Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I would like to request answers to the following questions under Freedom of Information Act 2000:

Can you tell me the separate figures you have for total spending on Information Operations in the UK, and laterally, Information Operations abroad for the years 2000-2001, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 (4 figures for UK, 4 for non-UK)?

If you do not have any of these figures, could you provide estimates with rough guidance on how they were worked out?

Also, could you tell me what proportion of each of these figures was spent on defense electronics for the purposes of electronic warfare within these operations?

Could you detail who funded or supplied the appropriate defence electronics where the cost of the electronics was not borne within the cost of the afore mentioned Information Operations?

Yours faithfully,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Ministry of Defence,

By law, you should have replied to my request by 4th September. Please could you explain why this deadline has not been met; and fulfill the request as soon as possible? Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Donnie Mackenzie

Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

PSA final response to one of your three FOI requests.

 

We apologise for the delay in responding to your requests.

 

The other 2 requests are currently being assessed, with a view to
providing final responses by 30^th September.

 

 Regards

 

Security Policy & Operations, Main Building, Ministry of Defence,
Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB.

 

 

 

Dear Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2),

Thank you for your response. I would like to begin by mentioning that this is one of four requests I have made to MOD around the same period. Unless one has been otherwise redirected without my knowledge, I assume you will be handling all of these and not just the three mentioned.

I would like you to find out as much as you can within the legal limit; so I would ask that you refine the questions to Operations within the UK only.

If this alone is not sufficient, then I would ask that you answer all of the questions for the most recent financial year firstly, and then work back as much as is allowable within your specified constraints.

Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie

 

We apologise for the continuing delay in responding to your requests.
Given that you have submitted four further requests to our organisation
relating specifically to Information Operations. We have amalgamated the
requests together, with a view to providing one consolidated response

 

We hope to be in touch with you soon, with our final response.

 

 Regards

 

Simon Skerritt

Security Policy & Operations, Main Building, Ministry of Defence,
Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB.

Email: [1][email address]

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]%20

Dear Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2),

Thanks for that Simon. I should inform you that in the absence of you meeting your own deadline and consideration given to the fact that my original requests were sent near the beginning of August, that I have already forwarded a complaint to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

PSA response to your Freedom of Information request. We apologise for the
delay in responding to you.

 

 Regards

 

Simon Skerritt

Deputy Business Manager, Defence Strategy and Priorities (DSP), 4-F-02,
Security Policy & Operations, Main Building, Ministry of Defence,
Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB. Email: [1][email address]

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]%20

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Sec Pol Ops-DU BM2 (Skerritt, Simon C2),

Thank you for your response dated 18-2-13. In it you set out that you believed the information was exempt based on section 23(5) and 24(2) of the Freedom of Information act.

Due to the limitations of this website I have had to upload most of this response to the following link. By providing most of the information there it is much more easily readable:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/128286396

SEC 24(2)

In the approach set out by the House of Lords on national security in relation to Sec. Of State for Home Department V Rehman (Lord Slynn at para 16), it was outlined that:

“To require the matters in question to be capable of resulting 'directly' in a threat to national security limits too tightly the discretion of the executive in deciding how the interests of the state, including not merely military defence but democracy, the legal and constitutional systems of the state need to be protected”

As covered in the document above, domestic Info-Ops are not only an affront to democracy, but are illegitimate, illegal and are thus breaching national security based on the precedent set out.

The use of section 24 to claim exemption is dependent on the requirement that there would be harm to national security if the information was released. But, as stated, the truth is to the contrary. Information Operations are a direct, continuous and extreme violation of national security. For the information to be withheld would serve to further violate national security. And I would urge caution when considering any demonstration from those involved in Info Ops Targeting that they are defending national security; since, as mentioned, 'Deception' is a key component of Information Operations.

The information I have requested is of limited specificity which would aid the public in understanding the scale to which Common Law, European Convention, HRA and the Geneva Convention are being breached by Information Operations in the UK.

SEC 23(5)

The information pertains to basic MOD statistics of autonomous self appointed MOD activity in domestic military operations, not any details relevant to parties who may or may not aid such activity and come under section 23 of FOI legislation. The public should know the significant amount of money being spent on such operations since it is they who have funded them and they have had no say in their activities.

Section 23 was not intended to be misappropriated for exempting the extra-judicial targeting of members of the public by the military. As mentioned MOD Info Ops have their own self set agenda and target lists. Legitimate operations led by parties such as those listed in Section 23 would not be Targeted Information Operations.

There is a most extreme public interest in the information I have requested being released and I am dissatisfied with the response given. As such I would like to request an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Please see attached.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

 

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org