Quote:(it is easier to fake a suicide with an alleged drug addict than it is with someone like, say, David Kelly)

When Rupert Murdoch appeared before the parliamentary committee on 19 July 2011, there were ten questions the MPs could have asked, but did not, about the relationship he had with Tony Blair during the run up to the Iraq war, when Murdoch was, according to Blair's former press officer Lance Price, "the third most powerful figure in the Labour government" -- after Blair himself and Gordon Brown.

1. In 2002-3 all of your 127 newspapers around the world, with a combined circulation of 40 million a week, supported the Iraq war. We now know you were often in direct contact with the then prime minister Tony Blair, who you said at the time was "extraordinarily courageous and strong" and who had "shown great guts" in planning the war on Iraq. How much coordination was there between Downing Street and News International on the media presentation of what was widely regarded as an illegal war?
   
2. You said when interviewed in the run up to the war that Iraq's oil was central to the rationale for overthrowing Saddam Hussein: "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." Tony Blair always insisted in public that Iraq's oil played no part in the decision to attack Iraq. To what extent did he agree with you in private that getting control of the world's second biggest oil reserves was at the heart of the war aims?
   
3. All of your newspapers used Tony Blair's "dodgy dossier" of September 2002 to try and generate a war fever with the bogus claim that -- in the words of The Sun headline -- "BRITS 45 MINUTES FROM DOOM". The hand of Alistair Campbell, Blair's press officer, is widely regarded as having been responsible for the dossier's fabrications. There was no coverage in the Sun or the rest of News International's outlets, when it was revealed that some of this dossier, which was supposed to present a cast iron case for attacking Iraq, was drawn from a 12-year old thesis, published on the internet by a PhD student. Was this because you and Blair made a pact that News International would be relentless in promoting the war, even if this meant using lies and distortion?
   
4. You spoke to Tony Blair by telephone on 11 March 2003, after the announcement by the then French prime minister Jacques Chirac that France would veto a second United Nations resolution sanctioning war against Iraq. Blair was banking on this resolution to help sell a war that was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the British public. The next day, the Sun wrote, "Like a cheap tart who puts price before principle, money before honour, Jacques Chirac struts the streets of shame. The French President's vow to veto the second resolution at the United Nations - whatever it says - puts him right in the gutter." To what extent did your conversation with Blair influence the co-ordinated attack on Chirac across all of your newspapers?
   
5. You spoke again with Blair on 13 March 2003. The next day, the Sun intensified its vitriolic abuse of Chirac: "Charlatan Jacques Chirac is basking in cheap applause for his 'Save Saddam' campaign - but his treachery will cost his people dear. This grandstanding egomaniac has inflicted irreparable damage on some of the most important yet fragile structures of international order." Did your conversation with Tony Blair reveal that the "grandstanding egomaniac" and "damage to the structures of international order" may have been more appropriately applied to him rather than to Chirac?
   
6. Your third phone call with Tony Blair within nine days took place on 19 March 2003, the day before the Iraq war started. What was it about the relationship you had with Tony Blair that made him feel it was appropriate to take a phone call from a newspaper proprietor just hours prior to the most momentous decision a prime minister can make: ordering the country's armed forces to war?
   
7. When the United Nations inspectors under Hans Blix could find no evidence of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, the coverage in your newspapers bordered on hysteria -- "HE'S GOT 'EM. LET'S GET HIM" screamed the Sun headline. When it was later shown beyond dispute that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq never existed, did you not feel that News International should have issued an apology for promoting a lie to justify an illegal war?
   
8. You spoke to Tony Blair on January 29, 2004. This was the day after the Sun leaked extracts from the Hutton Report into the death of government scientist David Kelly, who had been hounded to suicide by Alistair Campbell and the Blair spin machine. Kelly had been revealed -- almost certainly by a leak from Blair's office -- as the source of the BBC report that said the case for war had been "sexed up" in the "dodgy dossier". The Hutton Report, since thoroughly discredited as a whitewash, said Blair and Campbell were -- in the Sun's words -- "completely cleared of criticism". No such fate for the chairman of the BBC Greg Dyke and chairman of the BBC governors Gavyn Davies, both of whom resigned, as Blair, Campbell and your newspapers took the opportunity to savage the BBC for broadcasting the "sexed up" claim. When you spoke to Tony Blair on 29 January, were you both gloating over a spin job well done through the leaking of the Hutton report to the Sun, arranged we must assume between Alistair Campbell and Rebekah Wade (now Brooks), who was then editor of the paper?
   
