June 2012
NOTE: This newsletter contains some important and urgent information whichis being suppressed by the mainstream media. Please feel free to distribute it to anyone you feel may be interested.
The head of Britain's internal security service MI5, Jonathan Evans, talking about the possibility of a terrorist event during the London Olympic Games, has stated that the national threat level is assessed to be SUBSTANTIAL - meaning that an attack is a "strong possibility". He also stated: "The fact that there have been no successful al Qaida related terrorist attacks in Britain since 2005 is the result of a great deal of hard and creative work by the security, intelligence and Police services". Yet what did happen on 7 July 2005? (What we do know is that much of what we, the public, were told turned out to be untrue). I wonder what "creative work" means.
Jonathan Evans was giving the Lord Mayor's Annual Defence and Security Lecture in the City of London on 25 June 2012, titled 'The Olympics and Beyond'. The last time he had given a public lecture was on 16 September 2010, when he told the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals: "There will be a major security operation to support the Games, but we should not underestimate the challenge of mounting the Games securely in an environment with a high terrorist threat, the first time this has been attempted". The first time this has been attempted, he says!
A resident of Newham, where much of the Olympic Park is situated, writes on the Games Monitor website that "a sense of foreboding has descended on many of the people who, like me, live and work in Newham in east London". He points out that 24% of the residents are Muslim, and that during Ramadan the streets of Newham are likely to be very busy late into the evening. Against this background there will be "the largest peacetime military and security operation since 1945". But his main concern is the massive policing operation and its impact on local people. Police officers will have the power to instruct groups of two or more people who live outside the area to leave for up to 24 hours. They will have curfew powers for unaccompanied people under the age of 16. "Coupled with a range of stop and search powers under criminal, anti-social behaviour and anti-terrorist legislation, NMP's [Newham MonitoringProject's] fear is that young people in particular and ethnic minorities in general will be subjected to a level of intrusive policing that is likely to lead [to] arrests and criminalisation", he explains.
Why would anyone want to stage the Olympic Games under such conditions if their aim was not to create a police state?
Temporary measures in politics usually turn out not to be so temporary after all. Indeed, Jonathan Evans said in his recent lecture, "We are also anticipating an Olympic security legacy after the Games". I suggested in my last newsletter that there could be a security crack-down at the time ofthe Olympics whether or not there was a terrorist event. The Government has created enough fear in the minds of the public as to be able to take all sorts of measures to limit our freedoms. To see what the latest security restrictions are, see the Big Brother Watch website.
If we have not yet been told the truth on the London bombings of 7/7, how can we trust the Government, or MI5, in statements on some forthcoming terror event in London? Is MI5 telling the truth about Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism? My previous reports on the two main government think tanks, Policy Exchange and Demos, suggest that there is gross deception on the terrorist threat supposedly posed by Muslims in the UK. Indeed, I have reported on the sacking of South Yorkshire Police's Principal Intelligence Officer, Tony Farrell, for concluding that the threat of terrorism from UK Muslims is negligible compared to that coming from our own government.
The issue of 7/7 needs to be investigated, just as 9/11 needs to be investigated. According to an article appearing on the Muslim Brotherhood's website, IkhwanWeb , on 15 September 2007, the now newly elected Presidentof Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, stated on the sixth anniversary of 9/11:
"The US administration has never presented any evidences on the identity of those who committed that incident. The Muslim Brotherhood and others demanded a transparent trial with clear evidence and to have court rulings. We confirm that this isn't a defense to those who committed these actions but we only seek the truth".
The article also makes clear that immediately after the 9/11 attacks happened, the Muslim Brotherhood condemned them, seeing them as "totally divorced from any religion or creed, actions which are totally rejected by Islam".
According to an article in the Washington Times on 31 May this year, Dr Morsi in 2008 called on the US to provide "scientific" proof for its account of events.
"We have officially demanded a fair trial for 9/11 suspects and the issuance of a detailed scientific report about the attacks, but the U.S. administration did not respond till now", Mr. Morsi told Ikhwanweb, the Washington Times reports. "This requires a huge scientific conference that is devoted to analyzing what caused the attack against a massive structure like the two WTC towers," he said, referring to the World Trade Center. "Should this happen, we will stand firmly against whoever committed this horrific crime against innocent civilians". However,the Washington Times reports negatively about the personality of Dr Morsi,and adds that Osama bin Laden admitted his terror group's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks in a videotaped message in October 2004. The website Muslims for 9/11 Truth reproduces this article but refutes the statement on Bin Laden, stating: "False! Bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for 9/11, deplored the attacks, called them un-Islamic, and blamed 'some people with their own agenda' and 'American Jews' for the attacks in repeated statements before his death in December, 2001". The same website states: "Add Mohamed Morsi to the lists of heads of state who openly support 9/11truth. Presidents Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, former PMMahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, and Fidel Castro of Cuba preceded him".
Many other issues involving the UK security services need to be investigated, too. Just from the issues reported in my news letters one could begin to wonder whether the people in the United Kingdom may be more secure, and democracy may be better safeguarded, if MI5, MI6 and ACPO (The Association of Chief Police Officers) ceased to exist.
Recently, Brighton's Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, made a sensational revelation in Parliament, concerning undercover police officer Bob Lambert,who had infiltrated the Animal Liberation Movement, and who had been unmasked, as reported in my earlier newsletters. On Wednesday, 13 June, she told parliament: "In July 1987, three branches of Debenhams, in Luton,Romford and Harrow, were targeted by the ALF in co-ordinated, simultaneous incendiary attacks because the shops were selling fur products. Sheppard and Clarke were tried and found guilty, but the culprit who planted the incendiary device in the Harrow store was never caught. Bob Lambert's exposure as an undercover police officer has prompted Geoff Sheppard to speak out about that Harrow attack. Sheppard alleges that Lambert was the one who planted the third device and was involved in the ALF's co-ordinatedcampaign"
She went on to quote a statement by Sheppard, in which he said: "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the Debenhams store in Harrow. I specifically remember him giving an explanation to me about how he had been able to place one of the devices in that store, but how he had not been able to place the second device." Sheppard also alleged that the intelligence for the raid was so precise that it was now obvious that it "came from Bob Lambert", who knew that the pair were going to be there making another set of incendiary devices.
Caroline Lucas talked of police obstructionism in investigating the issues of undercover officers, including the holding of investigations in secret, and concluded that she hoped that the Government would "agree to set up a far reaching public inquiry into undercover police infiltrators and informers, looking back over past practices as well as looking forward".
In a Guardian blog, Rob Evans writes (Monday 25 June 2012 15.25 BST): "By any measure, the allegation is startling and serious, and the public should know whether it is true or not. So who is investigating?" - "The answer to that question is typically opaque".
A similar case has now arisen in Germany concerning the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, in which Palestinian militants with a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist group called 'Black September' took nine Israeli athletes hostage and demanded the release of several hundred Palestinians from Israeli prisons. When the police attempted to free the Israelis at the Fürstenfeldbruck military airport, where they were being held in two helicopters, the terrorists murdered all of their hostages. A police officer also died in the firefight. Three of the Palestinians survived. That was the official account, but the German magazine Spiegel has now come up with new evidence.
