Did Brennan and Napolitano Have Advance Warning of the UK Arrests?
Now that I’ve fetched Mr. EW from his 48 hour trip to Philadelphia from Dublin, my entire family will be in one place for the next day or so, so don’t expect much posting from me in that period.
But I did want to point to this detail about the alleged terrorists arrested the other day in the UK: they were allegedly plotting to hit the US Embassy.
The U.S. embassy in London was a target of a group of men arrested last week in Britain and charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and preparing acts of terrorism, the U.S. State Department said on Monday.Twelve men were arrested on December 20 in what British police said were counter-terrorism raids essential to protect the public from the threat of attack.
Which brings me back to my point of the other day: the possibility that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper did not know of the investigation and arrests before they happened. One possibility I suggested, for example, is that the British didn’t share details of the investigation with us because they had been burned (by Dick Cheney and Jose Rodriguez) in the past.
Only, this detail sort of extends my point. While it’s clear John Brennan and Janet Napolitano knew of the by then widely-reported arrests by the time Diane Sawyer asked James Clapper about them, had they known the US Embassy was a target (and that the news would be published in the next few days), they probably wouldn’t have claimed there was no tie between those terrorism arrests and threats to the US. Indeed, there’s some indication the entire government had no clue about that fact, given that ODNI’s statement about Clapper suggested that Clapper wasn’t immediately briefed because it didn’t appear there was a “homeland nexus.” Now maybe “homeland nexus” is a weasel way of saying we no longer consider our embassies overseas–not even the one in our closest ally’s capital–to be a target (if so, someone should tell Ahmed Ghailani’s lawyers, and all the other terrorists convicted in the US of striking US embassies overseas).
But the more likely possibility, given what Brennan, Napolitano, and Clapper have said is that the US–the entire government–was left out of the loop on this investigation. That’s certainly Britain’s prerogative. You never know when some Dick Cheney figure is going to sabotage a British investigation on them, after all.
But it does seem to be a notable data point.
Interesting dynamics. New conservative British government, MI5 burnt by previous information sharing, while Bush III needs a win in the terror war. Yet based on my limited Googling, there’s no mention of US intel involvement or briefing. Could it be the Brits realize their interests in this arena no longer coincide with the US?
When our best friends in the world will no longer work with us, perhaps it’s time for some new policies.
Boxturtle (Suspects ObamaLLP will respond by finding new Best Friends)
He thinks he already has them in McConnell and Boehner.
Winston Churchill once called his wartime deputy prime minister and post-war Labour successor, his political opponent Clement Attlee, a sheep in sheep’s clothing. The epithet didn’t apply to Mr. Attlee – he managed the domestic administration while Churchill managed the war, and created the post-war social reforms that lasted until the current government. But it does seem to apply to Mr. Obama. He is on the way to leaving us a government guided by the “principles” of ruthless opportunism promoted by Ayn Rand, not the very different ones bequeathed us by Madison and Jefferson.
He’s in for a shock when he runs to kick that football.
Boxturtle (The sad part of it is, he probably DOES believe they’re his friends)
Perhaps in the wake of Wikileaks disclosure of classified diplomatic files, the “special relationship” has been shaken as the USG’s legitimacy and trust has been called into question in the eyes of the UK, hence the lack of communication?
I seem to recall that the U.S. tried to pressure the British courts not to reveal Binyam Mohammed’s testimony by saying that intelligence “cooperation” would be “put at risk.” Maybe the Brits decided to demonstrate, in a nicely understated way, that it’s a two way street.
Just got back from meeting the cbls. Great, wonderful folks. :)
Good for You! I was hoping you all would meet up and be fast and long friends. :-)
I’m sure we will be. :)
Great fun, I’m sure. Glad you got to meet.
It makes me happy too. :)
There’s a very unique UK government right now. Mostly Tory Part Lib Dem coalition.
I imagine they are barely able to keep a conversation civil among themselves, never mind bringing anyone else in to the discussion.
Marcy, I’m glad you brought this up for discussion. My poor old mother and I discussed this last week. She was appalled. I told her not to worry. The terrorist are not going to be in the WH much longer.
How on earth can all these highly paid, highly thought of intelligence agencies/people not know anything about it?
Well, evidently it wasn’t the real McCoy. Only some more propaganda or false flags.
Heh. Combating terrorism without international coordination among govts. That should open up some new opportunities for terrorists to exploit.
Give me the job for one year. You don’t even have to pay me, just feed me. I’ll sleep in the office.
And I guarantee you I can do a better job than the fools and traitors who have been doing this job for the past decade and longer.
for what it’s worth, the mi5 kept it under wraps until they could file charges that would stick – the british public really isn’t into being afraid all that much but they do get outraged with police abuse and currently, they are not very enamoured of that ‘special relationship’ since they’ve finally seen off blair as burnt toast and frankly, they do not appreciate congressman king’s calls for extrajudicious assassination of assange because they remember king as someone actively raising funds for the ira when the latter was wreaking mayhem across major cities and i was in london at that time – just that terrorism is something that happens and is no excuse for totalitarian revisionism that provides a smokescreen for racism