Reading List

This is simple and short reading list on Spies and Surveillance

Any and All James Bamford (Puzzle Palace, The Shadow Factory, Body of Secrets)

Stasi by John Koehler

Spies for Hire by Tim Shorrock

Fair Play by James M. Olson


The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones

Information Technologies and Global Politics edited by James Rosenau and J.P. Singh

Secret Service: Political Policing in Canada by Whitaker, Kealey, and Parnaby

The Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy by Eamon Javers


Inside Canadian Intelligence by Dwight Hamilton (1st edition if possible)

Spy Book: Encyclopedia of Espionage by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen


Of course there are a ton of spy/ surveillance books available, but since spying is the business of lying, it's almost impossible to know if the material is credible. I found the above selection intriguing, and mostly free of hyperbole, but who knows...

Cheers,

We are at War. We need to act like it.

In early October, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion in the House of Commons approving ‘combat operations’ in Iraq, by a vote of 157-134. We voted to go to war.

ISIS is not a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda. They are insurrectionists, trying to create their own country. Factually, we agreed to join one side of a civil war. We were invited by one side of the conflict, the side of the Iraqi government. We declared war on ISIS.

Most Canadians noticed no change in their daily lives.

Then our soldiers were attacked, not abroad but here at home.

I really wish the nation reacted to every death of a service member as we did to the death of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, but it was the symbolism that gouged the Canadian psyche. An unarmed soldier, standing guard over a cenotaph, was ambushed and killed. 

Most are calling this terrorism. It wasn’t. It was treachery. There are traitors among us.

Let me be clear: I consider the cowardly acts of these traitors reprehensible. They attacked unarmed and unsuspecting soldiers.

But they did attack soldiers.

One of them also made an attempt to attack our leaders, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. ISIS (shockingly) is not a signatory of these conventions of war, and have shown a propensity to ignore them. However, these traitors did not attack civilians, and that is significant. Terrorism (in the past) specifically targeted non-combatants, and our soldiers are combatants. The legal definition of terrorism does not make this distinction, but if we were at war with a recognised state actor, would we consider each soldier killed an act of terrorism against Canada?

Lest we forget

Iraq’s civil war is a mess. There is no easy solution, and whether you agree or disagree with our deployment is irrelevant. We are at war. 

The expectation that this would have no impact on our homeland is hubris. Our security services were diligent in preventing attacks that stemmed from our involvement in Afghanistan, but no organisation or person is perfect. In some cases, you’d need a psychic to prevent an attack.

We seem reluctant to admit that our foreign military deployments are not ‘cost free exercises’. We sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters, in hopes of a better world. Sometimes we forget that we've sent them to hostile territories.

The recent traitorous attacks were cold water poured over a sleeping nation. We are at war, and our geographic isolation from the conflict has made us complacent.

The Response

Orwell traveled to Spain during its civil war, joining the conflict against the Nationalist Franco. Britain publicly declared neutrality at the time, but privately preferred a Franco victory. The Spanish civil war attracted many foreign fighters, much like the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today. If Britain had publicly sided with Franco, Orwell would have rightly been designated a traitor to his country.

Canada has chosen a side in Iraq’s civil war, and we have sent our troops to fight. Canadian citizens who join ISIS are traitors, and need to be treated as such. Working for the enemy is treachery, unless they renounce their citizenship and leave the country – for good.

In this vein, Canada requires a temporary War Measures act. This would be a harsh and almost unpalatable piece of legislation, but would include sunset clauses.

That is not what we are getting. Our security services are getting new permanent powers.

Unless we have entered into a perpetual and permanent state of war, our security services should not receive new permanent powers, but rather temporary powers. If our politicians believe that this conflict will be long term or permanent, we deserve to hear them say it.

We cannot pretend that these attacks were senseless crimes.

We declared war.

War has repercussions.

It’s time for Canadians to acknowledge this conflict, not as an ‘anti-terrorism operation’, but as a war.

It’s time for a temporary War Measures Act, allowing the detention of suspected traitors until the conflict is resolved. The legislation would also include War bonds and temporary pricing controls to mitigate the costs of the conflict. Not because we require them, but to remind us that this is a collective war, not Harpers war. Our parliament is elected to speak for its citizens, and we collectively declared war.

We cannot pretend that a declaration of war is an academic exercise. We are killing people. They will try to kill us.

