“American generals in the Afghan capital Kabul were reported to be furious about the allegations.”

The Times Feb 4

American generals in capital Kabul are “seething” over the allegations.

The Sun Feb 4

“It has been reported that US military commanders are “seething” over the allegations that McNally may have been leaking classified information on this issue.”

Guardian Feb 5

It’s an outrage – agreed, but what can we do about it?

“whoever briefed the Times, the Sun and the Mail with the false allegation about his ‘friendship’ with Rachel ”

friendship or not. can;t see why this would be anyone’s business. Having said that :

“I would say senior US and UK defence officials are angry about our forensic dissection ..”

is it not that “special relationship” that is behind all the the prickliness.

wonder whether it is time for the UK to channel in that “special relationship” via the EU.

wonder whether it is time for the UK to channel in that “special relationship” via the EU.

correction:

wonder whether it is time for the UK to channel that “special relationship” via the EU.

Parliamentary Questions and an EDM for starters.

If Colonel McNally is charged then his right to a fair trial has already been compromised. If not then his reputation and Rachel’s has been damaged (and their safety put at risk). The EDM can simply condemn the leaking and call for an inquiry.

It is clear that approval for the leak this must have come from fairly high up (since the information must have come from Afghanistan). The journalists are all UK-based and mainly seem to be defence reporters who will have got it from the MoD. They (and their editors) already know the answer who briefed them so they should be compelled to reveal it (assuming they have the same level of moral fibre as Andrew Gilligan).

Also, was there pressure for an arrest from the US military – which is what the reports seem to suggest?

The basic point is that McNally was just doing his job in briefing HRW. Who gave the order to destroy his life and why?

This is very serious – if the MoD is going to start smearing those who raise uncomfortable questions about its operations, and those people are working on the ground in the countries concerned, then it could put their lives at risk or at least destroy their careers.

I have posted a piece on my blog (which will raise awareness by about about two people) and I think we need to keep this story alive.

I’m not sure about the suggestion that the newspapers should be made to reveal their source though – I think it should be down to the MoD themselves to reveal it. I wouldn’t want to compromise the newspapers’ ability to keep their sources secret when they have a legitimate story from an unnamed source.

Sounds like a Hollywood movie; queue Don Fontaine:

In a land ruled by the gun and the word of God…he was a man of war with a troubled conscience, she was the passionate young human rights activist…together, their love will change the destiny of a people….

I’ve already written too much to my MP this month, might as well write some more.

Fellow Traveller: yeah, well MoD types think in cliches.

But think about this from any direction and you will see why it stinks so much.

1. Your scenario is true (ie they were having an affair and he passed on info). Well then that is an issue for the trial where the evidence can be tested in court. This point would be so central to the case and whoever leaked it now prejudices his right to a fair trial so massively that I can’t see how the case could proceed. If there was any evidence that he had done what was alleged then ensuring that he can be brought to trial is critical – so he can either clear his name or be punished.

2. What Rachel says is true (they met twice professionally and she interviewed him on the record in her official capacity). Then this is just a disgusting smear.

Either way the MoD have completely destroyed the life and career of a professional soldier who has devoted his entire life to serving his country – and presumably risked his life for it several times as well.

Why?

Maybe there is credible evidence that he did leak information or pass on documents (in which case, see one above).

Alternatively, maybe he inadvertantly breached the Official Secrets Act in the briefing that he gave. The problem with the OSA is that it is so vague and sweeping that it covers everything from issues of genuine national security to security issues that might embarass the government of the day. In this case perhaps the information that he gave embarassed the US military and they asked for action to be taken.

He currently has not been charged with an offence (which is why reporting restrictions do not apply) and is merely being ‘held on suspicion’ and ‘questioned’. If the MoD wanted to be seen to be doing something – to placate the Americans – but don’t really intend to bring charges then putting out a fake story of this type makes a lot of sense because the alternative would focus attention on the content of the briefing (ie what did he say that so embarassed the US military).

Conor

I agree with you. I only caught up with this from Rachel Reid’s piece on the frontpage of yesterday’s Guardian, and she gave a Newsnight interview in which she was impressive (and a good deal more measured than I or many others might have been in similar circumstances).

There is a letter in today’s Guardian from the MoD director-general of media and communications which categorically denies the MoD had any role in giving her name to the media. It may be slightly less catergorical ‘we are not in the business of dragging anyone’s reputation through the mud’ as to whether MoD briefing had any role in the innuendo and smear, but is intended to be read as a denial of that too.

But this would leave some mystery about how the Sun, Mail and Times could all have quickly dug up this investigative scoop.

Sunder,

Right, which only the newspapers know – so they need to be leaned on.

I get Andrew Adams point above, but it is only by leaning on them that the source can be identified. I don’t believe that all those newspapers could have come up with that story independently. The journalists were all UK-based Defence correspondents who have regular contact with the MoD (Audrey Gillan was embedded in Iraq and is always writing fluff/promo pieces for them). I would read the MoD denial in the same spirit as I would read the last sentence.

“That is why ISAF forces go to such extraordinary lengths to do just that in Afghanistan, even if, at times, it means exposing themselves to greater risk.” Errr right.

Where I agree with it is when Nick Gurr writes “Our sole focus in Afghanistan is explaining why our brave service men and women are there: because our national security interests demand that we stop the country once again becoming a haven for terrorists.”

That is what they should be doing – and not destroying the reputation of one of those brave servicemen. This story has caused absolute outrage in Afghanistan. Anything the Fabians can do to kick up a stink about it would be much appreciated. People who are asked by the government to put their lives on the line deserve better treatment than this.

I do think that the newspapers, particularly the Guardian which printed the MoD’s denial (maybe the others did as well) should just come out and say where they got Rachel Reid’s name from.

On that I think I agree with Andrew: we get into the area of media protection of sources. I suspect its a dead end. But there needs to be more clarity about what the MoD did or did not brief

I suspect the issue is pushing Ministers, or Parliamentarians (though perhaps the defence select committee could try to quiz the journalists concerned too)

Have posted about it here
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/02/secrets-and-slurs.html

There is a new “revelation” in todays MoS. Apparently Col. McNally also gave information about civilian casualties to someone at the UN, although the report also makes it clear that this was actually part of his job, so I’m not sure exactly what the point of the story is. Oh, actually I do – it mentions he was also “friendly” with the UN worker, so it looks like another attempt to smear him for an inappropriate relationship.

Hmmm I think I can guess who the UN worker in question is.

Oh God almighty, they mean Norah Niland. She probably sits in a meeting with him at least once a week. That is their job FFS. Anyone of us could be arrested on that basis. As the article says:

‘The front door of the UN and the backdoor military compounds in Kabul are opposite each other and we all knew Seamus well. He gave us regular formal briefings on civilian casualty figures – that was his job.’

Another senior Kabul source questioned what Lt Col McNally had done wrong if he had revealed casualty details. The source said: ‘Are the British military saying that there are two sets of figures – one sanitised for the “hearts and minds” campaign and another more damning set of statistics showing that we are responsible for killing thousands of innocent people? Is McNally being investigated for revealing the truth?’

Indeed.