Information operations · Information Warfare

Pardon me, your bias is showing

Review of “Brexiting a spy nest“, Author: , published 30 June 2016.

As a retired Intelligence officer, I found this article lacking in substance and depth. As a result, I found it filled with half-truths, innuendos, and false conclusions.

The vast majority of the representatives at the EU are professional politicians, professional representatives authorized to speak on their country’s behalf – they are NOT intelligence agents. That is an insult to intelligence agents – only half joking. Yes, I would say all those politicians speak with intelligence agents after sensitive conversations, to deny that would be disingenuous. Conversations with other diplomats, and that is what they really are, is seldom, if ever, a private conversation. These diplomats also routinely enable intelligence operations, nuff said for now…

In the fifth paragraph, a 2014 article was referenced, basically stating that GCHQ spies using electronic intelligence and malware to gather electronic intelligence. Well, duh, that is what they do, but it’s called Signals Intelligence. Electronic Intelligence is a shoe of a different flavor (pardon my pun). The next paragraph implies that the Five-Eyes “Commonwealth” intelligence sharing agreement between the UK, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand is a bad thing and that the EU is specifically targeted.  I suffered a moment of cognitive dissonance when I realized the naivety of the author and the decades of intelligence sharing agreements and the deep respect this arrangement has produced is deeply misunderstood.

The author also appears to miss the point of former DCI Woolsey’s comments. American intelligence does not share intelligence with American companies unless they are being spied upon, then counterintelligence agents try to stop it the spying on the US corporation. The US also exposes corruption aka bribery.  The author insinuates American companies receive intelligence to benefit their operations, improve designs, or give them an unfair advantage over a foreign corporation is just plain wrong.

My last point, the author states that “America” conducts economic sabotage against foreign corporations. This is an accusation that is odious to the extreme and also just plain wrong.

All in all, a very anti-American article thinly disguised as journalism. Rachel Marsden, I actually had high hopes for this article. Sadly, I’ve just penciled you onto my mental list of non-objective authors.  Now I know who you are against, let’s see for whom you speak out in favor of so I may properly categorize your writing. 

3 thoughts on “Pardon me, your bias is showing

  1. Maybe bias. More likely just woeful ignorance and bad research. “Never attribute to bias that which can to explain by sheer stupidity.”

    1. I’m receiving a data dump as we speak. Apparently, she has pissed off a ton of people, all happy to confess her sins.

      She has no intelligence experience, she dated a Counter-terrorist officer in Canada, he then sued her for harassment when they broke up. She plead guilty.

      It turns out I only scratched the surface. She is now a certified Russian troll who will guarantee threaten to sue me… but she can’t, I’ve already been assured by an attorney.

      She had quite an exposè written on her by the Jester (I can’t do the 3 and 5 spellings), which is quite damning. I have the link in my new blog… which is being reviewed for the data dump.

Comments are closed.