# Canada sets up new military spy unit



## stegner (26 May 2008)

> Canada sets up new military spy unit
> Last Updated: Monday, May 26, 2008 | 12:05 PM ET
> CBC News
> The Canadian military has established a special intelligence unit to gather information on overseas missions, in places like Afghanistan, CBC News has learned.
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/26/military-intelligence.html


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2008)

Once again, Dawn Black and her NDP comrades display their ignorance in security matters.
While I beleive in civilian oversight (we are a democracy), the politicians don't need to know the minute details, nor should they be consulted on every decision this unit has to make. The techniques that are used are not open for public "debate".
Ms. Black speaks of "red flags", however, she failed to mention what some of those "red flags" are.


----------



## Armymedic (26 May 2008)

Gee, I'd guess that someone would be upset to find out that this is not a "new" initative.



> There's never been a debate in Canada that I am aware of on running an intelligence company out of the Canadian Forces. I believe that should be something that is open to debate and security and civilian oversight," she added.



Guess she has never heard of military intellegence. Or perhaps she thought it was just an oxymoron.

Seeing how the first time she is asked about it, she bad mouths it to the media, is there little doubt why she was probably not informed about it sooner?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Gee, I'd guess that someone would be upset to find out that this is not a "new" initative.
> 
> Guess she has never heard of military intellegence. Or perhaps she thought it was just an oxymoron.
> 
> Seeing how the first time she is asked about it, she bad mouths it to the media, is there little doubt why she was probably not informed about it sooner?



Heaven forbid she asks, oh, I don't know, "what exactly do you MEAN by a HUMINT Int Company?" or "how would this be different than what we have now?" sort of questions before she dishes criticism....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2008)

I think when she opens her mouth, her body farts out of it 'cause something smells when she speaks....


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2008)

See the CANFORGEN here from 2004:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21520/post-110961.html#msg110961

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

_But Wes Wark, an intelligence expert at the University of Ottawa...

Wark said the trouble with the newly created program could be the military's inexperience in the area of human intelligence.
"They don't really have any experience in this kind of operation and there's no form of accountability to keep a watch if things go wrong."_

After saying something like this, I think you can take the word 'expert' out of the description...


----------



## Redeye (26 May 2008)

What an idiotic story.  No background on what HUMINT means or how it would be employed, no depth at all, and the typical NDP "ready fire aim" criticism of something that proves just how far out of heehaw they are.  Even worse, however, is the commentary on the CBC website under the story, it's worse than the crap often found on the Globe and Mail's site, especially when it comes to Afghanistan.


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

Reading through the comments (273+ at last count!) it reads like a lot of people have no idea what HUMINT is about.  Good for OPSEC, bad for PR...


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

Theres quite a bit of unclassified information on the subject for those who are looking for open source info on the subject...

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/humint.htm

https://icon.army.mil/anon/304/304_anon_index.cfm?page=304th_g2s2x.htm&display2=none

http://humintel.blogspot.com/1997_09_01_archive.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBS/is_2_30/ai_n6366530

http://www.revue.mdn.ca/engraph/Vol8/no3/PDF/05-remillard_e.pdf


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Theres quite a bit of unclassified information on the subejct for those who are looking for open source info on the subject...
> 
> http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/humint.htm
> 
> ...



You should see all the hits that can be found just by running a search here on this site ...

here's one 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-501018.html#msg501018


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

You get 5 pages of hits, but none of the threads really cover the subject well other than posting the message about HCAP/HUMINT...


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> You get 5 pages of hits, but none of the threads really cover the subject well other than posting the message about HCAP/HUMINT...



That's because it's INT and we can't talk about it ... (as Ms. Black is bitching about) ...  >

But it just goes to show that HUMINT is certainly nothing "new" to the CF (look at the dates of the messages & posts) ... and that the NDPs fact-checking absolutely sucks.


