Slashdot Mirror


FBI Burying Doc Showing US Officials Stole Nuclear Secrets?

BoingBoing is reporting that the FBI may be burying the existence of a document that proves US officials stole nuclear secrets for eventual sale to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. "One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an 'outright lie.'"

347 comments

  1. Gee... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Government agency lies; news at 11.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Gee... by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 0, Redundant

      How is that news?

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    2. Re:Gee... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

      How is that news?

      Because for some reason, you Americans still seem to think the appropriate reaction is to ask for a little lube and not much else.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re: Gee... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      How is that news? Sorry; I forgot to add the sarcasm tag.

      I would recommend skepticism regarding the details of the accusation until more evidence comes to light, but the idea that the government would lie about some questionable activity wouldn't have been surprising even seven years ago. Or seventy.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Gee... by jackpot777 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Because for some reason, you Evangelical Americans still seem to think the appropriate reaction is to ask for a little lube and not much else.

      Got to differentiate between the pervert money-grabbing mess-it-all-up right wing Americans and the secular humanist pinko Europe-loves-you left wing Americans, after all.

      Especially when it comes to lube.

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    5. Re:Gee... by GroeFaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, and as we all know, there is no difference between "I did not have sex with this woman, Monica Lewinkski" and "No, this document that might prove if officials from our government are involved in trading nuclear weapon technology secrets with the country the 9/11 hijackers were from does not exist", the latter of which chosen because it happened within everyone's attention span, or so I hope. Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    6. Re:Gee... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, just because it's not a surprise doesn't make it any less fucking heinous.

    7. Re:Gee... by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      You got the analogy wrong. Democrats want lube, Republicans like it bareback and dry. A little tearing builds character.

    8. Re:Gee... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Isn't it supposed to be

      Film at 11

    9. Re: Gee... by wellingj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In regards to the "How is that news" comment: This is down right shameful. Regardless if we expect it or not, we should know what they are lying about and why.

      I would recommend the opposite of careful skepticism. Anger shown about even the slightest hint of any secrecy in government will let the government know that we won't stand for that kind of BS anymore. Or would you rather put your head in the ground and know that the government lies and that you or no one else cares to hold them accountable? Yea that will go along way to reducing the amount of lying. Let's just ignore it and hope they don't do it again. Seems like a great idea.

    10. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.

      It's all reality shows and reruns! Oh, the humanity!

      If the government really wanted to cover this stuff up, they'd get the writer's strike resolved.

    11. Re:Gee... by DirkGently · · Score: 1

      ...says a guy who hails from the mother of all nanny states.

      --

      I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

    12. Re:Gee... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you have to differentiate? They are all basically the same but one side seems to want to classify the other side if they aren't as pissed or as outraged as they think they are.

      There isn't much of a difference except in how verbal they get over who is in power and doing it a the time. Not screaming as loud doesn't mean acceptance, it means not screaming as loud.

    13. Re: Gee... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why would they need to lie? They have a pretty good case sitting there just saying that national security measures forbid it's disclosure. Then make a mention about what nut cases will make up. It is the same as refuting something without saying no, Clinton was able to claim that what happens when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park and refute rape accusations without actually claiming them to be false.

      There are loads of different ways to deal with something like this that don't require them to deny the existence of the document.

    14. Re:Gee... by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that it is not a surprise is what makes it so heinous.

      The initial reaction of outrage that a populace has after finding out something rotten about their gov is one of the strongest tools of a citizenry to police their representatives. See, if there is this sudden burst of emotional outcry politicians have to get all hands on deck to control the situation... not knowing how far or deep the populace is willing to pursue the issue they must fear the worst. Knowing the populace is acting on emotions causes those who want to keep their power to make wide sweeping and highly visible adjustments to the system to calm the emotional response.

      Once that initial outrage is gone, the citizenry are reduced to working through channels controlled by the very people who are acting against their best interests.

      Just a thought.

    15. Re:Gee... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny
      Republicans like it bareback and dry. A little tearing builds character.

      Thanks for that imagery, now I won't be able to sleep tonight.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:Gee... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up (I just used up my points in the Cellphone Sommelier story)

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    17. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that news?

      Because for some reason, you Americans still seem to think the appropriate reaction is to ask for a little lube and not much else. Go look at your Big Brother government, you limey bastard. At least we're not as bad as you yet.
    18. Re:Gee... by budgenator · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight the Turk and the Israelis paid US nationals for nuclear secrets, so they could sell the secrets to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; now the FBI is covering up that investigation as well as UFO anal probings, cattle mutilation, crops circles investigations. Iran-Contra made sense in a convoluted kind of way, but Israel selling Nuclear secrets to Muslims, that really strains credibility.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:Gee... by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      And the whole world always wonders why us Americans can't get our heads together.

      All we need are a few name callings and/or political rhetoric and pretty soon we're embroiled in resentment, apathy, and counseling,... never mind the fact that nothing of value gets done.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    20. Re:Gee... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm thinking that perhaps the claim is not that the governments of Turkey and Israel are involved, which, in the case of Israel at least, is implausible, but that the criminals involved are Turkish and Israeli nationals. It isn't clear which is meant, but this is a lot more plausible.

    21. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My favorite joke of the post-Foley, Craig, (and about 100 others) era:

      Q: How many Republicans can you fit in the closet?

      A: Almost all of them!

    22. Re:Gee... by mrops · · Score: 1

      No difference, except

      Act 1 only screws Monica Lewinski

      Act 2 screws all of America

    23. Re:Gee... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Troll

      I didn't know I was American....

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    24. Re:Gee... by LWATCDR · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But it doesn't make a lot of sense.
      Turkish and Israeli-run network ??
      okay Turkey is mostly Islamic Israel really tends to not get along with Islamic countries. selling nuclear weapons info to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan wouldn't be logical for Israel.
      So we have on person saying this happened with no proof.
      Seems really thin. Not saying it is impossible but also not exactly proven.

      I tried to find document "193C-QW-120014". That document proves that Al Gore actually conspired with the 9/11 attackers to kill Bush and to drive up oil prices so he could make money off his movie! When I filed for it I was told that it also didn't exist.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Gee... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know, it's sad when we can look at the Kenyan political system and wish ours worked as well. At least when elections are stolen there, the people give a shit.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whilst the parent is over simplistic rhetoric and misses a few very salient points regarding the situation in Kenya, it is still a fantastically good comment. I applaud you sir.

    27. Re:Gee... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

      > How is that news?

      Hold on, lemme tie myself to this telephone pole.

      Ok, ready?

      WHOOOOOOOOSH!!!!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:Gee... by baldass_newbie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obligatory:
      "We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!" - Gary Johnston, Team America: World Police

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    29. Re:Gee... by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      A lie from a government agency that regularly deals in secrets! What is this world coming to?! Next we'll find out that whole weather balloon excuse for Roswell was a lie too!

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    30. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Bill Clinton selling/giving weapons technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. But that got swept under the rug too because we'd rather talk about Monica Lewinsky.

      And, of course, eleven years later the media say it's "heartwarming" when dirt-poor Chinese dishwashers and delivery boys magically end up with $2,100 each to donate to Hillary's presidential campaign. Have you heard of Norman Hsu?

    31. Re:Gee... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      farther down thread someone was talking about some erroneous nuclear "secrets" that were planted as part of a counter-espionage operation, which sounds much more plausible than what the article was talking about.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:Gee... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's even more complicated than that.

      Sibel Edmonds has evidence that a number of countries and organizations are involved in this, including members of governments, organized crime groups, and front groups for various nationalities. She points the finger primarily at the ATC, a Turkish-American front organization, which operates similarly to AIPAC, the Jewish American front organization.

      Edmonds says you can start examining the situation from any start you want - the Plame case, the AIPAC espionage trial, her gagging case - they all end up with the same group of people in the US and Turkish governments, in the ATC and AIPAC organizations, and in organized crime figures like Marc Rich (pardoned by Bill Clinton, if you remember, in exchange for some thousands of dollars in bribes.) The scale of the criminal organization is massive and crosses over drugs, weapons smuggling, and the nuclear black market. She says "senior elected US officials" are guilty of massive treason - and that means senior Senators and Congressmen - and possibly even Dick Cheney, if not Bush himself. Keep in mind that Scooter Libby was once Marc Rich's attorney.

      The sad part is that Sibel, after years of trying to get a Senator to front the classified info she has in her head, finally decided to risk jail by offering to go on any national broadcast news show and tell all as long as it was unedited. No US media would take her up on it, so she has been forced to go outside the country to the Times. This shows how deep the corruption goes - no US media will reveal what she knows.

      This country is almost literally being run by organized crime - and not even Italian organized crime! - at this point. It reminds me of the Warren Ellis comic, "Reload".

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    33. Re:Gee... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or Bill Clinton selling/giving weapons technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. But that got swept under the rug too because we'd rather talk about Monica Lewinsky.

      When it comes to selling arms to terrorists and hostile goverments, perhaps the Republicans didn't want to get in a pissing match with the Democrats, but for having sex, that's something no Republican has ever done (if they'd gotten laid, would they be that uptight?).

    34. Re:Gee... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that perhaps the claim is not that the governments of Turkey and Israel are involved, which, in the case of Israel at least, is implausible Don't be so quick to assume. Motivations and results get all twisted up and seemingly illogical in the world of covert international actions.

      For example, Israel was a primary source of funding for Hamas in the early days - the thinking was that they wanted a group that could challenge Arafat. The phrase, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

      Its entirely plausible that a similar sort of thinking is at work here.
    35. Re:Gee... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Yes, its true that things can get screwy in covert operations, but the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel's enemies is so great and so obvious to Israel that it is really not believable that Israel would knowingly be involved in passing nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It isn't out of the question that Israel could have been duped into doing it unwittingly.

    36. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because for some reason, you Americans still seem to think
      > the appropriate reaction is to ask for a little lube and not much else.

      We vote Republican. We gave up the lube a long time ago. And given the current lot of conservatives running, we're asking for a razor bladed condom.

    37. Re: Gee... by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean in any way to suggest that I'm not mad as hell about stuff like this. You're damned right it's shameful. I meant it more to suggest that I'm not surprised. This isn't me sticking my head in the ground, it's me throwing my hands up in total frustration.

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    38. Re:Gee... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There's a funny story about a classified US tank targeting system that was deployed in Iran before widespread deployment by US forces. The system was sold to Israel, an "enterprising" person or company there sold it to China which then sold it to Iran. Criminals are not necessarily intelligent enough to think of consequences.

    39. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain to me why this was modded as Insightful?

    40. Re:Gee... by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I heard that allegedly the CIA surreptitiously sold phony nuclear secrets to Iran or somewhere but the secrets were authentic looking but intentionally bogus so as to undermine their development efforts.

    41. Re:Gee... by Gareshra · · Score: 0

      While that comment was hilariously and excellently timed, does anyone else question that it was modded up as insightful?

    42. Re:Gee... by xhrit · · Score: 2, Funny

      >When it comes to selling arms to terrorists and hostile goverments, perhaps the Republicans didn't want to get in a pissing match with the Democrats, but for having sex, that's something no Republican has ever done (if they'd gotten laid, would they be that uptight?).

      It depends on what you mean by laid. Does gay sex count?

    43. Re:Gee... by crotherm · · Score: 1

      While that comment was hilariously and excellently timed, does anyone else question that it was modded up as insightful? Cause it is true.......

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    44. Re:Gee... by TaGirl_Keri · · Score: 0

      Reading the Slashdot comments, it seems that the majority are happy with treason

      --
      My fav units are dead Mavs
    45. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Act 1 only screws Monica Lewinski
      Cept for those killed in bombing campaigns designed to distract attention ala Wag the Dog
    46. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think they would have any better luck there than they did with Iraq?

    47. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Rape-aXe?

    48. Re:Gee... by Lukery · · Score: 1

      correct. Sibel repeatedly says that it isn't simple state-based espionage, but rather that this is a CRIMINAL network.

    49. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government really wanted to cover this stuff up, they'd get the writer's strike resolved.

      Yeah, because being on strike isn't pinko liberal behavior at all, is it?

    50. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Makes perfect sense to me, if you make it a Turkish-based Russian OC and Israeli based Russian OC run network.

      Most of the Russian Maffiya are Jewish, but Northern Cyprus (run by the Turks since '74) is a very safe haven for anyone with the money to buy influence, as is Israel (see Shirley Porter, the corrupt bitch that got away with electoral shennanigans in Westminster for a prime example).

      No need for government involvement on either the Turkish or Israeli side, though given the history of Israeli politics, it's not inconceivable that some politicians might be involved.

    51. Re:Gee... by B5Fan · · Score: 1

      At least when elections are stolen there, the people give a shit.
      First, you need to know that the election was stolen, and most people in your country still don't seem to have figured that out.
      Who knows, maybe then some of them will give a shit.
      --
      Borg:"Lawsuits are irrelevant. GPL3 is irrelevant. DRM is good. We understand security... Alert! MS are assimilating us!
    52. Re:Gee... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Wait, you think the Plame case was anything but a publicity grab and political stunt on the part of Ole' Joe Wilson? A member of the Kerry '04 campaign?

    53. Re: Gee... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Anger shown about even the slightest hint of any secrecy in government will let the government know that we won't stand for that kind of BS anymore.
      OTOH, masses of people all searching for anything that they think constitutes evidence of secrecy will just make them even more secretive.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    54. Re:Gee... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Criminals are not necessarily intelligent enough to think of consequences."

      In this sort of case, it's very probable that they're well aware of the potential consequences, but don't give a shit because they're sure that said consequences will end up being Somebody Else's Problem.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    55. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I figured..
      Look to SCORE:0 for facts that show libs are not the utopian dope smokers their voters think they are.
      Chinese contributions with the clintons have been around for a while. The latest 'contributions' are no surprise..
      But..EGADS..mention that on slashdot..and your mod'ed into oblivion.

      Imagine the -64565 one would get if they mentioned the Jay Rockerfeller memo to regarding a smear compaign against those who opposed the the clinton healthcare grab in the 90's!!
      (See Cal Thomas's take on it..)

      Ya see..for liberals..Its just 'different'.

    56. Re:Gee... by spun · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Dicks want you to think they are different from assholes, but they aren't. Dicks want you to think you can't protect yourself from assholes without them, but you can, even if you are a pussy. Dicks are as useless as assholes are. They are both part of the same problem.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    57. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering why all the media hand-wringing over this but not that much over the long line of foreign nationals stealing our nuke secrets?

    58. Re:Gee... by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      you think the Plame case was anything but a publicity grab and political stunt on the part of Ole' Joe Wilson?

      Aha, now it all makes sense! Plame's husband Joe convinced her to convince Novak/Libby/Cheney/Rove to leak her name ... because it would help John Kerry's campaign. Yup, I can especially see Cheney and Rove getting behind that one, what with the concurrent Bush campaign and all.

      It was all a conspiracy, by the CIA through Wilson/Plame, to boost Kerry enough to defeat Bush! The friggin' CIA was behind it!!

      And see how well all that worked out!! Moral of the story: never trust Company men with something better outsourced to your buddies over at Haliburton and Blackwater.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    59. Re: Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you suggest we "do" about it? If we act in any militant toward the government, we go to jail. And thanks to patriot act, we don't get a trial, a lawyer, or anything else that we would normally get a "free" society. Act up too much publicly and the police will find a reason to arrest you and make your life a living hell. The press won't cover it at all, either, because that would mean other people would get the idea that being pissed off and doing something about it will draw attention or get some sort of reaction, and we don't want that. This is a police state. There is no denying it, and there's nothing that can be done about it except to leave. But now, leaving requires full on registration of everything about you, and a full investigation of all that you are. We call this a passport. I have a friend who wanted to visit his mother for Christmas in Germany. He went to renew his passport and was told it would be 6 months. He was also told that he could go to Houston and get it done more quickly for more of a fee. This reduced it to 3 months. However, a certified copy of his birth certificate was not enough to obtain the document. He has to have the original according to overpowered person at the counter. The original document has long since been destroyed by fire. Despondant, he accepts his lot as a prisoner in his country. What will we do about this? Nothing. Just throw up our hands in frustration and get up at 6AM monday morning and drive our 4 dollar a gallon car to work where we will complain about it next to the coffee machine. I don't hate America, I hate what it's become.

    60. Re:Gee... by crotherm · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Dicks want you to think they are different from assholes, but they aren't. Dicks want you to think you can't protect yourself from assholes without them, but you can, even if you are a pussy. Then by definition, they are not pussies.

      Dicks are as useless as assholes are. They are both part of the same problem. Society benefits from the arrogant, alpha type. They tend to be great leaders in business and other realms. Sure, part of their mental makeup can be classified as being a dick as well as an asshole. But not all. Look at General Patton. He was a dick. He also was one of the best generals.

      I know I am making lots of generalities, but it is true.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    61. Re:Gee... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Listen, it breaks down like this. Bush is on his way out, one way or the other. Anyone who hasn't already realized he is a corrupt piece of shit never will (the true Kool-aid drinking Republican zealots, who wouldn't think ill of him if he strangled a man in the middle of a press conference). So what is the point at becoming outraged NOW? The damage has already been done, the thieves have already made off with the loot, and the Constitution already has shit stains on it. Prosecuting the corruption of the Bush administration now wouldn't change a damn thing. We already blew our chance in 2000 and 2004.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    62. Re:Gee... by spun · · Score: 1

      Leaders don't tell people where to go. They listen to where people want to go, and tell them how to get their. Dicks tell people what to do, in the guise of leading. Dicks and assholes have a scam going. Dicks need assholes to justify their existence. And an asshole is just some other pussy's dick. There is no difference. We do not need to cater to alpha types and let them dominate us. They may have served a purpose in the bad old days, but we do not need them now. Look how much Ghandi achieved without a single act of violence.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    63. Re:Gee... by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Leaders don't tell people where to go. They listen to where people want to go, and tell them how to get their. So no room for leaders with new ideas? Your idea of a leader sounds like the information desk at a mall.

      Dicks tell people what to do, in the guise of leading. Dicks and assholes have a scam going. Dicks need assholes to justify their existence. And an asshole is just some other pussy's dick. There is no difference. We do not need to cater to alpha types and let them dominate us. They may have served a purpose in the bad old days, but we do not need them now. Look how much Ghandi achieved without a single act of violence. Not all adversaries would be as reasonable as the British. No, I hear you on how we should not need to put up with BS from dicks or assholes, I just don't think that society would be better if somehow they were all removed from the gene pool. Unintended consequences would arise.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    64. Re:Gee... by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Leaders don't tell people where to go. They listen to where people want to go, and tell them how to get their.

      No, that is facilitating. Granted, there's a lot of facilitation in leadership, but it's not the be-all, end-all. Sometimes leaders need to take people in a direction they initially don't want to go, and hopefully it's through convincing the people being led that the leader's vision is the best way.

    65. Re:Gee... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Of course in hindsight, we now recognize that bombing suspected Al-Qaeda targets was probably a good idea. Not that we believed so at the time.

      As a president, Clinton was hamstrung at that time. Everyone was so focused on "the trial" that any good action he took would automatically come under the Wag the Dog accusation.

    66. Re:Gee... by spun · · Score: 1

      The only way to convince people to go in a direction they don't want to go is to show them that it leads to a place they want to go. So my original point stands. Read the Tao te Ching, specifically the sections on leadership for more insight.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:Gee... by spun · · Score: 1

      Of course leaders should have new ideas. New ideas that get people the things they want would be welcomed.

      And you are absolutely right, we shouldn't remove anyone from the gene pool because of unintended consequences. I'd even apply that to sociopaths. They have many of the same genes as leaders and geniuses. If we eliminated all sociopaths, we might eliminate leadership and genius as well. But we don't have to cater to sociopaths. We don't have to look up to them and tell them they are heroes.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    68. Re:Gee... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      That was one of the dumbest questions ever asked on Slashdot...

      It's on a par with: "Do you think Bill Gates wants to buy Apple and dump Windows?"

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    69. Re:Gee... by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      pardoned by Bill Clinton, if you remember, in exchange for some thousands of dollars in bribes

      Hey, was this ever proven? I remember it being a big deal, at the time, but never heard whether a case was filed.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    70. Re:Gee... by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      No, that is facilitating. Granted, there's a lot of facilitation in leadership, but it's not the be-all, end-all. Sometimes leaders need to take people in a direction they initially don't want to go, and hopefully it's through convincing the people being led that the leader's vision is the best way. Why do so many people think "leadership" is a good thing? Do you need to be led? Why?
      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    71. Re: Gee... by wellingj · · Score: 1

      What will we do about this? Nothing. Just throw up our hands in frustration and get up at 6AM monday morning and drive our 4 dollar a gallon car to work where we will complain about it next to the coffee machine.
      I went to my Caucus and voted.
      If you roll-over why you are angry and still don't do any thing its just as bad as putting your head in the sand in the first place. Except now you are mad and you have your head in the sand, so after a while you won't know why you are mad anymore... Almost sounds like what the government wants you to do doesn't it?
    72. Re:Gee... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia:

      On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Rich had also made substantial donations to Israeli charitable foundations. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

      During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages [3]. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable [4]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon. His pardon was curiously supported also by the king of Spain, Juan Carlos I.

      Time Magazine has an article from February, 2001, on the case here:
      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

      The reality is that there is little doubt Rich was guilty - he was alleged to be subject to up to 400 years in prison time if he came back to the US, and the DoJ has been trying to seize him all over Europe, which is why he has carloads of ex-Israeli mercenaries protecting him when he travels in Europe. There is no doubt that Clinton lied when he said he based his decision solely on the recommendations of some attorneys and law professors. The money did it - any idiot can see that.

      The BBC also lists this case of an obviously bought or colluded pardons:

      Carlos Vignali, 30, had his 15-year sentence for conspiracy to sell cocaine reduced to time served, and walked free on Mr Clinton's last day in office. His father, Horacio, is a rich and powerful leader in the Los Angeles Hispanic community who has made large donations to the Democratic party. A number of high-profile Los Angeles figures, including the archbishop, the man who is now sheriff and two current mayoral candidates appealed for clemency for Vignali, but several have now said they should not have done so.

      Almon Glenn Braswell, a Miami-based businessman, was convicted in 1983 of fraud and perjury in connection with a mail-order treatment for baldness he sold. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles, where his business is based, were stunned by the pardon because it could throw a spanner into the works of the current investigation of Braswell on new charges. Mr Clinton said he was not aware that Braswell was facing a new investigation, and that his pardon was only intended to apply to the 1983 conviction. Braswell's lawyers argue it applies to the present circumstances as well, but LA prosecutors say they will proceed with their investigation anyway.

      Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton's younger brother and a Miami lawyer, accepted nearly $400,000 from Braswell and the Vignali family to act on their behalf. When news of the payments became public, he returned the money at the Clintons' insistence. Bill Clinton denied knowing Mr Rodham had taken money for the clemency work, but not having discussed the cases with him. Senator Clinton denied any involvement in t

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  2. Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... try the original Times article..

    The BoingBoing writeup is so irritatingly fragmentary it's hard to tell what it's even saying. Which is a good description of BoingBoing in general, actually.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you for that - The BoingBoing article left me completely unimpressed. For those who don't want to RTFA, don't bother. Everything pertinent is contained in the summary. Not enough to be at all persuasive, IMHO - One woman's claims that FBI agents were documenting their activities while stealing nuclear weapons secrets and selling them to baddies and a newspaper that claims to have evidence that a document (contents unknown) is missing. Not enough to persuade me.

      However, the timesonline article posted by parent gives a lot more detail and is a little more persuasive in lending credence to her claims. It references a lot of anonymous and questionable sources, but at least it references something. Even questionable details, again IMHO, are preferable to getting overly excited based on something so thin.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... try the original Times article..

      The BoingBoing writeup is so irritatingly fragmentary it's hard to tell what it's even saying. Which is a good description of BoingBoing in general, actually.


      Alas, I wouldn't know, as my workplace uses Smartfilter, and since BoingBoing was critical of Smartfilter once, they're on a permanent screw-over list -- even though they have more or less the same content as Slashdot, Smartfilter (now endorsed by the Iranian government! Oppress your serfs today!) blocks them as "Nudity".

      Ah, to be able to block hundreds of thousands of people critical of me with but a click. Must be nice to be a professional censor.

    3. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by tm2b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While that's true, the fraudulent response to the FOIA request is itself a notable issue.

      Somebody needs to go to jail for that - the ability of citizens to keep tabs on their government is too critical to the functioning of our democracy for us to just shrug when that ability is circumvented.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    4. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "While that's true, the fraudulent response to the FOIA request is itself a notable issue. '
      How do you know it is fraudulent? Maybe there is no document with that number.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Not clear to me from either article how exactly the Times knows that this file does in fact exist? Is it from a document from that same whistleblower.

    6. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by mjbkinx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not clear to me from either article how exactly the Times knows that this file does in fact exist? Is it from a document from that same whistleblower.

      "But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file."

      If the Times claims they have that document, I tend to believe it. Owned by Murdoch or not, it's still one of the most respectable newspapers in the world -- and in this case, that they print it despite being owned by NewsCorp even adds some extra credibility to the story. :)

    7. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by tm2b · · Score: 1

      The article claims to have proof it exists. In case you're not familiar with the US legal system - if nobody can prove a crime has been committed, nobody would go to jail. Well, assuming that nobody claims that they're "unlawful combatants" of course.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    8. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by Buran · · Score: 1
      Let me repost the article summary, with highlights added to answer the question that you could have answered had you taken a little more time to think:

      "One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an 'outright lie.'"
      Does that answer your pointless and already-addressed question?
    9. Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      What puzzled me is that they don't say what this document is, and how it shows that the file in fact exists. Maybe it's just poor editing, but another sentence about what the doc is and how they got it would be helpful.

  3. More attention by xannik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe if CNN or another major news outlet picked this up it would gain the attention it deserves.

    --

    Go Illini!!!
    1. Re:More attention by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then again, maybe it is getting exactly the attention it deserves.
      It's kind of hard to tell at this point whether the allegations of the existence of a file by a whistleblower amount to Watergate or Haditha.
      If we swapped the media for the government, could we tell the difference on either end?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:More attention by jackpot777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe if CNN or another major news outlet picked this up it would gain the attention it deserves.


      Well, it was run in the Sunday Times, which is Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, so it should be on Fox News in the US any minute because it's all part of NewsCorp -- ...yeah, I won't hold my breath either. Maybe Paris Hilton did something more 'newsworthy' over there...
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    3. Re:More attention by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Then again, maybe it is getting exactly the attention it deserves. It's kind of hard to tell at this point whether the allegations of the existence of a file by a whistleblower amount to Watergate or Haditha.

      For one, there is the lack of any corroboration. Additionally...names or it didn't happen.

    4. Re:More attention by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only way there's going to be the attention it deserves, is if the allegations are addressed in a legal court of law. The court of public opinion *obviously* won't get to the root of the matter, and the secret dealings of the government will definitely not get to it.

      Demand Justice, Americans! Deny those who seek to cover their crimes the right to do so, whether they are government or otherwise!

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    5. Re:More attention by Manchot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind that Watergate didn't happen overnight. It's easy to forget (especially if you're like me and was born in 1986), but it unfolded over the period of a couple years, with legal battles to obtain documents and all. Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) didn't just go to Woodward and Bernstein out of the blue: he did so after the story had already gained a lot of traction. It was a cumulative effect, and what started as a small story eventually led to the resignation of a president.

    6. Re:More attention by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Splendid reply.
      I was, in fact, alive at the time, but not old enough to remember.
      At that age, I watched *M*A*S*H* and actually thought it was set in Vietnam, and couldn't grasp why Alan Alda was laughing and everyone in reality was pissed off.
      People don't scale. Organizations are hell. Centralized power, while tactically helpful, can lead to strategic woes.
      The fact that Watergate a) is not an isolated behavior pattern, and b) takes a long time to expose should be an important input into the political debate.
      Strikingly, the anti-big-government candidates seem to be doing poorly in the primaries.
      Possibly the federalist argument is not what the electorate cares to hear, but one wonders...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:More attention by Yeti7226 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Then again, maybe it is getting exactly the attention it deserves."

      Except ms Edmonds is the most gagged person is US history and her story has been confirmed by several other (former) FBI agents and the FBI itself.

      All she wanted was to testify in public before the 9/11 commission. This was denied and she was forbidden to speak to anyone about what she knew by the supreme court (some indication that it is interesting to say the least).

      More on her story.

    8. Re:More attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can notice you were born after 1986. Watergates can't happen anymore, because we now live on a tyranny and the government has complete hold of public and private life on the United States. And if you disagree with whatever the FOX/CNN/CBS propaganda ministry tells you, they can just throw you on a black van and next step you will be dressing orange on a nice cuban beach in guantanamo.

    9. Re:More attention by mrdarreng · · Score: 1

      If you consider their search engine then CNN picked it up. If you don't, then like me, you're probably angry with CNN. Even Fox news has a run of the story. FOX!

    10. Re:More attention by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      An excellent link. My thanks. The ACLU is one of those outfits that really can irritate, but work like this shows why the US with an ACLU is far better than a US without the ACLU.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    11. Re:More attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Noam Chomsky in "Understanding Power":

      Watergate was a matter of a bunch of guys from the Republican National Committee breaking in a Democratic Party office for essentially unknown reasons and doing no damage. Okay, that's petty burglary, it's not a big deal. Well, at the exact time that Watergate was discovered, there were exposures in the courts and through the Freedom of Information Act of massive FBI operations to undermine political freedom in the United States, running through every administration back to Roosevelt, but really picking up under Kennedy. It was called "COINTELPRO" (short for "Counterintelligence Program"), and it included a vast range of things.

      It included Gestapo-style assassination of a Black Panther leader; it included organizing race riots in an effort to destroy the black movements; it included attacks on the American Indian Movement, on the women's movement, you name it. It included fifteen years of FBI disruption of the Socialist Worker's Party - that meant regular FBI burglaries, stealing membership lists and using them to threaten people, going to businesses and getting members fired from their jobs, and so on. Well, that fact alone-the fact that for fifteen years the FBI had been burglarizing and trying to undermine a legal political party - is already vastly more important than the fact that a bunch of Keystone Kops broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters one time. The Socialist Workers Party is a legal political party, after all - the fact that they're a weak political party doesn't mean they have less rights than the Democrats. And this wasn't a bunch of gangsters, this was the national political police: that's very serious. And it didn't happen once in the Watergate office complex, is was going on for fifteen years, under every administration. And keep in mind, the Socialist Workers Party episode is just some tiny footnote to COINTELPRO. In comparison to this, Watergate is a tea party.

      Well, look at the comparison in treatment - I mean, you're aware of the comparison in treatment, that's why you know about Watergate and you don't know about COINTELPRO. So what does that tell you? What it tells you is, people in power will defend themselves. The Democratic Party represents about half of corporate power, and those people are able to defend themselves; the Socialist Workers Party represents no power, the Black Panthers don't represent any power, the American Indian Movement doesn't represent any power - so you can do anything you want to them.

    12. Re:More attention by YuvbinDuped · · Score: 1

      The reason this story is being censored in the US is the link to AIPAC. Like in pre-Nazi Germany, the Zionist bankers controlled the economy. They then placed embargoes on the German people. The Zionist's always gain control of the monetary system which means control over the nation and it's "elected" officials, and the media outlets.

      What Edmonds has uncovered has the potential to create ire against the Zionists which will trickle down to anyone of Jewish decent, even though most of the Jewish people had nothing to do with their Zionist counterparts. One does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.

      AIPAC is the second biggest and most powerful lobby in America and they actually steer our foreign policymaking decisions as is evidenced by our current Iraq situation and push for war in Iran.

      Think about what will happen when America as a whole catches wind of this story. Of course, our media being owned by the Zionists will not allow this story to be openly reported if they can help it. All the criminality of the Bush Administration goes straight to Dick Cheney and his cabal back to the PNAC. All one need do is google PNAC and read that website which dates back to 1997 and has the entire four war strategy mapped out. Attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, you can bet it all leads to Israel, who incidentally, have no soldiers in Iraq and are the benificiaries of our invasions.

      This story is the most important story out there without a doubt and leads right to the bowels of 9-11 truth. A story like this would have had the media of 20 years ago foaming at the mouth.

      The fact that this story isn't all over your boob tube clearly indicates that we are all being decieved and taken for a bunch of idiots. Of course, looking at how the media treats Ron Paul and just ignores the criminality of the Bush regime, I gotta wonder if the truth will ever be exposed by our "watchdog" (ahem) media?

      Whenever looking into criminality one need look at the most obvious question in evidentiary procedure ........WHO GAINED?
      The preponderance of the evidence under the totality of the circumstances clearly indicates Israel did.

      "They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality...and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening" - George Orwell

    13. Re:More attention by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      Maybe if CNN or another major news outlet picked this up it would gain the attention it deserves.Nah, CNN is more interested in the Oscar nominations. You'd have to wait until someone more important picks it up, like Colbert!

  4. *Shudders with fear* by naturalog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think this is scary, try to imagine all the things that we don't know about.

    1. Re:*Shudders with fear* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xenu?

    2. Re:*Shudders with fear* by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, indeed. Let us fear monger. Gawd knows we don't get enough from the current administration. We need random wonks picking up the slack.

      And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns.

    3. Re:*Shudders with fear* by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, indeed. Let us fear monger. Gawd knows we don't get enough from the current administration. We need random wonks picking up the slack.

      And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns. But if they did, what better crowd to capture them than the slashdotians?
    4. Re:*Shudders with fear* by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

      Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible at least five times, you insensitive clod.

      Off to Gitmo with you.

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    5. Re:*Shudders with fear* by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      I don't know... people who go outside maybe?

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:*Shudders with fear* by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns. But what Slashdot wants to know is if the government has a secret fleet of pink ponies.
    7. Re:*Shudders with fear* by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      If you really want to know there are places you can go to start finding out.

      --

      Liberty.

    8. Re:*Shudders with fear* by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    9. Re:*Shudders with fear* by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      OMG.....

      Oh, never mind - pink ponies and black helicopters aren't a good mix early in the morning :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    10. Re:*Shudders with fear* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow imagining or exaggerating?

      Hard to tell the difference around here

  5. "Outright lie"? F.B.I. ? Oh, My !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    "Outright lie"? F.B.I. ? Oh, My !! Let's just die !! Or eat pie ?? Or kiss the sky !! Well, bye-bye !!

  6. Double standards... by Philotechnia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?

    Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar?

    1. Re:Double standards... by WiglyWorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly? There are things going on in the government that absolutely should not be made available to the public. There are tons of things that would harm us overall as a country if we just released them for public disemination. The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight. So I don't believe at all that the government should operate with as much transparency as you seem to indicate. That being said... politicians selling nuclear secrets to forgien (and hostile) powers does not fall in to that clause.

    2. Re:Double standards... by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?
      Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar? The thing is that these are American citizens that are running the government, trying to keep these secrets. They suffer (indirectly) as well when they operate in such a way...but you see, I think they are just happy to have more power than the next guy, AND they may not see it as everyone else does.

      Having said that, covering up is nothing new, and getting caught is nothing new. Most people in America are just happy to have enough money for food, shelter, and gas for the car, there's no time to worry about the guys that are causing the problems that make most Americans only able to just afford food, shelter, and gas for the car, and that's the way the guys with slightly more power like it. This is the way the the people with a lot of power WILL keep it, with their last dying breath.

      It all feeds into itself, unfortunately, and the only way to break (restart?) the cycle is a revolution...before, people were labeled as communists for thinking such things...now they are called terrorists. The proletariats/bourgeoisie structure still applies today, as far as I see it. Even if "we" did "rise up", we would fall victim to the allure of power, and it would happen again. Look at the separation from the British Commonwealth -- early Americans were so happy, and wrote a list of rules so that it wouldn't happen to them...so, the succeeding Americans just wrote laws that amended the original to override what they didn't like.

      I don't mean to sound so cynical, it's just the human/social development life cycle that's near impossible to resist/avoid.
    3. Re:Double standards... by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      "Matter of national security" means "too embarrassing to reveal" in six nines of cases.

    4. Re:Double standards... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The notion of National Security should carry a bit of weight, but at the same time, it has become the tendency of the US government, and of many other governments as well, to hide embarrassing information. Congressional oversight in the the US is supposed to overcome this, but I'm certain that there are cases where the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Executive branch both will decide "Wow, this is such a hot potato that it could damage us along with the FBI" that they keep things secret simply for that reason.

      It's a damned touchy area. Let's just say these allegations are true (and I'm not saying that at all, I think this is questionable at the very least). If the allegations forced revelations on certain intelligence and counter-intelligence programs, or even suggested that certain kinds of these programs existed, it could do severe harm to them. So even if some FBI operatives have done bad things, it might things much worse.

      This might all be better if the current administration didn't continuously abuse national security to hide its shortcomings.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Double standards... by Philotechnia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to guess that we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the best interests of national security.

      I would imagine that a great many of those items classified as "matters of national security" are items that would damage the bureaucratic class, and would more or less do no harm to the security of the American people. Or, perhaps this abuse, if it exists, actually harms the people, by failing to show us what government truly is, and by keeping us ignorant and placated. After all, the bureaucratic class is damaged only by our indignation at its existence, no?

      The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in my opinion.

    6. Re:Double standards... by azrider · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight.
      This would be the case if the phrase (and it's cousin - Executive Privilege) were not used so frequently and so obviously to hide illegal/unethical actions on the part of members of the current (and former) administrations.
      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
      John 8:32(King James Version)
    7. Re:Double standards... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in my opinion.


      The whole notion of Congressional Oversight was supposed to be in place to protect the interests of the citizens, even if they couldn't, for their own security, be permitted to see information. Whether that works or not is sadly a political one. One would like to think that this check works, but sometimes I think Congress may be covering its own ass. Let's remember, whatever a particular Administration does, it's Congress that pays the bills, and that means a good deal of responsibility stops at Congress.

      There is another area that has traditionally been afforded some secrecy, and that's diplomacy. The ability of diplomats from various countries to have frank exchanges could not happen where everything said was broadcast on the nightly news.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Double standards... by Philotechnia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well then, label our American democratic project a hypocracy and let's get on with it.

      I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built. I believe in the virtuous nature of a democratic-style government. I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, and in our capacity to come together and strive for something greater. Fundamentally, I believe in our ability to own our government, and make it work for us.

      And I also believe we have a lot of work to do to get there.

      The frontline battle is to get people to believe, to eschew a cynicism that does nothing but maintain the power of the status quo, and feel the sense of empowerment that our founding fathers intended us to have as citizens. To stop looking to government for answers and quick-fixes, but instead to participate in government to help seek common understanding and reach a social consensus on how to deal with harsh realities. To get people to believe that all races, genders, and generations are capable of this participation, and yet, recognizing that this is a skill, to mentor and train those who would seek further involvement.

      I realize this is a utopian vision, to a great extent, and as such, I don't necessarily have my sights focused on an endpoint. Rather, this ongoing process of self-improvement, or the potential for this process, is what makes America great. We are a people that founded itself in the pursuit of something greater, and while our demise has often been proclaimed, wave after wave of generation has risen up to renew this pursuit. My vision is not for the endpoint, the realization of some grand society, but simply that this process that forms the strength of country not die out completely! And oh, how some in power would love to see this end...

      To quote one of my favorite movies - I find your lack of faith disturbing. I understand cynicism, I see how people become frustrated with government, but I believe there's a better way.


      Is Mr. Obama taking applications for speechwriters? :)

    9. Re:Double standards... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are things going on in the government that absolutely should not be made available to the public. There are tons of things that would harm us overall as a country if we just released them for public disemination. Like what goes on in those secret CIA prisons out of the judicial jurisdiction of the US legal system, the list of dictators installed by the US to replace democratically elected representatives, stuff like that?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:Double standards... by pegr · · Score: 1

      I believe you are missing one small nuance. Even in regard to nationsl security issues, nothing should be secret forever. To maintain a transparent government, even national secrets such as covert agents should eventually be made public.

      It's kind of like encryption. Encryption is not for keeping your secrets secret forever; it's for keeping your secrets secret long enough to be effective.

    11. Re:Double standards... by Philotechnia · · Score: 1

      Good point. I suppose government can use the same twisted logic it has applied to copyright to the venue of national secrecy, sadly.

    12. Re:Double standards... by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod you insightful even though I don't agree with you (really - and I'm not Karma whoring so nobody mod this up please!) However, I'd rather discuss the idea further. Here's the rub: what if I suggest that our system has already been perverted by those in power to the point that the political involvement you're looking for is already impossible? Perhaps we have lost the ability to 'own our own government'. Too many of our people are too poorly educated to be informed and motivated voters. Enough of the populace is hypnotized by the 'sound bite' and so easily partitioned into 'far right' and 'far left' that nothing will change. The people who already 'have theirs' see no incentive to changing this. None of this requires conspiracy theories. It just requires an entrenched power base, a replacement of 'enlightened self-interest' with just 'self-interest', and perhaps also dash of psychopathic/sociopathic behavior. And considering a book I recently read suggests that 4% of Americans are sociopaths, I really fear that the rest of us may just be lambs to the slaughter without even noticing.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    13. Re:Double standards... by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      And what about when the government deems some information so inflammatory to the general populace that releasing it would create a threat to the stability of the nation, and therefore national security?

    14. Re:Double standards... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      There should be very few things that the government does which can't be revealed to the public. If there are a lot of such things, that should be a warning indication to the society that it is no longer possible for the society to determine whether the government is operating in their best interests anymore.

    15. Re:Double standards... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2

      even national secrets such as covert agents should eventually be made public.

      I think it would be too hard to figure out when an agent could be uncovered. Even if you wait till after their death, admitting they were an agent can put at risk any of their contacts. You also put at risk any secrets they might have stolen that you don't want the other side to know you have. You also put at risk any other agents that are still in the field because they might have met or have similar operation profiles. There are just too many risks of ever outing a covert agent.

    16. Re:Double standards... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that this document was reported to have existed under the last administration. Actually, all the hostilities seem to be after the fact based. I mean if it did happen during Clinton, the 9/11 and the home countries of the attackers wouldn't matter that much because 9/11 didn't happen back then. And your right, the current hostility of the current administration compounds this but if it is true that it happened under Clinton, does that mean half or most the anger should be gone?

      There was an operation in which the US government placed faulty nuclear weapon plans on an underground market and watched who got them and where they went. This happened during the Clinton years and copies of the nuclear plans were found in Saddam's possession with a few Russian annotations to where they thought the flaws stopping it from working was. Of course it was still non-functional but they were there. The white house, under Bush's control posted the plans on the website as proof that Iraq had some form of weapons programs that was banned. After years of criticisms saying that it wasn't a threat we needed to goto war over, opponents changed their minds and claimed it was a threat enough being left out there for anyone to find so it was eventually taken down.

      I bring that up because this supposed document could be detailing that program and it would be a matter of national security. And if the document exists, then it would/could be confirmation that the program was more then speculation which could be enough to jeopardize existing operations if any were recycled or used in connection with this program. It will be difficult to find the real answers on this but I can see a need to keep them secrete and I can see where a misconception could be made. I'm not sure If I can see the need to deny the document but I can understand others claiming their would be. This isn't exactly smoke and there isn't exactly a threat of fire here either.

    17. Re:Double standards... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built.

      Such as the privilege of white male landowners?

      There's some nice ideas in the American Experiment, but buying into our national mythology of "enlightened ideals" of the Founders doesn't help. This country was built on the notion of one group of rich white guys throwing off the shackles of a different group of rich white guys so that they could get to be the ones on top, squeezing everyone else.

      And if we realize that, we can also see that in many ways we've come a hell of a long way since then. We haven't fallen from some lost Eden of the ideals of the Founders. We've evolved (with various sidetracks and detours and temporary downturns, to be sure) from the ideas of a bunch of slaveholding racist sexist aristocrats, to a time of political equality that would astonish any of them. You no longer have to be white or a guy to be in power! Even poor people can vote (though GOP operatives are working on that one).

      Being rich - or at least serving the interests of the rich - is still pretty much mandatory to get into a position of power. But progress will be made. Not by looking backward to a mythical "enlightened ideal", but by looking forward to possibilities for new ways of living.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    18. Re:Double standards... by pegr · · Score: 1

      There are just too many risks of ever outing a covert agent.
       
      Additional criteria not withstanding, fifty to a hundred years after-the-fact is about right. Of course, spies never really come in from the cold, do they....

    19. Re:Double standards... by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you make everything illegal, no one obeys you.

      When you make everything secret, no one trusts you.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    20. Re:Double standards... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      "Matter of national security" would be nice if it wasn't used to cover up misdeads in the part of the US. At least it seems that way. Given that there's apparently very little real oversight, and it can't be challenged in courts without access to the information, the government becomes a real danger to its own citizens.

      The actual information needed to make weapons, fine, I really don't want any power to have it, but how that information is used, no.

    21. Re:Double standards... by Retric · · Score: 1

      There are just too many risks of ever outing a covert agent.

      What about 1000 years after the fact? or 500? IMO 200 is a safe bet as everyone involved will be dead as will their children. Less than that might be risky but the idea you need to keep X's identiy secret to the end of time seems silly.

    22. Re:Double standards... by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron.

      Slightly OT, but your example may not be the best one.

      A good friend of mine works at one of the big 5 accounting firms and audits the financial reports of large corporations. (FYI - he has never worked for Arthur Anderson and has never audited Enron). According to him, it was fairly clear in the audit notes what Enron was up to, but nobody bothered to read them. As long as the stock was increasing in value, nobody paid much attention to the small print.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    23. Re:Double standards... by maxume · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherently virtuous about democracy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Double standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I really would like to join the conspiracy crowd. However, much as I try, I just can't get there from here. Seems to happen a lot around here...

