JTF2 & AFG (merged)

[McG]

Forces deserve same scrutiny as police: MP
Last Updated: Thursday, December 2, 2010 | 4:33 PM ET
CBC News

Canadian military forces should be subject to the same level of oversight as law enforcement agencies, a Liberal MP said Thursday.

Dominic Leblanc, the party's defence critic, made the comment following a joint investigation by CBC and Radio-Canada that revealed details of two military probes into the behaviour of Canada's covert elite Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) unit in Afghanistan.

The closed-door investigations are linked to allegations that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man and, in a separate incident, that a member of JTF2 killed a man who was surrendering.


One military probe, dubbed Sand Trap, investigated claims that a Canadian was involved in the 2006 shooting death of an Afghan who had his hands up in the act of surrender. That probe ended without any charges.

Another military investigation, Sand Trap 2, which is looking into the claims against American forces, is still ongoing. The allegations have led to calls for more oversight of the covert unit.

Leblanc said oversight could come without compromising JTF2's ability to do its job.

"Nobody’s suggesting that the operational details of a unit as important as JTF2 need to be made public," Leblanc said.

"Nobody is suggesting that security needs to be breached or compromised and the lives of Canadian Forces put in danger by having an adequate oversight."

Claude Bachand, the Bloc Québécois defence critic, said there are ways that Parliament can obtain public oversight of the unit.

"It could be a small group of members of Parliament that have a high level of security," Bachand told CBC News.

"Of course, they’d be stuck with the information afterwards, but at least, we’d be reassured that they're doing a job and they're overseeing what is going on in that group."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/02/jtf2-political-reaction.html?ref=rss

I am confused.  Does Mr Leblanc want the same oversight on the military as for the RCMP (ie an independent bureaucratic "watchdog" agency) or does he want a special parliamentary committee?  Shouldn't there already be a parliamentary defence committee?  Why create a second?

If the RCMP civilian "watchdog" model is desired, I would like to know if the RCMP also has several civilian Assistant Deputy Ministers internal to the department?  Is such an agency required when the civilian oversight is built directly into the department?

As G2G has pointed out, oversight is necessary and appropriate in a democracy, but it must be done with due protection for national security.  For myself, I am left wondering if the proper oversight is not already there.  We have had one soldier already convicted in a military court for acts that contravened the law of armed conflict, and it clearly appears the military is taking the appropriate steps to investigate and deal with potential violations that may have occurred within JTF 2.  It looks like the systems is working.  I suppose some people may never be happy short of attaching a political officer (commissar) to every platoon and troop.

RCMP to get new watchdog agency
Last Updated: Monday, June 14, 2010 | 8:53 PM ET
By Alison Crawford, CBC News

The federal government introduced legislation Monday to create a civilian watchdog agency for the RCMP with "enhanced investigative powers."

The new oversight body would be called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Review and Complaints Commission.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/14/rcmp-oversight.html#ixzz16zsUu8gb

 

[Armymedic]

What everyone seems to fail to realize is that JTF2, and the entirety of the CF have civilian oversight. Every member of the CF are all ultimately responsible  and/or answerable to the MND and Cabinet, which prior to their appointment to Cabinet tend to be democratically elected by the people of Canada.

What more oversight is needed?

This "oversight" noise is nothing more than the Opposition playing strategic politics with the notion of the Conservative Government running a "secret agenda" and hiding things from the people.

 

[OldSolduer]

Some people will not be satisfied until the police and military are totally gutted. What I mean is that civilians will want operational control.

 

[Nauticus]

One irony I would like to point out is the humored reference to the CBC as the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation", when at the same time, those same people are calling for the media to become more restricted, like it would be in an actual Communist society. Hypocrisy at it's most divine.

I point out that I don't disagree with the sentiments on here that call for more balanced coverage of the Canadian Forces (CBC is notorious for presenting unbalanced opinion pieces regarding our military), but with that said, this is what it boils down to:
If there is an ongoing investigation regarding a slaying or a murder, it is news and should be reported without breaching security concerns regarding those involved.

With that said, and I go back to the balance point, Sandtrap I is a closed case and no criminal charges were laid. CBC's stance appears biased, when it SHOULD point out that nobody was criminally responsible for that particular incident and it is therefore a non-issue. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing, but CBC uses the existence of that investigation to subjectively tailor the reader to the "new" information.

CBC is a joke of a news supplier due to their bias and subjective reporting, but based on how this thread turned out, it appears the members of the CF are just as close minded and subjective as the reporters.

EDIT: Jim, I don't think that is what people want at all. People are concerned that, when "secret" or otherwise hidden incidents get investigated by the same organization that committed said incident, there is a real possibility of subjectivity in the result of the investigation. Nobody wants to control the RCMP or the CF (nobody has even come close to suggest that), though people want that possibility removed entirely.

Note: I'm not saying that there IS subjectivity in either the RCMP or the Canadian Forces, or that any investigations in the past have resulted erroneously. I am, however, pointing out that the suspicion of it is a legitimate opinion for those interested.

 

[OldSolduer]

What the majority of people, politicians and reporters included, fail to realize is that such investigations cannot be carried out by just any one. Some people do not understand security, operations etc. Just my two cents, minus the requisite PST/GST.

 

[Journeyman]

One irony I would like to point out is the humored reference to the CBC as the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation", when at the same time, those same people are calling for the media to become more restricted, like it would be in an actual Communist society. Hypocrisy at it's most divine.

I've gone through the thread again, and I'm afraid I don't see anyone calling for more restrictive media, just more balance.

Perhaps your understanding of irony is similar to Alanis Morissette's  ???

 

[Nauticus]

I've gone through the thread again, and I'm afraid I don't see anyone calling for more restrictive media, just more balance.

Perhaps your understanding of irony is similar to Alanis Morissette's  ???

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

 

[Journeyman]

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

OK, I grant you that that is, technically, restrictive.

But, logically, Operational Security should be a mitigating factor along with laws regarding libel and slander. I'd also include the simple courtesy of some personal "news" being nobodies' business, but then I only read the tabloid headlines while waiting in the grocery-store checkout line.

As much as the people with multiple-piercings in their eyebrows may extole the splendors of anarchy, I'd suggest that abolishing all restrictions would lead to Lord of the Flies in pretty short order.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so. 

I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so. 

I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.

The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and bloggers, have no lawful right to know.

I repeat that we you, those of you in official capacities, have a duty to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a twenty-something political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, UNCLAS and, therefore available to the press and public.

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

 

[aesop081]

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

I suggest that you have never had your operational security blown by the media and your safety put a serious risk. There are things that are not public and should stay that way. Making them public endangers success and risks people's lives. Restricting the media in such cases is not a communist state.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/stories-reportages-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=114
Or do you see, say, civvies doing it more?  Love to hear more about the concept of getting more information (rather than "messages") out to the public.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/stories-reportages-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=114
Or do you see, say, civvies doing it more?  Love to hear more about the concept of getting more information (rather than "messages") out to the public.

I guess I'm reacting to what I perceive to be attempts to manipulate rather than inform by the defence industry, the defence department, including the CF, and the government - and their counterparts in allied countries and, indeed, In China, too.

I have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough stenographers out there, working in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).

 

[cudmore]

E.R.  This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.  The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about. 
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.  When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.  So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?  Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and bloggers, have no lawful right to know.


I repeat that we you, those of you in official capacities, have a duty to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a twenty-something political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, UNCLAS and, therefore available to the press and public.

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

 

[Edward Campbell]

E.R.  This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.  The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about. 
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.  When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.  So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?  Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

Properly classifying information requires considerable thought and effort. Despite my personal concerns about the size of our HQs I acknowledge that the volume of information that needs to be managed has grown by an order of magnitude or more since I retired and I am amazed that anyone ever gets the classifications right. The default position, to be safe and secure, is to over-classify.

How would you think we might manage a classification review process? Most important: who pays?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

II have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough stenographers out there, working in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).

Maybe ten years ago I would have agreed with this view of journalism, but I am affraid I can't anymore.

Today, IMO, even the newspapers (last bastion of real reporting) have been pushed by the 24/7 electronic medias into the "first out with the facts - any facts -checked or not - then spin it to look like you exclusively broke out the biggest "disaster/fraud/shennanigan" of the century - and finish instead of an analysis with how peopole "feel" about the news, preferably in a sensational uninformed way". The few serious newpapers and magazines left that actually take the time and make the efforts required to  digest things, put them into proper focus and produce substantiated reports are unfortunately read only by a minority of already well informed and educated Canadians (like you E.R.C.). 

 

[George Wallace]

E.R.  This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.  The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about. 
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.  When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.  So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?  Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

OK.  Reading the above, I can see that you have no concept about how things are classified.  A document will be classified or designated according to its contents.  If one sentence  in the whole document is classifed or designated higher than the all the rest, that is the classification or designation that will be assigned to the whole document.  Of course, that document can be declassified or downgraded if that sentence is removed.  The whole document will have the classification of the highest classification assigned to any of its parts.

A document is to be graded according to its own content, and not because of its relationship or reference to another document. In those cases where the originator must compile information, and extract portions of information, from numerous documents, caution must be exercised with the aggregation of this information. The one exception to this policy is with respect to Cabinet Confidences.

Information shall be classified CONFIDENTIAL when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause  injury to the national interest.  As we move up the scale to SECRET we find the statement "when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause SERIOUS injury to the national interest".  TOP SECRET we would find seriousness has increased and the injury test would be: "would be expected to cause EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE injury to the national interest". 

As for this:

think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.

That is a truly naive presumption on the part of anyone. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

E.R.  This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.  The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about. 
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.  When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.  So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?  Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

I'm sorry James, but that's pretty rich coming from someone that works at the CBC. The same organization that refuses to open it's operating documents to the Canadian public, when requested. That same public that pays to keep the CBC in business. The CBC is known to be amongst the stingiest organizations in Canada when it comes to releasing files requested under FOI, almost to the point that many would call unlawful and criminal. Yet they have the balls to demand the same of everyone else and raise all unholy hell when their demands aren't met. They are a government company and are beholden to the taxpayer for keeping them alive. You guys have to have a good hard look in the mirror before you dare accuse anyone of censorship and being secretive.

 

[cudmore]

hi recceguy.
I am an employee of the CBC -- not its president -- and cannot respond to any of this.
However, here's what the manager-types have said publicly about this recently.

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/media/facts/20101201.shtml

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/newsreleases/20101126.shtml

Here's a quote I pulled from the first link.

"Since CBC/Radio-Canada became subject to the Act in 2007, we have released over 70,000 pages of information. We also have responded to 1,206 out of the 1,262 requests received (to November 26, 2010). Indeed, if Quebecor’s article last week is to be believed (as cited above), we have received a couple of hundred ATIP requests from interested Canadians and more than 1,000 from our principal competitor in the province of Quebec."

"We have not always had a perfect record on Access to Information, nor do we now. In the first weeks of being subject to the Act, we received approximately 400 requests from David Statham, Michel Drapeau and their partners, who have publicly acknowledged working for Quebecor Media. The extraordinary circumstances caused by this unprecedented volume has been recognized by both the Office of the Information Commissioner and the courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment rendered last week against Mr. Statham," (discussed in the second link).

 

[George Wallace]

;D

Guess that is confirmation of: