juliet: (Default)
[personal profile] juliet

Date: 2004-10-18 01:23 pm (UTC)
karen2205: Me with proper sized mug of coffee (Default)
From: [personal profile] karen2205
Yeah - that doesn't sound good, but is it not possible that they were (a) acting with the approval of the British authorities or (b) had a Court Order entitling them to seize the property.

Something just isn't right about this - why would the FBI risk creating a PR disaster for Bush's closest ally, weeks before the US elections? I can't believe that there wasn't British involvement somewhere along the line. And the lack of coverage in the mainstream press makes me wonder about what kind of reporting restrictions might have been imposed. It's fishy, decidely fishy.

Date: 2004-10-18 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beingjdc.livejournal.com
It's been in The Register, Computer Weekly, Guardian, and a fair few American papers. Generally, when there's a reporting restriction, it doesn't get into the broadsheets...

December 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930 31    

Tags

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags