8 ms·

In Bungled Spying Operation, NSA Targeted Pro-Democracy Campaigner

146 points by r721 10y ago

coldcode 10y ago
I've seen the enemy and he is not only us, he's the guy at the shoe store and the coffee shop. All it takes to be labeled a terrorist is a clueless person in a position of power, and your visit to Starbucks for overpriced coffee is now a link to terrorism.
- akerro 10y ago
  Sounds like you know a lot about it. Welcome on the watchlist.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yardie 10y ago
Hapless water managing bureaucrat is the perfect cover for a terrorist. They'll just need to dig deeper because there is no way the intelligence could be wrong. We believe the coffee and shoe shops are code words where the most nefarious elements discuss their evil plans, over a cup of chai.
tjpnz 10y ago
Meanwhile in New Zealand the government is hastily amending legislation to allow the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders. The GCSB being an organisation so partisan that it was at one point directed by a childhood friend of the Prime Minister.
jessaustin 10y ago
Haha the Fijian "military soldier" forgot to insert his magazine.
- ihsw 10y ago
  It is intentional. Automatic rifle toting soldiers in public places (eg: downtown Paris) are generally threatening, so, to emphasize their intention to operate those weapons only as self-defense, they remain unloaded until necessary. Loaded cartridges are stored on their person though, just in case.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Then why is he clutching the grip rather than leaving the rifle slung over his shoulder with an empty chamber? That would be less "threatening", and certainly more sensible. It would also be more responsive, as the magazine could be loaded all the time, and on the rare occasion shooting is required, shooting could take place without fumbling with a seldom-used, packed-away magazine. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but I've used firearms all my life, and this posture signifies, "We menace the public with 'assault rifles', but we hire amateurs for the menacing so after three old ladies got clipped we took away their bullets." That is, if one harbored ill intent, the presence of this sort of "security" would encourage rather than discourage one's nefarious plans.
    - ihsw 10y ago
      Your interpretation is correct, the intent is that they operate on a purely reactive basis. But it's a show of strength to assuage the public rather than actual security -- if there was an actual security risk then you would most definitely see their rifles loaded properly and the area would be closed off to the public (especially to ambitious photographers). As for him clutching the grip instead of slung over -- he is probably posing for the picture and he's clearly displaying appropriate trigger discipline, so I wouldn't be concerned.
    - fredophile 10y ago
      I can probably load and ready an empty rifle that's in my hands faster than I can move a slung, loaded rifle from my back into my hands. That's using a proper sling and not the improvised sling shown in the picture. It's also significantly safer to have the rifle in his hands than loaded on his back. It wouldn't be that hard for the trigger to catch on something and fire a round while the rifle is still slung. Carrying an unloaded weapon, with proper trigger and muzzle discipline, is perfectly safe.
wyldfire 10y ago
"A Fijian military soldier stands guard on Parliament grounds." -- is it normal to not have a magazine engaged in a rifle like that when on guard duty?
- ihsw 10y ago
  Yes. It is a universal sign of non-violence unless in self-defense (including the defense of others').
- pjc50 10y ago
  Most Western militaries realized they were having far more problems with with accidental discharge injuries and deaths than actual live-fire incidents, even in actual combat zones, and so training calls for the weapon to be unloaded until needed.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    The answer to that is better, sterner discipline, not guards who can't actually, y'know, guard.
    - openasocket 10y ago
      They still have magazines on them, so they can respond to a threat in a few seconds. And no amount of discipline can completely prevent accidental discharge.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        The way to prevent accidental discharge is to keep the rifle slung over one's shoulder, with an empty chamber, rather than nervously gripping it with one's finger on the trigger guard as pictured in TFA. That posture serves no purpose other than the intimidation of the ignorant. And it's clear from this picture the magazines, if they exist, aren't secured in one place on a sensible leather belt, but rather are rolling around in the bottom of one or more of those giant pouches he's got hanging around.
chatmasta 10y ago
Am I the only one here who thinks this was not all bad? It seems the problem was not so much the investigation itself, but the handling of the aftermath, once the spies realized there was no corroborating evidence, combined with their bias-inducing excitement to catch a "baddie." When terrorist attacks happen successfully, and enforcement agencies had some prior knowledge of them, people blame the agencies. So surely when there is some evidence apparently linking somebody to a planned terrorist attack, the agencies are duty bound to at least investigate it. Of course, they're also duty bound to investigate it within the law, and if the investigation turns out to be unfounded, they should forget about it. That's not what happened here, and that's the problem. The fact is, this was not just some bloke of a bureaucrat from New Zealand who happened to be targeted as a terrorist. He grew up in Fiji, and his best friend was a high ranking Fijian military officer. Their travel patterns aligned. They had membership in the same group (yeah, it's a "pro democracy" group, but is a terrorist group going to call themselves "pro terrorism?"). They made allusions to stabbing the leader of Fiji. If the initial evidence was based on any one of these factors in isolation, I can see how pursuing the case would be a waste of time. However, it seems what landed Fullman on the radar was the combination of all these factors. He had the right background (pre-coup Fijian origin), relationships (high ranking Fijian military