Canada is at war. Let’s act like it.

Bob Rae's meditation

The Liberal party executive will release its leadership rules today, and over the summer BBQ circuit we’ll see any number of candidates throw their hat into the ring.

However Bob Rae, the current interim leader, is the first candidate on everyone’s mind. Bob is accomplished, astute, and a wily political veteran; but if he enters the leadership fight, it’s as the Harbinger of Death for the party.

The Honourable Mr. Rae does not deserve this fate, but reality is a harsh mistress.

The Canadian public has repeatedly heard how Rae made a promise to not run for the leadership. Hence, by simply entering the contest, he will build cynicism in the public mind (i.e. politicians never keep their word).

Even worse, a finish in the top 3 of the final vote would send a signal to Canadian’s that the Liberals are still mired in gamesmanship, bickering for power, not results. The public view stagnates, and then concludes that ‘liberals haven’t changed’.

I can’t imagine the attack ads if he wins. It would be a vicious, uphill battle for the party. With Rae as leader, small c conservatives will never vote for the party, the voters the party needs to gain power. A merger is almost inevitable.

Another scenario would see him retain his current position, as interim leader. This approach has several strategic advantages.

A power broker declining power for the next generation of Liberals is a show of humility and internal change. Modesty is rare in politics, and is humbling for the public. It’s also a timely contrast to the other party leaders. The perception of internal change is what the party needs to portray.

Unlike the NDP, whose interim leader was somewhat ridiculed, Rae would provide a powerful presence in the house, demonstrating the depth of the Liberal caucus.

Even after the new leader is chosen, Rae would continue to be an invaluable asset in the party. There is nothing stopping him from remaining a force within caucus, even after the next election.

But the last benefit eclipses all of the above.

Money.

Rae can raise funds for the party, instead of a leadership campaign. Political money is not free flowing in Canada. Too many candidates will dilute Liberal fundraising efforts, and there’s no question that Rae would take a significant portion of available funds. Cash should be the crucial factor when analyzing his participation.

Bob Rae has had circumstance conspire against him, and now he must choose between his party and himself. He can take one for the team, or he could be the harbinger of a two party country, a descent into American hyperbolic politics.

Rae can be a placeholder who passed on a torch, or the end of a diverse political discourse.

I don't envy his decision.

The Liberals have work to do

I wrote a blog a few weeks ago about a direction for the Liberal party in Canadian politics. I argued that they should attempt to take the centre, since two ideological parties already occupy the left and right portions of the present political framework.

However, I may have failed to articulate the difficulty of this staggering task.

The current "frame" of political dialogue was brought about by Stephen Harper's polarizing, wedge style rhetoric. This tactic, while damaging to an honest debate, is extremely effective.

Mr Rae recently stated “His {Harper's} is still a politics that polarizes, that divides, and that excludes... Pride like this will only be followed by a fall.” While I agree with this comment, it should be noted that that fall will move to the left, not centre.

Once the discussion is split into "blacks or whites", the grey's are effectively muted, as their messages are more complex, and contain components of both black and white. This will make enemies on both sides, and friends with neither.

To break the wedge, you must engage this divisive style with bluntness, and preferably some ridicule. Any intellectual appeal to reason or facts will result in the loss of the audience.

Even journalists fall prey, as was demonstrated by Power & Politics host Rosemarie Barton, who prodded Bob Rae, insisting the Liberals had no position regarding the postal lockout issue. This query, by an experienced reporter, demonstrates the difficulty of maintaining the centre position in a polarized political atmosphere.

Liberal leader Bob Rae was required to restate the Liberal position, but it lacked brevity. In polarized politics, issues are presented as "black or white", "left or right", etc. and it is the succinctness of the message that is powerful.

A well articulated, but nuanced policy cannot sway the masses. Many people wish that this worked, but in the modern "on demand" culture, it never will.

During the postal lockout, the 'centre' position should have been something like:

"Fire the management (CEO), and pass back to work legislation."

The message is short and clear. It also satisfies or disarms both the union and corporation, which are the vested interests in the debate.

It is irrelevant as to whether this is a perfect policy, it is one of the few political messages that could be used in that situation - because it breaks the wedge. You've attacked both sides and resolved the situation. The other parties would be forced to agree with half of your policy, and defend why they wouldn't support the other half. But this only works if the message is brief and aimed equally at both sides.

