There is a very great deal that we can learn from the case of Dr Al-Balawi, the suicide bomber who took out seven CIA agents in Afghanistan.
The first relates to intelligence. Dr Al Balawi had become a trusted CIA informant, believed by the CIA to be helping them to target al-Qaida elements on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Except that we now know he was a dedicated al-Qaida all along.
Presumably much of the intelligence he had been providing was deliberately false and misleading. This yet again illustrates the point I have made repeatedly about the unreliability of “humint” – intelligence gained from informants.
As British Ambassador, I saw in Uzbekistan a continued stream of intelligence from the Uxbek torture chambers, accepted by the CIA and MI6 but which, in many cases, I knew to be false. The Uzbek government wished to retain Western support and subsidies by exaggerating their role in fighting al-Qaida; that was their purpose in providing the false intelligence. The Western security services and governments wished to exaggerate the threat of al-Qaida for domestic political purposes: that was their purpose in accepting it.
Torture is not the only source of unreliable “Humint”. Double agents like Dr Al-Balawi are another, A very high proportion of this intelligence is bought for cash, and that is the most unreliable of all. The dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD was full of tall stories for which you and I as taxpayers paid dodgy informants millions of dollars.
Yet we used unreliable humint as the basis for a war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands. We use it to take out wedding parties with bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We use it to keep people detained without charge for years in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Belmarsh, and we use it to deliver people up to torturers around the World.
We should know by now that the intelligence services and politicians no longer care if the intelligence is true: they want intelligence that justifies the actions they want to take anyway, and that keep on stream the mega profits that their friends are making from the War on Terror.
So Dr Al Balawi’s case gives us an invaluable insight into the world of intelligence.
But it does more than that. Why would a medical doctor, a happily married professional man with two children, become a “terrorist”. The answer is crystal clear.
Al-Balawi “started to change,” says his wife, after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229792
The failed underpants bomber was said by eye-witnesses to be shouting about Afghanistan: Dr Al-Balawi was motivated by our illegal invasion of Iraq. Violence begets violence – it is a truth as old as man.
Our unconscionable attacks on weaker nations, and our increasing complicity in the slow genocide of the Palestinians, are bound to provoke reaction, however weak that reaction may be compared to our own ability to kill en masse. The notion peddled by politicians and mainstream media, that we invade countries abroad to keep us safe at home, should be met with the derision it deserves.
@angrysoba: thanks. Hypothetical question for you – and I’m not advancing an argument here by underhand means, I just want to “sound you out” – do you think the Hutton Inquiry was necessary, and if so why?
“@angrysoba: thanks. Hypothetical question for you – and I’m not advancing an argument here by underhand means, I just want to “sound you out” – do you think the Hutton Inquiry was necessary, and if so why? ”
Well, the Hutton inquiry seemed to come about to settle a different issue, as far as I understand. Not to determine the cause of death but to find out if either the BBC or the government (or perhaps both) had behaved irresponsibly and perhaps whether or not they had contributed to his death through exposing him to the media.
It is possible I suppose that Dr Kelly’s suicide was in fact suicide, but that may not let the government off the hook. It is possible that threatened with legal action and the loss of his pension he saw suicide as the only way to protect his family’s future.
In any case the British government has more than enough motive as Kelly had exposed it as telling an embarrassing lie. It is naive to think that a government willing to sanction an illegal invasion leading to 1.3 million excess deaths would hesitate at whacking one public servant.
@angrysoba: that was how it ended up, yeah, as a BBC versus government thing, with some time given to how each of them behaved. But that was not how it started. Cast your mind back – it is the day after David Kelly’s body has been found. A Telegraph staffer catches Blair in a Tokyo press conference and asks him if he’s got blood on his hands. Blair can’t answer. Hours later the government announces there will be an official inquiry – “to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death [not suicide] of David Kelly”.
I guess what I’m asking is,
a) do you think when that inquiry was announced it was implicit its chief purpose was to ascertain the cause of death?
b) do you think the cause of death needed to be established?
c) and at that moment in time (18/7/03) were you as sure of the late Dr Kelly’s suicide as you are now?
