Anonymous 05/11/18 (Fri) 09:44:12 e51948 No.1370733Spy agencies silent over funding (24 Feb 2014)
The New Zealand Government's spy agencies have refused to tell MPs whether they receive funding from other members of the Five Eyes intelligence network.
The Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service have been replying to questions from Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee on Monday.
The GCSB and the SIS were asked whether they get funding directly or indirectly from the governments of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States.
Both withheld the information. They also refused to say whether any foreign government paid for any positions within the agencies.
However, they did confirm that they do not collect wholesale metadata on New Zealanders and, to the best of their knowledge, American counterpart the National Security Agency does not either.
Labour Party leader David Cunliffe says if it does not compromise the agencies' operations, then New Zealanders are entitled to know about any such funding.
"But I can't give a categorical view on that because I do not know the background. And that is the catch-22 with spy agencies. At the end of the day, it comes down to the integrity of the Prime Minister and the good judgement of the Prime Minister as the guardian of the public interest."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/237108/spy-agencies-silent-over-funding
Hi Cboldt- just read your post re NZ/funding/spy agencies - etc.
Within the quote at the bottom of your last paragraph, the phrase was used, “And that is the catch-22 with spy agency”
In earlier Q posts, he has used and emphasized the number “22.”
I am wondering if a possible alternate (not the only) meaning of those Q references could be to that common phrase, taken from the movie, “Catch 22.”
Just a thought.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22
“Strictly speaking, a “Catch-22” is “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule.”[13] For example, losing something is typically a conventional problem; to solve it, one looks for the lost item until one finds it. But if the thing lost is one’s glasses, one cannot see to look for them — a Catch-22. The term “Catch-22” is also used more broadly to mean a tricky problem or a no-win or absurd situation.
In the book, Catch-22 is a military rule typifying bureaucratic operation and reasoning. The rule is not stated in a general form, but the principal example in the book fits the definition above: If one is crazy, one does not have to fly missions; and one must be crazy to fly. But one has to apply to be excused, and applying demonstrates that one is not crazy. As a result, one must continue flying, either not applying to be excused, or applying and being refused. The narrator explains:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to, but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)”