Leaked Memo: What Did It Say?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
"The memo, details of which were published in British newspapers in 2005, allegedly recounted how Blair dissuaded Bush from attacking the Qatar headquarters of satellite television news channel Al-Jazeera."
This doesn't add up. First of all, Blair wouldn't mind this being leaked. But more important, the guys who went to prison wouldn't have thought it worth leaking. It doesn't show Bush to be a "madman," as the memo supposedly does.
This doesn't add up. First of all, Blair wouldn't mind this being leaked. But more important, the guys who went to prison wouldn't have thought it worth leaking. It doesn't show Bush to be a "madman," as the memo supposedly does.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i think you'll find that you are also a subjec tof her marg... that makes you bound by it i'd imagine...zenie said:Yeh that's how I understood the OSA too?
You have to sign it or be in agreement to it, and last time I checked I wasn't, or am I bound to it just by being a UK citizen?
bashthefash
Born under punches
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obj...ush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html
exclusive two years ago
exclusive two years ago
Yeah, but presumably they wouldn't let somebody sit on the jury if they refused to sign.zenie said:Yeh that's how I understood the OSA too?
You have to sign it or be in agreement to it, and last time I checked I wasn't, or am I bound to it just by being a UK citizen?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'm surprised and disappointed the jury didn't return a perverse verdict in this trial.
Maybe there are reasons I'm not aware of that differentiate this case from previous 'moral' cases; I really hope so.
TBH, I'm confused about quite a bit; what sort of shit judgment must the Researcher have had to give it to his MP and get shopped for it, why woudld the MP do that rather than discretely ignore it, and then the jury . . . don't get it. Times three.
Maybe there are reasons I'm not aware of that differentiate this case from previous 'moral' cases; I really hope so.
TBH, I'm confused about quite a bit; what sort of shit judgment must the Researcher have had to give it to his MP and get shopped for it, why woudld the MP do that rather than discretely ignore it, and then the jury . . . don't get it. Times three.
No. The Official Secrets Acts contain a whole range of criminal offences, many of which continue to apply even if there has already been an unlawful disclosure.TAE said:
The UK courts only have jurisdiction over offences committed in the UK in most circumstances. I am not aware of any extra-territorial jurisdiction for Official Secrets Act offences though anyone repeating them here, or facilitating their publication here, would be caught.TAE said:
They would have had to (whether it was causing significant damage to UK interests was a key question they had to decide).Maxine said:
And yes. They would be.
A common misconception. Only for some of the (lesser) offences.littlebabyjesus said:
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Whether you've signed it or not, if you come into possession of data marked Restricted, Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret (with or without additional restrictions) you have a legal obligation to hand it into the police asap otherwise you fall foul of the OSA.zenie said:Yeh that's how I understood the OSA too?
You have to sign it or be in agreement to it, and last time I checked I wasn't, or am I bound to it just by being a UK citizen?
The grading given is already a measure of the degree of damage that release of the information would cause. Though it is routine to apply gradings of at least Restricted.detective-boy said:
Link to a document that explains Restricted classification but breaks it's own guidelines!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
zenie said:Yeh that's how I understood the OSA too?
You have to sign it or be in agreement to it, and last time I checked I wasn't, or am I bound to it just by being a UK citizen?
It is your signature on a copy of the acknowledgement document (the one that says "I have read and understood blah blah blah....") that forms the basis of your legal agreement to be bound by the terms of the act. No signature, no legal recourse by the govt.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
MikeMcc said:
But no, as I understand it, legal obligation not to publish it "in the public interest". It's then for an open court to decide whether your claim of public interest is defensible.
Bollocks. It is simply an evidential issue - it makes it easier to prove the required mens rea. Not having signed the Act does NOT make it impossible to prosecute.ViolentPanda said:
If you don't believe me (and you never do), perhaps you'll believe this quote from Hansard.
From Hansard said:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971204/text/71204w06.htm
newbie
undisambiguated
of course it's not necessary to sign it to be subject to it, or any journalist who got hold of anything secret could publish without fear (see Duncan Campbell & the ABC trial for instance).
fwiw there's an explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_secrets_act
fwiw there's an explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_secrets_act
newbie
undisambiguated
Although not about the trial this article, which rather reeks of lawyers, may be pertinent.
* Has flash of inspiration *newbie said:
... instead of just posting stuff in future, I'm going to create it on wiki and then just link to it ... that way everyone will accept it without question and we'll avoid all the arguments ...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I've seen some suggestions in the online press that Peter Kilfoyle has either seen or been apprised of the contents of the memo in question (Presumably he can ask/say whatever he wants under parliamentary priviledge without fear of the OSA?)newbie said:
Similar threads
- Poll
