NZ: Defence
rates investigative journalists as threat
A
Defence Force security manual ranks investigative journalists as one
of the top threats it needs to protect itself from.
28
July, 2013
.
It
states 'certain investigative journalists' are one of three
'subversion' threats to the Defence Force.
The
document defines subversion as 'action designed to weaken the
military, economic or political strength of a nation by undermining
the morale, loyalty or reliability of its citizens.'
It
rates the top three subversive threats as 'hostile' intelligence
agencies, ideological groups and some investigative journalists.
It
says the force needs to investigate the 'capabilities and intentions'
of these groups to protect classified information.
The
document places subversion alongside sabotage, espionage, and
terrorism as the main threats to the Defence Force
US
spy agencies eavesdrop on Kiwi
The
New Zealand military received help from US spy agencies to monitor
the phone calls of Kiwi journalist Jon Stephenson and his associates
while he was in Afghanistan reporting on the war.
28
July, 2013
Stephenson
has described the revelation as a serious violation of his privacy,
and the intrusion into New Zealand media freedom has been slammed as
an abuse of human rights.
The
spying came at a time when the New Zealand Defence Force was unhappy
at Stephenson's reporting of its handling of Afghan prisoners and was
trying to find out who was giving him confidential information.
The
monitoring occurred in the second half of last year when Stephenson
was working as Kabul correspondent for the US McClatchy news service
and for various New Zealand news organisations.
The
Sunday Star-Times has learned that New Zealand Defence Force
personnel had copies of intercepted phone "metadata" for
Stephenson, the type of intelligence publicised by US intelligence
whistleblower Edward Snowden. The intelligence reports showed who
Stephenson had phoned and then who those people had phoned, creating
what the sources called a "tree" of the journalist's
associates.
New
Zealand SAS troops in Kabul had access to the reports and were using
them in active investigations into Stephenson.
The
sources believed the phone monitoring was being done to try to
identify Stephenson's journalistic contacts and sources. They drew a
picture of a metadata tree the Defence Force had obtained, which
included Stephenson and named contacts in the Afghan government and
military.
The
sources who described the monitoring of Stephenson's phone calls in
Afghanistan said that the NZSIS has an officer based in Kabul who was
known to be involved in the Stephenson investigations.
And
since early in the Afghanistan war, the GCSB has secretly posted
staff to the main US intelligence centre at Bagram, north of Kabul.
They work in a special "signals intelligence" unit that
co-ordinates electronic surveillance to assist military targeting. It
is likely to be this organisation that monitored Stephenson.
Stephenson
and the Defence Force clashed in the Wellington High Court two weeks
ago after it claimed Stephonson had invented a story about visiting
an Afghan base.
The
Human Rights Foundation says Defence Force involvement in monitoring
a journalist is an abuse of fundamental human rights.
"Don't
they understand the vital importance of freedom of the press?"
spokesman Tim McBride said. "Independent journalism is
especially important in a controversial war zone where the public has
a right to know what really happens and not just get military public
relations," he said.
The
news has emerged as the Government prepares to pass legislation which
will allow the Defence Force to use the GCSB to spy on New
Zealanders.
The
Stephenson surveillance suggests the Defence Force may be seeking the
GCSB assistance, in part, for investigating leaks and whistleblowers.
Stephenson
said monitoring a journalist's communications could also threaten the
safety of their sources "by enabling security authorities to
track down and intimidate people disclosing information to that
journalist".
He
said there was "a world of difference between investigating a
genuine security threat and monitoring a journalist because his
reporting is inconvenient or embarrassing to politicians and defence
officials".
The
Star-Times asked Chief of Defence Force Rhys Jones and Defence
Minister Jonathan Coleman if they were aware of the surveillance of
Stephenson, if they approved of it and whether they authorised the
investigation of Stephenson (including the phone monitoring).
They
were also asked if they thought journalists should be classified as
threats. Neither answered the questions.
Defence
Force spokesman Geoff Davies said: "As your request relates to a
legal matter involving Jon Stephenson which is still before the
court, it would not be appropriate for the Chief of Defence Force to
comment."
In
fact, none of the issues before that court relate to the surveillance
or security manual.
Coleman's
press secretary said the minister was not available for comment and
to try again next week.
Green
Party co-leader Russel Norman said the monitoring of Stephenson
demonstrates that the security services see the media and journalists
as a legitimate target.
"Democracy
totally relies on a free and independent press," he said.
