Talk:Al Jazeera bombing memo

Untitled

Can anybody tell me, who controls Al-JAzeera, simply who ist owner? I know, taht this is not R. Murdoch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.85.252 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Old uncategorised comments

Any chance of an American wikipedian posting or linking to a copy of this memo? Almafeta 05:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it hasn't been made public yet. John Callender 06:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the memo has been returned to Downing Street. Only time will tell if any photocopies got passed around or what have you Brianski 09:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that this really was a joke remark, although I am at a loss to then explain the UK gov's stupidly draconian response. I can't believe even a buffoon like Bush would bomb Qatar, it doesn't make any sense (does the memo explicitly specifiy aerial bombing btw? Or just any bombing, e.g. CIA etc?). As it evolves this article should perhaps explicitly state that the actual text is unavailable (or at least I couldn't find it on a quick google search + scanning the likes of Indymedia etc) and the context of the remarks is thus unclear. (These days however, anything is possible- maybe it's time to get my tin hat out and hide in the cellar just in case).

'Jokes' do not become part of the offical record of such meetings for the very good reason that they may be mis-interpreted by later generations. Therefore there is every reason to treat the contents very seriously indeed. Although I have heard from one source that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that it contains more damaging revelations. Time will tell, as always. Fergananim 02:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Changing "King" into "Emir" --Gerard von Hebel 10:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

--

This article is written terribly.

Why don't you fix it then? Dsol 15:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup - POV

This article is very poorly written and riddled with POV. No-one has even seen the memo and speculations about its content vary widely. The Mirror front page refers to the supposed plan to bomb Al Jazeera yet the most common view of those experts asked of it is that Bush was simply letting off steam and making a joke, if indeed he ever said it. This view is not explained in the article. This article needs a thorough cleanup. David | Talk 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm having some difficulty finding a reasonable news/comment source that really says they think it's a joke:

• BBC says "the threat - which some correspondents say may have been intended as a joke."
• The Sunday Herald says "It was all a joke, according to one insider."
• The Guardian "Meanwhile, it's 'outlandish' to think that George W Bush really wanted to bomb al-Jazeera, say the usual Washington sources; this must have been just another of the President's jokes" (but then goes on to imply it might not have been)
• Reuters paraphrases the Mirror saying "The paper quoted an unnamed government official suggesting Bush's threat was a joke but added another unidentified source saying the U.S. president was serious."
• BBC correspondent Paul Reynolds says "So the possibility has to be considered that Mr Bush was in fact making some kind of joke"

So, we've lots of people saying it might be a joke, and some quoting others who think it's a joke. You're quite right that we should say that many people believe it's a joke, but I can't find anyone who says they believe it's a joke. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the Mirror's original sources said it was a joke. I give you the Washington Post: 'the Bush remark as recounted in the newspaper "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke."'

In case you are thinking that no President could make such a remark as a joke, was Ronald Reagan joking when he said "I am pleased to tell you I have today signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."? When did the bombing begin? David | Talk 20:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sounds like" is a quote by a "senior diplomat" and not the words of the Washington Post. As was said above, there are people who say it may have been a joke and others who quote people who think it was a joke but no one has said first hand I've seen the memo or I was there and it's a joke. I personally do think it was (because I cannot believe even the most minorly functional of politicians would want to bomb a news agency for simply disagreeing with them) but as it stands right now, it's all just speculation as to what his intent was while his words themselves are at least some what clearer. - 67.172.124.99 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with you here. I think the leaders of many big countries, including the US would be happy to bomb news agencies if they think they could get away with it. The simple fact is, they perceive some agencies as a threat to them. This has been obvious in the sentiment expressed re: US and Al-Jazeera. Al Jazeera publishes information they did not want people to know and ideas they do not want people to have. This is dangerous to their foreign policies goals and intentions in Iraq and Afghanistan and to a degree in many other Arab countries, whatever these goals and intentions may be. Nil Einne 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If Bush makes such a joke, given the immense damage it could do to the US if reported, then he is unfit to be president. But then he has shown repeatedly that he is unfit for office. FearÉIREANN 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

