Blue Wolf II:
I find it in bad tastes for the first NPIA director since its reboot to also be the person who spilled information for political gains and then tried to cover up the motivation behind the release.
Not to mention Eluvatar also has charges of Espionage & Impersonation filed against him in an open court case.
Eluvatar is a trusted member of this regional community. He has served as it's Delegate on multiple occasions, is a long standing member of the security council, and has significant experience in intelligence gathering and the like. He seemed to be an ideal choice, given his experience and the trust that many in the region have for him.
Do I agree that mistakes were made in the last intelligence released? Yes. It should have been handled better, in a more official way at the very least.
Gaspo:
I would ask the Delegate why there is no mention of oversight or accountability of this agency, given its previous incarnation's less than stellar history in this area.
Edit: With regard to the choice for first director, Eluvatar is a good friend and I don't object to choosing him for important positions. However, Eluvatar has strong ties to highly controversial extraregional organizations. What assurances do we have that his sole interest will be the security of this region? I'm not questioning his integrity, but there are a number of other choices for this position who do not bring with them such...obvious baggage.
Gaspo, you are quite right that the oversight issues will need to be addressed. I recall when I last looked through the archives, this issue was brought up relatively regularly, and featured strongly in Prime Minister Grosseschnauzers final speech as PM (at least I think it was his final speech
).
For one thing, I want to point out that the NPIA is governed by a Charter. One written by the previous cabinet, which I would certainly like to review, to include more provisions relating to oversight.
For starters some matters of common sense. I believe that information relating to the security risks of the Delegate should be passed to the Security Council. They are tasked with dealing with such things at it is appropriate that they deliberate and vote upon such matters before deciding whether it is right to release that information/pursue that matter further. There will be some who won't like this idea much either, however I think it is better than leaving it up to the Director alone.
I think intelligence that is relating to matters of our allies should be disclosed to the Delegate. As our Delegate, I believe that he or she is responsible for dealing with such matters especially when they are covered under treaties.
I'm not opposed to Freedom of Information Disclosures either. I actually hadn't realized that particular section of the law that directly excluded them from that. I think it is something that will have to be addressed, and I am open to suggestions and ideas to deal with this.
In the meantime I will note that the Cabinet will be working on a redraft of the charter to include some oversight provisions.
Crushing Our Enemies:
My concerns have been acknowledged and addressed, but I remain unconvinced. It seems to me now that we have two bodies convened to ensure the security of the region. One, the Security Council, is constitutional, relatively transparent, answerable to the Regional Assembly and the Court of TNP, and happens to be a long-standing pillar of government in TNP. The other, the NPIA, is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, completely opaque, answerable to no one but the appointed director, and was created to keep the delegate out of hot water when they feel like withholding evidence and shaming political opponents.
If I haven't made this clear already, I consider this the organizational successor to Eluvatar's extra-governmental group, and remain staunchly opposed to the existence of such organizations.
While I find some aspects of your post to be on the wild side, I will do my best to address your concerns.
For anyone who has been in TNP for a while, they would be aware that an organization is not required to destroy or discredit political opponents. People attempt that here on a regular basis, an organization isn't needed to do that.
Secondly, I highly support the work that the Security Council does, and I agree with Great Bights Mum that there is a difference in what the organizations do. I think that the NPIA can compliment the work of the Security Council and visa-versa.
The idea of the announcement is not to put wind up you all, that the NPIA is breathing down your necks. It was announced for transparency reasons, because I believe in open and transparent government. There was the suggestion that this organization should remain entirely secret. I was against such an idea, as I do not wish to create a secret police or an oligarchy or anything of that kind.
Nonetheless I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read the announcement and shared your concerns on the matter.
Finally, this is a preliminary announcement. To give the public the heads up of what the Government is doing. And to provide for these types of discussions. The charter will be public, and will be redrafted by the cabinet to include some oversight provisions.