friends), travel patterns (back and forth at the same time as an ousted military officer), and resources (again, friends with a high ranking military officer). Had he actually been planning an attack, and the agencies sat on all this information, how would that look afterward? It would look like an agency failed to do its job in preventing the violent overthrow of an ally. I don't fault the agency for opening an initial investigation. There was plenty of evidence to warrant at least looking into the guy. What seems to be the problem was the extrajudicial revocation of his right to travel and do business, before any corroborating evidence existed. Wouldn't the proper way to handle this investigation have been more covertly? Sure, scoop up as much data as you want -- just enough to see if he actually is planning an attack. But why remove his passport? Keep him under surveillance and watch for any sudden moves, sure. But why the need to restrict his travel? What purpose does that serve? And once they found the investigation was unwarranted, they should have immediately dropped it. Had they done this covertly, the guy never would have known he was even under surveillance. But instead they seized his passport and many of his possessions before having the evidence to do so. He was fully aware of the investigation in such a way that it materially and negatively impacted his life. To be fair, though, they did handle the aftermath in a somewhat commendable fashion. They lifted the restriction on his passport without any further hassle, within two years. That's pretty quick. Perhaps they should have done more (apology, compensation), but even by US standards that seems like a fairly equitable outcome. He never went to prison. At the end of the day, it sucks for this guy. He was in the wrong places, with the wrong people, at the wrong times. But I have trouble faulting the agencies for their initial suspicion. It's their handling of the aftermath that I have a problem with.
madaxe_again 10y ago
This isn't surprising, if you understand that the mission of the American military and intelligence apparatus is to promulgate American Values (I.e. Hegemonic control), not democracy. You need only look to the juntas that the CIA have installed and supported in Latin America alone to see that this is demonstrably the case. Consider that NZ were worried Fiji were getting close to China. This would be the US's concern too - so roughing up some political exiles would curry favour with the Fijian regime, potentially staying their burgeoning relationship with China. There was no bungle.
- dmix 10y ago
  As long as this stayed secret, you're right. It wasn't a bungle. Which is why state secrecy is a fast track to tyranny - or at the very least keeps inefficient government workers employed, regardless of how many times they mess up (causing real consequences on peoples lives). I'm guessing your allusions to the old cold war CIA strategy being present day strategy (as opposed to counter terrorism) is why you're being downvoted.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
The morale of the story is apparently don't get involved in ANY activists groups no matter what side of the aisle you are on. This makes it really seem like any association with any activist group, whether you're anti-(insert subject here) or pro-(insert subject here) is going to get you into trouble regardless. It really makes trying to get good people involved in activism (in any form) a real challenge if this is going to become the norm - more people will simply stay home and keep their heads in the sand, which is even more disturbing and problematic. There was a time when the press was the ultimate check on government authority and overreach. These days, its clear most news outlets are in bed with said government and its really down to the citizens to keep government power in check, which makes these incidents all the more troubling.
dguido 10y ago
The pro-democracy campaigner in this article openly admits to discussing assassinating the prime minister of Fiji with other members of his group. It seems kind of silly to act incredulous when you find out that he might, then, have been watched by a few intelligence agencies to see what he was planning to do next. Even if he ends up doing nothing, you want to make sure he's going to do nothing. ----- The Intercept asked Fullman if he or Mara had ever heard of — or been involved in — discussions about overthrowing or assassinating Bainimarama. Far from denying it, he said that sort of talk happened frequently within Fijian pro-democracy circles. However, he said it was just angry ranting, when the alcohol was flowing, something completely different from real plans. “People would say things like, ‘Please can we just hire the Americans to send one drone to Fiji to get rid of those bastards’, or ‘Let me go back to Fiji and I’ll just get a knife and stab him!’” Fullman said. “It’s venting. It’s our way of maintaining sanity — we just sit and bitch about everything. We don’t want violence. We want something where there’s control, a planned approach. More to the effect where it’s the people who protest and say, ‘Enough is enough. This is wrong. We want to go back to the old constitution and have elections.’”
- baconner 10y ago
  OK, but what I didn't see (maybe I missed it) in the article is any knowledge of that by the New Zealand authorities ahead of this action. And even if that were the case this would be an incredibly heavy handed response to this kind of venting. You can hear people say I wish we could drone strike {{politician name}} on a daily basis and it should take a lot more than that to get your passport revoked. Surely we can find a more reasonable response that reflects the reality that people say things like this without serious intent all the time. The article also points out that was timed such that it would be a convenient gesture of goodwill towards the Fijian government during negotiations. So there's also a believable reason why the government of New Zealand might have subjected these folks to this. The level of reaction doesn't fit the evidence at hand. The effects for this guy are ongoing as he now must put up with more hassle every time he travels forever. IMO it's just not a reasonable response. All for his very reasonable advocacy for democracy and maybe someone venting without serious intent about killing a dictator.

