British Army officer arrested over military secrets leak
 

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."

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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. :=

"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...

There were problems the last time I got chatted up. I was allergic to her guide dog!

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?

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

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.

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

It will be interesting to see a pic. of the aid worker. Might answer a couple of questions that have been posed here.

Perhaps this was her:


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