----------



## Haggis (26 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But it just goes to show that HUMINT is ceratainly nothing "new" to the CF (look at the dates of the messages & posts) ... *and that the NDPs fact-checking absolutely sucks.*



Now why would the NDP let facts get in the way of a good controversy?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 May 2008)

Do I hear the sound of those black helicopters coming?  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's because it's INT and we can't talk about it ... (as Ms. Black is bitching about) ...  >



I think thats my point - it can be talked about as long as you refer to open source material, and there's quite a bit out there.  Treating a subject as taboo/super-spook-secret/shred-before-reading isnt neccesary when there's a whack of info on the subject already out there.  If anything, it gives the general public the wrong impression.  Anything published on the net before 2001 should be pretty much open to comments, as should be non-military academic material on the subject published afterwards.  Failure to do so leads to... well, the previous article is a good example... a fairly complete lack of understanding.


----------



## old medic (26 May 2008)

> _But Wes Wark, an intelligence expert at the University of Ottawa...
> 
> Wark said the trouble with the newly created program could be the military's inexperience in the area of human intelligence.
> "They don't really have any experience in this kind of operation and there's no form of accountability to keep a watch if things go wrong."_



I must agree with the previous assessments of this quote..., his security background probably
involves unlocking his car.

http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Intelligence_Branch



> Branch History
> 
> * 1885 - The Royal Corps of Guides is formed to perform light cavalry and scouting duties during the Northwest Rebellion. The guides are represented by the scarlet in the current branch badge.
> * WWI - The Canadian Intelligence Corps (C Int C) is formed. The corps is represented by the green in the current branch badge.
> ...


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think thats my point - it can be talked about as long as you refer to open source material, and there's quite a bit out there.  Treating a subject as taboo/super-spook-secret/shred-before-reading isnt neccesary when there's a whack of info on the subject already out there.  If anything, it gives the general public the wrong impression.  Anything published on the net before 2001 should be pretty much open to comments, as should be non-military academic material on the subject published afterwards.  Failure to do so leads to... well, the previous article is a good example... a fairly complete lack of understanding.



I wasn't refuting _your_ point.

I was pointing them out as indicators that the CF isn't *NEW* to this either ... as evidenced by posts on this Army.ca site ... vice civilian sites.

Apparently, a big part of the gist of the article seems to be that Ms. Black/the NDP et al seem to _think_ that HUMINT *is* new to us. So along with making themselves educated as to what _it _ is ... they should also be rest-assured that _it_ has been a part of this entity for a good while now. I noted that many of the "commentors" on the article site were noting things like "I'm surprised the CF didn't already have this capability." May as well correct _all_ the misinformation out there.


----------



## stegner (26 May 2008)

Indeed.  This is not new.  However, it's just something the CF has gotten a little rusty at.  I don't think it would be the worst if DND created an agency like the American DIA to help in these respects.


----------



## observor 69 (26 May 2008)

old medic said:
			
		

> I must agree with the previous assessments of this quote..., his security background probably
> involves unlocking his car.
> 
> http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Intelligence_Branch



"Wesley Wark is a professor at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of
Toronto and a Visiting Research Professor at the new Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. He is acknowledged as one of Canada’s leading
experts on intelligence and national security issues. He is a Past President of the Canadian
Association for Security and Intelligence Studies, and currently sits on two government advisory
bodies, The Advisory Council on National Security and the Advisory Committee to the Canada
Border Services Agency. He directs, with Mel Cappe, a research program for the Institute for
Research on Public Policy on “Security and Democracy” and is currently working on a book on
Canadian national security policy and intelligence. He is a frequent media commentator and has
contributed invited expert opinion to Parliamentary committees, to the Arar and Air India
commissions of Inquiry. His 2006 report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission on Core
issues of National Security and Democracy is being used as a research template for the
Commission’s on-going studies."

www.igloo.org/ciia/download/Branches/national/eventnot 

http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1039

I would say he is qualified to comment on the matter. Why is that whenever the term "expert" is used, just like in American media the comments are often greeted with comtempt? I have noticed a habit of the media in being to quick in declaring someone an "expert" 
But someone who has taken a number of years to educate themselves in a subject area should be recognized as making informed comments. 

