"Bomb Al Jazeera" Trial: Secret Iraq memo leaked by UK civil servant

Time for a change..
Ill start this thread, with the response the whitehouse gave to an accusation

"We are not interested in dignifying something so outlandish and inconceivable with a response." In a response to a question asked in Parliament, Tony Blair denied that Bush had told him he planned to take action against Al-Jazeera. The two men involved in the leak have been charged with violating Britain's Official Secrets Act.

Then, well when it become apparent that proof was coming out, they changed the tone

A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".

Now, im REAL Keen to see the reponse from the whitehouse, when the following finally breaks free in MSM

Wed 18 Apr 2007 17:45:50 BST
By Luke Baker

LONDON, April 18 (Reuters) - The trial began in London on Wednesday of two men accused of leaking a secret memo on the Iraq war in which U.S. President George W. Bush is reported to have threatened to bomb Arabic TV station Al Jazeera. Prosecutors told the court the Britons, a civil servant and a political researcher, leaked the memo detailing "highly sensitive" talks between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004, because they opposed the Iraq war.

A secret Downing Street memo detailing talks between US President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair was leaked by a civil servant, the Old Bailey has heard

Mr Perry said the Washington meeting had been attended by the President and Prime Minister, together with "highly placed" individuals from both sides.
A record of the discussions was compiled by Matthew Rycroft, Mr Blair's private secretary for foreign affairs, on the same day.
It was written on Downing Street headed paper at the British Ambassador's residence in Washington and was addressed to Geoffrey Adams, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said Mr Perry.
"The letter was marked 'secret and personal' at the bottom of each page,"

Yes, above are the men, that Blair threatened to JAIL, should the memo be leaked, and looky, they are standing trial.
www.iraq-war.ru...
Then, you've got good ol bush

BUSH DENIES HE PLANNED TO BOMB AL-JAZEERA. POLL SHOWS 63% OF AMERICANS THINK HE'S LYING AGAIN

So when 2 out of 3 people think your lying….. AGAIN

Id say your not exactly doing the will of your people any more, hey george?

So two men cant be arrested for breaking the law is that what your saying because unless I'm mistaken those two broke the law by betrayign the confidence of the people that employ them....just a little note of how these two men BROKE the law to do something that was either to : A) Gain them money or B) Make them sleep easier at night knowing they stood up for thier values.

For all this "Double standards talk" I have yet to hear that these two men SHOULD be prosocuted for breaking the law, doing the right thing isnt always the right thing to do...

doing the right thing isnt always the right thing to do...

That makes no sense.

There are higher laws than those scribbled down by corrupt politicians. (Is there any other kind?) If your personal ethics don't outweigh the law, then you're a robot, not a human being.

These guys should be hailed as heroes as far as I am concerned - they provided a rare glimpse into just how sick and demented our "leaders" really are.

[edit on 4/26/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
That makes no sense.

There are higher laws than those scribbled down by corrupt politicians. (Is there any other kind?) If your personal ethics don't outweigh the law, then you're a robot, not a human being.

I mean no offence motex but frankly are you trying to justify breaking the law? If so then when is it ok to break the law? Do you define when its ok to break the law?
Motex I think we both understand what these two were trying to do but frankly they broke the law, got caught and should pay the price. Whether they done something that may or may not give us a glimpse at what our leaders think is totally irrelavent.

These guys should be hailed as heroes as far as I am concerned - they provided a rare glimpse into just how sick and demented our "leaders" really are.
[edit on 4/26/07 by xmotex]

Motex do you remember the lockerbie bombing? I knew a man who was drafted into help in the "clean up" of that incident, when it was break time they all sat down having thier tea and one of them looks over to his friend next to him and says: "Remember those trainers you where wanting? If you really still want them I know where you can get a pair for free." So the mans friend nods and asks where , "All you need to do is get a ladder and take them down off the tree!"

Not the nicest joke in the world but its called black humour for a reason, this is the world we live in motex you live with death and decisions everyday. Sure the joke may not be politically corect but cant the man at the top unwind with a joke? Ok maybe you wont like me for saying that but hey, I'm not a nice person and we dont live in a nice world, deal with it. These men may have been doing the right thing ethically but they where still doing the wrong thing lawfully, the law exists for a reason : to protect people.

A very well made and astute point, DW

You have voted devilwasp for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

Well done!

the law exists for a reason : to protect people.

The law exists to protect the people that write the laws, and the people who pay for their campaigns, don't kid yourself. Authority acts in it's own interests, not yours or mine.

And yes, I have few qualms about breaking laws, in the 1850's US I'd be helping runaway slaves, in 1930's Germany I'd be helping Jews escape, etc etc... all "against the law" for certain... too damn bad.

Originally posted by xmotex
The law exists to protect the people that write the laws, and the people who pay for their campaigns, don't kid yourself. Authority acts in it's own interests, not yours or mine.

I'm not kidding myself, politions play on peoples emotions and as such they are subject to the whims of the people. Cause and effect, Cause: Dunblane shooting , Effect: Major fire arm restriction in the UK.
7/7 bombing: Terrorist laws.
Etc etc
Now those incident may or may not have been caused or created by the government at the time (Depending on who you believe...) but they still acted with the whims of the people because the people where frightened and as such want something that they think wil make them safe.
Authority as you put it acts in the intrests of the people because THEY are the people that keep authority in power, without the people they are nothing.
[quote
And yes, I have few qualms about breaking laws, in the 1850's US I'd be helping runaway slaves, in 1930's Germany I'd be helping Jews escape, etc etc... all "against the law" for certain... too damn bad.
So your saying that as long as YOU see it as morally justified then it IS justified in the eyes of the law?

So I'd be justified in conducting a full on assault of the peace camp outside faslane with paint greandes, smoke grenades, paint ball guns and spray cans because I see it as morally justifiable that they are trying to force thier beliefs on me?

So your saying that as long as YOU see it as morally justified then it IS justified in the eyes of the law?

No, I'm saying that what's "justified in the eyes of the law" hasn't got much to do with what's right, and I'll pick "right" over "legal" any day of the week.

Originally posted by xmotex

The law exists to protect the people that write the laws, and the people who pay for their campaigns, don't kid yourself. Authority acts in it's own interests, not yours or mine.

AMEN to that.

When is corruption on any government the only laws that are in place is the ones that the corrupted government enact to protect its butt.

The laws of man are made to be broken in the pursue of the truth and to expose lies.

We have a constitution that protect us from our own government and their corrupted intentions.

No government is above the people that elected them.

Xmotex you got my last vote for this month.

Originally posted by xmotex
No, I'm saying that what's "justified in the eyes of the law" hasn't got much to do with what's right, and I'll pick "right" over "legal" any day of the week.

But thats the point , what is right for you and what is right for me are radically different. I mean thats like justifying vigilantism or extremists in thier acts against "Bad people" , I mean come on. Am I justified to go a rampant killing spree hunting down rapists and murderers because the bible or the quarn says so? Or maybe I would be justified in bombing a drug dealers house because they currupt children?

Just because YOU think its right doesnt MAKE it right.

Originally posted by marg6043
AMEN to that.

When is corruption on any government the only laws that are in place is the ones that the corrupted government enact to protect its butt.

So the "knifes act of 1997" is to "protect" the government agaisnt the massing hordes of knife weilding revolutionaries instead of being a tool by the police to crack down on the high number of stabbings?

The laws of man are made to be broken in the pursue of the truth and to expose lies.

So your justifying murder to "expose lies and pursue the truth"?
No sorry but I have SERIOUS problems about someone who is wiling to break the laws that the PEOPLE have made to protect THEMESLVES. What gives you the right to do that?

We have a constitution that protect us from our own government and their corrupted intentions.

I dont and frankly I dont see how american laws affect britain in this case..
[qupte]
No government is above the people that elected them.

And no person is above the law the laws that the people make either....the ends do not justify the means...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Perhaps the Uk should have done what is done in the US, when it comes to memos, they just go . . . missing or . . . they get erased.

