(National Sentinel)Â Intelligence: The Trump administration mustÂ double and triple its efforts to track down leakers within the government – and then prosecute them – because now it’s beginning to affect centuries-old relationships and alliances, namely the one we have with Great Britain.
According to multiple reports on Wednesday, the UK is livid with the United States for leaks that have found their way into U.S. media – enterÂ The New York Times once again, one of the principle enablers of the leaking – regarding the ISIS suicide bombing at a concern in Manchester earlier this week.
As reported byÂ Zero Hedge:
Britainâ€™s Interior minister Amber Rudd was asked by the BBC about the fact that information about Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi, including his name, had first come out from the United States and whether she would look again at how information was shared with other countries, to which she responded: “Yes, quite frankly. I mean the British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise, so it is irritating if it gets released from other sources and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.” Asked whether the U.S. leaks had compromised the investigation, she said: “I wouldn’t go that far but I can say that they are perfectly clear about the situation and that it shouldn’t happen again.”
Just a day later, there has been a marked deterioration in intelligence-sharing between the U.S. and the UK. As Reuters reports, British police have officially stopped sharing information on the suicide bombing in Manchester with the United States, a British counter-terrorism source told the news agency, after police said leaks to U.S. media risked hindering their investigation. The decision to stop sharing police information with U.S. agencies “was an extraordinary step as Britain sees the United States as its closest ally on security and intelligence.”
Extraordinary, indeed. And dangerous.
Earlier, the BBCÂ noted that “UK officials were outraged when photos appearing to show debris from the attack appeared in the New York Times. It came after the name of bomber Salman Abedi was leaked to US media just hours after the attack, which left 22 dead. Theresa May said she would tell Donald Trump at a NATOÂ meeting that shared intelligence ‘must remain secure.'”
Next, as reported byÂ Bloomberg, U.K. police said late Wednesday that “leaks to American media amounted to a breach of trust and undermined their investigation into the attack, stepping up criticism earlier from Home Secretary Amber Rudd.”
The BBC reported that U.K. officials were furious about a story in the New York Times on Wednesday that included photos of the crime scene. The story didnâ€™t cite a source, and the U.K. government had no comment on the piece.
And then Reuters confirmedÂ that “police chiefs have made clear they are furious about the publication of confidential material in U.S. media, including bomb site photographs in the New York Times, saying such leaks undermined relationships with trusted security allies.”
“This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation,” a National Counter Terrorism Policing spokesman said in a statement.
The battle against terrorism, as President Donald J. Trump made clear during his speech in Saudi Arabia last weekend, is an international effort, requiring cooperation and, most of allÂ trust, between allies, precisely so that information can be sharedÂ in confidence that it won’t be compromised,Â lest people die.
We have a two-fold problem in the U.S. with leaking at present: 1) The Deep State is #nevertrump and has obviously decided it will sacrificeÂ anyone, including 8-year-old British children, in order to undermine the president; and 2) our disgusting “mainstream media” – which is also #nevertrump – has become part of theÂ espionage and should bear some responsibility for publishingÂ top secret, sensitive information thatÂ compromises investigations, period.
We don’t say that lightly; after all, we, too, are “the media.”
But there is a difference betweenÂ “the people’s right know” about corruption, constitutional violations and political treachery, and publishing intelligence information that compromises investigations and endangers lives.
And ruins historical alliances.
Clearly the Times – along with the Washington Post, CNN, and the rest of the Trump-hating media – have repeatedly crossed the line when it comes to publishing sensitive information they have no right and no business to publish. If D-Day were scheduled forÂ this June 6, and it was going to be carried out on Trump’s order, who doubts that, in a fit of rage and in order to ensure it fails, the Times or the Post or CNN or a dozen other outlets would leak the plans?
One final thought on all of these supposed instances where Trump is “sharing sensitive information” – does anyone seriously think that past presidents didn’t share sensitive details with other world leaders? Why couldÂ they do so but Trump can’t hold a conversation with anyone without portions of it being leaked?Â As to the supposed disclosure of information to Russian diplomats in the Oval Office, Trump didn’t say anything that CNN hadn’t already reported – thanks toÂ leaks – April 1.
We were no fans of Barack Obama, but we would never have published highly classified informationÂ just to injure him, because doing so would have also put the country at risk.
If the #nevertrump ideologues in the “mainstream” media won’t restrain themselves and start acting responsibly, then hopefully the Trump administration’s coming crackdown on White House leaks will be extended to certain members of the Fourth Estate who are enabling those who harm all ofÂ us by trying to harmÂ Trump.