Bliar threatens to gag press over al-jazeera...
Discussion
http://dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=11103
Gag threat on Bush-Blair talk about Al-Jazeera
Sajeda Momin
DNA
Wednesday, November 23, 2005 21:57 IST
LONDON: Tony Blair’s government has threatened to gag British newspapers if they go ahead with publishing details of the prime minister’s conversation with George Bush in which the American president suggested bombing the Al Jazeera news network.
Britain’s attorney-general Lord Goldsmith informed newspaper editors they could face prosecution under the Officials Secrets Act if they published the conversation between the two heads of state.
Lord Goldsmith informed editors that “publication of a document that has been unlawfully disclosed by a Crown servant could be a breach of Section 5 of the Officials Secrets Act”.
This is the first time that the Blair government has threatened newspapers so openly. Blair has faced much criticism, both from within his own party, the Opposition and the public over his alliance with the USA and the invasion of Iraq, and has been extremely defensive each time new revelations have emerged about the whole affair.
Though his government has obtained injunctions against newspapers in the past it has never prosecuted editors for publishing contents of leaked documents.
The gag order comes in the wake of a report on the front page of one of Britain’s tabloid newspapers Daily Mirror yesterday headlined “Bush plot to bomb his ally”. It carried secret minutes of the conversation in April 2004 which records Bush suggesting that he would like to bomb Al Jazeera’s studios in Doha.
The report caused a lot of embarrassment to Blair who is a close friend of Bush and has been towing the US line in foreign policy. Last night the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton told Blair in Parliament to publish the conversation as it was of ‘much interest to MPs and the public’.
Former British defence minister Peter Kilfoyle, who was opposed to the war in Iraq, also called for Blair to explain the situation to lawmakers, if records of the conversation existed.
The editor of the Daily Mirror Richard Wallace said “We had made No.10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given ‘no comment’ officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under Section 5”.
The Daily Mirror claims the document turned up at the office of the former Labour MP Tony Clarke, who lost his seat for Northampton South in the May election.
His former researcher Leo O’Connor was charged last week for receiving a document under section 5 of the act.
David Keogh a Foreign Office official was accused of sending the document to O’Connor.
The White House has called the report “outlandish”. A spokesman for Al Jazeera, which is planning to launch an English news channel next year, defended the network’s output on the BBC’s prestigious Newsnight programme last night.
The Guardian used similar language, describing the spectre of prosecution under section five of the act as a “legal gag”; the Times also spoke of “being threatened”.
jimbeaux said:
Blasting a network because you do not like their opinion is wrong. However, if they are a "tool" of your enemy, that is different....bomb away. Has anyone noticed they seem to have film of roadside bombs beginning JUST BEFORE they go off? Let's not fool ourselves, shall we?
What, because they're sent them by the bombers? Hardly proves they are connected or that Al-jazeera is necessarily in league with them.
Hang on Jimbeaux, They happen to be a news gathering service in a neutral country.....
Sometimes they are "given" film by those that planted the bomb and sometimes it comes from security cameras {that's why theres no sound....)
Maybe we could bomb Fox news then for the same reason?....
Sometimes they are "given" film by those that planted the bomb and sometimes it comes from security cameras {that's why theres no sound....)
Maybe we could bomb Fox news then for the same reason?....
Nevin said:
Blasting a network because you do not like their opinion is wrong. However, if they are a "tool" of your enemy, that is different....bomb away. Has anyone noticed they seem to have film of roadside bombs beginning JUST BEFORE they go off? Let's not fool ourselves, shall we?
What, because they're sent them by the bombers? Hardly proves they are connected or that Al-jazeera is necessarily in league with them.
But of course not.
jimbeaux said:
Blasting a network because you do not like their opinion is wrong. However, if they are a "tool" of your enemy, that is different....bomb away. Has anyone noticed they seem to have film of roadside bombs beginning JUST BEFORE they go off? Let's not fool ourselves, shall we?
What, because they're sent them by the bombers? Hardly proves they are connected or that Al-jazeera is necessarily in league with them.
But of course not.
Hmm, nothing like a good old wild west style kangaroo court based on feeling rather than fact
And whilst I don't doubt that Al-jazeera may be involved in some very shady goings on, getting videos of bomb attacks sent to them is not evidence of that
>> Edited by Nevin on Wednesday 23 November 23:55
Firstly, if it's not true then the Government should say it's rubbish. The fact that they deem it to be a breach of the Official Secrets Act, must, presumably, mean it's a "secret truth". Which is SHOCKING.
Secondly, the IRA used to inform the BBC of their position on certain matters. By the same rationale therefore, Bush would have suggested bombing the BBC.