If you could answer those questions I have two more for you. I’d be really interested to know what you think if you can indulge me.
And let us not forget that Kelly had committed a serious breach of his contract by talking to Gilligan. He was in trouble and he knew it. There have been countless examples of suicides related to problems at work or loss of one’s job.
“if you make mad speculations about how someone died”
Eddie, I’m not making any mad speculations. I don’t believe the suicide ‘theory’ holds up. Period.
“It’s like asking a believer to prove there is a God.”
No it’s not. That one is not provable, one way or another. A suicide versus a murder could be, if there was a full and proper investigation.
“Also, some animals eat blood. Who is to say a passing fox or cat didn’t have a meal at the suicide site?”
You can’t have enough blood exit a severed ulnar artery, before it closes up, to cause a person to bleed towards death. Cutting several blood vessels lengthways up the arm is a different matter. Why are people ignoring this very specific point (and focussing on stuff like the Baha’i faith which I threw in among several other questions?)
Afaik, the doctors demanding an inquest are focussed mostly on the assertion that he lost a significant quantity of blood via this very small artery, something which is not possible. They also say he did not ingest a toxic dose of paracetamol. But it’s not the main plank of their case. Nor is the condition of his heart.
I should be elsewhere. Have fun.
@Eddie: “And let us not forget that Kelly had committed a serious breach of his contract by talking to Gilligan.”
Leaving everything else to one side for the moment, I’m not sure how you can claim to know this, Eddie. I know you oppose unfounded allegations – ultimately what you’re doing here is holding a dead man up to charges of impropriety and unprofessionalism. Followed by a bit of speculation and statistical generalisation.
Well he admitted that he spoke to Gilligan so that is a serious breach of his contract to begin with. He knew the contact was unauthorised and he confessed to his employers who cautioned him. He may have faced more serious disciplinary action had he not died. These are all facts that are in the public domain.
@Eddie: I think the picture is more complicated than you may think. He had several employers simultaneously; he gave a series of press interviews over the years, some spontaneous, all of which were considered part of his job, as were “follow-up” calls; neither you nor I have seen his employment contract, if he even had one; he never admitted to his employers or otherwise that his contact with Gilligan et al was “unauthorised”, his employers never officially “cautioned” him. Those are the facts in the public record.
Had a proper disciplinary hearing or tribunal taken place, we might be able to draw a conclusion about David Kelly’s supposed breach of contract. But this didn’t happen. So without wanting to climb on any sort of high horse, I think you’re “making decisions above your pay-grade”, as Alistair Campbell would say.
Oh good, the Kelly case again. Worth remembering, I think. The journalist who told the truth got sacked. The BBC chairman who supported him got sacked. And the man who leaked the truth was paraded in public in front of a ‘committee’ in a room which resembled a Roman arena, and was subsequently found dead.
Course I’ve no idea whether Dr Kelly, poor man, was physically murdered or scared to death. Having quickly looked at the case again, and reminded myself that the government are still behaving like a pantomime villain (cancelling the coroner’s inquest, indeed) I’m now almost convinced that he wasn’t murdered, but that someone set it up to look as if he was.
Thereby conveniently distracting all of us from the horrible reality that is Alastair Campbell in the Iraq enquiry. He doesn’t care what we know; I shouldn’t think he cares about much any more.
Rob Lewis
Note from Richard Hatfield Personnel Director at the MoD. (from the Hutton report)
“I interviewed Dr Kelly about his letter dated 30 June to his line manager, Dr Bryan Wells, at 11.30 on Friday 4 July. Dr Wells was present. The interview ended at approximately 13:15.
I began by explaining to Dr Kelly that his letter had serious implications. First, on the basis of his own account, it appeared that he breached the normal standards of Civil Service behaviour and departmental regulations by having had a number of unauthorised and unreported contacts with journalists. Regardless of the detail of what had passed, this opened up the possibility of disciplinary action. Second, his unauthorised discussion with Andrew Gilligan on 22 May appeared to be directly relevant to the controversy surrounding allegations made by Gilligan about the government’s WMD dossier even if, as he had said in his letter, this had not been the discussion described by Gilligan at the FAC hearing.”
I hope that is clear enough for you? As I say above, he was cautioned and may have faced disciplinary action had he not died. Your sneering approach does you no credit.
On the other hand, Campbell may have concluded that they ‘had a good laugh’, which were, I believe, Blair’s parting words to him.
Eddie, Angrysoba, Larry,
just to recap:
911 – the official version is beyond doubt.
Dr Kelly – the official version is beyond doubt.
Correct?
recursive: it is not at all convenient for a group of people who have publicly demonstrated their willingness to authorise mass murder, to see time, energy and temper spent on squabbling about precisely how much mass murder they were prepared to authorise.
correct?
@Eddie: No Eddie, it’s not quite clear enough for me. It appears we have read the same things but drawn different conclusions. Let me be clear about the point I am making. I would agree that the MoD appear to have threatened the possiblity of discplinary action in order to keep Dr Kelly “in line” and protect “the message” as well as their own skins in light of pressure from No 10 and the JIC. But I disagree that they had any right to do so. Had the MoD proceeded with disciplinary action, they would have got nowhere.
From the Hatfield email:
1) “It *appeared* that he breached the *normal standards* of *Civil Service behaviour* and *departmental regulations*…
-Nothing in that to conclude that David Kelly was in “serious breach of his employment contract”, as you allege. In fact, Hatfield has gone out of his way to avoid referring to terms of employment. And as Hutton concluded, there was much confusion as to what regulations actually applied, as Kelly worked for a number of different entities.
2) “It opened up *the possibility* of disciplinary action
-Again, this is deliberately equivocal.
3) “His *unuthorised* discussion with David Gilligan”
-The employer would need to prove this contact was unauthorised. It is not enough to simply say so. In Kelly’s defence, he would be able to point to literally hundreds of occasions when he had spoken informally and formally to the media over the course of several years, interaction which was either demonstrably encouraged by the MoD or ignored, but certainly largely known and never criticised. Surely any objective tribunal or arbitration process would have to conclude the employer only took exception in this instance because of WHAT was said, not to WHOM or HOW he was saying it?
Kelly would have been the legal victor of any disciplinary action (based on the facts we have).
Further, and note bene, once Hatfield had told him to stop talking to the press (which he had done several times a week for over a decade), he stopped. Yet what happened next? The MoD leaked his name to the media, without arranging any kind of alternate accommodation for him, and they came flocking to his house to talk to him.
Not only would the MoD have been legally unable to take disciplinary action, David Kelly would probably have had good grounds for a case against them. Employees have won court cases for far smaller greivances than Dr Kelly suffered in many, many parts of the civil service.
Finally, you allege impropriety on the part of a dead man; your sole evidence for this allegation is a single equivocal email that surfaced in the Hutton Inquiry from the very man tasked to throw the book at Kelly in the first place; and you offer “that my sneering approach does me no credit.”
Damn, I can’t edit my comments, so to clarify this unfortunate construction of my own (see above):
“Further, and note bene, once Hatfield had told him to stop talking to the press (which he had done several times a week for over a decade), he stopped.”
Kelly had been talking to the press several times a week for over a decade is what I am trying to say. Clearly, Hatfield had not been telling David Kelly to stop several times a week for over a decade. 🙂
In fact, Hatfield had only been in post for a number of months, if I recall. Wheareas Dr David Kelly CMG had been working for the defence of the realm since 1986.
Come on don’t be a pedant and a fantasist. The employer says the letter “has serious implications” – clear enough for you? Most reasonable employers would use the word “appeared” pending any hearing – not wishing to pre-empt a final judgement. That is normal HR practice. The point I am making is that Kelly knew he was in trouble with his employers and this could have been a factor in him taking his own life, on top of the media firestorm around him. The testimony from Hutton is clear. Don’t be silly.
