Vetting proceedure for Prime Ministers and Presidents.

[Louise]

I was watching a video on google yesterday, it was Alex Jones's Terrorstorm.

It gave numerous examples of corrupt Goverments and presidents throughout history commiting horrible acts against it's own people and if those people happend to survive, theyd be threatened with imprisoment or death if they told the truth.

And i thought, wouldn't it be a VERY, VERY good idea to have a complete vetting proceedure for all future and potential Priime ministers and presidents.

It would completely look at their history and psycology as well.

This would act as a very good safeguard and protect the people from bad and corrupt leaders.

A lot of people have been killed due to corrupt leaders, something has got to be done and put in place to protect the people.

The people doing the vetting would also be able to remove a leader if he or she suddendly turns bad and replace him or her with someone more suitable.

By the way i'd also like to thank flamesong for those helpful links he gave me yesterday about freemasons.

[rodin]

Do they want the job?

Yes?

Well then they are unfit.

[Annie]

Good point, Rodin. You know what they say about politics, of course: it's like a sewer - all the turds rise to the top!

Politicians are already vetted in this country - by MI5. Most members of the current government have files held on them. They are not allowed to see their files, don't know what's on them, and are duly scared.

So are you surprised that a Labour government has given so many extra resources, powers and laws to the spies??

Regards

Annie

[Louise]

I don't know if MI5 has done such a good job with Tony Blair then if he is in the pocket of George W. Bush and his corrupt activities.

I wonder what they are going to do next and how many more innocent lives will be snuffed out as a result.

Belive me i feel it's only a matter of time if these corrupt people remain where they are.

And all those silly people in America (and iin the UK too) who won't wake up and see the truth as to whats going on may pay for their refusal to listern to us with their lives, are they prepared for that?.

I did here from somewhere (I can't remember where) talk about nuking Iran or something.

There were also some looneys who started saying that we should do this when Iran catured those British troops.

If they start throwing those things around the human race can kiss it's backside goodbye.

I think people vastly underestimate the destructive power of these weapons, in fact i estimate that it would only take about 2 or 3 to vapourise in a matter of seconds the entire population of the UK.

Still i guess the only consolation for the victims of such an attack is that it will be very quick and not even their bodys will remain.

But don't expect the corrupt leaders of that particular country to be patriotic and die with and for their country, no they'll be 400ft+ underground in a bunker while the rest of their people all burn.

Who's the coward now eh?, but i guess that they would respond by saying:

"Yeah but who's the smart one, who's going to die and who ain't?, Ha, Ha, Ha"

Sorry, i do apologise, i think i'd better stop, i'm getting carried away now, my blood is boiling right now, sorry.

It just makes me so angry that because of their position they can get away with doing things, but we all have to suffer because of it, it's wrong, totally wrong.

[karlos]

They are getting away with it for now.
But trust me the tide is turning.
It might not be long before China and Russia become richer and more powerful than the 'west'
Scotland may become independant.
Maybe even California might split from the USA.

CNN says one third of Americans believe 911 was an inside job.
Over 50% of New Yorkers think likewise.
80% of Brits believe Diana was murdered
Most people now accept that it is impossible for man to go to the moon today and certainly did not happen 48 years ago.

You can hide the truth but the truth will always come out

[rodin]

'The Great Game' promotes the illusion that countries are jostling for position in the world stage. All the world's a stage we're told, and it's true. IMO it is all window dressing to cover up the monopoly or power.

You are not a fully qualified 'conspiracy theorist' unless you are aware of the material covered by Bill Still in 'The Money Masters', whether you are investigating health, 911, religion, history. The money system is the primary tool of the conspirators, and it operates globally. The world has been monopolised, under cover of a variety of -isms. The henchmen of the monopoly evilite are national governments.

Which is why my first post stands.

regards

dB

[Louise]

I will now tell you what i think possibly may be the next step, since these evil people are capable of carrying out 9/11 they are capable of anything.

Recent concerns have been that Iran is using the enrichment of uranium to build a nuclear device.

The US administration could stage and use a small, low power nuclear device somewhere in america killing a huge number of people.

They could then blame this on Iran and say that they were right all along.

They could use this to justify a nuclear counterstrike or war.

This thought that they might do this is horrible, but taking into account 9/11 it could be a possibility or something that is already as i'm writing this in the planning stage.

I hope for a lot of peoples sakes that it is not.

And that i'm completely inaccurate and incorrect in what i have just typed above.

I hope..........

[Annie]

With that in mind, have a look at the thread about Operation Noble Resolve.

[Louise]

Hi Annie,

Thanks for your reply.

I realise that what i typed in my last post is really horrible, and if i upset anyone by this post i apologise, it was not ment to upset people but to forewarn people of what POSSIBLY could be coming.

As i said if people can be so evil as to plan and murder 3000 innocents, then i woudn't put ANYTHING past them.

If the current US administration is in the hands of maniacs, fanatical on global domination at any cost, even human lifes, then people should be warned of their capabilitys, it could well save a lot of people from death, but it might not only be the leaders of the US that are involved, leaders of other countrys might be in on it as well.