Edit: While Dawn Black is just another politician.


----------



## George Wallace (26 May 2008)

:

Is this a "Non-News Day"?  HUMINT (Human Intelligence) is old news.  HCAP has been going on for years.  Selection is rather tough.  It must be pointed out though, that all members of the CF are "HUMINT" Operators in the long run.  They are debriefed after Patrols, TICs, Convoys, visits to Scheduled countries, etc. by INT Ops and thus everyone is a "Source" from which INT Ops can draw information and draft Intelligence Products.  

So?  What are they going to discover tomorrow to bring attention to the CF?  Something that has been going on for years, but just recently drawing attention to some bored, ill-informed journalist?

OH!  Greymatters.  Just because something is from five or ten years ago, does not make it "fair game" and ready to become "Open Source".  Some security classifications will never be lifted.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (26 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Is this a "Non-News Day"?  HUMINT (Human Intelligence) is old news.  HCAP has been going on for years.  Selection is rather tough.



In a physical sense?If so I under estimated some very large useless people.


----------



## George Wallace (26 May 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> In a physical sense?If so I under estimated some very large useless people.



Are you confusing "physical" and "mental" ........or "HUMINT" and "CIMIC"?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (26 May 2008)

Seen.

Know a couple people who could not physically deploy with our troops but had no issues passing that HCAP and deploying.
Just goes to show theirs a job for everyone I guess.


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I would say he is qualified to comment on the matter. Why is that whenever the term "expert" is used, just like in American media the comments are often greeted with comtempt? I have noticed a habit of the media in being to quick in declaring someone an "expert"
> But someone who has taken a number of years to educate themselves in a subject area should be recognized as making informed comments.



Being an expert on making comments and being an expert on how things actually work are two different things.   Expertise in how border services conduct intelligence and how the CF does intelligence are also two different things.  Being president of CASIS and knowing how military intelligence works are also two different things.  In the end, being a recognized expert on international policy and strategic use of intelligence does not translate to expertise into understanding specialized fields such as targeting, HUMINT, imagery analysis, etc.  Unless he is a former member of the CF, or any another Canadian intelligence agency/unit, he has no leg to stand on.  Finally, when he implies that this capability never existed before, he is definately showing his lack of area knowledge...      

"They don't really have any experience in this kind of operation and there's no form of accountability to keep a watch if things go wrong."    :


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

I suppose we could bring up the "I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night" comment.  Reading a book on "Home Construction" and actually being a Master Carpenter are two different things.


----------



## Strike (27 May 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Seen.
> 
> Know a couple people who could not physically deploy with our troops but had no issues passing that HCAP and deploying.
> Just goes to show theirs a job for everyone I guess.



Wow.  Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 May 2008)

To be fair to Mr. Wark, here's another thing to remember when reading someone's comments quoted in MSM - what did the reporter ask?  What documentation (if any) was provided by the reporter?  

I'm guessing you'd get different comments from the same person based on the following requests from a reporter:

1)  "I'm working on a story about the CF setting up a new human intelligence company.  What do you think about that?"

2)  "I have some documentation suggesting that the CF is creating some sort of military spy agency. I'm pressed for time to deadline - would you mind if I faxed/e-mailed the material to you, and you could call me back before XX:YYpm with any comments you might have?"

3)  "I have some documentation suggesting that the CF is creating some sort of military spy agency.  Can I make an appointment with you to sit down, go over these documents so I could get your opinion for an interview?"

Wonder which of these led to the various comments we're reading?  Or some other combination?


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OH!  Greymatters.  Just because something is from five or ten years ago, does not make it "fair game" and ready to become "Open Source".  Some security classifications will never be lifted.



I agree and Im not proposing we discuss those...


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I don't think it would be the worst if DND created an agency like the American DIA to help in these respects.


http://www.dia.mil/

Isn't that basically what we have (though smaller scale) in J2/DG Int?


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

What would this agency do that others don't already do?


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

> Isn't that basically what we have (though smaller scale) in J2/DG Int?



Sorta



> What would this agency do that others don't already do?



Provide dedicated civilian support to the CF with respect to intelligence.


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sorta
> 
> Provide dedicated civilian support to the CF with respect to intelligence.



We already have that - the merits of civilian analysts are still being argued over...


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

I see we have begun to derail this topic, and lead some to think that HUMINT is going to be a bunch of civilians becoming James Bonds.  Far from it.  It is a Military occupation, that will be open to any Trade; if the individuals will be able to meet the criteria.  There is absolutely nothing sinister about this, besides the name.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2008)

Which is but an abbreviation.  The dreaded SIGINT, MASINT, RUMINT, MOMINT etc.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

> I see we have begun to derail this topic, and lead some to think that HUMINT is going to be a bunch of civilians becoming James Bonds.  Far from it.  It is a Military occupation, that will be open to any Trade; if the individuals will be able to meet the criteria.  There is absolutely nothing sinister about this, besides the name.



Funny though how military intelligence places great emphasis on its members having civilian credentials such as Master's Degrees and PhD's in subjects such as political science and international relations for their officers.  The CIA and CSIS won't consider anyone for an intelligence officer position unless they have a minimum of a degree. I know of at least a couple Army reserve military intelligence units out west  that will not accept officers that do not have a minimum of a Master's degree-or at least that was there policy a couple of years ago.   Honestly, I think a person with a Master's or PhD in International Relations and fluent several languages would be of far better use than the average soldier with respect to HUMINT.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Funny though how military intelligence places great emphasis on its members having civilian credentials such as Master's Degrees and PhD's in subjects such as political science and international relations for their officers.  The CIA and CSIS won't consider anyone for an intelligence officer position unless they have a minimum of a degree. I know of at least a couple Army reserve military intelligence units out west  that will not accept officers that do not have a minimum of a Master's degree-or at least that was there policy a couple of years ago.   Honestly, I think a person with a Master's or PhD in International Relations and fluent several languages would be of far better use than the average soldier with respect to HUMINT.



Since when does one need a Masters Degree to be fluent in several languages? Or civilian credentials?

One of my girlfriends speaks 5 languages fluently. She's a Snr NCO. No degrees. But plenty of time putting her skills to work. I _think_ she's of great use; you may think otherwise, but then you'd just be sooooooooo wrong.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Funny though how military intelligence places great emphasis on its members having civilian credentials such as Master's Degrees and PhD's in subjects such as political science and international relations for their officers.  The CIA and CSIS won't consider anyone for an intelligence officer position unless they have a minimum of a degree. I know of at least a couple Army reserve military intelligence units out west  that will not accept officers that do not have a minimum of a Master's degree-or at least that was there policy a couple of years ago.   Honestly, I think a person with a Master's or PhD in International Relations and fluent several languages would be of far better use than the average soldier with respect to HUMINT.



I see you are the type who thinks that a piece of paper hanging on the wall makes someone very special.  Funny thing about a lot of those people; they really don't have two clues about life in the real world.  They have proven themselves to be able to learn from books, but have no real life experience.  Can I ask you how many different things taught in academia as theory, are really practical in real life?  Communism, for instance, is a brilliant concept.  Totally impractical and unworkable in real life.

Same goes for Intelligence and HUMINT.   Education has nothing to do with what qualifications are really needed.  Strong moral and ethical standards and unbiased honesty are more important.  I would almost say that a Newfoundlander from 2 RCR with the "gift of gab" would make a far better HUMINT operator than some multi-Degree holding wannabe officer from some Ivory Tower.


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would almost say that a Newfoundlander from 2 RCR with the "gift of gab" would make a far better HUMINT operator than some multi-Degree holding wannabe officer from some Ivory Tower.


What if we could get the multi-degree holding Newfounlander with the "gift of gab"?


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> What if we could get the multi-degree holding Newfounlander with the "gift of gab"?



He'd be the CDS ... not INT.

 >


----------



## McG (27 May 2008)

Only for a few more months.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Only for a few more months.



Perfect.

CT to ResF, spark up our new spy directorate placing him in charge ...

Canada would rule the world!!  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He'd be the CDS ... not INT.
> 
> >



Are you sure?  Isn't that "the 1st Newfoundland Tanks"?  Either way, he could still do HUMINT.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Isn't that "the 1st Newfoundland Tanks"?  Either way, he could still do HUMINT.



We're talking after a CT George.  

Perhaps though, as a red herring, we should toss out the name of the new spy unit ... and label it "the 1st Newfoundland Tanks" ... who ever suspect it??


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

> Since when does one need a Masters Degree to be fluent in several languages? Or civilian credentials?



Never said this.  What languages does your friend speak?  



> I see you are the type who thinks that a piece of paper hanging on the wall makes someone very special.  Funny thing about a lot of those people; they really don't have two clues about life in the real world.  They have proven themselves to be able to learn from books, but have no real life experience.  Can I ask you how many different things taught in academia as theory, are really practical in real life?  Communism, for instance, is a brilliant concept.  Totally impractical and unworkable in real life.
> 
> Same goes for Intelligence and HUMINT.   Education has nothing to do with what qualifications are really needed.  Strong moral and ethical standards and unbiased honesty are more important.  I would almost say that a Newfoundlander from 2 RCR with the "gift of gab" would make a far better HUMINT operator than some multi-Degree holding wannabe officer from some Ivory Tower.



I am afraid that your perspective of academia is skewed.  Sure communism is still big at places like York, but elsewhere not so much.  Sure a 2 RCR with a "the gift for gab" would be a good choice provided that he understood the cultural and historical surroundings.  His gift for gab would be useless if he didn't understand those as he could fast find himself in trouble.  What provides the basis for understanding the cultural and historical surroundings: education.   

I am not trying to say that academics are better than everybody else.  Plenty of them are dumber than a sack of hammers.  (You may think that of me).  But, this comment perhaps relates to your topic on the media.   You can't discount experts off-hand.   Education is highly valuable, provided you understand the limitations.   Am  I an expert on Afghanistan?  By means no.  But, I have come across friends coming back from Afghanistan who think they are since they served there for 6-8 months.  Do you speak the language fluently I ask them.  No is the response.  Well how can you truly understand the country if you are not familiar with something as basic as the language I ask? Education has its limitations whether at a civilian institution or within the CF.  Lots of academics are stuck in an Ivory Tower-but lots of soldiers are stuck in their uniform.   Much of winning hearts and minds (something essential for HUMINT) has nothing to do with soldier qualifications, as you say  "strong moral and ethical standards and honesty"  go a long way.   Some soldiers have them.  Some don't.  Ditto Academics.


----------



## Franko (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think a person with a Master's or PhD in International Relations and fluent several languages would be of far better use than the average soldier with respect to HUMINT.





> Much of winning hearts and minds (something essential for HUMINT) has nothing to do with soldier qualifications...



With those statements you just proved how very little you know about the entire HUMINT scope/ mandate and the INT trade entirely.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

stegner

I think we are pretty much in agreement.  We have posted opposite views as generalizations, but seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

> stegner
> 
> I think we are pretty much in agreement.  We have posted opposite views as generalizations, but seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.



Cheers!  



> Much of winning hearts and minds (something essential for HUMINT) has nothing to do with soldier qualifications...



Um if you are recruiting someone (i.e. Afghan civilian) to serve as an intelligence resource you need to win their hearts and minds no?  That person is not much use if you as a recruiter have not won him over.  That's what I mean.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 May 2008)

What we really need is somebody with college majors in Theatre and World Languages.


----------



## Fusaki (28 May 2008)

> What we really need is somebody with college majors in Theatre and World Languages.