Sorry Rob: I don’t understand. It’s always hard, since eddie delivers foaming attacks at the drop of a hat, but in this case I don’t think he was attacking Kelly. Without wanting to impugn the latter’s conduct in the slightest, it’s plain that Kelly was led to believe that he was in real trouble, and, like Gilligan and Dyke, he was. Sensible friends would have told him exactly what you’ve just written, of course, but perhaps he didn’t have any.
But, as the sores left by New Labour continue to ooze, we should remember what the ‘opposition’ was up to while all this was going on. Refusing to oppose anything, as I remember. I fear for the UK under Cameron.
@Eddie: I disagree that the language used is derived from normal HR-practice, and I don’t believe that the MoD’s conduct as regards Dr Kelly puts them in “the most reasonable employers” category.
But, not wanting to prolong our argument: “The point I am making is that Kelly knew he was in trouble with his employers.” If that is the only point you’re making, it’s a reasonable enough assumption. If you would additionally want to argue that Dr Kelly WAS actually guilty of misconduct or of “serious breach of employment contract” as regards his meeting with Gilligan in the Charing Cross hotel, I would contest that.
In terms of disciplinary action, as per your own argument, Kelly received no more than a first verbal warning as regards his meeting with journalists, a warning he adhered to.
RODERICK RUSSELL ?” RESPONSE TO CRAIG / RUTH’S COMMENT (Jan 11, 2010) ?” MI5/6’s ZERZETSEN TORTURE
Craig, I am afraid that Ruth is right on this issue when she says “I have no doubts that what Roderick Russell says is true … I and my family have been intimidated by the secret services”. Look at my Wiki. There is overwhelming evidence that MI5/6 and The State at high levels are involved in the persecution of my family, and the resultant cover-up conspiracy to ensure that my well-witnessed complaints are never investigated.
Now of course the police know that what has actually happened is far worse than anything I have written so far. This is a true horror show. Let us take an example that I referred to before: The case of former FCO diplomat and whistleblower Mark Higson who died from an accident caused by severe epilepsy brought on as a result of his persecution. I stated – There are many other examples of severe conditions that are a common development for those who, like Mark, suffered from zerzetsen torture. Epilepsy is only one of the effects that MI5/6 & CSIS try to induce in their victims.
I brought this up in an earlier blog, and I didn’t quite disclose all. You see my wife is another example.
Imagine what she has been forced to deal with over the years bringing up our three children while being subjected to continuous threats and abuse against her family. It is hardly surprising that she has developed a severe health condition. The stress of our situation has weighed heavily on her health and she had her first seizure (in 2001) in the middle of the night, while asleep, and after hearing that a motorbike had been run at me in London. Although she is not affected by seizures now, this is considered to be a serious health issue and life threatening without proper prescribed medication.
And what did the MI*s do when they discovered that they had achieved all this? They turned their attention on my daughter who was then a student at Aberdeen University, and further geared up their threats against my wife.
Proof of MI5/6 & State involvement is on the WIKI. If the so-called human rights industry had put honesty ahead of toadying to the establishment, this torture would have been stopped a long time ago.
Now look at the wiki and particularly the huge body of documentary evidence attached to it. You will see substantial sources of proof as to the involvement of the MI*s and State in all this.
The first thing I would say is that various police services did book crime numbers, did begin an investigation, and were stopped. So it is not true that the lack of honest investigation is just due to inefficiencies at police level. It was interference from the State (I suspect MI5) that stopped them ?” and if you look at the correspondence files behind my WIKI you will see proof that various police services and a home office minister (e.g. former Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears) then began to lie in writing. Look at my correspondence with the so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission and you will see that like other police services, they were desperate to pass the buck. Look at the Police Report and note the proven fabrications on it. Why the proven written lies from Hazel Blears, etc. etc.
The establishment’s first attempt was to spread rumors that my complaints are all a hoax and I am a nutcase (a typical deception tactic of the MI*’s, particularly where they think that either themselves or the royals are involved) and they geared up a crooked Manchester judge to lend credibility to this. See the wiki. Well there are so many independent sources of corroboration that they dropped the “he is mad” excuse, and are now saying the police are inefficient.