9. You are renowned for putting the interests and the profits of your media empire above all other considerations. What payoff did News International get from Tony Blair for the unqualified support it gave for his illegal war in Iraq?
   
10. Over one million people were killed in Iraq. Another four million were made refugees by the war. The country's infrastructure was so devastated that even today, electricity is rationed for many Iraqis, many still do not have access to clean drinking water or a functioning sewage system, and the health service, which was once the most advanced in the region, now struggles to provide a decent level of care. I79 British soldiers were killed and hundreds more suffered life changing injuries. As a direct result of the war, Britain suffered terrorist atrocities on 7 July 2005, in which 52 people were killed. Does your conscience ever regret the key part that you and your newspapers played in promoting an illegal war which has brought such death and destruction to the Iraqi people, unbearable bereavement to the families of British soldiers sent to kill and be killed for a lie, and increased insecurity, from the threat of terrorist attack, to the people of Britain?
    

Quote:N.B - as I have reason to believe the Murdoch money and impetus came from Shackley and Co. via either Nugan-Hand black drug money and/or Philippine/Japanese Gold in the hands of same, it should be no surprise that not only doing the propaganda work of that 'Cabal' they were inured with using their methodology

Quote:Phone hacking: Met police to investigate mobile tracking claims

Whistleblower Sean Hoare claimed the News of the World would pay officers to illegally procure phone-tracking data

Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 12.52 BST

Scotland Yard has been asked to inspect thousands of files that could reveal whether its officers unlawfully procured mobile phone-tracking data for News of the World reporters.

There were half a million requests by public authorities for communications data in the UK last year of which almost 144,000 were demands for "traffic" data, which includes location.

A Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) member has asked the force to investigate allegations that News of the World reporters were able to purchase this data from police for £300 per request.

The claims were made by Sean Hoare, the News of the World whistleblower, days before he was found dead at his home on Monday. His disclosure about the purchase of illicit location data was first made to the New York Times, which said the practice was confirmed by a second source at the tabloid. Police have said Hoare's death was not suspicious.

Mobile phone location data, which is highly regulated, would give tabloid reporters access to a method of almost total surveillance, arguably even more intrusive than hacking into phone messages.

Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the MPA, has written to the commissioner requesting an audit of all cases where the Met obtained tracking data from mobile phone companies.

She has also asked the commissioner to guarantee that anyone with reason to suspect a tabloid may have gleaned their whereabouts from their mobile phone signal will have their case looked into.

Two police surveillance sources with knowledge of the system said location data was routinely used by police. Both said any corrupt purchase of information would require a fabricated request under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) and therefore the knowledge of a senior officer.

The Met and other forces have central databases where they record Ripa authorisations for audits by the interception of communications commissioner. Police are also compelled to keep Ripa authorisations files under the same rules that compel them to keep evidence connected to criminal investigations, which in some cases can mean paperwork is stored for decades.

Records are also kept by mobile phone providers, with at least one company maintaining an "indefinite" database of Ripa requests since 2009.

This detailed audit trail contrasts with the paucity of evidence in cases of phone hacking, due to the fact that records of phone activity are generally destroyed after 12 months.

The New York Times first reported that the News of the World may have had access to phone-tracking data last week, days before Hoare's death.

It said Hoare, a reporter who was sacked from the News International title in 2005, alleged that his editor Greg Miskiw could locate information about a person's precise whereabouts via their mobile phone number.

Hoare claimed that Miskiw had once helped him locate a person in Scotland, and said the information came from "the Old Bill".

The following day he told the Guardian that reporters would ask a news desk executive to obtain the location of a target: "Within 15 to 30 minutes someone on the news desk would come back and say: 'Right, that's where they are.'"

He added: "You would just go to the news desk and they would come back to you. You don't ask any questions. You would consider it a job done."

Hoare made no reference to which police force may have sold the data, although the Metropolitan police are currently investigating evidence that corrupt officers from within its ranks were selling information to the News of the World.

Mobile phone companies can provide police with real-time location information about the whereabouts of suspects or missing people at 15-minute intervals. More commonly, police request a "cell site dump", which gives a complete historical record of the whereabouts of person's mobile phone.

