The Muslim Brotherhood report has over 500 footnotes to allow readers to track
down the original material used in the assessment. The author has testified in the Federal Court of Canada as to the reliability of intelligence as evidence.
The sources are reliable and come mainly from:
1. Court documents
2. Primary source documents
3. Main stream media, but only those reports with named
sources/events
4. Limited Social media – but first order only, no secondary or
tertiary and no reliance on unprovable statements
5. “IkhwanWeb” – This is the official English language website
of the Muslim Brotherhood
At no point in this report was there any single data point
extrapolation analysis used for issues of policy, strategy and goals. The analysis on these issues uses a variety
of primary sources which are well documented over time (1930s to 2014) and
geographic space (Egypt, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, USA etc).
A number of
different methodologies exist to assist for testing test source reliability and
information credibility. Among the
methods are the A/F-1/6 method (The Admiralty System), the Brei Method and the
Schum method.
What often gets overlooked is that process in determining
whether or not to use information should occur in two parts. All too often, it will be noted that the
source is “reliable.” But it needs to be
determined if the information is credible as well. The source may be reliable, or at least
trying to be honest and forthright, but this does not mean the information is
credible.
Therefore, a two part test needs to be in the back of
your mind at all times. One approach to
this, formerly known as the Admiralty system is as follows:
SOURCE
RELIABILITY
Source Rating Scale
|
Source Reliability Rating
|
History of Reliability
|
Source Authenticity / Bona
Fides
|
Source Objectivity
|
Source Access to Info
|
Source NOT Vulnerable to
Manipulation
|
Meets # of Criteria
|
A
|
Reliable
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
All 5
|
B
|
Usually reliable
|
Yes
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
History, plus 3
|
C
|
Fairly reliable
|
Yes
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
History, plus 2
|
D
|
Not usually
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
2 of 5
|
E
|
Unreliable
|
No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
Yes or No
|
NA
|
F
|
Cannot be judged
|
No basis exists for evaluating
the reliability of the source
|
INFORMATION CREDIBILITY
|
|||||||
Information
Rating Scale
|
Information
Accuracy Rating
|
In-dependant
Verifiable Means
|
Source
Subject Competency
|
Logical
|
Practical
and Plausible
|
Consistent
|
Meets #
of Criteria
|
1
|
Confirmed
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
All 5
|
2
|
Probably
True
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
4
|
3
|
Possibly
True
|
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
3
|
4
|
Doubtfully
True
|
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
2
|
5
|
Improbable
|
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
Yes or
No
|
No
|
0 or 1
|
6
|
Cannot
be judged
|
No
basis exists for evaluating the validity of the information
|
No comments:
Post a Comment