Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: WoT |
Brits claim U.S. intelligence leaked confidential Manchester bombing evidence |
2017-05-25 |
![]() [LegalInsurrection] If you thought that intelligence community leaks against Donald Trump were okay because Trump was the target, then you don’t understand the problem. Such leaks to the NY Times and Washington Post, among others, are not only criminal, they are contagious. If accusations being made by the British are true, the leakers in the U.S. intelligence community have revealed to the NY Times highly sensitive information shared as part of a joint terrorism investigation. It all started when the NY Times ran a lengthy report on the evidence recovered at the scene of the Manchester concert suicide bombing, Found at the Scene in Manchester: Shrapnel, a Backpack and a Battery: The bomber in the Manchester terrorist attack appeared to have carried a powerful explosive in a lightweight metal container concealed either within a black vest or a blue Karrimor backpack, and may have held a small switch in his left hand, according to preliminary information gathered by British authorities. The article then goes on to show photos of evidence, including the battery, shrapnel, and remnants of the backpack in which the bomb was contained. The Times summarizes preliminary findings as to the nature of the bomb and how it was constructed: Certain details of the bomb further suggest a desire by a bomb-maker to reduce the risk of a dud. You don’t need to be a professional explosives and terror investigator to understand that publishing such details so early in the investigation could prejudice the ability to roll up the bombmaker and network. The way in which bombs are constructed often carry forensic signature telltale details that can be traced back to specific groups or even individual bombmakers. So who leaked to the NY Times? The British apparently are blaming U.S. intelligence services, who would have been privy to such information as part of joint investigation. |
Posted by:Anomalous Sources |
#10 (note: by 'penetrated', I mean lying down in the street with your legs spread) Or the other way round, SteveS, in all possible senses. They all went to the same schools, after all. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2017-05-25 18:21 |
#9 Perhaps, in addition to the traditional Russian moles, our intel services have been penetrated by the NY Times. (note: by 'penetrated', I mean lying down in the street with your legs spread) |
Posted by: SteveS 2017-05-25 11:41 |
#8 Prob concerned the world now knows what they knew and did nothing about. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2017-05-25 10:11 |
#7 Damn you Yanks make it hard to cover up stuff! You don’t need to be a professional explosives and terror investigator to understand that publishing such details so early in the investigation could prejudice the ability to roll up the bombmaker and network. Really? Is it fundamentally unique from all the other 'carry on' bombs we've been exposed to from Iraq to Israel? Or are you really concerned about less skilled but wannabe imitators already in your midst picking up pointers? |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-05-25 07:28 |
#6 It appears it was homemade explosive. |
Posted by: phil_b 2017-05-25 04:11 |
#5 According to the Telegraph, the Manchester police have stopped sharing information with the Americans altogether, and PM May intends to speak sharply to President Trump about it today. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2017-05-25 04:09 |
#4 To limit future intelligence sharing with the Trump administration? |
Posted by: gorb 2017-05-25 04:09 |
#3 So who leaked to the NY Times? The British apparently are blaming U.S. intelligence services, who would have been privy to such information as part of joint investigation. The 'who' is fairly obvious. I'm more concerned with the 'why.' |
Posted by: Besoeker 2017-05-25 04:03 |
#2 I'm wondering where they got the explosives. Doesn't sound like homemade stuff. |
Posted by: phil_b 2017-05-25 01:29 |
#1 could prejudice the ability to roll up the bombmaker and network this 1 time. There are many, many more. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2017-05-25 00:49 |