British Army officer arrested over military secrets leak
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impugning QMs!
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
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
Last edited by Col_Gadd-Haffi; 5th Feb 2009 at 18:52. Reason: Just to add, 'any more'
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The likelihood of this case proceeding to court martial in the UK has to be highly unlikely.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careless talk costs lives.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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 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.
Last edited by brickhistory; 6th Feb 2009 at 14:37.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
), 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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Bunker Mentality; 7th Feb 2009 at 01:11.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still an issue
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?
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?
Last edited by Col_Gadd-Haffi; 8th Feb 2009 at 12:43. Reason: just seen the name Blair again!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.