# Manchester Bomber - Intelligence Leaks **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 24, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378 "2017-05-24T23:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/21 "2017-05-25T14:11:51Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > The British Home Secretary (in charge of homeland security) and the Mayor of Manchester have both made direct complaints to US authorities, and have shut down the flow of information sharing to the US, which we must presume they wouldn’t do if they didn’t hold the US gov or Intelligence services directly responsible for the leaks. > > Theresa May is also reported to be talking directly to Trump about it today at the NATO summit. Yes, but which doesn’t actually prove that no part of the leaks came from British sources, there being different elements (the name, the crime scene photo’s). We can take as fact that the British are assuming or acting as if assuming none of it came from them, that’s all IMO. The other thing to note is that the guy’s name was on social media before US media reported it, as usually seems to be the case with these type of incidents, w/ ‘homegrown’ element. Social media reports of such names are wrong more often than ‘accountable’ traditional media reports, but the appearance of info on social media factors into traditional media decisions to hold back things they can otherwise verify. And who knows the original source of all social media rumors? Maybe they also all trace back to US intel sources, or not. Again the fact that British authorities are saying they are angry, in part for their own public’s consumption (still true even if in fact the leaks are solely from US intel sources, that’s just politics everywhere), doesn’t actually prove anything. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/22 "2017-05-25T14:32:21Z")
> [@Count\_Blucher](#): > > What if This is Trump’s ‘Reichstag Fire’?.. “Reichstag Fire?” Is that the new word? Call me a denier. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/23 "2017-05-25T14:39:58Z")
Crikey - I guess it’s possible to turn just about any incident into a conspiracy. Personally I think it was some fairly junior individual who possibly even thought that it was in the public domain. No doubt DT will give Theresa a hug and all will be well. ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/24 "2017-05-25T14:40:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > One possible reason (hypothetically, since we don’t know if US Intelligence leaked the info) is that a US official with clearance to see this info had been compromised by or is voluntarily helping some foreign government, or is otherwise gaining some personal benefit from this alleged action. > > Another possible reason, although I think too sophisticated for US intelligence to pull off, is that it’s disinformation which could lead to more information about the bombing. I realize the natural tendency is to believe one is smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else, but in cases like this, wouldn’t be a bit more prudent to assume the opposite? That is, wouldn’t it make more sense that the Intelligence Agencies are actually a few steps ahead of you in their thinking? That the leaked information was actually “authorised” by British Intelligence and the US Intelligence and US media are only doing what they can do to help than to believe both the US intelligence and US media are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping terrorists? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/25 "2017-05-25T15:02:29Z")
No, not at all, I think the information was leaked by an opportunist in exchange for money, I think no other consideration came into it. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/26 "2017-05-25T15:55:28Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Yes, but which doesn’t actually prove that no part of the leaks came from British sources, there being different elements (the name, the crime scene photo’s). We can take as fact that the British are assuming or acting as if assuming none of it came from them, that’s all IMO. > > The other thing to note is that the guy’s name was on social media before US media reported it, as usually seems to be the case with these type of incidents, w/ ‘homegrown’ element. Social media reports of such names are wrong more often than ‘accountable’ traditional media reports, but the appearance of info on social media factors into traditional media decisions to hold back things they can otherwise verify. And who knows the original source of all social media rumors? Maybe they also all trace back to US intel sources, or not. Again the fact that British authorities are saying they are angry, in part for their own public’s consumption (still true even if in fact the leaks are solely from US intel sources, that’s just politics everywhere), doesn’t actually prove anything. Look, I feel sorry for the Mayor of Manchester, having lost 22 citizens. But to suggest that he (like **San Vito** suggests) has a veto over what is shared between national governments, which is set up through bilateral agreements is laughable. Lets say the LAPD discovered some information about terrorists in LA. How much power would the Mayor of Los Angeles have to stop the USG from sharing it with foreign governments? Not much. Its the same here. Yes Greater Manchestrer Police are annoyed, but sharing of intelligence with foreign countries\* is not their call\*. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/27 "2017-05-25T16:16:53Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Look, I feel sorry for the Mayor of Manchester, having lost 22 citizens. But to suggest that he (like **San Vito** suggests) has a veto over what is shared between national governments, which is set up through bilateral agreements is laughable. > > Lets say the LAPD discovered some information about terrorists in LA. How much power would the Mayor of Los Angeles have to stop the USG from sharing it with foreign governments? Not much. Its the same here. Yes Greater Manchestrer Police are annoyed, but sharing of intelligence with foreign countries\* is not their call\*. In no way did I suggest he has a veto over such things, he has merely, very publicly, expressed his disgust, which is highly unusual criticism by a British politician of the US. However, it is now a matter of public record that the Manchester Police are now withholding information from the US. [Just one of a dozen reports on the matter](http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/greater-manchester-police-terror-attack-13089496). No doubt that needed permission from the Home Office, but it’s happening, nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/28 "2017-05-25T16:22:07Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > No, not at all, I think the information was leaked by an opportunist in exchange for money, I think no other consideration came into it. Very little leaking is done for money, for the most part it is done as part of bureaucratic infighting or to cultivate a journalist. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/29 "2017-05-25T16:35:24Z")
A good letter from a security professional after the New York Times (said to be a reputable newspaper) printed forensic pics of the remains of the bomb: > [@](#): > > As a longtime reader of The Times, I was shocked, saddened and frankly confused by the decision to publish pictures of forensic evidence gathered by the British police from the scene of the bombing in Manchester. The release of any detail from a continuing counterterrorism investigation can have a harmful effect on that investigation. > > In particular, in a case in which it is suspected that the bomb maker is still at large, the forensic details provided could provide him or her with useful damage assessment information to “improve” the next device manufactured. > > Against this risk, it is unclear what public interest or informational need was served by publishing these pictures of the scene of an atrocity. I expect efforts to capitalize on sensational details from my country’s tabloids, but not from The Times. > > ANDREW GAWTHORPE > LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS > > _The writer, a lecturer in security studies at Leiden University, was a teaching fellow at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, a British military institution of higher education, and served as a civil servant in the Cabinet Office._ As for releasing the name of the bomber prematurely, > [@](#): > > The BBC notes that U.K. counterterrorism officials “have spoken in the past about how a delay of about 36 hours before the public know who is being investigated can allow known associates of the suspect to be arrested without being tipped off.” Another police professional noted that the investigators might not want dozens of reporters suddenly turning up outside the bomber’s house if there was delicate operation in progress there. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/30 "2017-05-25T16:45:28Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > However, it is now a matter of public record that the Manchester Police are now withholding information from the US. [Just one of a dozen reports on the matter](http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/greater-manchester-police-terror-attack-13089496). No doubt that needed permission from the Home Office, but it’s happening, nonetheless. I have read it too. Its not a “matter of public record”. Its a claim published in one newspaper which has been reprinted as fact with no official word. Secondly, police forces don’t normally share intel directly with foreign entities, its passed onto national bodies who then give it to foreign counterparts. So Greater Manchester Police have no way of stopping information to the US, unless they have also simultaneously stopped giving info to the Home Office and the security services. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/31 "2017-05-25T16:50:30Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > So Greater Manchester Police have no way of stopping information to the US, unless they have also simultaneously stopped giving info to the Home Office and the security services. They’d be giving information to the UK security services, but with the stipulation that it shouldn’t be passed on, or a time embargo on passing it on. Given that the UK security services are absolutely furious about the leaks, they’d be happy to agree. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/32 "2017-05-25T16:51:54Z")
> [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > I realize the natural tendency is to believe one is smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else, but in cases like this, wouldn’t be a bit more prudent to assume the opposite? > > That is, wouldn’t it make more sense that the Intelligence Agencies are actually a few steps ahead of you in their thinking? That the leaked information was actually “authorised” by British Intelligence and the US Intelligence and US media are only doing what they can do to help than to believe both the US intelligence and US media are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping terrorists? I put in the part about disinformation, which could be part of counterintelligence. I just don’t think that highly of media or US intelligence in general but I certainly hope could and are operating on that level. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/33 "2017-05-25T17:09:48Z")
