Watching BBC. The government of the U.K. is not happy at all about two leaks from American intelligence that showed up in the NYT (and maybe elsewhere). First, the release of the bomber's name. British Intelligence was still running investigations on the network of the bomber when his name was released in the US.

Next, the NYT posted a picture of the bomb. Officials at Whitehall expressed "disbelief and astonishment" at the leaked images of the device.

Too many people still employed in American intelligence with no honor. There hasn't been integrity in journalism for a long, long, time.

Few seemed to care when the Trump Administration was damaged by leaks from American intelligence sources, now it hampers the investigation into a horrific terrorist bombing. Our Allies are not amused. One headline today (London Times) read: "Foyer full of young girls wearing kitten ears was the softest target."

Staggers me that intelligence people would release it and that the press would publish it.

The Obama administration prosecuted people for stuff like that, didn't they?

quote:

The Obama administration prosecuted rewarded people for stuff like that, didn't they?

the way I remember it

two completely separate issues. The press will never keep secrets. It's not their job (actually the opposite is true.)

And are we sure this came out of US intelligence?

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Staggers me that intelligence people would release it and that the press would publish it.

The Obama administration prosecuted people for stuff like that, didn't they?

The Brits seem certain. Where else could it have come from? With all the leaks during the first months of Trump's Administration, you're suddenly skeptical that people in US intelligence would leak to the press?!?

Whoever the new FBI director is really needs to root out these Obama holdovers that are leaking classified info every day.

The Brits have the National Secrets Act and they are always appalled at what our media gets away with exposing classified info and ongoing investigations.

Having worked in the intelligence community I am having trouble believing these leaks of evolving events are coming from working level intelligence folks. Nobody is more frustrated and angry with the leaks than working level intelligence professionals. You work years to develop sources of information that are neutralized by one leak. The real bite is that the dumbasses in the media are clueless as to the damage they have done and the IC cannot tell them.

Significant events like this are briefed at the highest levels first-it's like a race to see who can get to the front office with it first-in the initial hours this stuff comes in like a fire hose without a whole lot of analysis. Somebody near the top with aspirations is leaking, or the NYT has a mole deep inside who they are paying handsomely. The leakers will be caught, and there will be Hell to pay, but the damage to our intelligence efforts is incalculable.

Funny... Trump seems pretty pissed off about the leaks too. I means seriously, what is the point of having Top Secret and Classified material if there is an open window to the media and they can posses and distribute with no fear of criminal penalty???

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

And are we sure this came out of US intelligence?

Ding, ding ding. Chicken dinner winner.

How do the Brits know it was us and not them.

As is practice in situations like this, The British Secret Services shared the information with the US Secret Services and other government counter-terrorist organisations within the US. This included the name of the bomber and scenes of crime images of the event itself.

The suggestion has been made that it might be the Brits themselves leaking the information to the NYT.

The only Brits privy to this information at the time of the leak were the police, the security services and the medical services who attended the scene - ALL of whom have signed up to the Official Secrets Act. Here in yUK we had seen NOTHING of the inside of the foyer that was not on phones and taken at the time of the incident.

Sooooooooooooooooo, somebody in the US Secret Services and/or counter-terrorist organisations shared the images of the remains of the backpack bomb and initiator [among other images not yet released here] and the name of the bomber with the New York Times, which published them.

Here in UK there is the Official Secrets Act, which is taken very seriously by the government. All of us in the military sign up to it, as does every civil servant - including police officers. Penalties for ignoring its strictures and going public before getting the governmental say-so to make public anything covered by it that you have signed up to protecting will ensure that you won't have to worry about getting fed and clothed for the next ten years, for starters. As an example - mrs tac only found out what I was up to between April 1981 and December 1983 by reading a book, and still doesn't know what occupied 90% of the remainder of my 33 years full-time military service.

tac

I'd love to see CNN, New York Times or Washington Post slapped with and their reaction to a D Notice (if we had them).

They'd shit.

Tac, The U.S. has similar laws 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. While the leak was obviously wrong, my question is, was it illegal? Was the information classified? Everyone is assuming that the leak came from a U.S. source, but illegal or not humans in the U.K. could have been involved.

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/867749616476983296

As had been pointed out many, many times, it is a crime to give out classified information but not a crime for a media outlet which comes into possession of it to publish it. Recall the so-callen "Pentagon Papers" case, NY Times v. United States

"To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As had been pointed out many, many times, it is a crime to give out classified information but not a crime for a media outlet which comes into possession of it to publish it. Recall the so-callen "Pentagon Papers" case, NY Times v. United States

"To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger."

Wouldn't it be nice if the 2nd Amendment were held in the same reverence as the 1st Amendment by the media and the courts?

And even if their published leaks are not prosecutable, wouldn't it be nice to expose the rat bastards to the world? You don't really have to do anything to them, just let everybody know who they are.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As had been pointed out many, many times, it is a crime to give out classified information but not a crime for a media outlet which comes into possession of it to publish it. Recall the so-callen "Pentagon Papers" case, NY Times v. United States

"To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger."

Wouldn't it be nice if the 2nd Amendment were held in the same reverence as the 1st Amendment by the media and the courts?

And even if their published leaks are not prosecutable, wouldn't it be nice to expose the rat bastards to the world? You don't really have to do anything to them, just let everybody know who they are.

You can prosecute the leaker, just not the leakee for publishing the material.

I'm trying to think of a case against a leaker.

Remember, the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top.

Don't they watermark these files? Shouldn't it be easy to follow the chain of custody? Not sure if custody is the right word.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
Don't they watermark these files? Shouldn't it be easy to follow the chain of custody? Not sure if custody is the right word.

If you were going to leak information to someone else, would you use the original/traceable document? Information doesn't have to be on a physical document or other media. BTW I heard blah blah blah. That works too.

Brits had the Cambridge 5
We have the Obama hive