Confirmed: There are Two Memos.
- al-jazeera memo
- bliar
- bush
UPDATE - Go HERE for the latest on this, and for further explanation of the points we are making.
There are two memos.
We have had our suspicions (argued below) that the Times memo and the Mirror memo citing Bush's plans to bomb al-Jazeera are entirely different documents confirmed by Peter Kilfoyle MP, who has seen both documents.
He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the 'prosecution' of and Keogh and O'Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:
The Times used 'official' leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.
We have also had it confirmed that Keogh and O'Connor are only facing one set of charges, over one document.
Update 29/11 12:30: Thanks to an eagle-eyed commenter - we have had it re-confirmed in a Court Report:
O'Connor, of Peveril Road, Old Duston, Northampton, is accused of "receiving a document through its disclosure without lawful authority from a Crown Servant."
If what was reported by the BBC on 17th November, prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times [May 2004], and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.
If the Mirror is correct in it's assertion that Keogh and O'Connor are being charged over the source of their story [the transcript], the
n the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo was a construct, a 'beard' to cover up the existence of the document refered by the Mirror.
This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie [or spin if you prefer]; that Keogh and O'connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the medium term' memo.
To cover up the existance of the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' transcript?
A plan derailed by the Mirror obtaining a copy and publishing it's story.
The BBC ran the story about Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution on the 17th of November.
The Mirror state they approached the Government with their story about Bush wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24 hours before publication, on the 22nd of November.
This was four days after we 'learned' via the BBC that Keogh and O'Connor were to be charged with the leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo.
If this is the case, the Mirror story did not precipitate the lie [spin] that was reported either wittingly or unwittingly by the BBC on the 17th November, it exposed it.
If we accept Peter Killfoyle's word (and I do) that the Times article and the Mirror article are from different sources, then Keogh and O'Connor cannot be facing charges over both leaks.
Either way we are being told lies by our government, and either wittingly or unwittingly by the mainstream media.
Update:
Firstly, from The Raw Story:
"A source familiar with the case told RAW STORY that while individual publications have been targeted by the Blair administration in the past, this case is particularly extraordinary because journalists by and large are allowed the public interest defense. Central to this case and series of events is the question of why The Mirror and other news organizations would accept this gag order.
"One key thing to remember is you don't have to have signed anything saying you would stick by the rules and not disclose or receive stuff," the source said. "If you knowingly received it you could be charged. But charging journalists would fall foul of the public interest defense, so although journalists are as liable to arrest as anyone else, the case would almost certainly fail if it could be shown to be in the public interest that the information be made public."
Secondly, from the Guardian article:
"A QC specialising in media law said: "If the material has already been published it's pretty hard to see how the subsequent publication of the same material will either amount to a disclosure - because how can you disclose something that's already been circulated? - or satisfy the test that the publication is damaging."
And as Christopher Reed says in a Counter Punch article:
"There is one more likely outcome in this outrageous affair. It is that the Blair government, in trying to banish from public consumption the ill-timed and appallingly judged remark of the world's most powerful commander-in-chief, will prolong its life -- or even give it a new one.
Older commenators are recalling the absurdities of Britain's Spycatcher scandal of 20 years ago. In that case, a British ex-spy from MI5 called Peter Wright sought to publish a book in which he revealed embarrassing secrets of his former employers, who in turned sought urgently to prevent exactly that. To silence two newspapers that were revealing some of Wright's spicier stories, the attorney general invoked the Official Secrets Act. He spent much time, energy -- and public money -- in vain. The book was not only published but became a best-seller because of the publicity. Finally, the British government lost its case before the European Court of Human Rights.
Going back to the 1980s, official British brandishing of its oppressive Official Secrets Act has almost always ended in humiliation for its champions. The present case of Bush and the Arab TV Bombing seems likely to add to these fiascoes."
We should hopefully know more tomorrow, when the case starts: if nowt else that the government prefers to keep digging deceiving when in a hole...
Update 29/11/05
Scaryduck went to the meeting yesterday and Reports Here. Salient points include:
* The memo also contains details of a conversation between George W Bush, and his London spokesman Tony Blair, in which the Leader of the Free World reveals plans to attack Al Jazeera TV, a civilian broadcaster financed by the government of Qatar. Mr Blair, for all his faults, tells him that this may not be a particularly good idea, and other, unnamed officials tend to concur with Tony's line of thinking.
* The Mirror, out of courtesy, informs Downing Street that they will be publishing details of this memo. Downing Street has a hissy fit, and the White House, according to Maguire "went beserk", leading to threats of the Official Secrets Act against anybody who is even considering publishing the document.
* Of course," said Maguire, "the government wouldn't be using the Official Secrets Act if the reports weren't true. This government will go to great lengths to keep this memo secret."
To date NOT ONE mainstream news outfit has picked up on the two memos story and the implications. Perhaps the future of news is in blogging.
Wow, excellent digging and
Wow, excellent digging and reporting. Once again, blogs break an important story.
Thanks for that. We've spent
Thanks for that. We've spent all day researching this and getting sources etc. Bloggers can only contribute in the realm of journalism if they behave responsibly. We've tried to do that.
We haven't got to the bottom of it, but we're confident of what we'rve written. Hopefully we'll make more progress, but we need facts and evidence not guesswork and political bias.
Of course, if we get it wrong, we get a free holiday in Gitmo ; )
Now I know what blogging is
Now I know what blogging is for. This...
He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the 'prosecution' of and Keogh and O'Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:
Wholly different sources.
The Times used 'official' leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.
We have also had it confirmed that Keogh and O'Connor are only facing one set of charges, over one document.
If what was reported by the BBC prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times [May 2004], and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.
...is brilliant. It is the best thing I;'ve ever seen on a blog. And clearly, you are way ahead of Fleet Street. Congratulations!
I've sent you an email with a couple of points too.
red, thanks for your kind
red, thanks for your kind comments, but we do have advantages over mainstream media:
But we must do what mainstream media does, get sources, check the story out and try to remain balanced and fair. Seperate what we know from what we suspect. We've already scopped the dead tree media before. If they won't keep up, hell, we'll do it again and again.
OK, I've come up with a bit
OK, I've come up with a bit more thinking on this. In particular about the second part of the post here, about the BBC story being a "beard", constructed to try to cover up the plan to bomb al-Jazeera.
It's a bit long, so I've posted it on my blog here (scroll down for the update).
See what you think.
None of it takes anything away from the brilliant bit of work you've done to nail the two memos, though.
That is some serious
That is some serious blogging ... I wish we had more like you. Wonder what else is in Mr. Blair's bureau?
blogenfreude (from across the pond)
On a side issue, BBC Online
On a side issue, BBC Online have a debate section called "Have Your Say". I suggested The Bomb Al Jazeera Memo, but they're not using it.
We haven't got to the bottom of this yet.
As far as I am aware the
As far as I am aware the Official Secrets Act allows no public interest defence. This was used in the Prime case and when Prime was not found guilty an amended act removed the ability to cite public interest as a defence.
Also, under the OSA, unlike most other charges the burden of proof rests on the defendant. The defendant has to prove they did not damage national security. The onus is NOT on the prosecution to prove that they did.
Additionally, rather than use the OSA to gag the media, the Government prefers to use a system of injunctions, in many cases it becomes an offence (as in the Shayler case) to even report that an injunction is in place. In this way the public is kept in the dark.
excellent journalism--very
excellent journalism--very well done. and to echo blogenfreude, yes, i wish we had more like you.
Latest on the court case
Latest on the court case today here
"Prosecutor Rosemary Fernandes asked the court to remand the two on bail on condition that they do not have any direct or indirect contact with each other and that neither leaves the country.
She said that if any details of how the leak took place or information from the memo was likely to be made in open court she would seek reporting restrictions under Sections 11 and 14 of the Contempt of Court Act.
The pair will reappear at Bow Street Magistrates Court on January 10 for a committal hearing."
This info above is currently
This info above is currently in a recommended diary at Daily Kos (I think it's the most trafficked liberal blog in the US). It'll get some visibility.
I find it strange that Blair's government is sooo concerned about this, but didn't go as far with the Downing Street Memo (the one that talked about "fixing the facts around the policy" of invading Iraq no matter what, no matter how bad the intelligence was, no matter that Iraq was not perceived as a threat (even to next door neighbors), no matter that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, no matter that Bush didn't have a plan for the aftermath)
This also got linked to by
This also got linked to by CrooksandLiars.com via my blog and Danny Schechter mentioned it in one of his MediaChannel.org newsletters today.
So, it's starting to get traction.
Some find the story a bit confusing. Maybe we need a short version?
*applauds* P.S: Newsnight
*applauds*
P.S: Newsnight just mentioned how on it the bloggers were.
\o/ wooo hoo!
Thanks Rachel, can I add
Thanks Rachel, can I add your blog to the list?
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2005/11/stay-your-hand.html
Please do, sweetheart, my 'kin pleasure.
I'm already a traitor acc. to the Sun so waht the damn hell.
Regarding this Al Jazeera
Regarding this Al Jazeera memo fiasco, I would like to ask anyone out there if they know how the Qatari govenment has responded to these revelations. I have been searching various blogs but I have not found anything yet. The government of Qatar must be worried about the prospect of having their country bombed by a supposedly friendly government. Surely an ambassador would have asked the UK or US governments for clarification as Al Jazeera has done. If anyone has any information regarding this, I would love to hear it. Meanwhile, like so many others, if I get my hands on this memo I promise to make sure as many people as possible get to see it.
why not make a link so that
why not make a link so that everyone can suggest it as a topic for discussion? If there is the demand to have the discussion and the pressure is on maybe... oh wait, its the BBC we're talking about...
Re: Qatari government's
Re: Qatari government's response.
Did Bush plan to bomb Al-Jazeera? by Juan Cole in the Salon today.
Cole explains the background context to Bush wanting rid (at least) of Al Jazeera, can be found here
Cole also discusses Rumsfeld's outbursts on TV about AJ.
Notes on the Fallujah
Notes on the Fallujah context of the Bush-Blair 'Bomb al-Jazeera' Memo
Excellent research here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5445445#5446812
The original leaked memo has
The original leaked memo has been published here:
http://cryptome.org/uk-iq-memo.htm
(Scroll down past the original articles from 2004)
Note: It contains no reference to Al-J nor to a Bush-Blair conversation. It's an FCO policy document.
Therefore:
There are indeed two memos.
Reports (BBC) linking the two guys with the 'bombing AL-J memo' are deliberate disinformation.
When Blair says he can't discuss bombing Al-J because 'it's all sub judice', he is lying. The current trial is about the first memo.