Head of the Security Committee: The public interrogation of intelligence chiefs is not happy. But there was no other way

I was one of the eight coalition MPs who on Thursday raised their hands for a resolution in which the Security Committee supported the government’s decision not to find grounds for dismissing the Director of Civil Intelligence. On the contrary, you, as coalition deputies, voted against calling Mr. Mlynik to resign or temporarily remove him from service.

What is your reason for voting this way? In your opinion, is Mr. Mlinek the right person to head the intelligence, or do you want to support the coalition government?
(B) It is more correct that we as parliamentarians in the coalition, of course, support our government and its actions.

The security screening system cannot be destroyed. That is why we supported the government, explains Pavel Szyk

Although I fully understand the complexity of the situation, which is why I also recommended and chose an atypical solution – that is, we discussed it in public through the media. I also support that this executive activity, that is, the management of the intelligence services, the appointment and appointment of chiefs in accordance with the laws in force, is determined by the government, respectively the ministers.

In this sense, it is also a support for our system, although it seems somewhat troubled by the media storm.

I understand very well from your first answer that you are not entirely convinced that Mr. Mlinik is the right person to head civilian intelligence?
I did not say that. From the mouth of Minister Vit Rakochan (Stan), the immediate head of Director Mlyenko, some results of his work were heard, on which he commented favorably. We fundamentally believe in this statement. We supported it for this reason.

The support came from what we learned, how the director responded, and how the Home Secretary responded to all the questions from the opposition that they collected from the public space, but also based on their own research. This, I think, decided it.

I might ask a slightly different question. When I was a guest on Maria Bastlová’s podcast on Tuesday, I said it was an unfortunate situation and that it should be explained to the public. Did yesterday’s meeting explain everything or do you still have doubts?
If we could go back to the beginning, it would be appropriate to approach it differently. But that is not possible. As we know, events simply go on, history does not stop, and events are developing. So we interact with the reality that we have here.

Do you mean it would have been better if Mr. Mlinick had not been appointed?
I will not be contacted. I also heard the opinion that if we could go back to the beginning, it could have been handled differently. But I would say that everyone understands that this is not a happy issue and we have to deal with it.

Although the settlement was unusual and I do not want to see the interrogation of intelligence directors in live broadcasts become the norm, in my opinion we as members of Parliament are responsible and we cannot get out of it with honor.

That is why we have invited the main actors, ie the Minister of the Interior and Mr. Director, to tell the Committee, albeit in a different system, because we are the professional political body that should discuss the matter.

I will ask a slightly different question. Is it acceptable that the head of the intelligence service of past years had contact with someone who got away with it in connection with the Radovan Krijrich case thanks to an extrajudicial advertisement who, according to the police, is the main character in the case of the dosimeter?
My turn yesterday was not to take a stand. I should have monitored fairly the system that was put in place in the rules of procedure and in the work of the security committee so that we know all the available information.

In the end, she voted to keep Mr. Mlink. She supported him to remain in charge of intelligence.
I voted to support the government as it came at the beginning. The way it was explained to us was enough to make my decision. However, this does not mean that this case ends. Press inquiries do not stop. We’ll see how it develops. I have supported my government with my colleagues.

Do you think Mr. Mlinick knew what Mr. Riddell was?
I’m just following up on what he told us yesterday. He said he did not know it and that at the time he could not tell from the address of the company representative whether Mr. Riddell was valid or not. I have no choice but to believe it. I have no other evidence.

You take it like a journalist and I totally understand. But here we weigh one thing which is very basic. Or maybe two. First, a journalist’s claim from a case, we know nothing of its end. She is on the run…

Dosing case…
The case is ongoing. Information is leaked from a system that should not be public. The case was not closed, but today the journalist draws conclusions from it, and this goes against the background checks conducted by our highest security authority, the National Security Agency.

But I am now asking not about the Dusmeeter case, but about the fact that Mr. Riddell was originally accused of collaborating with Mr. Craigrich. Shouldn’t Mr. Mlink, when he was working with him, simply search for it on Google and find out that it has been declared illegal?
I can’t play this. The Minister told us, and I agree with that, that Mr. Mlynik has a background check to be able to take up his position. With what you are saying, we question the audit system in the Czech Republic.

If the National Security Office does not change the fact that the director has a valid background check, then I must take the position that the laws of the Czech Republic apply, and not some guesswork, even if very suggestive, affects me and affects my opinion. In that sense, I have to be a professional.

What happened in the Commission, and especially the assurances of the Minister, was sufficient for me to support the Government in its decision to keep Mr. Mlinek in his place. We raised our hand because we believe in the security system of the Czech Republic, because we believe in the government of the Czech Republic. You cannot search for more than that.

Listen to the full 20 minutes of Radiožurnál in audio.

Tomáš Pancí, Pavlína Odložilová

Post it on Facebook



Share on Twitter

Post on LinkedIn

printing press

copy the url



Short title




Copy to clipboard

Close