Now as for the involvement of MI5 / MI6 in the persecution and cover-up conspiracy. Look at the WIKI. ?” Table of Contents: Chapter 7 – Role of MI5, MI6, CSIS Intelligence Agencies in Zerzetsen. Each point relating to intelligence services involvement has at least one item of independent corroborative evidence for verification purposes. Take all the points together and the involvement of the intelligence services is proven.
I know people don’t want to believe that the State, its establishment, and the MI*s are capable of Nazi-level zerzetsen torture against a completely innocent family, but I am afraid they are, and the proof is all there for anyone who has the courage to look.
Repeated evidence of a police cover-up, of a crooked judge, of politicians lying to avoid an investigation, of MI5/6 involvement ?” and still no investigation ?” are proof of cover-up to the full “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard several times over. I have dozens of provable examples of deliberate lying on this issue from ministers, police, etc. Craig, what more do you need.
Craig, the real reason this is being covered up is because the establishment powers that be are scared as to where an honest investigation would lead. I will be publishing an article on this in the near future.
Roderick Russell
#207, 1733 ?” 27 Ave. SW
Calgary AB T2T 1G9
403.229.0864
Roderick,
Oh, I don’t doubt what they are capable of. But there are too many logical jumps in your conclusion.
Yes, you received letters from Hazel Blears saying first that the police had no record of your case, and then that it had been investigated and the case was closed. But I am not convinced that is evidence of dark forces, rather than of sloppy and uncaring work in the police and Home Office. Reprehensible, yes.
I see plenty of prima facie evidence that yur ex-employer has initiated a campaign against you that may well involve organising physical intimidation by local thugs. I am sorry, but I really don’t see the evidence that it involves MI5 or MI6. I am not trying to be obtuse or hurtful – I just don’t.
I would like to confirm everything my father, Roderick Russell, has written here.
It is an extremely disgusting issue and we have received no help and no investigation.
Amy Russell
Hi Roderick and Amy – I’ve read a number of your posts to do with your situation on this blog, and for the little it is worth, I believe you, and you have my sympathy. I have no experience of the kind of harrassment you describe, though arguably Craig has! and would tend to agree that it is difficult to prove SIS involvement.
I do agree that, either way, it needs to be dealt with, and would suggest that if it is ongoing you get your MP involved (or is Hazel Blears your MP? – I think that would deserve a separate boatload of sympathy all on its own).
However, as you will have worked out, the “external perspective” of a sympathetic policemen, members of parliament, readers here, and anyone else you have thought to contact, is that if you “appear mad” then little further effort will be made by various parties to investigate your case. Accordingly – though I say this in possession of little of the facts – it might be best when reporting your issue to stick to what has happened, rather than making analyses of SIS/state involvement etc, which may discourage people from helping you.
You’ve probably heard this advice before, however! I do hope you get it sorted out.
Craig, There is much more to the cover-up than just the Police and Hazel Blears (though I would point out that Blears was Minister responsible for MI5 at the time). A provably crooked Judge, huge proof of MI5/6 involvement. The sad fact is that the so-called human rights industry are scared to investigate this, as are the police.
If they don’t think that the MI*s and the State are involved, why are they ducking it? Well let me suggest a reason?
The employer who slandered me is headed up by a man who was Deputy Chief of UK Defense Staff, and is Prince Charles’s best friend. The company itself was run day to day by a man who went on to run the Duchy of Cornwall, Prince Charles’s largest income source. There are many other ways that show that this company was tied at the hip to the royals.
People here in Canada, who are close to some involved in the cover up, have suggested to me that it is being covered up because it is too close to the royals. This is why I published a comment in Canada’s top paper “Monarchy is dangerous for your civil liberties” and why the paper printed my comment after review. I just wish that our human rights institutions had just one iota of honesty in them, since without their ongoing connivance none of this abuse could continue.
Just a couple of things that I should add FYI:
My onetime position with Grosvenor International Holdings was Group Controller. I did an excellent and very honest job for this company, but chose to leave because I didn’t want a long term career with them. During my notice period they twice asked me to reverse my decision and stay on. I am far from being the only former executive with them who was slandered.
