Just Me
Okay. Sorry, but no sale. If the leak is a Brit and his/her outlet is American. You're totally fixated on this "leak" junk. There are ALWAYS leaks in EVERY government. And it isn't as easy as you think to catch one. There is no classified material here. There IS a public event, viewable by any and all.Originally Posted by Kathianne
Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated is NOT a violation of the law. Nor is it a crime.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Thatcherite Minion
On your first point ... yes. Mrs May is clear that we, on our side, acted properly. The timeline seems clear enough ... our police shared information to your intelligence people, they - somehow - in turn managed to leak it to your press. It was at this point, after we became aware of the release of material in a US newspaper, that our media became involved, picking up on the AMERICAN leak.
From this link, already posted (which I think has been updated since the last time I quoted from it) ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40048565
... we see ....
I'm wondering what there is for Trump to order to be investigated, unless the fault lies with the US ? Doesn't it follow that he's admitted culpability on the American side, to say this and to commit to such an action ?Leaks to American media about the investigation into the Manchester Arena attack are "deeply troubling", US President Donald Trump has said.
They were a "grave threat to our national security", he added, and pledged to get to the bottom of them.
US media published photos of evidence from the scene of Monday night's blast.
Earlier, UK police said they had stopped sharing information with the US as a consequence but those ties have now been resumed.
The decision to end the suspension was taken after assurances were received by counter-terrorism officers in the UK.
You say that Mrs May committed herself to just an assumption. How do you conclude that this was all it was ? What's your basis for saying that her charge was itself baseless ?
Last edited by Drummond; 05-25-2017 at 04:59 PM.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Just Me
For the same reason your PM shouldn't be so quick to judge, blame us, and not look at YOUR end too. I would think finding the leak, if in fact there is a leak, would be more important than finger pointing.
I'm just remembering there is a difference between legal and ethics. Do I consider it unethical? You betcha. Does that make it illegal? Not necessarily. As a matter of course, I would investigate the legality. I would also reconsider who I release what info to.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Thatcherite Minion
The UK has no right to expect an ally to treat intelligence material we share with proper consideration for its nature ? If that's so ... you're saying we're wrong to place trust in your own people.
Well, we could do that, I suppose, and act accordingly. Our GCHQ has shared intelligence material it's gathered with your people, for decades ... that goes back to the Soviet era. We're world leaders, in the UK, when it comes to communications interception capability and its analysis. Perhaps we should reconsider that long-standing arrangement.
This isn't just an issue of 'Ms Whats-er-name's sensibilities being violated'. It's way more serious. With a police force trying to control the knowledge of what material it has as evidence of a heinous crime committed, it could compromise that investigation for someone to disseminate detailed information about it outside the control of the investigating officers.
I grant you that PERHAPS our police should never have entrusted that information to American authorities in the first place. Perhaps we are too trusting. Then again .. what if there's something in the methodology used in the attack that bears a similarity to something being investigated, or known about, in the US ? THEN, you'd need to have us share what we know.
But maybe we should be less trusting. Maybe so. I think that would be an enormous shame. But at the end of the day, we have to put our own security concerns first and foremost. Mrs 'Whats-er-name' has every conceivable right to take such a position .. if she finds she must.
Kathianne thanked this post
Just Me
Not what I said at all. First, security is a separate issue from the the media.
Second, for the 4th or 5th time, where's the evidence that precedes the accusation? I don't want to hear this "because we know" crap from the same people on any give occasion will argue completely the opposite. She has NO right to take such a position without PRESENTING facts. Those work real well for me. He said-she said does not.
And again, WHAT is classified about this? Neither you nor we are endowed with the power to control any-and-everything we want. If it's unclassified, it's unclassified. The public, to include the heathen media, are entitled by Constitutional RIGHT to the information. It doesn't matter whether you or I or your PM or Trump like it.
If it IS classified? Put them in a cell next to Hitlery. I'm in a unique position here because I wouldn't tolerate the behavior, classified or not. Neither however would I go as far as pointing a finger at an entire government for the actions of the few idiots it may or may not employ.