"Though it was never proved, left-wing extremists were suspected of working with the Palestinian terrorists behind the operation. But previously unreleased files seen by SPIEGEL prove that neo-Nazis were involved instead -- and officials knew about it", wrote theSpiegel on 17 June
The previously classified documents were provided by the German domestic intelligence service (BfV) in response to a request by SPIEGEL. "This evidence practically proved that the suspicion that German neo-Nazi Pohland Abramowski were collaborating with the Palestinian terrorists was in fact true", says Spiegel. According to the article, Pohl claims to have had no knowledge of the planned attack in Munich at the time. He claims that there was talk of hostage-taking in Germany in which the Palestinians planned to exchange 20 Israelis for some 200 fellow Palestinian militants in Israeli prisons. "The Palestinians insisted that it would be a bloodless incident, and they asked the two Germans what they thought the Germanpublic would think about it", Spiegel reports. "The German courts treated Pohl and Abramowski with astonishing leniency. ... . Only four days after sentencing, Pohl was released and fled to Beirut", Spiegel reported.
Assuming that Pohl is inverting the truth, the pattern emerging here is consistent with that of Operation Gladio, in which protest groups intending perhaps to create minor diversions find themselves involved in something much bigger and more sinister than they had ever imagined, having been infiltrated and manipulated by undercover agents of the security forces. So if it has taken 40 years for an investigation of the Munich Olympics attackto be announced, how long will it take to get a proper investigation into the London terror attacks of 7 July 2005?
I attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing in London for the case of Tony Farrell, in which he is appealing against unfair dismissal from South Yorkshire Police when, in 2010 he reached the conclusion that the risk to the public of terrorism from Islamic extremists was negligible compared with that from our own government. In September 2011 an employment tribunal in Sheffield dismissed his case, and on Friday 15 June his appeal to that was heard in London. The essence of his appeal was that it should have been plainly obvious to the Employment Tribunal judge that he was being poorly represented by his legal team; they had advised him to appeal on the grounds that he had been dismissed because of his religious beliefs rather than for making protected disclosures in the process of refusing to carry out a management instruction which would have been unlawful. Indeed, when Tony Farrell broke the news of his story at a meeting of our Keep Talking group in London some of us expressed concern about the religious discrimination angle. Part way through his Sheffield hearing, truth campaigner Ian Crane, who was not legally qualified, tookover Tony's representation with more credible argumentation.
Tony's case was dismissed by the judge in London, in a ruling that took ten minutes to prepare and twenty minutes to read out. Essentially, the reason was that the appeal hearing could only consider new points of law,and that there was a precedent which contradicted Tony's case. Clearly, something has gone very wrong with this case.
One point that caught my attention in particular was made by the judge after Tony Farrell's barrister had acknowledged that it was not the job of the tribunal to reach conclusions of fact, meaning that it could only consider points of law, but that the official version of events does not stack up. The judge responded by saying that he was quite right in saying that it was no business of his to judge that issue, adding that Lady Justice Hallett had dealt with that. Lady Justice Hallett had run the inquest into 52 victims of the London bombings, specifically excluding the four Muslim lads widely alleged to have committed the atrocities. It was outside her remit to determine the guilt or innocence of those four. In fact, she stated their guilt right at the beginning of the proceedings,with no examination of the facts. I was surprised that the Employment Appeal Tribunal judge could have made such a comment, just as I had been surprised that Lady Justice Hallett could have made the allegation of guilt before her inquest proceedings had begun. Clearly, something has gone verywrong with this case, too.
I was, however, impressed at the 23-page skeletal argument document ,which Tony had produced. It may or may not have had legal validity, but it does retell the story in a formal way, with the emphasis which it should perhaps have had right from the beginning. The important point for me is that Tony had already been making representation to his employers expressing concern at the statistical method being imposed nationally by the Home Office in producing a Risk Assessment Matrix. He made it known that in his opinion these matrices were flawed, and when applied too generically were nonsensical. An 'Orwellian speak' was creeping in. "And so it was that a new simplified language emerged. Principals were horrified but seemed powerless to stop the madness", the document states. "Blind acceptance of the Government's rhetoric on threat levels would invariably point towards imminent threats from Al Qaeda / Islamic Extremism. Such values fed into the matrix would in turn be used by ACPO to make the case for extra resource allocation to enhance counter terrorism activity under CONTEST II", the document states.
"Trusting what they tell us is a leap of faith. That faith was destroyed once it dawned on the Claimant that the retrospective official narratives of 9/11 and 7/7 were full of very serious distortions and omissions", the document explained. I think this document is an important document in the history of the truth movement, because it describes how the Government was manipulating statistics in order to advance their own version of events, at the same time claiming that the evidence was coming from the professionals. I look forward to seeing this document on some website somewhere. It is of direct relevance to current claims of risks of terrorist attacks coming from Muslim extremists during the Olympic Games, as being put forward by the Government, and MI5.
Journalist Adrian Salbuchi, who is based in Buenos Aires and is a regular contributor to Russia Today, has been trying to draw attention to a 'scenario analysis' published by the Rockefeller Foundation in May 2010. The Rockefeller Foundation is right at the heart of the Establishment in the US, and what they produce has to be taken seriously. He wrote to journalist Tony Gosling, who posted his request on his 9/11 Forum. It read: "Please find below an article that I consider to be very important. Surprisingly (?), it was rejected by those who'normally' publish my works... May I ask you kindly help us to spread this information as far and wide as possible". His article is headed 'Are the London Olympics a target for a False-Flag Attack?'.
He explains that false-flag attacks carry their tell-tale signs, because, when planned, they must include some sort of communication so that those in the know can make sure that neither they nor their associates or loved ones should happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (ED: like Silverstein just happened to be at a doctor's appointment on 9/11 and his son and daughter were late for a meeting at the "Windows on the World" restaurant). "Is somethingalong these lines on Global Power Master drawing boards for the up-coming London O lympics?", he asks. "The question would surely sound ludicrous, were it not for a May 2010 Report issued by The Rockefeller Foundation (RF)and Global Business Network (GBN) that 'predicts' exactly that", he explains. The text of his article reveals that in one of their scenarios they talk of a bombing that kills 13,000 people at the London Olympics.
"Called 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development', it carries introductions by RF president Judith Rodin and GBN chairman Peter Schwartz, both members of the powerful New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think-tank, a key geo political planning node of the Global Power structure embedded deep inside the US", writes Adrian Salbuchi. So I looked up the report to see what I could make of it.
I found it was written in the same sort of pseudo-scientific sociological clap-trap that the deceptive reports that I had previously studied by the British think tanks Demos and Policy Exchange had been written in. In his introductory letter, Peter Schwartz writes: "Perhaps most importantly, scenarios give us a new, shared language that deepens our conversations about the future and how we can help to shape it". Indeed, once we can understand the language they are written in, we can understand their purpose and their warnings. The report does the usual thing of starting off in what Adrian Salbuchi calls "rather nondescript terms". In fact, the first eight pages are carefully preparing the reader for a set of false alternatives, the alternatives which the authors wish to guide us into, but ignoring any other alternatives that any normal person might think of, such as ending the current wars by bringing about more openness and transparency, or doing a deal between the US and Russia in which they will call off all proxy wars. What they do instead is to direct the reader to just four possible scenarios, which they call 'Lock Step', 'Clever Together', 'Hack Attack' and 'Smart Scramble', all of which are doomsdays cenarios.
