Why Would Rupert Murdoch Want Victims' Pre-9/11 Phone Records?

I think that the events like those in Egypt were genuine, and suddenly out of control of the elites due to the sudden and total repulsion by the Public because of the Dowler's Story.
(It was just one of those unbearably sad stories that we all lived through )

Also Murdoch and the Government severely misread the strength of feeling of the public, and have been back peddling ever since.

Because of these two reasons I am sure that this was not a staged event, however the next steps could well be.

Looks like posturing. I'm leaning towards this being a manufactured "crisis" intended to promote the notion of the sanctity of anyone claiming to be a 9/11 victim, which suggests to me that there are a lot of fake 9/11 victims. If Congress was actually shocked, they will find out who exactly the Daily Mirror's "former NYPD turned private investigator" is. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it's none other than the Potato Chip Theorist himself, Bo Dietl.

Despite questionable reporting, 9/11-victim hacking allegations generate frenzy
By Paul Farhi, Published: July 15

Were the phone accounts of 9/11 victims or their families hacked by unscrupulous British journalists? The U.S. government this week mobilized its law-enforcement machinery to find out.

It may be chasing a mirage.

Concerns that reporters affiliated with Rupert Murdoch’s now-defunct British newspaper, the News of the World, pried into the phones of terrorism victims ran through Washington this week in the wake of a news report carried by another British paper, the Daily Mirror.

Six members of Congress, including three from the New York-New Jersey area, expressed shock and outrage. The FBI, prompted by the lawmakers, confirmed that it has begun to investigate the allegation.

But the Mirror’s story — the only one thus far to assert that the British hacking involved 9/11 victims — remains unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, and it has been reported exclusively by a British tabloid famous for sensational journalism.

No official in the United Kingdom or United States has confirmed the paper’s assertion that “9/11 victims may have had their mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters.” No media organization has turned up evidence to support that claim independently since the story broke late Monday.

The report appears to be based on a shaky foundation. The Mirror names no specific sources in its reporting, and it relies on a single anonymous second-hand source for its account.

The story also appears to undercut its central premise — that phones may have been hacked.

The anonymous source is quoted later in the story saying that the information about hacking came from a former New York City police officer (also unidentified), who said he was approached by News of the World reporters seeking phone records of victims and their relatives. The News reporters were particularly interested in obtaining phone records belonging to British victims, according to the Mirror.

In any case, the paper said, no hacking took place.

“The [former policeman] said he had to turn the job down,” the Mirror quoted its source as saying. “He knew how insensitive such research would be, and how bad it would look.”

Within a day of publication, the Mirror story ignited a firestorm in Washington.

Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) were the first to call for an investigation, asking Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Schapiro to look into Murdoch’s News Corp., which is bas ed in New York.

Rockefeller and Boxer said they were concerned about reports that police officials in Britain had been bribed by Murdoch’s reporters there to get information, potentially a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. News Corp. is a U.S.-based company, so it is covered by that act, which makes it illegal for employees of U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials.

The senators also said, “Additionally, there are troubling reports that News Corporation may have illegally accessed phone records of victims of the 9/11 attacks, and the Senators urged authorities to investigate whether any United States citizens had their privacy violated by this alleged hacking.”

They were soon joined by New Jersey’s Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez and by Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) in calling for a law-enforcement investigation. King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

“It is revolting to imagine that members of the media would seek to compromise the integrity of a public official for financial gain in the pursuit of yellow journalism,” King wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller. “The 9/11 families have suffered egregiously, but unfortunately they remain vulnerable against such unjustifiable parasitic strains.”

He also wrote, “I make this request not only as the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, but as a Member of Congress who represents a district that lost more than 150 constituents in those terrorist attacks. It is my duty to discern every fact behind these allegations.”

In addition, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote a letter to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), calling for an investigation.

The Daily Mirror, which has a circulation of about 1.2 million, is a feisty tabloid that in 2004 ran a headline calling Americans who voted for President George W. Bush’s reelection “dumb.” But it is still generally regarded as somewhat less sensational than the Sun, a top-selling tabloid owned by News Corp.

In 2004, the Mirror became enmeshed in controversy after it published photos that purported to show British soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners. The paper later admitted that the photos were fake and that it had been the victim of a hoax. The episode led to the resignation of its editor, Piers Morgan, who this year replaced Larry King as host of a nightly celebrity-interview program on CNN.

The Mirror declined to comment Friday on its story.

A spokesman for the Senate Commerce Committee, which Rockefeller chairs, said Friday that an investigation was warranted, but he emphasized the bribery aspect of the story rather than the alleged 9/11 hacking.

“Our concern is not limited to whether 9/11 victims had their phones hacked,” said the spokesman, Vincent Morris. “That’s gruesome and of limited journalistic value but, right now, it’s just one allegation. The bigger and more alarming question is how broadly News Corp. employees may have used phone hacking on other stories, on U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil, as part of regular newsgathering. That’s why we want an investigation.”

Press representatives for Lautenberg, Menendez and Boxer declined to comment on the record. King’s spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.

Several congressional sources said the issue was too explosive to ignore, despite its suspect origins. The New York area lawmakers are particularly sensitive to 9/11 families that are their constituents, they said.

“There may be nothing to it,” said one staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in deference to his boss, “but we have to look into it to make sure.”

Staff writer Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

Looks like he spent some time in India in the year or two before 9/11, also around the time he married Huffy's half-sis...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/james-murdoch-moves-closer-to-s...

Return to New York

The return to New York, where James attended grade school at the Horace Mann School in the Bronx, comes after a circuitous journey within News Corp., a company he joined in 1996 after dropping out of Harvard University and starting a hip-hop recording label.

In 2000, James was sent by his father to Asia, where he became chairman and CEO of News Corp.’s money-losing Star television businesses in Asia. He was based in Hong Kong, and spent much of his time in India, developing the nascent pay-TV market there.

In 2003, at the age of 30, the younger Murdoch moved to London, and became CEO of British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, in which News Corp. holds a controlling stake. In 2007, he was put in charge of the company’s operations throughout Europe and Asia, a portfolio that includes digital television distribution and newspapers, and accounts for 20 percent of the News Corp.’s $32.8 billion annual revenue.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/invisible-mogul

James Murdoch gets up at six and works out in the gym every morning, before arriving in Wapping by eight. And he’s usually back home in Holland Park 12 hours later—just in time to put his two young children to bed. He is married to a former marketing executive and model from Oregon, Kathryn Hufschmid, who now works for the Clinton Climate Initiative, the environmental arm of the former president’s foundation. Murdoch likes sailing—which may explain the tan. His musical tastes are broad, ranging from bluegrass to opera. He also enjoys karate and the odd spot of gambling. So, James, tell me about karate. “It’s a word.” And casinos? “Casinos is another word. Where do you get casinos from? I’m worried about that one. That sounds like vice.” Well, have you ever been to one? “I have…I haven’t for a long time, actually. Um, but you know, I play cards every once in a while,” he says. Isn’t gambling the perfect antidote to a hard day at the office? “It’s not as good as karate!” He flashes me the slightly wonky grin he shares with his two full siblings, Elisabeth and Lachlan. He also has three half-sisters: Prue, Rupert’s eldest, who is 50, and Rupert’s two girls by Wendi Deng, who are seven and five.

or defend Alex Jones

Rupert Murdoch: The 'Soft War' Against Israel

Posted: October 14, 2010

Speech by K. Rupert Murdoch
To the Anti-Defamation League
ADL International Leadership Award Dinner
New York, New York, October 13, 2010

Thank you, Abe, for those kind words. And thank you for this award.

I can’t say I have been chosen by God. But tonight I can say this: I am honored to be chosen by His people for this award.

I am especially proud that this award bears the name of the ADL. You were founded a century ago against the backdrop of something we cannot imagine in America today: the conviction and then lynching of an innocent Jew.

In the century since then, you have fought anti-Semitism wherever you have found it. You have championed equal treatment for all races and creeds. And you have held America to her founding promise.

So successful have you been, a few years ago some people were beginning to say, “maybe we don’t need an ADL anymore.”

That is a much harder argument to make these days.

Now, there’s not a single person in this room who needs a lecture on the evil of anti-Semitism. My own perspective is simple: We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews.

For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: terrorism.

Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.

The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOs.

In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

The result is the curious situation we have today: Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran – a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel’s destruction – pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.

For me, this ongoing war is a fairly obvious fact of life.

Every day, the citizens of the Jewish homeland defend themselves against armies of terrorists whose maps spell out the goal they have in mind: a Middle East without Israel.

In Europe, Jewish populations increasingly find themselves targeted by people who share that goal.

And in the United States, I fear that our foreign policy sometimes emboldens these extremists.

Tonight I’d like to speak about two things that worry me most.

First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society – especially in Europe.

Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.

When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.

Back in 2002 the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, put it this way:

“Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”

Mr. Summers was speaking mostly about our university campuses. Like me, however, he was also struck by alarming developments in Europe.

Far from being dismissed out of hand, anti-Semitism today enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society – from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes. European Jews find themselves caught in this pincer.

We saw a recent outbreak when a European Commissioner trade minister declared that peace in the Middle East is impossible because of the Jewish lobby in America. Here’s how he put it:

“There is indeed a belief—it’s difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right. And it’s not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East.”

This minister did not suggest the problem was any specific Israeli policy. The problem, as he defined it, is the nature of the Jews.

Adding to the absurdity, this man then responded to his critics this way: Anti-Semitism, he asserted, “has no place in today’s world and is fundamentally against our European values.”

Of course, he has kept his job.

Unfortunately, we see examples like this one all across Europe.

Sweden, for example, has long been a synonym for liberal tolerance. Yet in one of Sweden’s largest cities, Jews report increasing examples of harassment. When an Israeli tennis team visited for a competition, it was greeted with riots.

So how did the mayor respond? By equating Zionism with anti-Semitism – and suggesting that Swedish Jews would be safer in his town if they distanced themselves from Israeli actions in Gaza.

You don’t have to look far for other danger signs:

• The Norwegian government forbids a Norwegian-based, German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for the Israeli navy.

• Britain and Spain are boycotting an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem.

• In the Netherlands, police report a 50% increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by these things. According to one infamous European poll a few years back, Europeans listed Israel ahead of Iran and North Korea as the greatest threat to world peace.

In Europe today, some of the most egregious attacks on Jewish people, Jewish symbols, and Jewish houses of worship have come from the Muslim population.

Unfortunately, far from making clear that such behavior will not be tolerated, too often the official response is what we’ve seen from the Swedish mayor – who suggested Jews and Israel were partly to blame themselves.

When Europe’s political leaders do not stand up to the thugs, they lend credence to the idea that Israel is the source of all the world’s problems – and they guarantee more ugliness.

If that is not anti-Semitism, I don’t know what is.

That brings me to my second point: the importance of good relations between Israel and the United States.

Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel.

My view is the opposite.

Far from making peace more possible, we are making hostilities more certain.

Far from making things better for the Palestinian people, sour relations between the United States and Israel guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will continue to suffer.

The peace we all want will come when Israel feels secure – not when Washington feels distant.

Right now we have war.

There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel.

All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely.

In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.”

This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe.

Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity.

In prophetic words, he described the problem this way:

“It is not the anti-Semitism of men,” he said. “It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different.

But these threats are real.

These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II.

And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for this award. And thank you for all you do.

You sound like some paranoid conspiranut, JDLC! Seriously though, he most likely faked his death, most likely at the insistence of the British police so that he wouldn't be able to testify as to what was going on at News of the World. That's why they're so quick to say it wasn't a suspicious death without saying why they can be so sure--they don't want people expecting an investigation or suspecting that he was killed for knowing too much.