PDA

View Full Version : British Army officer arrested over military secrets leak


ORAC
4th Feb 2009, 12:17
Torygraph: British Army officer arrested over military secrets leak
Senior British Army officer Lt Col Owen McNally has been arrested in Afghanistan for allegedly supplying military secrets to a human rights campaigner.

Lt Col McNally, 48, was held on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act by supplying sensitive civilian casualty figures, it is understood. The Ministry of Defence said the officer was being returned to the UK for questioning, where his case has been referred to the Metropolitan Police.

Lt Col McNally allegedly had access to the figures through his work for Nato's International Security Assistance Force, which is running military operations across the country, according to the Sun newspaper. It quoted a source as claiming he passed the details to a woman working for a human rights group in after the pair became "close" in Afghanistan.

American generals in the Afghan capital Kabul are said to be furious about the alleged leak.

Last year campaign group Human Rights Watch said civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and Nato air strikes nearly tripled to at least 1,633 between 2006 and 2007. The group said it used "the most conservative figures available".

The MoD said in a statement: "We can confirm that a British Army officer has been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act. The investigation has been referred from the MoD to the Metropolitan Police and is now under consideration. No further details will be released at this stage."

If charged, the officer will appear at the Old Bailey in London, which hears all such Official Secrets cases. He faces a maximum sentence of 14 years if convicted. Lt Col McNally joined the Army as a private in 1977 and worked his way up through the ranks before being commissioned as an officer in 1995. He is thought to be one of the Army's most senior former non-commissioned officers.

The most recent serviceman to be found guilty of breaching the Official Secrets Act was Corporal Daniel James, an Army translator who worked for the head of Nato forces in Afghanistan. Cpl James, 45, an Iranian by birth, sent coded emails to about British troop movements to the Iranian military attaché in Kabul.

A a senior officer told the Sun of Lt Col McNally's case: "This is deeply embarrassing for the British Army and completely unprecedented. It mitigation, there is no suggestion that any of the figures were being leaked to the Taliban."

anotherthing
4th Feb 2009, 13:17
I'm not condoning his actions, far from it - but if we have nothing to hide, why are the number of civilian deaths considered a military secret?

The fact they are means he has, if guilty, done wrong and should be severley punished, but I don't understand why these figures should not be in the public domain in the first place.

Lyneham Lad
4th Feb 2009, 13:39
but I don't understand why these figures should not be in the public domain in the first place.

a) The embarrassment factor, especially to our friends across the pond?

or

b) Giving aid and comfort to the enemy (to coin an old phrase). In this case, aiding the Taliban's propaganda campaign (or hearts & minds campaign, depending on your viewpoint).

or neither of the above!

anotherthing
4th Feb 2009, 13:43
If those were the only 2 options, then I think the answer is 'a', obviously.

The Talliban will not win hearts and minds if they continue to displace people and terrorise them as they do...

brickhistory
4th Feb 2009, 13:45
Why especially to "us across the pond?"

Given the very imprecise but emotive hundreds of thousands figures tossed around for Iraqi civilian deaths (most caused by insurgents and not US/Coalition actions, but that's a digression that doesn't play well), what's 1,600-ish? Not meaning to be callous, but why would one cause angst and not the other?

I would agree with your second point.

Jackonicko
4th Feb 2009, 13:57
Presumably the good Colonel had access to reliable, accurate figures.

Perhaps he was horrified enough by these figures to believe that they should be more widely known?

Not his call, I know. Certainly not his place to pass on the figures. Not his place to circumvent the normal chain of command.

But on a more visceral and less legalistic level, I find myself unable to fundamentally condemn what he did.

Did he put allied lives in danger? Did the truth damage our long term interests - or would trying to hide it do more damage? Better that civilian deaths are known about and that greater efforts are made to avoid them in future than to cover them up and continue in the same way, I'd have thought.

anotherthing
4th Feb 2009, 14:06
Brick

I wouldn't agree with the second point of Lyneham Lads - the numbers are small, and as you say caused more by insurgents.

We would be better placed to win hearts and minds with those sorts of figures!

Although any civilian deaths are sad, I think the number caused by coalition forces are probably tiny. Something to celebrate more than hide, I would say...

brickhistory
4th Feb 2009, 14:16
Did he put allied lives in danger? Did the truth damage our long term interests

Someone in the Lt Col's chain of command decided the information was classified.

You are unable to answer any of your posed questions including, especially, the two quoted above.

Perhaps the Lt Col's seniors actually do know better then he and thee? Perhaps not, but it was not his or your place to make that judgement. I'm pretty sure it says something like that in the fine print of an enlistment or commissioning oath.

Selective leaking of classified by a military member is not an option I would think.

pba_target
4th Feb 2009, 14:24
Do we know said chap even leaked the figures "maliciously"? I mean, "close" = pillow talk...

Honey trap, the oldest form of espionage. As a RAFP Sarge once said at a briefing:

"If you find yourself being chatted up by a good looking lady, go to the bog, take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly if she should be!"

Roadster280
4th Feb 2009, 14:48
I'm not sure I understand the wrangling here at all.

a) If the information was not disclosed, there is no offence. No smoke without fire, so it would appear that some information was disclosed.

b) If that information was protectively marked, and the giver was not authorised to disclose it (it does not matter if the recipient was authorised to receive the info) then an offence has been committed. Eg the electronics tech who works on crypto systems may be cleared to the same level as say a RAF OpO, but anyone giving him a SECRET RAF doc is in deep doodoo. As is the tech if he does nothing.

c) If the information was not protectively marked, but was militarily significant information obtained in the course of his duties, an administrative offence may have been committed.

If the facts of the case follow para b), then this soldier is in a world of hurt. It is not up to him, nor even CDS to decide what should or should not be disclosed. In the case of national security (ie what the protective markings are designed to protect), it is very clear cut.

Factors such as how large or small the numbers are, the background of the recipient, the extent of the damage done with the information, the intent of the soldier by disclosing such, the method of delivery (pillow talk vs email vs verbal), all of these are merely factors in determining sentence, not guilt.

As a Lt Col (at 48 and an ex-ranker, I would think he is a QM), this soldier can be relied upon to have known the law, and the ramifications of breaking it.

I fail to understand why some here are "sympathising". All here who serve or have served, are subject to the exact same laws and limitations. Adherence to the OSA in particular, is a basic expectation of any member of the Armed Forces, and there are NO exceptions.

brickhistory
4th Feb 2009, 14:49
pba, while I would agree (What would be the odds of finding something nice in Afghanistan?) that it is one of the oldest tricks in the book, no pun intended, does it matter if it was malicious or not?

He, apparently, knowingly divulged classified information.

Airborne Aircrew
4th Feb 2009, 16:01
He broke the rules. Period.

There can be no second guessing of the system of classification and there can be no rationalizing by individuals as to whether said classified data deserves the classification it has been given.

Each time something like this happens and the "compassionate" amongst you try to rationalize and sympathize you further weaken the British military as a whole. Please stop it, they have enough enemies within our own government without your assistance. :=

LowObservable
4th Feb 2009, 16:15
"If you find yourself being chatted up by a good looking lady, go to the bog, take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly if she should be!"

... and given one's mental image of a human rights activist in the front line (versus a Hollywood fundraiser) I wonder if "good looking" was relative to the nearest camel...

Wensleydale
4th Feb 2009, 16:54
There were problems the last time I got chatted up. I was allergic to her guide dog!

TacLan
4th Feb 2009, 16:57
AA wrote "He broke the rules. Period."

Quite agree, now lets apply the rules, properly, regardless of position.

I wonder how long it would take to clear out the House of Commons?

Airborne Aircrew
4th Feb 2009, 17:16
I wonder how long it would take to clear out the House of Commons?

<Rubbing hands> When do we start? :D :ok:

brickhistory
4th Feb 2009, 17:30
Do you not hold a military officer to a higher standard than a politician?

I think it's common on both sides of the Atlantic that we hold the latter in disdain due to their many failings, including that of keeping state secrets.

I would have thought it different for the former.

TacLan
4th Feb 2009, 19:58
BH wrote "Do you not hold a military officer to a higher standard than a politician?"

Of course I do, and then some, but that does not give the politicians the right to ignore the rules

Wiley
5th Feb 2009, 01:42
It will be interesting to see a pic. of the aid worker. Might answer a couple of questions that have been posed here.

BEagle
5th Feb 2009, 07:16
Perhaps this was her:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/FB.jpg

Allegedly rejected even by a certain ex-VC10 Air Engineer! Probably up to Nimrod crew standards though?

L J R
5th Feb 2009, 07:45
.....oooohh God!.......there goes my appetite.

grandad
5th Feb 2009, 08:17
Its amazing how quickly this as most threads degenerates into frivolity. No wonder a fair number of people now think its a sad joke. Or will we get the usual reply of its only banter

sisemen
5th Feb 2009, 08:19
Jeepers! For one 'orrible minute I thought Bush was back :}

BEagle
5th Feb 2009, 08:29
Actually, grandad, it was more of an "Ask a silly question......." response.

No doubt nuLabor is horribly embarrassed at the truth of its "Not a single shot" Afghanistan adventurism and wants to ensure that the number of civilian casualties is kept under wraps - and this Lt Col has now blown the whistle on that.

Did this breach the OSA? Doubtless we'll find out when the verdict is announced.

Rotorhead1026
5th Feb 2009, 08:44
LowObservable:
chatted up by a good looking lady, go to the bog, take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly if she should be

This is great advice if your ego can take it. It's kept me out of a lot of trouble. :)

Now a big problem in Afghanistan is defining a "civilian". Many live insurgents somehow become "civilians" after their coalition-induced demise.

Modern Elmo
5th Feb 2009, 13:05
You gentlemen advocating aid and comfort to the enemy on this chat thread -- I hope you're not actually British.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 13:14
A a senior officer told the Sun of Lt Col McNally's case: "This is deeply embarrassing for the British Army and completely unprecedented. It mitigation, there is no suggestion that any of the figures were being leaked to the Taliban."Nice to see the old principles of innocent until proven guilty are being upheld here..............

Odd how it's the yanks on this thread who are going on about "security" etc. The number of civillian casualties isn't exactly a secret that will lose the war, but tell me one person who hasn't let slip something seemingly innocuous to your wife, girlfriend, partner (have to be inclusive these days!) by accident.

He's being gone after as it is an embarrassing bit of information that has supposedly been leaked, not a strategically important one.

airborne_artist
5th Feb 2009, 13:21
tell me one person who hasn't let slip something seemingly innocuous to your wife, girlfriend...by accidentIndeed! :E

Roadster280
5th Feb 2009, 13:57
Odd how it's the yanks on this thread who are going on about "security" etc. Indeed so. How is it that the principle of classified military information remaining protected appears to be subject to interpretation on the UK side and is a straightforward no-no on this side of the pond?

He's being gone after as it is an embarrassing bit of information that has supposedly been leaked, not a strategically important one.I just don't understand the relevance of this. If the piece of information said "CLASSIFIED" (or similar, those who know, know) at the top and bottom of the paper, and he knowingly disclosed that information to unauthorised people, he is bang to rights. Embarrassing, strategic, minor, non-embarrassing or otherwise, it was illegal. End of discussion on guilt. Begin discussion on sentence.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 14:04
Of course the matter that it is an embarrasing secret has nothing to do wit it, does it?

I wonder how many bits of classified info get passed on each and everyday? To make out that this is an "unheard of event" is utter nonsense.

If it was marked at a higher classification level or if it was info that could directly hurt someone, then fine, but as I mentioned before, all that has happened is that he has been accused of something, not convicted.

Let's leave the hanging and flogging until after the verdict shall we? Or does due process not exist in the American military?

How about not mentioning this little bit of "classified intelligence"...On Wednesday, two British judges claimed that the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with the UK if it made public details of Mr Mohamed's treatment.

They said it was "difficult to conceive" that a democratically elected and accountable government could have any rational objection to publishing the summary of Mr Mohamed's treatment by US agencies.

What they were trying to get out into the open was the treatment that this chap had had whilst staying at the US leisure complex for bad boys in Cuba.

Why wouldn't the US want details of his treatment at their hands being allowed out into the open? More embarrassment perhaps?

This is becoming a bit of a theme........!

Roadster280
5th Feb 2009, 14:15
Maybe the decision to investigate/prosecute was influenced by embarrassment. It may have been only brought to light because it caused embarrassment. I don't know.

In my two posts on this, I've prefaced my statements with "IF". It's for the ALS to prove he "did it". Or possibly the CPS if it is dealt with the the Old Bailey vs GCM.

I'm not suggesting he should be hanged or flogged, I'm suggesting that this is a very straightforward situation. He either did, or did not commit the offence. It is a very black and white situation with regard to this type of thing.

Some things are open to interpretation in the military, and the higher up the greasy pole one climbs, the more latitude one has. Others are not though. Weapons, protection of classified information, insubordination, (amongst others) are absolutely rigid however, and deservedly so. This is not a mess do that got out of hand, and the Adjt dishes out a few extras and no harm done.

I've no idea about the US Military due process, I was Brit mil. And I'm still subject to the OSA.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 14:31
The thing is, that the comments from "senior military personnel" could easily be seen as prejudicial and could get this case lobbed out no matter what the merits. Smart lawyers don't try and win in court, they try and get the case made null and void before hand.

Do the Army not send senior officers on "shut the hell up when the press are about" courses?

You may think it is black and white, but I promise you that when lawyers get involved a whole new colour chart gets pulled out.

I wonder how Sir Richard Dannat gets away with some of his comments. They offer far more aid and comfort to the enemy by making it clear how bad things are than someone who has let slip that civillians have been killed in armed conflict.

Roadster280
5th Feb 2009, 14:45
Fair comment.

