The award is judged by a group of retired senior US military and intelligence personnel, and past winners. This year the award to Julian Assange was unanimous.
Previous winners and ceremony locations:
Coleen Rowley of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
Katharine Gun of British intelligence; in Copenhagen, Denmark
Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; in New York City
Sam Provance, former sergeant, U.S. Army, truth-teller about Abu Ghraib; in Washington, D.C.
Frank Grevil, major, Danish army intelligence, imprisoned for giving the Danish press documents showing that Denmark’s prime minister disregarded warnings that there was no authentic evidence of WMDs in Iraq; in Copenhagen, Denmark
Larry Wilkerson, colonel, U.S. Army (retired), former chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell at the State Department, who has exposed what he called the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal”; in Washington, D.C.
http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2010/08/15/can-wikileaks-help-save-lives/
Not sure yet where this year’s award ceremony will be held, but I’ll be there.
I’ll do just about anything “to see the smile wiped off Regev’s physog” so I’m off to watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Arrests
Alfred, I know. Although I never called you or anyone that, as far as I can recall. In fact, I – and many others – have supplied links to various articles, etc. across these boards over the years which have demonstrated how the intelligence services create and disseminate disinformation of various kinds in pursuit of political goals.
Anyhow, it’s pretty obvious. Assange will probably be accused of ‘child porn’ next. That’s the usual mud – because it’s the accusation whence refutation and redemption are hard to attain. And as always, there will be ‘sympathetic’ journalists ready with their poison pens, ready to follow their master’s voice. Woof-woof!
“Assange will probably be accused of ‘child porn’ next”.
No, they can’t access his computer. Hence the trumped up rape charge instead.
Hey, Suhayl:
I did not mean to suggest that you had called anyone a conspiracy theorist. I was just struck by the interesting fact that some conspiracy theories, as mere hypotheses, whether stated or implied, seem more acceptable than others.
My own view is that anyone who refuses to entertain a conspiracy theory is nutty, and anyone who believes a conspiracy theory without very good evidence is nuttier.
Incidentally, isn’t there some thing oxymoronic about the Sam Adams award for “integrity in intelligence”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award
I mean, after Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and the dodgy dossier, would any person of integrity be in intelligence to begin with?
Trenchcoats are sexy.
The wikileaks documents, particularly as relayed by the Guardian convey a few very simple ideas. See if you can identify whose agenda they serve:
Covert units hunt ‘taliban’ leaders for ‘kill or capture’
There has been a steep rise in ‘Taliban’ bomb attacks on NATO
The ‘Taliban’ have killed 2000 civilians, while US troops have killed just a few hundred.
Iran and Pakistan are helping the ‘Taliban’
There seem to be a load of people who are just *sure* that Wikileaks is an intelligence agencies’ front. I suggest they go and spend some time looking around the Wikileaks site – there’s a lot more there than just the latest Afghan War Diaries.
Yes, the Taliban do get shown up in the War Diaries; did someone think they were saints? Just because the Taliban are wrong doesn’t make US/NATO actions right.
Congrats Julian on latest award.Stay safe!
Congrats to Julian Assange. I don’t believe the rape allegations crap.
BTW:
For 9/11ers there’s a debate on this radio station here, now. It’s on for four hours!
http://www.ksfo560.com/article.asp?id=723446
I know it’s off-topic but it is live and thought some people might be interested.
Clark, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Angrysoba, Alfred thanks both for your sensible comments, above. Dreoilin, re. trenchcoats… (!)
Joe, the first three of those assertions we already knew, did we not, though I’m sure that if one takes the 8 year-war as a whole, NATO actions will have killed more civilians than that (many more than ‘hundreds’) in Afghanistan.
The fourth, well, let’s see how it pans out. Everyone I ask, I get a different view. I too am suspicious of ‘conveniently-timed’ information linking Iran – and the current regime in Pakistan – to anything (if US intel knew of this 5 years or more ago, why didn’t they put more pressure on the dictator Musharraf? Right now, there are very reactionary, military-Islamist elements in Pakistan trying to promote another military coup), but of course just because the USA says that Iran/ elements in Pakistan might be doing this and that and because some in the US hierarchy seem to want to weaken and maybe even then attack Iran (as happened with Iraq) doesn’t mean Iran is not doing the other (if you see what I mean). What would you do, if you were Iran and were being threatened and economically hemmed-in by a superpower? You’d deal with your enemy’s enemy, wouldn’t you? You’d deal with the devil himself, wouldn’t you, even though he murdered your diplomats? Just as China supplied the monsters, Pinochet in Chile and Mobutu in Zaire, with weapons to counterbalance Soviet influence in ‘Latin’ America and Africa, respectively.