146 points by r721 10y ago

I've seen the enemy and he is not only us, he's the guy at the shoe store and the coffee shop. All it takes to be labeled a terrorist is a clueless person in a position of power, and your visit to Starbucks for overpriced coffee is now a link to terrorism.

akerro 10y ago
Sounds like you know a lot about it. Welcome on the watchlist.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yardie 10y ago

Hapless water managing bureaucrat is the perfect cover for a terrorist. They'll just need to dig deeper because there is no way the intelligence could be wrong. We believe the coffee and shoe shops are code words where the most nefarious elements discuss their evil plans, over a cup of chai.

tjpnz 10y ago

Meanwhile in New Zealand the government is hastily amending legislation to allow the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders. The GCSB being an organisation so partisan that it was at one point directed by a childhood friend of the Prime Minister.

jessaustin 10y ago

Haha the Fijian "military soldier" forgot to insert his magazine.

ihsw 10y ago
It is intentional. Automatic rifle toting soldiers in public places (eg: downtown Paris) are generally threatening, so, to emphasize their intention to operate those weapons only as self-defense, they remain unloaded until necessary. Loaded cartridges are stored on their person though, just in case.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Then why is he clutching the grip rather than leaving the rifle slung over his shoulder with an empty chamber? That would be less "threatening", and certainly more sensible. It would also be more responsive, as the magazine could be loaded all the time, and on the rare occasion shooting is required, shooting could take place without fumbling with a seldom-used, packed-away magazine. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but I've used firearms all my life, and this posture signifies, "We menace the public with 'assault rifles', but we hire amateurs for the menacing so after three old ladies got clipped we took away their bullets." That is, if one harbored ill intent, the presence of this sort of "security" would encourage rather than discourage one's nefarious plans.
  - ihsw 10y ago
    Your interpretation is correct, the intent is that they operate on a purely reactive basis. But it's a show of strength to assuage the public rather than actual security -- if there was an actual security risk then you would most definitely see their rifles loaded properly and the area would be closed off to the public (especially to ambitious photographers). As for him clutching the grip instead of slung over -- he is probably posing for the picture and he's clearly displaying appropriate trigger discipline, so I wouldn't be concerned.
  - fredophile 10y ago
    I can probably load and ready an empty rifle that's in my hands faster than I can move a slung, loaded rifle from my back into my hands. That's using a proper sling and not the improvised sling shown in the picture. It's also significantly safer to have the rifle in his hands than loaded on his back. It wouldn't be that hard for the trigger to catch on something and fire a round while the rifle is still slung. Carrying an unloaded weapon, with proper trigger and muzzle discipline, is perfectly safe.