"Current attempts to strengthen the security apparatus for
monitoring New Zealanders is deeply disturbing and menacing for
democracy."
An
internal Defence document leaked to the Star-Times reveals that
defence security staff viewed investigative journalists as "hostile"
threats requiring "counteraction". The classified security
manual lists security threats, including "certain investigative
journalists" who may attempt to obtain "politically
sensitive information".
The
manual says Chief of Defence Force approval is required before any
NZDF participation in "counter intelligence activity" is
undertaken. (See separate story)
Stephenson
took defamation action against the Defence Force after Jones claimed
that Stephenson had invented a story about visiting an Afghan base as
part of an article about mishandling of prisoners.
Although
the case ended with a hung jury two weeks ago, Jones conceded during
the hearing that he now accepted Stephenson had visited the base and
interviewed its Afghan commander.
Victoria
University lecturer in media studies Peter Thompson said the
Afghanistan monitoring and the security manual's view of
investigative journalists confirmed the concerns raised in the High
Court case.
There
was "a concerted and deliberate effort to denigrate that
journalist's reputation for political ends".
There
is currently controversy in the United States over government
monitoring of journalists. In May the Associated Press reported that
the Justice Department had secretly obtained two months' worth of
phone records of its reporters and editors.
The
media organisation said it was a "massive and unprecedented
intrusion" into its news gathering process.
PROBING
JOURNALISTS DEEMED THREAT
A
leaked New Zealand Defence Force security manual reveals it sees
three main "subversion" threats it needs to protect itself
against: foreign intelligence services, organisations with extreme
ideologies and "certain investigative journalists".
In
the minds of the defence chiefs, probing journalists apparently
belong on the same list as the KGB and al Qaeda.
The
manual's first chapter is called "Basic Principles of Defence
Security". It says a key part of protecting classified
information is investigating the "capabilities and intentions of
hostile organisations and individuals" and taking counteraction
against them.
The
manual, which was issued as an order by the Chief of Defence Force,
places journalists among the hostile individuals. It defines "The
Threat" as espionage, sabotage, subversion and terrorism, and
includes investigative journalists under the heading "subversion".
Subversion,
it says, is action designed to "weaken the military, economic or
political strength of a nation by undermining the morale, loyalty or
reliability of its citizens."
It
highlights people acquiring classified information to "bring the
Government into disrepute".
This
threat came from hostile intelligence services and extreme
organisations, and "there is also a threat from certain
investigative journalists who may seek to acquire and exploit
official information for similar reasons", it says.
Viewing
journalism as a security threat has serious implications. The manual
states that "plans to counter the activities of hostile
intelligence services and subversive organisations and individuals
must be based on accurate and timely intelligence concerning the
identity, capabilities and intentions of the hostile elements".
It
says "one means of obtaining security intelligence is the
investigation of breaches of security".
This
is where the security manual may be relevant to the monitoring of Jon
Stephenson's phone calls. The Defence Force was unhappy at
Stephenson's access to confidential information about prisoner
handling in Afghanistan and began investigating to discover his
sources.
The
manual continues that "counter intelligence" means
"activities which are concerned with identifying and
counteracting the threat to security", including by individuals
engaged in "subversion".
It
notes: "The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service is the
only organisation sanctioned to conduct Counter Intelligence
activities in New Zealand. [Chief of Defence Force] approval is
required before any NZDF participation in any CI activity is
undertaken."
Under
the NZSIS Act, subversion is a legal justification for surveillance
of an individual.
The
sources who described the monitoring of Stephenson's phone calls in
Afghanistan said the NZSIS has an officer based in Kabul who was
known to be involved in the Stephenson investigations.
To
reinforce its concern, the defence security manual raises
investigative journalists a second time under a category called
"non-traditional threats". The threat of investigative
journalists, it says, is that they may attempt to obtain "politically
sensitive information".
Politically
sensitive information, such as the kind of stories that Stephenson
was writing, is however about politics and political accountability,
not security. Metro magazine editor Simon Wilson, who has published a
number of Jon Stephenson's prisoner stories, said the Defence Force
seemed to see Stephenson as the "enemy", as a threat to the
Defence Force.
"But
that's not how Jon works and how journalism works," he said.
"Jon is just going about his business as a journalist."
The
New Zealand Defence Force "seems to be confusing national
security with its own desire not to be embarrassed by disclosures
that reveal it has broken the rules", he said.
This is as sinister as the GCSB
ReplyDelete