Basically, I think we need to stop looking for white and black in all this; as in the Cold War. The USSR and the USA were (as we might say in Glasgow) ‘systemic shites’ in different ways and different places.
There are many one might admire, eg. the people working on the ground like the ordinary members of the Awami National Party (democratically elected) in Pakhtunwala, Pakistan and teachers, etc., who have been slaughtered by the (electorally-defeated) Pakistani Taliban. These are the types of people – grassroots – whom we ought to be supporting. Nurses, doctors, teachers who work in these areas and who are from the local community.
In this regard, think Khymer Rouge; the USA bombed Cambodia ‘into the Stone Age’ and Cambodia got the Khymer Rouge, who were supported by China but opposed by the USSR (who supported North Vietnam). The USSR and USA/ Pakistan, together, managed to destroy Afghanistan and what did ‘we’ get? The ‘Mujaheddin’/’Taliban’/’Northern Alliance’ – all a bunch of murderous bastards.
One has to understand that states behave coldly and with amorality. It’s a power struggle and that’s all it is; sadly, human rights/ morality do not enter the equation. Or rather, the ‘morality’ is Machiavellian and is that of the CIA/KGB/SAVAK/ISI/MOSSAD/SIS et al. It’s about wealth and strategic geopolitical power. This is part of the overall narrative of history aka the tragedy of the human condition.
“Britain scraps annual assessment of human rights abuses across the world”
‘NGOs concerned that ministers are ‘blindly’ pursuing commercial interests in countries where atrocities are taking place’
Observer:
http://tinyurl.com/2f4uazn
Ah, the authorities must be desperate, to be hauling out walking ‘cadavers’ like Dr Hunt, who seems to change his story every five minutes. A “textbook suicide”? No, even those who believe it was suicide would hesitate to call it that. Any doctor ought to be more cautious the Hunt seems to be being. I suspect he’s been fed a line and possibly put under pressure. ‘The Sunday Times’ – ah, that organ of truth, none of whose contributors have any links whatsoever with the security and intelligence services. If ‘The Sunday Times’ says the world is flat, we can be fairly certain that it is at the very least elliptical:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100822/tuk-pathologist-calls-kelly-death-textbo-a7ad41d.html
“The fourth, well, let’s see how it pans out. Everyone I ask, I get a different view. I too am suspicious of ‘conveniently-timed’ information linking Iran – and the current regime in Pakistan – to anything (if US intel knew of this 5 years or more ago, why didn’t they put more pressure on the dictator Musharraf?”
We had definitely heard these allegations before the Wikileaks thing came out.
LSE, not usually considered a bastion of CIA thought, had produced a study about ISI assistance of the Taliban, IIRC.
Iran’s backing of the Taliban would surprise me slightly and I didn’t believe it for a long time based on the extreme animosity between the Iranian regime and the Taliban. But…as you say, Suhayl, states will make deals with all kinds.
In fact, the US ambassador to Afghanistan was likely murdered by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s group Hizb-i-Islami (I think) but that group became the largest recipient of CIA-funneled cash against the Soviets in the eighties.
Anyway, back to the radio show for me…
Saving you all £1 here for sight of the S Times editorial and article. Hunt has come out the woodwork now. Why? An extract of the evidence at the Hutton whitewash is at the bottom. NOTE that the doctors are asking for an inquest which was never held. Read the extract from the evidence and compare to what Hunt is saying here.
LEADER
Time to nail the David Kelly story for good
Conspiracy theories are unhealthy and it is time the government seized its opportunity finally to resolve the real cause of the doctor’s death
The Sunday Times
Published: 2010-08-22 00:01:00.0
Comment (1)
Recommend (0)
The rumour mill is churning over the death of Dr David Kelly
Conspiracy theories have a habit of getting such a grip on the popular imagination that the delusion can only be eradicated by extraordinary measures. This was true of the deaths of John F Kennedy and Diana, Princess of Wales where a stubborn body of opinion maintained they had been murdered by the mafia or MI6. In those cases it needed the Warren commission to nail the rumours about the president’s murder, while a three-year inquiry by Lord Stevens sought to quash the belief that Diana had been assassinated in a Paris tunnel. The same rumour mill is now churning over the death of David Kelly, the government scientist who was found dead on the edge of woods near his home seven years ago after becoming embroiled in the controversy over the war in Iraq.
Although it looked like suicide, many voices soon began to express doubts. Ambulance crews noted a lack of blood and said it was extremely unusual for anyone to die from cutting an ulnar artery. Others spotted further anomalies. The Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker became convinced that Dr Kelly had been murdered by Iraqi agents seeking revenge for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and even wrote a book to that effect.
That was where the story may have remained had it not been reignited recently when nine seemingly eminent doctors and lawyers wrote to a newspaper questioning whether Dr Kelly could have died from such a small loss of blood. Until then it had been the conclusion of the Hutton inquiry that he had taken his own life and there were no suspicious circumstances. Lord Hutton’s report into the controversy had replaced the inquest that would routinely have followed such an unusual death.
A further complication was that Lord Hutton’s inquiry was seen as a whitewash of the government and as a result his conclusions over the death of Dr Kelly, and his decision to keep the pathologist’s report secret for 70 years, further fuelled the conspiracy theories.
These have been disseminated so widely that a good bulk of the population now believes that, at best, there was something murky about the death of Dr Kelly, and at worst he was murdered either by Iraqi agents or by people acting on behalf of shadowy British agencies. Such beliefs in what should be a transparent democracy are unhealthy and it is time the government seized its opportunity finally to resolve the real cause of the doctor’s death.
The recent controversy certainly encouraged Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office pathologist, to speak out to this newspaper. He presents a convincing case for suicide after admitting he was so angry about Dr Kelly’s death and the pressure put on the weapons inspector that he consciously set out to find evidence of foul play. His examination looked minutely for the coercion or the drugging of Dr Kelly. After hours of work he could find nothing suspicious and came to the measured conclusion that the man had killed himself in despair at his public exposure. “It was an absolutely classic case of self-inflicted injury,” he said.
Dominic Grieve, the attorney-general, said last week that he would request a review if evidence emerged that cast doubt over the suicide verdict. That evidence seems not to be there, but there is still a strong case for an open inquest in which the evidence can be tested. Sometimes a government has to accept that lies proliferate and the only way to kill them off is to expose them to one of its favourite new mantras: transparency.
…….
Revealed: how David Kelly died
A post-mortem report into the death of the weapons inspector has been released as a pathologist moves to quash rumours of foul play
Steven Swinford
Published: 22 August 2010
Recommend (0)
A post mortem report shows David Kelly died as a result of a ‘textbook’ suicide (PA) The pathologist who did the autopsy on David Kelly has broken his silence to reveal how the scientist died and says it was a “textbook case” of suicide.
Nicholas Hunt says he was horrified at the way the Labour government treated the 59-year-old weapons inspector and set out to look for evidence of murder. After eight hours examining the body he found none.
Hunt has spoken out for the first time in seven years to quash rumours of foul play and to challenge doctors who have questioned his findings. The Home Office pathologist has also disclosed details from his post-mortem report, which the official inquiry into Kelly’s death banned from publication for 70 years.
“nine seemingly eminent doctors and lawyers…”
Why “seemingly”? Even if one disagrees with their suggestion, there is no question about their professional eminence.
Why has Hunt come out of the ‘closet’ now, rather than waiting for an inquest? The stuff about him dearly loving to have found evidence of murder is (arguably) unprofessional. He ought not to have been pre-judging anything. Is this in, simply to convince people that he was anti-Blair, etc. and is not a stooge?
If the ‘evidence is so clear wrt Ischaemic Heart disease, why was it not released in detail seven years ago? It’s not as though anyone is suggesting that he had tertiary syphilitic heart disease!
Why does the journalist pre-suppose the outcome of the inquest and why is his call identical to that of Dominic Grieve – for an inquest to reassure the public, rather than an inquest to discern the truth, whatever that might be? Indeed why was there no inquest at the time?
It’s so, so patronising and in some ways it tells us more about the ‘ruling class’ in the UK than it does about Kelly’s death.
“Conspiracy theories have a habit of getting such a grip on the popular imagination that the delusion can only be eradicated by extraordinary measures. This was true of the deaths of John F Kennedy and Diana, Princess of Wales where a stubborn body of opinion maintained they had been murdered by the mafia or MI6”.
The ST appears oblivious to the fact that the second official inquiry into the death of JFK, conducted by the House of Representatives in 1974, concluded that Kennedy was murdered by the msfia.
Sorry to butt in like this, but, like many others, I am very curious about the Dr Kelly case.
I see that the post-mortem report states that “Kelly’s death was caused by bleeding from the cuts to his wrist, severe heart disease and an overdose of painkillers.” ?” i.e. “a combination of three factors”.
Nine eminent doctors and lawyers argued that the official explanation for Dr Kelly’s death was “extremely unlikely”.
Dr Andrew Davison, however, said that the experts’ disbelief in the official findings was due to their lack of “relevant pathology expertise”.
But, as far as I know, Dr Kelly did not have any relevant pathology expertise either. Why did he choose to commit suicide by using such complicated method? How did he know that the “combination of three factors” will result in his demise? Could he not have found a simpler, surer, method?
“it was a “textbook case” of suicide”.
Don’t think so. A textbook case would at the very least include a suicide note.
Suhayl: “Ah, the authorities must be desperate, to be hauling out walking ‘cadavers’ like Dr Hunt, who seems to change his story every five minutes. A “textbook suicide”?”
Somebody: “Hunt has come out the woodwork now. Why?”
It is possible that some shadowy organization (some call it the “deep state” or the “hard state”, others the “NWO” or the “Illuminati”) pushed Dr Hunt onto the stage with a broom handle with instructions. I accept that as a possibility.
However, another possibility occurs to me.
It’s possible that Dr Hunt, who was the pathologist in Dr Kelly’s case, has noticed an increased media speculation and the possibility that Dr Kelly’s death is going to be re-examined and has come to the only reasonable conclusion that at best his competence is being questioned and, at worst, he is being implicated in the coverup of a murder.
So when somebody asks: “Hunt has come out the woodwork now. Why?” it might be because he objects to the rather obvious innuendo being thrust his way. Just a thought.
By the way, what exactly is there in the Q&A with Hutton that differs from what he said in the paper today?
Gilbert: “But, as far as I know, Dr Kelly did not have any relevant pathology expertise either. Why did he choose to commit suicide by using such complicated method? How did he know that the “combination of three factors” will result in his demise? Could he not have found a simpler, surer, method?”
I suppose he could have jumped in front of a train, or shot himself or leapt off a very, very tall tower. Then again, those methods may have been unavailable to him and his depression may not have been the most conducive thing for clear thinking.
Essentially, we don’t know why David Kelly decided to do what he did.
MJ: “A textbook case would at the very least include a suicide note.”
Are you sure about that? I know that a storybook suicide is likely to include a suicide note but why should it be expected?
According to Wikipedia:
“It is estimated that 12?”20% of suicides are accompanied by a note.”
The coalition government is plunged into a major row today over its commitment to human rights amid claims that it will scrap the Foreign Office’s landmark annual assessment of abuses across the world.
The Observer has learned that civil servants have been told to stop working on the next edition of the FCO Annual Report on Human Rights, which highlights incidents of torture and oppression, monitors use of the death penalty and aims to expose the illegal arms trade. The report also acts as a guide to MPs and businesses over which countries it is ethical to trade with.
The former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, broke ranks last night to claim that any move to end the annual report risked “downgrading human rights” and would be met with “fierce resistance”. NGOs said that doubts over the future of the report, which was introduced by Robin Cook in 1997, fuelled their concerns that coalition ministers were “blindly” pursuing commercial interests in countries where atrocities were taking place.
Last year the former Labour government used the report to publicly declare its concerns with 22 countries, including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. David Miliband, the shadow foreign secretary and Labour leadership candidate, said that it had “saved lives”, revealing atrocities in Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gaza and Sri Lanka. “Britain has led the world in standing up for human rights and the coalition is taking a serious step back,” he said, arguing that the audit was not just “nice to have” but a crucial tool.
A Foreign Office source said a huge amount of effort went into the report each year, with some embassy staff spending months uncovering atrocities. He said the team had been told the future of the study was “under review” and staff had been asked to “hold fire on it”. He added: “The word has already gone out to the embassies that we need to concentrate on trade. It’s not surprising, but it’s very sad.”
NGOs fear the coalition is putting economic interests above the drive to stamp out abuses. Last week Tom Porteous, the director of Human Rights Watch in London, warned in an article on Comment is Free that by “blindly pursuing commercial interests” the UK risked undermining efforts to protect human rights.
Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, said she had deep concerns about plans to axe the report, saying the move would “raise serious questions about how much they value human rights”.
“The government has already stressed that it will concentrate on trade when it comes to foreign policy” Allen said. “But that move cannot be at any cost. Amnesty International’s fear is that this is the latest step in putting economics before human rights.”
An FCO spokeswoman said: “The foreign secretary is determined that the UK’s foreign policy should reflect the values that we uphold at home and that our actions overseas be consistent with support for human rights.
“In the current financial climate …we need to look carefully at how best to communicate and ensure transparency with parliament and the public on our human rights activity.”
This is one cut way too far over the boundaries of fairness and decency. What the hell has Nick Clegg got himself involved with here ? Does he really support this shit ?
MJ: “The ST appears oblivious to the fact that the second official inquiry into the death of JFK, conducted by the House of Representatives in 1974, concluded that Kennedy was murdered by the msfia.”
MJ, I’m not sure if that is quite true. The House Select Committee on Assassinations did indeed conclude that there was likely a second shooter but they based this from “acoustic evidence” (I think it was a recording in which the Committee was partially convinced that they could hear four shots) that was highly disputed.
They didn’t implicate the mafia however – in fact I think they ruled out the mafia – they merely suggested a second shooter may have fired a bullet which missed. They still concluded that Oswald had fired the two bullets that counted and was responsible for Kennedy’s death.
The evidence for a second shooter appears to be very unreliable though.
Actually, as far as I can work out the Warren Commission’s purpose was indeed to be a reassurance but more to reassure the public that Kennedy hadn’t been killed by Soviet or Cuban agents. The HSCA also concluded that the Warren Commission had been conducted in good faith and not set up to deceive.
SO WHAT IS GOING ON?!
I criticised Dominic Grieve for passing the buck on the release of David Kelly’s medical documents to Ken Clarke as reported by the Telegraph on 19th August 2010.
The Guardian reporting on the Sunday Times revelation that David’s death was a ‘textbook suicide’ today Sunday 22nd August refers back with a link to Grieve’s ‘consideration’ statement dated 13th August – guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/13/david-kelly-death-inquest
I suggest MI5 get it’s act together and give their ‘stooges’ in the main media a slightly more conclusive ‘thread’ of misinformation.
I personally believe Boris Karpichkov, he is right with his assumption David Kelly was assassinated –
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297444/KGB-agent-Boris-Karpichkovs-claim-David-Kelly-exterminated-faces-probe.html
Anthrax is the key – shape up or MORE will be revealed.
Angrysoba is working overtime.
Are there such things as stooges of stooges?
“A textbook case would at the very least include a suicide note.”
“Are you sure about that?”
Of course. A “textbook” case would have to establish beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the victim to take his own life.
“They didn’t implicate the mafia however”
Although the Committee refrained from making definitive accusations the mafia was heavily implicated owing to Ruby’s mafia connections and those of CIA agent David Ferrie, who was Oswald’s handler and died (suicide?) before he could give evidence.
“Of course. A “textbook” case would have to establish beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the victim to take his own life.”
Why?
“Why?”
As in why would only a suicide note provide that given that suicide notes are considered to be a feature in only a minority of cases?
The people who are so determined to believe that there was foul play involved in the death of Dr. David Kelly are not forensic pathologists. Even Kelly’s family has said nothing favouring the conspiracy theorists. The report in today’s Sunday Times appears to vindicate the chapter on Dr. David Kelly in David Aaaronovich’s Voodoo Histories. Time to put away such nonsense.
Abe, thanks, but somehow I do not share your faith in what to date has not been due process in this case. That’s not say I definitively buy either hypothesis, merely that like many others not normally given to wild paranoia I am dissatisfied with the official explanation and with the actions of the authorities.
Furthermore, from reading his previous output, I’m afraid that I do not regard Aaronovich as not a reliable commentator on any of these matters; that’s not to say he doesn’t have interesting things to say, but simply that both he and The Sunday Times remain deeply tainted as sources of information, as opposed to choir-stalls of official propaganda.