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.
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.
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?
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. No doubt that needed permission from the Home Office, but it’s happening, nonetheless.
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 for releasing the name of the bomber prematurely,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…?
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.
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.
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.
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 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*in the 12 months to March 2016, British police discharged their firearms on just seven occasions