And a tortured past involving gorillas and blueberries? ;D


----------



## Greymatters (28 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Cheers!
> 
> Um if you are recruiting someone (i.e. Afghan civilian) to serve as an intelligence resource you need to win their hearts and minds no?  That person is not much use if you as a recruiter have not won him over.  That's what I mean.



Part of winning hearts and minds is developing rapport with the person, your 'Afghan civilian' in this case.  In my experience, its the most important part, but there are others with differing opinions.  That means being able to identify with that person's life experiences and providing examples from your own experiences that they too can identify with.  A captain with a masters in art history who never worked with engines before isnt likely to connect well with the local mechanic who's been working on cars since he was 6 years old.  The local population is composed of a wide range of people with different backgrounds, so you increase your chances of making connections by having a variety of skilled persons from a variety of different backgrounds, and even then there is no guarantee that the person will make that connection.  Having a degree or a masters does not guarantee this will happen (unless of course you are trying to connect with a person who wont talk to you unless you have a masters or a degree...)  

Regarding speaking of languages, being fluent in the local language is a tremendous boost (and is also a double-edged sword), but it is not a barrier to understanding between two people if you've got a good interpreter.


----------



## stegner (28 May 2008)

> Part of winning hearts and minds is developing rapport with the person, your 'Afghan civilian' in this case.  In my experience, its the most important part, but there are others with differing opinions.  That means being able to identify with that person's life experiences and providing examples from your own experiences that they too can identify with.  A captain with a masters in art history who never worked with engines before isnt likely to connect well with the local mechanic who's been working on cars since he was 6 years old.  The local population is composed of a wide range of people with different backgrounds, so you increase your chances of making connections by having a variety of skilled persons from a variety of different backgrounds, and even then there is no guarantee that the person will make that connection.  Having a degree or a masters does not guarantee this will happen (unless of course you are trying to connect with a person who wont talk to you unless you have a masters or a degree...)
> 
> Regarding speaking of languages, being fluent in the local language is a tremendous boost (and is also a double-edged sword), but it is not a barrier to understanding between two people if you've got a good interpreter.



I agree with everything you are saying.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 May 2008)

A column by Colby Cosh in the _National Post_, May 30:

The necessity of HUMINT
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1df921f8-9b4e-4cea-9a58-e3ff3977ab1f

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A column by Colby Cosh in the _National Post_, May 30:
> 
> The necessity of HUMINT
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1df921f8-9b4e-4cea-9a58-e3ff3977ab1f
> ...



An excellent article by someone who seems to know exactly what he is talking about.


----------



## lone bugler (30 May 2008)

wow what a great article. Ofcourse their not gonna disclose alot of information besides funding, it's military intelligence... this reporter isn't the brightest bulb in the box I'm glad their are opening up the intelligence trade more


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An excellent article by someone who seems to know exactly what he is talking about.



Bullseye! - round peg in round hole on that one.


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2008)

lone bugler said:
			
		

> ............... I'm glad their are opening up the intelligence trade more



This (HUMINT) is not an INT OP job.  It is an "Any Trade" job.  It doesn't make you an INT OP.


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This (HUMINT) is not an INT OP job.  It is an "Any Trade" job.  It doesn't make you an INT OP.



Or vice-versa, being an INT OP doesnt make you a HUMINT expert either.  However, because it requires intelligence techniques and tools, you will still find a whole lot of INT OPs in the woodpile...


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jun 2008)

Dawn Black.

Dawn. When you do stand-to's because thats when the enemy attacks. Dark changes to light. Shadows moving. Very spy like.
Black. Sinister colour. Black ops. 

Is "Dawn Black" really an NDP Defense critic or is "she" actually a double agent FROM this new spy unit placed here to begin a campaign of misinformation so information about this spy unit gets downplayed.

Very clever Mr Harper.


----------



## Strike (1 Jun 2008)

Bwahahaha.  Damn!  That's good.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Jun 2008)

So does this unit have recruiting seminars like CANSOFCOM? or do we just have to go by the CANFORGEN?


----------

