intelligence analysis, overcoming bias and learning

[marct]

Hi Rex,

We have some absolutely top-notch analysts—and, obviously, some less so. HOWEVER, one disadvantage of having a very small community is... that we have a very small community. Consequently, there is less opportunity for exchanging ideas/debating/challenging assumptions/etc. Virtually all of the folks that work on the Middle East, for example, could comfortably fit into the Sparks Street Tim Hortons for a double-double.

Unfortunate, but true.

There are ways of offsetting that, of course--for example, by bringing folks into discussions who aren't in the IC, but rather in the aid, diplomatic, or even (heaven forbid) the academic and NGO communities. Some agencies and managers do it. Some don't.

Also works in reverse - one of my colleagues is ex-MI. Still, stovepiping is a major problem all around. On that note, are you coming to Ottawa for CASIS this year? It's looking like I will be there and I am expecting some lively discussions (in the bars and Timmy's, not the panels!) on recent CSIS "revelations".

Cheers,

Marc

[Rex Brynen]

On that note, are you coming to Ottawa for CASIS this year?

I will if I can, but I may have to be somewhere more Middle Eastern those particular days.

I am expecting some lively discussions (in the bars and Timmy's, not the panels!) on recent CSIS "revelations".

On the current issues with CSIS, the courts, and security certificates, I think this is proof that the 2008 changes introduced to the security certificate system (at the insistence of the Supreme Court) have been useful.

Under the old system, the government presented two cases: a public unclassified one, and a private classified one wherein only the judge (and not the defence lawyers) heard the supposed evidence. Under the new system (like that in the UK), special advocate working for the defence team with appropriate clearances has the opportunity to review and challenge the classified part of the evidence presented.

The need for the system was evident to me some years ago, when I was an expert witness in the public part of a trial under the old system. The government's unclassified presentation was full of errors: at one point they confused an elderly history professor with the head of Fateh's Force 17 executive protection/special activities group; another time, they presented varying transliterations of the same Arabic name (by visa clerks) as evidence of using aliases; and so forth. It made me wonder what weaknesses were in the secret version of the evidence, and how on earth the judge could possibly know what was accurate in the absence of a counsel for the defence being present to challenge and raise questions.