2
   

Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 01:50 am
Quote:
Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian


The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.

Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based.

Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".

Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.

The Mirror said the memo turned up in May last year at the constituency office of the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke. Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.

Mr Clarke said yesterday that Mr O'Connor "did the right thing" by drawing the document to his attention. Mr Clarke, an anti-war MP who lost his seat at the last election, returned the document to the government. "As well as an MP, I am a special constable," he said.

Both men were released on police bail last Thursday to appear at Bow Street magistrates court on November 29. When they were charged, newspapers reported that the memo contained a transcript of a discussion between Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

The conversation was understood to have taken place during a meeting in the US. It is believed to reveal that Mr Blair disagreed with Mr Bush about aspects of the Iraq war. There was widespread comment at the time that the British government was angry about US military tactics there, particularly in the city of Falluja.

Charges under the secrets act have to have the consent of the attorney-general. His intervention yesterday suggests that the prosecution plans to ask the judge to hold part, if not all of the trial, in camera, with the public and press excluded.
Source
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 03:56 am
Good politics that Rolling Eyes

Let's get out the Official Secrets Act and belt the press with it.

Time to go Tony, time to go.
0 Replies
 
AliceInWonderland
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 11:47 am
Walter brought up Freedom of the Press. Good point. BUT, the press has a responsibility to print facts. Freedom of the press is there to protect the press from government reprisal for reporting uncomfortable truths. It is not there to protect the press from reprisal for reporting gossip, innuendo, etc. and calling it factual. If journalists want to shout their opinions from the rooftops, more power to them - be honest about it and call it an opinion. If they want to print gossip without verifying, and call it factual reporting, shame on them for calling themselves news organizations and shame on us for giving them any credibility.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 11:57 am
Doesn't seem to be "gossip" or "innuendo". There does seem to be an official document here--otherwise the gov't wouldn't be indicting the leakers. Now we have to find out what the document actually says. And since the Mirror has presumably seen it, it would seem to be incumbent on the nay-sayers to show where the reporting is inaccurate, if it is. So let's look at the document.

Isn't it amazing how governments never seem to have problems with leaks that make them look good, but get bent out of shape about leaks that make them look bad.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:02 pm
They didn't print gossip and they verified it, Alice.

What username said.
0 Replies
 
AliceInWonderland
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 01:33 pm
Sorry, I was speaking in general and not specifically about this document. I should have been more clear. This document does appear to be legitimate, although the spin is interesting.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 02:20 pm
The Mirror may be subject to an official gagging order that prevents it revealing any more details of the Al-Jazeera bombing memo, but the original story remains on the Mirror website.

All UK newspapers are subject to the order imposed by Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith today. It follows the Mirror's exclusive story that claimed that President Bush allegedly suggested bombing the Qatar headquarters of the Al-Jazeera TV station.

The ban prevents newspapers from revealing further details of the memo, but existing reports can remain in circulation. The Mirror said the government had done nothing to stop publication of the original story but said it had agreed not to publish further details.

Al-Jazeera itself published details of the Mirror story and said it was investigating the report while the White House called the claim "outlandish and inconceivable".

Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the UK's National Union of Journalists, said the gagging order was an attack on both the freedom of the press and the freedom of information.

"These sort of attempts to stifle uncomfortable revelations printed in a newspaper - which is only carrying out its proper duty to inform the British public - does the government of what is supposed to be a democracy no credit whatsoever."

source: Journalism UK
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2005 03:34 pm
An interesting find...

Quote:
CNN reports that during the 1999 air campaign over Kosovo, "US warplanes targeted Yugoslavia's state television network. NATO officials argued it was a legitimate target as the propaganda arm of the Yugoslav government." The Chinese embassy in Belgrade was also hit during the same air campaign, which killed three Chinese journalists. NATO later said the bombing was due to faulty intelligence given to it by allies.


:eek:
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 10:13 am
I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/images/op_nrand_smal.gif

I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera

By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 24/11/2005)


Quote:
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies....
Telegraph


Interesting.... please read the full article.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 11:10 am
freedom4free, great article. I'm happy Boris finally figured it out about the war.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 11:42 am
IRAQ WIFE 'TO SUE U.S'
Exclusive By Andy Lines And Kevin Maguire
THE widow of an al-Jazeera journalist killed in Iraq by an American attack is considering suing the US Government.

Kuwaiti-born Tariq Ayyoub, 35, died when the station's Baghdad office was bombed in April 2003.

Now his wife Dima may take legal action. On Tuesday the Daily Mirror reported that George Bush planned to attack al-Jazeera's HQ in Doha, capital of Qatar.

Dina said: "The report proves the cold-blooded murder of my husband.

"America always claimed it was an accident. But I believe the new revelations prove that claim was false or at least not trustworthy.

"I will seek legal advice in light of this new information to achieve justice."


The UK Government has banned the media from publishing details of documents telling how the President wanted to bomb the Doha station in April 2004 until Tony Blair talked him out of it.


Al-Jazeera last night demanded the PM come clean over the revelations. Managing director Wadah Khanfar said: "We're taking this very seriously. Al-Jazeera has been attacked twice before and a colleague killed. I would like an official explanation about what happened."
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 12:03 pm
Wow, another great article, a must read...

People don't realize how big this story could get, hopefully someone will publish the memo.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nt/ma/ma_nws_1.gif

Quote:
The Nation -- On November 22, Britain's Daily Mirror published a startling allegation: In an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair,
President Bush proposed bombing the Arab TV network Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. The report was based on a memo stamped "Top Secret" that had been leaked by a Cabinet official in Blair's government.

