Talk:Al Jazeera bombing memo

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Any chance of an American wikipedian posting or linking to a copy of this memo?  Almafeta 05:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware it hasn't been made public yet. John Callender 06:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: '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)

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

message: 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. 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. 
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. a State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake. 
Kgrr 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Information to add when unprotected

message: On November 13, 2001 a US cruise missile hit Al Jazeera's office in Kabul after it criticised the US attack on Afghanistan. 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. 
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. a State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake. 
Kgrr 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous U.S. bombings of Al-Jazeera Offices

message: 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. 
24.18.194.118 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charged under Official Secrets Act

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Warning to UK editors. 

message: 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:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"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.</BLOCKQUOTE>
As for the Baghdad attack, in an  April 26, 2003 article for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Robert Fisk says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"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."</BLOCKQUOTE>
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources for claim that U.S. had co-ordinates of Al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad and Kabul that were bombed 

message: Please be careful to phrase things in an NPOV manner. 
# It is not true to say that the Mirror is anti-American. It is anti-Bush and his foreign policy. That is different. 
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Be careful in phrasing

message: 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 . -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: O'Connor - Keogh official secrets trial article

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

text: I agree with David. Unrelated cases. -- Svest 21:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US history

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Legality 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to "Alleged Al Jazeera bombing memo" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Don't Bomb Us blog

message: #Can someone please post a link to the mirror article?  I added in-line citations.
#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.)
#Are the article and talk page being censored?  Seems like it.   Diffs please.
--Elvey(t•c) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship. Link to mirror article. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified