The appearance of Margaret Oaks in the Defense commission of the Congress it was expected with expectation. The alleged espionage of more than 60 leaders and activists of the Catalan and Basque independence movement had put the spotlight on the minister, who is being asked to respond as head of the National Intelligence Center (CNI). And the announcement that both her mobile phone and his Pedro Sanchez were intervened with Pegasus almost a year ago raised interest. But the defense minister has been more than cautious in her intervention.
Have you provided any new information?
Why hasn’t he provided new data?
The president of the Defense Commission, José Antonio Bermúdez de Castro (PP) has preemptively excused the minister, alluding to the Law 11/2002, of May 6, which regulates the National Intelligence Center and in whose article 5 it is established that everything related to its operation and actions “constitute classified informationwith the degree of secrecy”. “Unless there is a limit by law, I do not usually cut myself“, Robles has reiterated on several occasions, also alleging that impediment to respond to the questions that have been raised.
He did mention that about the espionage on his cell phone and that of the president, since it was a crime because it was without judicial authorization, he could report on the data that is known. At least, he has pointed out, until the judge of the National High Court Jose Luis Calama decree the secret of performanceswhich has happened minutes after the end of his appearance.
What did you say about the CNI?
In his initial speech, Robles assured that he felt “proud” of “the 3,000 men and women of the National Intelligence Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, and who have also sometimes given their lives for peace and security.” Later, during the reply to the different spokespersons, the Minister of Defense has criticized the launching of accusations “lacking evidence” against the CNI that, in addition, “can’t defend” having to comply with the secrecy of their actions.
In addition, he has shown his conviction that all wiretaps carried out by this body are within the lawbecause they are made with prior judicial authorization, and he has allowed the warning to emerge from his speech that Paz Esteban’s appearance tomorrow at the Reserved Expenses Commission could provide data that will demolish some speculations.
And about the director of the CNI?
Robles has not mentioned the director of the CNI, Peace Stephenin his initial speech. During the response time, she lamented that Esteban is “stoically enduring accusations that do not correspond to reality“There have been no praises or more words of support. Beyond this reference, the Defense Minister has limited herself to alluding to the director of the agency when speaking about her attendance this Thursday at the reserved expenses commission of Congress. According to said, Stephen”you can say what you see fit“in that forum and that will go”with all the information” available, whose total extension even Robles does not know
What are the next steps of the Government?
From the beginning, the Minister of Defense has made it clear that when “criminal acts are committed” such as spying on her telephone and that of the president, one must go to court. “Illegal eavesdropping without judicial authorization is not that they are politically objectionable, it is that they are a crime. In uppercase. Let there be no doubt, when wiretapping occurs without judicial authorization, it is a crime”, he said, immediately afterwards making it clear that they will offer the “maximum collaboration” to go all the way. Even declassifying documentation if required by Justice. And even also putting your own phone at the service of the court of law.
Robles also wanted to send a message to those who criticize that the Government has let other countries see weakness: “The European Union knows, our allies know, that Spain is a serious country, with solid institutions, with reliable institutions, with an unequivocal commitment to the rule of law and for the rule of law. That all our public servants, without exception, act only and exclusively in accordance with the law.”