Secret trial for David Keogh and Leo O'Connor over the Al Jazeera memo leak
In two days time the trial of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor at the Old Bailey will commence. They have been charged under the Official Secrets Act with leaking what is known as the Al Jazeera memo in which the details of a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair are recorded. Allegedly, in this memo, Bush had to be dissuaded from bombing the Qatar offices of Al Jazeera by Blair. We have covered this story extensively over the last year (the most recent posts are here and here), so this trial should be interesting. However, it would be even more interesting if the most important part of the trial wasn't going to be held in secret.
In Nov. 2005 the Daily Mirror published a report based on the memo that is now at the center of this case. The content has been widely disputed but the central claim has been repeated in an Early Day Motion (1084) tabled in the House of Commons by Peter Kilfoyle MP and others. The motion proposes "That this House notes recent reports that President Bush discussed with the Prime Minister the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar; and calls on the Government to publish the record of this discussion."
Richard Norton-Taylor pointed out in the Guardian that the purported conversation happened in April 2004 when al-Jazeera was covering US military tactics in Falluja.
There have been requests for the memo to be published under the Freedom of Information Acts in both the U.S. and U.K. Steve Wood in the FOIA blog reported on the U.S. response that "no records responsive to your request were located." Apparently White House records may not be subject to the FOI legislation but the request was made to the State Department. According to statements by Peter Kilfoyle MP, the memo shows Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) as present at the meeting.
Even with the secrecy, this will be an important trial and should be worth following. In the meantime there is always a chance that the memo will get leaked. Fingers crossed.
I did jury service in July
I did jury service in July and was surprised to by how young [relative to me at 61]and how sceptical the jurors were [they threw out one case in 5 minutes]. I find it very hard to imagine them being convinced that any crime has been committed here.
I don't know why the
I don't know why the government wastes public money with these 'show trials' when they must realise the vast majority of people, and therefore juries, are against government foriegn policy and most people can see these trial for what they are - abuse of the legal system for media propaganda.
One only has to realise that the vast majority of UK trials related to 'terror' end up in a 'no guilty' verdict - the people aint so dumb I guess, it's just the government and media that seem to be detached from reality.
What chance have the government got of jailing these guys? Absolutely ZERO.
How much public money end's up in the pockets of Tony and Cherie's 'lawyer' friends I wonder.
These disclosures were most
These disclosures were most decidedly in the public interest. End of story.
If two nations' governments conspire together to distort the reports of their own intelligence agencies, and launch unprovoked wars of aggression against much weaker nations, the only recourse of the citizens of the aggressor nations is to kick the bums out of office as soon as possible. That can only happen if those citizens get access to lots of unfiltered, factual information about the relevant events.
The conspiracy to attack and kill journalists going about their lawful business (which is also very much in the public interest) is nearly as appalling as the deceitful launching of illegal wars of aggression. People have been ceremoniously hanged for the latter; I have never heard of any politician or general being executed for killing a journalist. Nevertheless, they probably should be.
If anyone thinks that the defendants are in the wrong, and that they should not have revealed the information they did, I would ask that person: how do you imagine that a fair and honest election can be held, when the facts about the incumbent administration's behaviour are shrouded in guilty secrecy?
"The conspiracy to attack
"The conspiracy to attack and kill journalists going about their lawful business.."
As with Anna Politkovskaya, just murdered for knowing too much.
I find the notion of secret
I find the notion of secret trials and evidence pretty appalling.
I've done jury service twice now and I think that hearing the full details of both sides of each case was essential to making a fair decision.
Jury trial itself seems to be a pretty effective safeguard against arbitrary use of state power, which is why New Labour hate it so much. As many people have pointed out the reason we have these checks and balances isn't to protect the guilty people like Home Secretaries keep ranting about, it's to protect the innocent and wrongly accused.
Every time someone is acquitted John Reid seems to go on TV and shouts about changing the law. He never seems to think that a department, that he has said himself is not fit for purpose, could possibly have got it wrong.
After a hearing in secret it
After a hearing in secret it turns out this was pre-trial and the actual trial will be in April next year. My memory is that two weeks were once scheduled for this October. Anyone have any clues as to what is happening?
BBC report
it's to protect the innocent
it's to protect the innocent and wrongly accused.
It's to protect the reputation of the legal system, too, I think. Talking of trials in October, aren't the 21st July bombers/copycats/patsies (pick your own) supposed to be on trial about now? Been waiting for that one for a while.