Britian - MI6 - ' Spy found dead in bag hacked Clinton'

Spy found dead in bag hacked Clinton Monday, 31 August 2015 Gareth Williams, left and Bill Clinton. Williams had infuriated his spy bosses with his behaviour. The British spy whose body was found padlocked inside a bag in his flat had illegally hacked into secret data on former U.S. president Bill Clinton, it has been revealed. Gareth Williams, 31, was discovered in a holdall in the bath at his London home five years ago this month, but the mystery surrounding his death has never been solved. Today, it has been revealed the spy had dug out a guest list for an event Clinton was due to attend as a favour for a friend. A police officer stands guard outside of the entrance to a flat where the body of Gareth Williams was discovered. Photo / Getty Images The hack breached Mr Williams' security clearance and this sparked anger among MI6 bosses as tensions rose with U.S. security services over the spy's transatlantic work, The Sun on Sunday has reported. A source said: "The Clinton diary hack came at a time when Williams' work with America was of the most sensitive nature. "It was a diplomatic nightmare for Sir John Sawers, the new director of MI6 at the time." The paper has also reported that voicemail messages Mr Williams, a maths genius and expert cryptographer, left for family and friends were deleted shortly after his death. Earlier this month, it was revealed that detectives who investigated the mysterious death believe he was murdered and that his killers then broke back in through a skylight to cover their tracks. The claim centres on the revelation that part of the forensic equipment placed in the flat after the body was found was moved - despite the fact the building was under armed police guard. The theory supports his family's suspicions he was murdered by "agents specialising in the dark arts of the secret services". Mr Williams had been working with the American National Security Agency in Washington before returning to London, where he underwent training and was sent on active operations. The exact nature of his work remains a closely guarded secret, but sources claim he dealt with equipment that tracked the flow of cash from Russia to Europe. The technology enabled MI6 to follow money trails from bank accounts in Russia to criminal European gangs. One theory is that Mr Williams had disrupted a mafia ring closely linked to the Russian state. Cars registered to the Russian Embassy were spotted near his Pimlico flat just days before his body was discovered on August 23, 2010. Mr Williams was last seen alive on August 15 - a Kremlin car was seen near his property that day. Other lines of inquiry, also dismissed by the Metropolitan Police at the time, were that he was killed by MI6 or American agents after stumbling on sensitive data, or because he threatened to make secret intelligence public. There were also claims Mr Williams may have been killed by a lover during a bizarre sex game. Coroner Dr Fiona Wilcox, who heard the 2012 inquest into his death, criticised MI6 for failing to report that the spy had been missing for a week, saying this caused extra suffering for his family and led to the loss of forensic evidence. The delay, for which MI6 apologised, also meant a Home Office pathologist was unable to find a cause of death. Dr Wilcox concluded that Mr Williams's death was "unnatural and likely to have been criminally mediated". She said she was satisfied "on the balance of probabilities that Gareth was killed unlawfully", as it was likely someone else had put his body in the bag and locked it. But a year later, Scotland Yard ended a review of the investigation, saying it was more likely Williams had locked himself in the bag and that no one else was involved. This is despite there being no traces of Mr Williams' own DNA on the padlock of the bag he was found in. His palm prints were not found on the bathtub which held the bag. Another theory was that Mr William's was poisoned. Former Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton was the most senior officer on the scene when he arrived at Mr Williams' flat in Pimlico on August 23, 2010. He thought the flat was unusually warm when he arrived, claiming the heating was turned up to its maximum setting, possibly to assist with decomposition. He said: "If he had been poisoned, then the chemical compounds might have vanished by the time toxicology results were conducted." - Daily Mail http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11505559 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Winner of headline of the day.   lol Love stories like this.   I reckon British intelligence bumped him off: did not report he'd been 'missing' for a week; delay results in degraded / no forensic evidence; Scotland Yard saying he'd locked himself in bag, despite: no DNA padlock no palm prints bathtub forensic equipment moved, while police guard (as if the 'Russian' culprits would be back to move equipment via a skylight ... lol) attention misdirected to Russians, European mafia & to Russian diplomatic cars ꕤ

