Former SRI Colonel Daniel Dragomir revealed that huge amounts of anti-corruption activities and tax evasion have been spent since 2013, and that the necessary money has not been allocated to combat cross-border and terrorist threats. “
High impact terrorist threats and cross-border threats that may affect both Romania and the US and other NATO countries can not remain in the air, someone has to respond to threatening the Strategic Partnership with the US, warned Daniel Dragomir, in the third part of the interview given to “free Romania”. “The phenomenon of corruption can not be countered by mass listening to the citizens of a country. This is a very special and specific phenomenon, and in this area, the institutions in question should first have to act preventively and by the flagrant method. We do not let corruption – as happened frequently – take bribes for 6-7 years, and after 7 years we arrest them, “said the former SRI colonel.
Free Romania: How was the last hearing from the SRI Control Commission? What involvement did SRI have in DNA actions?
Daniel Dragomir: Those in the former SRI leadership will have to give some answers about their involvement in DNA actions, as this issue of the SRI-DNA protocols has already been unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. Those protocols remained in the air between SRI-DNA or SRI-ANAF.
And whoever secretized those protocols should decode them too. The Supreme Council of National Defense has made a ruling that corruption was considered a threat to national security, or if there are threats to national security, you CSAT come through a decision, an administrative act that is not lawful , and add to the law. In addition to the fact that this is not legal, you can also secretate the decision of the CSAT. In other words, CSAT can make the decision that all those wearing glasses tomorrow are a threat to national security? I say not.
Especially since the decision has been classified and not known under whose laws the statistical or impact studies have been taken. Or was it just a political decision?Well, when you get to court to judge yourself, as a defendant, you can not attack those accusations because that text, which holds for the law and arguments, is secretive. Either the protocols in question were taken on the basis of the CSAT decision, which is not so classified as we do not know whether it was respected.We’re in Kafka!
Even former president Basescu said that “I know what he writes in that CSAT decision, but what those involved in those protocols have written, that I do not know anymore!”
And what would he do now?
If the SRI said that, based on the CCR decision, those protocols are obsolete and disconcerted, why not declassify them? Let’s see what’s in them with the right protections. The specific SRI methods, means, and actions in the protocols will be deleted, if they exist, I know they do not. And then make a public debate on that CSAT decision. Let’s see if it can be declassified – or not, and subject to legislative and constitutional control – or not! Here is the philosophical stone of the whole business: if corruption is a threat to national security, why has not the law been upgraded in Parliament?
How does the attack of the PNL leader, Ludovic Orban, appear to the head of the Romanian Intelligence Service’s Control Commission, Claudiu Manda, but also to the entire Commission?
Without commenting on the statements of a political leader, I can not help but notice that the work of this committee is quite nervous. It causes reactions from the Commission’s work. And if some politicians do not agree with the decision of the SRI Committee or the Parliament, it would be much easier for them to make a law by which Florian Coldea and Codruta Kövesi do not have to come to the Commission, and we will not be bothering with the decisions of the CCR. Because that’s their logic: “What problems do you have if you are listening to national security mandates, if you have nothing to hide?” – they say. Well, that’s what I say: “What problems do you have to come to the Commission if you have nothing to hide?”
Do you think there are other resorts that cause those who attack the Commission to do so?
As long as the Commission has all the political spectrum represented in Parliament, these attacks are decreasing by themselves. The Commission only discusses suspicions of violation of the Constitution and the laws of the country, not political matters. And in its entirety, the Commission has the great desire to clarify things and find out the truth, the questions of the members of the Commission being very concrete and to the point.
With your training and flair of counterintelligence professional, have you “smelled” that any member of the Commission be a cover agent of any Romanian or foreign intelligence service? What does your intuition tell you?
I think this Commission wants to know the truth. And with regard to the intuition of an agent, I want to tell you that I went into this move from the presumption of innocence and left my sense of smell when entering the Commission. Basically, I can not go to a Commission where I do not trust.
What are the “chances” that the work of the SRI Control Commission to enter into an inactivity or suspension area?
This could be a possible decision of the President and the members of the Commission. But behind decisions to suspend, stop or explode Commission sessions there may be different political calculations. But I can not give my opinion on political issues, my purpose is to go further in finding out the truth.
There are people who have been invited to the Commission, such as the genre. (r) Dumitru Iliescu, former head of the SPP. How do you feel this?
As things happen in the Commission, everyone who has relevant things to say and has good arguments is welcome and will be listened with all the attention. In the case of General Iliescu, I hope that he has evidence of what has been said publicly.That’s what I did.
What do you think about the fact that General Dumitru Dumbravă, with all the scandal generated by the “tactical field” of justice, was appointed as secretary general of the Romanian Intelligence Service?
I have no vendet with any of the SRI leaders. I only have the duty to bring suspicion of a violation of the law by the people of the former SRI leadership to the Service Control Commission. And these suspicions must be investigated by the Parliament, by the SRI, through its internal mechanisms and, where appropriate, by the law enforcement institutions, by the criminal prosecution bodies.
Has Romania suffered from these possible abuses of the bodies involved in the provision of information?
Yes, because these SRI abuses have led to the destruction of lives, destiny, bankruptcy of many businesses with thousands of unemployed people left. Or, in this case two things must be done:
1. the number of persons accused by DNA in corruption cases must be seen in comparison with the final decisions of the courts;
2. the sum of the damages should be analyzed at the time of initiation of the criminal prosecution and, finally, how many of them subsist after the final decisions of the courts. That is, what damages the accused has been charged to the defendant by the DNA and what damage has been left after the final court decision. Or, if the damage was estimated at 10 million euros and at the end remained at only 100 thousand euros, someone has to pay for this injustice in the sky where lives, businesses and people have been left without jobs. That is why there must be the law of magistrates’ liability.
