monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Lash wrote:
Considering the fact that the majority of news outlets in the US are increasingly controlled by a single entity with an agenda, I do crave independent voices...

British authorities stop sharing bombing intel amid leaks

British authorities have stopped sharing information on the Manchester suicide bomb attack with the US, arguing that investigation leaks are hindering their probe.

In a statement, the Greater Manchester Police condemned the leaks on behalf of the National Counter-Terrorism Policing agency.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter terrorism investigation.”

The decision to stop sharing law enforcement information with US agencies is an extraordinary step, as Britain sees the US as its closest ally on security and intelligence.

“This is until such time as we have assurances that no further unauthorized disclosures will occur,” a counter-terrorism source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

After Trump defended his decision to discuss intelligence with Russian diplomats during a meeting in the Oval Office, May said last week that Britain would continue to share intelligence with the US.

“This is until such time as we have assurances that no further unauthorized disclosures will occur,

American journalists traditionally enjoy a more open relationship with the police and intelligence services than their counterparts in the UK. The police in Manchester and the British government aimed their anger not at the journalists, who were just working their sources, but the US officials supplying the information, claiming the premature release of the name hampered the investigation.

On Wednesday morning, British Home Secretary Amber Rudd issued a stern rebuke to the US government for leaking the name of the suspect in the Manchester bombing to American news outlets before UK authorities were prepared to make it public.

She might as well have been shaking her fist at a cloud, for all the good it did.

By Wednesday evening, not only had the US media divulged more details of the investigation - information on Salman Abedi's family and his international travels - the New York Times printed close-up photographs of fragments of the Manchester bomb and the apparent tattered remains of the backpack that held it.

British officials have gone from irritated to furious, and Manchester police have begun withholding further details of the attack from US intelligence out of concern that the leaks are tipping off suspects and impeding its investigation.

The porous nature of the US government - its inability to protect sensitive information - may come as a shock to the international community, but in the US it's just another day at the proverbial office.
During the 2016 campaign, the FBI leaked a crescendo of damaging details about its investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the days leading up to the presidential election. Since then, the intelligence community has been a sieve of unflattering information about President Donald Trump, including sharing embarrassing accounts of his interaction with foreign leaders and the communications of his advisers.

Although it was overshadowed by the nature of the revelations, the fact that the contents of intercepted phone conversations between Trump adviser Michael Flynn and a Russian ambassador made the front page of the New York Times was an extraordinary violation of surveillance protocols.

Then there are the leaks that have originated within the Trump administration itself, as rival factions share pointed details about the internal machinations of the White House in a scramble to gain favour with the president. And while not technically a leak, the (leaked) news that Mr Trump himself revealed sensitive information to a Russian delegation in the Oval Office reportedly given to the US by Israeli intelligence has contributed to the growing sense that the US government is dysfunctional, at best.

Until recently it was a condition Americans had largely kept to themselves. Now US allies are part of the game.
The thing about leaks is they're usually put out for a reason. The ongoing feud between Mr Trump and the intelligence community helps explain why US media have had a string of explosive stories about Mr Trump and the Russian investigation over the past few weeks. It's easy to see who profits and suffers from whatever bits of White House palace intrigue splash across the front pages on a near daily basis.

The Manchester leaks, however, are a bit more difficult to peg. Who, exactly, benefits? Some of the leaks have been attributed to "intelligence sources" others to "police officials", which doesn't narrow things down much.

The leaks certainly an embarrassment for the Trump administration, making his team appear unable to run a tight ship at a time when he's taking his first turn on the world stage.

On the other hand, this will bolster the president's efforts to paint the leaks that have bedevilled his White House as a threat to national security, hindering the US ability to fight militant extremists. Mr Trump has complained that the intelligence community hasn't taken the onslaught of leaks seriously over the past few months. Perhaps it will now.
Whatever the explanation, officials in both the UK and the US say the Manchester leaks are going to stop - and, given that the information is being cut off at the source, they probably will.

The question is what happens the next time. And the time after that.

"At the moment we have a US administration and US intelligence agencies all leaking like sieves, so I'm afraid this is the reason why this has happened," says former UK ambassador to the US Christopher Meyer. "Will it destroy our close co-operation with the Americans? Of course not, because if it didn't exist it would have to be invented. But this is a serious knock. It is a serious dent."

Intelligence sharing, British Prime Minister Theresa May said, is built on trust. Trust typically doesn't vanish in an instant, it erodes slowly, imperceptibly. And then it's gone.

a) it is interesting that you post this now when it had been posted here already,
b) it is interesting that you post it now but don't mention what Trump has said/done a couple of hours ago.
c) it's even more interesting that YOU, Saint Hypocrite, used all the leaked infos and posted them here.

You equal interest with anger?
Interesting.

Anyway, British officials believe that a rift between the Donald Trump administration and America’s security services contributed to the series of leaks by US officials about the Manchester bombing.

Quote:

American journalists traditionally enjoy a more open relationship with the police and intelligence services than their counterparts in the UK. The police in Manchester and the British government aimed their anger not at the journalists, who were just working their sources, but the US officials supplying the information, claiming the premature release of the name hampered the investigation.

Source

The police in Manchester and the British government aimed their anger not at the journalists, who were just working their sources, but the US officials supplying the information, claiming the premature release of the name hampered the investigation.

“A lot of allies are concerned about the leaks coming out of not just the senior level but also the lower echelons of the intelligence community,” said Loren DeJonge Schulman, a senior national security official in the Obama administration.

Well, you always seem to be angry.

Do you think the concoction of some "rift" relieves them of that guilt, or makes Trump responsible for the leaks?

Although you paid those $20 for the degree in telediagnosis, McG, you should do a more intensive anamnesis before making a diagnosis.

I have no idea.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Although you paid those $20 for the degree in telediagnosis, McG, you should do a more intensive anamnesis before making a diagnosis.

Actually, I have a degree in writing analysis and have been trained in understanding how vocabulary and tense is used in writing styles that reflects on the writers tone and mood.

Stop writing angry Walter. It's not healthy, maybe too much Frühjahrsmüdigkeit?

Actually, I have a degree in writing analysis and have been trained in understanding how vocabulary and tense is used in writing styles that reflects on the writers tone and mood.

Not surprising. Most leftists have no sense of moral/legal responsibility at all.

layman wrote:

Do you think the concoction of some "rift" relieves them of that guilt, or makes Trump responsible for the leaks?

I have no idea. PM May thought so, though.

layman wrote:

Not surprising. Most leftists have no sense of moral/legal responsibility at all.

Both the PM and the Home Secretary are Conservatives.

SHOW ME where May said: "The rift relieves the intelligence agencies of guilt and makes Trump responsible for the leaks."

Or anything even remotely close to that, OK?

Prove it, cheese-eater.