The former Secretary General of the Information System of the Portuguese Republic (SIRP) has no doubts about that the actions of the Security Information Service (SIS) were legitimate in the recovery of the state computer owned by the former assistant to the Minister of Infrastructure, João Galamba.
At the RTP debate program “Is it or isn’t it”this Wednesday, Julio Pereira broke the silencewhich he justified by arguing that “there was a lot of noise in the air” and so wanted to wait for “things to settle down a bit”.
“Although we are not completely clear on what happened at the Ministry of Infrastructure, I can say one thing: at least one entity acted in accordance with its missions, with dignity and sense of responsibility and that entity is SIS”stated in the program.
Unlike the former director since service, Daisy Blasco, admitting in this week’s Soberania podcast that there could have been an “error of judgement”, the former head of the “secretas” accepts no conclusion other than one that legitimizes the intervention of the SIS.
“It is absurd to say that SIS could not do what it did. The SIS did what it had to do, it did not carry out any police action, the surrender was voluntary, it acted within the legality,” he assured.
He recalled that “According to what has been reported, the SIS has been informed that a breach of security regarding matters classified as a situation of compromise” and explained that “the avoidance of espionage situations, whether military, economic or political, as well as situations of sabotage, is clearly included in the missions of the SIS, whose the mission is precisely to these kinds of threats”.
Following this news, he added: “it was up to SIS to develop all the activities within its scope, of course within the law, so that such a threat would not be carried out. That’s exactly what happened.”
On the fact that SIS powers are legally limited to the “production of information”, Júlio Pereira, currently a judge-advisor of the Supreme Court of Justice, emphasized that “information is the result of a dynamic, operational process of investigation, treatment and after the production of information and its dissemination, and that is clear the information does not come from a magic wand or crest ballI. There must be an investigative activity, an operational activity classified in itself in such a way that the agents themselves and the tools they use can be codified.
Legal void for the operational limits of “secret”?
This is argued by the predecessor of the current Secretary General of the SIRP, Graça Mira Gomes “the law does not say what services must do in terms of operational action, what it establishes are limits on the performance of the services. Boundaries that, on the one hand, arise from its mission to prevent threats. On the other hand, it says what they can’t do. And what they cannot do is commit acts that fall within the competence of the police or the courts, or commit acts that constitute a crime or threaten rights, freedoms and safeguards.”
He refutes that the collection of the computer was a “seizure” or a “police act”, according to the vast majority of the lawyers consulted. “It is not true that there has been any fear. It seems that there is sufficient evidence that the SIS contacted the person allegedly in possession of the classified information and persuaded him to hand over the computer. It has not been confiscated.”
About what the attitude of the SIS agent would be, if Frederico Pinheiro had refused, the former secretary general of SIRP devalues. “I don’t know exactly what happened, but it is clear that the SIS could have said that if it did not want to hand over the computer, legal means would have to be used to confiscate the computer, through the police, of course. ” . I know he handed over the computer voluntarily. There were no seizures. Police action can be coercive in nature. That was not the case in this case.”
Lack of articulation with SSI
Júlio Pereira’s position earned a “failure” from the two constitutionalists present on the program: Vitalino Canasa former PS deputy who was a member of the High Council of Information; It is Jorge Bacelar Gouveiaformer deputy of the PSD and former president of SIRP Supervisory Board.
Bacellar Gouveiawho is also chairman of the Observatory on Security, Organized Crime and Terrorism (OSCOT), pointed out from the start the act of “identifying” former deputy sheriff, Frederico Pinheiro, as “a police action”to which he added the “coercion” he claimed.
“In this context, this was one police activities that were not the responsibility of SIS. The SIS produces information but does not collect computers under any circumstances,” he claimed.
Was on the same line Vitalino Canasconfirming that again “unambiguously, that achievement was not from SIS” and that the “error” should have been fixed by now.
“You procedures need to be reviewed and there must have been one communication to the country saying that a reassessment of the situation had been made and concluded that the procedure was not the best and all that in the future it will not happen again like that,” he argued.
The constitutionalist was trying to “make a movie of what should have been done to pass the law”. “There should have been a communication to the SIRP, as there was from the Chief of Staff, as there might be some infrastructure at stake that could be at risk there”; after the SIRP should have aligned with the internal security systemwho also has a general secretary, spoke about the situation, made a decisionwhich is a quick assessment, five minutes, and set performance. AND the action was clearly of a police nature”.
Contrary to what Júlio Pereira said, Vitalino Canas understands that “there is no need for coercion to be afraid and to be equipped with powers of authority”.
“What should have resulted from this articulation was determine what was needed to overcome that risk (even without having a precise idea of what was at stake at the time) and that it would be a pure police action. someone from a police or security, would go to the deputy sheriff and request the return of the computerproperty of the state,” he concludes.
Source: DN
