On chains of command

The Globe and Mail reports on a new Department of National Defence policy under which information about Afghan detainees is being systematically suppressed from public release. But while the policy is highly dubious on its own, what's even more interesting is what the announcement says about the relative positions of the two people most directly responsible for the decision:

The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.

According to documents made available to The Globe and Mail, the Strategic Joint Staff, a newly created group that advises Gen. Hillier, has been reviewing all Access to Information requests about detainees since March, shortly after the detainee controversy first erupted.

The Strategic Joint Staff has given strict guidance to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, on what documents should be withheld. The result is that the flow of documents about detainees has virtually dried up and the department has summarily rejected requests for the same kind of documents it released earlier.

In recent letters responding to requests filed on behalf of The Globe and Mail, Ms. Jansen has “exempted in its entirety” the disclosure of detainee transfer logs, medical records, witness statements and other processing forms. The department said the information could not be disclosed for national security reasons...

Asked if there was any evidence that soldiers' safety had been compromised because of earlier disclosure of detainee information, DND spokesman Marc Raider responded that “the information cannot be provided for operational security reasons.”

It was on the basis of successful access requests by The Globe and by Professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa that Canadians first learned of allegations that three Afghan detainees were abused while in Canadian custody. Those allegations have led to three separate investigations by the Canadian military and the Military Police Complaints Commission, which have yet to be completed.

On the substantive side, the policy looks like one that's ripe for challenge. As a general rule under Access to Information legislation, a blanket policy of withholding a specific class of documents tends to be seen as an improper failure to consider whether documents are in fact subject to disclosure. And the use of a specially-chosen group of reviewers to produce the desired outcome doesn't seem likely to make such a policy look any more legitimate.

Unfortunately, though, such a challenge may take years to work its way through the Information Commissioner and the courts. But we won't need to wait that long for today's news to speak volumes about a complete breakdown in the appropriate chain of accountability within National Defence.

Under Canada's Access to Information Act, the "head" of each government department is generally responsible for compliance with the appropriate access rules. Of course, those functions can be and are frequently delegated - but ultimately it's the minister who properly holds responsibility for his department's decisions. And presumably the minister would be responsible both to approve any blanket policies...and to defend those policies publicly.

So who's the minister responsible for National Defence? Not surprisingly, that would be the perpetually-embattled Gordon O'Connor, who happens to have demonstrated his utter incompetence most clearly in his attempts to respond to the previously-disclosed documents about detainees.

Now, it's not at all surprising that O'Connor himself apparently isn't defending, or even addressing, his department's new policy - both because the perception that he's merely covering up his own tracks would be inescapable, and because there's always the danger that he'll blurt out that the Red Cross is fully responsible to make sure that National Defence complies with the Access to Information Act.

But with O'Connor so plainly shirking both his ministerial responsibility to make sure that his department properly reviews documents for disclosure and allowing his his delegate Hillier to take the public fire for that fact, today's article ultimately offers one more strong piece of evidence that O'Connor simply isn't doing his job. And that in turn provides yet another reason why O'Connor shouldn't be allowed to remain responsible for anything.

Update: Jeff has more to much the same effect, while several other posts have also covered the suppression of information.