This is the unfortunate reality of modern politics. Whoever descends into an explanation of a policy is roasted on a spit. Conservatives understand this, and deny that controversial decisions require explanations. They simply say "We feel this is the right decision for Canada". By not explaining, they are providing no fodder to be throw back. Despicable yes, but it has proven results.

I'm not arguing that the Liberals emulate Conservative shenanigans, but rather abuse them at their own game. The Liberals must put forward ideas that attack the very wedge that the Conservatives use to their advantage, driving them into deep explanations of their decisions. Each and every failure to blunt the impact of polarization plays directly into NDP and Conservative laps.

A good place to start is with an analysis of the Conservative bread and butter: Fear and derision of ambiguity. Minimize, or remove these two strengths, and their communications fall flat. But don't forget the NDP at your back either.

Going forward, the Liberals must choose policies that attack both sides, or issues which neither side has raised previously (and then promote it quickly to keep ownership). The Conservatives and NDP have the luxury of lumping the Liberals with their enemy (already practiced by the CPC).

The Liberals are still underestimating the significance of the last election - the worst popular vote and seat count in the parties entire history.

If the party fails to break the frame, or is unwilling to do what it takes, then they might as well just merge with the NDP now, relegating Canada to a two party system.

Maybe the Liberals could use a grassroots organisational primer, in which case I recommend reviewing my blog "Rules for Radicals" and the 13 tactics underdogs can employ in their struggles. But now I'm just self-promoting.

Cheers!

Canada is going to War!

Canada's Conservative Government has now put forward all the signals of an aggressive interventionist foreign policy, or colloquially, they are military hawks. Libya is not the war I'm worried about either (and no, there are no blue helmets in Libya).

Defence Minister MacKay recently announced that Canada is setting up foreign military bases or agreements to facilitate our participation in 'International Missions'. Mackay's rhetoric, blithely repeated in national reporting (not journalism), does a disservice to the public by hiding the implications for our future.

I believe the below commentary, from David Bercuson (director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, director of programs at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, and Board member of the Royal Military College), sums it up best. (source)

“We can send troops, ships, aircraft to pretty much any part of the world in a pretty short time, even though we’re a pretty small military,” Mr. Bercuson said. With the bases, rather than being “open to anything,” the Canadian military would effectively be predicting parts of the world in which it will need to have a military presence. “We’re announcing that we have an interest in a particular region and that we may deploy military forces to that region in the future,” he said.

His last sentence is the most revealing. Not only is Canada well known for our speed of deployment, but the positioning of two bases in Africa is significant. We've announced an interest in the region.

Taken alone, one could see this as humanitarian prognostication.

However, the Conservatives, or more specifically Harper, have taken an interest in directing intelligence activities, starting in 2007 and culminating with the new Cabinet Committee on National Security.

Again, the Prime Minister directing intelligence activities is normal. But in recent years there have been calls for a foreign intelligence service. In fact, in 2010 the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) recommended the creation of a foreign spy service because of "greater demands for intelligence across government".

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is a 'security intelligence' service that can operate anywhere in the world to protect the security of our nation. A foreign intelligence service is different, in that it's an offensive force.

SIRC even states in its 2009/10 report "Fourth, there are no CSIS guidelines to help with the design and implementation of disruption operations, or to prepare for the potential consequences of such investigative activity" {I added the underline}. In CIA jargon, that's 'blowback' from sticking a finger in someone's eye.

I could drone on about foreign intelligence services like the CIA, but the car bombing of Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C., perpetrated by a former CIA employee and orchestrated by Manuel Contreras (a paid CIA asset, even after the assassination) speaks for itself.

Or maybe the 2003 CIA information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is a better example.

Whatever the reason when we declare war, in the next 2-6 years, please don't forget that we saw it coming. I even doubt that a non-CPC government could stop the freight train that will be going downhill, with no brakes, by the time of the next election.

By this point, my 'peacekeeper' bias is probably seeping through your screen, so I'll end with the reason for the blog.

Where is the discussion of Canada's changing role in the world?

It's a sad day for the country that fathered peacekeeping, when this topic receives nothing more than an occasional op-ed, blog, or inaccessible academic debate at the Munk School.

Oh wait, the Peace activists on rabble.ca posted a blog, about vigilance.

I've read enough history to know that Hawks rarely go hungry.

Good Night, and Good Luck.