“The Supreme Defense Council has made a ruling that corruption was considered a threat to national security, or if there are threats to national security, you CSAT live by a decision, an administrative act that has no value in law , and add to the law. In addition to the fact that this is not legal, you can also secretate the decision of the CSAT. I mean, in other words, CSAT can make the decision that tomorrow everyone who wears glasses is a threat to national security? I say not.
A question has been going on for 27 years among the Romanians: who checks the assets and accounts of the chiefs of intelligence services in Romania?
First of all, there is an internal mechanism in each of the services to verify not only the wealth but also the potential activities that go beyond the internal rules of the service. But I have doubts about the past with these checks, because as soon as the first deputy -Other came up with a very expensive watch, I think he did not buy it from China. There are serious indications that several people offered substantial gifts to Coldea’s first deputy, and in this case the internal mechanisms should have worked but they did not work. And I also know that any public person is under the control of ANI. And so far, the ANI has not provided us with even a case of corruption suspecting, or things are blurred with the rest of society, or that nothing has been investigated in the service.
Is this related to the arrest of former head of the National Integrity Agency, Horia Georgescu?
In that case, things are much more complicated and do not necessarily mean checking the fortunes of service bosses. I think they are much more political and complex.
But how is it that the former ANI chief, like many of the heads of the institutions responsible for verifying wealth and integrity, are the sons of former colonists and generals from the former Securitate? Who’s checking who?
It’s not my case. No member of my family worked or worked in force institutions. In other cases, it is probably a family vocation. Regarding the SRI verification, I believe that the Service will get out of here, so that in the future there will be no more suspicions about involvement in the act of justice. Or, to dispel any doubts about these issues, we have to eliminate the “broken apples” through a joint effort to clean up the SRI, as I said in the previous episode.
How do the statements of those called to the Commission seem to you to be complete?
Statements made before the Commission are registered, probable and legally opposed, including in court. But those who come before this Commission may also have the right to silence, or even to deny some of the accusations brought to them, is the choice of their rulers. They may even come with a lawyer if they consider it necessary.
At the time of the Ponta government, an Interministerial Commission that played an ambiguous role was working with the Government. What is the fate of this Commission?
In connection with that inter-ministerial commission, at some point someone will have to audit the spending of budgets in the national security area on terrorist threats against Romania. And if huge amounts of anti-corruption and tax evasion spending have been spent in 2013 and 2014, and at the same time the necessary money has not been allocated to tackle cross-border and terrorist threats, it is obvious that this audit , which I was talking about is absolutely necessary and as soon as possible to be completed.
Because these antitero capabilities require many years to be created and deliver the expected results. Or they can be easily destroyed when diverting funds to other areas.
Either we can not play about the Strategic Partnership with the US, one day there will be a pay note. High-impact terrorist threats and cross-border threats that may affect both Romania and the US and other NATO countries can not stay in the air, someone has to respond to the threat to the Strategic Partnership with the US. I must quickly find the problems and fix it as quickly.
And this audit should be an internal one of the SRI together with the Parliamentary Commission for Control of the Service – Service. In this respect, we should look at the very good model in the US, where there is a department called the General Inspector for Inspection, Audit, generally a sort of Agency Control Corps that reports directly to the US Congress. Just to show that the budgets reserved for the CIA and the various operative actions are perfectly transparent.
How do you think the work of the Parliamentary Commission will be completed?
I hope that this Commission will ultimately come to the conclusion that the current legislation needs to be improved in the sense of total transparency in the spending of operational budgets. It is absolutely necessary and is the only option for reforming the SRI.
Whether the Coldea era at SRI leadership was a bad one for Romania. I call it Security 2.0. To explain, I must mention that the former Security had detention facilities and was entitled to criminal investigations. Or we in 1989 abolished this political police of the Securitate. But if you remember, a few years ago there was an initiative whereby the SRI had to have the right to conduct criminal investigations in the antiterror battle and to have incarcerated spaces. Then as now I think this is a huge mistake, and the virulent reaction of civil society against that proposal has shown me that I have not mistaken myself. This was also in view of the recent past and the fact that there were no guarantees that the abuses committed by the former Securitate would no longer happen.
Whenever Coldea saw that he could not bring back the criminal investigations into the SRI, there was a sense of consciousness between Mr. Coldea and Mrs. Kövesi.Virtually DNA became the SRI’s armed arm with the ability to arrest, imprison, prosecute, and sue the subjects identified by the Service. Or this parliamentary committee wants to see this – Security 2.0 by involving SRI in criminal investigations. Work unconstitutional and very serious.
Seeing that society had reacted to the SRI criminal investigation, Coldea deceived public opinion by backstage maneuvers known as ‘under the table’ methods, carrying these investigations into the DNA task as an armed arm. Or everyone should understand that beneath this beautiful umbrella of the threat of corruption and the terrorist in fact, backstage was tried to revive the way of work of the former Securitate.
Will you also bring documents to this effect?
That is what the Commission will do in its plenary session! Or the phenomenon of corruption can not be countered by the mass obedience of the citizens of a country.This is a very special and specific phenomenon, and in this area, the institutions in question should first have to act preventively and by the flagrant method. We do not leave corruption, as happened frequently, take bribes for 6-7 years, and after 7 years we are arrested. Although I knew of these facts. Although there were national security mandates. Whenever I refer to Security 2.0, if we carefully analyze the means of investigation and the evidence, we will see that these are the widely used by the former Securitate, applied today with the limitations of rigor. And here I am talking about mass listening, climbing with a van on the street, and then flipping the shackles in front of TV cameras, using delation as a means of proof, entering the field of tactical field, using SRI’s armed arms prosecutors, control and blackmail on judges in the tactical field. So things were and still are, as in the time of the former Securitate.