It seems paradoxical to me complaints about senior officers (2* and above) not making a stand on behalf of their troops do not take into account that disclosure of the information necessary to do so could in itself be an own goal.

Take the RN for example. It's widely been reported that they are in crap order in terms of manning and fuel. Is this not sensitive military info? Might not a former foe who was defeated with large contribution from the RN decide that now was the time for a rematch?

If the Army has crap living conditions and poor morale, would that not encourage a foreign army that they may prevail?

Might it not be that the RAF having a fleet(s) of knackered old AT and no coherent funded plans to do anything about it gives encouragement to others?

It's a mighty fine line to tread, but that's part of what General/Air/Flag officers get paid for. At Lt Col level, you're expected to follow the OSA to the letter!

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 15:07
But at that point the whole thing isn't "black and white" it is very difficult to argue that subordinates should stick to the letter of the law, when the higher ups don't.

That's why this seems more of a "keeping in with the US" excercise than a real anti-leaking case.

Roadster280
5th Feb 2009, 15:25
I see your point, and it makes sense. However, carrying that POV through, no OSA prosecution could succeed, yet they do. Case in point, Lt Gen Richards's interpreter.

When the senior officer makes a statement, I assume he makes a decision to either declassify material, or make use of material otherwise in the public domain. Manning figures, fuel and housing expenditure, capital equipment budgets, all of these are public information. To some extent, CGS's statements are founded upon this information. He is in a position to make a judgement on whether he feels that his statements can be justified. You don't see Maj Gen Bloggs, GOC X Div, or AVM Snooks, AOC Y Gp making these statements.

Anyway, an interesting discussion.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 16:09
Absolutely, though I reckon the case of the interpreter sending off secrets to the Iranians was a whole level more naughty that getting done for a bit of pillow talk. That was a very serious case.

Things like civillian casualty figures could easily be argued as in the "public interest" so their classified staus is somewhat hooky. Under these days of FoI etc, it's more often a case of having to justify why something should be hidden, rather than simply saying "it's secret, now b*gger off."

The UK population is generally a more cynical one than the US it seems, especially when it comes to stuff like this.

It is a difficult line to tread about what is safe to release and what isn't, but I don't think figures like this are exactly going to surprise anyone. It's a bit like trying to cover up the fact that something big has just blown up when there are already journos on site and relaying the pictures worldwide.

brickhistory
5th Feb 2009, 17:16
For the US military, it is the same.

If it says anything other than "Unclassified" on the top and bottom, it's the start of a very bad day for the individual divulging the material, intentionally or otherwise. Similarly, it is NOT up to the individual to decide if something is or is not classifed according to his whims.

"Due process?" By all means, but even then, the US military rules (UCMJ) are different than in the civilian code.

In the case of this British Lt Col, I would think that only if the officers are in either his direct chain of command or on his court martial proceedings would be 'predjudicial (sp?)' to the defendant.

Again, if interesting, your argument about the 'embarrassment' factor or 'keeping in with the Americans' is moot. The officer either did or did not divulge classified information to one not authorized to have that information.

The FOIA, whether the information should be classified at all, etc, etc, is fine for discussion, but at the time the officer divulged the information, it was. That seems to be the merits of the incident.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Feb 2009, 17:27
That's fine, but this is a rare case, despite the fact that I'll guarantee that it happens on a daily basis in either the UK or US military.

The point is not moot if the only reason he is being prosecuted is becuase of "pressure" from elsewhere, then that is a bit hooky. If it would normally be dealt with by a slap on the wrists and a "mess fine" then it puts a totally different light on it.

He is a silly bloke for doing this and if found guilty, he'll suffer for it, but it's hardly the most heinous of crimes is it?

brickhistory
5th Feb 2009, 17:49
He is a silly bloke for doing this and if found guilty, he'll suffer for it, but it's hardly the most heinous of crimes is it?

Does the phrase/concept of "Bingo!" translate in the UK?

Bunker Mentality
5th Feb 2009, 18:09
Bit of over-enthusiastic hobby horse riding going on here, methinks.

The international dimension is certainly important, but ISAF is a NATO command, not a US one (although the US has huge influence, natch). There are plenty of non-UK/US NATO staff who could have kicked up a stink about this. But the Torygraph's editorial position makes it desirable to throw in the odd anti-American implication every now and then to try and widen its appeal. At the same time, it's not exactly been scaling new heights of journalistic authority recently.

So there are some particularly cross American officers. Who says? Well, the Torygraph said that someone did, so it must be true. And even if it is, what about the nationalities of the other senior officers in HQ ISAF, some of whom might also be more than a bit cross? "NATO generals in the Afghan capital Kabul are said to be furious about the alleged leak" doesn't quite have the same connotations, does it?

Plenty of heat but not much light generated by that single line.

