If you can fake the citations and references as well ...detective-boy said:* Has flash of inspiration *
... 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 ...
Leaked Memo: What Did It Say?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
I think Parliamentary Privilege would probably apply insofar as any criminal charges were concerned, but I think Parliament has it's own conventions, procedures and protocols when it comes to material which may be damaging to national security - bearing in mind that there are more than MPs there, I can't see that it would just be blithely read out ...Bernie Gunther said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I expect a lot depends on what's actually in it. If it really is a geniune matter of national security, I'm sure Mr Kilfoyle will be circumspect, but if the OSA here is just being used to cover Blair's arse over e.g. prior knowledge of US intention to commit war crimes or something of that sort, he might feel differently. Either way, it's presumably his judgement and not a courts that counts in this situation, given that he's covered by parliamentary privilege.detective-boy said:
Maidmarian
Stubborn Socialist
Yep ---- shutting the stable-door comes to mind.
newbie
undisambiguated
mauvais said:It seems so far that everyone knows what's in the memo, including us, but we have to pretend either it's a different secret memo or we just don't know at all
we have to pretend by order of the courts.
Allegations based on these papers made headlines round the world. Mr Justice Aikens knows full well that the horse has long since bolted and that closing the door is futile, yet in an eccentric move he still made a point of trying to push it half shut. He ruled that these claims could be reported, but only in articles not referring to the document. We can neither confirm nor deny whether these claims are referred to in other pages of the Guardian.
Two decades ago, with the Spycatcher case, the judges eventually ruled against censoring material freely available overseas. The new ruling, however, suppresses material already available not only abroad but also at home. Even if the aim is to spare American blushes, the ruling hardly makes sense when the allegations are already public knowledge in the US. One specific allegation - that Mr Bush was considering bombing the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera - is exempt from the censorship, an extra hole in the gag that only underlines its futility.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2078023,00.html
btw the Boris offer is two years old.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
phildwyer said:
I see the first site is down for maintenance. It lists a lot of blogs who have promised to publish the "secret memo" when known.
The second site has an article by Fisk about the US already having bombed al-Jazeera.
So, the speculation about what's in the "secret memo" is that Bush planned to bomb al-Jazeera, but my point is that's already been done.
cutandsplice
putting things together
the point is that the US always said it was an accident. This shows it wasn't, which was obvious at the time.phildwyer said:
likesfish
You can't park here sir
the air force bombing suspect but could and probably was a cock up 
tank definitely a cock up a tank is hardly a precise weapon and its crew are unlikely to be briefed to kill journalists probably saw something a tv camera can look like some sort of shoulder launched weapon or just saw a flash off a lense
tank definitely a cock up a tank is hardly a precise weapon and its crew are unlikely to be briefed to kill journalists probably saw something a tv camera can look like some sort of shoulder launched weapon or just saw a flash off a lense
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
According to what's already in the public domain via the Mirror, conversation between Bush and Blair seems to have been about bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Qatar (apparently to get them to stop showing footage of what the US was doing in Fallujah at the time), not their offices in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So it'd have to have been be a pretty impressive 'accident' to miss by that much
So it'd have to have been be a pretty impressive 'accident' to miss by that much
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I mean, even the US manages to (mostly) at least hit the right country, even if what they're bombing within that country is their allies or helpless civilians.
Bombing a neutral or arguably even allied country like Qatar would be a bit much to swallow even by their not particularly high standards of judgement.
Bombing a neutral or arguably even allied country like Qatar would be a bit much to swallow even by their not particularly high standards of judgement.
... or blame SatNav like that dozy cow on the railway lines ...TAE said:They could always claim they were "using an old map".
coccinelle
Active Member
Bernie Gunther said:
They missed Vietnam by quite a long way when they dropped their bombs on Cambodia.
4000 carpet-bombing raids, more than half a million tons of explosives and somewhere between 150,000 and 500,000 civilian deaths.
Henry Kissinger, the architect, got a Nobel Peace Prize...
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
You mean journalists either British or foreign nationals who happen to be living and working overseas? Or overseas journalists living and working in the UK?TAE said:
The memo can and has been reported overseas, they're not restricted in the same way the English/Welsh media is. Also, as was the case with reports about Prince Charles, because the law of Scotland is different to the law of England and Wales, the Scotsman often reports stuff that can't be reported south of the border. You can usually access stuff online anyway.
But more specifically, it's affecting this soon-to-be-overseas journalist in the ollowing way:
Packing list:
Work clothes
Bikini
Sunglasses
Sun cream
NBC suit
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Yes, and the Kabul bureau was hit by the US in... November 2001?phildwyer said:
Two people have just been imprisoned for revealing details of the discussions between Bush and Blair, there are reporting restrictions about the contents of the memo.phildwyer said:
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
And don't forget that David Blunkett believed/believes that Al Jazeera is a legitimate target for bombing:
"...In Monday's interview, Blunkett, who was a member of Blair's war cabinet at the time during the 2003 invasion, said he had advised the prime minister that he considered Al Jazeera's Iraq technical operation to be a legitimate target.
"There wasn't a worry from me because I believed that this was a war and in a war you wouldn't allow the broadcasts to continue taking place," he said the interview with Britain's Channel 4 television.
When he was asked whether attacking a media outlet was not against international law, he said: "Well I don't think for a minute in previous wars we'd have thought twice about ensuring that a propaganda mechanism on the soil of the country you were invading would actually continue being able to propagandise against you".
"I don't know whether it was a mistake or not, but I wouldn't call it legitimacy," Blunkett said of the bombing..."
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=37917
"...In Monday's interview, Blunkett, who was a member of Blair's war cabinet at the time during the 2003 invasion, said he had advised the prime minister that he considered Al Jazeera's Iraq technical operation to be a legitimate target.
"There wasn't a worry from me because I believed that this was a war and in a war you wouldn't allow the broadcasts to continue taking place," he said the interview with Britain's Channel 4 television.
When he was asked whether attacking a media outlet was not against international law, he said: "Well I don't think for a minute in previous wars we'd have thought twice about ensuring that a propaganda mechanism on the soil of the country you were invading would actually continue being able to propagandise against you".
"I don't know whether it was a mistake or not, but I wouldn't call it legitimacy," Blunkett said of the bombing..."
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=37917
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Doubt it. Qatar is half the size of Wales [according to the standard journalistic equivalency os measurements scales TM] and has either one or two US military bases, they would therefore fry lots of their own.MC5 said:Apparently, to show to the world that Bush is a madman. But some of us knew that already.
I suspect it's about the use of nukes meself?
It's funny how people are thinking that there must be something *more* to it than just a standard strike, as if that's not bad enough?
Similar threads
- Poll
