JAXXE: problem je, ze illuminati se nezastavi pred nicim a obycejnym lidem se to vzdycky zvladne nejak vysvetlit.

David Kelly’s murder – Is it a punishment or a warning?

Is it a mafia-like execution to hide the truth?

ONDON: Murder of Dr. David Kelly, one of the members of UN’s Weapons Inspection team in Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction allegedly manufactured and piled up by the Saddam government, has left no doubt that to which extent the group of criminal-minded individuals responsible for a new conflict in the Middle East could go to serve its vested interests.

Although all the government agencies in UK and the media in United States is trying to portray this seemingly cold blooded murder as a “suspicious suicide”, the circumstances led to Dr. Kelly’s disappearance and death clearly indicate that who should be held responsible for silencing a voice for sanity and truth.

UN inspectors were under grave threat before the war. Before the war on Iraq, the US administration, acting like mafia gangsters, used all fair and foul tactics to justify a war on Iraq to appease some specific lobbies. Top US officials were hurling threats to the UN inspectors and were pressurizing them to declare that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The diplomats representing the members of the Security Council were being threatened for dire consequences if their countries did not vote for a war resolution. It was not diplomacy. It was not statesmanship. It was abuse of power and authority for which both George W. Bush and Tony Blair are personally responsible.

Now when Blair faced tough criticism because of a BBC’s report that he intentionally exaggerated the facts and added fiction to his analyses to sell the war plans to the people of Britain, an inspector is killed. Is it the punishment to speak to the media and disclose what the truth was? Or it is a warning to other inspectors and government officials that they could be murdered if they spoke truth.

The British Broadcasting Corp. has admitted that scientist David Kelly was its main source for a story about the British government\'s dossier on Iraqi weapons.

\"Over the past few weeks we have been at pains to protect Dr. Kelly being identified as the source of these reports,\" the BBC said in a statement released Sunday.

\"We clearly owed him a duty of confidentiality. Following his death, we now believe, in order to end the continuing speculation, it is important to release this information as swiftly as possible.\"

The government and the BBC have been in a war of words over the issue for weeks. As the story has dragged on, the popularity of both Blair and his government have declined.


Monday, July 21, 2003

http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.aspx?ID=4210

David Kelly faced the wrath of the Saddam regime as a weapons inspector after the 1991 Gulf War. He faced something similar from Russian officials during an investigation there - the guy could stand his ground. Shortly before he left on his \"suicide walk\" he emailed colleagues with \"combative\" comments about the pressure he was under from \"many dark actors playing games\". He said he hoped it would all blow over and he could get back to Baghdad and get on with the work that really mattered. When he left his home, his wife, Janice, was unconcerned. Although she knew her 59-year-old husband was deeply upset, his mental state did not seem to be too down. Walking was a hobby and he often disappeared for up to two or three hours. He had family matters to look forward to like the marriage of one of his daughters in October. He was devoted to his wife and family and he did not show signs of someone who was about to kill himself. But he was later found dead, the police say, in an isolated wood with his wrist slashed with a pen knife. There was no goodbye to his wife and family, nothing
.
Does this make sense to you? Me neither.

Des Moines, IA -- Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean delivered these remarks on July 18th at a press conference in Des Moines, Iowa:

As the Niger uranium story has unfolded, what has become increasingly obvious is that there are many questions that must be answered about the way the Bush Administration led us to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting.

We must be clear: decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush\'s leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

There has been much discussion about the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. Today I call on the President to answer these sixteen questions to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to help ensure that the United States can retain its credibility as a moral force in the world.



1.
Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech

2.
Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President\'s October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

3.
Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence \"subsequent\" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

4.
Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

5.
Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were \"only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,\" when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

6.
Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war including the supposed link to al-Qaeda while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

7.
Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld\'s assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a \"meaningful connection\" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

8.
Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have \"irrefutable evidence\" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

9.
Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, \"Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.\" (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

10.
Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, \"We know where they are. They\'re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.\" (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

11.
Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

12.
Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.

13.
Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

14.
Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.