> [@Count\_Blucher](#): > > What if This is Trump’s ‘Reichstag Fire’? > > He’s long been all about making it about leaks, not the high crimes they expose. So… he waits for the next big foreign intel issue with maximum exposure. He learns the photos have intel significance… but they just look to a reporter like standard crime scene photos. He gives the word… leak it to the NYT. > > Then he sits back and waits for MI5 to explode. > Next, he’ll jump on the bandwagon and insist on curbs on all media reporting. > > …and all with a smirk on his face… > > Seems plausible. No I can’t prove it… but if it could be proved… and the order to leak did come down from 1600… it would be interesting… That _Demon_. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/34 "2017-05-25T17:44:54Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > That _Demon_. Rove used to pull stunts as complex. Tell me again how this wouldn’t shift the conversation to “leaks”, a pet whipping post for Trump and talking point of the GOP…? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/35 "2017-05-25T18:03:05Z")
Who is to say the leak is deliberate within the US intelligence community so as to discredit the Republican president. Trump has been more than antagonistic to his own intelligence sources, in particular, and the federal bureaucracy, in general. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/36 "2017-05-25T18:13:45Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Look, I feel sorry for the Mayor of Manchester, having lost 22 citizens. But to suggest that he (like **San Vito** suggests) has a veto over what is shared between national governments, which is set up through bilateral agreements is laughable. > > Lets say the LAPD discovered some information about terrorists in LA. How much power would the Mayor of Los Angeles have to stop the USG from sharing it with foreign governments? Not much. Its the same here. Yes Greater Manchestrer Police are annoyed, but sharing of intelligence with foreign countries\* is not their call\*. I don’t know what that has to do with my post you quoted, but sure, it’s not local British authorities’ call, especially not in England where power is so centralized. From US POV any British authorities outside the central govt (give or take devolution stuff in non-England Uk) seem to have about as much power as small town officials in the US whose power is circumscribed by county then state then the federal govt. Not even comparable to US big city mayors (though their power varies idiosyncratically, different US big cities are pretty differently organized). Anyway sure, in a terrorist investigation in the US arising from a local incident but involving federal agencies, the local authorities couldn’t tell the federal govt not to share info with foreign intel agencies. They could ask. It’s possible they might be listened to if the feds judged them to have a good enough argument. Like I did say, a lot of this IMO is for the local public’s consumption, not very meaningful IMO. Which is not to say US politicians don’t also like to hear themselves talk tough asserting their independence of and skepticism toward foreigners etc. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/37 "2017-05-25T19:12:20Z")
> [@Count\_Blucher](#): > > Rove used to pull stunts as complex. Tell me again how this wouldn’t shift the conversation to “leaks”, a pet whipping post for Trump and talking point of the GOP…? Yup: Rove and Trump, the twin Masterminds. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/38 "2017-05-25T19:50:40Z")
“American Intelligence” is a classic example of an oxymoron. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/39 "2017-05-25T21:32:30Z")
How do we know it wasn’t a leak from the Manchester police, to a UK news outlet reporter/journalist, that then gave it to a friend at NY Times, which subsequently reported it. Then allowing the BBC to post images that were released from abroad. Yup… pretty much how it went down. I do not know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if UK laws in regards to this type of info leak are significantly different than the USA, maybe even so much, that they (UK police) could roll in and start confiscating left and right everything at the BBC office with not much of a warrant in regards to who specifically did the leak. Like, literally shut the place down. In the USA, as it’s obviously so, that doesn’t happen at all. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378/40 "2017-05-25T22:15:08Z")
Don’t think I’ve ever hear of British police shutting down a media office. Plus they have to get dated ( only last a month ), address specific, **[warrants](http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/44-5/1001105.aspx)** signed by a magistrate to do practically anything. And they are trained not to shoot people, unlike in America, so they can’t fall back on waving their guns about. \* - \*\*\*[In England and Wales](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shooting-statistics-discharge-firearms-figures-freddie-gray-baton-killings-homicide-a7160391.html)\*_in the 12 months to March 2016, British police discharged their firearms on just seven occasions_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manchester-bomber-intelligence-leaks/787378.md?page=3)