Righteous indignation denied without factual evidence.
Oh, and I would trust someone else to know everything I know NEVER. So let's don't even go the trust route. As I recall, Churchill used every trick in the book to drag the US into WWII. To include withholding information.
Also don't be offended I don't know who your PM is. There is nothing personal meant by my stance, nor in who's running your country.
Last edited by Gunny; 05-25-2017 at 05:43 PM.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Thatcherite Minion
They can be separate, or, they can be interwoven. You can have a media outlet broadcasting sensitive material that's deeply damaging to security concerns.
What you're really saying is that what our Prime Minister says cannot be trusted unless she supplies chapter and verse as to WHY she says it, first. So tell me, why do you reject the idea of trusting what she says ? Do you not think she has people to brief her ? She has no way of knowing in advance where she stands on an issue ? Greater Manchester police wouldn't have briefed her, or an aide of hers, beforehand ? She will have no concept of the timeline of events before speaking out ??Second, for the 4th or 5th time, where's the evidence that precedes the accusation? I don't want to hear this "because we know" crap from the same people on any give occasion will argue completely the opposite. She has NO right to take such a position without PRESENTING facts. Those work real well for me. He said-she said does not.
Does she even have a right to speak knowledgeably about anything, without first explaining herself in the smallest detail beforehand ?? AND ... compromising WHAT data, in the process ... ?
Yes, well. John Sopel for the BBC did report that Americans are far more relaxed about secret information than the British are .. he said it was a cultural difference. You seem to be confirming that.And again, WHAT is classified about this? Neither you nor we are endowed with the power to control any-and-everything we want. If it's unclassified, it's unclassified. The public, to include the heathen media, are entitled by Constitutional RIGHT to the information. It doesn't matter whether you or I or your PM or Trump like it.
OK .. try this out for size.
Pictures of a device which it was said helped to detonate the bomb had distinctive characteristics. Now ... Manchester's investigations have shown that a 'terrorist network' backed up this terrorist's actions (there have been several subsequent arrests). Question ... this 'network' ... is it just local, or, is it linked to others ? Maybe one or more on US soil ?
Then again ... devices and materials used could be characteristic of specific bomb-makers, couldn't they ? Does it help said bombmaker to know that what does characterise his work is well known among agencies across the world ? What if dissemination of that information causes the bombmaker to change his methods, making him and people associated with him a lot harder to trace ??
What if that spooks people using him for their own purposes ? What if they go to ground, become inactive for a while, and so fail to be traced, when otherwise they COULD have been ??
Thanks to the paper which printed those pictures, a promising line of inquiry could've been compromised and corrupted. And, for what, the so-called 'right to know' ... ? Which gives WHAT terrorists, WHAT advantage that they NEED NOT ENJOY ??
Well, it was in a good cause. The world was much the better off by seeing the US enter the war. Actually, you've given a good defence of where the strategic withholding of information can do a power of good !Oh, and I would trust someone else to know everything I know NEVER. So let's don't even go the trust route. As I recall, Churchill used every trick in the book to drag the US into WWII. To include withholding information.
We in the UK have long joked about how the US enters wars 'late'. For us, World War One was 1914-1918. World War Two was 1939-1945. What's the US's version of those dates ? We don't enter wars for the fun of it ... we fight them because it's RIGHT to. It was certainly right to defend against Hitler's bombing of us in 1940 ... which we did very largely unaided.
I'm sure that's true, and I thank you for that. Nonetheless ... it's my firm belief that the American side of this issue we've been discussing has been unacceptably lax with information we gave them. According to our people, your very culture may have acted against our interests. Sadly ... I think that, maybe, you've done something to confirm the truth of that.Also don't be offended I don't know who your PM is. There is nothing personal meant by my stance, nor in who's running your country.
Sensitive material needs to be treated accordingly. Sheer commonsense - to say nothing of peoples' lives !! - may depend on it.
Last edited by Drummond; 05-25-2017 at 06:48 PM.
Just Me
That we have different views of what is important and what is not is a given. The price of freedom is chuckleheads get access to more info here than in the UK, and they cry "First Amendment" if they are hampered in any way.
