Britain prides itself on its ability to steal and keep secrets, and the Manchester flap is only the latest in a string of American indiscretions that have infuriated British spymasters. Other recent flash points included the Obama administration’s leak of details about a British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the suggestion by President Trump’s spokesman in March that GCHQ, Britain’s signals-intelligence service, helped “wiretap” Trump, which GCHQ dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” in an unusual public statement.

AD

AD

The British complaints about leaks will bolster the Trump administration’s argument that such unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information are the real national-security problem, not the allegations of collusion between the Trump team and Russian intelligence. The Russia probe is probably unstoppable now that Robert S. Mueller III has been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter. But the push for more aggressive Justice Department investigation of leaks started when Trump took office and will gain momentum now.

British officials argued that the Manchester police photographs that appeared in the New York Times were an unusually specific use of intelligence or law-enforcement information. British newspapers mostly adhere to unwritten rules of deference on such sensitive intelligence matters. U.S. newspapers, too, often refrain from publishing what Ben Bradlee, legendary editor of The Post, once termed “wiring diagram” details.

British police chiefs issued a blunt, angry statement: “We greatly value the important relationships we have with our trusted intelligence, law enforcement and security partners around the world. … When that trust is breached, it undermines these relationships.” Manchester police were reported to have halted, at least for a time, their sharing of information with U.S. partners.

AD

AD

You could also hear the rage in the statement by Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester: “These leaks are completely unacceptable, and must stop immediately. … This behavior is arrogant and is undermining the investigation into the horrific attack on the city of Manchester.”

News organizations get attacked for publishing sensitive information. But the larger issue is that in this era of instant, pervasive digital communications, it seems almost impossible to control information. The CIA, National Security Agency, FBI, White House, U.S. military and British intelligence have all been unable to stop disgruntled employees and consultants from sharing information. The internal codes of loyalty and discretion within these organizations have frayed.