wyldfire 10y ago

"A Fijian military soldier stands guard on Parliament grounds." -- is it normal to not have a magazine engaged in a rifle like that when on guard duty?

ihsw 10y ago
Yes. It is a universal sign of non-violence unless in self-defense (including the defense of others').
pjc50 10y ago
Most Western militaries realized they were having far more problems with with accidental discharge injuries and deaths than actual live-fire incidents, even in actual combat zones, and so training calls for the weapon to be unloaded until needed.
- wtbob 10y ago
  The answer to that is better, sterner discipline, not guards who can't actually, y'know, guard.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    They still have magazines on them, so they can respond to a threat in a few seconds. And no amount of discipline can completely prevent accidental discharge.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      The way to prevent accidental discharge is to keep the rifle slung over one's shoulder, with an empty chamber, rather than nervously gripping it with one's finger on the trigger guard as pictured in TFA. That posture serves no purpose other than the intimidation of the ignorant. And it's clear from this picture the magazines, if they exist, aren't secured in one place on a sensible leather belt, but rather are rolling around in the bottom of one or more of those giant pouches he's got hanging around.

chatmasta 10y ago

Am I the only one here who thinks this was not all bad? It seems the problem was not so much the investigation itself, but the handling of the aftermath, once the spies realized there was no corroborating evidence, combined with their bias-inducing excitement to catch a "baddie." When terrorist attacks happen successfully, and enforcement agencies had some prior knowledge of them, people blame the agencies. So surely when there is some evidence apparently linking somebody to a planned terrorist attack, the agencies are duty bound to at least investigate it. Of course, they're also duty bound to investigate it within the law, and if the investigation turns out to be unfounded, they should forget about it. That's not what happened here, and that's the problem. The fact is, this was not just some bloke of a bureaucrat from New Zealand who happened to be targeted as a terrorist. He grew up in Fiji, and his best friend was a high ranking Fijian military officer. Their travel patterns aligned. They had membership in the same group (yeah, it's a "pro democracy" group, but is a terrorist group going to call themselves "pro terrorism?"). They made allusions to stabbing the leader of Fiji. If the initial evidence was based on any one of these factors in isolation, I can see how pursuing the case would be a waste of time. However, it seems what landed Fullman on the radar was the combination of all these factors. He had the right background (pre-coup Fijian origin), relationships (high ranking Fijian military friends), travel patterns (back and forth at the same time as an ousted military officer), and resources (again, friends with a high ranking military officer). Had he actually been planning an attack, and the agencies sat on all this information, how would that look afterward? It would look like an agency failed to do its job in preventing the violent overthrow of an ally. I don't fault the agency for opening an initial investigation. There was plenty of evidence to warrant at least looking into the guy. What seems to be the problem was the extrajudicial revocation of his right to travel and do business, before any corroborating evidence existed. Wouldn't the proper way to handle this investigation have been more covertly? Sure, scoop up as much data as you want -- just enough to see if he actually is planning an attack. But why remove his passport? Keep him under surveillance and watch for any sudden moves, sure. But why the need to restrict his travel? What purpose does that serve? And once they found the investigation was unwarranted, they should have immediately dropped it. Had they done this covertly, the guy never would have known he was even under surveillance. But instead they seized his passport and many of his possessions before having the evidence to do so. He was fully aware of the investigation in such a way that it materially and negatively impacted his life. To be fair, though, they did handle the aftermath in a somewhat commendable fashion. They lifted the restriction on his passport without any further hassle, within two years. That's pretty quick. Perhaps they should have done more (apology, compensation), but even by US standards that seems like a fairly equitable outcome. He never went to prison. At the end of the day, it sucks for this guy. He was in the wrong places, with the wrong people, at the wrong times. But I have trouble faulting the agencies for their initial suspicion. It's their handling of the aftermath that I have a problem with.

madaxe_again 10y ago

This isn't surprising, if you understand that the mission of the American military and intelligence apparatus is to promulgate American Values (I.e. Hegemonic control), not democracy. You need only look to the juntas that the CIA have installed and supported in Latin America alone to see that this is demonstrably the case. Consider that NZ were worried Fiji were getting close to China. This would be the US's concern too - so roughing up some political exiles would curry favour with the Fijian regime, potentially staying their burgeoning relationship with China. There was no bungle.

dmix 10y ago
As long as this stayed secret, you're right. It wasn't a bungle. Which is why state secrecy is a fast track to tyranny - or at the very least keeps inefficient government workers employed, regardless of how many times they mess up (causing real consequences on peoples lives). I'm guessing your allusions to the old cold war CIA strategy being present day strategy (as opposed to counter terrorism) is why you're being downvoted.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

The morale of the story is apparently don't get involved in ANY activists groups no matter what side of the aisle you are on. This makes it really seem like any association with any activist group, whether you're anti-(insert subject here) or pro-(insert subject here) is going to get you into trouble regardless. It really makes trying to get good people involved in activism (in any form) a real challenge if this is going to become the norm - more people will simply stay home and keep their heads in the sand, which is even more disturbing and problematic. There was a time when the press was the ultimate check on government authority and overreach. These days, its clear most news outlets are in bed with said government and its really down to the citizens to keep government power in check, which makes these incidents all the more troubling.

dguido 10y ago

The pro-democracy campaigner in this article openly admits to discussing assassinating the prime minister of Fiji with other members of his group. It seems kind of silly to act incredulous when you find out that he might, then, have been watched by a few intelligence agencies to see what he was planning to do next. Even if he ends up doing nothing, you want to make sure he's going to do nothing. ----- The Intercept asked Fullman if he or Mara had ever heard of — or been involved in — discussions about overthrowing or assassinating Bainimarama. Far from denying it, he said that sort of talk happened frequently within Fijian pro-democracy circles. However, he said it was just angry ranting, when the alcohol was flowing, something completely different from real plans. “People would say things like, ‘Please can we just hire the Americans to send one drone to Fiji to get rid of those bastards’, or ‘Let me go back to Fiji and I’ll just get a knife and stab him!’” Fullman said. “It’s venting. It’s our way of maintaining sanity — we just sit and bitch about everything. We don’t want violence. We want something where there’s control, a planned approach. More to the effect where it’s the people who protest and say, ‘Enough is enough. This is wrong. We want to go back to the old constitution and have elections.’”

baconner 10y ago
OK, but what I didn't see (maybe I missed it) in the article is any knowledge of that by the New Zealand authorities ahead of this action. And even if that were the case this would be an incredibly heavy handed response to this kind of venting. You can hear people say I wish we could drone strike {{politician name}} on a daily basis and it should take a lot more than that to get your passport revoked. Surely we can find a more reasonable response that reflects the reality that people say things like this without serious intent all the time. The article also points out that was timed such that it would be a convenient gesture of goodwill towards the Fijian government during negotiations. So there's also a believable reason why the government of New Zealand might have subjected these folks to this. The level of reaction doesn't fit the evidence at hand. The effects for this guy are ongoing as he now must put up with more hassle every time he travels forever. IMO it's just not a reasonable response. All for his very reasonable advocacy for democracy and maybe someone venting without serious intent about killing a dictator.