There are two ways the data is obtained. When a phone is used for a call or SMS message, details of its location are logged. Alternatively so-called "pinging" can be used when a phone is not in use, by sending the device signals and triangulating the results from cellphone masts. The level of accuracy ranges from a few hundred metres to around two kilometres, depending on proximity to the masts.

Mark Lewis, a solicitor who represents phone-hacking victims, said: "I have sources that I can't reveal who tell me they could do it [obtain the data]." He said he had clients who suspected they had been tracked: "One or two were very suspicious about how they had been found simply because they were where they were not supposed to be."

If police want to monitor the contents of emails or calls to combat terrorism or serious crime they require a warrant from the home secretary.

Far more common however is the interception of communications data, which relates to the "who, where and when" of messages or calls. There is a complex framework through which the data is channelled from phone companies to police.

Phone companies provide data to "police liaison units" funded by the Home Office which contain a handful of people with maximum security clearance to deal with incoming requests.

Police in turn have special points of contact (Spocs), who liaise with the mobile phone companies and process the requests.

They are trained and accredited by the National Policing Improvement Agency and given unique pin numbers. There are almost 600 accredited Spocs in police forces on a nationwide register maintained by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Under Ripa, these gatekeepers require detailed justifications from a senior officer to request phone information as part of an investigation, in a process that can take up to ten days. In emergencies, senior police can request the information orally, but paperwork is retrospectively filed centrally.

Anyone who suspects their phone was inappropriately tracked is able request details from police or their phone provider under the Data Protection Act.

Quote:James Murdoch 'mistaken' in select committee evidence, say Myler and Crone

Paper's ex-editor and head of legal challenge News Corp executive's statement to MPs at phone-hacking hearing

Lisa O'Carroll guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.02 BST

James Murdoch has been accused of giving incorrect information to the parliamentary select committee hearing on phone hacking about a six-figure out-of-court settlement News International made with footballers' union boss Gordon Taylor.

In a brief but potentially highly damaging broadside, two former News of the World senior executives claimed the evidence he gave in relation to an out-of-court settlement to Taylor was "mistaken".

Colin Myler, editor of the paper until it was closed two weeks ago, and Tom Crone, the paper's former head of legal affairs who left News International last week, issued a two-paragraph statement late on Thursday challenging Murdoch's version of events in 2008.

In their statement, Myler and Crone said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's culture, media, select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.

"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

Murdoch, the News Corp deputy chief operating officer, is standing by his version of events, fuelling the prospect of another war of words over what exactly went on within News International when evidence of alleged widespread phone-hacking came to light. News International's parent company, News Corporation, said: "James Murdoch stands by his testimony to the select committee."

The statement came as something of a bombshell to the culture, sport and media select committee, which is now expected to seek an explanation from Murdoch.

Committee chairman John Whittingdale told the Guardian: "We as a committee regarded the 'for Neville' email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify."

Earlier month, Murdoch acknowledged he was wrong to settle the Taylor suit, saying he did not "have a complete picture of the case" at the time.

He repeated this line on Tuesday before the culture select committee, when he was asked by Labour MP Tom Watson: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"

To this James Murdoch answered: "No, I was not aware of that at the time."

The "for Neville" email refers to an alleged News of the World reporter's email to the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking debacle. The reporter was sending a transcript of Taylor's voicemails and marked the email "for Neville", believed to be the News of the World's former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck.

The existence of the email was uncovered by the Guardian in 2009 and represented a challenge to News International's then defence that the phone hacking was the work of one "rogue reporter", former royal reporter Clive Goodman.

It is also thought to have contributed to the decision by News International to sign off on a £700,000 settlement with Taylor, after he threatened to sue the newspaper for breach of privacy.

Quote:Andy Coulson's limited security clearance at No 10 'breathtaking'

Tony Blair's deputy political spokesman says it would have been extremely difficult to operate with Coulson's clearance level

Robert Booth, Patrick Wintour and James Ball guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.20 BST

It was the £140,000-a-year job that placed Andy Coulson at the heart of British power. But the former News of the World editor's predecessors as prime ministerial spin doctor were stumped as to how he could have done the job with only limited security clearance befitting a far more junior civil servant.