We ARE different people and have different principles. The media doesn't care who they hurt here. As long as they got the scoop first. It gets worse every day as they strive to be the most shocking and sensational. WHy do you think conservatives don't like them? I wouldn't consider putting some of that crap in print out of regard for the families.
As far as a leak? I'm for the investigation and if one is found, and the person in any way, shape or form holds a position of responsibility and was in any way bound to keep their mouths shut ... crucify them.
I'm more concerned that it has devolved into finger pointing instead of finding the person/persons responsible. ESPECIALLY in public by a Head of State. The PM should address her concerns to the President in private and decide on a course of action, not go to the media.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Thatcherite Minion
H'm. You've said a lot I can agree with in your last post, Gunny.
Freedom is a precious thing. But, it can be abused. With freedom, comes responsibility. The 'chuckleheads' you refer to presumably have no concept of the importance of what might be termed 'wartime conditions'.
Perhaps Obama would've given you and I an argument about it ... but I would argue that the War on Terror should never have been relaxed for an instant. Whether or not OUR side thinks it's at war .. the terrorist scum who perpetrate atrocities think, in their own minds, that a form of war is ongoing. They won't stop. WE stop, or relax, at our peril, and give the enemy an advantage it need not have.
Wartime conditions are not peacetime conditions. Flows of information are not the same. Information deemed useful to an enemy is NOT disseminated.
Our media has been known to be reckless as well, sometimes disreputable. But ... we are heavily regulated, most probably to an extent which your culture would never accept. Our media knows to be careful in what it does. Sometimes it's out of a sense of responsibility, sometimes because they dare not take the consequences of where their actions might lead them.We ARE different people and have different principles. The media doesn't care who they hurt here. As long as they got the scoop first. It gets worse every day as they strive to be the most shocking and sensational. WHy do you think conservatives don't like them? I wouldn't consider putting some of that crap in print out of regard for the families.
We have a set procedure here - we have had, for many decades - where the Government can step in and, if they have credible grounds to do so, they can invoke a 'set legal procedure' which has the action of restricting our media from disseminating any story, or any reference to one, deemed deleterious to the public good. [I believe the common term for it is the issuing of a 'D' notice ... it's existed, literally, for a century in our system]
I've just now looked it up. See ....
http://www.serendipity.li/cda/dnot.html
This is how we do things, here in the UK. Do I understand that America has no equivalent, or even anything that goes anywhere near to being recognisable as one ?The most institutionalised method of self-censorship is the D Notice system (short for Defence Notices). They are a unique peacetime arrangement of voluntary suppression of certain categories of information on the advice — not orders — of the Government. The system was established in 1912 and continues to this day. The justification for the system, as stated in the official guidelines, is as follows: Hostile intelligence services draw on information from a variety of sources both overt and covert, and by piecing it together can build up a composite picture of a subject. The dissemination of sensitive information can make their task easier and put national security at risk. It can also be of value to terrorist groups who lack the resources to obtain it through their own efforts. For these reasons there are dangers inherent even in the publication of information covered by D Notices which has already appeared elsewhere. It is strongly requested that there should be no elaboration, nor confirmation or denial, of the accuracy of items published elsewhere, without reference to the [D Notice] Secretary.
There are currently eight general [kinds of] D Notices (which, incidentally, used to be secret information themselves, but were made public in 1982):
Defence plans, operational capability, state of readiness and training
Defence equipment
Nuclear weapons and equipment
Radio and radar transmissions
Cyphers and communications
British security and intelligence services
War precautions and civil defence
Photography etc. of defence establishments and installations
On this, I couldn't agree with you more.As far as a leak? I'm for the investigation and if one is found, and the person in any way, shape or form holds a position of responsibility and was in any way bound to keep their mouths shut ... crucify them.
Note, though, that Trump has spoken of an investigation THERE, in America. I read his words to say that American culpability is a 'given'.
I see your point. That we're in an election period, with a General Election due on 8th June, might be a consideration ! Imagine a PM skulking around, in the near-immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, who might just be 'outed' as being secretive behind closed doors rather than totally candid to a newly-grieving community in Manchester.I'm more concerned that it has devolved into finger pointing instead of finding the person/persons responsible. ESPECIALLY in public by a Head of State. The PM should address her concerns to the President in private and decide on a course of action, not go to the media.
'D' notices, or recourse to them, are one thing. For a PM to be seen to be sticking up for her people, in an electioneering period, is another. We have a very nasty, unscrupulous, Socialist opposition here. They'd spin this against the PM any way they could. Silence from our PM would, I assure you, be perverted to their own ends.
Last edited by Drummond; 05-25-2017 at 07:53 PM.
Just Me
I don't see any culpability in Trump calling for an investigation here. Where else is he going to call for it? He has no authority over GB nor its media.H'm. You've said a lot I can agree with in your last post, Gunny.
Freedom is a precious thing. But, it can be abused. With freedom, comes responsibility. The 'chuckleheads' you refer to presumably have no concept of the importance of what might be termed 'wartime conditions'.
Perhaps Obama would've given you and I an argument about it ... but I would argue that the War on Terror should never have been relaxed for an instant. Whether or not OUR side thinks it's at war .. the terrorist scum who perpetrate atrocities think, in their own minds, that a form of war is ongoing. They won't stop. WE stop, or relax, at our peril, and give the enemy an advantage it need not have.
Wartime conditions are not peacetime conditions. Flows of information are not the same. Information deemed useful to an enemy is NOT disseminated.
Our media has been known to be reckless as well, sometimes disreputable. But ... we are heavily regulated, most probably to an extent which your culture would never accept. Our media knows to be careful in what it does. Sometimes it's out of a sense of responsibility, sometimes because they dare not take the consequences of where their actions might lead them.
We have a set procedure here - we have had, for many decades - where the Government can step in and, if they have credible grounds to do so, they can invoke a 'set legal procedure' which has the action of restricting our media from disseminating any story, or any reference to one, deemed deleterious to the public good. [I believe the common term for it is the issuing of a 'D' notice ... it's existed, literally, for a century in our system]
I've just now looked it up. See ....
http://www.serendipity.li/cda/dnot.html
This is how we do things, here in the UK. Do I understand that America has no equivalent, or even anything that goes anywhere near to being recognisable as one ?
On this, I couldn't agree with you more.
Note, though, that Trump has spoken of an investigation THERE, in America. I read his words to say that American culpability is a 'given'.
I see your point. That we're in an election period, with a General Election due on 8th June, might be a consideration ! Imagine a PM skulking around, in the near-immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity, who might just be 'outed' as being secretive behind closed doors rather than totally candid to a newly-grieving community in Manchester.
'D' notices, or recourse to them, are one thing. For a PM to be seen to be sticking up for her people, in an electioneering period, is another. We have a very nasty, unscrupulous, Socialist opposition here. They'd spin this against the PM any way they could. Silence from our PM would, I assure you, be perverted to their own ends.
I see it as a "we'll do our part" sort of statement.
I'm telling you right now, had I stayed in a full 30 years, it would have been 28. I would have thrown in my retirement papers the second Obama was inaugurated. Matter of fact, I would have chosen his inauguration date as my retirement date. I wouldn't serve under him under ANY circumstance. I'd go start my own war without him first. He was an incompetent President and an incompetent beyond the pale Commander in Chief.
And speaking media .... you notice how the left STILL blames Bush for any and everything, and now Trump, but not one single word about Obama's colossal screw-ups? The left/MSM gave Bill Clinton the same free ride.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Thatcherite Minion
But, what 'part' would he 'do' .. ?
Your point is well made. Trump has no authority over 'GB nor its media'. EXACTLY. Which means, his calling for an investigation would have no meaning at all, if in fact it was the 'GB' end of this which was at fault. No such investigation could start, much less achieve anything.
So, since he has called for an investigation, he can only be referring to American culpability. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. Trump has, by making that call, declared America's culpability to be accepted fact.
I have only one answer to this. Which is ..I'm telling you right now, had I stayed in a full 30 years, it would have been 28. I would have thrown in my retirement papers the second Obama was inaugurated. Matter of fact, I would have chosen his inauguration date as my retirement date. I wouldn't serve under him under ANY circumstance. I'd go start my own war without him first. He was an incompetent President and an incompetent beyond the pale Commander in Chief.
Oh, but of course. No Left-leaning media would do anything else. Expecting realism, and reputability, from a Leftist media has about as much likelihood of being seen as a nearby ant becoming a world class expert in quantum physics.And speaking media .... you notice how the left STILL blames Bush for any and everything, and now Trump, but not one single word about Obama's colossal screw-ups? The left/MSM gave Bill Clinton the same free ride.
The Left only has respect for truth when it serves them. When it doesn't (which is usual), they fall back on propagandising. What they will never do is accept blame for anything dire any of their number ever does. It'd be like tugging at a loose thread on a pullover, only to then see the whole thing unravel.
Super Minion
To think that GB is leaking to US media takes a bit of reach.
Sometimes the simplest explanation will suffice:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/265805/
CHARLIE MARTIN: Stop the Leaking! Just Stop!
This week, the New York Times and other U.S. papers published the name and photograph of the Manchester suicide bomber, as well as detailed explanations of how he avoided security, and photographs of essential components of the bomb itself, and they did so before the bomber’s — yes, I’m consciously not naming the son of a bitch — before the bomber’s network had been rolled up.Because they think that Trump is unfit for the job the voters, their alleged employers, elected him to, they’re demonstrating that they are unfit for the job they currently occupy. These leaks are, remember, criminal, and they’re crimes engaged in for political purposes. It’s a disgrace, and if Trump decides to go scorched-earth on them he’d be well within his rights to do so. And hey, Obama was already spying on journalists and government employees, so it shouldn’t be hard to find the leaker.
Worst of all, it turns out that this information was leaked to the New York Times by a member of the U.S. intelligence community from information shared by the Brits.
Prime Minister Theresa May was quite blunt about it this morning: the U.S. can forget further intelligence sharing on this topic. I expect she was quite firm with President Trump when they met privately later.
This has got to stop.
There are people in positions of trust within the United States government who are leaking very sensitive secrets because they have decided the Trump presidency must be undermined By Any Means Necessary (as they say in Berkeley).
There are people in positions of trust within the United States government leaking sensitive information about the murderers of little children, making it harder to catch them, and to prevent other attacks on other little children.
They are doing it with motivations I simply do not understand.
I cannot conceive of someone who would interfere in the capture of child murderers simply to damage Trump.
Or maybe I can. “By any means necessary,” right? “Got to break a few eggs.”
It’s wrong. It’s evil. It has got to stop.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Thatcherite Minion
I believe this finally settles the issue as to where culpability belongs for the leak ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7757746.html
The US government takes full responsibility for the leaked information on the police investigation into the Manchester bombings, Rex Tillerson has said.
The American Secretary of State made a snap visit to the UK after the intelligence dispute between the two countries threatened to escalate into a diplomatic row.
Key details of the investigation into the attack, which killed 22 people, were withheld by investigators in the UK but revealed to American journalists, apparently from US government sources.
Kathianne thanked this post
Super Minion
I never doubted they were leaks, thought so as I was watching US media reporting certain details 'I knew' US police would not be releasing that fast if situations were reversed. It had to be leaks.
I don't think Tillerson or Trump could say any different, their problem though imo, is that the 'leaks' are likely not coming from sources that support them. Best guess would have to be part of US intel services-the big problem is the numbers are vast.
Last edited by Kathianne; 05-27-2017 at 10:10 AM.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Super Minion
I'd say the 'good news' of the morning is that the terror level has returned to 'Severe,' down from 'Critical.' I don't know that it changes things much, certainly not for the holiday.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
It wont be long before we are in the midst of Gestapo/KGB tactics by the US Intel agencies. Report your friends and neighbors now before they report you!
Last edited by Kathianne; 05-27-2017 at 10:10 AM.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
Gunny thanked this post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