Secondly, the IRA used to inform the BBC of their position on certain matters. By the same rationale therefore, Bush would have suggested bombing the BBC.
GMan 2112 said:
From what I saw of Al Jazeeras coverage of the war they seemed pretty balanced.
Sure they will broadcast things that western media would not touch, but if its true Im OK with it.
Indeed, I take the view that "misinformation" and news manipulation (ie. brainwashing) is used worldwide. So I'd rather be free to view all sources and decide for myself who is telling the truth...
8Pack said:
From what I saw of Al Jazeeras coverage of the war they seemed pretty balanced.
Sure they will broadcast things that western media would not touch, but if its true Im OK with it.
Indeed, I take the view that "misinformation" and news manipulation (ie. brainwashing) is used worldwide. So I'd rather be free to view all sources and decide for myself who is telling the truth...
I think you'll find the Americans call it "misinformationismality". The more the syllables, the less the regualar yanks understand it. The less they understand, the easier to bomb the hell out of!
srebbe64 said:
From what I saw of Al Jazeeras coverage of the war they seemed pretty balanced.
Sure they will broadcast things that western media would not touch, but if its true Im OK with it.
Indeed, I take the view that "misinformation" and news manipulation (ie. brainwashing) is used worldwide. So I'd rather be free to view all sources and decide for myself who is telling the truth...
I think you'll find the Americans call it "misinformationismality". The more the syllables, the less the regualar yanks understand it. The less they understand, the easier to bomb the hell out of!
srebbe64 said:
I think you'll find the Americans call it "misinformationismality". The more the syllables, the less the regualar yanks understand it. The less they understand, the easier to bomb the hell out of!
Thank you, I feel humbled that such superior beings as you allow us dumbasses in the US to live along side of you. "Regular" Yanks indeed....I think that is me.
Well I have to say I see nothing wrong with publishing his comments, evidently if the newspaper got hold of them they cant be that “secret” can they?
I think Mr. Bush would be wise to take into account the following:
I hope I’m not alone (though the following may sound a little lentilist) in saying that I’ve seen enough relatively unprovoked military action under the current U.S. administration to last for more than a couple of decades. It’s time for some peace and prosperity instead of spending the remaining wealth (in many senses) on opening up more fronts in futile and pointless wars that warrant massive commitments.
>> Edited by speedy_thrills on Thursday 24th November 07:01
I think Mr. Bush would be wise to take into account the following:
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
I hope I’m not alone (though the following may sound a little lentilist) in saying that I’ve seen enough relatively unprovoked military action under the current U.S. administration to last for more than a couple of decades. It’s time for some peace and prosperity instead of spending the remaining wealth (in many senses) on opening up more fronts in futile and pointless wars that warrant massive commitments.
>> Edited by speedy_thrills on Thursday 24th November 07:01
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
so free speech which is so important to the US doesn't apply to the rest of the world if they're saying something the US doesn't like, so the freedom they want to bring to the area isn't the same freedom they have, just a watered down version, animal farm?
i have no doubt the videos they use are taken by the bombers and used for propoganda reasons, is this really any different from the military showing us thier smart missiles going in or the embedded troops showing us air strikes?
the problem is one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, what if this was the american war of independance?
pk
so free speech which is so important to the US doesn't apply to the rest of the world if they're saying something the US doesn't like, so the freedom they want to bring to the area isn't the same freedom they have, just a watered down version, animal farm?
i have no doubt the videos they use are taken by the bombers and used for propoganda reasons, is this really any different from the military showing us thier smart missiles going in or the embedded troops showing us air strikes?
the problem is one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, what if this was the american war of independance?
pk
[quote]Britain’s attorney-general Lord Goldsmith informed newspaper editors they could face prosecution under the Officials Secrets Act if they published the conversation between the two heads of state. [/quote]
thought the Queen was head of state ? Blair is just first minister and leader of goverment ?
or do i have it wrong ?
thought the Queen was head of state ? Blair is just first minister and leader of goverment ?
or do i have it wrong ?
While I can fully iunderstand suspicions and fears that Al Jazeera are too open to the terrorist's agenda and a desire to remove a mouthpiece from them the desire of our leaders and those of the US to completely disregard due legal process in favour of a quick fix is very, very disturbing.
As for the 'gag' order - maybe this is not the information in the document that's deemed sensitive? It's merely an idea that was bounced around and wasn't acted upon. There could be more sensitive items in the conversation that need protecting as opposed to the item the media are making the focus...
As for the 'gag' order - maybe this is not the information in the document that's deemed sensitive? It's merely an idea that was bounced around and wasn't acted upon. There could be more sensitive items in the conversation that need protecting as opposed to the item the media are making the focus...
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff