Able Danger seeing some light
Able Danger – the military intelligence operation that had identified one of the 9/11 terrorist cells way back in 1999, but apparently was prevented from informing the FBI for legal reasons - is finally getting some play this side of the Atlantic, albeit not on the UK’s vaunted, and government funded, news service.
The Times’ Sam Knight seems to be paying the closest attention with two stories so far, one back on the 9th, when the story first broke in the States, and another just yesterday. The Independent also managed to get to the story early with this one on the 10th, but has failed to follow it up with anything new. The Guardian’s man in America, Julian Borger, finally managed to, er, dig up the story just today.
The BBC, on the other hand, has yet to discover it, with exactly zero Able Danger stories to date. It is, apparently, too caught up in the ever-important Sheehan-fest (6 stories in the last week) to waste precious journalistic real estate on a mere intelligence scandal. Especially one that raises more questions about the policies of his predecessor than those of the current president.
Keep up the groundbreaking work, Beeb.
The Times’ Sam Knight seems to be paying the closest attention with two stories so far, one back on the 9th, when the story first broke in the States, and another just yesterday. The Independent also managed to get to the story early with this one on the 10th, but has failed to follow it up with anything new. The Guardian’s man in America, Julian Borger, finally managed to, er, dig up the story just today.
The BBC, on the other hand, has yet to discover it, with exactly zero Able Danger stories to date. It is, apparently, too caught up in the ever-important Sheehan-fest (6 stories in the last week) to waste precious journalistic real estate on a mere intelligence scandal. Especially one that raises more questions about the policies of his predecessor than those of the current president.
Keep up the groundbreaking work, Beeb.
3 Comments:
Not sure about describing the BBC as a "government funded news service" - the BBC is funded through a poll tax levied on each home in the country with the threat of imprisonment. If they were government funded then we might at least have some control over their output.
David,
We would only have some control over its output if it was "government contolled", which I admit it is not, apart from the government's abilty to cease funding it. Given that the BBC is, as you say, funded through a tax levied with the threat of imprisonment, "government funded" is, I believe, precisely the correct description.
Scott
After reading your post I have realized that you have good know about real estate. So plesae share your knowledge and let us know about Surjani Town home.
Post a Comment
<< Home