tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post8949054569252207169..comments2024-01-02T19:45:37.874-05:00Comments on National Security Policy: One Last Point of ViewRobert Farleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12233771830519084383noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post-1405886816418568462010-10-28T15:03:16.794-04:002010-10-28T15:03:16.794-04:00I think the following article states the need for ...I think the following article states the need for secrecy in order to maintain security (aka OPSEC) very well. This is not a comment with regard to the Tillman affair, but to the need for non-exposure of military operations until they are properly declassified in 25 years' time.<br /><br />Sir John Sawers, the chief of Britain's overseas intelligence services, known as MI6, spoke publicly about his organization's refusal to use torture and its need for secrecy in order to maintain security. It was the first public speech by a serving head of MI6 in the agency's 101-year history. <br /><br />Sawers referred to torture as "illegal and abhorrent." But he also discussed the tradeoffs involved in this position. "If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action, and we do, even though that allows that terrorist activity to go ahead," he said. <br /><br />He also said that MI6 had an obligation to make sure that the foreign intelligence services it works with would also respect human rights. However, he acknowledged this task was "not always straightforward." He noted that intelligence officers can be faced with the dilemma of handing over valuable intelligence, which may be used to arrest and torture a suspect, or keeping the information to themselves, which may cause innocent people to lose their lives. <br /><br />Sawers, who delivered his remarks at the Society of Editors in London, said that he was going public now to shed light on what he said was not always a fully informed public debate about MI6's activities. Nevertheless, he used much of his remarks to defend the necessity of keeping's much of the agency's actions outside the public eye. "Secrecy is not a dirty word," he said. "Secrecy is not there as a cover-up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe and secure." <br /><br />"British intelligence chief, in historic appearance, condemns torture", The FP Morning Brief, 28 October 2010.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post-9523888992926713172010-10-27T17:02:44.951-04:002010-10-27T17:02:44.951-04:00My point is not to protect military leaders from c...My point is not to protect military leaders from criticism or their responsibilities as leaders. I mean only to point out the lack of faith in the ROE that results from every single action taken by a soldier being subjected to the scrutiny of a public that hasn't been in their shoes and doesn't know the circumstances they operate in. <br />As for Tillman and the kill team, both were discovered by investigations conducted by the Army. They are not excusable by any means but they would also not have come out simply because the mission debriefs were available to the public.Operation Wrath of Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01677314762852243339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post-33788934958327799162010-10-26T22:19:03.626-04:002010-10-26T22:19:03.626-04:00Hasn't trust in military leaders already been ...Hasn't trust in military leaders already been eroded by instances like the Tillman affair and the "kill team" in which the leaders deliberately covered an embarrassing event, or, in the second case, failed to respond to signs of something terribly wrong going on?<br /><br />Military leaders cannot expect to be free from criticism. A once popular war is no longer so, whether anything could have been done better or not military leaders report to the president who is supposed to be beholden to the public.Seppo Ilmarinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00085269030474342585noreply@blogger.com