legalistic, and binding them with excessive oversight may simply hinder them from doing their jobs and force them to take more drastic and legally questionable actions.
 
Five members is too large a body for oversight, and increases the risk of unauthorized leaks and disclosure of confidential identities and information.

The process also is not acceptable in its current form as to the lack of protection for confidential sources and means of gathering intelligence information.

The Security Council is already authorized to have a representative of the NPIA present in its private discussions, and given that, what is the point of a five-member body where two (or more of the five) would also be present at private Security Council discussions?

It's things like this that point towards a goal of dismantling the ability of the NPIA to even function, rather than provide oversight.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Five members is too large a body for oversight, and increases the risk of unauthorized leaks and disclosure of confidential identities and information.

The process also is not acceptable in its current form as to the lack of protection for confidential sources and means of gathering intelligence information.

The Security Council is already authorized to have a representative of the NPIA present in its private discussions, and given that, what is the point of a five-member body where two (or more of the five) would also be present at private Security Council discussions?

It's things like this that point towards a goal of dismantling the ability of the NPIA to even function, rather than provide oversight.
Click to expand...
If we want to be democratic, we want to have accountability.

Five trusted persons should not leak information-- if we cannot trust our MoEA, our MoD, or our two most trusted members of the Security Council, who can we trust?

I am also worried at your rhetoric in the last paragraph. It echoes too much of one Senator McCarthy. The best way, of course, to block a proposal is to attack it's author-- best of all to accuse them of treasonous ulterior motives. Wouldn't it be nice if we could avoid making such accusations baselessly?

Nothing about this proposal dismantles the NPIA. And to flemingovia's point that the NPIA would have to reveal sources-- I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If the NPIA has evidence which is used in a trial then that evidence will have to be shown. Clearly. That's all this does.

And trials where evidence is not disclosed don't make much sense.
 
The point I have been making throughout is that this legislation has not been thought through practically, as evidenced by Haor Challs fishing around for the next knock-on effect of the legislation, thinking aloud that "it may be that if this proposal passes we look to implement some kind of closed court proceedings to allow classified information (or at least some of it) to be used in court."

The implications of the legislation should be thought through BEFORE it passes.

My main practical point, however, is that people simply will not come forward with intel if they suspect that their names will be forced to be revealed in court, or enough of their intel will be disclosed as to point to their identity.

I'm sorry if that is not what you want to hear, but it is what will happen. I can point to not one, not two but at least three occasions in the NPIA's history where this would have been the likely outcome.
 
I don't understand this argument. An Intelligence agency clearly should be independent of the rest of the government by and large. Obviously if evidence is used in a trial it has to be published; or at least shown to everyone in the trial. But that's something that needs to be stated in the laws/rules on trials. It doesn't need to be in the Constitution at all.

If anything it makes sense to just cut the whole however clause. The one part of this proposal that certainly makes sense is the initial "relating to matters of security."

What else do Intelligence Agencies do but security? They certainly shouldn't go about enforcing ideological purity or anything like that :P :fish:
 
[I posted in the wrong formal discussion...oops.]

are we not allowed to delete our own posts?

regardless, please delete this. thanks.
 
Due to the points raised, I suggest that the following amendment be considered:

TNP Constitution @ Article III:
C - There is to be a North Pacific Intelligence Agency whose duties are to collect and analyse confidential intelligence information relating to matters of the security for the benefit of the Regional Government and the region as a whole. The Prime Minister shall appoint the leadership of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency after consultation with the personnel of that agency. Any matter concerning the Agency's activities and personnel, except in the case of a criminal prosecution, shall be discussed in confidence without reference in any public record; however, there must may  be disclosure of confidential information if it is to be used in connection with a criminal or impeachment proceedings. The Prime Minister shall be responsible to the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly for the ongoing oversight of the Agency. The Legal Code may provide for a code of ethics in the NPIA enforced by the aforementioned body.
Click to expand...
 
While I did like the oversight provisions, if this is what is necessary then so be it. I suppose I can understand the people who say that 5 people overseeing an agency is too many.
 
The initial problem was that I couldn't have both proposals up for a vote and have both of them pass, especially with the allegations of me preferring one proposal over the other. Now once Tresville's Amendment has gone through the system, we'll move yours forward to the best of my ability. I'm truly sorry for the stop and starts.
 
Haer Choar no matter how the vote ends uo, I'd like to thank you for candor and strive in making this proposl, the version tou watered down was an act I don't think I would given but I have found this quite one of the most righhly heated debates lead by the most skillful of legislators, I hope you might consider running for Speaker someday. (When I'm not for the same job too of course <_< .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top