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.
Either Angry is being primed from the inside or else he/she is a fully qualified and experienced
physician
surgeon
pathologist
toxicologist
lawyer expert in coronial law
or perhaps just comes here when the stuctures of the state are threatened.
Interesting that on such a highly topical subject there are only three comments under the ST article and one from one of the doctors. Some scope for Angry there.
An inquest is required to test the evidence. One has NOT been held.
“I know you have said, over and over again that there was no problem with his heart”
–angry
I said nothing of the sort. I quoted some report that said that his heart was ‘much as it would be expected’ for any man of his age.
For some reason you wrote above, “I only pointed out that David Kelly died months after the Iraq War started and that his death couldn’t have smoothed the way for the Iraq invasion.”
We’re not talking about the same thread, are we??
I didn’t say you were ‘lying’ either. I said you were being ‘smart’. I’d appreciate a link to our whole discussion, as I can’t find it on the David Kelly Murder thread. What thread did you re-quote that BBC source from?
“Our criticism of the Hutton report is that its verdict of “suicide” is an inappropriate finding. To bleed to death from a transected artery goes against classical medical teaching, which is that a transected artery retracts, narrows, clots and stops bleeding within minutes. Even if a person continues to bleed, the body compensates for the loss of blood through vasoconstriction (closing down of non-essential arteries). This allows a partially exsanguinated individual to live for many hours, even days.
“Professor Milroy expands on the finding of Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry – that haemorrhage was the main cause of death (possibly finding it inadequate) – and falls back on the toxicology: “The toxicology showed a significant overdose of co-proxamol. The standard text, Baselt, records deaths with concentrations at 1 mg/l, the concentration found in Kelly.” But Dr Allan, the toxicogist in the case, considered this nowhere near toxic. Each of the two components was a third of what is normally considered a fatal level. Professor Milroy then talks of “ischaemic heart disease”. But Dr Hunt is explicit that Dr Kelly did not suffer a heart attack. Thus, one must assume that no changes attributable to myocardial ischaemia were actually found at autopsy.”
(signed by various docs)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/12/davidkelly.huttonreport
[via Angry’s BBC link above]
“One of them is vascular surgeon John Scurr, a specialist in veins and arteries. He told the programme: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody die from wrist injuries. I have seen a lot of wrist injuries. It is a very common cry for help type of attempt at suicide, rather than a genuine attempt at killing themselves.
“Frankly I don’t believe that simply cutting an ulnar artery will cause death. The thing we know about the ulnar artery is it’s quite small and so if Dr Kelly had cut it clean it would have gone into spasm and it would have, you know, probably oozed for a little while trickled.
“He might have lost a few hundred mills of blood. And then it would have stopped.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6378681.stm
from Angry’s BBC link above.
Suhayl
Kissinger was a very evil man so your comment is pointless and silly. Today’s Sunday Times article closes the case on the Kelly suicide so why don’e you all go off and do something useful instead of this constant faffle.
Consider whether it is right for Dr Hunt to be speaking to the media especially if these allegations have truth in them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300935/Official-probe-Dr-Kellys-post-mortem-pathologist-mixed-servicemens-remains.html
Good lord.
And I had written, “Suddenly I don’t trust Hunt”.
Whatever, my playlist currently includes this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-S90Uch2as&feature=related
Sound of Silence, Simon & Garfunkel
so grateful for debates & this board
Why would UK intelligence service want to kill Dr Kelly?
I’d say it’s really quite obvious. He knew things the government didn’t want let out. Humilating him in public was no doubt a tactic to make him appear to have a reason to commit suicide.
The Express of 5 July 2009 has an interesting article part of which I reproduced here:
WEAPONS inspector David Kelly was writing a book exposing highly damaging government secrets before his
Gilbert – ‘How did he know that the “combination of three factors” will result in his demise?’
Good analysis there. Not that I needed any more good analysis to figure out the truth. Still, more fodder for the undecided mind.
but what does it prove, either way?
Dr Hunt looks like a very useful idiot.
Technicolour at August 22, 7:46 PM
I like this line of reasoning. We’re stymied with the investigation, and will probably continue to be so, seeing as the stated aim is to “reassure the public”. So it’s a nice idea.
Technicolour – ‘but what does it prove, either way?’
What does what prove? The fact that he was murdered you mean?
I think Ruth’s point is strongest – it was Dr Kelly’s book. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily UK Intelligence that killed him, but the UK establishment certainly covered up, and presumably continue to do so, so it’s not a Blair / Labour thing.
Eddie,
Err – far from closed…
Paramedics Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt (15yrs experience) arrived at Harrowdown Hill and witnessed many people, “‘There were a lot of police around,’ said Hunt. ‘Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues.”
Both saw that the left sleeves of his jacket and shirt had been PULLED UP to just below the elbow and there was dried blood around his left wrist.
There was no gaping wound… there wasn’t a puddle of blood around,’ said Hunt. ‘There was a little bit of blood on the nettles to the left of his left arm. But there was no real blood on the body of the shirt. The only other bit of blood I saw was on his clothing. It was the size of a 50p piece above the right knee on his trousers.’
Hunt found this very strange. ‘If you manage to cut a wrist and catch an artery you would get a spraying of blood, regardless of whether it’s an accident… Because of the nature of an arterial cut, you get a pumping action. I would certainly expect a lot more blood on his clothing, on his shirt. If you choose to cut your wrists, you don’t worry about getting blood on your clothes.
A heat-seeking helicopter had searched the woods(witnesses on a Thames boat had seen the helicopter and ‘police officers’) called Harrowdown Hill the night before David Kelly’s body was found by an air-scenting dog called Brock. His owner Louis Holmes, a hearing dog trainer saw Brock was indicating near a tree, but he returned to Louise and lay down prompting her to think something was unusual.
Louise went to where Brock had indicated and found “a body slumped against the bottom of a tree.”
“He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and his shoulders just slumped back against the tree.
His legs were straight in front of him. His right arm
was to the side of him. His left arm had a lot of blood
on it and was bent back in a funny position.”
Detective Coe had been to David Kelly’s house and questioned neighbours on the morning of the search and then walked towards the River Thames and Harrowdown Hill.
He said, at the Hutton Inquiry when asked “Who were you with at this time?”
1 Detective Constable Shields.
2 Q. It is just the two of you?
3 A. Yes.
In fact there were three people, all in civilian clothes and the third was MI5?
The gics (gangsters-in-charge) are trying too hard. Gary O’Donoghue reporting on the BBC 1 Ten O’Clock News referred to the need for a *second* inquest (no inquest has ever been held). He also lumped together the phrases ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘group of doctors’. How dare he cast aspersions and speak such untruths.
If Dr Kelly had decided to publish, then he had lost faith in the state. He had changed his mind about the benefits of maintaining secrecy.
I believe you are right ‘Clark’ like me, after Iraq and the promises David Kelly made about ‘inspections guarantee NO war’ he made to Iraq, he felt betrayed and decided to publish.
David Kelly was an expert and knew about top secret spray devices associated with *drones* to stealthily contaminate areas at night with sarin, VX and mustard to botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox, all under remote control from vast distances.
Interestingly and little reported, Iraq weapons analyst, John J. Kokal, 58, was found dead in the late afternoon of November 7 2003. Police indicated he may have jumped from the roof of the State Department. Kokal’s body was found at the bottom of a 20 foot window well, 8 floors below the roof of the State Department headquarters near the 23rd and D Street location.
At risk of humiliation I stick my neck out – I personally believe David was injected with a lethal dose of dextropropoxyphene and the muscle relaxant succinylcholine which metabolises even after death. An attempt was made to force him to swallow the pills which he could not.
Dried regurgatative material was found in a line from both corners of David Kelly’s mouth to his ears – more was distributed on the ground beside his body. This suggests that a substantial amount of any pills ingested would have been ejected, hence only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach.
The cuts found on his wrist were there to disguise the injection site.
Who did it and why?
Certainly not MI5/6 or any British intelligence/secret service – No – David was a British intelligence asset – the order I believe came from America – David worked very closely with the United States intelligence and worked very closely with Sergeant Mai Pederson in particular, he was also very highly thought of in the US intelligence community prior to his disclosures.