He's in a top-secret meeting with his biggest international ally. I think he might have assumed it would not be published. Whether or not it reflects on his fitness for office is an interesting but separate point as to whether it was a joke. But as I pointed out above, Reagan made a similar joke in front of an open mike. It's not unknown. David | Talk 21:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Henry II made a similar off the cuff remark about Thomas a Becket! Harrypotter 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good! Rich Farmbrough 11:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Some discussion in wikinews suggests it's unlikely to be a joke because the person who recorded the comment would not have recorded it if it were a joke and in fact, the person who recorded the comment was very concerned about it which is why we got into this memo mess in the first place. Of course, the person who recorded it may have been wrong and I don't think we have any specific evidence the person who recorded it regarded it as serious but if someone can find a source it's an interesting idea Nil Einne 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As the memo is a multiple page document, it would be minutes of the meeting, not a summary. Frankly, I suspect (though it is OR and POV), it was a joke borne of frustration. The US most certainly would not alienate Qatar, where two major US bases are.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

don't worry

Well, I wonder if Bush is gonna take responsibility about this or would the matter end up as a joke?!Ashs2005 19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like tabloid BS, but who knows?

Tabloid BS indeed. Its amazing its gotten this much attention.

Objection to claim that The Daily Mirror is Anti-American

This is not something I have any interest in entering a revert war over, but I do object to the line that The paper notably has a very anti-George Bush/America stance 2, in reference to The Daily Mirror. A single cover page is not sufficient evidence that an entire publication has an Anti-American stance. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you disputing (a) the Daily Mirror is highly critical of U.S. policy over Iraq, or (b) a single front page is not enough to prove the editorial line of the paper? Because the two are not the same. As a UK newspaper reader I can tell you that the Daily Mirror is most certainly anti-U.S. policy on Iraq and proud of it. Whatever their POV, anyone who reads the Daily Mirror will tell you the same. David | Talk 21:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not even just anti-U.S. policy on Iraq, when it comes to any news on George Bush or America's government you can guarantee The Mirror (which is a red-top tabloid akin to The Sun) will be reporting with a definite negative-bias. --Chaosfeary 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is that an appropriate external source needs to be cited which states that the publication is Anti-American, otherwise we are violating Wikipedia policy by using original research and first-person opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I see, I'll try find one... However the problem is that it is a paper, and well, papers don't tend to get "reviewed" the same way magazines or books do... Unfortunately.

But yeah, anyone reading a copy of The Mirror with related issues in it would be able to tell you it's true. --Chaosfeary 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with sourcing every single fact. It makes for exceedingly dull articles. We don't need a source for the sky being blue. But if you want a good source for the Mirror, try its editorial 'Voice of the Mirror' on November 21, 2002: "It would be terrible if Tony Blair involved our forces in a Bush folly, far worse when the only true reason for it is to play to US red-neck right-wingers. The Prime Minister has done well so far to calm down the President. If he fails to stop him, he must not join the invasion." That on April 1, 2003 said "END IT (the war) SOON TO AVOID A BLOODBATH. PLAN A clearly isn’t working. The war is still going on with no sign of an end." [1]. David | Talk 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there isn't a need to source every single fact, but if an allegation is being made that a newspaper or tabloid is Anti-American, as a reader unfamiliar with the publication, I want to learn why and judge for myself, which is why WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE exist in the first place. I disagree that it makes for exceedingly dull articles, on the contrary it make for exceedingly verifiable articles. If valid references can be provided then I have no objection to us saying that the publication is Anti-Bush or Anti-American. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The best way to learn the Mirror is anti-american/anti-bush is to read its website, or look through its archive. This is another of there front pages [2]

The claim that the paper is anti-American is preposterous. It is anti-Bush and his policies, but then so is most of the planet. Does that mean that most of the planet, including according to polls on Bush and his policies even the UK, the late Pope John Paul II and Queen Elizabeth, all are known to have been extremely critical of Bush, is anti-American? Does that mean that the majority of Americans who voted against Bush in 2000 and the near majority who votes against Bush in 2004 are anti-American? FearÉIREANN 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. If 99% of the world's population has two legs, it's still fair to say that I have two legs.

In the context of the UK press, the Mirror is probably the most anti-American paper, with the possible exception of the Independent. The Guardian is rather less so.

If we have a scale of 5 (anti) to 1 (pro) American (and by that I mean - against or for US foreign policy, as put into practice under recent presidents)

Mirror - 5 Independent - 5 Guardian - 4 Sun - 1 Times - 1 (note the Murdoch connection) Telegraph - 2 Mail - 2 Express - 2

Let's be clear here - the Mirror's criticisms of US policy apply (though perhaps not quite so much) to the policy of Clinton and Bush Sr as well as Bush jr, which are blamed for the anti-American (what else would you call it) feeling in the Middle East.