15.
Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, \"For those who say we haven\'t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they\'re wrong. We found them.\" (The Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)

16.
Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)


If you can\'t or won\'t answer these 16 questions, Mr. President, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether your decision to go to war was sound and just.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6998&news_iv_ctrl=1301

As the US, EU, and other Western nations increase pressure on Iran to allow weapons inspectors spontaneous access to nuclear sites, some analysts have pointed out the arrogance of a stance which they say is hypocritical. While the reported International Atomic Energy Agency discovery last week of enriched uranium at an undisclosed site in Iran has been viewed with alarm, most nations are ignoring the regional presence of a nuclear-armed state which has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty at all; Israel. Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington delves deeper into the double standard in this interview with RN\'s Josh Maiyo:

\"We don\'t know any of the details of what has been found [in Iran]. What we do know is whatever it was, it was traces. It was not a functioning weapons system, it was not something about to become a weapon. The danger, of course, is that the Bush administration has shown itself willing to use exaggerated or even outright false, forged, evidence to bolster their claim. Rather than using intelligence information to come to a decision, they make a decision that is ideologically driven, and based on that decision they go and find evidence, whether it\'s true or not, and claim it as a way of bolstering their position. We need to be very cautious that they not be allowed to repeat that around Iran.\"

...

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/ira030722.html

Australia primed to be yanked into US

By Tess Livingstone
July 16, 2003

AUSTRALIA has been urged to seriously consider becoming the 51st state of the US.

And American-born historian Dr David Mosler told a Brisbane audience yesterday there was a 20 per cent chance of Australia becoming an American state in the next 50 years.

The visiting research fellow at Adelaide University, who has lived in Australia since 1971, said the chances would increase significantly in the event of a major Al-Qaeda attack on Australia or if Indonesia became a fundamentalist Islamic republic.

Dr Mosler told the 2003 Fulbright Symposium at Griffith University yesterday that he decided Australia was \"an unreformable society\" after the loss of the 1999 republic referendum.

Australians, he said, had no flag of their own; a weak sense of nationhood; no prime minister in the Lodge, with John Howard living in Sydney; no national bushfire or water plans, even with the worst drought in history; and no \"broad knowledge of nation in public discourse or popular culture\". Australians had replaced \"Empire with Yanks\" after 1942, and the country retained a \"quasi-colonial status\".


He said Australian governments, attuned to the British, Americans, Japanese and global capital markets, had \"sold off the farm\" - electricity, water, ports, airports, resources - while Australians weren\'t offended by such \"treasonous behaviour\".

He said Australia\'s passage to American statehood would not be difficult under its Constitution.

He listed the advantages of American statehood for Australia as:

* Access to the world\'s best higher education system.

* Large savings on embassies.

* Being part of the world\'s most effective defence system.

* Merger with the world\'s strongest currency.

* Being part of the world\'s biggest economy.

* A constitution bringing a republic and a Bill of Rights.

* Fielding teams in the US national basketball, baseball and gridiron competitions.


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6760977%5E421,00.html

High-Ranking Officials Admit 9/11 Could\'ve Been Prevented

\"They don\'t have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn\'t do anything to prevent it.\"

— Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11


\"I don\'t believe any longer that it\'s a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn\'t act on it.\"

— Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11


\"There were lots of warnings.\"

— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

\"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking].\"

— Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11



\"I cannot say for sure that there wasn\'t a possibility we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers.\"

— FBI Director Robert Mueller



\"As of September 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on September 11th.\"

— Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff (described by the Associated Press as \"the Bush administration\'s top anti-terrorism prosecutor\")

\"Had one human being or a common group of human beings sat down with all that information, we could have gotten to the hijackers before they flew those four airplanes either into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or the ground of Pennsylvania.\"

— Senator Bob Graham, then Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; Democratic co-chairman of the joint intelligence panel that investigated 9/11


\"If you put all those pieces together, I don\'t say you could have prevented September 11th, but there might have been some warning, had it been handled properly.\"

— Vice President Dick Cheney



Sources

Cheney: Unsigned. \"Cheney Blasts September 11 Critics.\" CNN, 23 May 2002.

Chertoff: Parry, Wayne. \"Official: Many Signs Pointed to 9/11.\" Associated Press, 1 June 2002.

Goss: Priest, Dana, and Juliet Eilperin. \"\'We Should Have\' Known, Goss Says of 9/11.\" Washington Post, 12 June 2002: A12.

Graham: Miller, Greg. \"Congress Fattens Its Dossier on Sept. 11 Intelligence Errors.\" Los Angeles Times, 6 June 2002.