Britain gave the tasking nod and I believe certain persons in Whitehall knew in advance. But it was the French Direction Ginirale de la Sicuriti Extirieure that got a three man Iraqi team to do the evil deed and then executed them.
What did David Kelly know? Too much.
AS: “I know you have said, over and over again that there was no problem with his heart”
Dreiolin: “I said nothing of the sort. I quoted some report that said that his heart was ‘much as it would be expected’ for any man of his age.”
This amounts to the same thing. The point I am making is that it had already been said that Dr Kelly had significant heart disease and the pathologist had testified to that at the Hutton inquiry.
“None of what I’m talking about (and did talk about) seems to appear on the thread entitled ‘David Kelly’s Murder’.
I’d like a link to the relevant thread, please, and to know what source you gave at the time for your “one ulnar artery” claim.”
This issue seems to crop up on a number of threads which weren’t to do with David Kelly. Anyway, the source I gave was the same, the officially recorded statistics. I may not have provided a link to the BBC Conspiracy Files webpage though which features a lot of the claims and counterclaims in the case.
The vast majority of suicides are simple, obvious and uncomplicated affairs.
Most everything about the Dr David Kelly death is complex, secret and hidden and involving a multiplicity of areas of dispute.
There ought to be immense concern amongst reasonable people, and serious questions asked of those harbour the bizarre notion that everything is above board and totally straightforward.
It ain’t, and won’t be, no matter how much the increasingly useless and tiresome BBC and its acolytes pretend otherwise.
Angry “This amounts to the same thing.”
No, it certainly does not. The newspaper report I was quoting stated (correctly) that most men of his age would have some thickening/blocking of the arteries. Not necessarily major, but not remotely akin to “no problem with his heart” either.
Angry: “This issue seems to crop up on a number of threads which weren’t to do with David Kelly. Anyway, the source I gave was the same, the officially recorded statistics.”
But not necessarily from the same webpage or with the same commentary. You see, I remember that what you linked to mentioned “ulnar arteries” (plural) and it wasn’t at all clear whether one or both had been severed in the deaths listed. And I made a remark to that effect on the thread. At which point you disappeared. Whether you came back later or not I don’t know.
Angry: “I may not have provided a link to the BBC Conspiracy Files webpage”
MAY not? You implied above that you had. But I don’t believe that you did. Because that BBC page says “a severed ulnar artery”, so I would have had no reason to scoff at that source if you had used it previously. But you didn’t use that page, Angry, did you. (Was that a fortuitous find yesterday?) You accused me of lying about you, and you then called me “untrustworthy” and said I “completely misrepresent”, when all along it appears you had no idea what webpage you quoted in the original argument, or whether my memory of events is in fact correct. (Or maybe you do know, but you’re not telling here?)
You also suggested that when you called me ‘petulant’ I responded with “Bullshit!” which is not the truth either, is it. Nor did I accuse Dr Hunt of any conspiracy, did I.
Let’s stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Angry.
You said, “This issue seems to crop up on a number of threads which weren’t to do with David Kelly”. List those threads for me, please. I’d like to read them for myself.
Dreiolin says: “Go to hell, Angry, I’m not re-doing a debate with you that was finished long ago.”
But, later…
“Let’s stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Angry.
You said, “This issue seems to crop up on a number of threads which weren’t to do with David Kelly”. List those threads for me, please. I’d like to read them for myself.”
I’ve no idea why it is that I should search through all the threads in which this issue came up given that you don’t want to go through the debate again. It’s far too much trouble for what I am sure will be little gratitude.
If you want to prove your assertions then maybe YOU should search through the threads.
I’m only interested in this:
You say that:
a) cutting one ulnar artery can’t cause death. My source says it can. That’s more substantive than our bickering.
b) that “the original reporting” was that David Kelly had no more than a regular amount of thickening/blocking of the arteries than expected from someone his age. Yet Dr Hunt said at the Hutton inquiry that it was significant and has elaborated on that since then to say 80% blocked.
c) that the amount of co-proxamol in his blood was a normal dosage. Yet this isn’t true and none of the sources say it was a normal dosage but rather that it was an overdose.
So, I say that you are untrustworthy because I have to check everything you say against other sources and find that you have downplayed every factor that his death was attributed to.
But, yes, I am wrong for saying you accused Dr Hunt of being part of a conspiracy, you only said you didn’t trust him.
I apologize for that.
“MAY not? You implied above that you had. But I don’t believe that you did. Because that BBC page says “a severed ulnar artery”, so I would have had no reason to scoff at that source if you had used it previously. But you didn’t use that page, Angry, did you. (Was that a fortuitous find yesterday?)”
As far as this goes I certainly did know of the statistics and it is possible that that is all I posted. It would be HIGHLY fortuitous if I had simply made up the statistics and then found a source which agreed with me.
That’s not what happened.
Anyway, this is getting rather pointless. Clearly we’ll just have to see what the inquiry says.
“I personally believe David was injected with a lethal dose of dextropropoxyphene and the muscle relaxant succinylcholine”
Thanks for sticking your neck out Mark. Given that the known evidence casts some doubt as to the accuracy of the cause of death suggested by Hutton, speculation over what might be the actual cause is remarkably thin on the ground. But wouldn’t these drugs have shown up in the toxicology report?
“As far as this goes I certainly did know of the statistics and it is possible that that is all I posted”
–angry
No, Angry, you didn’t link to any official statistics page, or if by any chance you did, then THEY were unclear in what they said.
“I’ve no idea why it is that I should search through all the threads in which this issue came up given that you don’t want to go through the debate again.”
It’s simple, Angry, it’s because you accused me of lying. I didn’t ask you to search through all the threads, I asked you for the thread names. I’ll happily read them for you – and then come back and quote.
“If you want to prove your assertions then maybe YOU should search through the threads.”
No, Angry, YOU accused ME of lying, of being untrustworthy, and of ‘misrepresenting’ so YOU need to prove your assertions. You have said the issue came up on more than one thread. So provide those thread names so I can read them please. Or withdraw your allegations.
“Anyway, this is getting rather pointless.”
It is? You fling accusations around and when asked to back them up, you announce that it’s pointless? In fact you say that you’ll get ‘little gratitude’?
Nice try, Angry.
You know, ‘Larry’ accused me of lying too. And when I asked where (and I asked it about four times) I got no answer from ‘him’ either. You’re a right pair.
“It’s simple, Angry, it’s because you accused me of lying.”
Well in that case I can’t back that up so I apologize and retract.
It can’t find any posting of the BBC link previously, so I was probably mistaken.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Dreoilin,
always count to ten and take a few deep breaths before replying to Angrysoba. He is a crafty so-and-so.
Angrysoba says: “Clearly we’ll just have to see what the inquiry says”. Ha! As if it’ll say anything significantly different from the previous whitewash!
But two whitewashes prove that Angrysoba is whiter-than-white, the new blue whiteness you only get with SuperSoap!
Dreoilin,
well done. Angrysoba and his new ally Tomk have certainly been giving you a hard time recently.
“Nothing to see here, move along please!”
Thanks, Clark. 🙂
Change of theme. I’ve just been listening to an excellent BBC Radio 4 programme on “British Muslims – Father and Son” – an extended account of the world seen from the perspectives of Moazzam Beg and his father.
Three voices stick in my mind: Moazzam Begg (born Birmingham, family Moslem immigrants from India/Pakistan; his father; and Jack Straw (born Buckhurst Hill, with great-grandfather a German Jewish immigrant). All represent different values. I generally reject the term “British values”; but many of the values I respect are upheld by the Beggs and are dishonoured by Straw.
From the BBC website: “Moazzam Begg spent three years as a prisoner in Bagram and Guatanamo Bay before being released without charge. Throughout that that time his father fought for his son’s release. Since his release Moazzam Begg has remained in the headlines. He is a controversial figure – for some he is an innocent victim, while others have hard questions about his beliefs and actions. Steve Evans tells an extraordinary story of a father and son and their very different experiences of being a British Muslim. From the generations of Begg family military history, to Moazzam almost joining the British army, to his support for Muslim causes around the world – there are many contradictions and paradoxes in the Begg family story. The exceptional bond between father and son, though, is clear throughout.”