The 'Hack Attack' scenario includes the following paragraph: "Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the 'doom decade' for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change". I wonder if, when translated, they could mean: "the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13 August, 1000". The thirteenth of August is the day the crowds will disperse from the Olympics (ED: also a masonic number).
All four of these scenarios are presented as 'plausible'. Indeed, they write: "The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive - rather,they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like". They also state: "Together, a set of scenarios captures a range of future possibilities, good and bad, expected and surprising - but always plausible". So the Rockefeller Foundation is actually stating that it is plausible that thirteen thousand people will die in a bombing during the London Olympic Games.
Indeed, in his introductory letter, Peter Schwartz states: "Through interviews and the scenario workshops, they have engaged a diverse set of people - from different geographies, disciplines, and sectors - to identify the key forces driving change, to explore the most critical uncertainties,and to develop challenging yet plausible scenarios and implications". So what have all these people been doing in their analysis, and why is that not explained in the report? Is this based on some serious analysis of publicly available material - in which case one would expect an account of their thinking - or is it based on information known only to the Global Elite? All they need to have done was to ask a class of first year sociology students to come up with four scenarios of doom, and they would have produced just as good a result, unless there's something they're nottelling us.
So how likely is a terrorist attack in London during the Olympics of 2012? What better way could there be of assessing this than to listen to an investigative journalist who is training undercover as a security guard for the London Olympics with private security firm G4S? Lee Hazledean is a filmmaker and investigative TV journalist, who has also been involved in major stories such as how the British Army infiltrated the IRA and carried out false flag operations. Unusually, he broke his story whilst still operating undercover, hoping nevertheless to continue his undercover work until the Olympics. Presumably he is using an assumed name.
In a deeply worrying interview on Tony Gosling's Friday Drivetime slot on BCfm Radio in Bristol on Friday 22 June he reported that security training is so appalling that the safety and security of the London 2012 Olympics are in jeopardy. The 'Rapiscan' walk-through metal detectors don't work properly and aren't sensitive enough to pick up large knives, ammunition and other metallic threats. He was told that they would be set to go off only after 50 people have walked through to limit queuing time and to get spectators into the venue. G4S are recruiting long-term unemployed people as security officers, regardless of how suitable they are for the role. In training classes, there is drug dealing, some people can't speak any English whatsoever, and others are constantly making jokes about disabled people. People who haven't even completed their training are being picked to be Team Leaders over highly trained security officers, ex-soldiers and ex-police. Uniforms are going missing, and people are taking photos on their mobile phones in the training facility.
Also, there are plans for the evacuation of London; G4S are going to be at the forefront, as well as 100,000 troops coming in via Woolwich barracks, made up of regular British Forces, American regular army and European troops. Lee was not told why there would be any need for an evacuation of the whole of London, they just said it was to be a "defining moment in the history of London". The troops are being held across London in various barracks once they've been through Woolwich. Lee also had this information confirmed by an army doctor who was shocked at all the foreign troops coming into London. There is also a shipment of what are being described as'casket linings'; each casket can hold four or five people, and 200,000 casket linings have been delivered, he believes, from America. Also, they were shown videos of drones attacking targets in Afghanistan, and were told that drones would be patrolling the skies over London during the Olympics, carrying out surveillance and search and destroy missions if necessary. Lee believes there is something fundamentally wrong with how the security for the Olympics is being implemented by G4S.
Lee also discovered that there is a media black-out on all major news outlets to do with the Olympics. Tony Gosling suggested to him that he raise this with Channel 4's Andy Davies, but he said that Andy Davies didn't want to know. I would be interested to know how such news blackouts occur, because I've suspected them before. There is a system of 'D-notices', by which the Government makes it known that a certain issue may be voluntarily avoided by the press, but that there may be consequences if they ignore it. Is there a D-notice on the Olympics arrangements, or is there some other censureship process at work? Is the D-notice system being abused? If so, how should journalists fight back? If Tony Farrell of the South Yorkshire Police can stand up to authority in defending his obligation to report things to his bosses that they don't want to hear,then could there be some journalists who would be prepared to take a similar stance in the mainstream media? Do Russia Today and Aljazeera come under the D-notice system, or would they get banned, as Iran's Press TV did?
A week earlier, a Darlington data entry clerk turned whistleblower was sacked by G4S after having told ITV's North-East Tonight programme of the shambles at the G4S offices in Thornaby, near Stockton. She told the programme that staff were cutting corners while screening security workers applying for jobs at the London Olympics. Sarah Hubble told viewers: "It was an absolute shambles - you had people vetting potential employees who had not been vetted themselves". She said that her experiences had prompted her to pursue a career in journalism. "I got a taste of what journalism could be like and I loved every single second of it, so much so that I want more," she said. This was reported in the Northern Echo on 2nd June 2012 and reached the Daily Mail. This story ties up with Lee Hazledean's story. It seems, though, that since then, some sort of notice, perhaps a D-notice - would have been issued to the press, enforcing censureship on such stories in the future. Best of luck with Sarah Hubble in her journalistic career.
An excellent commentary with links on these two stories is provided on Tony Gosling's 9/11 forum.
"Unless this story is broken in a newspaper or foreign news agency it's unlikely to see the light of day", says the write-up on the Friday Drivetime website. Let's try to help that along. Send your friends the links. Possibly copy the interview on to an audio CD and pass it on. I sense that the army of talkers is growing. We all know that there is something fundamentally wrong. I can now walk into any pub and quickly find people who agree. Five years ago people thought that truthers were 'conspiracy theorists'; I had to be very guarded in talking about 9/11 and 7/7 and the impending economic gloom. But now the idea that we're being governed by a hidden government with its own agenda is becoming generally accepted. But there's still a long way to go.
We must encourage potential whistleblowers to speak out. Find out andspeak out, and do keep Talking.
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Monday, 16 July 2012
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Your mind is a battlefield
Sent March 2011
“We are in an information war and we are losing that war.”
This startling admission came on March 2 from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a statement to a US Foreign Policy Priorities committee meeting, in which she was defending her departmental budget.
"Al Jazeera is winning”, said Hillary Clinton, “The Chinese have opened up a global English language and multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English language network”.
In October last year, the chairman of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors stated that his organisation needs to fight its "enemies":
Yet overwhelmingly I notice that coverage of the US by Russia Today is coming not from Moscow, but from the truth movement and the alternative media in the US itself. On November 17 last year, Alex Jones told Max Keiser that as from about two years ago, people trust alternative media more than they trust mainstream media, and more people now get their news from alternative media than they do from old-line corporate media.
Al Jazeera was quite pleased at Hillary Clinton’s admission that people turn to them to get the “real news”.