If you click on my signature above you will see a summary that I have sent to government and opposition front benchers here in Canada. Prime Minister Harper is aware of the issue. Clicking on my earlier signatures brings up the wiki
I would like to confirm everything my target, Roderick Russell, has written here.
Gene Hackman in “The Conversation”
Hi Roderick and Amy – further to Jon’s post, I’ve read a number of your posts, and for the little it is worth, I also believe you, and you have my sympathy. I do have one suggestion about not relying on your MP or police involvement. Accordingly – though I say this in possession of little of the facts – it might be best for you to purchase several industrial-size rollers of aluminum foil. You know, the type restaurants use. Every morning, unroll enough material to form a metal hat for each of you. This will ensure that you remain unmolested by the MI* cosmo-rays in your daily life.
You’ve probably heard this advice before, however! I do hope you get it sorted out.
Roderick,
I really don’t doubt your ill-treatment, or that the influence wielded by those close to the Royal family could have been wielded against you. I know that such influence can indeed be used with judges. If it was or not in your case I don’t know, but it isn’t implausible. But none of that would necessitate the involvement of MI5 and MI6 – I still don’t see where you have got that from.
Rob, had to sleep as it was late here in Japan when you posted your comment.
“Cast your mind back – it is the day after David Kelly’s body has been found. A Telegraph staffer catches Blair in a Tokyo press conference and asks him if he’s got blood on his hands. Blair can’t answer. Hours later the government announces there will be an official inquiry – “to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death [not suicide] of David Kelly”.”
Well, like Tony Blair I was also in Japan the day after the death of David Kelly so I don’t have the same “I remember where I was when…” experience and the news was probably far less reported here than in Britain where I imagine it was a national scandal.
Indeed, the very fact that Tony Blair was so caught off his guard and flustered and unable to employ the spin machine makes it seem like a complete shock and surprise even to him. I know it is not a fashionable thought but isn’t it possible that it was a gut blow even to him? To know there is the possibility (the high likelihood, in fact) that his government had been partly responsible to drive this man to suicide?
If the government discovered Dr Kelly as the leak to the BBC then why would they expose him and put a massive spotlight on him before having him assassinated?
It sounds absurd to me.
“a) do you think when that inquiry was announced it was implicit its chief purpose was to ascertain the cause of death?”
No. The “circumstances” surrounding his death didn’t seem to imply that. Rather, whether he took his life due to the his unwitting role as a political handgrenade.
“b) do you think the cause of death needed to be established?”
Sure. And it was.
“c) and at that moment in time (18/7/03) were you as sure of the late Dr Kelly’s suicide as you are now?”
I don’t remember. As I said I was in Japan and I’m not sure what kind of rumours were circulating in Britain at the time. I think I abstractly entertained the idea that he may have been done in and after hearing these persistent rumours I decided to buy Norman Baker’s book.
When I read his laughable and wildly speculative “theory” I remember being more convinced than ever that it was suicide. Norman Baker is essentially the person who made me as sure as I am today.
Also, just for the record, I remember now that Baker suggests in his book that Janice Kelly might know who “killed” Dr Kelly but has decided to remain silent on grounds of national security. He admits he has no evidence at all for this calumny but includes it in order to support his “theory”.
What a scumbag!
“You can’t have enough blood exit a severed ulnar artery, before it closes up, to cause a person to bleed towards death. Cutting several blood vessels lengthways up the arm is a different matter. Why are people ignoring this very specific point (and focussing on stuff like the Baha’i faith which I threw in among several other questions?)”
dreollin, I believe you said earlier in this exchange that people who believe Dr Kelly committed suicide don’t know enough about medicine or suicide. This is similar to those who say that people who believe the “official” 9/11 account don’t know enough about physics and chemistry.
You haven’t established your own credentials yet as far as I remember. But are you saying it is impossible for people to commit suicide through slashing their ulnary artery? Are you saying that there are no cases of people doing just this? Doesn’t this neglect to take into account the overdose and the pre-existing heart condition?