Canada sets up new military spy unit

[stegner]

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.

CBC obtained military documents that show the Canadian Forces is spending about $27 million over the next three years to purchase equipment for the new unit, which is actively recruiting soldiers.

Although many details about the unit are considered classified and not being released to the public, documents show the focus of the group is "human intelligence."

Members of the unit, known as the Human Intelligence Company (HUMINT), are trained in collecting and analyzing information gathered from the wide variety of human contacts, or sources, they encounter on missions.

The intelligence unit can also be tasked with recruiting and overseeing spy networks in foreign countries that are made up of local intelligence agents.

"The information gained this way is an important facet of support to operational activities, and the Canadian Forces is seeking to hone the skills of those collecting the information — by improving the skills associated with information collection, better information will be gathered," says one internal recruiting document.

The focus is to gather intelligence about the operational side of a mission, such as hunting for information that could point to Taliban bomb makers in Afghanistan. Bigger intelligence questions, such the global manhunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, aren't handled by the unit.

Forces won't disclose details for security reasons

The military is tight-lipped about the size of the unit, where its members are stationed and what equipment it uses. The military also won't confirm how much money, in addition to the $27 million for equipment, is being spent to fund the unit's activities.

"Unfortunately, other than to acknowledge that the program exists, the national defence and the Canadian Forces will not provide specific details about the program, as these are liable to have negative consequences for operations security, and the successful conduct of ongoing Canadian Forces operations," said Isabelle Moses, spokesperson for the Chief of Defence Intelligence.

Canada already does intelligence work on military missions, including what is done by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

But Wes Wark, an intelligence expert at the University of Ottawa, said it's interesting that the military has gone ahead with plans for this special foreign intelligence unit, and in a fairly secretive fashion. He said the military must have felt a need to boost the intelligence work already being done.

"Here is the military coming along and saying, 'Maybe this isn't good enough, and we're going to need a very traditional form of intelligence gathering to get a lay of the land,'" said Wark, a research professor at the graduate school of public and international affairs.

'That raises all kinds of red flags': NDP

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."

NDP Defence critic Dawn Black said more information needs to be made public.

"We don't know, and that leaves it open to all kinds of questions," she said. "Because we don't know, that raises all kinds of red flags."

"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.

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Greymatters]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Greymatters]

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]

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.
    * 1968 - Unification of the forces results in the demise of the C Int C, and the remnants are lumped in with the security branch. This period in branch history is represented by the thin white line in the current branch badge.
    * 29 October 1982 - The intelligence branch stands up in its current form.

 

[armyvern]

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]

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]

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.