Is the allegation "outlandish," as the White House claims? Or was it a deadly serious option? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the five-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's White House meeting with Blair, the Bush Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was there to witness the assault and the fierce resistance.

A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld slammed Al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms:

REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing.

What Al Jazeera was doing in Falluja is exactly what it was doing when the United States bombed its offices in
Afghanistan in 2001 and when US forces killed Al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, Tareq Ayoub, during the April 2003 occupation of Baghdad. Al Jazeera was witnessing and reporting on events Washington did not want the world to see.

The Falluja offensive was one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation of
Iraq. On April 5, 2004, US forces laid siege to the city after the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries days earlier. When the US forces, led by the First Marine Expeditionary Force, attempted to take Falluja on April 7, they faced fierce guerrilla resistance. A US helicopter attacked a mosque, hitting the minaret and killing at least a dozen people. Within a week, some 600 Iraqis were dead, many of them women and children. By April 9, some thirty Marines had been killed and Falluja had become a symbol of resistance against the occupation.

What was more devastating than the direct resistance US forces encountered in Falluja was the effect the story of the local defense of the city and the US killing of civilians was having on the broader Iraqi population. A handful of unembedded journalists, most prominently from Al Jazeera, were providing the world with independent, eyewitness accounts. Al Jazeera's camera crew was also uploading video of the devastation for all the world, including Iraqis, to see. Inspired by the defense of Falluja and outraged by the US onslaught, smaller uprisings broke out across Iraq, as members of the Iraqi police and army abandoned their posts, some joining the resistance.

Faced with a public relations disaster, US officials did what they do best--they attacked the messenger. On April 11, with the unembedded reporters exposing the reality of the siege of Falluja, senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." A few days later, on April 15, Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling Al Jazeera "vicious."

It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

To date, there has been no credible rejection of the Mirror's report from the White House or 10 Downing Street. Instead, the British government has activated its Official Secrets Act, threatening news organizations that publish any portion of the five-page memo. Already, one British official has been accused of violating the act for allegedly passing it on to a member of Parliament. Former British Defense Minister Peter Kilfoyle has called on Blair's government to release the memo. "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions," he said. "I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."

The Bush Administration clearly blamed Al Jazeera for undermining the first siege on Falluja and fueling Iraqi public opinion and resistance against the US occupation. Given Washington's record of attacking Al Jazeera both militarily and verbally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Bush Administration could have simply decided that it was time to take the network out. What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see--and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world. If true, Bush's threat is a bold confirmation of what many journalists already believe: that the Bush Administration views us all as enemy combatants.....

Yahoo News


Quote:
What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see--and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world.


What if this were to happen ?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 06:41 pm
freedom4free wrote:
What if this were to happen ?


Obviously, leftists in this country -- including yourself -- would rejoice. It seems you folks get real excited whenever any story negative towards the US is published.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2005 09:35 pm
GWB = Great With Barbarity, does not want to show his barbarity.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 10:45 am
Ticomaya wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
What if this were to happen ?


Obviously, leftists in this country -- including yourself -- would rejoice. It seems you folks get real excited whenever any story negative towards the US is published.


So what's your take on this story, then, Tico?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:09 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
What if this were to happen ?


Obviously, leftists in this country -- including yourself -- would rejoice. It seems you folks get real excited whenever any story negative towards the US is published.


So what's your take on this story, then, Tico?


Don't really have a take on it. It seems like a non-story to me, true or not, and whether Bush was joking or not.

I must also comment that the article f4f tried very hard to ascribe to "Yahoo News" with his use of the colorful logo, was a story originally written for "The Nation," an obviously leftist rag. SOURCE
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:42 am
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:43 am
Ok. But if it's true, don't you think it brings into question whether the other two bombings were truly accidental?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:57 am
Quote:
Friday, November 25, 2005
Briefing took place at 17:00

Put to the Official Spokesman that a senior executive of Al Jazeera was looking to meet with the Prime Minister when he came to London next week, would the Prime Minister be willing to meet him and did he have a comment about Peter Kilfoyle's Early Day Motion, the PMOS said he was not aware of the EDM. It was also, he suspected, the first that Downing Street had heard about the request from Al Jazeera. It was somewhat short notice. That said the Government was quite happy to talk to Al Jazeera just as they were quite happy to talk to other broadcasters. In terms of who talked to them that would depend on who was available and how much time was given to set up a meeting. Asked if the Government, in relation to the EDM, would be willing to disclose the memo if Parliament put pressure on it to do so, the PMOS said that people needed to take not of the fact that this was something that was sub-judice.
Source
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:07 pm
http://www.channel4.com/media/pf/4logo-news.gif

VIDEO - White House Pushed UK to Kill al-Jazeera Bombing Story

Bush wanted to bomb Arab news network to prevent reports on Falluja attack

On Wednesday, Downing Street threatened The Daily Mirror with prosecution under the Britain's Official Secrets act for the disclosing a memo that indicated Blair had convinced Bush not to bomb the Arab language news network al-Jazeera.

News organizations in the U.K. can no longer report the contents of the memo but a report from London's Channel 4 News questions this first and historic use of the Official Secrets Act against the press. Their reporting concludes that White House pressure lead the threat of legal action against The Daily Mirror.

Video in Windows Media format...
Video in QuickTime format...
Audio in MP3 format...

http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/indy/images/uk_chan4_bush_bombs_al-jazeera_051124a1.jpg

Higher quality video available for download from Channel 4.

Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?

We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.

What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.01 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:02:59