Mueller: Lewis, Neil A. \"F.B.I. Chief Admits 9/11 Might Have Been Detectable.\" New York Times, 30 May 2002.

Rumsfeld: \"Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine.\" Defense Department Website, 12 Oct 2001.

Shelby: Coile, Zachary. \"Another Dot That Didn\'t Get Connected.\" San Francisco Chronicle, 3 June 2002.

Specter: Sisk, Richard. \"FBI, CIA Brass in a Sling.\" Daily News (New York), 6 June 2002.




>>> The above is based on the following excerpt from my 30-page article, \"Pieces of the 9/11 Puzzle,\" in the anthology I edited, Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies (The Disinformation Company, 2003) [info here].

Top Officials Admit 9/11 Was Preventable

After reading about all of these warnings, if you\'re thinking that 9/11 could\'ve been prevented, you\'re not alone. A lot of top US officials feel the same way. Unfortunately, their remarks appear in isolated instances, quickly surfacing and fading away. They\'re gathered here for the first time.

As noted in my article \"September 11, 2001: No Surprise,\" when Parade magazine asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why the US was caught so flat-footed, without any warnings, he amazingly replied: \"There were lots of warnings.\"[109]

It took Robert Mueller eight months to admit it--and then he said it in a confusing way--but even the head G-man had to come clean. The New York Times informs us:

The director of the F.B.I., Robert S. Mueller III, acknowledged today for the first time that the attacks of Sept. 11 might have been preventable if officials in his agency had responded differently to all the pieces of information that were available.

\"I cannot say for sure that there wasn\'t a possibility we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers,\" Mr. Mueller told reporters after listing several missed opportunities by officials to discern a pattern of terrorist planning before Sept. 11.

He also said that while there was no specific warning, \"that doesn\'t mean that there weren\'t red flags out there, that there weren\'t dots that should have been connected to the extent possible.\" [110]

At a commencement speech at Seton Hall Law School, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff--described by the Associated Press as \"the Bush administration\'s top anti-terrorism prosecutor\"--said: \"As of Sept. 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on Sept. 11th.\" [111]

Then we have this choice quote from Senator Bob Graham, who at the time was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the co-chairman of the joint panel investigating 9/11:

Had one human being or a common group of human beings sat down with all that information, we could have gotten to the hijackers before they flew those four airplanes either into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or the ground of Pennsylvania. [112]

But Graham is a Democrat [now running for President], so this must be a politically-motivated statement to make the Bush Administration look bad, right? Then how to explain the remarks of the Republican co-chairman of the joint panel, Representative Porter J. Goss? The Congressman is also Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He said:

Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]. [113]

For a similar opinion, we turn to Senator Richard Shelby, who was the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee: \"They don\'t have any excuse because the information was in their lap and they didn\'t do anything to prevent it.\" [114]

Senator Arlen Specter was another Republican on the joint committee. After it had held one of its numerous closed-door sessions, Specter told CBS News:

I don\'t believe any longer that it\'s a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn\'t act on it. [115]

Even Vice President Dick Cheney got in on the act, telling interviewer Larry King:

If you put all those pieces together, I don\'t say you could have prevented September 11th, but there might have been some warning, had it been handled properly. [116]

Of course, this Clintonian mincing of words begs the question: If there could\'ve been \"some warning,\" why couldn\'t the attacks have been \"prevented\"? But we can forgive Cheney for this non sequitur; he undoubtedly admitted more than he meant to during the live interview.

So if anyone gives you a hard time for believing that the government knew enough to have prevented the attacks, just tell them that you\'re in powerful company. The Secretary of Defense, the Director of the FBI, the Assistant Attorney General, one Democratic Senator, two Republican Senators, one Republican Representative, and the Vice President feel that way, too.

Endnotes

109. \"Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine.\" Defense Department Website, 12 Oct 2001.

110. Lewis, Neil A. \"F.B.I. Chief Admits 9/11 Might Have Been Detectable.\" New York Times, 30 May 2002.

111. Parry, Wayne. \"Official: Many Signs Pointed to 9/11.\" Associated Press, 1 June 2002.

112. Miller, Greg. \"Congress Fattens Its Dossier on Sept. 11 Intelligence Errors.\" Los Angeles Times, 6 June 2002.

113. Priest, Dana, and Juliet Eilperin. \"\'We Should Have\' Known, Goss Says of 9/11.\" Washington Post, 12 June 2002: A12.

114. Coile, Zachary. \"Another Dot That Didn\'t Get Connected.\" San Francisco Chronicle, 3 June 2002.

115. Sisk, Richard. \"FBI, CIA Brass in a Sling.\" Daily News (New York), 6 June 2002.

116. Unsigned. \"Cheney Blasts September 11 Critics.\" CNN, 23 May 2002.


excerpt copyright 2003 Russ Kick

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-preventable.htm

Torture testimony \'acceptable\'

Expert tells terror appeal hearing that MI5 would use information obtained under duress in court

Audrey Gillan
Tuesday July 22, 2003
The Guardian

An MI5 expert in terrorism has admitted that the security service would use information extracted from tortured prisoners as evidence in court.

The secret witness told a panel of judges that in spite of knowing that a victim had been tortured or had come from a country where the regime sanctioned torture, she would still consider their testimony to be relevant to security service investigations.

The admissions will add to growing public concern over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who were questioned by the CIA and by MI5 officers. Critics claim that the government has condoned torture by the US in its attempts to garner evidence against people it suspects of having been involved in al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The implication of the testimony has shocked human rights campaigners, as well as lawyers and the families of those detained. Article three of the Human Rights Act says \"no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\".

Malcolm Smart, director of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, criticised the government for being party to torture, \"either directly or by proxy\".

He said: \"Information obtained under torture is cheap and dirty information. British intelligence should regard it with the deepest suspicion. It is well-established that such information is not reliable. International law requires that courts reject evidence gathered by torture as inadmissible. If the intelligence services are cooperating in this way then they are in effect condoning, even encouraging, the torturers.\"

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,1003351,00.html

Peres Raises \'World Capital\' Solution for Jerusalem

Tue July 22, 2003 06:41 AM ET

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Shimon Peres, the head of Israel\'s opposition Labor Party, has suggested resolving Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem by putting its holy sites under U.N. stewardship, a spokesman said Tuesday.

His plan calls for declaring a holy area of sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem\'s old walled city as a \"world capital,\" with the U.N. Secretary-General serving as mayor, Peres\' spokesman Yoram Dori told Reuters.

Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, including the Arab eastern part captured in the 1967 Middle East War and annexed in a move that is not recognized internationally. Palestinians want to make East Jerusalem capital of the state they hope to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under a U.S.-backed peace plan.

Peres raised the idea in a meeting with visiting Russian diplomats-in-training when they asked how he envisaged a solution to conflicting Israeli-Palestinian claims to the city, Dori said.

Israel has previously rejected proposals raised by the Vatican to internationalize Jerusalem.

Peres, a former prime minister and an architect of interim peace deals with the Palestinians, has not raised the proposal with Israeli or Palestinian leaders, Dori said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KJVZPXOY1OIMWCRBAELCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=3131593

Iraqi weapons \'now a secondary issue\'

The US Deputy Defence Secretary says finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is now a secondary issue.

The existence of such weapons was cited by Washington and London as justification for going to war, but Paul Wolfowitz says he\'s no longer concerned about them.

In an interview on board a US air force jet returning from a five day tour of Iraq, Mr Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of US intelligence agencies.

\"I am not concerned about weapons of mass destruction,\" he said. \"I am concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn\'t come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction.\"

...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_802190.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

zadne novinky, ale uz to leze do mainstreamu

RFID: Tesco v Anglii špehuje kupující žiletek
http://www.zive.cz/Text/Ar.asp?ARI=111811

GPS tracking: Spoluzakladatel Apple vám najde ztraceného psa
http://www.zive.cz/Text/Ar.asp?ARI=111799

Pasy evropské unie budou mít elektronické čipy
http://www.zive.cz/Text/Ar.asp?ARI=111765

President Bush\'s \"Bring Them On\" Picture Album:

Real Blood, Real Pain, Real People. - WARNING - Pages contain images depicting the reality and horror of war.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm

ehm co by mel znamenat ten parohac co Bush ukazuje?

Bush: Sýrie a

Dr Kelly\'s Final Hours Did Not Indicate Suicide The Scoop Editor

Scoop.co.nz
7-21-3


In the 48 hours since the death of UK WMD scientist David Kelly several key pieces of evidence concerning his final hours and frame of mind have now come to light. These are extracted from key articles and linked below.

