It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Two Men Charged In Britain Over Leaked Bush Memo

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
David Keogh and Leo O'Conner haved been charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act in Britian after a leaked memo showed George Bush's plans to bomb Arab News and Television outlet Al Jazeera. The White House dismissed the claims saying they were outlandish and British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied receiving any details on the bombing plot. The British Attorney General has warned the Media against publishing the details of the document. The two charged Men's lawyers are asking for the document to be disclosed.
 



www.abc.net.au
British MP Peter Kilfoyle says he has been briefed on its contents by former Labour MP Tony Clarke, who has employed O'Connor.

"There was a discussion about bombing Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar and also about the attack on [Iraqi town] Fallujah."

US bombs hit the Al Jazeera's Kabul office in 2001 and its reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US strike on its Baghdad office in 2003.

The US has denied targeting the station. Mr Blair's spokesman has declined to comment.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Bush administration dismissed the claims made in the memo's as outlandish, if that was the case why aren't the men being chaged with fraud and public nuisance instead of breaking the Official Secrets Act. Does this mean that the Memo's were correct.

If it all does come out and the document exists, then that means Blair and Bush lied. Will people still sit back and allow them to do whatever they want then and continue lying to the people?

Why also if it is so outlandish and it didn't happen, is the British Attorney General warning Media not to publish the details in the memo?



[edit on 10-1-2006 by Mayet]

[edit on 1-11-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

The Bush administration dismissed the claims made in the memo's as outlandish, if that was the case why aren't the men being chaged with fraud and public nuisance instead of breaking the Official Secrets Act. Does this mean that the Memo's were correct.

If it all does come out and the document exists, then that means Blair and Bush lied. Will people still sit back and allow them to do whatever they want then and continue lying to the people?

Why also if it is so outlandish and it didn't happen, is the British Attorney General warning Media not to publish the details in the memo?

This is a conspiracy site. Any conspirator worth his salt should be able to supply a variety of motives for someone's actions. Jumping to the conclusion that Bush and/or Blair lied to us is only one possible conclusion, albeit the favorite one among many posters here.

Why don't we try to be more original in our conclusions for once? It might be fun.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Perhaps some of the memo was real and that these guys altered it to suit a certain agenda? They could still be charged with releasing a memo that had been altered but still contained privalaged info under the OSA.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   

jsobecky said...

This is a conspiracy site. Any conspirator worth his salt should be able to supply a variety of motives for someone's actions. Jumping to the conclusion that Bush and/or Blair lied to us is only one possible conclusion, albeit the favorite one among many posters here.

Why don't we try to be more original in our conclusions for once? It might be fun.


Yes, but this particular conspirator chose this one...so instead of announcing your opinion of this particular conspirator why don't you redirect your comments toward the issues of the article.

k?


[edit on 1-11-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Heh, I only read this part:


David Keogh and Leo O'Conner haved been charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act in Britian after a leaked memo showed George Bush's plans to bomb Arab News and Television outlet Al Jazeera. The White House dismissed the claims saying they were outlandish and British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied receiving any details on the bombing plot.


and immediately intended to post before I noticed the author beat me to the conclusion already. I'd love to hear jsobecky's theory on alternate intentions though, little amusing reading these days and all. I wonder what evidence it would take for the denial faction to reconsider their reality - Bush confessing on Fox News how he signed off Operation Scamerica?

I think I can imagine how Cassandra must've felt.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I can't seem to vote on this submission. I get this message:
Parse error: parse error in /home/abovetopsecret/public_html/forum/atsnn_message.php on line 482

Just in case anyone cares.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
voting worked fine for me,


This piece kills me, Bush and the boy'ss get ratted out, so what do they do, they want the guys arrested that told the people of the crimes in the first place.
So in other words keep your mouth shut,,,,,or you too will be dealt with.
Zig Hiel



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

The Bush administration dismissed the claims made in the memo's as outlandish, if that was the case why aren't the men being chaged with fraud and public nuisance instead of breaking the Official Secrets Act

The best person to answer this would be the British AG. Yes, yes, I know, you have no access to him, so you have no alternative but to assume Bush lied.



Britain's attorney general has warned media they will be breaking the law if they publish details of the document.

Did it ever occur to you that what the AG states is the truth? How would we know that unless we had access to the original documents?


British MP Peter Kilfoyle says he has been briefed on its contents by former Labour MP Tony Clarke, who has employed O'Connor.

"He made me aware of the contents," he said.

"There was a discussion about bombing Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar and also about the attack on [Iraqi town] Fallujah."

Emphasis added.

Is it possible that there was sensitive information about the attack on Fallujah, that might be considered revealing "Official Secrets"? There could have been additional information in the memo that is considered sensitive.

As far as the Bush administration dismissing the claims as outlandish, um.. what did you expect them to say?


from Lumos I wonder what evidence it would take for the denial faction to reconsider their reality - Bush confessing on Fox News how he signed off Operation Scamerica?

Denial faction? Does that include anyone who doesn't blindly accept any indictment of GWB as gospel?



[edit on 11-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
"Blindly accept"? May I remind you you still haven't come forward with a halfway logical explanation for the contradiction in the article? Yet you're sure it's just some kind of mistake, for seemingly obvious reasons:

You can't accept and therefore will not entertain the notion that the Bush cabal has hijacked your country. You will do whatever it takes to deny this possibility, because it's too shocking to confront. You can be faced with a gazillion indicting indicators and will simply play down every single one of them as mistake or coincidence. This way, you can go on believing everything is perfectly in order.

Say it isn't so.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
hmmm...very interesting indeed that they were charged with break a 'law' concerning a memo that doesn't exist?!?! well, at least 'they' say it is "outlandish"...

there needs to be people that have the courage to step forward with information like this. 1 or 2 are just disgrutled workers....a dozen becomes a problem. like most govt whistleblowing cases...i'm sure this will all disappear and these guys will also. then everything will be all better...now take your medicine and go back to sleep.........
"There is a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so persuasive that prudent men had better not speak above their breath when they speak of it." -- Woodrow Wilson



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I find it so interesting how the truth always seems to come forward after a while.

I guess the memo was true and it was real, so I can wait to heard the responses to the parties involve about this new light on the subject.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   


As far as the Bush administration dismissing the claims as outlandish, um.. what did you expect them to say?


Well, umm I expect honesty from any Government. Especially when it comes down to claims that such an act was to take place.

See America Australia and British governments all tout themselves as being "free" the lands of the free, the leaders of the Free world. Now to be honest, going around bombing a media outlet to control media releases in another country is not the act of the Free. It is an act of suppression. Now supressions all well and good if you are lving in a repressed culture and used to supression and control, but not in a land run by a government that claims to be "free"

The people elect this Government and the Government works for the people. The Government does not work against the people. and the people dont work for the government, the people work for their country, their land. You reap the crop that you sow. You fertalize the crop with poison and you will poison the people who consume the crop.

Unfortunately this is happening, honesty is being replaced by secrets. Daily these Governments are getting away with more and more. Somethings are happening right about now make Watergate look like candy on a christmas tree.

It is the peoples choice, If the people want a government that lies, well let it go but be warned, if you are lied to about these "little things", how can you guarentee the honesty on the big picture.

If the people want a government that is draining the economy by having 136000 troops installed in a foreign country, based on a proven lie for getting them there in the first place, possibly losing lives and 35 percent of them coming back with mental problems which will drain the health budget for years to come, then go ahead, let it be.

If the people want the media stories to come out of Iraq to be controlled and censored, with a large publicity and propaganda machine to make the USA effort "look good" then go ahead, let it be.

If the people want a government that keeps secret prisons, is involved in torture methods, does not allow fair trials, covers up and makes light of innocent citizens caught up as casualities, then let it be...

If the people wish to trade privacy for heavy security, loss of rights as an individual and society then let it go.

If the people wish to allow scandals like the food for oil programs, and Hallliburton and other huge companies making massive profits off the war so the rich get much much richer and the poor get oh so much poorer, then let it be....

The people can allow this to happen, the people can vote these people in again and to tell the truth Im not sure the other team is much better but one thing, don't ever call it FREE.

The people are not FREE.... the People are supressed, they just don't know it yet.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Mayet you got my above vote for this month outstanding post.

It summarizes very well the realities behind governments.
lies, lies and more lies but hey we take them for face value because the government tells us is good for us.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Blindly accept"? May I remind you you still haven't come forward with a halfway logical explanation for the contradiction in the article? Yet you're sure it's just some kind of mistake, for seemingly obvious reasons:

You can't accept and therefore will not entertain the notion that the Bush cabal has hijacked your country. You will do whatever it takes to deny this possibility, because it's too shocking to confront. You can be faced with a gazillion indicting indicators and will simply play down every single one of them as mistake or coincidence. This way, you can go on believing everything is perfectly in order.

Same old claim: if you don't hate Bush as much as I do, then you want to live in a repressive country where you have no rights Yadda yadda yadda.


I've already stated that we don't know the full contents of the memo. Maybe there was other, sensitive info that the AG doesn't want revealed. That's a theory and just as valid as any other ones, including your stock answer of "Bush Lied".

Mayet, you expect honesty from government? That's a very naive outlook, but it sounds good. To argue that it doesn't exist is to sound like I'm against Mom and apple pie. Not true, either.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
voting worked fine for me,


This piece kills me, Bush and the boy'ss get ratted out, so what do they do, they want the guys arrested that told the people of the crimes in the first place.


What crimes would you be referring to? As I recall, the Bush people considered a plan to target Al Jazerra. There has been no mention that I remember of them actually adopting the proposed plan. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a statement that targeting Al Jazerra was rejected by the administration. As to the two leakers, they deserve punishment for leaking at least some of the contents of a classified memo. I recall one of the leakers as saying the remainder of the memo was not disclosed because they felt it might jeopardize ongoing anti-terrorist operations (or similar comments). There are well known laws against what the leakers did.

Mayet, you cannot run a government, any government, where all proposed actions are disclosed to the public at large. I suppose, if the entire world were peaceful and at peace and there were no criminals, or terrorists, or people or groups working secretly to undermine and destroy the government, or the people represented by that government, then you might be able to conduct government operations in a completely open manner. However, until such an ideal world comes about there is a very real need for planning information to be denied to enemies and potential enemies through some sort of classification system (or official secrets system if you will). Having such a system does not make the government bad or imply any misfeasence on their part it simply means that disclosure of some information (especially planning information) would render such plans ineffective at best. In other cases, you could very well place peoples lives in jeapordy by disclosing on-going operations.

The truth is, we don't need to know everything our governments may be doing, or considering doing and attempting to find out and/or drag such information into a public forum is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
In effect, you're willing to give the government carte blanche regarding any action, no matter its legality or honesty. How does that go along with democracy?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
There has been no mention that I remember of them actually adopting the proposed plan. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a statement that targeting Al Jazerra was rejected by the administration.


To me it is not a matter of adopting the plan. Its having the audacity to suggest it in the first place. Being knocked back by the people you proposed it to does not get you off the hook, it just makes them not as stupid as the one proposing, at least someone saw sense. Or did they, wasn't the building subjected to a bombing at one stage. And there lies the crux of the second point.......... Did they? By even the implication of this suggestion, the question then Begs, if they were prepared to make this move, then what other low acts have they proposed, or even carried out? It raises suspicions and puts many incidents in a possible sinister light in view of this new information

Astronmer we have gone through our views on security and control before. The government must be accountable to the people. They are JUST our elected representatives, therefore they must represent us as we want them to represent us not carte blanche to commit whatever acts they think of to get the job done. They must respect our wishes and wants and needs. That is their job and their only job.

If people wish to have a government that does these kind of things then they will win at the elections. But in all honesty, until the facts, the records and the truths are put on the table for the voters to see, how can anyone vote at all for who they think is best. They are then voting for a lie.




[edit on 12-1-2006 by Mayet]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Well now, that's the crux of the dilemma isn't it. All we can do is try to be careful in picking who we vote for. If we do our best and select those whom we believe are honest and moral then we should get a government that is honest and moral. If we don't get the right people (in our opinions) elected then we can work as volunteers to assist them in getting elected. Beyone that, we don't really have any recourse. We cannot hamstring them by making them account for every moment of their time & energy or justify every single thing they want to do. At some point we simply have to trust them and pray our judgement in electing them was correct.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet

Originally posted by Astronomer68
There has been no mention that I remember of them actually adopting the proposed plan. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a statement that targeting Al Jazerra was rejected by the administration.


To me it is not a matter of adopting the plan. Its having the audacity to suggest it in the first place. Being knocked back by the people you proposed it to does not get you off the hook, it just makes them not as stupid as the one proposing, at least someone saw sense.

So, the "plan" can exist in one's mind forever. And I'll bet that every single one of us has harbored a troubling thought at least one time in our lives. It is OK as long as the thought remains in our mind, but never reaches the lips. The moment that it does, even as a simple "What if", then it's a crime. Right?

I don't think so. The world doesn't operate that way.



But in all honesty, until the facts, the records and the truths are put on the table for the voters to see, how can anyone vote at all for who they think is best. They are then voting for a lie.

How is this different than discussing "what if" we bomb the Al Jazerra office?




top topics



 
7

log in

join