The corruption on the backs of our governments is just patethic.

Originally posted by devilwasp
No sorry but I have SERIOUS problems about someone who is wiling to break the laws that the PEOPLE have made to protect THEMESLVES. What gives you the right to do that?

I wonder though, do you have a problem with those who didn't break the law or chain of command during apartheid or the holocaust?

I do, not any of the laws that led to those two shameful periods were designed to protect people. Not every law is designed to protect people. In the end, you have to be able to live with yourself. I know that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees is wrong. It might be the law, but it is wrong. And while it might be 'law', it actually violates a number of international laws. That said though, I am not about to go and kill the people who pass these laws, nor am i going to attempt to lock them up like they have done to others. Because that too, is wrong.

I find your analogies quite fascinating. If someone is so morally hurt by a drug dealers 'corruption of children', then wouldn't that same person have a moral problem with killing them? State-sanctioned or personally, killing is wrong, just as dealing drugs is wrong. Both murder and drug dealing are illegal, but one leads to instant death, the other might never. Which would you say is a morally worse thing to do? Deal Drugs, or Murder?

On the subject of drugs, and while I will not argue that dealing drugs to children or minors is absolutely wrong in all its forms, how does the illegality of drugs to the wider community serve to protect them? Statistics will show that more people die from Smoking or Alcohol than most illicit drugs combined. How can one legislate 'protection from yourself' anyway? If these laws were really to protect us, wouldn't smoking and alcohol both be illegal? As not happen [anytime soon] and if protecting us was truly the motivation, wouldn't most drugs be legalized in controlled environments?

Onto the issue of this thread, i find it appalling that people are being put on trial for a truly patriotic action -- whistle blowing. These men should be commended for their willingness to go public and risk a lot to help uncover government corruption.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by colourinthemeaning]

Originally posted by colourinthemeaning
I wonder though, do you have a problem with those who didn't break the law or chain of command during apartheid or the holocaust?

Yes I do, theres a difference between breaking the law to save a life and breaking the law to show the world that the Top leaders of the world can make jokes.

I do, not any of the laws that led to those two shameful periods were designed to protect people. Not every law is designed to protect people. In the end, you have to be able to live with yourself. I know that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees is wrong. It might be the law, but it is wrong. And while it might be 'law', it actually violates a number of international laws. That said though, I am not about to go and kill the people who pass these laws, nor am i going to attempt to lock them up like they have done to others. Because that too, is wrong.

We are not talking abotu breaking the law to save lives, we are not talking about breaking the law to reveal "The truth", we are talking about 2 people selling a story to the newspaper for money. That is not a

I find your analogies quite fascinating. If someone is so morally hurt by a drug dealers 'corruption of children', then wouldn't that same person have a moral problem with killing them? State-sanctioned or personally, killing is wrong, just as dealing drugs is wrong. Both murder and drug dealing are illegal, but one leads to instant death, the other might never. Which would you say is a morally worse thing to do? Deal Drugs, or Murder?

2 wrongs do not make a right, just because its the "morally" right thing to do doesnt mean it IS the right thing to do is it?
Was it morally right to allow germany to believe thier codes had not been cracked in WW2 at the cost of hundreds of civilian lives?

Onto the issue of this thread, i find it appalling that people are being put on trial for a truly patriotic action -- whistle blowing. These men should be commended for their willingness to go public and risk a lot to help uncover government corruption.
[edit on 1-5-2007 by colourinthemeaning]

They didnt reveal any curruption apart from showing that the people at the top cna make a joke....would you like your trust violated?
Violating trust is wrong no matter what excuse you use.....maybe it is the "right thing to do" but that doesnt make it right thing to do legally, your actions have concequences.

devilwasp

leave alone the explanations and use of examples that is only for your own interpretation and views and actually has nothing to do when it comes to the choices of citizens dealing with corruption in their own governments.

Everything comes down to one point, when governments are corrupted is the patriotic duty of the citizens of any democratic country to protect themselves from that corruption.

