Quote:The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," ....

Peter Presland Wrote:

Quote:The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," ....

...."exceptionally grave damage to the national security," eh?

Hmmmm

Studied ambiguity with that definite article methinks - begging the obvious question: "Whose national security?"

I reckon that's the NSA making it crystal clear - "as one friend to another you understand" - that it is definitely in the UK Establishment's best interests to remain friends.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It is certainly not referring to the 'security' or security of the free flow of information necessary in a democracy by the PUBLIC. This is all about the Power Elites maintaining a tight control on information and the Truths they hide behind the smokescreen and hall of mirrors they call [their] 'National Security'. The use of the term 'exceptionally' certainly leads one to posit they are shitting in their pants over the Snowden affair and revelations.

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It is certainly not referring to the 'security' or security of the free flow of information necessary in a democracy by the PUBLIC. This is all about the Power Elites maintaining a tight control on information and the Truths they hide behind the smokescreen and hall of mirrors they call [their] 'National Security'. The use of the term 'exceptionally' certainly leads one to posit they are shitting in their pants over the Snowden affair and revelations.

The article I quoted is from 1999 and can definitely not have foreseen the Snowden affair. But surely, the answer would be just the same today.

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:This is 1999 information I was not aware of:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/06/monarchy.freedomofinformation

Quote:Top secret files on Princess Diana and her closest associates are held by the United States national security agency - and that is official. The agency has told the Guardian that it is holding reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - under both top secret and secret categories. It revealed their existence after the Guardian filed a request under the US freedom of information act. The reports cannot be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security".
The documents on the dead princess seem to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her, and the agency goes out of its way to say that it did not compile any of the spy reports itself.
"The reports contain only references to Princess Diana acquired incidentally from intelligence gathering. It is neither NSA policy or practice to target British subjects in conducting our foreign intelligence mission. However, other countries could communicate about these subjects; therefore, this agency could acquire intelligence concerning British subjects," an agency statement said.
The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," the agency also says it needs to protect its sources.

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:The article I quoted is from 1999 and can definitely not have foreseen the Snowden affair. But surely, the answer would be just the same today.

Quote:Six months ago, the discovery of News of the World's revival of the Diana story stumbled upon no doubt by the MI-5 "anti-terrorism" program of system-wide telephone eavesdropping triggered the royal plot to crush Rupert Murdoch and bring the NewsCorp media group under the heel of official censorship. The near-future scenario is for non-family members to dilute the board of directors. It can be assumed that some of those new directors will be agents of the Crown.

In a classic case of media misdirection, Prince Charles took the brunt of suspicion with a stiff upper lip. In an informal chat over a pint of ale, a British detective told me that the police discount the possibility of the husband's role in the Paris event. His openness about the other woman and her lack of royalist pretensions indicate the since-tarred Crown Prince was being used as straw man to protect the actual suspect, a personage of higher rank.

What prompted News of the World to relaunch the Diana probe? Perhaps Coulson, at his new position in the Cameron government, made contact with a deep insider source, or possibly NoW chief editor Rebekah Brooke had received a packet of transcripts "tossed over the transom". Both have been silenced and kept out of public sight. The New York Times' main informant, the freewheeling gossip reporter Sean Hoare, was found dead a day before the parliamentary inquiry. With blood spilled and mouths gagged, the Diana case takes yet another turn into darkness.

The Royals have temporarily dodged the humiliation of the Queen's abdication and relegation of the throne in to Madame Tussard's Wax Museum, along the same aisle as the murderess of Mary Stuart. Yet rumors still abound about a terse few commands for an unthinkable act to save the royal family's honor at high table over a dish of veal and peas. As folk tales inform us, mother-in-laws can be cold-hearted.
Perhaps a media expose of royal misconduct is simply too un-British for the British.. In their hearts, the English secretly long for the tragedy to unfold in the tradition of Shakespeare, an excruciating drama through a tortuous labyrinth of family betrayal. A ghost stalks the palace, the crime is be expatiated, and so the reign must end. The audience waits nervously: Will one of the heirs assume the role of Hamlet to avenge his fallen parent? The lads face the existential choice: To Be or Not to Be? That is the question.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:Amazing interview and no doubt investigation and book! A must see video! Diana was murdered....that simple....this guy seems to have seen through all the fog of intel warriors! Bravo! :dancingman:

Quote:Metropolitan Police rule out SAS role in Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed deaths



Scotland Yard began a so-called 'scoping' exercise to assess the credibility of allegations that the couple were murdered by a member of British special forces

ROB WILLIAMS

Tuesday 17 December 2013

The Metropolitan Police has said there is no 'credible evidence' to suggest the SAS was involved in the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed in a Paris car crash.

Earlier this year Scotland Yard began a so-called 'scoping' exercise to assess the credibility of allegations that the couple were murdered by a member of British special forces.
The investigation began in August after claims, thought to have been made by the former parents-in-law of an ex-soldier and based on information that he had talked about in the past, came to light.
The central allegation was that members or former members of the SAS were involved in the circumstances leading to the deaths of the couple.
The 'scoping' exercise was carried out in order to assess the "relevance and credibility" of the information provided, and to decide whether it was sufficient to warrant a reopening of the criminal investigation.
Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi al Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul died as a result of injuries sustained in a car crash in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997.
Initially, blame for the accident was ascribed to the paparazzi photographers who were following the vehicle. However, a French judicial investigation later found that the crash was caused by Mr Paul, who had lost control of the vehicle while allegedly drunk.
The investigation claimed photographers were not near the hired black 1994 Mercedes-Benz S280 vehicle when it crashed.
The British hearing into the deaths of Diana and Dodi lasted more than 90 days, with evidence from around 250 witnesses.
The inquests concluded on April 7 2008, with a jury returning a verdict that the "People's Princess" and her boyfriend were unlawfully killed.
In a statement the Metropolitan Police said today: "This assessment included taking statements from a number of individuals and reviewing records. As part of the scoping officers were given unprecedented access to Special Forces Directorate records.
"Every reasonable line of inquiry was objectively pursued in order to fully evaluate any potential evidence.
"The final conclusion is that, whilst there is a possibility the alleged comments in relation to the SAS's involvement in the deaths may have been made, there is no credible evidence to support a theory that such claims had any basis in fact.
"Therefore the MPS are satisfied there is no evidential basis upon which to open any criminal investigation or to refer the matter back to HM Coroner."
Mohamed al Fayed, Dodi's father, said he was "disappointed" by the outcome and will continue his fight "to establish the truth that they were murdered", his solicitor, Simon McKay, said.
Mr McKay branded the "so-called scoping exercise" "the latest whitewash in a 16-year cover-up".
He added: "The Met should never have been given charge of the case as they had every incentive to return the result we now see. To have done anything else would have called into serious question their own Paget Report of 2007."
"The case of Soldier N should have been rigorously investigated by the Royal Military Police."
Mr McKay commented that the Paget Report "said the deaths were accidental, a judgment overruled by the jury at the inquests that said that Dodi and Diana had been unlawfully killed."
"Mr al Fayed will continue his fight to establish the truth that they were murdered and is convinced he will succeed in doing so."