Did George Bush order the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar to be bombed? Or did he not?
If he did, did Tony Blair attempt to talk him out of it? Or did he not?
The Daily Mirror says yes. The British newspaper was gagged by the Attorney General after revealing the existence of the memo.
David Keogh and Leo O’Connor, civil servants who handled the memo, are due to appear in court next week, charged under the Official Secrets Act.
Until the memo in question is published, we cannot know for certain. What we do know is that its contents are sufficiently important that a D-notice was slapped on them, forbidding publication. Any editor who does so will be prosecuted for violating national security. To even the least politically-minded, that gesture speaks volumes.
Thankfully, Al-Jazeera aren’t taking this news lying down and are demanding that the memo is published. And several editors (including Tory MP Boris Johnson of the Spectator) and a legion of bloggers (like our own Red, who also designed the jazzy button at the top right of this post) have announced that they’ll happily publish the memo if they’re given a copy.
The Official Secrets Act is supposed to protect the safety of the country, not protect the current government from political embarrassment. I hope the brightest legal minds in the country will put their efforts into making this distinction if David Keogh and Leo O’Connor go to full trial.
If I happen to come across a copy, I’ll post it here and email it to every likeminded editor and blogger I can find. If another blogger or editor publishes the memo, I will be delighted to reproduce it on this blog, and so will plenty of others.
What will they do, arrest us all? Let’s see.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Updated transcipt now on
http://www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com Tyson reveals all
November 26th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for sharing, Fox! I know you will be shocked, SHOCKED to know I have not heard a blip of this through the American media…
November 26th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I love Boris Johnson!
November 26th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
The Keogh-O’Connor case is definitedly going to be one to watch… that is if the legal proceedings don’t go in camera.
US media – all the reports I’ve had from people are that this has barely made the US papers, and no I’m not really surprised. But one of the things that gets me is how pathetic the british press has been. I mean it’s unheard of in recent years for editors to be threatened with jail by the government, isn’t it? You’d think that in the interests of self preservation at least (see, I’m already I’m discounting higher motives) that there would have been a very big collective noise. Of a cross-fleet street front page variety. But no.
So it’s Boris and a bunch of bloggers. Grrr. Good to have you for company in jail, though.
red
ps Fox- your Boris link is broken and the ones to Blairwatch and to me both go to the comments rather than to the posts (that might have been your intention, of course)
November 26th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Ugh. I know, nothing over here. Sucks. Media are morons. Of course, after the Plame leak and all, I would be weary of all tihs junk too. Poor journalists, got it tough, don’t they?
November 26th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
having said that i realised my own post was linked to the boris comments rather than the post
November 27th, 2005 at 6:04 am
I guess that KPFA, over here, is reporting on this, but no mainstream news is.
I tried to comment in the other blog that I would publish, but it gave me some strange statement about me being a spammer. So…I’ll publish it if I get it.
November 27th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Spin – you will find that in fact your comment has made it through the rather over-the-top spam filter on Blairwatch, and your name is proudly on the list.
November 27th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Leah and Alecya, you’re right, I’m stunned that this isn’t headline news all over the States. Heh.
Spin, yay. Welcome to the naughty corner.
Hedge, I do too. I’m slightly ashamed, but can’t help it.
Red, sadly it’s not unheard of at all. D-notices are frequently used to prevent press reporting ’sensitive’ events, but the excuse isn’t usually as pathetic as this one. This time, Blair’s dictatorship has really gone too far.
I don’t appear to be on the Blairwatch list, so I’ll count myself as an underground supporter.
November 27th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
As much as I am against Bush’s policies, I have a hard time believing he would ever be serious about such a suggestion – It was during a rough time with Jazeera, so it may have been Dubya’s uniquely sanguinary sense of humor. Who knows. If it was suggested, then there may be an American paper trial, which would probably be protected by Exec. Priv.
A couple of days before Fiztball season started, we posted this – because we think this is where the real action lay -:
On First Looking Into Fitzgerald’s Indictment
A Pre-Emptive Poem (10-26-05)
From A Keats Ghost To GI:
Much have I witnessed the Scandal of Bush
And many awful lies and outrages seen;
Round many breaches have I been
Which bards in fealty to Republic hold.
Oft of one great Injury had I been told
That worried the Founders in repose;
Yet did I never see it so clear
Till I heard Fitzgerald speak out loud and bold:
Then I felt like some Justice on High
When a pure Truth comes into his view:
Or like Honest Abe when with wise eyes
He saved the Union – and all his men
Look’d at each other with great relief -
Silent, upon a stillness at Appomattox.
November 27th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Fox – can you clarify for me about D-notices and the OSA.
I know D-notices are used to tell editors (the govt says “advise” them) not to print certain stuff, usually related to “national security”. I agree with you that as I understand it, that happens quite a bit.
But actually threatening editors with prosecution under the OSA? I thought that was different…
Can you clarify what the relation between D-notices and the OSA is?
thanks
November 27th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
D-notices aren’t officially legally binding, but they are used as a threat. There is a strong undercurrent of “Go against the Government’s wishes on this and you’ll be sorry”. It’s theoretically not connected to the Official Secrets Act, yet it does concern matters of (supposed) ‘national security’. Think of it as the publishing equivalent of a horse’s head in the bed. If an editor ignores this warning, the government may choose to press for injunction or to threaten prosecution under the OSA, which has happened in this case of the Mirror.
November 27th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Thanks Fox. It was the open threat of prosecution under OSA that I thought was unusual in my original comment – and I still think that marks a change and steps it all up a bit.
But you’re right to stress that quiet gagging has been going on for ages. That is something people could usefully be more aware of…
Blairwatch sent me an email that has gone to people on the list and various others who have emailed them I think, and I did point them in the direction of your comment on their blog and this post because they seem to have missed you – they have some hideous anti-spam filter that has been chewing up comments, quarantining people and all sorts, so I have a feeling they may have missed a few more people.
I’ll forward you the email.
November 28th, 2005 at 1:01 am
Sorry about missing you off the list, it’s rectified.
re the spam filter, I think I have fixed it, but ever since this thing started we have been getting rather too many comments and trackbacks about well known pills, and offers to view things I’d rather not… Ithink that’s why the spam filter is flapping. Sorry
If anybody has not been included who wanted to be, my apologies, and if the comments are still misbehaving, then there is a contact us link on the sidebar.
There are 70+ people on the list thus far, and they are still coming in…