As the Cabinet Office faced growing pressure to explain why Coulson had not been cleared to the same security level as other recent Downing Street advisers, former No 10 staff told how they could not have operated on issues ranging from Afghanistan to the economy without the rigorous "developed vetting" process they underwent. This was aimed at uncovering lies and anything that could make an official susceptible to blackmail.

Lance Price, Tony Blair's former deputy political spokesman, said Coulson's lower level of security clearance would have made it almost impossible to advise on issues including Nato,European security, Afghanistan, the terror threat to the UK and the situation in Northern Ireland.

"I find it breathtaking that the director of communications would have anything less than the full level of security, because in that kind of job you have to be able to see and assess just about everything that passed the prime minister's desk in terms of communications strategy and how it might impact," Price said.

"I would see papers relating to negotiations in Northern Ireland which were pretty sensitive, I attended private meetings with Tony Blair in Washington with Bill Clinton and the secretary of state for defence. The implication of him not having the highest level of vetting is that there would have been quite a lot of papers he wouldn't have been able to see. Even in my work, it would have been extremely difficult to have done the job properly and I was in a less senior position than Coulson."

Alastair Campbell, Blair's former press secretary, said it was "quite odd" that Coulson was not vetted at a higher level, explaining how he was only able to read some of the most sensitive material passing through No 10 because of rigorous vetting that Coulson did not undertake.

"Essentially it was understood that Jonathan Powell [Blair's chief of staff] and I, in addition to other senior civil servants, were able to attend any meeting and see any papers that went to the prime minister. It is very hard to see how you could do the press and strategy job, particularly on foreign affairs, without being fully in the picture. You had to be trusted with all the information and then know how much you were entitled to divulge.

"For example, I don't see how Coulson could have attended Cameron's meeting with President Obama in Washington in 2010, when they discussed Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the economy, without developed vetting. A lot of the material about the economy, one of the biggest issues of the day, also required developed vetting."

Coulson was cleared to "security check" level, a standard that grants regular access to material classified as secret, but only "occasional, controlled access" to top-secret documents. Roles involving unsupervised access to top-secret material require higher-level developed vetting, according to official guidance. It involves an extra questionnaire, criminal record, security services and credit reference checks, and an extended, typically three-hour interview, plus reference checks by phone or in person.

"We have to look at your loyalty, honesty and reliability, and whether you could be particularly vulnerable to bribery or blackmail," the guidance states. "We will question you about your wider family background (relationships and influences), past experiences (if any) of drug taking, financial affairs, general political views (though not which party you support), hobbies, foreign travel and so on."

A senior former Downing Street official said: "The grilling you receive is intense, highly detailed and incredibly personal for example, going through a very long list of sexual practices and being asked what you had and hadn't done. Answer yes to any one of them and you'd be required to give full details: when, with whom, how recently, and so on.

"If one incident stands out on your employment or financial or family record, you could spend up to an hour under intense scrutiny about that one thing. They then go and interview at least one of your closest friends to see if their answers tally up with yours. It's impossible to 'prep' your friends for their interviews because you can't remember everything you said. Your only option is to tell the complete truth to the interviewer and tell your friends to do the same."

John McTernan, Blair's former political secretary, said that when he was subject to developed vetting, investigators asked his friend: "Have you seen Mr McTernan drunk? How do you think he manages his money? Does he gamble? And when he's drunk, what's he like with his children?"

McTernan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Did they really not probe the possibility that Coulson's past might impact on his proposed role? It seems so unlikely. Did the PM, or his team, do no due diligence on Coulson?"

Vetting levels
Strap' classification

Used for particularly sensitive information, and is sub-divided into three levels of access: documents have a cover sheet that must be signed each time they are accessed.


Developed vetting (DV)

Required for any officials with routine or unsupervised access to top-secret material. To receive this level of clearance, applicants must complete a 53-page assessment form. That is then verified with a three-hour interview, and references are cross-checked. The process can be expedited to a few weeks, but can take up to six months.


Security check (SC)

Grants routine access to secret material, but only occasional supervised access to top-secret documents. Applicants fill out a 29-page form and are subject to security and credit reference checks. The process typically takes just a few weeks, but can be completed faster.


Counter-terrorism check (CTC)

Basic security check for people in close proximity to public figures, or with access to low-level sensitive information. Applicants have their criminal records and other security information checked.