Is the Mirror RIGHT to take the stance it has? Perhaps yes - in my own POV. But it's undoubtedly non-POV to describe it as anti-American in the sense usually meant when discussing foreign policy, the Iraq war, etc. It doesn't mean it's against Mickey Mouse, McDonalds, and Rock and Roll.

Someone who wants British troops out of Ireland could as a shorthand description be called "anti-British" even though he may like tea, cricket and British people as individuals.

Of course such a description could be used to dismiss the allegations made here. However a little research shows that the memo appears to exist - the only dispute is over its contents.

Exile 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you're confusing matters. For example, the Independent is not anti-American. However, it does tend to be anti-Bush and anti-current-American-policy-in-Iraq. This is not the same thing. George Bush is not 'America'. If someone who wanted British troops out of Ireland was described as anti-British, that description could well be wrong. They might, for example, be a British person themselves, and want the situation to calm down as much as possible. They might even take the view that such a position was pro-British, as they want fewer British troops to die. If you use this shorthand, you will not just be POV, you will be being inaccurate, and lead people to assume things about papers that aren't true. If you mean 'is against US policy in Iraq', say that instead. 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

The Mirror tabloid, reputable source or sensationalist scandal-sheet?

(The following is copied from the talk page for the WikiNews article)

---

I'm not a Brit, so will ask the question: Is the Daily Mirror a reputable source or a scandal sheet that reports front page stories about princesses having their toes sucked ? If it's as bad as the National Enquirer in the US, I don't think we should be using it directly, or any quotes from it found in other news reports (like the Yahoo source). StuRat 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Brit who is not a Mirror reader perhaps I can give my (biased) view. Mainstream newspapers are divided into two groups - "quality" broadsheets who are fairly reliable (like the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times, Times) and "tabloids" who focus more on celebrity/soap stories and have clear bias in their stories (e.g. The Sun, The Mirror). The Mirror came out against the war and has published inaccurate stories in the past (e.g. publishing fake pictures showing prisoner abuse). I would be very careful of quoting anything that lends itself to bias - stick to the facts because these are likely to be correct. i.e. A transcript exists, it was leaked to an MPs assistant, he passed it to an MP, he passed it back to the government, the leaker and assistant have been charged under the OSA, the AG has threatened any newspaper editor that publishes it with criminal prosecution. It is clear that the memo is important (otherwise why woudl the AG block publication?) and it is alleged that it involves a conversation between Blair and Bush about bombing Al-Jaz. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror hasn't even seen the memo. Hope this helps. 155.202.254.82 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's the website, kinda gives away the fact that it is a sensationalist tabloid.

• Ryan Parry "EXCLUSIVE: I USED TO BE A DESPERATE BULIMIC". The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

• Oonagh Blackman "BLAIR IS GIVEN HIS FLU JAB AS MILLIONS GO WITHOUT". The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

• Geoffrey Lakeman "BULLIED TO BRINK OF SUICIDE.. BECAUSE I HAD A BIG BUST". The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

No, the last one doesn't come with pictures - unless they're in the print edition (which wouldn't surprise me).

- Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Any chance someone could get hold of the memo and publish it here? That woudl resolve the dispute! :)

The above request could be considered incitement to commit a breach of the official secrets act. Not sure about the extra territorial jurisdiction of the Official secrets act but some british acts allow for crimes to be comitted anywhere in the world. For example the Computer misuse act (1991 I think)Dolive21 10:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Only if we can verify that it is the actual transcript, not something the Mirror or somebody like them made up to sell newspapers. Since they have faked pictures in the past, I wouldn't put it past them to fake the transcript, as well. StuRat 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is clear by now that a top-secret document got leaked. In sharing the concerns about the reputation of the Mirror, the authors have gone to great lengths to illuminate the flow of information and the unverified (unverifyable) nature of its contents, wherever appropriate and necessary. After thegag order, it is unlikely to hear further reporting on the document (which has been returned to Blairs office anyway). --vonbergm 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't generally get charged under the OSA unless something was leaked. So its not a question of the mirror lying about the leak, but about the mirror juicing it up. Maybe Bush really was joking, for example. Anywho, we say when we are quoting the mirror, so it should be fine. Nyarlathotep 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That only works for people who already know the Mirror to be an unreliable source. Most Americans, for example, won't know that. I believe if we continue to use this unreliable source, we should at least identify it as such, say by mentioning that they have falsified evidence (photos) in the past. StuRat 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, they (the newspaper) didn't falsified the photos (the evidence). They published photos sold / given to them by someone who made it up, yes, but the paper itself, including the editor didn't produce the photos. Whether the (ex-)editor should have known better etc. is a different discussion. -- KTC 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protected?

Why is the article now protected? I had just clicked to revert the POV insertion by the anon that "the Daily Mirror is sensationalist" and well, found myself at "view source" - the article does not even say {{protected}} - What's going on?

Really, the assertation "sensationalist tabloid" (or similar) needs to be removed from the article - The last edit by the anon.. --Chaosfeary 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• You can change the fact that it is a sensationlist but the word sensationlist is not POV. Sensationlist does not mean incorrect but blown out of proportion. The article on the tabloid picture says basically how can 59 million people be so dumb. It has a picture of Bush. That is definetly sensationlist. 12.220.47.145 23:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is protected to stop the edit war. As the notice makes clear WP does not endorse the version protected. It has been so to stop and edit war and will remain so until there is evidence that warriors will not restart. Anymore edits that breach WP:3RR will lead to the immediate banning of those responsible. FearÉIREANN 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely 3RR does not apply here as nearly all of the edits were not reverts but simply many minor changes? As per the talk page people were pretty much in consensus and there wasn't really "edit warring", so...

Also why is my talk page protected so I cannot reply to your message there? It doesn't seem that I have broken any rules, so I'm confused...

I don't see why User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me should be blocked from editing her/his talk page either, if that's the case... --Chaosfeary 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why your user page was blocked. (WP is doing strange things right. It could be a gremlin. I've removed it but it took 4 attempts for the system to allow me do it. It has taken 3 attempts to get the f***** system to save this!) Constant adding in of each other's version over someone else's changes breaches 3RR. Users went well beyond 3. FearÉIREANN 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are they??? Jesus, what is wrong with this goddamned system tonight!!! FearÉIREANN 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess we can call the Mirror a "sensationalist tabloid" for buying fabricated photos. But then, of course, we'd have to call the Bush administration a "sensationalist regime" for starting a war over fabricated intelligence. Can't have one but not the other... but then 30,000 people didn't die over the Mirror's sensationalism stunt, you would think, so Bush seems rather more sensationalist in that sense. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pending tasks after unprotection

1. Remove 'sensationalist' from description of the Daily Mirror as POV
2. Add description of who O'Connor and Keogh are and how they come to be involved
3. Better context to the faked TA photos - this is skirting the edge of being POV as it is. David | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Add the information that the memo is apparently 5 pages long, and also detailed troop deployments [3] Sherurcij 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

# Better context to the faked TA photos - this is skirting the edge of being POV as it is.

That's your opinion - It's an important point, given that most people outside of the UK have not even heard of The Mirror let alone know about that fact (I am in the UK, but talk to Americans or read around on WikiNews, you'll see it's true).

Tabloids, especially red-tops like The Mirror are pretty much by definition biased one way or another, broadsheets are the ones that at least try for NPOV.

--Chaosfeary 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you are assuming you know my POV. For the record I think Piers 'Morgan' Moron was an idiot for running the photos and only did so because they fitted with his prejudice. However, in terms of the article they are of minimal relevance - it was a cockup under the previous editor, several years ago, and nothing to do with the accuracy of the memo. David | Talk 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll settle for tabloid being mentioned instead of sensationlist. They are really a sort of synonym. I only described it as sensationlist because the average user isn't going to know much about the newspaper. 12.220.47.145 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tabloid" seems like a fine descriptor to me...I'm curious though, does anybody have a link to the story on these faked abuse photos? Sherurcij 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

First, the defintion of Tabloid is different in the UK than in America: am I correct Chaosfeary?

Second, your argument is an irrational red herring argument.

A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue;

For instance, “Senator Jones should not be held

accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there

are other senators who have done far worse things.”

Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving.

There are many other people on the street who are dangerous

criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them,

not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.”

Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The question at hand is, did the speaker drive recklessly, and should he pay a fine for it?

The question at hand is: IS THE STORY TRUE NOT the faked abuse photos. The fake abuse photos have nothing to do with this article, EVEN IF IT IS FROM THE SAME PAPER. You are going to have to come up with better arguments than these really weak ilogical arguments.Travb 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Information to add when unprotected

The actual article:

Bush Plot To Bomb His Arab Ally http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html

Previous U.S. bombings of Al-Jazeera Offices

On November 13, 2001 a US cruise missile hit Al Jazeera's office in Kabul after it criticised the US attack on Afghanistan.[4] Although no Al-Jazeera staff were hurt in the attack, the building was destroyed and the homes of some employees were damaged. At the time, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, managing editor, said that the coordinates of the office were well known to everyone including the Americans.