I can not imagine you trying to defend a corrupted government lying to the people that elected them just to cover their despicable acts against any nation just because is OK to go into war under false pretenses and to shut the tagged enemies media.

Originally posted by marg6043
devilwasp

leave alone the explanations and use of examples that is only for your own interpretation and views and actually has nothing to do when it comes to the choices of citizens dealing with corruption in their own governments

Everything comes down to one point, when governments are corrupted is the patriotic duty of the citizens of any democratic country to protect themselves from that corruption.

I can not imagine you trying to defend a corrupted government lying to the people that elected them just to cover their despicable acts against any nation just because is OK to go into war under false pretenses and to shut the tagged enemies media.

What corruption though! Nothing to that regard has been mentioned in the memmo(as far as we know) and frankly if rules are not in place to stop people leaking classified intel then what is there to stop a terrorist (IRA? Home grown terrorists?) from gaining acess to secret , high level discussions between countries?
Your making this out to be a crusade against the "machine" or "the man" but I dont see it as such, if your unwilling to allow someone to joke then your encrouching on the first amendmant that you so deerly hold true.
Maybe your american mind is still struggling to understand that even though they acted right in thier moral standards, does that justify betraying the people that employ you and TRUST you with that information? You can spout off all you want about illegal war this and illegal war that , frankly I dont care.....they broke the law....the law does not allow exceptions or are you claiming that it would be sensible to allow laws to be "just ignored"? Were you not one of the many who cited several UN laws that were broken to conduct the iraq war? If so then surely you would be the first to understand that breaking the rules is still wrong.

Originally posted by devilwasp
What corruption though! Nothing to that regard has been mentioned in the memmo(as far as we know) and frankly if rules are not in place to stop people leaking classified intel then what is there to stop a terrorist (IRA? Home grown terrorists?) from gaining acess to secret , high level discussions between countries?

Oh, well, I guess with the opening of that part of your post, I will rest my case . . . see . . . both governments UK with Blair and US with Bush were in on the agenda under lies and false pretenses to take the middle east with Iraq, to me and many others is called corruption

Originally posted by marg6043
Oh, well, I guess with the opening of that part of your post, I will rest my case

What case? Your being sneakier than secret squirrel on the job...

. . . see . . . both governments UK with Blair and US with Bush were in on the agenda under lies and false pretenses to take the middle east with Iraq, to me and many others is called corruption

....yeah....and tell me, how does this have to do with two people betraying the peoples trust by breaking the law they swore to uphold? No offence but frankly your desperation for those two to be arrested or charged is clouding your judgement. I dont deny parts of the government arent corrupt but frankly what bearing does that have on the fact that those two men broke the law?

I think it was pretty well established when this story first broke that the "joke" excuse didn't wash. It wasn't received as a joke by Blair because according to his aides he thought Bush was absolutely serious and had to explain to him why bombing non-combatant news networks wasn't allowed in the grown up world.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I think it was pretty well established when this story first broke that the "joke" excuse didn't wash. It wasn't received as a joke by Blair because according to his aides he thought Bush was absolutely serious and had to explain to him why bombing non-combatant news networks wasn't allowed in the grown up world.

Jokes can be just as damaging as confessions, people are made and broke by wha they say and do. I seriously doubt that it there as any seriousness behind it.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I think it was pretty well established when this story first broke that the "joke" excuse didn't wash. It wasn't received as a joke by Blair because according to his aides he thought Bush was absolutely serious and had to explain to him why bombing non-combatant news networks wasn't allowed in the grown up world.

Jokes can be just as damaging as confessions, people are made and broke by wha they say and do. I seriously doubt that it there as any seriousness behind it.

Well, personally I think the kind of person that finds that sort of joke or humor to be funny in any way.. just doesn't get it, and perhaps shouldn't be president? Joke or serious, it proves he isn't the sort of person I want in the white house.

And I couldn't agree more that the "joke" excuse doesn't wash. They have been trying to convince us that AJ is a 'terrorist news network' for quite some time. Of course they have never provided one piece of proof for this, perhaps because.. It isn't?