What?! No condemnation of the leaker?!

None unless something more was leaked than what I saw in that report. I don't see how anything in that leak could endanger security. The nature of the threat was not specific enough.

Well, that's not your call, is it? Just because you don't see a national security risk isn't the issue. Rules are rules, and leaks are leaks. Or is it now OK to leak if the leaker and their audience don't see anything wrong with it?

Brian:

Well, that's not your call, is it? Just because you don't see a national security risk isn't the issue. Rules are rules, and leaks are leaks.

Actually, it is the issue, Brian. If the leak is harmless then who is to condemn it?
Responsible people get upset when leaks compromise security, your little rule saying a leak about Tom Cruise's love life is equal to a leak about the Swift program is beyond laughable.

But, if that's how you feel about it, you should have been first in line saying the leaks in our government were wrong, not that you had a right to know the information was leaked.

Tom Cruise? What the heck are you talking about? Hitting the sauce a little early, are we?

Responsible people get upset when leaks compromise security

Yep. And irresponsible people get upset when leaks don't compromise security.

Brian, are you a real moron, or do you just play one on the internet?

This meeting was a journalists' briefing. The breach of their "rules" of confidentiality is NOTHING like revealing classified national security information.

How dumb does one have to be to fail to see the difference?

First of all, it was a government official, speaking under the expectation of confidentiality. that's a little bit more than a "journalist's briefing".

However, you are correct, of course. I was just playing along with these others whose first reaction was that their opinion of the impact of the leak was the guiding principle.

Okay, I'll condemn the leaker.

If nothing is supposed to be divulged it's so people can speak freely. What it sounds like to me is that the "appalled" person saw an opportunity to make a political point (so-and-so favors internment) in a situation where no transcript will be made public and the charge can not be refuted.

What amazes me is that it's the *job* of those in positions of responsibility to consider worst case eventualities and even make contingency plans for them. They need to be able to talk about possible public reactions and public demands. It has nothing to do with favoring or *wanting* those things to happen.

Let's get on point here: if the predicted appalling act of terror should occur, would internment of the entire population of British Muslims, whether temporary or in contemplation of exiling the lot, be 1) popular, 2) justified, 3) performed?

I hope the answers are yes, yes, and yes. What say you all?

I think the details would matter.

Definitely. Support for internment would be way different if it was a single large target vs. every third apartment building exploding.