Special Forces scandal as officers are held 'for trying to leak secrets'

So leaking information is more important than the mission?

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by P3ACE0WAR

 

you forgot ten
when installed leader mints own coin or trades for oil in other than dollars
bump him off

and you forgot number 11

create a central bank loyal to the Rothschilds Banking Cartel

and number 12

kill as many soldiers and civilians and children as you can
to implement population reduction. A choice between
the NWO or death.

and number 13

dump as much radiated depleted uranium (toxic waste)
in the area to keep people hooked on big pharma

and number 14

rig elections to install puppet regime loyal to
the NWO.

Heil Rothschild !!!

Originally posted by MemoryShock
So leaking information is more important than the mission?

if the mission is an illegal or immoral act,
then yes it is !!!

undoubtedly these men thought it was
or they wouldn't have taken the risk.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
if the mission is an illegal or immoral act,
then yes it is !!!

Agreed...I was just wondering what the hell they were thinking when ditching a mission because of leaked information...seems kind of like a no brainer...

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by MemoryShock
So leaking information is more important than the mission?

if the mission is an illegal or immoral act,
then yes it is !!!

undoubtedly these men thought it was
or they wouldn't have taken the risk.

edit on 4/10/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)

Those are my thoughts, they were willing to risk their careers to get this info out. They are obviously career soldiers looking at their ages, so why risk it all for something trivial.

The anti - terrorist unit are dealing with it, although there is no terrorist threat? What's the bet that these guys will be shipped off to Gitmo if the U.S feel they were about to release secrets involving their dealings in Afghanistan/Libya.

Originally posted by edog11
To give you an idea of their mindset, these soldiers assassinate high value/risk individual behind enemy lines without any support and exfiltrate when there are a #load of enemy soldiers chasing them and go to the exfil point to head home as if nothing happened, that's perfectly "normal" to them.
To make someone with such a mindset who doesn't have a problem with government-sponsored assassinations to want to leak something means that whatever they were trying to leak would be big- very very big.

Not necessarily, plenty of things that are known (or strongly suspected of happening) or not even considered or cared about because they're seemingly insignificant or uninteresting are official secrets. Their release is a breach of contract and people will be pursued regardless of whether it would make a good article or movie or not. The Daily Mail has produced umpteen articles in which “SAS men running around Libya doing various things” is presented as fact, citing a source in the Special Forces – one or both of these men could have helped produce these articles or ones like it for all that we know. Someone did.

Some men become extremely frustrated because they and their colleagues risk their lives virtually every day for months at a time in acts that must remain secret until some twat in Whitehall says so. They are also justifiably proud of their capabilities and their job; some are a little too proud. You can understand why many would develop a need for publicity.

The Daily Mail/Sun/etcetera hunt these kinds of stories because their average reader gets a stiffy over any article with “SAS” in the headline. Other newspapers such as the Guardian hunt stories involving the blowing of whistles and politically sensitive information being splattered all over the place. If the above paragraph applies to someone, if they needed any more encouragement to spill the beans then there is also an awful lot of money on offer - which is a good enough incentive in itself.

Apart from outstanding physical capabilities and mental toughness, they’re average human beings. Many would say that they’re too average; UKSF is perpetually undermanned because its men are only human. Some of their best become psychological casualties, some leave because they can’t cope with what they have to do every day for months at a time, some leave because their ego gets the better of them and they’re caught in the act of going to the press or writing a book, some leave because they’re offered a better paid job doing something far less exciting and the list goes on.

For example, Ben Griffin left the SAS because he refused to be involved in the torture of Iraqis and he subsequently became a very loud critic of the war. Shooting at folks and being shot at almost every day didn’t bother him an awful lot, but he felt that other aspects of what he was involved in ran counter to his morals, so he quit. There are many others like him, they're not any more soulless than you or anyone else here.

reply to post by Soshh


I doubt they would be arrested for it though, it would only bring about additional publicity. They would more than likely be told discretely to reign it in and advised they were being monitored.

They were approaching a Broadcaster, so I would imagine that this was something bigger than say advising what ops are taking place in Libya.

Originally posted by meathed
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Im confused

Didnt Our governments say there were no ground troops in libya

Does this mean this is another lie from our governments

So in other words these soliders were arrested for trying to tell the truth. Well that makes me mad.

No Meathed, they did not lie. They are British soldiers and we all knew they would be on the ground.

Back to your hole.

It sounds to me that these men may have unknowingly or knowingly violated their OPSEC by allegedly releasing sensitive information to the media? That is the only reason I can figure why they would be arrested, and why such drastic measures are being taken by the British government to silence them. The Special Forces have be known to be a tight-lipped bunch, and we can count on our hands how many of their exploits have been shared with public by former operators and the media.