So if the US truth movement is making such headway in the US, why can’t we in the UK? As in the US, the UK 9/11 truth movement is a loose network of groups and individuals. At my very first meeting on December 13, 2006, David Shayler explained that it had not been set up as a single membership association because it would – not could – be infiltrated and dismantled. We did, however, have a national coordinating committee, which broke up in quarreling, and we used to have monthly meetings in London with over 50 people present, which now, it seems, is no longer possible. Wherever you look, it’s the same picture, and yet we struggle on.
The point of Western propaganda was summed up by the Labour Party’s late Richard Crossman: “The way to carry out good propaganda is never to appear to be carrying it out at all”.
A US National Security Council Directive in 1950 stated that the most effective kind of propaganda was the kind where “the subject moves in the direction you desire for reasons which he believes to be his own”.
Those quotes come from the introduction of a very revealing book by historan Frances Stonor Saunders called ‘Who paid the piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War’.
The Cultural Cold War was a secret programme of cultural propaganda in Western Europe, a central feature of which was to advance the claim that it did not exist. This was at a time when the British MI5 didn’t officially exist.
I think the reason that the 9/11 truth movement in the UK is kept under control, as well as some other movements I am familiar with, is simple: British propaganda is the best in the world.
So I was interested to see that on 11-12 September last year four hundred people attended a seminar in New York on the topic ‘How the world changed after 9/11’.
There was an impressive array of speakers:
Dr. Katherine Albrecht, talked about tracking individuals and the hugh databases that are being built up. “The fourth ammendent restricts the government’s ability to get into your personal information, but nothing restricts the ability of corporations to get into your personal information”, she stated. She said Stalin understood well how to identify people who were stepping out of the norm, and that in the US they are creating very similar things today. I wasn’t so sure about her claims on RFID, the so-called ‘spychips’. They are, after all, low-power radio frequency chips, which have antennas and can be jammed, or blocked with metal foil, but the overall trend is nevertheless worrying.
The Chinese are planning to track all Beijing citizens by means of their mobile phones. The paper edition of The Times devotes a whole page to that, using the word ‘paranoia’ twice, when refering to the Chinese government, as if it couldn’t happen in London.
If you don’t want your internet searching to be tracked and recorded, an alternative to Google is ‘http://startpage.com’. Their home page does indeed state that they retain no data.
Alex Jones told Max Keiser in his interview on November 17 last year that his Infowars had been blocked by Google the previous week. So perhaps StartPage is good for finding black matter in cyberspace.
The next speaker at the seminar was former MI5 officer Annie Machon, who gave a summary of the UK sitation.
“What are you worrying about, Americans?”, she asked, “At least you have a constitution to shred. We don’t have that in Britain”. MI6 has become a state sponsor of terror, she told the audience, Britain is the CCTV capital of the world, 800 public bodies have power to eavesdrop on our communications, and now the police are acquiring military-style spy drones to be put into force in 2011 on the South Coast. On Fascism, she said it was all in place, and that we were “pretty well there”. We can’t rely on the judges and the courts to protect our basic rights, she said. She explained that some of the measures that were implemented supposedly to protect us from terrorism could have the opposite effect; we could find a situation when terrorists can build a bomb which goes off only when it identifies a US passport. She finished with: “At the rate we’re going we’re not going to have a democracy to fight for soon… Let’s go on and change the world”.
Recently, the Pentagon has developed tiny spy planes which could mimic birds and insects.
“The application of such technology could completely revolutionize warfare and the art of intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, it will also fuel greater suspicion and paranoia regarding government domestic spying efforts. Let’s just hope none of these sorts of devices unexpectedly turn up inside any U.S. home.”
Will hope be enough? In London, the 7/7 inquest completed its public hearing of witnesses, and this was widely reported on various news channels in the UK. They focused on the human tragedy of the aftermath of the bombings rather than evidence of the cause. We were told that we will have to wait for the verdict. I thought the verdict had been declared by Judge Lady Justice Hallett right at the beginning: the 7/7 Four were guilty.
The general impression given is that the event was accompanied by a whole series of cockups, but the main point made by the coroner in the final session seems to have been concerned with linguistics:
“I just think that you people at the top need to say, we have to communicate with people in plain English.", she said.
The transcripts and evidence has been made public via the inquest’s website.
It seems that the government and MI5 want a say in the style of the verdict, arguing that by law only "brief, neutral and factual" verdicts can be recorded:
But the bereaved families said the coroner should be allowed to go into much greater detail about how the deaths came about.
They do not want a "sterile" conclusion that their loved ones were unlawfully killed that fails to rule on whether the security agencies could have prevented the atrocities or whether the emergency services could have saved more lives, their lawyers said.
Lawyers for families of those killed in the London 7/7 bombings are suggesting that MI5 is trying to gag justice by restricting the verdicts of the inquest into the attacks. I’d like to know what business it is of the Government or MI5. They did, after all, choose Lady Justice Hallett because they felt they needed a very senior judge to conduct the inquest, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case. So why are they now trying to tell her her job?
March 7 saw another bail hearing for A J Hill, or Muad’Dip, the author of ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’. For the third time he was prevented by Wandworth Prison authorities from attending his own bail hearing. I was amazed that this could happen when I first heard about it from Nick, who had just visited John Hill in Wandsworth, after his second bail hearing. It is, however, all written up on John Hill’s trial website (http://mtrial.org/).
Apparently, the judge said that he would not grant him bail without him being in court. I tried to establish who his local MP would be, and found a piece in Hansard on prisoner voting rights (Hansard, House of Commons, 23 Nov 2010 : Column 152), in which Mark Pritchard MP asked the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke:
“But is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government's policy? Currently, all Members of Parliament represent all prisoners living in prisons within their constituency, yet the Secretary of State has said that they will be represented by Members of the constituencies where they were last registered. That contradiction needs to be resolved if representation of prisoners by prisoners (sic – presumably: by MPs) is to be taken seriously.”
Kenneth Clarke replied:
“I think there is some confusion in the House about the convention that applies, which both I and my hon. Friend should resolve-although it is not my responsibility to resolve it. I take the view that I represent my constituents when they are in prison wherever it is that they are imprisoned, but I know that other MPs take the view that they represent every resident of a prison in their constituency. Perhaps we should resolve the parliamentary conventions on this matter at the same time as we have a look at which prisoners might have voting rights.”
I therefore wrote to the MP for Wandsworth, in order to put the two in contact over the matter, but the MP’s personal assistant phoned me to say that he did not represent prisoners. What a mess! I was wondering whether John Hill would be released now that the public inquest hearings are over, or whether they will hold him until the end of the inquests into the deaths of the 7/7 Four.
The inquest’s website states: “The Coroner has jurisdiction over all 56 inquests which arise from the bombings on 7 July 2005. The Coroner has decided that the inquests into the deaths of the 52 members of the public killed on 7 July 2005 should be resumed and heard together. The inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay remain adjourned”.
I await the continuation of that inquest with interest. That inquest could be even more interesting than the current 7/7 inquest, in particular because of recent concern over the role of Mohammed Junaid Babar,
a US Muslim who is said to have set up training camps in north-west Pakistan where he taught bomb-making to supposed 7/7 bombing mastermind Mohammed Sidique Khan, but who was in fact a US informant, cooperating with US authorities even before he was arrested in 2004.
where a video is presented of the father of one of the victims, commenting on the implications. Graham Foulkes said that it looked as if the Americans may well have known in detail what Babar was up to in Pakistan, adding that that was a very, very serious matter:
“I'm really horrified and upset. It seems to me that the Americans were tacitly supporting a major international terrorist who set up and ran a training camp which Khan attended”, he explained.
Whether Khan was really a terrorist or just an actor in the 7/7 security exercises, it seems that the security services will have some very serious questions to answer if the inquest on the 7/7 Four goes ahead. Tony Blair tried to introduce detention without trial for up to 90 days. The Muad’Dib case demonstrates that we now have detention without trial for, so far, 150 days. The longer this goes on, the stronger becomes the case for a wide-ranging review of fundamental human rights in this country.
Even if John Hill is found not guilty, 150 days of incarceration would make anyone think twice before sending information to a court of law under amicus curiae.
That effectively quashes a further legal right in the UK.
Then there are legal questions on statements of the guilt of the 7/7 Four to the potential jurors at the Kingston trial, and at the beginning of the inquest into the other 52 who died in the attacks. What happened to John Hill looks to me suspiciously like arbitrary arrest. That in itself should be causing deep concern. Then there is the issue of prisoner representation in Parliament. If they don’t have the vote, then no-one is interested in representing them. This makes a solid case for all prisoners having the vote, because even those who are critical of the powers-that-be have rights. If they can do this to John Hill, then they can do it to any of us.
There is another crazy aspect of this case, involving the right of free speech. According to the website, a condition of his bail in Ireland was that he “shall not communicate with any party in England or Wales save for wholly personal reasons or save for reasons wholly connected with the church and organisation known as The Way”.
This surely has to be an admission that his arrest was political. This should now be an issue to be raised with the Irish authorities and the EU authorities as a matter of human rights.
“In a series of breaking stories this month, more information is coming out exposing the true nature of the false flag attacks in Oklahoma City in 1995, in New York and Washington in 2001, and in London in 2005”.
In the same report they show former US Secretary of State for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, denying that $2.3 trillion had actually been lost in the defence budget, but claiming that it just couldn’t be tracked by the complex systems. He also denied any knowledge of Building 7:
All this bears out Annie Machon’s statement on Fascism, that we are “pretty well there”, and that we can’t rely on the judges and the courts to protect our basis rights. I used to wonder in my youth how many people around me at work would have been state aparachniks had we been in the Soviet Union rather than London. Now I am getting worried.
The head of the London School of Economics has resigned because of the close links with Muammar Gaddafi, which he developed at the university. An investigation is now to be instigated.
Simon Jenkins, writing now in The Guardian, gives an overview, saying that “The school's association with Libya's leader is just an extreme version of the predicament now facing all UK universities”.
When Tony Blair told the House of Commons after 9/11 that those who carried out the 9/11 attacks were limited not by any sense of morality, and that their limits were only practical and technical (Hansard HoC 14 September 2001, vol 372), what would Tony Blair himself have been doing, had he been born in Libya and had not been limited rules of democracy?
Yet many in the UK who know about the deception of 9/11 and 7/7 react as if nothing had anything to do with them. It has everything to do with them, especially if they are young. If John Hill is correct in his reconstruction of 7/7, then we could be dealing with state murder, as, indeed, we could in the case of weapons expert Dr David Kelly, whose long overdue inquest must be about to be announced any time now. I was once in a discussion with a group of friends, in which one of them mentioned “the excesses of Stalin”. I would have been incredulous if I had known he would turn on me fifteen or so years later, but I thought that was odd at the time. “You mean it’s alright to kill a few people, but not millions?” I thought afterwards. You could almost write a headline: “State murder: not many dead”.
Whenever democracy is subverted, whether at the level of governments or tiny membership associations, it’s important to take a stand. Let’s have the courage to fight for our democracy now. If we don’t, will we have the courage to do it later?
“We are in an information war and we are losing that war.”
This startling admission came on March 2 from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a statement to a US Foreign Policy Priorities committee meeting, in which she was defending her departmental budget.
"Al Jazeera is winning”, said Hillary Clinton, “The Chinese have opened up a global English language and multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English language network”.
In October last year, the chairman of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors stated that his organisation needs to fight its "enemies":
Yet overwhelmingly I notice that coverage of the US by Russia Today is coming not from Moscow, but from the truth movement and the alternative media in the US itself. On November 17 last year, Alex Jones told Max Keiser that as from about two years ago, people trust alternative media more than they trust mainstream media, and more people now get their news from alternative media than they do from old-line corporate media.
Al Jazeera was quite pleased at Hillary Clinton’s admission that people turn to them to get the “real news”.
So if the US truth movement is making such headway in the US, why can’t we in the UK? As in the US, the UK 9/11 truth movement is a loose network of groups and individuals. At my very first meeting on December 13, 2006, David Shayler explained that it had not been set up as a single membership association because it would – not could – be infiltrated and dismantled. We did, however, have a national coordinating committee, which broke up in quarreling, and we used to have monthly meetings in London with over 50 people present, which now, it seems, is no longer possible. Wherever you look, it’s the same picture, and yet we struggle on.
The point of Western propaganda was summed up by the Labour Party’s late Richard Crossman: “The way to carry out good propaganda is never to appear to be carrying it out at all”.
A US National Security Council Directive in 1950 stated that the most effective kind of propaganda was the kind where “the subject moves in the direction you desire for reasons which he believes to be his own”.
Those quotes come from the introduction of a very revealing book by historan Frances Stonor Saunders called ‘Who paid the piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War’.
The Cultural Cold War was a secret programme of cultural propaganda in Western Europe, a central feature of which was to advance the claim that it did not exist. This was at a time when the British MI5 didn’t officially exist.
I think the reason that the 9/11 truth movement in the UK is kept under control, as well as some other movements I am familiar with, is simple: British propaganda is the best in the world.
So I was interested to see that on 11-12 September last year four hundred people attended a seminar in New York on the topic ‘How the world changed after 9/11’.
There was an impressive array of speakers:
Dr. Katherine Albrecht, talked about tracking individuals and the hugh databases that are being built up. “The fourth ammendent restricts the government’s ability to get into your personal information, but nothing restricts the ability of corporations to get into your personal information”, she stated. She said Stalin understood well how to identify people who were stepping out of the norm, and that in the US they are creating very similar things today. I wasn’t so sure about her claims on RFID, the so-called ‘spychips’. They are, after all, low-power radio frequency chips, which have antennas and can be jammed, or blocked with metal foil, but the overall trend is nevertheless worrying.
The Chinese are planning to track all Beijing citizens by means of their mobile phones. The paper edition of The Times devotes a whole page to that, using the word ‘paranoia’ twice, when refering to the Chinese government, as if it couldn’t happen in London.
If you don’t want your internet searching to be tracked and recorded, an alternative to Google is ‘http://startpage.com’. Their home page does indeed state that they retain no data.
Alex Jones told Max Keiser in his interview on November 17 last year that his Infowars had been blocked by Google the previous week. So perhaps StartPage is good for finding black matter in cyberspace.
The next speaker at the seminar was former MI5 officer Annie Machon, who gave a summary of the UK sitation.
“What are you worrying about, Americans?”, she asked, “At least you have a constitution to shred. We don’t have that in Britain”. MI6 has become a state sponsor of terror, she told the audience, Britain is the CCTV capital of the world, 800 public bodies have power to eavesdrop on our communications, and now the police are acquiring military-style spy drones to be put into force in 2011 on the South Coast. On Fascism, she said it was all in place, and that we were “pretty well there”. We can’t rely on the judges and the courts to protect our basic rights, she said. She explained that some of the measures that were implemented supposedly to protect us from terrorism could have the opposite effect; we could find a situation when terrorists can build a bomb which goes off only when it identifies a US passport. She finished with: “At the rate we’re going we’re not going to have a democracy to fight for soon… Let’s go on and change the world”.
Recently, the Pentagon has developed tiny spy planes which could mimic birds and insects.
“The application of such technology could completely revolutionize warfare and the art of intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, it will also fuel greater suspicion and paranoia regarding government domestic spying efforts. Let’s just hope none of these sorts of devices unexpectedly turn up inside any U.S. home.”
Will hope be enough? In London, the 7/7 inquest completed its public hearing of witnesses, and this was widely reported on various news channels in the UK. They focused on the human tragedy of the aftermath of the bombings rather than evidence of the cause. We were told that we will have to wait for the verdict. I thought the verdict had been declared by Judge Lady Justice Hallett right at the beginning: the 7/7 Four were guilty.
The general impression given is that the event was accompanied by a whole series of cockups, but the main point made by the coroner in the final session seems to have been concerned with linguistics:
“I just think that you people at the top need to say, we have to communicate with people in plain English.", she said.
The transcripts and evidence has been made public via the inquest’s website.
It seems that the government and MI5 want a say in the style of the verdict, arguing that by law only "brief, neutral and factual" verdicts can be recorded:
But the bereaved families said the coroner should be allowed to go into much greater detail about how the deaths came about.
They do not want a "sterile" conclusion that their loved ones were unlawfully killed that fails to rule on whether the security agencies could have prevented the atrocities or whether the emergency services could have saved more lives, their lawyers said.
Lawyers for families of those killed in the London 7/7 bombings are suggesting that MI5 is trying to gag justice by restricting the verdicts of the inquest into the attacks. I’d like to know what business it is of the Government or MI5. They did, after all, choose Lady Justice Hallett because they felt they needed a very senior judge to conduct the inquest, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case. So why are they now trying to tell her her job?
March 7 saw another bail hearing for A J Hill, or Muad’Dip, the author of ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’. For the third time he was prevented by Wandworth Prison authorities from attending his own bail hearing. I was amazed that this could happen when I first heard about it from Nick, who had just visited John Hill in Wandsworth, after his second bail hearing. It is, however, all written up on John Hill’s trial website (http://mtrial.org/).
Apparently, the judge said that he would not grant him bail without him being in court. I tried to establish who his local MP would be, and found a piece in Hansard on prisoner voting rights (Hansard, House of Commons, 23 Nov 2010 : Column 152), in which Mark Pritchard MP asked the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke:
“But is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government's policy? Currently, all Members of Parliament represent all prisoners living in prisons within their constituency, yet the Secretary of State has said that they will be represented by Members of the constituencies where they were last registered. That contradiction needs to be resolved if representation of prisoners by prisoners (sic – presumably: by MPs) is to be taken seriously.”
Kenneth Clarke replied:
“I think there is some confusion in the House about the convention that applies, which both I and my hon. Friend should resolve-although it is not my responsibility to resolve it. I take the view that I represent my constituents when they are in prison wherever it is that they are imprisoned, but I know that other MPs take the view that they represent every resident of a prison in their constituency. Perhaps we should resolve the parliamentary conventions on this matter at the same time as we have a look at which prisoners might have voting rights.”
I therefore wrote to the MP for Wandsworth, in order to put the two in contact over the matter, but the MP’s personal assistant phoned me to say that he did not represent prisoners. What a mess! I was wondering whether John Hill would be released now that the public inquest hearings are over, or whether they will hold him until the end of the inquests into the deaths of the 7/7 Four.
The inquest’s website states: “The Coroner has jurisdiction over all 56 inquests which arise from the bombings on 7 July 2005. The Coroner has decided that the inquests into the deaths of the 52 members of the public killed on 7 July 2005 should be resumed and heard together. The inquests into the deaths of Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay remain adjourned”.
I await the continuation of that inquest with interest. That inquest could be even more interesting than the current 7/7 inquest, in particular because of recent concern over the role of Mohammed Junaid Babar,
a US Muslim who is said to have set up training camps in north-west Pakistan where he taught bomb-making to supposed 7/7 bombing mastermind Mohammed Sidique Khan, but who was in fact a US informant, cooperating with US authorities even before he was arrested in 2004.
where a video is presented of the father of one of the victims, commenting on the implications. Graham Foulkes said that it looked as if the Americans may well have known in detail what Babar was up to in Pakistan, adding that that was a very, very serious matter:
“I'm really horrified and upset. It seems to me that the Americans were tacitly supporting a major international terrorist who set up and ran a training camp which Khan attended”, he explained.
Whether Khan was really a terrorist or just an actor in the 7/7 security exercises, it seems that the security services will have some very serious questions to answer if the inquest on the 7/7 Four goes ahead. Tony Blair tried to introduce detention without trial for up to 90 days. The Muad’Dib case demonstrates that we now have detention without trial for, so far, 150 days. The longer this goes on, the stronger becomes the case for a wide-ranging review of fundamental human rights in this country.
Even if John Hill is found not guilty, 150 days of incarceration would make anyone think twice before sending information to a court of law under amicus curiae.
That effectively quashes a further legal right in the UK.
Then there are legal questions on statements of the guilt of the 7/7 Four to the potential jurors at the Kingston trial, and at the beginning of the inquest into the other 52 who died in the attacks. What happened to John Hill looks to me suspiciously like arbitrary arrest. That in itself should be causing deep concern. Then there is the issue of prisoner representation in Parliament. If they don’t have the vote, then no-one is interested in representing them. This makes a solid case for all prisoners having the vote, because even those who are critical of the powers-that-be have rights. If they can do this to John Hill, then they can do it to any of us.
There is another crazy aspect of this case, involving the right of free speech. According to the website, a condition of his bail in Ireland was that he “shall not communicate with any party in England or Wales save for wholly personal reasons or save for reasons wholly connected with the church and organisation known as The Way”.
This surely has to be an admission that his arrest was political. This should now be an issue to be raised with the Irish authorities and the EU authorities as a matter of human rights.
“In a series of breaking stories this month, more information is coming out exposing the true nature of the false flag attacks in Oklahoma City in 1995, in New York and Washington in 2001, and in London in 2005”.