Notably they do not point to a seemingly suicidal or internally tortured end for the scientist who has taken to the grave the truth about his relationship with the UK PM\'s office and the alleged \"sexing up\" of Iraqi WMD intelligence.

In the wake of some reports that the death has been \"confirmed as suicide\" it is important for news consumers to realise that legally neither the police, nor the media, have any power to make such a determination.

The cause of death will ultimately be determined legally by a coroner\'s inquest and that will probably be several weeks if not months away.

It is also important to realise that while the evidence that has been released about the death is consistent with suicide, it is also consistent with a murder made to look like suicide.

Moreover the alleged method of suicide a self inflicted knife wound to the wrist is 1) a method of suicide extremely seldom used by men, and 2) a method of suicide that is seldom successful as it takes such a long time to die.

Finally it is worth repeating some remarks from WhatReallyHappened.com:

\"Why would he commit suicide NOW? And why try to commit suicide using the slowest method possible, out on the open, where he might be seen and stopped, as opposed to renting a motel room with a bed and bathtub? How could Kelly know that, once he was unconscious, a passer by might not spot him and call for an ambulance?\"

And on that point, given his importance to the UK Government at this time, and his role in the affair as an alleged leaker of sensitive information (he gave evidence only last Tuesday about the most significant intelligence scandal in recent memory) isn\'t it also just a little bit odd that Dr David Kelly wasn\'t under observation by the intelligence services?

Postscript: Since publication another report has come to our attention shedding light on the issue of whether or not Dr Kelly was under observation. <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1097399,00.html>Sky News reported (CLICK FOR LINK- See 5th To Last Para) , \"Mr Mangold also revealed Dr Kelly had been taken to a safe house but \'he hadn\'t liked that, he wanted to come home.\'\" Clearly someone considered that Dr Kelly was in danger of being attacked.

- The Scoop Editor

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00165.htm

A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL.

CDI demolishes structures with the kind of precision and planning usually associated with their creation. Each project is handled by a world-renowned team of experts drawing on backgrounds in environmental remediation, engineering, dismantling, traditional demolition, explosives, material handling and the latest technology to guarantee complete predictability.

Having imploded, worldwide, more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures than our competitors combined, Controlled Demolition, Inc. has the technical expertise and track record to take on projects of any magnitude.

This experience is used to select precisely the best equipment, materials, and methods for every project, and the best strategic communication plan to ensure acceptance by community groups and regulatory agencies. In an industry where experience is everything, CDI stands alone in its pioneering vision, innovative spirit, and decades of leadership.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2

*********************

CDI removed what was left of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. CDI was also involved with the World Trade Center \"clean up\" operation.

http://www.911-strike.com/demolition_explosive.htm

National Reconnaissance Office Website for Kids!?

The Web site for NRO, which is jointly operated by the CIA and Defense Department, was born out of a family day for the Virginia-based agency, according to NRO spokesman Art Haubold. The agency announced the Web site\'s presence late last year.

\"We thought it was something that could be fun, and there\'s some educational elements to it,\" said Haubold.

\"The realities of today are different than when NRO was shrouded in a complete cloak of secrecy,\" said Haubold. \"One of the reasons we are doing this is we want today\'s youth to become interested in science and technology. This is one way we do some outreach to them.

\"Whether or not they end up working for NRO, its importance to get today\'s youth interested in the science and technology we need to continue United States pre-eminence in space,\" he added.

http://www.nrojr.gov/

***

doporucuju treba: stories/proud to be american

National Reconnaissance Office Website for Kids!?

The Web site for NRO, which is jointly operated by the CIA and Defense Department, was born out of a family day for the Virginia-based agency, according to NRO spokesman Art Haubold. The agency announced the Web site\'s presence late last year.

\"We thought it was something that could be fun, and there\'s some educational elements to it,\" said Haubold.

\"The realities of today are different than when NRO was shrouded in a complete cloak of secrecy,\" said Haubold. \"One of the reasons we are doing this is we want today\'s youth to become interested in science and technology. This is one way we do some outreach to them.

\"Whether or not they end up working for NRO, its importance to get today\'s youth interested in the science and technology we need to continue United States pre-eminence in space,\" he added.

http://www.nrojr.gov/

Tony Blair indicated yesterday that two of the British men being detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will still stand trial before a US military court because national security would be at risk if they were returned to Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1002269,00.html