Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Afstan: CSIS assisting the CF

A letter by the service's director:
CSIS and sidearms

A select few Canadian Security Intelligence Service employees abroad are authorized by the CSIS director to carry a firearm in dangerous operational environments such as Afghanistan (Undercover CSIS Agents Carry Guns in Foreign Flashpoints – May 26). CSIS personnel who are required to carry sidearms receive intensive training on the safe carriage and handling of a sidearm. They must also obtain a firearms certification prior to receiving the authority to carry a sidearm.

The fact that Canadian diplomats abroad are unarmed is not a model for CSIS officers. CSIS personnel in Afghanistan are often required to meet individuals – some of whom would be described as unfriendly at best – in very dangerous situations while carrying out their work in collecting security intelligence [more here] on threats to the Canadian Forces [emphasis added] and to Canada. They are not in Afghanistan to do administrative work. To send CSIS personnel into harm’s way in Afghanistan without adequate protection would be completely irresponsible.

The article leaves the impression that the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) was not aware of the CSIS policy on sidearms. SIRC was, in fact, fully briefed on all aspects of this issue and provided with the CSIS policy some time ago.

CSIS firearms policies respect Canada’s Criminal Code, Firearms Act, National Defence Act, Public Agents Firearms Regulations and the Ministerial Direction for CSIS Operations.

Richard B. Fadden, director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)

Earlier:
Canadian special forces ops in Afstan (and CSIS) [Torch]

Wrong-tree barking watch [Flit]

1 Comments:

Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

My immediate reaction is: Hell, yes, they need to be armed! That ought to be very self-evident even to lefty politicians and lefty journalists with a lukewarm IQ.

And can we imagine the outcry if -God forbid!- an unarmed CSIS person were shot to death in a situation where, if he'd been well-armed, it probably wouldn't have happened?!

For myself, even if I were just a private employee of one of the contractors in Af-stan, I'd insist on being allowed to be well-armed, or I wouldn't go there. Sensible people don't go looking for trouble but sometimes trouble comes looking for us, eh? (Of course, I'm assuming firearms training -military or civilian- as a given in this scenario.)

2:50 p.m., June 02, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home