In the same report they show former US Secretary of State for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, denying that $2.3 trillion had actually been lost in the defence budget, but claiming that it just couldn’t be tracked by the complex systems. He also denied any knowledge of Building 7:
All this bears out Annie Machon’s statement on Fascism, that we are “pretty well there”, and that we can’t rely on the judges and the courts to protect our basis rights. I used to wonder in my youth how many people around me at work would have been state aparachniks had we been in the Soviet Union rather than London. Now I am getting worried.
The head of the London School of Economics has resigned because of the close links with Muammar Gaddafi, which he developed at the university. An investigation is now to be instigated.
Simon Jenkins, writing now in The Guardian, gives an overview, saying that “The school's association with Libya's leader is just an extreme version of the predicament now facing all UK universities”.
When Tony Blair told the House of Commons after 9/11 that those who carried out the 9/11 attacks were limited not by any sense of morality, and that their limits were only practical and technical (Hansard HoC 14 September 2001, vol 372), what would Tony Blair himself have been doing, had he been born in Libya and had not been limited rules of democracy?
Yet many in the UK who know about the deception of 9/11 and 7/7 react as if nothing had anything to do with them. It has everything to do with them, especially if they are young. If John Hill is correct in his reconstruction of 7/7, then we could be dealing with state murder, as, indeed, we could in the case of weapons expert Dr David Kelly, whose long overdue inquest must be about to be announced any time now. I was once in a discussion with a group of friends, in which one of them mentioned “the excesses of Stalin”. I would have been incredulous if I had known he would turn on me fifteen or so years later, but I thought that was odd at the time. “You mean it’s alright to kill a few people, but not millions?” I thought afterwards. You could almost write a headline: “State murder: not many dead”.
Whenever democracy is subverted, whether at the level of governments or tiny membership associations, it’s important to take a stand. Let’s have the courage to fight for our democracy now. If we don’t, will we have the courage to do it later?
Monday, 15 March 2010
Torture, civil rights and medical professionals for 9/11 truth
Newsletter originally sent March 2009
Dear all,
Various truth issues have recently been hitting the headlines in the mainstream media. The big issue was the case of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed and his allegations of British involvement in torture inflicted on him whilst held in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Morocco. Lord Justice Thomas issued an astonishing ruling concerning nondisclosure of Government documents. "The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case,that British agencies may have been complicit, and most important of all, that the United States Government has threatened our High Courts that if it releases this information, the US Government will withdraw its intelligence co-operation with the United Kingdom on matters of security." Stated former shadow home secretary David Davis, "The judge rules that there is a strong public interest that this information is put in the public domain even though it is politically embarrassing." David Davis was demanding a Commons statement from the Government on the allegations and he also urged the Government to address an alleged US threat to withdraw intelligence sharing relations with Britain if details of the Binyam Mohamed case are released. Mercifully, Binyam Mohamed is now back in this country, but the case still rumbles on, withwidespread concern that the government may be hiding something under theveil of national security. A video has been released called "Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition,Torture and Disappearances in the 'War on Terror'". It tells the stories of Khaled El-Masri and Binyam Mohamed, two men who have survivede xtraordinary rendition, secret detention, and torture by the U.S.government working with various other governments worldwide.
Similar concerns have been expressed in connection with the government's veto on the publication of minutes of key cabinet meetings held in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.
The Information Tribunal had upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that details of the March 13 and 17 sessions should be disclosed. The former cabinet minister Clare Short stepped in with an interview with The Mail on Sunday (March 3).
"The Government is refusing to release minutes of Cabinet meetings before the Iraq War because they would reveal there was no discussion on the issue", states the article. "I wanted to know if the Attorney General had any doubts about the legality of the war", stated Clare Short, but "They all said, 'Clare, be quiet, stop.' No one else wanted to talk about it. I was shouted down."
I recently read her book, 'An Honourable Deception?: New Labour, Iraq,and the Misuse of Power', in which she gives details of what happened and what didn't happen. Her account makes it abundantly clear that the UK has not had cabinet government since 1997.
Further on the Civil Liberties front, Chris Huhne MP, of the Liberal Democrats, is introducing a Freedom Bill, which 'calls on the government to repeal the tide of legislation that has stripped away our rights'.The bill would repeal legislation in 20 areas where liberties have been eroded including The Right to Protest, The Right to Public Assembly andCriminalising Trespass.
Even a former head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, is now saying that Britain is moving towards a police state
The 9/11 Truth movement has lost yet another leading campaigner inunusual circumstances. Beverly Eckert was one of the 'Jersey Widows' who first latched on to there being something fishy about 9/11, and lobbied for the 9/11 Commission of Enquiry, whose report is now widely seen as a whitewash. The previous week she had been at the White House to talk with President Barack Obama about how the new administration could deal with terror suspects. She was killed in the air crash in Buffalo, which was widely reported in the media http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7889106.stm
On the 9/11 campaigning front, a new group has been formed: Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth [http://mp911truth.org/]. Their website contains a petition calling "for a new and independent investigation into the events of 9/11/01 by a duly constituted legal body with the authority to subpoena and require testimony under oath, and with authority to prosecute if criminal activity is discovered, so that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity can at last be brought to justice". There are links on the site to similar groups from other professions.
Recommend it to your friends! Keep campaigning! Keep the feedback coming! And do pass this newsletter on to your friends. Best wishes, Ian.
Dear all,
Various truth issues have recently been hitting the headlines in the mainstream media. The big issue was the case of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed and his allegations of British involvement in torture inflicted on him whilst held in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Morocco. Lord Justice Thomas issued an astonishing ruling concerning nondisclosure of Government documents. "The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case,that British agencies may have been complicit, and most important of all, that the United States Government has threatened our High Courts that if it releases this information, the US Government will withdraw its intelligence co-operation with the United Kingdom on matters of security." Stated former shadow home secretary David Davis, "The judge rules that there is a strong public interest that this information is put in the public domain even though it is politically embarrassing." David Davis was demanding a Commons statement from the Government on the allegations and he also urged the Government to address an alleged US threat to withdraw intelligence sharing relations with Britain if details of the Binyam Mohamed case are released. Mercifully, Binyam Mohamed is now back in this country, but the case still rumbles on, withwidespread concern that the government may be hiding something under theveil of national security. A video has been released called "Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition,Torture and Disappearances in the 'War on Terror'". It tells the stories of Khaled El-Masri and Binyam Mohamed, two men who have survivede xtraordinary rendition, secret detention, and torture by the U.S.government working with various other governments worldwide.
Similar concerns have been expressed in connection with the government's veto on the publication of minutes of key cabinet meetings held in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.
The Information Tribunal had upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that details of the March 13 and 17 sessions should be disclosed. The former cabinet minister Clare Short stepped in with an interview with The Mail on Sunday (March 3).
"The Government is refusing to release minutes of Cabinet meetings before the Iraq War because they would reveal there was no discussion on the issue", states the article. "I wanted to know if the Attorney General had any doubts about the legality of the war", stated Clare Short, but "They all said, 'Clare, be quiet, stop.' No one else wanted to talk about it. I was shouted down."
I recently read her book, 'An Honourable Deception?: New Labour, Iraq,and the Misuse of Power', in which she gives details of what happened and what didn't happen. Her account makes it abundantly clear that the UK has not had cabinet government since 1997.
Further on the Civil Liberties front, Chris Huhne MP, of the Liberal Democrats, is introducing a Freedom Bill, which 'calls on the government to repeal the tide of legislation that has stripped away our rights'.The bill would repeal legislation in 20 areas where liberties have been eroded including The Right to Protest, The Right to Public Assembly andCriminalising Trespass.
Even a former head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, is now saying that Britain is moving towards a police state
The 9/11 Truth movement has lost yet another leading campaigner inunusual circumstances. Beverly Eckert was one of the 'Jersey Widows' who first latched on to there being something fishy about 9/11, and lobbied for the 9/11 Commission of Enquiry, whose report is now widely seen as a whitewash. The previous week she had been at the White House to talk with President Barack Obama about how the new administration could deal with terror suspects. She was killed in the air crash in Buffalo, which was widely reported in the media http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7889106.stm
On the 9/11 campaigning front, a new group has been formed: Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth [http://mp911truth.org/]. Their website contains a petition calling "for a new and independent investigation into the events of 9/11/01 by a duly constituted legal body with the authority to subpoena and require testimony under oath, and with authority to prosecute if criminal activity is discovered, so that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity can at last be brought to justice". There are links on the site to similar groups from other professions.
Recommend it to your friends! Keep campaigning! Keep the feedback coming! And do pass this newsletter on to your friends. Best wishes, Ian.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Vanity is getting to Bin Laden
Newsletter originally sent January 2009
Dear all,
I had a welcome break from it all in Germany over the post-Christmas week. As usual when I take my eye off things the world goes crazy.
I was at an Esperanto get-together in Dusseldorf, attended by 160 people from 22 countries. I took the opportunity to show the film 'ZERO: an investigation into 9/11'. There were only 17 at the presentation,because there was an unusually full programme, but it went down really well. There was also a write-up in the programme booklet - a translation of the standard blurb. Something bizarre had happened on the subtitling,so I just explained that that's perfectly normal in 9/11 truth activities, and proceeded to do a simultaneous interpretation. I also presented a lecture/piano recital, and as part of that presented a six-part composition called 'The Aftermath'(Ground Zero, In Memoriam,The Dawning, Reopen 9/11, Guantanamo, Lament). That went down well, too. I talked to a lot of people about it. Out of 160 people from 22 countries, no-one said I was crazy. What a long way we've come since I woke up to this in December 2006! I explained to people that my main interest in this is the psychology of Western propaganda. They couldn't have kept something like that quiet for so long without preexisting structures. People are now beginning to see the common elements of that and the British problems in the Esperanto movement. No-one called me crazy on that issue either :-) Talking of Esperanto, it's listed in the top 25 ideas on Barak Obama's change.org website at http://www.change.org/ideas . I doubt whether anything will happen on this. My interest lies in the idea of democratic relations between nations,and the Esperanto idea is the language part of that.
Will Obama bring about the change that so many aspire to?
Some people have doubts. Historian Webster Tarpley, who seems to be a prolific mine of information, has written a new book called 'The Post-modern Coup"
Meanwhile, the truth on 9/11 continues to seep out. There's a film out called "Rescue me" about a 9/11 ladder fire service. Daniel Sunjata is a 9/11 truth advocate and managed to get his opinion on 9/11 into one of the episodes:
We need to get it shown in the UK. There's also a new false flag drama called Body of Lies and a Bollywood film just shown in London called Shoot on Sight.
On the civil liberties front, there are reports of people being stopped by the police from taking pictures in public places. Yet whenever there is an event, the police appeal to the public for videos (see here) .
Then there was the case of the journalist who was threatened with life imprisonment for reporting perfectly legitimate information
As the world awaits the closure of the Guantanamo concentration camp,the Bush administration admits there was torture
There are also stories, as usual, which look like planted disinformation. Osama bin Laden is now reduced to audio tape, since images of his face have been so controversial:
There's a new book out today called 'The Assault on Liberty':
With a comment by Nick Cohen
"Britain is a country where the state persecutes shop keepers who sellin pounds and ounces, but allows murderers to use the Human Rights Actto kill again; where law-abiding citizens are spied on, but teachers are frightened to discipline violent children. With literary verve and philosophical insight, Dominic Raab tears into a justice system which has turned Britain’s liberal values upside down. A book that could make Gordon Brown vote Tory."
Dear all,
I had a welcome break from it all in Germany over the post-Christmas week. As usual when I take my eye off things the world goes crazy.
I was at an Esperanto get-together in Dusseldorf, attended by 160 people from 22 countries. I took the opportunity to show the film 'ZERO: an investigation into 9/11'. There were only 17 at the presentation,because there was an unusually full programme, but it went down really well. There was also a write-up in the programme booklet - a translation of the standard blurb. Something bizarre had happened on the subtitling,so I just explained that that's perfectly normal in 9/11 truth activities, and proceeded to do a simultaneous interpretation. I also presented a lecture/piano recital, and as part of that presented a six-part composition called 'The Aftermath'(Ground Zero, In Memoriam,The Dawning, Reopen 9/11, Guantanamo, Lament). That went down well, too. I talked to a lot of people about it. Out of 160 people from 22 countries, no-one said I was crazy. What a long way we've come since I woke up to this in December 2006! I explained to people that my main interest in this is the psychology of Western propaganda. They couldn't have kept something like that quiet for so long without preexisting structures. People are now beginning to see the common elements of that and the British problems in the Esperanto movement. No-one called me crazy on that issue either :-) Talking of Esperanto, it's listed in the top 25 ideas on Barak Obama's change.org website at http://www.change.org/ideas . I doubt whether anything will happen on this. My interest lies in the idea of democratic relations between nations,and the Esperanto idea is the language part of that.
Will Obama bring about the change that so many aspire to?
Some people have doubts. Historian Webster Tarpley, who seems to be a prolific mine of information, has written a new book called 'The Post-modern Coup"
Meanwhile, the truth on 9/11 continues to seep out. There's a film out called "Rescue me" about a 9/11 ladder fire service. Daniel Sunjata is a 9/11 truth advocate and managed to get his opinion on 9/11 into one of the episodes:
We need to get it shown in the UK. There's also a new false flag drama called Body of Lies and a Bollywood film just shown in London called Shoot on Sight.
On the civil liberties front, there are reports of people being stopped by the police from taking pictures in public places. Yet whenever there is an event, the police appeal to the public for videos (see here) .
Then there was the case of the journalist who was threatened with life imprisonment for reporting perfectly legitimate information
As the world awaits the closure of the Guantanamo concentration camp,the Bush administration admits there was torture
There are also stories, as usual, which look like planted disinformation. Osama bin Laden is now reduced to audio tape, since images of his face have been so controversial:
There's a new book out today called 'The Assault on Liberty':
With a comment by Nick Cohen
"Britain is a country where the state persecutes shop keepers who sellin pounds and ounces, but allows murderers to use the Human Rights Actto kill again; where law-abiding citizens are spied on, but teachers are frightened to discipline violent children. With literary verve and philosophical insight, Dominic Raab tears into a justice system which has turned Britain’s liberal values upside down. A book that could make Gordon Brown vote Tory."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)