It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by king9072
King you must be ill informed. Al Quiada was labeled a terrorist organization by the UNSC, which includes many nations other than the US, also named a terrorist organization by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Commision of European Communities and the European Union, The Australian Government, The Government of India, Japan, Isreal, South Korean foriengn Ministry, Dutch Military Intelligence, United Kingdom Home Office, Pakistan, Russia, Swedish ministry of Foriegn affairs and the Swiss Government. Oh, and the United States.
Liberal MP Norman Baker, who was interviewed in the BBC programme, outlines the results of his investigation. He states that it was not suicide, but murder.
"Describing his approach as non-sensational and factual, he said he has tested various theories 'to destruction'. One witness who contacted him recently claimed to "know" that Dr Kelly was murdered. Asked about "complicity of the State", Mr Baker chose his words carefully, claiming this would 'set the hares running'. He is pursuing a number of leads"
On November 3, 2006, The London Times published a letter by Lord Hutton, in which he attempted to defend his report on Dr. David Kelly's death.
In the letter, Lord Hutton dwells on the issue of the allegedly "sexed up" intelligence, ignoring the arguably much larger issue of his failure to establish exactly how Dr. David Kelly died.
TEXT OF RESPONSE TO LORD HUTTON
Lord Hutton presided over an inquiry which sought to apportion blame between the BBC and the Government for the "suicide" of Dr David Kelly when no "verdict" of suicide had been (and still has not been) reached. His report was widely labelled a "whitewash", because he was perceived to apportion that blame unfairly (given the evidence he had heard), all but exonerating the Government, and placing the blame almost entirely on the BBC. Now, in his letter published in the Times (3 November 2006), he seemingly seeks to defend his report by setting out his case re the minutiae of the "45 minute claim".
>Snip<
Lord Hutton misses the essential point. What is more, it appears that he was used by the Government to subvert due process in establishing precisely how Dr Kelly died. We and several other medical colleagues (and lawyers) attempted in a series of six letters published in The Guardian and one in the New Statesman to inform the public, and the mainstream press, that all doctors learn at medical school that, in order to return a "verdict" of "suicide", a coroner must prove suicide beyond reasonable doubt (a very high level of proof), including "intent" to commit suicide, also beyond reasonable doubt.
If the Coroner cannot achieve the necessary level of proof, he is required by law to return an "open verdict", assuming that "foul play" has at the outset been excluded in the proper manner. Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether "foul play" was properly excluded in the case of Dr Kelly.However, disregarding any such failure in such a high-profile death, it is important to understand that the public was invited to believe that Dr Kelly's death would be better investigated at the Hutton Inquiry than at a coroner's inquest, when the exact opposite was the case.
Snip
Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen to be denied an inquest in such circumstances. Given the clear "insufficiency of inquiry", regarding the cause of death over which Lord Hutton presided, the Coroner should have re-opened the Inquest. There are unconfirmed reports that he (the Coroner) now regrets that he did not do so. It is our view that if the Coroner is not able at this late stage to reverse his decision, a fresh inquest should be ordered.
Yours faithfully
C Stephen Frost BSc MB ChB
Christopher Burns-Cox MD FRCP
David Halpin, FRCS
Fresh doubts were raised over the suicide of Dr David Kelly after it emerged that no fingerprints were found on the knife he supposedly used to kill himself. The Hutton Inquiry into the death of the Ministry of Defence weapons expert ruled that he slashed one of his wrists with a blunt garden knife and took an overdose of pills.
"The insurance industry uses scientific tables to accurately predict death rates. Based on the 1997 CSO Mortality Tables, the odds that all of these men could collectively die during a 30 month period is a staggering 14,000,000,000:1
US investigators searching for the source of the East Coast anthrax attacks are increasingly entertaining the theory that the culprit is a former member of the US biological weapons programme.
The New Yorker's excellent piece published on 15 January on Basson's trial covered 18-pages. It is a veritable collector's item. In it, William Finnegan, reported the evidence led in court thus far:
"There [have been] revelations of research into a race-specific bacterial weapon; a project to find ways to sterilise South Africa's black population; a discussion of deliberate spreading of cholera through the water supply; large-scale production of dangerous drugs; the fatal poisoning of anti-apartheid leaders, captured guerrillas, and suspected security risks; even a plot to slip thallium - a toxic heavy metal that can permanently impair brain function - into Nelson Mandela's medication before his release from prison in 1990.
Basson himself has admitted in court that his foreign contacts did not know about his SADF connections. "At times, he was a medical researcher - that worked well enough, in 1984, to persuade the Centres for Disease Control, in Atlanta [USA], to send eight shipments of Ebola, Marburg and Rift Valley viruses to South Africa (and, thus, to Roodeplaat)", according to Tom Mangold in his book, Plague Wars.
Basson himself is quoted by The New Yorker as having modelled Operation Coast on the American chemical weapons programme, which he first managed to penetrate in the early 1980s.
"He also had great success, by his own (and his military superiors') account, penetrating the [chemical and biological warfare] programmes of Britain and the former Soviet Union". "He attended international conferences of forensic toxicologists in Western Europe and aerospace medical officers in the US; befriended key scientists, military men and programme administrators, particularly those who seemed interested in his battlefield tales of fighting communism on the frontline in Southern Africa". "[He] claims to have gained entrance to world-renowned facilities such as Fort Detrick in Maryland [USA], or Porton Down [UK]; and energetically expanded his work as he went along."
Originally posted by retzius
Serious guys, lets think about this..
What situation could possibly exist, where those in power (a.k.a. the men in high castles as I like to call them) would be trying to warn us, but couldnt say it directly?
I mean, they are the ones in power right? What could they possibly fear or how could their hands be tied to where they are trying to leak info to the press but cant say it outright?
Originally posted by retzius
Serious guys, lets think about this..
What situation could possibly exist, where those in power (a.k.a. the men in high castles as I like to call them) would be trying to warn us, but couldnt say it directly?
I mean, they are the ones in power right? What could they possibly fear or how could their hands be tied to where they are trying to leak info to the press but cant say it outright?
I find that very strange..
Ret