Justice? It's not just us

So it's OK to suggest bombing a television station, but not OK to report that someone suggested bombing it?

Two men appeared in a British court on Tuesday accused of leaking a secret document which a newspaper said showed that U.S. President George W. Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera.

The hearing came a week after the Daily Mirror reported that a British government memo said British Prime Minister Tony Blair had talked Bush out of bombing the broadcaster's headquarters in Qatar in April last year.

The White House has dismissed the report as "outlandish" and on Monday Blair denied receiving any details of a reported U.S. proposal to bomb Al Jazeera.

Defendant David Keogh, a civil servant who used to work at the Cabinet Office, was charged with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations."

If both the British and American governments claim the report is wrong, why is someone being charged with leaking the contents of the document?

Because both governments are choosing their words carefully, appearing to deny the report but not actually doing so. The White House hasn't denied the report, it's merely dismissing it, refusing to dignify the report with an answer. (When was the last time the White House dignified anything, frankly?) Tony Blair denied "receiving any details of a reported U.S. proposal to bomb Al Jazeera." He didn't deny Bush floated the idea. Of course Blair didn't receive details of a U.S. proposal. Does George Bush strike you as someone whose proposals involve details?

In another strange twist, the British government is making it difficult for the defendants to mount a defense.

O'Connor's lawyer Neil Clark told reporters after the hearing he had not been granted access to the document but hoped he would before the trial resumes.

"Sometime between now and January 10 I hope that that document will be disclosed to me," he said. "It needs to be disclosed because it's impossible to defend unless you know the case that you're facing."

What's next, Blair's government will hold these guys for three years and then charge them with something completely unrelated? Then disclose that they may be detained whether or not they're found guilty?

Nah. What kind of corrupt regime would resort to such tactics?