Col_Gadd-Haffi
5th Feb 2009, 18:51
I can say he wasnt a QM, you cant promote to Lt Col at 48 on the QM role any more, they changed that one about 13 years ago.

QMs, whatever the merits of this case, would never be drawn into such things - flog some kit on EBay? thats a different subject,,,,

Go safe

CirrusF
6th Feb 2009, 05:51
I'm not condoning his actions, far from it - but if we have nothing to hide, why are the number of civilian deaths considered a military secret?

The fact they are means he has, if guilty, done wrong and should be severley punished, but I don't understand why these figures should not be in the public domain in the first place.


Security classifications are often in place to protect the source of the information rather than to hide the information itself. If the information has come from a Humint source, then its publication could lead to exposure of the source, or at least suspicion falling on the source.

Another possibility arises when the information comes as part of an intelligence sharing agreement with an ally. There is then a protocol by which the information is never shared with anybody else - ie the information remains under control of the ally who provided it. This may have been the case here.

Pontius Navigator
6th Feb 2009, 06:58
There was a time when NATO SECRET more or less meant Not all that officially secret.

One defence may well be 'I did nothing wrong'.

Think for a moment who already knows the information. Surviving members of the family know. The '22 members of the wedding party' were reported in the press. The vehicle that was destroyed but subsequently reported to be . . . etc.

A very large number of the deaths have been reported in the foreign (that includes US and UK). I would even guess that some commercial intelligence company is already collating such information.

Such number from military sources would in all probablilty be very similar to open source. All the military or government figures do is act as confirmation. Difficult to defend on grounds of national security. One line of defence could be to argue that the material was not classified.

As for talking to the gentlefolk of the press, one is given lines to take but equally one is also told not to lie. That is the fine line. "Tell me Colonel, how many . . . ?" Er um. "Colonel would it be true to say that 3000-4000 . . . "

Rock and a hard place. Say nothing and you could be assumed to have agreed with that figure. Snap call, actual figure is less and therefore les embarrassing. "No, that exagerates the figure, in reality it is . . . "

In my scenario the information is passed verbally, it is selected from a larger document and the whole is not released. As has been said, 256 shades of grey.

Mick Smith
6th Feb 2009, 07:14
Just to add a few shades of reality to this debate

Rachel Reid: With a nudge and a wink, MoD has dragged me through the mud | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/defence-afghanistan-rachel-reid-military)

So two meetings at Nato HQ in which the agenda was civilian casualties. The only possible reason for these figures to be classified is as CirrusF says because they were supplied by an ally, for which read: the US.

This is typical over-classification of data - which leads the whole system into disrepute - and this stinks of a British officer being arrested, yet again, on the say-so of his US counterparts as per Stankovic.

brickhistory
6th Feb 2009, 10:16
Was the information classified? Yes/no. If yes, proceed.

Was the Lt Col authorized to release the information to the woman? Yes/no. If no, proceed.

Did the Lt Col violate the law/British military law? Yes/no. If yes, proceed to court martial.

All the bashing, all the drama over whether the information should or should not be classified are completely unrelated to the basic questions listed above.

Why is that concept so hard to fathom?

Mick Smith
6th Feb 2009, 11:23
Because given the circumstances there has to be a huge suspicion that you dont get past the second line of your questionaire, and because people originating from your neck of the woods have serious, and highly damaging, previous here. Why is that concept so hard to fathom? Oh sorry I forgot.

The likelihood of this case proceeding to court martial in the UK has to be highly unlikely.

Roadster280
6th Feb 2009, 11:32
Just to add a few shades of reality to this debate

Rachel Reid: With a nudge and a wink, MoD has dragged me through the mud | Comment is free | The Guardian

So two meetings at Nato HQ in which the agenda was civilian casualties. The only possible reason for these figures to be classified is as CirrusF says because they were supplied by an ally, for which read: the US.

This is typical over-classification of data - which leads the whole system into disrepute - and this stinks of a British officer being arrested, yet again, on the say-so of his US counterparts as per Stankovic.

She confirms that she received information from the officer. She does not state the security classification of the material. She does however say that her lawyers have intimated that it is not covered by the OSA.

Absolute non story then. Obviously the information was not classified at all (otherwise it very definitely WOULD be covered). The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

soddim
6th Feb 2009, 11:38
I hope I'm mistaken but it appears from all the information published so far that we have a case of a serving officer apparently letting loose some classified information on casualties - info that should not have been classified anyway.

Of somewhat more concern is that MOD leaked the story of his possible court-martial to the press together with the slur that there was a 'close' relationship between the officer and the female human rights worker. The latter information was not only wrong but it was probably more sensitive and certainly potentially damaging to both of the participants reputations.