US - Syria - Caution from Russia

A Plea for Caution From Russia What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN Published: September 11, 2013 MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all. From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement. A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues. My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0 Discovered an old NYT article via twitter. I'm not up-to-date. Just started watching this stuff, so it's some good info for me. Not big on the religious references. I see the UN as just another way for the US to exert influence and dominate, because their various defence and trade allies will always vote with the US. US has always interfered with internal conflicts in other countries, so it should hardly be a surprise if they want to interfere in Syria. So Syria fighting is about multiple extremist religious factions having a go at the government in a quest for religious (?) supremacy and, pretty much, that's all it is? US has designated al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda 'terrorist'. These religious groups (along with Arab mercenaries), aim to spread conflict to other regions, currently battle it out in Syria. Yet opposition groups in Syria have been supplied with foreign weapons. Who by?  I think the US were wanting to arm the opposition, but I'd need to look that up. Looks like these religious fighters also have an eye on Israel. So basically, if the US is going to make an 'exception' of itself and if the UN veto counts for nothing, the UN may meet the same fate as the League of Nations. Meanwhile, where there is a lack of confidence in the UN, arms proliferation takes place. So it looks like the US were planning on attacking Syria? Funny how they're now planning on attacking Russia.  .......................................................................... Well, there's already a precedent for ignoring the UN and for being the 'exception', so they may as well disband the UN because the UN is a farce. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the ... Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The operation was not authorised by the United Nations and was the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.   The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil, while in Yugoslavia the operation was named "Merciful Angel"... [wikipedia] Dig those code names. Not only did Clinton and NATO disregard the UN, Clinton disregarded the US congress as well: Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense.  In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction. [here] The precedent is set: International law, NATO, the UN, the UN Charter and the US Congress are meaningless shams.

Vietnam's Cam Rahn Bay facilities - Vietnam looking to East or West?

 The Japan Times Article

China removes oil rig that triggered Vietnam riots from disputed waters

AP

... 

It said oil and gas has been discovered during the operation, but was assessing the data gathered before deciding its next move. It has always been unclear whether the Beijing deployed the rig for genuine exploration reasons or geopolitical ones. When it announced the deployment, Beijing said it would withdraw it on Aug. 15, also citing the typhoon season.

Ha Le, deputy director of Vietnam’s fisheries resources surveillance department, said China began removing the rig and escorting vessels Tuesday night, and by 8 a.m. Wednesday it was 40 nautical miles northwest of its original location and continuing to move toward Hainan island.

Le said 30 vessels from Vietnam’s coast guard and fisheries patrol forces that were sent to try to force the Chinese oil rig away will return to port to avoid the incoming Rammasun typhoon.

China’s unwillingness to move the rig exposed Vietnam’s lack of options when dealing with its giant neighbor. The workings of the Vietnamese government are shrouded in secrecy, but it has long been assumed that the Communist Party is split between a faction that favors a tough line against Beijing — and consequentially stronger ties with the United States and its allies in Asia — and those members who believe a compromise can be reached with their ideological allies to the north.

As a result of the rig placement, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has said the country was preparing to file a legal challenge to China’s claims in an international tribunal, something that risks angering China. It remains to be seen whether Vietnam will go ahead with that now the rig has been withdrawn.

Former Vietnamese Ambassador to Beijing Nguyen Trong Vinh said China’s removal of the rig didn’t signal a change of attitude on behalf of the country.

“The removal of the oil rig from our continental shelf and exclusive economic zone is only temporary. Maybe they pulled out the oil rig ahead of the typhoon season. It does not mean that they have abandoned their resolve to take control of most of the East Sea,” he said, using the Vietnamese term for the South China Sea.

EXTRACT ONLY - Source - The Japan Times - here.

--------------------------------------------
Article Publisher Background

Toshiaki Ogasawara has been Chairman of The Japan Times Ltd. since 2001 and serves as its Chief Executive Officer and Publisher. ... He served as an Advisory Director with Bank of America. Mr. Ogasawara ...

Board Members Memberships*

Trustee

University of Southern California

Unknown/Other Education

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs  - [Princeton University]

 Other Affiliations*

University of Southern California

...

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs [Princeton University]

Business Breakthrough, Inc. [Educational services - Tokyo Japan]

...

Source - Business Newsweek - here. 

--------------------------------------------
Vietnam Government

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining single-party socialist states officially espousing communism. Its current state constitution, which replaced the 1975 constitution in April 1992, asserts the central role of the Communist Party of Vietnam in all organs of government, politics and society.

[wikipedia]

 --------------------------------------------
Japan Government

Japan is a member of the G8, APEC, and "ASEAN Plus Three", and is a participant in the East Asia Summit. Japan signed a security pact with Australia in March 2007 and with India in October 2008.

It is the world's third largest donor of official development assistance after the United States and France, donating US$9.48 billion in 2009.


Japan has close economic and military relations with the United States; the US-Japan security alliance acts as the cornerstone of the nation's foreign policy.  A member state of the United Nations since 1956, Japan has served as a non-permanent Security Council member for a total of 20 years, most recently for 2009 and 2010. It is one of the G4 nations seeking permanent membership in the Security Council.

Japan is engaged in several territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands, and with China over the EEZ around Okinotorishima.  Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over the latter's abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program (see also Six-party talks).


Japan maintains one of the largest military budgets of any country in the world.  Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War but subsequently withdrew its forces.

[wikipedia]

--------------------------------------------
COMMENT

[NOTE - The above background info is largely for my own benefit, trying to make out who's who.]

China pulling its oil rig from the contested waters is a development which may -- or may not -- influence current negotiations purportedly taking place between Vietnam and both US and Russia, in respect of the Cam Rhan Bay port -- a deep sea port 'seven miles from open sea', which has recently been upgraded to the tune of millions of dollars and is capable of accommodating aircraft carriers as well as docking and maintaining sea vessels.

So the question is, which way will Vietnam turn and:  is the Communist Party in Vietnam divided when it comes to deciding how to best address maritime territorial interests?

Vietnamese Communist Party factional divisions (if any) can only be guessed at.

However, I suspect that alliance-shy Vietnam is looking to make the best deal it can negotiate and, as mentioned, discussions are purportedly 'well under-way' with both Russia and the US.

From the US perspective, Vietnam has common interests with with the US who:

... also wants to protect what is, according to a 2012 U.S. estimates, $1.2 trillion in U.S. trade transiting along South China Sea shipping lanes. 

[Source - stripes.com]

Of course, the US also has military interests in the Asia-Pacific region, so Cam Rahn Bay access is also of wider strategic military value to the US.

At this stage (June 2014), it appears that the US is quietly hopeful that the Vietnam's attitude has warmed towards the US in more recent times:

“There have been remarkable strides already made in last few years, and it’s been very rapid since 2010 in terms of U.S.-Vietnam military relationships,” said Christian Le Mière, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Continued assertiveness by China in the South China Sea will only further convince the Vietnamese that they should be expanding their international alliances, and that includes the United States.”

The U.S. Navy has been making port visits to Da Nang in recent years, engaging in activities that started with sports and ship tours with Vietnamese sailors, and developed into a joint search-and-rescue exercise last year. Greater U.S. Navy access to Cam Ranh Bay, further south near Nha Trang, would represent a bigger step in the military-to-military relationship.

The deep water port is about seven miles from open sea and is capable of accommodating aircraft carriers, and its facilities recently underwent millions of dollars in upgrades. Its airport is used by both Vietnamese military forces and by commercial carriers.

U.S. Military Sealift Command ships have visited for repairs — the first came along with former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2012 — but no active U.S. Navy ship has visited the port since the Vietnam War.

[Source - stripes.com] 

What is also interesting is that the US has set up the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) which received over 50% UN support since its inception:

Launched by United States President George W. Bush in May 2003 at a meeting in Kraków, Poland, the PSI has now grown to include the endorsement of 103...nations around the world, including Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Norway. Despite the support of over half of the Members of the United Nations, a number of countries have expressed opposition to the initiative, including India, China and Indonesia.
[wikipedia]

Vietnam, along with China, appears to have opposed the PSI initiative -- until Vietnam backed off last month:

PSI was created by the U.S and Poland in 2003 as an international effort to interdict [prohibit] vessels carrying weapons of mass destruction, and it has since garnered signatories from more than 100 countries.

Vietnam joined with China in strenuously arguing that PSI violated international law, until Hanoi changed its mind last month.

“It’s a bait on the hook to request the United States to assist in standing up their ability to conduct maritime reconnaissance and surveillance, and link to shore-based radars and other technical equipment,” Thayer said.

The additional U.S. presence could force China to act less aggressively in the area, while at the same time allowing Vietnam to show that it took no provocative action against China.

[Source - stripes.com]

If I have that straight, it would seem that Vietnam backing off from opposing the PSI is perhaps signalling it may be inclined towards making way for US presence at the Cam Rahn Bay facilities -- or it may simply be one of the concessions Vietnam is willing to make in the interim, towards forwarding its Cam Rahn negotiations.

Uncertain what the 'bait in the hook' request is & too lazy to re-visit article (LOL).  Expect Vietnam has requested the US to assist in Vietnam with reconnaissance and surveillance, if I'm reading that right.

Whatever the outcome of negotiations, the US are purportedly keen on getting a foot in the Cam Rahn door.

One suspects that even if negotiations fail, the US would not be averse to creating an 'international logistics hub' via a less 'threatening' option (to Vietnam) -- ie the 'Places Not Bases' initiative -- where it would be envisaged that the Cam Rahn Bay facilities would provide the US with assured access for repair, refuelling, restocking and so on (as well as presence in the region), on an informal "partner" arrangement basis, such as the one the US has apparently negotiated with Singapore.

The 'Places Not Bases' strategy is explained below:

... the Pentagon fashioned a policy of “places, not bases,” whereby the U.S. military sought access to naval facilities of “partner” countries.

Compared to “bases” run by formal allies such as South Korea and Japan, “places” in Singapore — and other countries such as Malaysia and Brunei — enabled the U.S. military to maintain its presence in the region ...

Singapore is the quintessential example of such a “places, not bases” strategy.

SOURCE - The China Post (Taiwan) - here.

So will Vietnam look towards the east or the west when it comes to negotiating maritime concerns in the region?

If The Japan Times is correct, the final decision may depend on intra-party politics in Vietnam.

Politics aside, Vietnam's decision may well pivot on how attractive the commercial prospects are for Vietnam.

Or ... on how impressed they may be with Bill Clinton's visit (LOL):


--------------------------------------------
Thanhnien News

Bill Clinton to visit Vietnam again

Thanh Nien News

July 16, 2014 17:13

Former US President Bill Clinton will return to Vietnam on Friday (July 18) as part of his Asia-Pacific trip to visit the work of the Clinton Foundation and deliver remarks at the 20th International AIDS Conference, according to a release by the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton, who visited Vietnam for the first time in November 2000, is scheduled to visit India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia from July 16-23.

The trip highlights Clinton’s longstanding commitment to the Asia/Pacific region, as well as the work of the Clinton Foundation on a number of issues that are critical to the region, including global health and improved access to medicines, climate change and economic development, the release said.

In Vietnam, he will visit an orphanage outside of Hanoi to view a Clinton Health Access Initiative program that aims to prevent tuberculosis among children living with HIV.

Clinton's November 2000 visit to Vietnam was the first by a US President since the two countries normalized diplomatic relations in 1995, 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

He later returned to Vietnam in several occasions to promote work of the Clinton Foundation in the country.

Source - Thanhnien News - here.

--------------------------------------------

Hmmm ... what a coincidence Bill's in town.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but it looks like the US are pulling out all stops to win over Vietnam -- and Clinton's charity tour schedule just happens to coincide.

Charity foundations really are the way to go; good access, favourable impressions etc.