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?

.....oooohh God!.......there goes my appetite.

Typical
 

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

Jeepers! For one 'orrible minute I thought Bush was back :}

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.

LowObservable:
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.

You gentlemen advocating aid and comfort to the enemy on this chat thread -- I hope you're not actually British.

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.

Indeed! :E

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?

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.

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"...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........!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.