These people should be working to preserve and improve peoples lifes, not take it.

Where abouts is this thread "Operation Noble Resolve" that you refer to annie?, is it in this section?.

[kc]

I'd recomend reading "The Sum of all Fears" by Tom Clancy. Its a fictional account of terrorists setting off a low yield nuclear weapon in America and the governments response

[Gibson]

[Louise]

A very good question Gibson, thank you for asking it.

Only certain people are allowed to go on jury service for example, like people with no criminal record etc.

Maybe people like these could do the vetting, i was just trying to think of a way to protect the people from corruption at the highist level.

If the US goverment is corrupt along with it's associated organisations NONE of the american people are safe, in fact they are all in great danger.

Not to long ago i read on another web site that if the FBI wants you to shut up, they threaten to lock you up and use you for mind control experiments, hows that from an organisation thats supposed to SERVE and PROTECT the people.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is says accross the top of their badge, don't make me puke, INJUSTICE you mean, maybe someone spelt it wrong.

It makes a total mockery of their badge.

But what do you think Gibson?.

If such a system was in place, what group of people would you suggest we have to ensure that the PEOPLES (as a whole) best intrest is kept?.

[Gibson]

[Long Tooth]

[Gibson]

[Louise]

It looks like skull n' bones has a new member then.

The thing is, if these secret groups wern't up to something nasty, what have they got to be so secretive about?.

The mere fact that they are so closely guarded, tells me immediately that they are more than likely up to no good or they have something not to pleasant to hide.

If this was not the case then what have they got to be worried about, why all the secrecy if everythings proper and above board?.

And i even invite them to come out and prove us wrong in what i've written above.

The thing is with me, if i say something, then i am proven wrong, i will admit to people that i was wrong in my initial views on whatever it was, i'm not to embarrassed to admit that, indeed i feel that it shows that a person has good qualitys in them.

But it is not enough for someone just to tell me that i'm wrong (as they could be lieing), they have to prove it to me.

[Louise]

Of course i realise that on a personnal level, everyone has got something to hide and keep secret, we all have a private life, sex life, whatever.

But i'm talking about this organisation as a whole.

It's teachings and practices, are they honorable.

Do they teach people to help and listern to others and be good people?.

Secret groups like this merely serve to arouse my suspiction and curiosity whitch is probably the reverse effect of what they actully want it to do.

[Annie]

Hi Louise and Gibson

The Noble Resolve thread is, I think, in News. It's the name of a training operation involving a dirty bomb going off in America - and backed by Iran. It's supposed to take place this week.

In terms of who is notionally in control of MI5, it's the Home Secretary. When Shayler went public, Jack Straw had that dubious honour. Now it's John Reid. Both were involved in so-called subversive groups when they were young, therefore both have MI5 files.

It's a Catch 22 situation. Either MI5 was right to investigate them, therefore they should come clean about exactly how they were a threat to this country's national security in their fiery youth. Or MI5 got it wrong, and they didn't threaten our national security. If that's the case, and MI5 got it wrong, why are they not indignantly demanding answers? And how many other mistakes did the spooks make??

Regards

Annie

[Craig W]

[Annie]

They are not vetted in the way that defence or civil service workers are vetted - ie you apply for a job, they automatically open a file and check your background and you either pass or fail. MPs are not vetted in this sense in order to become MPs. But anyone standing for parliament will have their name cross-referenced against MI5's registry and those with an existing file are reviewed and a summary of their "threat" is passed to the PM or Leader of the Opposition.

So MI5's statement on the website "An incoming Prime Minister will only be told of any information we hold on a potential member of the new Cabinet if that information is both serious in the context of national security and it appears likely that the individual concerned will need access to sensitive information." is linguistically accurate, but the implication of the statement is not. My italics highlight the problem. A serious threat indeed. That means basically if they have a file. And in the 70s and 80s people had files opened on them for being a "?sympathiser" of a "subversive" group - ie if you were friends with someone who was involved in the Comminist Party, SWP, Militant etc ad nauseam. It was a catch-all recording category.

Most of the current government has files held on them because of their earlier left-wing activity and these were called up and reviewed by my section at the time, F2, in the run-up to the 1992 general election.

Regards

Annie

[Craig W]

[Annie]

Hi Craig

As I said, the website is linguistically correct in the fact that MPs are not vetted for the job as civil servants are. But the phrasing is clever and deceptive - I should imagine it took a team of officers and managers days pouring over the exact wording. And MPs are very aware that MI5 probably holds files on them - witness ministers' paranoia when Shayler went public. But even the Home Secretary, who is supposed to be the boss of MI5, is not allowed to see their own file. So you can imagine how their guilty consciences must go into overdrive about what could be on the file!

In terms of "subversive " groups, the study was virtually shut down in the mid 1990's, as MI5 was more excited by the IRA threat by that stage. But I'd bet there's a good chance that it's been rejuvenated, something along the lines of "subversive penetration of the STWC" for example. The Labour government would have been very concerned about the anti-war protests, and will have tasked MI5 and the Special Branches to monitor their activities.

Finally, it wasn't just Labour MPs who were investigated. Many Tory MPs also had files for their interesting business connections. I don't recall any Lib Dems.

Can I suggest you get my book "Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers" out of the library?

Regards

Annie

[Craig W]

Thanks, Annie. Yes I will look out for your book and check it out online.

A final clarification just to make sure I understand:

Would it be correct to say that some MPs and even Ministers will not have been "vetted" (ie will have no file with MI5), as they were neither a member of any "subversive" group nor had any dodgy business connections?

I am just trying to understand the extent of this vetting and the purported reasons for it.

Thanks again.

[Annie]

Hi again Craig

As far as I'm aware, only MPs/ministers already with a file are assessed by MI5, which is how they can use the phrase "serious threat to national security" - which MI5 defines as having an MI5 file. But as I hope I've made clear, the recording categories used by MI5 have been so vague and broad, they can pretty much categorise anyone if they wish.

This goes back to my original Catch 22 question. If MI5 is saying that only those in parliament who have a file are "a serious threat to national security", what on earth are people like Blair, Straw, Prescott, Hewitt, Harmen et al doing in senior positions in government?

Either MI5 is right, and they are a serious threat, in which case shouldn't we all be concerned? Or they're not, and MI5 got it wrong. In which case, you would think that these people would be angry, not just at the unjustified and illegal invasion of their own privacy, but also concerned about how may other innocent people have been wrongly identified as a threat to national security by MI5.

Regards

Annie

[Craig W]

Thanks again, Annie.

So when you say that MPs and ministers are vetted you don't mean that files are opened on all of them and investigations made into their backgrounds, etc. You mean that their details are cross referenced against databases of certain subversive groups and/or dodgy business connections and a file is opened if any flags are raised. Is that right?

So there are probably some MPs and ministers who have no file with MI5 because they have no known affiliations that could be regarded as a "security risk". Is that right?

Sorry to labour the point! I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying correctly.

I promise to check out your book next!

[TonyGosling]

Blair 'scared to fall out with Bush' in run-up to Iraq war
By SIMON WALTERS 28Oct07

Tony Blair was too worried about falling out of favour with George Bush to warn him of the perilous consequences of war with Iraq.

That is the damning portrait of the former Prime Minister that emerges from the highest level of the British and American governments in the latest extracts of a new book by political biographer Dr Anthony Seldon.



The attacks are led by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell who, according to Blair Unbound, secretly plotted with ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to restrain Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

They will do little to help Mr Blair shrug off claims that he was Mr Bush's "poodle".

Mr Powell told Dr Seldon of his incredulity at Mr Blair's gung-ho support for Mr Bush as the war loomed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic le_id=490199&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

He says: "In the end Blair would always support the President. I found this very surprising. I thought, well, the Brits haven't been attacked on 9/11.

"How did he reach the point that he sees Saddam as such a threat?

"Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George.' But as soon as he saw the President he would lose his steam."

Dr Seldon also reveals that both Mr Blair's No10 foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and his senior Downing Street political adviser, Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.

He says that in 2002 Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush and tell him of his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.

But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and effectively told the President: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."

According to the book, Britain's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, was horrified: "'Why in God's name has he said that again?' he asked Manning.

"'Well, we tried to stop him... but we didn't prevail,' came the weary response."

It also discloses how Mr Straw was sidelined before the war and sacked afterwards for not giving Blair enough support.

One official is quoted as saying: "The fact is that Tony Blair was his own Foreign Secretary. There was no clear slot for Jack Straw."

Over the next year a "despairing" Straw and Powell joined forces to try to stop the headlong rush to war. It culminated in Mr Straw flying by Concorde to the US for secret talks with Mr Powell.

Mr Blair's private doubts about Mr Bush dated back to the attacks on the World Trade Center when the President took to the skies in Air Force One, the book says.

"Blair was troubled that Bush's priority appeared to be keeping out of danger."

And, towards the end of his Downing Street days, the PM thought America's military "surge" in Iraq should have linked to a "political surge".

Dr Seldon writes: "But, as ever, Blair refrained from expressing his frustration in public.

"We had been in there with him from the start," explained one official, "and at this very late stage the Prime Minister did not want to be seen to fall out with George Bush."


6 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.

Here's a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.

Well you can understand it realy, I mean it's only a war and he couldn't let anything get in the way of his, an her, payday; the speaking tour had to come first, and it did. What a great man?

- Peter, London

The consequences of Bush's and Blair's misadventure in Iraq witll be that the coming schism with the US over foreign policy, and the end of the so-called "special relationship" will be an event parallel to the break with Rome under Henry VIII.

- Nigel Baldwin, Portsmouth UK

Personally I think blair was too scared to cross Bush and too stupid to realise the consequences. So there we have it Tony Blair is a cowardly idiot, Now tell us something we did not already know.

- Andy King, Birmingham England

[Disco_Destroyer]

Yes I hear vets are a good place for puting down sick animals