Canadian military wants to be ‘main player’ in global intelligence, document shows

Canadian military wants to be ‘main player’ in global intelligence, document shows:

In a written statement, Sullivan said CJOC Intelligence can contribute to domestic operations when a formal request is made through the Department of National Defence.

CJOC was involved in the security operations during the G8 and G20 meeting of world leaders in Huntsville and Toronto in 2010, during the Vancouver Olympics, as well as natural disaster assistance, Sullivan said.

Christopher Parsons, an intelligence and security researcher with Citizen Lab in Toronto, said the planned structure seemed similar to the integrated intelligence operations in Afghanistan. Under the plan, CJOC could function as a “clearing house” for defence intelligence, Parsons said.

“(The plan looked) to be building the infrastructure so it can be used in peace time and in active combat environments, and everything in between,” Parsons said in an interview.



U.S. Cyber Command investment ensures hackers targeting America face retribution

U.S. Cyber Command investment ensures hackers targeting America face retribution :

Later that summer, Marine Lt. Gen. Richard P. Mills bluntly told a conference in Baltimore that commanders under his control in Afghanistan routinely used cyberwarfare tactics to attack and disable al Qaeda and Taliban enemies.

“I can tell you that as a commander in Afghanistan in the year 2010, I was able to use my cyberoperations against my adversary with great impact,” Gen. Mills was quoted at the time as saying. “I was able to get inside his nets, infect his command and control, and in fact defend myself against his almost constant incursions to get inside my wire, to affect my operations.

While the military is developing the capability, the political and policy realm is struggling with the right parlance.

If that’s the language that US generals are using to explain what ‘cyber’ is then I think that the executive-class is clueless about the things that their ‘cyberwarriors’ are up to. And if they’re this clueless then how can they be relied on (or quoted in anything other than a mocking way?) to provide expert advice to policy makers, politicians, or the public?


More than half Canada’s Navy vessels are either being repaired, modernized or otherwise at reduced readiness

This is an embarrassment given that Canada is (in theory) a naval nation. We have no serious land-borders to defend and are largely unable to project any significant force abroad via our navies. Such force projection needn’t be in the service of aggressive or ‘peacekeeping’ missions: simply being able to guard major shipping lanes is something that Canada is increasingly ill-suited to contribute to. Decades of failed procurement process have led to an embarrassing state of affairs, and one unlikely to improve anytime in the near future.

Source: More than half Canada’s Navy vessels are either being repaired, modernized or otherwise at reduced readiness


Much of the information collected by CIFA [Counterintelligence Field Activity] was amassed in a database called Talon, which stands for Threat and Local Observation Notice. Under a classified order data July 20, 2005, and reported in the Washington Post by military affairs blogger William Arkin, CIFA was allowed to collect information about U.S. citizens in Talon if there was reason to believe those citizens were connected to international terrorist activities, narcotics traffic, and foreign intelligence organizations and were a “threat” to DoD installations and personnel (“In other words,” Arkin commented, “some military gumshoe or over-zealous commander just has to decide [that] someone is a ‘threat to’ the military”). CIFA also obtained information about U.S. persons from the NSA and the DIA. As it turned out, however, many of these threatening people were antiwar activists, and the information about them came from monitoring meetings held in churches, libraries, college campuses, and other locations.

* Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. Pp. 178.

Here’s Why the Government Thinks It Can Kill You Overseas:

Holder left several aspects of his argument unexplained. He did not define the terms “senior operational leader” of al-Qaida, nor what it means to be an “affiliate” of the amorphous group. The attorney general only referred to the drones through the euphemism “stealth or technologically advanced weapons.” Holder did not explain why U.S. forces could not have captured Awlaki instead of killing him, nor what its criteria are for determining on future missions that suspected U.S. citizen terrorists must be killed, rather than captured. Holder did not explain why Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom a missile strike killed two weeks after his father’s death, was a lawful target. Holder did not explain how a missile strike represents due process, or what the standards for due process the government must meet when killing a U.S. citizen abroad. Holder did not explain why the government can only target U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for death overseas and not domestically.

In which the United States government asserts, in all seriousness, that it’s perfectly okay (appropriate, even) for the President to order the killing of an American citizen without any due process of law whatever. The Constitution? Not a barrier anymore, apparently.