In November 2002, Al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a U.S. missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. U.S. officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera's office. [5]

On April 8, 2003 a US missile hit an electricity generator at Al Jazeera's office in Baghdad. The resulting fire killed reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounded another staff member. On February 24, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali had sent a letter (however, it should be noted that the location had not been requested by the US government) with the coordinates of the offices to Victoria Clarke, the US Assistant Secretary of State of Defence for Public Affairs. The assault on the Baghdad office occurred after the network had screened footage of the US bombing of civilian targets in the city.[6] a State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake. [7] Kgrr 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Charged under Official Secrets Act

David Keogh, 49, a former communications officer at the Cabinet Office, and Leo O’Connor, 42, a one-time researcher for the former Labour MP, Anthony Clarke, appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court charged under the Official Secrets Act. [8] 24.18.194.118 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Warning to UK editors.

The article has a hidden warning to UK editors:

UK editors bear in mind the Attorney General's warning "publication of a document that has been unlawfully disclosed by a Crown servant could be in breach of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act."

I think this is unnecessary. Wikipedia is governed by Florida state law, not UK law. Seabhcán 14:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think it's unnecessary but for other reasons. It would be no defence for a UK editor, if they included the memo (should someone have it) in the article, to say that Wikipedia is governed by Florida law because they would still have disclosed information which might damage national security. However, no-one has got the memo and if they did have, it would be original research to include it. It's a virtual certainty that if the memo is going to be published it will be by a newspaper first. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. David | Talk 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The position with the OSA is that no-one can publish the memo or its contents in the UK without authorisation. Wikipedia itself can publish the memo, and anyone in the UK can read it - but not actually publish it. AFAIK the memo is now back at No 10 and so wikipedia can't do any more than paraphrase the alleged contents, based on the Mirror article. Blair himself will have to present the memo if we're to know the truth. -- Exile 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be original research to include the memo if someone have a copy. Original research is when you present a new interpretation or untested theories. A copy of the memo would be a copy of something that exist, the editor didn't make it up. Of course, it would be hard for an editor to justify / argue that any such text is the actual memo concern if it's not been published elsewhere, but that's a different matter. Regarding the law, David is right that unless the editor is doing it outside the UK, they are still (according to the AG) breaking UK law by doing it. It doesn't matter where the content then resides. OTOH, I'm not so sure that if it's published, it'll be by a newspaper first. The two most prominent person to say publicly so far that they will publish it if they get hold of a copy is both magazine not newspaper editor. (Boris Johnson MP, editor The Spectator, Ian Hislop, editor Private Eye.) -- KTC 00:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this. A notice providing a warning to UK editors is very important here. A editor of any nationality making an edit from the geographical territory of the UK could potentially be breaking the law, and they need to be aware of this. I am fairly certain that a UK editor inserting a hyperlink into Wikipedia that led users to a third party website (that publishes the memo) could be deemed an accessory to a breach of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). A single edit (no matter how quickly it was reverted) would be enough to potentially constitute a breach and prosecution. If the memo does appear in the public domain, UK based editors should not link to it or ask or encourage any other wikipedians (wherever they are in the world) to link to it to be sure of staying within the law. Nick Fraser 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It will also be illegal to print a particular phrase uttered in open court by Keogh when he was asked about the document. [11] – but what is the content of the phrase?--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 22:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources for claim that U.S. had co-ordinates of Al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad and Kabul that were bombed

This [Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid BBC news article on the bombing of the Kabul Al-Jazeera offices] (which is alreadly linked to as a source in the article) specifically quotes al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali:

"This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," he said.

As for the Baghdad attack, in an April 26, 2003 article for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Robert Fisk says:

"Mr al-Ali has given me a copy of his letter to Victoria Clarke, the US Assistant Secretary of State of Defence for Public Affairs in Washington, sent on 24 February this year. In the letter, he gives the address and the map coordinates of the station's office in Baghdad - Lat: 33.19/29.08, Lon 44.24/03.63 - adding that civilian journalists would be working in the building."

Lets look at the facts here:

• They knew the existence and location of the office.
• They knew the co-ordinates (so exact location) too.
• Iraq was heavily bombed

There's a big difference between "knowing the location of it previously" and "getting the co-ordinates to intentionally bomb"... --Chaosfeary 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an open mind on this issue, but I would agree with both the above opinions. It is an important detail that the US military knew the locations of Al Jazeera. It is also inconclusive. It is possible that a mistake was made or that it was intentional. But all information should be included. Seabhcán 14:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, just kept WP:NPOV and doesn't sound like it means something else than it actually does. No worries --Chaosfeary 14:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I tried to do the latest set of edits in a way that presented the facts in a NPOV way. Thanks for keeping me accountable to that. mennonot 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Be careful in phrasing

Please be careful to phrase things in an NPOV manner.

1. It is not true to say that the Mirror is anti-American. It is anti-Bush and his foreign policy. That is different.
2. There is no evidence that it was the Mirror who faked the photographs. All the evidence suggests that it published them in good faith but was duped in a set-up. Unless you can objectively prove without original research that it was the Mirror itself which faked the images, be careful to phrase the sentence to point out that it was duped into believing the images were real. FearÉIREANN 15:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, virtually the whole of the British and European media is in general critical of the Bush administration. The "faked photos" story has abosolutely nothing to do with this story. Nno-one mentions the Hitler Diaries when referring to The Times about an unrelated story. Jooler 19:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The memo itself?

I notice that nothing on the page links to the actual memo, is a copy of it available anywhere on the web to use as a reference? --anon

The memo is not in the public domain. It was leaked and then swiftly returned to 10 Downing Street. Only a very small number of people have actually seen it. A great deal of the allusions as to its contents are based on pure speculation Jooler 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This information needs to stay front and center in the article. It is the number one question that people ask. I linked to a site that dynamically covers that question with the names of people willing to publish the memo on the internet, but user:Chaosfeary censored it.

NOTE: the first news article is from Yahoo News, which sadly is notorious for its news links becoming DEAD within weeks or even days. Since it is 404 now, I updated it to a Google search for the title of the original article -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo#endnote_yahoo_news

^ PS: Censored it eh? Well can we at least keep the link to that "censored" site within this discussion? http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/603

O'Connor - Keogh official secrets trial article

Our O'Connor - Keogh official secrets trial article isn't in an ideal condition. David Keogh redirects to it, Leo O'Connor has his own stub. I'm inclined to believe that neither is encyclopedic beyond the case, so that both names should redirect to the article about the case.

Also, I've differentiated in this article the sections under which the two are charged: Keogh under section 3 (which carries a 2 year term) because he's alleged to have disclosed info he came upon as part of his duties, but O'Connor under section 5, as he's alleged to have passed it on (presumably to the Mirror). That's the same section journalists could be charged under, and carries a term of 6 months [9]. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a separate article. The laws about what one can report of a preliminary hearing in an English court are very strict, and there's at least a possibility that the Crown Court trial will be in camera anyway. There's not going to be a significant amount of information to put on the page for many months. David | Talk 18:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

US history

What do you all think of including a line or two on other controvesial 'accidental' or accidental bombings performed by the US such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo? I think it'll be relevant but I'm sure some won't agree. 203.118.184.138 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, would regard that as irrelevant POV. David | Talk 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David. Unrelated cases. -- Svest 21:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Blairwatch/Blairwatch image insertation

Why do we have the Blairwatch stuff at all? Surely this is a non-notable website added here by its owner with the intention of inflating its profile, listing a non-notable list of non-notable websites and blogs promising to do something that they have no chance whatever of actually doing. That The Spectator and Private Eye say they'd publish the memo if they could is interesting and encyclopedic; that a bunch of nobodies say the same isn't. It's just spam. -- Middenface 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that in this article, Blairwatch is important. Apart from anything else they appear to be inciting crimes, specifically, the publication of clasifed information in the UK, or the incitment of such publication.Dolive21 11:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it probably should be in the article, but having links and such and POV comments in the image caption/description is not acceptable, really.

One important thing I have to point out is that both the image that was added to Wikipedia and the reference to BlairWatch were added by the creator of the image, User:Peter McConaughey and the owner of the BlairWatch website. Very very close skimming to personal advertisement... --Chaosfeary 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

While i agree with Choasfeary's Point of view as to the image text, what he has added in strongly POV. While the previous image text was perhpas mildly POV, the new text is strongly POV. The image text should probably note the source of the image. I am not sure how many sites are listed as displaying the image, but yesterday i could not find the image on google images, so 100's sounds a little excessive. Ideally the image text should note that publication in the Uk, and incitement to publish it in the UK are illegal, but given the size constraints that does ot semm practical.Dolive21 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Which bit is POV, sorry? Do you mean the original editor or me? I thought I removed the POV bits.. Just confused, sorry.. --Chaosfeary 12:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Both were POV, but it appears that a good compromise has been put in by 84.92.40.169 Dolive21 13:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Peter McConaughey made the image (as per his copyright assertation, he would not have copyright rights if he did not create it), that's not POV, that's a fact. And he's also the owner of the BlairWatch site hence he tries to insert links to it constantly... 84.92.40.169 (very likely him, logged out) is just linkspamming... --Chaosfeary 13:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your interpretation is false. I have never claimed to be the copyright holder and only added the image because it is relevant to the article. --Peter McConaughey 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, there's no problem w/ the copyright issue. The banner states clearly that it is for free download. -- Cheers Svest 19:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I think it's reasonable to include the image because it's a nice comment on the way the memo is seen politically within the UK - that those who are anti-Labour (or at least anti-Labour policy on Iraq) are generally of the belief that its publication would aid them. Oddly the Mirror story implied the direct opposite - that Blair had persuaded Bush not to do something stupid. It also indicates a degree of knowledge about the memo among the blogosphere. I'd keep the image in. David | Talk 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not include it. The only reason I've heard so far is about the notability of Blairwatch.co.uk. As a reminder, Google-watch.org got an entry in wikipedia. Even Daniel Brandt, its founder, got his own controversial article. Indeed, it's just Mr Brandt who's editing his sites while the last time I visited Blairwatch I found 3 users and 317 guests. I am not trying to imply whether any of the websites is notable but implying that if Google-watch is present here than a banner/pic from blairwatch which is directly related to the story is at least notable to this article. The only thing we should discuss is what to mention in the title of the picture, not the presence of it. -- Cheers -- Svest 18:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I have changed the end of the otherwise good text to remove the reference to 'Blairs edicts'. I probaly swung it too far the other way, so i am very happy for some one to find a better alternative. I think UK law is a better end then blairs edicts. It at least is plain fact, even if the circumstances show a certain amount of POV. Dolive21 23:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Svest 23:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The law allows for Blair to suppress news agencies, but it does not require him to. In the end, it is up to Blair to interpret how the law is to be invoked in this matter, thus making it an edict. To call it a matter of British law is incorrect. If it were a matter of law, anyone could enforce it by going to the police and citing how the law was broken. In the case of suppressing the memo, however, only an edict from Blair carries enough authority. --Peter McConaughey 04:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The lord chancellor, one of the law officers, who is , I must admit for clarity, a political appointy, stated that the publcation of the memo would be a breach of the official secrest act. He was acting in pursuance of his duty. It is not an edict. It is in fact quite likely that orders came from the highest levels of goverment not to pursue this matter as forcefully as it could be pursued. The entire editorial staff of the Mirror could be arrested for breaching the official secrets act, conspircay to breach the official secrets act, and being accesories to breaching the official secrets act.Dolive21 10:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have confused the Lord Chancellor with the Attorney-General. The Lord Chancellor is head of the Judiciary and does not initiate prosecutions, while the Attorney-General is the government's lawyer and in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service. Important prosecutions have to be approved by the Attorney-General personally. There are some fine constitutional principles about the way the Attorney-General can consult other members of the government on whether to initiate or to stop a prosecution (to put it briefly, the Attorney-General is entitled to consult others who have a political view, and to bear this in mind, but cannot be directly ordered to withdraw or initiate a prosection on political grounds). The Campbell case from 1924 is instructive here. David | Talk 12:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for correcting me on my inaccuracy. I was wrong. The office i should have referd to was the attorney-general. Still, not withstanding the ineptitude with which i made my point, The attornet general was acting rightly in his official capacity by warning the press that publication was illegal. I would also, on an almost entirely unconnected point, like to complement david on supporting a party which offers such a competent and eloquent alternative to the current holder of that post.Dolive21 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it actually were illegal, the attorney general would not have had to "state that the publication of the memo would be a breach of the official secrets act." Any British civilian or law enforcement agent could have read the law and determined that for themselves. Publication of the memo did not become an illegal act until the edict was declared. Until it became illegal, it could not have been considered a necessary part of British law, and since the law did not physically change due to the edict, it could not now be considered part of British law. Granted, the edict is allowed by British law, but it was the edict that made it illegal. I have nothing against British law, but I join hundreds of others in opposing edicts used for the sole purpose of hiding conspiracy to commit murder, which I believe the memo will show was the underlying cause of the last two attacks on Al Jazeera.

That said, I think the current caption is a good compromise. --Peter McConaughey 21:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone should bear in mind that the A-G didn't state that publication would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act (that's not for him to say); he said that if anyone publishes it, he will consider initiating a prosecution for breaching it. The Judge makes the decision. There is no "edict". David | Talk 21:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The law, in this case, is so subjective that it actually is for him to say. An average citizen else making the same claim would be laughed at. Even the A-G doesn't have enough power to make such a bold edict without the backing of the entire Blair government. --Peter McConaughey 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

With very great respect, however familiar you may be with your legal system in the United States, we in the United Kingdom diverged in 1776 and the Attorney-General cannot simply declare a particular act illegal. David | Talk 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

He can't in our country either, but he does it all the time. --Peter McConaughey 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The AG simply made it clear that he considered that the publication of the memo was a breach of the official secrets act. This british civilian has read the act. It is clear that the publication of the memo would be illegal.Dolive21 13:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Legality

Congratulations in your in spired and well balanced image text User:Dbiv. Just one point, it is clear that publishing classified documents is illegal in the UK. The citation if you want to check it is Official secrets act 1989 Section 5 for the publiaction, and section 3 is the section about international relations. The full memo is beleived to contain details of british troop deployments, which would all under section 2. Section 15 extends the jurisdiction of the offence to anyone with british citizen ship any where in the world. If you want ot look this up it is on pages 280 - 286 of blackstones statutes on criminal law, or on line at HMSO. The above was from Blackstones 14th edition. The entry in blackstones about the official secrets act is identical to the act, which is crown copyright and can be reproduced freely as long as attributed. Please keep these two sentences in if you use this information.

Does the act apply to non-citizens resident in the UK? I presume it does not apply to non-citizens outside of the UK. Does the place of publication matter. ie, I live in the UK but I am not a UK citizen, can I publish to a US hosted website? Seabhcán 12:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It applies to anyone in the UK. However, section 5 does not apply to British citizens abroad, as section 15 (the part of the act which applies the law extraterritorially) explicitly discounts section 5, saying "Any act [done by a British citizen abroad is an offence if] it would be an offence by that person under any provision of this Act other than section 8(1), (4) or (5) when done by him in the United Kingdom". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As to where you've published it, it's likely that a court may feel that by transmitting the information from within the UK that the act of publication occurred within the UK (courts seem to be generally adopting the attitude that if the bits for something travel through country X, country X will consider an act to have occurred inside its jurisdiction). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Section 15 excludes sub sections 8 (1) (4) and (5.) subsection 8 (5) is about failing to safegaurd classified documents. Section 5 is about publishing classifeid documets, and does have extra territorial jurisdiction. As to whether a non-citizen can commit the offence, it works a bit like treason, british citizens anywhere in the world are bound by it and so is everyone in british territory. If you publish the information, and are subject to the act, you can be prosecuted, so if you are in the UK, it does not matter where you post it, it would be illegal.Dolive21 14:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Peter McConaughey

User:Peter McConaughey is a suspected sock puppet of a user permanently blocked form editing wikipedia. Dolive21 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

This seems reduntant after so much time, but publishing the memeo would be copyvio. It is either copyright of the person who transcribed it, their employer (The british goverment, which would not give permission) or blair and bush themselves. Even if it was a fake, then unless the person faking it said ti was ok and owned up to faking it, it would be wikipedia policy to delete it.Dolive21 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Alleged Al Jazeera bombing memo"

There has been no proof of the veracity of this "memo". It should therefore, under the NPOV policy, be deemed "alleged", and this should be included in the title to not show a POV. --Mrmiscellanious 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Bomb Us blog

The link posted for this blog site no longer leads to an Al Jazeera-related page but rather to a series of advertisements. If the blog has been moved elsewhere, please update the link. 23skidoo (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the links. The Mirror link also does not exist anymore btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.206.2 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Would editors please not delete dead links (like what was done here [10]) without first trying to find alternative sources for the same content. On many occasions, archive copies of dead links can be found at archive.org. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Censorship. Link to mirror article.

1. Can someone please post a link to the mirror article? I added in-line citations.
2. I notice that nothing on the page links to the actual memo, is a copy of it available anywhere on the web to use as a reference? (I don't give a shit whether it's PD or not; that's not the question anon asked and I'm re-asking.)
3. Are the article and talk page being censored? Seems like it. Diffs please.

--Elvey^(t•c) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jazeera bombing memo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619084828/http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=371632&rel_no=1 to http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=371632&rel_no=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713180013/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22223 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22223

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Jazeera bombing memo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060312231010/http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2005/11/bush_and_aljazeera.php to http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2005/11/bush_and_aljazeera.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)