
In Bungled Spying Operation, NSA Targeted Pro-Democracy Campaigner - r721
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/14/nsa-gcsb-prism-surveillance-fullman-fiji/
======
tjpnz
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.

------
wyldfire
"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?

~~~
pjc50
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
The answer to that is better, sterner discipline, not guards who can't
actually, y'know, _guard_.

~~~
openasocket
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
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.

~~~
kiiski
It's very unlikely that he is there to actually guard anything. In most
countries, outside a state of emergency or war, soldiers do not have any right
to shoot citizens in the streets. Even if someone specifically attacks the
soldier, the correct response is to back away and call the police to handle
it.

He's just standing there either for ceremonial reasons or for training
(possibly both). In any case, his only task is to stand there and call the
police if there's trouble.

~~~
johnnyhillbilly
No, he's literally guarding the place. The correct response to an attack may
involve inserting the clip, chamber a round and issue a loud warning before
possibly firing.

An attack on the guard himself is likely to lead to a resolute counterattack.

Soldiers guarding typically have limited police jurisdiction of the area they
guard in most countries.

This should be common knowledge.

~~~
napoleond
Both you and your parent commenter are _sometimes_ correct, depending on the
situation (believe it or not, laws vary from country to country, there are
many different types of military groups in each, etc).

Your point of view is not _always_ correct, so it should definitely not be
common knowledge.

~~~
gknoy
The historical nature of soldiers of armed guards with the authority to kill
you lends credence to his suggestion that it's not an unreasonable expectation
to believe that they _could_ shoot you.

Local mileage and laws may vary, but erring on the side of caution when you
see a soldier means that it's prudent to act as if he can legally fire upon
you -- even if that assumption is not actually true at that specific time or
place.

------
chatmasta
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.

~~~
jomamaxx
It was not all that bad.

But there was some oversight, and mis-steps.

He shouldn't have been hassled until there was reasonable evidence that he was
a bad guy - or there was something really significant on the line.

We need surveillance, but we also need procedure, lawfulness, oversight.

Also I should point out that we also need a good,free press. The linked
article is decent, but also one-sided.

It would seem that the primary issue this guy faces is not being able to get a
job? From bad press? Ironic?

~~~
darpa_escapee
> We need surveillance

Source? We got by fine for thousands of years without the level of
surveillance that's enabled today.

~~~
jomamaxx
"> We need surveillance Source? "

A) There is no need for 'source'? Asking for 'source' does not count as an
argument. Where is your 'source' for 'we got by for thousands of years?' for
example?

B) We didn't 'get by for thousands of years' without surveillance. Spying has
been part of statecraft for 5000 years. The very first textbook on any
subject, written more than 2000 years ago - 'The Art of War' has a chapter
dedicated to it.

C) If you were ever exposed to what is actually going on in this and other
countries, you'd immediately change your tune. It happens often. Here in
Canada, we had a fuzzy new Prime Ministerial candidate who wanted to kill a
new surveillance bill. Until he became PM and got his 'daily security
briefings' as to the reality of the world. And 'poof' \- his promise to
overthrow the bill disappeared immediately as his naivte withered against the
facts.

I do not believe in a 'surveillance state' (i.e. arbitrary surveillance) and I
generally believe that citizens should have the right to privacy as per other
criminal issues. But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your
basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and
'surveil' you.

~~~
titzer
> But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the
> Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you.

I also don't think that mere suspicion of building a bomb in your basement
gives the government scary powers over you. This is why there is such a thing
as due process. Because you never know when _you_ might be wrongfully accused.

~~~
jomamaxx
If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a
court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less.

It's when there's not process that's the problem.

As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a
bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence.

They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud.

Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine.

I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been
upended because of 'too much surveillance'.

The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to
uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have
the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident
- no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues
mostly.

Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your
life in a bind.

But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side
of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance.

One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where
every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should
not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' \- for
example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London.

I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.

------
at-fates-hands
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.

------
yardie
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.

------
madaxe_again
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
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.

------
dguido
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
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.

------
coldcode
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
Sounds like you know a lot about it. Welcome on the watchlist.

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

~~~
ihsw
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
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.

~~~
fredophile
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.

~~~
jessaustin
I specifically noted that the chamber should be empty. There's nothing that
can happen accidentally to a slung rifle that will chamber a round. Keeping
one's finger on the trigger guard while standing around is _not_ proper
trigger discipline. It's appropriate in an active, attentive situation, and
perhaps photography is such a situation, but ISTM this person is allowing his
habit of always being unloaded to foster some bad habits.

~~~
fredophile
Mistakes happen. Once you put a magazine on a weapon it's pretty easy to ready
it. Think about how many people die every year because someone was cleaning a
gun they thought was unloaded but wasn't.

What about keeping your finger on the trigger guard do you have a problem
with? Where do you think his finger should be when he's carrying his rifle?

~~~
jessaustin
Yes that's why experienced gun users regularly bump back the slide/open the
breech a crack/otherwise check the chamber when _handling_ firearms. I've seen
firearm instructors who could perform that action in tenths of a second with
their favorite semiautomatic pistols. In a variety of situations, it's just as
important to be able to confirm that a chamber is loaded as it is to be able
to confirm the converse.

You do know that a missing magazine is no proof of an empty chamber, right?

My "problem" is experience. An acquaintance who was a little too fond of the
"commando" trigger finger posture inadvertently fired a shot in my presence.
The firearm was properly pointed at the ground so tragedy did not ensue, but
this person was soon convinced to leave his fingers on the grip where they
belong, until such time as he is sighting his intended target. For rifles
without pistol grips, it's fine to wrap one's hand around the neck of the
stock.

[EDIT:] I wonder whether my difficulties in this thread stem mostly from
cultural differences? In every nation in which I've encountered soldiers
holding their rifles in this posture in public spaces, including to my chagrin
USA, their presence has made me feel less safe. I don't assume that they know
what they're doing, nor that their commanding officers do. I am not comforted
when it's pointed out that their firearms have been somehow neutered, as if
that were possible. A firearm has one valid purpose. If it's not time to kill
someone, it's not time to handle firearms. Leave it holstered, leave it slung,
leave it racked. Go to the range often enough to be comfortable handling your
firearm safely, and other than that don't handle it until lives are
threatened. Firearms are not suitable tools for rhetoric or ceremony or morale
or intimidation, and the growing number of third-world-attitude governments
(like that of USA) who see them that way are a blight upon humanity.

~~~
fredophile
I think this discussion is straying off topic. I don't want to get into a
discussion of when it is or isn't appropriate for the military, LEOs, or
civilians to carry weapons. Your original argument was that slinging a loaded
rifle vs carrying an unloaded rifle as shown in the picture is: 1) less
threatening 2) more responsive 3) safer

I'm perfectly willing to concede the first point. Holding a weapon in your
hands is a more aggressive posture than carrying it slung. For the second
point, I've already mentioned that I can load and ready a weapon in my hands
faster than I can unsling and ready a rifle from my back.

Our main point of disagreement seems to be on the third point. You are correct
that a rifle with no magazine can still have a round in the chamber. This is
why you should clear any weapon when you pick it up. If someone has cleared a
weapon and never attached a source of ammunition the weapon won't have a round
in the chamber. If they attached a magazine then there is a chance that they
also put a round in the chamber even if they weren't supposed to. Not
attaching a magazine prevents this mistake from being possible. While a round
could be in the chamber in either case, I'd rather see an unloaded rifle than
a loaded one.

We also disagree on hand placement on the pistol grip. In the case you
mentioned your acquaintance had a readied weapon he did not intend to fire
immediately, with the safety off, and placed his finger on the trigger. The
weapon firing was the result of multiple mistakes. It sounds like your
acquaintance has decided to prevent one of those mistakes in the future by
changing how he holds his pistol grip. Hopefully he also learns to use his
safety.

It's also important to remember that the person in the photo is a soldier and
not just some random guy with a gun. Soldiers should always handle weapons the
way they intend to use them. In stressful situations people fall back to what
they're in the habit of doing. Soldiers should be used to carrying their rifle
in a way that lets them take the safety off and fire the weapon without moving
their hand on the pistol grip.