Who should be court-martialled, if anyone? I suggest the person in MOD who leaked the slur.

Double Zero
6th Feb 2009, 11:45
I am totally in support of this chap, and again the basic premise is, 'What have we got to hide' ?

He ought to be given a medal for being there, not a PC friendly grilling.

Seems to me nothing, as the civilians rolled over & let it happen via the taliban ( deliberately no capitals ) - figures of civilians killed are down to taliban using them as 'human shields' - the ultimate in cowardice - not our troops / aircrew.

Mick Smith
6th Feb 2009, 11:52
I think what she is saying is that her lawyer doesnt believe it to be the sort of material that would be covered by the official secrets act. But as CirrusF pointed out that is not always obvious. How would he know, you might well ask?

What he would know however is what a UK court is likely to make of it, and the UK courts don't take too kindly to being told that they can't deal with the simple facts, particularly because another country says they can't.

Since this took place inside Nato headquarters, he appears to have been having an authorised meeting, what was he authorised to tell her and how was that authorisation given? We dont know. The hang him high merchants need to rein their necks in, not least because if he's been arrested and charged the normal rules apply.

Roadster280
6th Feb 2009, 12:20
I think I'm wasting my time here, and Brick his too.

It is perfectly obvious when information is classified, the security classification (as a minimum) is printed top and bottom, front and back.

WHY it is classified is of no relevance whatsoever to this, or any other OSA case.

The location of the meeting is irrelevant. I would assume that the officer in charge of cleaning contracts at MOD Main Building has his meetings there. It does not follow that he is authorised to take the head cleaner into the commcen and say "where's your camera, the juicy stuff is in that filing cabinet over there".

I don't mean to make light of this, it's a vital principle of military life.

Careless talk costs lives.

Mick Smith
6th Feb 2009, 13:33
Careless talk costs lives.

Hmm. You're right it does and classifying information on the number of civilians killed is over-classification, which will lead someone to assume that since that classification was dumb, the classification of another document that had to be classified was dumb, which will lead said someone to think it's alright to talk about it, which could well cost lives.

brickhistory
6th Feb 2009, 13:50
You're right it does and classifying information on the number of civilians killed is over-classification, which will lead someone to assume that since that classification was dumb, the classification of another document that had to be classified was dumb, which will lead said someone to think it's alright to talk about it, which could well cost lives.Which is exactly the point. The military individual does not have the right/luxury/certain knowledge that 'it's alright to talk about it' what he knows is classified (whether it should be or not) as a matter of personal discretion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless, of course, one is a politician:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has appointed controversial former CIA Director John Deutch to serve on an advisory panel reviewing the intelligence community's technical capabilities.
Ex-CIA director John Deutch lost his security clearance in the mid-1990s for mishandling top secret documents.




Deutch, who was President Clinton's CIA director for a year and a half in the mid-1990s, lost his security clearance for mishandling classified information.
At the time Deutch left the agency in late 1996, CIA security officials discovered top secret documents on Deutch's home computer, which was a violation of strict CIA policy.
The 74 classified documents included memos to the president and other cabinet officials as well as classified material from the time Deutch served as deputy defense secretary.
CIA Director George Tenet suspended Deutch's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/john_deutch) security clearance, the toughest action he could take against the former official. Deutch voluntarily gave up his Pentagon clearance.
Deutch had reached an agreement with the Justice Department to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and pay a fine, but before the case was filed, President Clinton pardoned him.

Bunker Mentality
6th Feb 2009, 14:38
I'm sorry Brick (may I call you Brick?), but it's not as simple as that.

From what I can tell, McNally was a staff officer in a NATO HQ, part of whose job was to deal with NGOs - presumably some sort of CIMIC role. That puts him in a very different position to your ordinary line officer/airman. And, actually, there is no absolute prohibition on disclosure - the 'need to know' principle applies. One of the tasks of a staff officer is to exercise judgment - which is what it would appear the chap did here. It would further appear that someone (at least!) above him in the food chain thinks he made an error of judgment.

So the judge's job is to decide whose judgment was the right one in the circumstances as the individuals understood them to be at the time.

brickhistory
6th Feb 2009, 14:55
BM (may I call you BM? :}),

Did the officer have either the authorization to release the classified information or did he have the authority to make that determination?

If the answer is yes to either of the above, then he's got no worries, I would think.

If the answer is no, then I would think it's time for one of those ultimate "hat on, no coffee chats" y'all refer to them as with several court martial board members.

I'm not arguing the merits on overclassification, whether the material was embarrassing to the US or not, or any other side issue.

Was the information classified? Did the officer divulge it to someone not cleared to possess that information?

Central point I would think. I admit I am surprised by the number of posters in the military aircrew forum defending or rationalizing his alleged actions.

edited to add: Absolutely, it is up to whatever the British military legal procedure is to determine guilt or innocence and, if the former, severity of punishment.

Bunker Mentality
6th Feb 2009, 15:16
Of course you may, but I'd get those teeth fixed if I were you.

The nub of the issue, it seems to me, is this: one (your) position is that classified information may only ever legally be disclosed if prior authority has been given to do so. Another (my) position is that there are also other circumstances in which disclosure can be legal.

On a minor point of detail, the case is being investigated by the civil police and will be heard in a civil court, the Old Bailey.

BM

brickhistory
6th Feb 2009, 15:24
BM,

Actually, our positions are very similar. If the officer either had permission or the proper authority to decide that he could release the information, then we agree.

If your position is that he could decide on his own without having said permission or being granted authority to make such determinations, then we disagree.

Regarding the civil investigation and legal proceedings, very interesting. Thanks.

Why is that? Is there not a British UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice - military law/system) equivalent?

Teeth fixing comment? From a Brit? :ok:

Bunker Mentality
6th Feb 2009, 16:13
You're welcome :)

Not aware of the legal issues behind the fact that it's a civil, rather than a military, investigation. But it would seem from the article at the top of the thread that all Official Secrets Act cases are heard in the Old Bailey. The OSA is certainly civil, rather than military, law.

Col_Gadd-Haffi
8th Feb 2009, 12:40
Gentlemen, Bricks or Bunkers, the issue is that someone saw a prima facie case to remove this guy from post and arrest him. Thats not done lightly for anyone never mind a lieutenant colonel, who, as most know, cannot be dealt with summarily so its to Courts Martial for him.

I wonder if he is in the officer wing of the MCTC at Colly?

,,,and on someones post, did I not see that name long associated with integrity and truthfulness in this country alone; B Liar or did I mispell it?

JessTheDog
9th Feb 2009, 21:41
The good Lt Col is clearly a grown-up and, whatever he did, he knew what he was doing and had good reason for it.

This may well be the reason why the MoD saw fit to smear him and the lady researcher.

As to the ethics, morality or legality, or indeed any combination of the three, there are plenty of precedents. Civil servant Clive Ponting walked away free over the Belgrano leak, as did the GCHQ analyst Katharine Gun over the bugging of the UN. A Labour researcher went down for leaking some UK-US Secret discussions on the merits (or otherwise) of bombing Al-Jazeera (a shame I thought). A certain Admiral and security minister under Gordon Brown had a reprimand for "accidentaly leaving" classified documents that were "found" by a reporter.

My guess is the Colonel will walk, with the aid of a good QC, and this may not even get to court. And, if this is a matter of conscience as it appears, good on him and I hope he gets a good book deal out of it.

Following orders blindly leads only in one direction and plenty ended up there halfway through the last century.

Modern Elmo
10th Feb 2009, 02:00
Following orders blindly leads only in one direction and plenty ended up there halfway through the last century.

Yes, feel free to spill classified info., or it's a one way slippery slope to Mein Ehre Heisst True.

So sophisticated, such progressive thinking. Pardon us old fashioned hillbilly Septics our reluctance to share, say, all F-35 design info. with thusly enlightened 21st century foreigners.

Modern Elmo
10th Feb 2009, 02:09
In 1936 the National Executive Committee decided to dissociate itself from a speech in which Cripps said he did not "believe it would be a bad thing for the British working class if Germany defeated us".[1] Cripps was an early advocate of a United Front against the rising threat of fascism. In 1936 he was the moving force behind a Unity Campaign, involving the Socialist League, the ILP and the Communist Party of Great Britain, designed to forge electoral unity against the right. Opposed by the Labour leadership, the Unity Campaign was a damp squib: Cripps dissolved the Socialist League in 1937 rather than face expulsion from Labour, though Tribune, set up as the campaign's propaganda organ and bankrolled by Cripps and George Strauss, survived (and survives to this day). ...

When Labour won the 1945 general election, Clement Attlee appointed Cripps President of the Board of Trade, the second most important economic post in the government. Although still a strong socialist, Cripps had modified his views sufficiently to be able to work with mainstream Labour ministers.

...

In 1946 Soviet jet engine designers approached Stalin with a request to purchase jet designs from Western sources in order to overcome design difficulties. Stalin is said to have replied: "What fool will sell us his secrets?" However, he gave his assent to the proposal, and Soviet scientists and designers travelled to the United Kingdom to meet with Cripps and request the engines. To Stalin's amazement, Cripps and the Labour government were perfectly willing to provide technical information on the Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal-flow jet engine designed by RAF officer Frank Whittle, along with discussions of a licence to manufacture Nene engines themselves. The Nene engine was promptly reverse-engineered and produced in modified form as the Soviet Klimov VK-1 jet engine, later incorporated into the MiG-15 which flew in time to deploy in combat against UN forces in North Korea in 1950, causing the loss of several B-29 bombers and cancellation of their daylight bombing missions over North Korea.[4] ...

Stafford Cripps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Cripps)

Pontius Navigator
10th Feb 2009, 07:29
In a paper a couple of days ago I read that the Lt Col had given different figures to a different Aid Worker. Their compound were next to each other and it was his job.

Now all those ready to hang him for divulging classified information - if it is your job to brief the press etc then you will have access to a whole raft of information to do your job. Some, indeed perhaps much, will have a protective marking on it. It is your job to select information that can be released into the public domain. At his rank he would have no one aboove him vetting what he could extract - we just don't have the manpower for censorship control.

The majority of protectively marked documents, certainly from Secret down, do not break out individual items in a document as being more sensitive than other. Some TS, and some more thoughtful authors, qualify each paragraph; this is hugely helpful. Where this is not done it becomes a judgement call.

I know of one, hugely caveated Secret document where it was spotted that one word was out of place. That one word made its sentence Top Secret and the whole letter was upgraded; I knew however that it would be possible to extract most information at a lower level.

I submit that there is no case to answer, certainly not on the facts as leaked so far.

off centre
10th Feb 2009, 12:53
There may or may not be a case against the individual. Presumably there was enough evidence or suspicion to start such proceedings.

The larger issue on this thread is the agreement with the idea of leaking restricted information is acceptable for a military officer.

Have standards slipped that much?

BEagle
10th Feb 2009, 14:00
In my experience, once the military decides it wants to proceed with one of its various kangaroo courts, even if fresh evidence comes to light which totally exonerates the individual they're trying to persecute (yes, I did write persecute, not prosecute), rather than breathing a sigh of relief and saying "TFFT - we can drop this now", they'd sooner push the case to the limit rather than be seen to lose face for bringing a false charge. Most victims will let them do that just to get it all over with - whereas if they dig their heels in and employ a defence lawyer, the case will probably be thrown out (with substantial damages) in the first few minutes.

I anticipate that the Lt Col, given a lawyer of even moderate capability to assist with his defence, will run rings around the prosecution case.

Military 'justice' hasn't moved forward much beyond the famous Blackadder court scene, believe me! "March in the guilty bastard and his lying friends" isn't so far from the truth.

glad rag
10th Feb 2009, 18:52
.

.

So sophisticated, such progressive thinking. Pardon us old fashioned hillbilly Septics our reluctance to share, say, all F-35 design info. with thusly enlightened 21st century foreigners.



As some of us have been trying to point out to the great unwashed on "another" thread....

JessTheDog
10th Feb 2009, 21:02
There may or may not be a case against the individual. Presumably there was enough evidence or suspicion to start such proceedings.

The larger issue on this thread is the agreement with the idea of leaking restricted information is acceptable for a military officer.

Have standards slipped that much?

Standards went out the window when a certain Blair waved around a couple of dossiers claiming Saddam Hussein had WMDs capable of use within 45 minutes, that we could go to war without a UN resolution, that attacking Iraq would not increase the terrorist threat to the UK.....

These are grubby little pointless wars and if the Colonel got fed up spinning civilian casualty statistics - lying - to please his masters in Whitehall and Washington, then good on him. I'm sure the jury (do we still have those in Gross Brittania?) will agree.

Integrity is a personal quality, and personal qualities are absent from this generation of political and military leaders.

brickhistory
10th Feb 2009, 23:08
that we could go to war without a UN resolution

Well, it is undoubtedly true, isn't it. We and you did.




Integrity is a personal quality, and personal qualities are absent from this generation of political and military leaders.


I'll give you that regarding politicians.

Regarding British or American military members, I believe you are wrong.

Divulging classified without the proper authority is a bad thing.

One of those black and white issues for me.

As the officer in question is British, I'll leave you to him.

But with the "well, it's ok because he thought the info deserved to be out there" attitude, is troubling.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Feb 2009, 03:16
"But with the "well, it's ok because he thought the info deserved to be out there" attitude, is troubling"

Whilst I hate the descriptor and bearing in mind some of the previous posts it's an "outside the box" sort of thing so it's not a surprise you are having difficulty with it BH :)

PS Where did you buy your "Anti Spam Post Alert" software from as it would be great to see if there is a UK equivalent somewhere :ok:

brickhistory
11th Feb 2009, 21:47
One surefire "anti-spam" mechanism is to disclose shared classified information, and even worse, to condone that behavior.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Feb 2009, 22:59
Totally agree but where did you buy the software :ok: