US Intel chief unaware of London arrests

Well, for him, these are files, it's not easy to keep everything in mind... I'm not that shocked...

Maybe it's not important...
 
Maybe it's the need-to-know princip and someone in his organization decided that he did not need to know! :wink:
 
He was probably preoccupied with a lot of stuff and was most likely deprived of a lot of sleep as well.
Easy to laugh about it, but I'm sure there's a good reason behind it.
 
Imagine the stress his job has. He probably has 10 meetings a day with nonproductive, worthless bureaucrats, has 10 briefings a day with his people, and has the handle the press, superiors, etc.... We should congratulate the people which is in charge of security and has done a great job, instead of yammering about their memory
 
In the intel world, it is no excuse. He should know!
It sounds to me like someone have not briefed him for some reason.
 
Is there any reason the head of US Intelligence should be informed immediately when someone is arrested?

When did Brittan notify the US of the arrest? In news articles, it has been stated that the arrests were not connected to any planned attacks outside of Britain. Would the US intelligence officials review the arrest and prepare a report for the Chief Intelligence Officer? If it was determined to be a low priority(for the US) as seems to be in this case, would there be an urgent need to inform him? Might he have been involved through out the day with other higher priority issues.

In short does the head of US Intelligence need to be informed immediately every time someone is arrested in the world?:smil:

A release to the press saying that 12 men had been arrested for terrorism, may be great. With out in-depth information and assessment it would be worthless to an intelligence chief.
 
Chukpike said:
Is there any reason the head of US Intelligence should be informed immediately when someone is arrested?

When did Brittan notify the US of the arrest? In news articles, it has been stated that the arrests were not connected to any planned attacks outside of Britain. Would the US intelligence officials review the arrest and prepare a report for the Chief Intelligence Officer? If it was determined to be a low priority(for the US) as seems to be in this case, would there be an urgent need to inform him? Might he have been involved through out the day with other higher priority issues.

In short does the head of US Intelligence need to be informed immediately every time someone is arrested in the world?:smil:

A release to the press saying that 12 men had been arrested for terrorism, may be great. With out in-depth information and assessment it would be worthless to an intelligence chief.
Click to expand...
It was all over the news. He could have said he hadn't been briefed on it, instead of a "what you talking about" type reaction.
 
George said:
It was all over the news. He could have said he hadn't been briefed on it, instead of a "what you talking about" type reaction.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much, "Much ado about nothing". If there was an investigation going on would you have liked to have him say so. That would eliminate the need for Wikileaks to leak the information.:wink:

Much better if he had said "no comment".:)
 
Chukpike said:
Is there any reason the head of US Intelligence should be informed immediately when someone is arrested?

When did Brittan notify the US of the arrest? In news articles, it has been stated that the arrests were not connected to any planned attacks outside of Britain. Would the US intelligence officials review the arrest and prepare a report for the Chief Intelligence Officer? If it was determined to be a low priority(for the US) as seems to be in this case, would there be an urgent need to inform him? Might he have been involved through out the day with other higher priority issues.

In short does the head of US Intelligence need to be informed immediately every time someone is arrested in the world?:smil:

A release to the press saying that 12 men had been arrested for terrorism, may be great. With out in-depth information and assessment it would be worthless to an intelligence chief.
Click to expand...

For the president’s top intelligence officer not to be intimately familiar with the case—and not to have been briefed before a network interview—is stunning.
Why? Because he is your top intelligence official. How can he not know about these major arrests on the day they happened...even if they ARE bogus? Their veracity is not the point. They still happened. It's like not knowing the weatherman is predicting 40 inches of snow. It might not be legit, but he predicted it, causing responsible people to take certain actions to prepare.
 
Seehund said:
For the president’s top intelligence officer not to be intimately familiar with the case—and not to have been briefed before a network interview—is stunning.
Why? Because he is your top intelligence official. How can he not know about these major arrests on the day they happened...even if they ARE bogus? Their veracity is not the point. They still happened. It's like not knowing the weatherman is predicting 40 inches of snow. It might not be legit, but he predicted it, causing responsible people to take certain actions to prepare.
Click to expand...

So what are the facts?
When was the arrest made? I assume it was undercover so the US would probably not be informed of a purely British operation, until it was over.(Or should all governments be required to report in advance all operations to US Intelligence?)
Is this a case of the British "blowing it", by not reporting to American intelligence in a timely manner before they released information to the press.
Seems a lot of information is not available to us.

When did Brittan's Intel inform their American counterparts?
 
Best "deer in the headlights" moment in recorded history.

That was a huge deal in Britain and a big alert should have gone out.
No way he should not have had a preliminary heads up on this.

Typical of the new gang determined to give us up as the bad guys.
 
Chukpike said:
So what are the facts?
When was the arrest made? I assume it was undercover so the US would probably not be informed of a purely British operation, until it was over.(Or should all governments be required to report in advance all operations to US Intelligence?)
Is this a case of the British "blowing it", by not reporting to American intelligence in a timely manner before they released information to the press.
Seems a lot of information is not available to us.

When did Brittan's Intel inform their American counterparts?
Click to expand...

You can be sure that U.S. intelligence was aware that such an operation was launched

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Chief Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, who were also participating in the joint interview, were aware of the arrests. The arrests were the biggest anti-terror action in Britain since April 2009, when another dozen men were detained in Manchester in connection with an alleged Al Qaeda bomb plot.

So how can the Director of National Intelligence not know what's going on in the world in regards to terrorist activity? Something that could "directly" affect not only the United States of America but the entirety of the free world - which America is suppose to be the leader of?? Somebody needs to wake James Clapper up from his deep slumber. The "deer in the headlights" says it all if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top