This is only my speculation. It seems the Guardian is implying that some of the information released by these officers to media may have compromised the SAS mission near Bengahzi? The article mentioned that embarrassing incident? Moreover, some of the information released could be about the allegations of a backroom deal involving peace with the Taliban and giving up the southern region of Afghanistan to them? Someone on the thread posted an article about it already.

Then we have reports from the media about these Libyan Freedom Fighters/Rebels, moonlighting as insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps, the officers are disenchanted about the government's collusion with the rebels and the backroom deals being made as the Libyan conflict continues to unfold? Whatever the contents of this leak, it seems to be something of importance. Makes you wonder?

Originally posted by meathed
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Im confused

Didnt Our governments say there were no ground troops in libya

Does this mean this is another lie from our governments

So in other words these soliders were arrested for trying to tell the truth. Well that makes me mad.

The US said no ground troops... Though the UK may have some there... And also CIA/SAS are not considered "ground troops" per se

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Soshh

 

I doubt they would be arrested for it though, it would only bring about additional publicity. They would more than likely be told discretely to reign it in and advised they were being monitored.

Classified information relating to Libya has been leaked by Special Forces personnel recently and now two have been arrested for leaking or attempting to leak information. So following your theory, that would beg the question why they had not been told about it discreetly this time because it is producing additional publicity - indeed leaked details of Libya operations are in this very article.

Unauthorised leaks of classified information are incredibly serious and those linked to special forces operations are always pursued with the greatest of enthusiasm. If someone is found to be connected then they will be arrested. If someone is leaking information then it displays either a serious character flaw or something even more serious. Allowing them to remain inside is an unacceptable security risk.

They were approaching a Broadcaster, so I would imagine that this was something bigger than say advising what ops are taking place in Libya.

Just because they are alleged to have offered information to a broadcaster, it does not necessarily mean that the information is any more sensitive than if they had instead approached a newspaper. If the newspaper released something extremely inflammatory, then the broadcaster would report on it anyway. It wouldn’t make any difference.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


Ltr... These are british sf.

Originally posted by Jakes51
It sounds to me that these men may have unknowingly or knowingly violated their OPSEC by allegedly releasing sensitive information to the media?

That is exactly what they did, but they couldn’t possibly do it unknowingly.

The Special Forces have be known to be a tight-lipped bunch, and we can count on our hands how many of their exploits have been shared with public by former operators and the media.

How many hands have you got mate? I’d run out of fingers just counting their books. I don't know where this idea of special forces being tight-lipped has come from. Have you ever been to Herefordshire? Make the right friends and they'll tell you all kinds of things for free.

Read the part about it saying about passing along information to a major broadcaster folks.

These guys were just planning to reveal sensitive information in a BBC interview, or something like that. Just a lapse in judgement rather than a meaty spy story (more's the pity)

Maybe it has something to do with the billions of dollars our government is syphoning from the illegal opium and heroin trade in the area?

Maybe these SAS blokes got their boots down in Lybia only to recognize the people we were arming and backing are the same terrorist fighters that have been blowing up their mates from Baghdad to Kandahar?


There is so much treachery and criminality tied to this occupation it is impossible for one to guess.

I will say this..... for the ones who say it is ok to resist or to squeel when the mission is unlawful or illegal....it isn't going to be considered unlawful or illegal when the people who are setting your mission are the ones who determine what is and is not "unlawful" or "illegal".

These officers will be made as an example. I would not want to be them.

I did not read anywhere just WHO the officers were
leaking this info to.

Could it have been wikileaks ???

since Manning was caught.

Maybe this is why wikileaks was taken
over, just to catch whistleblowers in
the military by giving them a news
outlet.

If it was indeed wikileaks they gave the
info to, then what does that tell you about
wikileaks and it's true agenda ???

I wanna know WHO they tried to spill
the beans to ??? That means just as much
as the story itself.

Why was the media source stifled from public
scrutiny ???

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


How about the secret that we invaded Libya for made up reasons?

Too bad they werent conspiracy theorists. They would know the MSM is in on the scam, and that they cannot be trusted.

they tried to leak the secrets to a major broadcaster, not realizing that all major media is run by the CIA and NSA? even if members of the military wake up to the conspiracy, they have no idea how deep it really runs, so any efforts to do the right thing for all mankind by spreading the truth will fail miserably...

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


7. Arm one side of the division.

Have to disagree with this one as arming both sides makes more money and better news stories.

Originally posted by BaZooKa
reply to post by P3ACE0WAR

 

7. Arm one side of the division.

that is exactly what they're doing.

Al Queda and Muslim Brotherhood
have Saudi, CIA and Rothschilds ties.
They are the fighting forces of the elites.

These same people attacked America
on 9/11 and we went to war with somebody
whom was an enemy of the elites. Not somebody
who attacked us. If we attacked the ones
really responsible, then we would be at war
with the elites instead of goat herders in Afghan
and Iraq.