More on Hillier and ATI

DND has put out a press release on the whole issue of ATI requests, which has a couple of interesting aspects.

First, take a look at some of what has been requested, and the sheer volume of the requests:

DND has received hundreds of requests for operational information, including requests for all operational plans, planning documents, tactical techniques and procedures, and lessons learned. As a result of this unprecedented demand for sensitive information, the Strategic Joint Staff was given responsibility to review recommended severances in accordance with the standard Access to Information (ATI) process. This review allows for operational oversight that ensures consistency in the release of information; it does not constitute a change to the standard ATI process in DND. This is being done for one reason and one reason alone: to ensure there is no inadvertent release of information that could assist the enemy and put Canadian, allied or Afghan lives at greater risk. [my emphasis]

So when Amir Attaran spouts garbage like this, it needs to be rebutted:

"The rights of Canadians to access information should be decided by civil servants applying the law," said Attaran. "It's inappropriate for a general and his staff to begin deciding what Canadians may see. That is a foot on the slippery slope of military officers running Canada."

Let's be perfectly clear about this: when it comes to the safety and security of troops in the field, it's entirely appropriate for a general and his staff to decide what Canadians see. If you're the corporal leading a four-man stack in to clear a mud-walled compound in a back corner of Panjwayi, do you really want some Ottawa bureaucrat deciding what constitutes OPSEC violations in an ATI request about your tactics? Is an ATI-trained civil servant qualified to determine what information would be of use to an insurgent enemy force looking to kill Canadian soldiers?

Second, I think it's instructive to look at who authorized the press release: Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence - or more pointedly, not the CDS. Could it be that the DM wanted everyone to know that Hillier doesn't run every little aspect of DND, including the ATI function? Could it be that Hillier isn't in fact pulling each and every string that runs the department? Could it be that the personal accusations leveled at General Hillier were wildly off-base, that his larger-than-life public profile and unapologetically martial demeanour make him a lightning rod for those with an anti-military bias?

Ya think?

I'm not sure that DND is finding the right balance between public access and security concerns. I'm not certain each little piece of information trimmed from a particular redacted document is critical to OPSEC, or that those doing the editing aren't erring on the side of caution in order to protect their own backsides - remember, nobody gets fired in government service for being too cautious. There may be some valid concerns here, especially when it comes to something like raw numbers of detainees taken or transferred, information that other countries publish freely.

But surely we can have that debate without mudslingers like Amir Attaran and the faceless staff writers, editors, and producers who gleefully publish his smears trying to tear down the best CDS the Canadian Forces has been blessed with in my lifetime.

Update: Egad. Someone needs to inform the Edmonton Journal that the CDS isn't in fact Emperor of National Defence; in a five hundred word editorial, he's mentioned by name seven times and connected to every perceived misdeed on the ATI story imaginable. Interestingly, the Journal's editorial writers have used language that gets way ahead of the evidence on two crucial points: that DND's ATI interpretations are overly restrictive, and that Rick Hillier is personally responsible for those interpretations.

Ward Elcock must be wondering what it takes to get some respect from the press these days.