      First, most classified matter I've seen is so because of where it's born. If I write a memo to my boss requesting a vacation using a classified machine, it's classified. I can get it declassified by requesting same and, after approval, it almost certainly would be. Why would I do that, though? Do you really want me wasting your tax dollars that way?

      Second, if you were truly interested in what the government is doing, or spending money on, try reading the budget submissions from the related agencies and the funding bills. For instance, since you mentioned the Manhattan program, let's try DOE/NNSA. For this year's funding request see http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/08budget/Content/Volumes/Vol_1_NNSA.pdf. You're probably interested in the section that starts on page 53. The office of the President takes that and makes a budget submission -- See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/doe.pdf. Then, for what they were authorized to spend and do, try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110HxtKyt:e379988:

      You already knew all that, though, of course. No? What? Too much like work? Yes, it certainly is easier to whine than dig for those answers you claim you want.

      The common thing I've noticed about conspiracy theories is that so much of our time is wasted on what's not available that the nagging issue of what *is* available will be reliably ignored. Let's justify this laziness by telling ourselves that this is what "they" want you to know. It just must not be true, right?

      Lemmings. Gotta love 'em. Their life is so short :)

    25. Re:Double standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government? You're right! End the double standard! Permit corporations impose taxes. How much is the EU trading for today?

      There are fundamental differences between private entities and government, mkay?

      From the original Times story, Sibel Edmonds, FBI "whistleblower" says:

      I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996... Another Clinton security mess. Let's be sure to elect the wife. China may need more missile tech.

      sensitive diplomatic relations Another State Department turd. You can see that one coming from a mile off while standing in Foggy Bottom.

    26. Re:Double standards... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Just for completeness, details of specific military operations, such as troop locations and timetables, should probably also be included in this list.
    27. Re:Double standards... by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

      There are some other legitimate "matters of national security" to keep secret. World War II would have gone a bit differently if the government had announced "In the interest of transparency, we just wanted to let everyone know that we've cracked the German and Japanese codes and are listening to everything they say..."

    28. Re:Double standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas,

      But then when people voted, they'd be voting on actual facts, not imaginary ones created by spinners. What kind of democracy would that be?

      The Freedom of Information Act has been changed so many times during the last 6 years that now it's legal to deny the existence of documents that one thinks MIGHT be embarrassing to the country, no matter the importance or topic, or to someone in office, or to someone who was involved in some way with the government, or... It's a shell of what it was intended to be, and what it did in the beginning, and many people in government are evidently quite happy about that.

      "Keep America strong, keep it's people in the dark!"

      While on the topic of voting, I hear TV ads with the message, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, just that you vote." If it doesn't matter who you vote for, why vote? Why not save the cost of an election? Spin a wheel with the social security numbers of every citizen over 35 in the US who is not otherwise ineligible to become president, and declare the winner? Although I will admit, sometimes I think we wouldn't do much worse that way.

    29. Re:Double standards... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      They've cried wolf a few too many times.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    30. Re:Double standards... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe the case of faked documents you are referring to was not directed at Iraq but at Iran and is not related to the FBI case document under discussion in the Times article.

      The CIA recruited a Russian scientist to deliver faked nuclear design documents to Iran. Most of the documents were genuine, but there were flaws in the design.

      The problem was that the Russian scientist quickly identified the flaws and realized that not only would the Iranian scientists see them quickly, too, destroying the idea that they were legitimate, but that the rest of the design would be valuable to the Iranians. He pointed this out to his CIA handler, who dismissed the concerns as not important.

      So the Russian, before delivering the designs to his Iranian connection at the IAEA, added notes to them pointing out the flaws in an effort to make the documents more believable. He did this without the knowledge of his handler, apparently.

      It is clear from this that the intent as explained to the Russian of trying to fool the Iranians into building a flawed design was ITSELF a cover story. The real purpose was simply to get the plans into Iranian hands, thus justifying the concept that Iran had a nuclear weapons program (for which there is zero evidence other than a laptop the providence of which no one can ascertain, and which is very likely a forgery along the lines of the Niger documents.)

      The document under discussion is totally different. An anonymous letter sent to The Liberty Coalition, a DC-based transpartisan civil and human rights watchdog organization. A subsequent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, asking for information referring to that case number, resulted in a denial from the FBI that such a case exists. The letter referred to the FBI case document. The FBI case document, the contents of which Edmonds knows, was described by her as follows:

      "The case in question, she told The BRAD BLOG, careful to avoid categorical defiance of her gag order, "concerns 1996 to 2002 information, targeting Turkish counter-intelligence, and it involves U.S. officials both appointed and elected."

      What Edmonds has alleged, based on what she knows from documents she translated at the FBI, is that Marc Grossman, a State Department employee, tipped off the nuclear black marketers that Valerie Plame's organization was in fact a CIA operation. The anonymous letter which is referred to above also made this claim,

      The document in question is an FBI case file, not a CIA operation. So it is not the same as the Iranian false flag operation.

      Edmonds has made it clear that there is no "national security" involved in this situation. What is involved is the intent to protect certain elected and appointed government officials from charges of treason, which at the same time would embarrass several national governments such as Turkey, Israel, and others.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    31. Re:Double standards... by The13thSin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about making most things legal, just a few illegal and nothing secret... how's that?

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    32. Re:Double standards... by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there must be some secrets, especially with the military. See with secrets comes uncertainty; the enemy doesn't know how many of which you have, and will be reluctant to risk an attack without a reasonable expectation of success. Unfortunately this would extend to protecting the secrecy of some of the presidents actions, which of course leads to abuse. I don't think such a simple solution is adequate for our needs.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    33. Re:Double standards... by APL+bigot · · Score: 1

      The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight.
      This would be the case if the phrase (and it's cousin - Executive Privilege) were not used so frequently and so obviously to hide illegal/unethical actions on the part of members of the current (and former) administrations.
      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32(King James Version)
      .

      You shall know the truth and it shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley
      And if the people were mad, it would lead to execution for treason. So what is the consequence of lying about a "matter of national security" when the alternative is execution?
      --
      Heisenberg may have been here.
    34. Re:Double standards... by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Well then, label our American democratic project a hypocracy and let's get on with it.
      I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built. I believe in the virtuous nature of a democratic-style government. I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, and in our capacity to come together and strive for something greater. Fundamentally, I believe in our ability to own our government, and make it work for us.
      And I also believe we have a lot of work to do to get there.
      The frontline battle is to get people to believe, to eschew a cynicism that does nothing but maintain the power of the status quo, and feel the sense of empowerment that our founding fathers intended us to have as citizens. To stop looking to government for answers and quick-fixes, but instead to participate in government to help seek common understanding and reach a social consensus on how to deal with harsh realities. To get people to believe that all races, genders, and generations are capable of this participation, and yet, recognizing that this is a skill, to mentor and train those who would seek further involvement.
      I realize this is a utopian vision, to a great extent, and as such, I don't necessarily have my sights focused on an endpoint. Rather, this ongoing process of self-improvement, or the potential for this process, is what makes America great. We are a people that founded itself in the pursuit of something greater, and while our demise has often been proclaimed, wave after wave of generation has risen up to renew this pursuit. My vision is not for the endpoint, the realization of some grand society, but simply that this process that forms the strength of country not die out completely! And oh, how some in power would love to see this end...
      To quote one of my favorite movies - I find your lack of faith disturbing. I understand cynicism, I see how people become frustrated with government, but I believe there's a better way.
      Is Mr. Obama taking applications for speechwriters? :) Well, I'm afraid to say it, but it is more republic-like or fascist. I don't want to go off on tangents here, but, suffice it to say that the general sentiment amongst the populace would be close to congruent with the idea that the government is no longer serving the public, but rather suppressing it.

      Seriously though, I would be in the first wave of a rebellion. Sort of ironic that you would quote a high ranking primary officer in the oppression of scores of otherwise rightful citizens...albeit on tv.
  7. counting down the days until by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    She is labeled an International Terrorist, since they can't out her husband as a spy

    10... 9... 8...

    1. Re:counting down the days until by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, it took you 3 days to post that? I thought I type slowly.

  8. Who believes that they're guilty? by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 1

    Why don't we have a Pollard..er, poll.

    --
    If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
  9. Art of War Chapter 13 by techpawn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.
    8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.
    9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.
    10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.
    11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.
    12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.
    13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.
    14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies. None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

    Oh yeah, we're so stupid that we're going to let some reporter just find this filing we're trying to hide... NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
    The Art of war has been around since 5 BC, misinformation has been around longer than that...

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your post itself could be the misinformation, meant to throw people away from the truth. Afterall, while what you say is true, it is also true that sometimes government has its dirty laundry aired inadvertantly. The best way to avoid a public panic and concern over this is to get people believing it was intentional, serving some higher goal known only to our government.

      It's like most conspiracy theories involving government taking part in bad actions... it's a lot more comforting to believe that our government is almighty and in control doing bad things, rather than believing that shit can and does happen beyond their control. It seems like many prefer the illusion of unjust order, rather than the reality of chaotic events that can not be controlled or stopped by all the might we have invested our faith in.

      --
      Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
    2. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by Aardpig · · Score: 1, Informative

      FNORD! FNORD!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    3. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to dishonesty what can be attributed to incompetence. While there have always been double agents and moles, quite frankly I think a lot of times people just fuck things up. Information gets put in seemingly neutral dossiers that shouldn't get there. Hell, look at the number of times personal information of citizens has been tossed in the trash, left on notebook hard drives and stolen and the like. While this is bad, it's not in the same category as someone selling state secrets.

      This all smacks of conspiracy theory. You get a disgruntled ex-employee making up stories, you get the usual cabal of New World conspiracy nuts, survivalists and all that strange, slightly demented possibly paranoid schizophrenics running around making it bigger and bigger. I've seen it a lot. I worked for a guy who was completely into the conspiracy theory end of things, swearing up and down that the UN, funded by the Rockefellers, missing Russian gold, Mossad and who knows what else, was going to take over the United States and the world.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by techpawn · · Score: 1

      it's a lot more comforting to believe that our government is almighty and in control doing bad things, rather than believing that shit can and does happen beyond their control.
      I'm just pointing out a section of an old book that is almost required reading of people in high military rank. The same people who know that the "enemy" is using the internet and newspapers as a source of intel. What better place to set misinformation than there? Turning the newspapers into doomed spies is just an alteration of Sun Tzu's thought's on spies...

      I'm not implying that this is or is not that, just putting it out for discussion.
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    5. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by Krishnoid · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, we're so stupid that we're going to let some reporter just find this filing we're trying to hide... NOTHING TO SEE HERE! The Art of war has been around since 5 BC, misinformation has been around longer than that...

      And stupidity and bureaucracy have been around for ... ?

    6. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, we're so stupid that we're going to let some reporter just find this filing we're trying to hide... NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
      The Art of war has been around since 5 BC, misinformation has been around longer than that... Yeah, well the Art of War also says:

      "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories." WMDs? What WMDs? Mission accomplished!!

      There's another book out there, Murphy's Law, one of those passages reads:

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dude, it's not just a theory. Sibel Edmonds was judicially gagged. She was a translator working for intelligence agencies/FBI. The fear of many who have been following this case is not so much that the professional bureaucracy of the US is conspiring to traffic nuclear arms/design secrets but that politically powerful and protected individuals-many in Israel as well as the Arab and Turkish world--have been stealing our nation's nuclear secrets. The FBI has been hamstrung by the politically powerful, and have pretty much looked the other way in spite of knowing what was going on.

      The scary part is what was Pakistan and Turkey and Israel doing helping Al Quaida acquire a nuke? Kind of brings to mind the case of the the armed nuclear cruise missiles flown from Minot AFB to Barksdale--which was as much of an "accident" as the shuttle lifting off without one of its booster rockets would be.

    8. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you know she was judicially gagged? Do you have the court order?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to dishonesty what can be attributed to incompetence.

      I prefer to state it:

      Never attribute to malevolence or incompetence that which can be attributed to malevolence and incompetence.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    10. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. Go look up the details, moron.

      This case is probably the most well-known gag case in history. Edmonds has been officially labeled THE most gagged person in US history.

      The FBI ITSELF in its internal investigation labeled her allegations credible and said that she had been fired as a result of retaliation.

      Moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    11. Re:Art of War Chapter 13 by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure that is all true.

      BUT you know what? I still think the greatest danger to the USA (and the world in general) is NOT Iran or North Korea or Iraq. The greatest danger to the USA is the US Gov (or whoever is controlling it).

      You think all that secrecy helps protect you against Iran etc? Maybe it does, but does it protect you against the US Gov who is arguably a greater threat? How many times do they have to Diebold your elections before it's too late?

      Do you really think the US Gov has the best interests of the USA at heart? All those lies to start a "war" against Iraq. The billions of dollars spent in that war and siphoned away.

      Sure you can _try_[1] to keep secrets on how US makes nukes etc, but I find it hard to believe that all the other secrets and tricks are worth it - e.g. sending _slightly_ flawed nuke secrets to Iran[2]. Flawed blueprints that can probably be corrected by any nuclear scientists worth his/her uranium salts. Why? To set them up to justify an invasion to get more oil? You know they know how to make nukes because your top secret people told them in some clever top secret way, how nice.

      So good reason to invade them eh? That'll sure make you guys popular and safe from them terrorists...

      [1] The russkies have often said it's easy to get secrets - just get the Yanks to brag about stuff. A little extra info here and a little extra there and they get the full picture :).

      [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2

      --
  10. arrgghhh by revlayle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive.

    PUNNED!
    1. Re:arrgghhh by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would that make Edmonds a "pun"dit?

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    2. Re:arrgghhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he certainly did.

  11. Explosive contents? by RockMFR · · Score: 1

    If the documents literally contained explosives, there would probably be a better chance of the government actually releasing them.

  12. It's a lie! by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

    The government would never lie to it's employers (The tax payers)

    1. Re:It's a lie! by jackpot777 · · Score: 3, Funny
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes

      Read my lips: no new taxes" is a now-famous phrase spoken by former American president and candidate George H. W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18. Written by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, the line was one of the most prominent soundbites from the speech. The pledge not to tax the American people further had been a consistent part of Bush's 1988 election platform, but its prominent inclusion in his speech cemented it in the public consciousness. The impact of the election promise was considerable, and many believe it helped Bush win the 1988 presidential election.

      Once he became president, however, Bush was pressured by Democrats and some Republicans to raise taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. Bush refused many times but was making no progress with a Senate and House that was controlled by Democrats. Bush later agreed to a compromise in which he worked with Congressional Democrats to raise several taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement. This reversal caused great controversy, especially in the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Pat Buchanan made extensive use of the phrase in his strong challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. In the election itself, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, running as a moderate, also pointed to the quotation as evidence of Bush's untrustworthiness, which contributed to Bush losing his bid for re-election.


      All depends: if any political party, irrespective of the nation, actively campaigns on the platform that Government is a bad thing, of COURSE you're going to get bad government. It's the only truthful platform a lot of US politicians seem to have run on!

      As for taxes? I saw the following online but can't find it on Google:

      Warrantless wiretaps: illegal.

      Phone companies profiting from the act: immoral.

      Cutting the program because of unpaid bills: PRICELESS.

      There are some things Governments can't buy. For everything else, there's taxes.
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    2. Re:It's a lie! by Phil06 · · Score: 0

      Clinton won and Bush lost the election because of Ross Perot, it had nothing whasoever to do with the "Read My Lips" speech

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
  13. Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by AxemRed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours. And wouldn't messing with other countries and stealing secrets fall under the CIA's realm anyway?

    1. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

      The assertation is not that the FBI stole the secrets. The story alledges that the FBI covered up evidence that "high ranking US government officials" did the deed.

    2. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours."

      Because that would be illegal.

      Compare to the Iran-Contra affair, for example, where the US government could have simply sold some of its ample supply of weapons directly and openly to Iran ... but that would be illegal.

    3. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well, taken from the other side, that would be a GOOD reason for the FBI to want to cover up its (illegal and misguided) involvement.

    4. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The assertation is not that the FBI stole the secrets. The story alledges that the FBI covered up evidence that "high ranking US government officials" did the deed.

      So in other words, the FBI stole the secrets ... just unofficially.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      No, I think that *if* it even happened it was probably someone in the State Department or even someone attached to the White House.

    6. Re:Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I was just being facetious, actually.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Retribution is on the way by heroine · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fortunately Iran stole nuclear secrets from US in time to fix the problems with US stealing nuclear secrets.

    1. Re:Retribution is on the way by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 1

      Too late....i hear the US stole the Nuclear Secret from Nazi Germany.

      --
      . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
  15. And reading between the lines... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Despite the fact that this is a story now, is it a coincidence that the document in question went missing during the Clinton administration?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:And reading between the lines... by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes.

      And your point was?

    2. Re:And reading between the lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the fact that this is a story now, is it a coincidence that the document in question went missing during the Clinton administration?

      You mean under Louis Freeh?

  16. Other countries with nuclear secrets by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why would we do that when it'd be much easier for Pakistan to buy secrets when we already more or less openly trade arms with them? i.e. we just finished a 20 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia... what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do?

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by oojimaflib · · Score: 1

      what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do? Act as a deterrent.
    2. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arabia... what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do?

      Wipe out 20 billion dollars worth of arms.

    3. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do?

      Add 6" to one's dick length!

    4. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Act as a deterrent.


      20 billion dollars worth of arms can't act as a deterrent? Really?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      And seriously... "nuclear secrets"?

      The plans for a fully working nuclear weapon can be found quite easily on Google. Gaining nuclear technology has much less to do with knowledge now than with the economics of setting up a proper refining facility for the creation of the uranium and plutonium isotopes used in making a weapon, both of which are very expensive and time-consuming to produce. The challenge is hiding that facility, not learning how to make nukes.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    6. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do? Don't know... ask Sadam
    7. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by TheWingThing · · Score: 1

      Pakistan's biggest adversary is India, which is militarily more powerful and has had nukes since 1976. Conventional weapons worth several billions of dollars are no match for a militarily more powerful, nuclear equipped adversary. However, the US cannot legally sell nukes to Pakistan because the US has signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. However, if this is true, this is quite shameful and criminal since this still counts as a violation of NPT. Besides, India is the only nuke-equipped country in the world with a written "no first use of nukes in a conventional war" policy. The US is just building Frankenstein monsters by providing nukes to Pakistan, which has been caught red handed several times with aiding, abetting, funding, harboring and protecting terrorist groups.

    8. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by Cederic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Actually, no.

      Europe and/or America and/or Russia and/or China (and probably India too) can take out $20bn of defences in days, with ease. They also have defence in depth of their own, making it rather difficult for more than token damage to be done to their own holdings.

      If the token damage has a nuclear payload then suddenly it's a significant national disaster. People don't risk those lightly.

      It's not coincidence that nobody invades nuclear powers.

    9. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Go in the front of a missile? Advanced planes and armored vehicles are dangerous, but they are fundamentally a lot slower and more easily countered than a nuke. So... a lot.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    10. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do? If you replace "a nuke" with "a Beowulf cluster of nukes", you will see the answer is quite obvious.
    11. Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets by APL+bigot · · Score: 1

      It's not coincidence that nobody invades nuclear powers.
      This of course ignores the Mexican invasion of the US. ("undocumented workers")
      --
      Heisenberg may have been here.
  17. conspiracy... by mooreti1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...it's not. FTA, "tip-off's" from anonymous correspondents (paragraph 8) and documents signed by un-named FBI officials (paragraph 4) does not lead me to believe in the veracity of the story. I gave up on conspiracy theories years ago when I realized that human nature doesn't lend itself to keeping secrets very well...particularly government officials.

    --
    Oh, for the days when sig's didn't have to be cute...hey, wait a sec.
    1. Re:conspiracy... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you're evidently ignorant of the entire story behind Sibel Edmonds, I'd suggest you spend some time getting up to speed before babbling about this.

      On your behalf, the story as covered in the topic is not the whole story, so your ignorance can be excused - once.

      This is not "conspiracy theory". There is an actual, real life conspiracy going on here, the details of which have been officially and publicly suppressed as personified in Sibel Edmonds. Look up the details.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:conspiracy... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, she's lying. You don't consider that to be a possibility?

      Also, why would the Bush administration cover up something that happened under the Clintons? It doesn't make sense.

    3. Re:conspiracy... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      No, I don't consider lying to be a likelihood for three reasons:

      1) She has nothing to gain by doing so.

      2) The FBI internal investigation considered her claims credible - as do several reporters who have looked into the claims as far as possible given her gag order.

      3) Why would the DoJ gag somebody who was merely lying under the State Secrets Privilege which is almost never invoked?

      The Bush administration is not covering up something that happened under the Clintons - it is covering up something that is happening NOW.

      I said - try to get up to speed on the story before talking about it.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    4. Re:conspiracy... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced this is happening now. Her awareness of the program went from 1996 to 2002. So it started under Clinton and went for five years under Clinton. If it was really as heinous as you think, wouldn't the Bush people have exposed it in 2001 when they took over. Like I said, something doesn't add up here.

    5. Re:conspiracy... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "wouldn't the Bush people have exposed it in 2001"

      You need to get up to speed on the case. Tons of Bush people ARE INVOLVED. Almost all the major neocon advisers of Bush in the State Department and the Defense Department are involved. Go look up Edmonds Web site www.justacitizen.com and read up on it. See the documentary video here:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283

      Or at least read ex-CIA agent Philip Giraldi's recap in this article:

      http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:conspiracy... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      It still doesn't make sense. To me the whole thing looks like an FBI counterintelligence operation that's getting compromised because they didn't let the translator in on the joke.

    7. Re:conspiracy... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      No, as I said, Edmonds WAS the investigation. Read the Philip Giraldi piece where he lays out how important the translator is to an investigation. She had a top secret security clearance for a reason. These aren't clerks doing that job. The translator knows EVERYTHING going on in an investigation because they have to know how to interpret what the target is saying in an wiretap or document.

      Now, you could conceivably suggest that the FBI investigation could compromise, say, an unknown to them CIA investigation. In fact, the calls to gag to Edmonds and shut down the FBI investigations came not so much from the FBI itself, but from the DOD and State. But in that case, it is likely the entire FBI investigation would have known parameters, and the translators and agents wouldn't have been tasked with knowingly interfering.

      Instead, what happened is that when FBI translators were suspected of spying and this was brought to attention of higher ups all the way up to Robert Mueller's office, the translator who brought to their attention was fired and gagged - not let in on any secret investigation, which would obviously have been the way to go for her superiors if there was one. They could have simply recruited her as part of the investigation, at any time, and that would have satisfied her - but they didn't.

      No, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Something is rotten in Denmark, and it smacks of protecting important elected officials at the Defense Department and State Department. Keep in mind, the same people Edmonds accuses of shutting down FBI investigations ALSO outed Valerie Plames' name and tipped off people to Plames' Brewster Jennings company - a CIA operation against nuclear proliferation. The only beneficiaries of that action could only be the people engaged in the selling of nuclear secrets.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  18. Sibel Edmonds makes the Front Page by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    About 3-4 of us have been JE'ing this for 3 years.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Sibel Edmonds makes the Front Page by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      n00b question: "JE'ing"?

      Thanks in advance.

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    2. Re:Sibel Edmonds makes the Front Page by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      JE "Journal Entry" ;-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Sibel Edmonds makes the Front Page by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      :-)
      Thanks.

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
  19. Pakistani nuclear head's comments in 2004 by br00tus · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the New York Times:

    Dr. Khan recounts how Western companies sold him whatever was desired. These were the same businesses, he says, that sold equipment to the nuclear enrichment facilities at Almelo, in the Netherlands, where Dr. Khan worked in the 1970's, and at Capenhurst, England:


    While a lot of biased and unfounded propaganda is directed against us, the Western world never talked about their own hectic and persistent efforts to sell everything to us. When we bought inverters from Emerson, England, we found them to be less efficient than we wanted them to be. We asked Emerson to improve upon some parameters and we suggested the method .

    At that time we received many letters and telexes and people chased us with figures and details of equipment they had sold to Almelo, Capenhurst, etc. They literally begged us to buy their equipment. We bought what we considered to be suitable for our plant and very often asked them to make changes and modifications according to our requirements.

    1. Re:Pakistani nuclear head's comments in 2004 by Zephurus · · Score: 0

      KHAAAAAAN!

    2. Re:Pakistani nuclear head's comments in 2004 by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      Is that really that shocking? Obviously companies anywhere in the world are going to be trying to peddle their wares to anyone willing to buy them. Much of the equipment used in uranium enrichment and preparation of a nuclear weapon is for the most part multi-purpose and could be used for completely innocuous purposes, such as a gas centrifuge. Most of it is extremely expensive as well, so vendors would be jumping over themselves to make a sale. So I don't find his quote all that inflammatory and you have to be careful in how you read into it.

    3. Re:Pakistani nuclear head's comments in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They literally begged us to buy their equipment."

      This reminds me of a R rated movie...

      - C'mon maaan, I'll sell you this nuclear secrets, maan...
      - Dude, I don't want your nuclear secrets!
      - C'mon maan, I'll suck your dick, maan...

    4. Re:Pakistani nuclear head's comments in 2004 by gyst · · Score: 1

      In The Netherlands, former prime minister Ruud Lubbers has testified that, on discovery of Khan's spying activities in the Almelo nuclear facility, the CIA requested that the Dutch governement should refrain from intervention. And now we're worrying about the 'islamic nuclear bomb'...

  20. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so is Israel. We used to see India as leaning toward communism. India and Pakistan were at each other's throats. India got the bomb either by themselves or with Soviet help. That tilted the balance of power a lot. Some misbehaving civil servant leaked important nuclear secrets to Pakistan. Now the balance of power was restored. Strange how accidents happen like that.

    Of course now, because of the law of unintended consequences, an unstable country, on the verge of a civil war that may leave it as a failed state like Afghanistan, has the bomb. It's ok. Everybody over there loves us ... don't they?

    1. Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      because of the law of unintended consequences

      I do not think that applies when the consequences are the only logical ones one could have possibly expected...

    2. Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's remember here that Pakistan was only part of the reason India pursued nuclear weapons. Just as important to India was China, and those two have been giving each other stink eye for decades. There's still an unsolved border dispute, and I'll wager that there are nearly as many missiles pointed at Beijing as there are at Karachi.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by IvyKing · · Score: 1

      Not to mention what happened to Tibet. As for Pakistan, India has a lot more manpower and industrial resources so it wouldn't have much trouble winning a convential war.

    4. Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think that applies when the consequences are the only logical ones one could have possibly expected...

      I think gp means the "Law of Undesired Consequences" :)

    5. Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's true, and it's why the Pakistanis felt they needed nukes in the first place.

  21. Please tell me what would constitute such by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Operational work from the armed forces? Well not after five years.

    Nuclear secrets? Well, they age very quick too. The spies from other countries get this stuff in a few years.

    "Commercial in confidence"? Nope. It's MY money they're spending. And what's the downside? Someone undercuts? Well that's only a problem if the undercutter is expecting to cut corners too.

    Names of spies. Well, OK. 'cept they're already doing this nuofficially.

    Access codes? Yup. Though I don't think anyone's ever ASKED.

  22. This article could be better written... by igotmybfg · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    ...if it was written by someone who knew a little more about what they're talking about. Consider:

    ISPs such as Optimum Online, Napster, Usenet Server, and YouTube,

    What? YouTube and Napster are ISPs now? Usenet is an ISP, not a discussion system? Optimum Online seems to be the only real ISP in this list.

    Some ISPs connect to the Internet, while others allow you to participate on the newsgroups.

    All ISPs connect to the internet, by definition of the term 'ISP'. If they don't connect to the internet, they're not an ISP.

    James Cicconi told Slyck.com that AT&T hasn't implemented any filter on their public network just yet. Providing the technology can be developed,

    Hasn't the technology already been developed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H deployed by Comcast?

    1. Re:This article could be better written... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either the comment system is fucked, or you posted in the wrong article

    2. Re:This article could be better written... by ozgood · · Score: 1

      and got modded insightful... go figure

  23. US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's up to the foreign press, in this case the Times Online. (Makes my head hurt that a Murdoch-owned outlet counts as the best source of investigative, or at least reportive, journalism.)

    "The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

    Which was itself a follow-up to

    "For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

    Basically, the story was that Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator listening to comm intercepts looking for Middle Eastern "terrorists," discovered evidence of a network of US, Israeli, Turkish and Pakistani nuclear weapons secrets trading. She's told the FBI - they fired her. She told Congress - they placed her under a gag order and threatened to jail her if she talked about it. She's even agreed to tell the story to any American media outlet (which means she's willing to go to jail so people can know), as long as the outlet agrees to tell the whole story, and not edit it to hide the truth. So far, all American sources have refused to cover the story.

    Interesting tidbit - the CIA front company, "Brester Jennings," for which Valerie Plame worked before she was outed by Cheney and company, had as its mission tracking nuclear weapons activity in the ME. Outing Plame meant the Brewster Jennings cover was completely blown, like a wiretap being discovered. Which means that Plame's outing, with its supposed rationale as payback for exposing Bush's lies about Iraq and uranium, may have been nothing more than a convenient two-fer with a great cover story, when the real goal was to take out CIA assets who were getting too close to something far more important.

    Sibel Edmonds' web site is http://www.justacitizen.com/>here.

    "I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers." - Daniel Ellsberg

    1. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by *weasel · · Score: 1

      She's even agreed to tell the story to any American media outlet (which means she's willing to go to jail so people can know), as long as the outlet agrees to tell the whole story, and not edit it to hide the truth.
      So why not put her entire story and all the evidence on the internet?

      If she wanted 'the whole story' out there, she certainly doesn't need the media. Not if she's willing to go to jail.
      And the US media -has- covered her story; her site even links to those articles. They just aren't taking her up on the offer to break her gag order (and neither has the TimesOnline). So I'm inclined to think there's more to her 'offer' to tell her story than just a concern that the truth be set free. Perhaps her 'whole unedited story' has a price tag attached and is light on hard evidence?
      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    2. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      First of all, Armitage was basically a stooge of Bush at the time, or, at least, he was arguing for the Bush policy in Iraq; he only changed his tune well after the outing went down. Claiming that Armitage had an anti-bush agenda at the time is completely false. Second, he was not the only one tossing around her name; as we know now, Libby and Rove were up to their necks in this (and Armitage at least cooperated with investigators when the time came), and it's clear from Cheney's own notes where the decisions came from. Did you actually follow the investigation and the ensuing legal proceedings, or did you just read coverage in the National Review?

    3. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by nagora · · Score: 1
      So why not put her entire story and all the evidence on the internet?

      Because then hardly anyone would ever see it and those that did would mostly assume that it's just another conspiracy-nut site?

      Perhaps her 'whole unedited story' has a price tag attached and is light on hard evidence?

      That's also an option.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Putting it on the Internet would make it just another "conspiracy theory site". She needs to broadcast the evidence so it can't be covered up or ignored. How many people watch "60 Minutes" versus some Web site they never heard of? How many people other than geeks have ever heard of Slashdot?

      Hell, I can't even get major blog sites like Talking Points Memo to refer to Edmonds stuff. It's very doubtful the blogosphere would cover this story enough to get it known to the general public (although some have - Antiwar.com has been covering Edmonds since day one.)

      The US media has not covered her evidence - only the fact that she has made allegations and been gagged for making them. And the whole point is that the media isn't willing to break the gag order even for what would clearly be the biggest story in years - massive treason by elected and appointed US officials. Why? For the same reason the media doesn't really do investigative reporting that would really shake the Establishment - because they are part of the Establishment. This shouldn't be "news" to anyone.

      There's no "price tag" attached, and there is plenty of hard evidence. Edmonds can cite chapter and verse from her time at the FBI, and an official investigation at the FBI deemed her allegations "credible" and that her firing was in retaliation. There would be no problem finding out whether she has "hard evidence".

      Skepticism in most cases is warranted, but not in this one.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by caluml · · Score: 1

      mooo19/story.html ring any bells?

    6. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by evilviper · · Score: 1

      So far, all American sources have refused to cover the story.

      You make it sound as if EVERY American news organization is corrupt... As opposed to the VERY LIKELY possibility she's just full of crap.

      One person makes an unbelievable assertion, with NO evidence to back any of it up, and a few foreign media outlets, with questionable journalistic integrity, run with it. That's not even news, that's the status quo.

      Next up, ex US military employees, who saw little green men at Area 51...

      What makes everyone think that just because someone worked for the government, they are immune from lying (for money/publicity/revenge), becoming psychotic, etc.?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:US media will *not* touch this, probably ever by Lukery · · Score: 1

      there is no price tag. sibel has been trying to get her case heard in congress, and would much rather do it there, under oath, than in the press - and no, she wouldn't send congress an invoice.

  24. Why do we still give record $$ aid to Israel by thanksforthecrabs · · Score: 1

    Only to have them spy on us or buy secrets?

  25. Boing-Boing is reporting...??? by quonsar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Cory Doctorow?
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    1. Re:Boing-Boing is reporting...??? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      How does this get rated "insightful"? It should be "troll".

      Why someone reported this story from BoingBoing is beyond me - it's the Times Online that is involved, and other sites have referred to it. The whole background story has been on the Web for several years now. It is merely that the Times Online has done some investigation of their own that makes this part of the story interesting, since no US media has bothered to do its own investigation of Edmonds' allegations.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  26. Possibly because of the Valerie Plame thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible that by outing Valerie Plame, the white house also (inadvertently) derailed an important investigation that her department was working on, allowing the bad guys to get away with a lot of state secrets?

    1. Re:Possibly because of the Valerie Plame thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also possible that by outing Valerie Plame, the white house also (inadvertently) derailed an important investigation that her department was working on, allowing the Space Aliens[tm] to invade Earth[c] in sixteen days. What is your point? Maybe it was Bill Clinton that convinced Hillary to convince Bush's wife to out Plame, thereby securing a backup plan to secure hegemony again if Hillary can't beat Obama in the polls... it's possible after all. Bill would have been able to read the Area-51 documents.

    2. Re:Possibly because of the Valerie Plame thing? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 5, Informative

      It wasn't "inadvertent". That's the point.

      Plame was never outed because of an attempt to use a charge of "nepotism" to discredit Joe Wilson. That cover story never made any sense. Who cares if the guy's wife was at the CIA and suggested him for the Niger investigation? It only barely made more sense if the concept was that the CIA was somehow deliberately sabotaging the Iraq war - which also never made any sense.

      Plame was outed because her organization was investigating the nuclear black market including the A. Q. Khan network and its connections to Iran. That investigation would have inevitably led back to the people in the US State Department and the US nuclear agencies who were on the payroll of the black marketers. So Plame's operation had to be shut down.

      Keep in mind that Scooter Libby was once Marc Rich's attorney - and Rich is supposed to be one of or the money man behind this operation. Exactly how deep Dick Cheney's involvement is unclear at this point, but there is no doubt that Marc Grossman at the State Department was involved in the outing, and it is likely that Libby got his information from him.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  27. Nothing to see here. Move along. by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its not like we haven't slipped a few nukes to some of our allies in the Middle East before.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Sounds like a plan by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know is the US government accusing Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

    --
    "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    1. Re:Sounds like a plan by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Yes, now US goverment has "proof" that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has WMD and can attack there or can show us how these countries did sell these documents to Iran and it is developing WMD.

      Biggest threat to whole world is U.S and it's supporters "anti-terrorist" war itself!!

    2. Re:Sounds like a plan by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      First off, the U.S. doesn't need proof that Pakistan has nukes. The Saudi's ... I don't know. Can't see us invading Saudi Arabia at this point: can't really afford it even if we wanted to.

      The biggest threat to the whole world is probably China, not the United States ... you're so far off base about U.S. military capability it's not even funny. You do realize that we've reduced our military strength substantially since the Cold War, and that the Iraq conflict is straining us considerably? Furthermore, Bush is the lowest-rated President in U.S. history: there are very few supporters of the War in Iraq over here (or the War on Drugs, or any other War for that matter.) I know it's popular to call the U.S. "the greatest threat" but that's really just not true. We're not even an economic/industrial threat, anymore ... China has taken over that role. If you're smart, stop focusing on us and start looking around you.

      There are far more dangerous threats out there than the United States will ever be.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Sounds like a plan by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The biggest threat to the whole world is probably China, not the United States ... you're so far off base about U.S. military capability it's not even funny. You do realize that we've reduced our military strength substantially since the Cold War ..."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures
      The world total military spending: 1,200,000,000,000
      US only military spending 623,000,000,000


      http://www.dopmagazin.com/elementi/20070830_230631headUpAss.jpg

    4. Re:Sounds like a plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, US is only spending about the same as the rest of the world put together.

  29. :O by Jefan · · Score: 0

    The FBI has made it an un-page!! :O

  30. Which party will be embarrassed if it comes out? by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Won't someone at least hint at who those officials were, so that I can start making my ideological prejudgments on the credibility of the allegations?

  31. Re:Art of War Chapter III by techpawn · · Score: 3, Informative

    17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
    (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
    (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
    (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
    (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
    (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
    18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

    I hate it when people only quote half of it, like "judge, not lest ye be judged"
    It's funny that the way to LOSE a war according to the art of war is to have the army in a distant land and run the people into recession in order to fund that war (that you should be using the supplies from the fallen army/land to restock).

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  32. Why would they have knowledge of nuclear secrets? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we Who's "we"?
    You know these nuclear secrets? Everyone in the FBI knows them?

    wouldn't messing with other countries and stealing secrets fall under the CIA's realm anyway? The FBI plays an essential role in the U.S. Government's counterintelligence efforts and has the responsibility to produce domestic foreign intelligence in support of other members of the Intelligence Community.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  33. Holy Leaping Conclusions, Batman by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They say: Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by incompetence.

    Which has this corollary when leveling accusations at slipper, duplicitous people: Before you accuse some one of an illegal cover-up, be sure that they can't simply say, "Oops, my bad".

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  34. Unicorns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns.
    > But if they did, what better crowd to capture them than the slashdotians?

    Umm, I thought they required FEMALE virgins. Also, the "pure of heart" thing is kind of difficult when you have several terabytes of porno.

  35. Israel again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not surprisingly this is being covered up. Next the ADL will shout antisemitism.

  36. Technically Bush didn't lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a now-famous phrase spoken by former American president and candidate George H. W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18. Written by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, the line was one of the most prominent soundbites from the speech. The pledge not to tax the American people further had been a consistent part of Bush's 1988 election platform, but its prominent inclusion in his speech cemented it in the public consciousness. The impact of the election promise was considerable, and many believe it helped Bush win the 1988 presidential election.

    Once he became president, however, Bush was pressured by Democrats and some Republicans to raise taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. Bush refused many times but was making no progress with a Senate and House that was controlled by Democrats. Bush later agreed to a compromise in which he worked with Congressional Democrats to raise several taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement. This reversal caused great controversy, especially in the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Pat Buchanan made extensive use of the phrase in his strong challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. In the election itself, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, running as a moderate, also pointed to the quotation as evidence of Bush's untrustworthiness, which contributed to Bush losing his bid for re-election.


    Technically, Bush kept his campaign promise. It wasn't a pledge to not tax the American people further. What he said was "no NEW taxes"; he never said he wouldn't raise the old taxes. Think about it.
  37. "Steal" by mamer-retrogamer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm confused. How can anyone steal something they already have? Shouldn't it be "leaked" nuclear secrets?

    --
    Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
    1. Re:"Steal" by Lukery · · Score: 1

      'steal' means that *individuals* stole the secrets from the USG and onsold them, for profit.

  38. slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If only liberal Democrats cared about whether the government is stealing our own nuke secrets and selling them to threats like Pakistan and the Sauds, I'd certainly hope that (American) Slashdotters turned Slashdot into something like the Daily Kos.

    What's "Democratic" about caring that your government is so corrupt that it threatens nuke war?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:slashkos by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. This is pretty frightening. It seems the whole "slashkos" tagging crew thinks that reporting on the FBI's dirty little secrets is somehow representative of poor liberal judgement. I think this speaks volumes about how stupid these people are. I thought the libertarian slashdot variety was against big government?? ..or maybe the ranks of the Bush acolyte neo-cons is growing here?

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Libertarian" is "corporate anarchist". People who subscribe to it as a practical politics, rather than an ideal notion (as is Plato's "Republic" or Smith's "Wealth of Nations", or any other philosopher's book), are either so insulated from consequences that they're naive enough to think government is at best just a waste, or they're trying to get away with crimes because they think they're strong or fast enough. My favorite are the gun fetishists who really just want to shoot someone without getting caught.

      For a decade or two these people liked to call themselves "Conservatives", because that brand of destroying the government (without replacement) was popular. Now that they've had unchecked power for a decade or more, the "Conservative" brand is one of the worst in the world, so they're just changing their brand. That loses some popularity, as any rebranding will, especially as stock in its rebranded orgs falls.

      To be fair (to the human condition, if not the undeserving humans who wallow in it), the only real way to counterbalance that death spiral is for an actual alternative, with a recognizable brand, to create real, recognizable value. If Democrats get the power we're expecting they will in 2009, and actually reform the government into a managed operation again, Americans (who love to consume government services) will line up behind it, with really only true sociopaths and worse still attacking it. If Democrats fail to do so (or are too slow, which combine for the most likely scenario), then another governing wannabe will have a chance at the power vacuum.

      Personally, I'm hoping Democrats get the power, but are internally divided enough that they're checked and balanced against each other (in a way that Republicans never were or did). At least enough to slow them down, so impatient Americans get reforms that exclude the worst Unitary Executive and Do Nothing Congress abuses, but welcome a new entrant, at least one new Party. Which, in turn, will probably abuse the power the same as the others. But a few turns around that cycle could gradually disabuse America of the duopoly or even the partisan basis of allocating Federal power. At every turn, though, the power abuses have costs. I hope they're not irrecoverable, so we get through the next generation wiser, but not so broken we can't use our wisdom.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:slashkos by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      I love your straw man.

      I mean really -- "gun fetishists who really just want to shoot someone without getting caught"

      Lovely.

      Maybe you should realize that the second amendment is in our constitution for protection from the government, as in fact is the purpose of the entire document. To Free the people from tyranny and slavery. Tyranny is the norm of thousands of years of abuse on this earth. Freedom is the new, odd occurrence. The Constitution was written by people who had experience with tyranny, with blanket warrants, no due process, abuse of power and being enslaved. They realized that the opportunity was there for a new experiment, one where the self evident rights of man were protected by legislation.

      You're nothing but an astroturfing shill and a gatekeeper. You're here to push the agenda of those who enslave us. Just realize that we will fight back and people like you will be first against the wall. You have chosen an untenable position: You lose either way.

      For those of you who do want to wake up, and don't want to listen to this dream killing life drain parent poster, I suggest you start your journey with a motivated speaker, one who can talk about the issues with cover to cover knowledge of the entire US criminal code and historical view of civil liberties and Freedom in our country: Judge Andrew Napolitano.

      Remember: It's easy to spot a shill for social control and enslavement, think self empowerment, think Freedom, realize that we are all incredibly powerful beings who have capacity for enormous and drastic change to all around us.

      When you find out along your journey that you are being enslaved, throw out your chains, stand up and be heard. Make this world your own and the truth will set you free.

      If you want a real shock to the system. A dose of truth that will make your head spin, watch the excellent Zeitgeist Movie.

      --

      Liberty.

    4. Re:slashkos by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      FYI: The daily kos is a front for the CIA.

      The truth will set you free.

      --

      Liberty.

    5. Re:slashkos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or maybe people are getting tired of political bullshit on a supposed "tech" site.

    6. Re:slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
      Yadda yadda yadda.

      Maybe you should realize that the second amendment is in our constitution for protection from the government

      Where are all you gun-totin' "libertarians" already? The government has started an endless war in Iraq on lies rather than protect us from attackers from Saudi Arabia, while losing the Afghanistan War, all for over $1 TRILLION. While putting us in $10T government debt, and another $10T mortgage debt, all of which everyone (except the government's cronies) will pay to the banks. They've used all that as a pretext for suspending Habeas Corpus, torturing prisoners, and now evidently also stealing nuke secrets to give to major threats like Pakistan and those Sauds again. They stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. And you libertarians will say the Democrats are just as bad, and I'd agree that they're collaborating by failing to impeach.

      So where are you with your guns, to save our Constitution? The 1st Amendment freedom from religion in government is smashed, "free speech zones" routinely gag our speech and right to assembly, the press is controlled by media corporations. The government is unreasonably searching and seizing people to violate the 4th Amendment. Grand Juries ignore the 5th Amendment, there is no protection of our rights to speedy trials, gay people don't have equal protection under the law. Even your holy 2nd Amendment is just a license to play weekend warrior and let gangs arm themselves with tankbusters, while many laws abridging your right to keep and bear arms are on the books across the country at every level.

      If you're not going to save the Constitution and the republic now, then when?

      Obvious answer: you never are. You're just going to play with your lethal toys. Legal and illegal trading in your guns will continue to supply an excuse to the police to keep us all under wraps, because violent people can so easily get guns to become a real menace. But you'll ignore the only reason you can cite for protecting your gun rights, "the security of a free state", all the while you scream it as loud as you can for cover for destroying the rest of the Constitution.

      You gun people are weak and pathetic. Bunch of whiners who shoot off your mouths about the Constitution, but couldn't hit the broad side of a revolution. I'm not afraid of your threat to "put me against a wall when the revolution comes" Gimme a break. You're a coward who shouldn't even be talking in public, let alone talking about protecting the Constitution with the blood of people like me who can describe you for what you are.

      Which is a bunch of people who just want to shoot someone and get away with it. But won't, even when your Constitution is at stake. Sissies.
      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What nonsense. Just because the guy who started DailyKos interviewed with the CIA for a job doesn't mean that he joined. I know several people who interviewed and didn't join. And the "logic" of that video doesn't add up at all. He doesn't say that he did nothing but interview with the CIA until Dean started to campaign, that's just the items he mentioned in that timeframe, during which he thought about what to do.

      And those are just the big fallacies in that video (like "which war?" obviously the Iraq War, which is the war that DailyKos is obsessed with). If that's your idea of "truth", then "set you free" only means that you've lowered your price for shilling to $0.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:slashkos by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Doc, The accusation isn't that "the government" is stealing our own nuke secrets and selling them... it is that traitors within the government are doing so (and that "the government" is covering up the dirt). This of course is still completely unacceptable but different that what you appear to be asserting.

      So there are several possibilities:

      • This story is fabricated and completely untrue.
      • Someone did indeed sell US secrets (who may or may not have been an official) but that the cover-up part of the story is fiction.
      • That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that this fact was withheld from the people (for some lawful purpose, e.g. ongoing investigation)
      • That someone did indeed sell US secrets and that there was an illegal cover-up.
      At this point, I haven't read enough facts to place it in any of these bins.
      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    9. Re:slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Whether it's "the government" or "traitors working in the government" is immaterial to my point. My point is that "slashkos" portrays this issue of nuke proliferation, and conspiracies to do it, and to cover it, all up inside the government, as an issue of interest only to liberal activist Democrats, which is what DailyKos is for. That is what I'm asserting.

      The distinction between the government and the people who run it, the people who use their government jobs to do it and to cover it up, makes no difference when saying the issue suits the Democratic agenda and not just general interest. The facts of the allegations are immaterial to the relegation of stories about the depths of government corruption to the sidelines because the administration responsible is Republican.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:slashkos by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      conceded.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    11. Re:slashkos by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't have said it better myself. How gun-lovin' good ol' boys think citizens with guns will hold off the US armed forces, should the government become evil, is beyond me. Either the army is on the side of the people, or they're not, and their allegiance will decide who wins, not how many accountants are hiding in their sheds with handguns. Having a gun to defend against the government was fine when private citizens had the same weapons as the government, but I don't think the 2nd ammendment covers F22s and Apaches.

    12. Re:slashkos by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think their model is Iraq. Because Iraqis have succeeded in preventing the US military from completing a victory.

      Iraq, where in reality "the people" have been arming themselves by robbing the armories, the exact opposite of the 2nd Amendment formula. And getting a more brutal slaughter, ever further from any "people's government", destroying any chances for "a more perfect union", "the common defense", "general welfare" or "domestic tranquility" with every shot.

      Or maybe it's Vietnam, or Iran, or anywhere else the US military has failed in face of armed, popular revolt. But all those require the US military to want an endless conflict, or at least its top commanders in collaboration with a crooked White House. They think "their boys" in the military won't go shooting up their cousins (as if the Civil War didn't prove that bullets are thicker than blood). But when regiments are sent around the country to states their troops have never seen before, especially North vs South and coast vs Midwest (and NY vs Texas vs California), the US will look like Napoleon or Alexander running through Europe or Asia with local reinforcements fighting old feuds.

      In these conflicts, the gun always wins, and democracy always loses. Gun fetishists consume much more "history" of these conflicts than anyone else, so they know what they want. They want to shoot someone and get away with it. Which means getting that nerdy government out of the way.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  39. Doesn't follow. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Quote: "if any political party, irrespective of the nation, actively campaigns on the platform that Government is a bad thing, of COURSE you're going to get bad government."

    Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Because if any political party, at least in THIS country, campaigns on the platform that Government is a GOOD thing, then you will get equally bad government.

    The simple fact is, Government *IS* a Bad Thing. It is properly classed as a "Necessary Evil". Anyone who truly believes otherwise does not understand it.

  40. How to Cover Up 101. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    Perhaps the FBI should take a lesson from the EPA:
    1. Claim Executive Privilege.
    2. See Step 1.
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  41. Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can I have some of whatever drugs or videogames you're on? Because they must be pretty good for you to be bored by revelations that the US government is covering up theft of nuke secrets to threats like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    What does impress you, news of maybe an alien invasion?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Frankly, i'd be a lot more surprised if our government WEREN'T selling nukes to our allies* in the region. Arming the enemies of our enemies is how we usually do business down there. It's how Osama Bin Laden got started. Saddam Hussein waged genocide against the Kurds with American equipment. And lets not forget when we helped overthrow the Shah of Iran.

      You'd have to be awfully naive to believe that this isn't still happening. And things aren't any different because we're talking nukes. It's still easily justified in the eyes of the war mongers who run the government. "Better Pakistan than Iran, hell they have a nuke already anyway."

      *Remember, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are ostensibly our allies.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This network we're discussing is the same one that gave US nuke secrets to Iran (and Libya, and N Korea) through Pakistani AQ Khan.

      It's marketing for Star Wars. Which was the Bush/Cheney admin's main military programme priority, before their old employee Osama gave them the excuse for the much more powerful, lucrative and immediate Terror War (and its juicy Invade Iraq subsidiary). But the Terror War, and even Iraq, have limited (though huge) earning potential. With Star Wars, the sky's the limit (pun intended :P). So the Bush regime has to be sure to foster as much nuke and missile proliferation as possible while it can, despite how distracting that can be to a gang of very limited management bandwidth.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      This whole story fails my conspiracy theory feasibility stink check. Look, I'll freely admit that I am to the right of your average slashdot reader and will demonstrate that by stating that I don't believe the vast majority of the accusations against this administration. But this story - like most other government conspiracy theory stories require a ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief to be complete. I'll give you a free-be and let's assume that the administration really is evil. So now we are forced to believe that they have used their evil influence to turn members of the state department, pentagon and current and former congressmen. Throw in the CIA and FBI who looked the other way or actively hid the evidence. Amongst this *huge* network of people who must have had access to relevant facts - no one,... save one FBI translator did anything to stop this.

      A couple things jump to mind... first, the CIA or FBI simply do not suppress investigations into other agencies due to intimidation or malice. Agencies do not "cover" for one another - in fact they probably relish this type of cross-agency investigation. Believe it or not, "the government" is not some giant monolithic entity - it is a patchwork of different organizations with different goals, motives and personalities. Second, the sheer magnitude of how many people would have to be "in on this" and complicit makes it (in my mind) just as ludicrous as Area 58 or 9-11 conspiracies.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    4. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well, now you're moving on to talk about the substance of the allegations, since your effort to nip it in the bud by denying my toplevel point about its interest regardless of political orientation (so long as it's in the interest of America) has failed.

      So I'm not impressed by your "smell test". Usually the line of argument you follow relies on saying "but no one leaked". In this case, someone actually did leak, Sibel Edmonds. Who's been (unconstitutionally) gagged for years. To suppress false info? That doesn't pass the smell test.

      Also not sticking to the conspiracy's script is Valerie Plame, and her husband. Those people aren't exactly screaming from the rafters, but of course they've also worked hard most of their lives to protect the US from bottom line damage, and keep its intel systems intact. The rest of the people in a position to know are either guilty, so they're not going to squeal, or still in the game working inside to slow/stop/fix the damage. At this level, very few people have much to gain by just going public. Especially when part of the described conspiracy operation was to replace actual loyal Americans with foreign moles.

      The one person we know of who isn't playing inside the rules got gagged, and who knows what other threats. Meanwhile, plenty of other spying takes place and almost never comes to light, even when caught. And even this case is getting practically no coverage here in America, where it would be a popular story, though it's passed muster at several very legitimate news orgs at very close allies, in English, like in Canada and now the UK. So "kept it all a secret" isn't really a failed requirement of these conspiracies.

      I remind you that the Iran/Contra conspiracy, which bridged several agencies covering for each other (CIA, NSC, Pentagon, Justice, and more) didn't leak to the press until one pilot (Eugene Hasenfus, CIA) crashed in Nicaragua (an enemy government the target of an actual shooting war run by the conspiracy) and was put on TV saying he was CIA (he actually had his CIA ID card with him). Those Iran/Contra people are at the core of this Bush regime, from Congress (Google (cunningham "iran/contra")) through the Executive branch, through "emeritus" figures like John Poindexter. It's a successful, unbroken conspiracy (despite exposure and even - overturned - convictions) that has absolutely no reason to stop growing. And since huge, longeterm business like Star Wars is up for grabs, it will grow bigger than the Earth no matter how much some of us try to deny it.

      That's reality. "Smell tests" run by complex, practiced denial mechanisms that "don't believe the vast majority of accusations against htis administration", are just part of the faithy community that's run rampant over this country and the world the past seven or more years. People like you make it easy, because you're pulling the wool so hard over your own eyes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Well, now you're moving on to talk about the substance of the allegations, since your effort to nip it in the bud by denying my toplevel point about its interest regardless of political orientation (so long as it's in the interest of America) has failed.

      Try not to be a jerk for a minute... I made no such effort to "deny your toplevel point". My other post simply challenged your use of the words "the government" after which I pontificated about how "real" of a scandal this is. And don't flatter yourself - I didn't even realize that you were the author of *this* post and that by chance I had responded to two Doc Ruby posts in one night... what are the odds...

      So I'm not impressed by your "smell test". Usually the line of argument you follow relies on saying "but no one leaked". In this case, someone actually did leak, Sibel Edmonds. Who's been (unconstitutionally) gagged for years. To suppress false info? That doesn't pass the smell test.

      So you are indeed implying that all of the people who are involved with "gagging" her are in on the conspiracy? By no means am I implying that government doesn't deserve scrutiny... but I do believe that when scrutiny become skepticism it is not productive (or is rather adverse). At what point to do you invoke Occam's razor and start considering an alternative hypothesis as more likely - that she got wind of something that is classified and misinterpreted it or worse, that she is simply lying. I find it easier to believe that one person is intentionally or unintentionally making false statements than to believe that there are dozens with hundreds if not thousands complicitly doing nothing.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    6. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, I think that most of the people doing their part in the conspiracy think they're just doing their job. I think the gagging judge, whether or not they knew that they're protecting a conspiracy, thought they were protecting secret intel practices. Drowning the baby in the bathwater.

      Occam's razor doesn't offer her lying or being wrong as a simpler explanation, because it takes an extra loop to explain why she's gagged instead of just letting her fail to prove her allegations in public.

      Besides, if Occam's Razor were applied to, say, the Watergate conspiracy, then they were just petty burglars. The truth, that Nixon had the CIA rob the Democratic campaign HQ to steal evidence he though they had that he'd been bribed by Howard Hughes a decade earlier, shatters Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor leaves Eugene Hasenfus just an ex-CIA pilot moonlighting for some drug dealers, not just one weak link in a large smuggling operation that exchanged guns to coke cartels for drugs sold inside the US, funding a covert war in Honduras against Nicaragua, and resupplying our enemy Iran. Occam's Razor doesn't explain how the US baited the Soviets into Afghanistan, blowing back Osama. Where were all the witnesses to those crimes spilling the beans, who numbered in the thousands?

      And Occam's Razor doesn't explain what Cheney was doing in the room every time. Or really in the office upstairs, busily shredding evidence to preserve his plausible deniability.

      What does serve all those purposes is naivete. At this late date, powered by a strong denial that perpetuates itself rather than face how wrong it's been about everything.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      This story here http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html delves deeper into the Pakistan link.

    8. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You don't have to believe the administration is evil to know that they do bad things. I really believe that they are decent people who want to do the right thing. The problem is that in the process of trying to do the right thing, they stick their noses in all sorts of places they shouldn't. That well intentioned meddling, as you can see in Iraq today, and Iran of 20 years ago, causes a lot more problems than it fixes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even Hitler thought he was doing what was right for his country.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Here's another American whistelblower from way back in the 1980s who didn't keep the secret, and got banished. But he's back too.

      There are surely more, maybe many more. And many many more who saw what happened to those who squealed who absolutely should have been heard and heeded. But none of them were carried in the US corporate media. This is hard evidence of how the conspiracy defends itself. How can you keep denying it with a "smell test" forged by consuming the US corporate media?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      By no means am I implying that government doesn't deserve scrutiny... but I do believe that when scrutiny become skepticism it is not productive (or is rather adverse)

      Actually I would say that skepticism is very healthy. Paranoia isn't.

    11. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Also not sticking to the conspiracy's script is Valerie Plame, and her husband.

      As a quick note about Valerie Plame, the scandal involving her didn't require a conspiracy. At the heart, it really only required two people -- a leaker, and an ethically-corrupt journalist.

    12. Re:Numb From the Neck Up by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Vice President, Cheney, was part of a conspiracy that not only outed Plame, but also tried to discredit her husband, the former US Ambassador to Iraq (during Iraq War Sr).

      What these conspiracies "required" is a purely academic point. What they actually did, and who did it, is critically important. Especially because so many people in the conspiracy have been such powerful, trusted officials. And now, evidently, because the conspiracy targeted Plame not just to discredit her husband, but to protect its nuke secrets theft/sale ring from Plame's CIA operation.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  42. Ineptitude is also covered up all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    | Before you accuse some one of an illegal cover-up, be sure that they can't simply say, "Oops, my bad". |

    Ineptitude is also covered up all the time, nobody wants to look like the fool they are. I perfer to call it when I see it.

  43. Not so different by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're both examples of obstruction of justice.

      There are even huge bribes involving both parties - i.e., Marc Rich's $1 million 'gift' to Bill Clinton in exchange for a pardon.

    Corruption is corruption regardless of which party is practicing it.

    1. Re:Not so different by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You really think that is simply obstruction of justice if it means details about the selling of nuclear secrets to unstable regions? The person doing the selling obviously committed treason, I'm not sure how far it goes if you cover it up but obstruction of justice is hardly the right term here. Corruption at the level you are now referring to is quite different than the corruption to which you referenced in the past. Now the selling of arms by the same past president could be a more intelligent argument.

      I'll agree there is massive corruption on all sides right now but make no mistake, the government is far worse now than it was as torture wasn't publicly sanctioned then along with all the other constitutionally assured rights that have been cast aside. It is completely unknown what the current administration wouldn't do for money but right now it looks like they have but one care and it comes in the color of money.

    2. Re:Not so different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what makes you think that the document pertains to something within the current presidency? This could just as easily be a 10-20 year old report. Maybe the cover up is current, but I don't think we can really guess the date range of the event the supposed cover up is for.

      "It is completely unknown what the current administration wouldn't do for money

      So would you say the current administration is the only one that has ever satisfied somebodies financial interest? All those large campaign contributions probably aren't made out of good will. Also keep in mind that this happens at every level of government, not just the current presidential administration.

      Mij

    3. Re:Not so different by finity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry to link to a blog, but it links to what I think are a couple of good articles on this and it brings up a good point. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5582

      This is not a new story. I'm in the US and I haven't heard anything about this before now. There was a big article on the front page of the Times that covered this two weeks ago. I didn't get a clear picture of what administration the secrets-selling went on during (it looks like it has been 10 years or so), but the Times article indicates all the covering-up has gone on during the last several years. Bad news...

    4. Re:Not so different by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't confuse the party with the individuals of the groups of individuals who have conspired to hijack the party. Remember you don't just vote for the party you voter for the representative who claims to believe in the parties principals. When those individuals have a history of not actually supporting the principles they claim and you voters for them don't be surprised when they betray you.

      Any politician with a history of receiving money from corporations whilst claiming the retain the principles of the political party who supports them, will demonstrate exactly who they really represent once they are elected.

      So look into the history of potential candidates, if they have a record that goes against the ideals they are meant to represent then don't vote for them, if however they have a history of fighting for the issues their own party is meant to support then vote for them.

      Corruption is the work of individuals, they should be ruthlessly hunted down, prosecuted, tried and if found guilty, incarcerated, regardless of their position with in society. The party should be demonstrably merciless when it comes to prosecuting those politicians who have betrayed the party, that is the true statement of the values and honesty of a political party, how effectively the out and punish corrupt representatives not how they attempt to hide the abuses for fear of embarrassing the party. Incarcerated politicians are a living example of the integrity of political parties not the opposite.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  44. Well, no, see, it's the sarcasm that misled you by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    See, here's teh de41. That post was sarcastic. Ff it had not been, your outrage would have been valid. As it is, it was, and your was not, and you blew it.

    See how easy it is once you grasp the core fundamental basis of it all?

    1. Re:Well, no, see, it's the sarcasm that misled you by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I was just joking.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  45. Who Is "We"? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours.

    Who is "we"? As I sometimes like to say: "we" is a great word, because there are so many of them to choose from. "We" can be a totally ununified America in general (that is a "we" that can't be said to want anything in particular), or it can be the FBI, or it can be the FBI+DoE, or it can be just a handful of people. There probably is no particular "we" that includes both the knowledge of nuclear secrets, and the desire to transmit them to Pakistan. That is why someone else's secrets needed to be stolen (by us (whoever that is)).

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  46. Here's the REAL link by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece/

    I hate links to blogs which contain the real link and add nothing. Why not just link to th eoriginal story in the first place?

    1. Re:Here's the REAL link by erichwwk · · Score: 1

      other sources of interest:

      Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, and a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy, has written a reasonable, fairly current (news changes daily) summary which will appear in the next issue of Pat Robertson's American Conservative. It can already be read online here

      Daniel Ellsberg has an oped at Brad Friedman's Bradsblog. He has called "what Sibel has as more explosive than the Pentagon Papers" do read his oped here The latest is here

      Another good source is Steve Clemon's The Washington Note, where i mostly post my $0.02 worth The relevant post is here . And finally lukery's "let sibel speak" blog is here

  47. just google "US Nuclear Secrets" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    and you'll find them.

  48. ...liberal fuzzy thinking that gets people killed by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the country the 9/11 hijackers were from The "muscle" was from Saudi Arabia.

    Only one "pilot" was from Saudi Arabia.

    This mix was on purpose.

    By using so many Saudis they could fool people about the nature of the operation and organization.

    I'm sure they thank you for playing along.
  49. The big picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody needs to worry. In the big picture it's all good. You knew that if you knew the big picture. For now, just read my lips. It's all good in the big picture... you can all shut up now.

  50. Re:Which party will be embarrassed if it comes out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  51. Why the gag order? by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read about this the other day on fox so although you didn't see it on CNN other news sites apparently did.
    People on slashdot haven't mentioned yet the reason for the gag order apparently is cause they want to investigate the officials and see whats going on.
    I know its a good knee jerk reaction to yell conspiracy but if you caught a spy in your midst wouldn't you want to counter intel back instead of just firing him and posting the paperwork? This whistle blower might have blown an investigation for all we know.

    --

    -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    1. Re:Why the gag order? by imipak · · Score: 1
      So we have to trust the government (and it's agencies) to investigate itself, because we don't trust the government not to lie to us about Bad Stuff that some persons in the govt or it's agencies have been up to?

      My... brain... hurts!!!

    2. Re:Why the gag order? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, you've got it entirely backward.

      Edmonds WAS the "investigation." She was translating documents that had been mis-translated before by FBI personnel who were apparently in the pay of those being investigated. When she brought this to the attention of her superiors, she was fired in retaliation. The FBI internal affairs investigation confirmed this.

      The "investigations" you are referring to were ongoing and were being sabotaged inside the FBI itself. The people involved even tried to recruit Edmonds to continue the sabotage, which she refused to do. Once she was fired and went outside the FBI to Congress, the DoJ gagged her.

      There is nothing here involving "national security". The gag order was intended to prevent her from revealing that, as she puts it, "senior elected US officials" are engaged in wholesale treason. She has provided information to several US Senators in a secure facility inside Congress. She testified before the 9/11 Commission - and her testimony was reduced to a footnote in the final report. She was promised by Henry Waxman that her case would be number one on his list when the Democrats came to power in January - since then, his office has refused her calls.

      The reality is that what she knows is so dangerous to the stability of the US government that I'm surprised she's still breathing - although of course if she ended up dead, that would be pretty much a problem for these people, too, especially as you can imagine she has some sort of "dead man" trigger set up so that the info gets revealed anyway.

      I, personally, think she SHOULD just dump it all on her Web site. In fact, after the Time Online article two weeks ago, she posted several pictures of certain officials on her Web site without comment. You are supposed to understand that these are the people involved.

      Without some sort of legal immunity, however, and given the Guantanamo situation, it obviously is a very great risk for her to just defy the ban without having enough public impact as a result that it would blunt any attempt to "disappear" her.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  52. Back Lash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before people are allowed to stop paying taxes, I mean, if you were to view the constitution as a contract, and argued that by removing people's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and more technical and well documented things) the government has lost the right to charge the public with taxes and infact enforce laws on the people.

  53. Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if I am going to be f*&ked up the a*&, I would like at least a little bit lube, thank you very much. I would imagine that it does not feel too good otherwise.

  54. .... and aliens helped! by StevenABallmer · · Score: 0

    :-) Conspiracy theorist seem to have taken over the entire internet today!

  55. Bet this does not show up on FOX news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all ^^^

    1. Re:Bet this does not show up on FOX news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may show up on FOX news, but with the spin needed to cast blame on the journalist (or democrats) rather than the republican administration.

    2. Re:Bet this does not show up on FOX news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not as much as i bet you that the political section of slashdot is suddenly neglected and abandoned if we have a democrat as a president.

      but unlike you i'm much more realistic, the stories' subject matter won't change. only the names will.

  56. I am shocked! by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Shocked I say! A secretive agency has lied about the existence and/or content of a possibly very sensitive file with a very real potential for having ongoing security implications. Why, next thing you know, the CIA will start marking files "Top Secret" and telling people they can't look at them.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  57. You call this news ? by slashdotlurker · · Score: 1

    1. Federal government does something that is stupid in the long term to gain something short term. 2. Years later, shit hits fan. 3. Cover up. Rinse and repeat.

  58. Changing the Channel by EdIII · · Score: 1

    US officials corrupt and selling secrets to terrorists? Yawn... Wake me up when their is a new naughty upskirt picture of Britney or Paris on the 24 hour Brawndo channel.

    1. Re:Changing the Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn?! You know this is done to you and you just YAWN? Go back to the county you came from as you don't deserve to live in the US.

  59. Stole? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    How on earth can you steal a secret? Is the original owner deprived of the information they had? Let's call it 'infringment' instead, not of copyright but of secret information.

    I have to stop now.
    I thought I could keep up with the rainman "copying something isn't stealing" /. meme but I just can't do it.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  60. Please mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AIPAC crowd will probably mod him down

  61. Doesn't this contradict another conspiracy theory? by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Mainly the one that Jews are in control of the U.S. government? Pollard is caught spying on U.S. surveillance capability for Israel and gets sentenced to life in prison. Someone sells U.S. nuclear secrets to Pakistan, and the U.S. government does its best to cover it up?

  62. Re:Liar by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, you're just being sarcastic.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  63. We need Congress to pass a new law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that makes any federal agency officials or even their mere employees guilty of felony sabotage and obstruction and subject to federal prison if they try to claim "executive privilege" or "national security" for the purposes of covering up any of their fuck-ups, no matter whether accidental or deliberate.

    --
    Amazing, that the captcha I must type to post this comment is "servant".

  64. Kill the Messenger! by HongPong · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone on this thread should drop what they're doing and check out 'Kill the Messenger', a documentary produced for Canal+ Television by some French guys. They followed Sibel Edmonds around for a while and spelled out the basic scene here. Its an hour long on googlevideo:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283&q=kill+the+messenger&total=348&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

    Also i have a special section on my website dedicated to the subject, tho the page is pretty half assed: http://www.hongpong.com/sibel_edmonds_9_11_the_turkish_spy_scandal

    Essentially here is my understanding of what this weird scandal means:
    Sibel edmonds was hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11 to digest the backlog of foreign-language wiretaps run by the counter intelligence division. However Sibel also could listen to English-language conversations recorded on those lines. Within three months she heard extensive conspiracies involving the American Turkish Council, which were being actively covered up by Melek Can Dickerson, who was working alongside Sibel in the translation unit.

    However, there was also evidence that the FBI was tracking an international criminal network that includes the big name neocons (Feith and Perle among others) which was funnelling and covering for nuclear secrets pilfered from the national nuclear laboratories (ever notice their shitty security?) and routed to brokers in Pakistan, Turkey and Israel.

    Additionally the Turks were caught by the FBI wiretaps doing cash/secret handoffs from the ATC to the State Department. Once 9/11 occurred, it seems that then-State Dept official Marc Grossman was helping get foreign spies who had foreknowledge of 9/11 out of the United States, after the FBI had become very interested in talking to these guys. The wiretaps and intelligence fragments finger real people - and Kill the Messenger details how Sibel was momentarily a famous 9/11 whistleblower because of this. 60 Minutes ran a special with very heavily edited footage and has never released the raw footage of the interview. (yes in fact even the highly controversial Israeli art student 9/11 conspiracy theory appears to fit here)

    Finally, this criminal network was deeply opposed to the CIA's counter proliferation operations - attempting to block turkey and pakistan from getting more nuke bits. So therefore Scooter Libby fits in quite differently than widely known. He used to be a lawyer for billionaire israeli-american fugitive Marc Rich, the moneyman for arms trafficker Viktor Bout. These guys seem to roughly be part of this same network. There is apparently an FBI recorded conversation of Marc Grossman tipping off the Turks/and/or Pakis to Brewster Jennings' status as a covert front company. This was certainly treasonous!

    Also there is an important revolving door dimension: lobbyists, retired generals, military industrial complex. Turkey is able to convert laundered drug money into funding for the military industrial purchases - its something like 25% of GDP.

    this is all a great example of an orwellian cryptocracy getting tangled up in all the criminal evidence it observes. oops. kinda like the federal reserve logging all that drug money moving around.

    i realize all of this sounds quite bottom-of-the-barrel everything and the kitchen sink kind of super conspiracy. But hey, it does in fact have odd threads that go back to the weirdest events of the Bush administration - and before. Sorry. I'm offering this stuff in good faith: there is just too much material to ignore.

    1. Re:Kill the Messenger! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Excellent recap. Good job.

      I've been following this for some time, and there's little doubt in my mind that it's all legit on her part. She's a very credible person - and of course the people she is accusing are very non-credible people.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:Kill the Messenger! by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      But hey, it does in fact have odd threads that go back to the weirdest events of the Bush administration - and before

      That is the interesting part, if you drag Marc Rich in, you basically have a conspiracy that dates back to the Clinton years. Kinda makes you wonder about this whole Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton thing.

  65. Re:I get it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Hey, that's not funny.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  66. Carrying weight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight"

    They used to, until the last couple of presidents used them in an abuse of power.

    Their words are not so weighty these days.

  67. Re:Art of War Chapter III by Cederic · · Score: 1

    (that you should be using the supplies from the fallen army/land to restock). Clausewitz has rather more insight into how you supply your troops. Using supplies from conquered territory is only occasionally sensible.
  68. One of them is Treason by gambolt · · Score: 1

    and that's a hanging crime, not that anybody cares.

  69. Re:Art of War Chapter III by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate it when people only quote half of it, like "judge, not lest ye be judged" So, what's your point? Seems like with all of your elaboration all you've done is reinforce JWR's point that the current administration doesn't pay attention to Sun Tzu. Is there a contradiction in there that I missed?
  70. Oh really? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    Lying, corruption and treason? In my secretive government bureaucracy? It's more likely than you think.

  71. I can't "believe" you people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There's an article in which there is no proof and every swinging dick here jumps to the conclusion that it's the gospel. Must be great fun bashing the U. S. all the time. Why the fuck would the U.S. even need to steal nuclear secrets?

    Governments do sometimes lie. Ours lies, too. It's part of what has kept your unpatriotic asses free to write such hate-filled diatribe. Get over it. Or do the right thing -- move to another country. (You may like the U.K.; they have to register TOY weapons there!)

  72. Whats it seems to be about by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Her main point is a thriving market around the "not for export" US weapons market.
    The US keeps some of its good stuff back from its allies, for its own protection ie never to face its own weapons (tomcats ect).
    Or just too many human rights problems/wars with some regimes ect.
    Think Australia, UK, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan ect. have all asked for code, upgrade to "export" quality systems.
    The USA just offers some more aid or 'more' of the same export quality systems to keep them happy. So the parts of the world with US based systems then have a few options.
    The nice way:
    Reverse engineering while begging the USA for the codes/products ect.
    Or what Sibel Edmonds hints at
    Join a strange network of interested US politicians, weapons manufacturers, countries and individuals.
    Then you swap, trade, bribe, spy or steal you way to cool new toys - nuclear is just a small part of this huge network.
    They all win. Get the systems/parts you want, or plans and upgrade at home, sell around the world ect, and US politicians are corrupted. Sibel Edmonds hints at details ie that Israel, Turkey and Pakistan
    have a network with connection to US politicians (household names).
    The FBI found out about it, did some work on a case and then got a bit 'lost' when it hit real 'names'.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  73. Re:Art of War Chapter III by dbIII · · Score: 1

    have the army in a distant land and run the people into recession in order to fund that war

    Those things are not linked. The incompetance is wide ranging and not limited to military mismanagement. When you have an executive branch that uses Enron as a role model you end up with more than one problem.

  74. Re:Doesn't this contradict another conspiracy theo by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Now the conspiricy idea is just a stupid exaggeration of the unfortunate reality that far right Israeli political groups have far to much influence on USA government. It's called lobbying and in some cases even corruption but it is not control.

    The other factor is that Israel is the one place in that region where the rule of law is beleived in even if it is imperfectly applied. That makes them easier to deal with than their neighbours. I think there is also a feeling of kinship and some sort of odd admiration of the spirit of the old wild west as Israel colonises the place.

  75. Re:Which party will be embarrassed if it comes out by googleSky · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, she already did. And, as one might expect, both Dems and GOP'ers have been implicated.

    The Times declined to name names, even though she said she would. Edmonds has provided a "rogues gallery," of the perps -- uh, sorry, alleged perps -- which includes Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, Brent Scowcroft and Marc Grossman, who is described in the Times article as a "well-known senior official in the US State Department."

    For the most part, this activity appears to have been driven by pure avarice, selling accessible, desired product (nuke "secrets," arms, drugs, etc), with the perps pocketing cash.

    By the bye, here is the latest statement from Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

  76. Sibel Edmonds is a marked woman. by liftphreaker · · Score: 1

    Poor lady, her days are numbered. I wonder how long it will be before she is mysteriously "disappeared".

  77. Coincidentally. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Grim economic forecaster predict that the Dow Jones could plummet as much as 1000 points tomorrow, (Tuesday) morning, amidst fears of a full blown recession or even market collapse. This based on the shaky markets around the world over the last couple of days.

    I wonder if, when you control the world, you can pull out tricks like this to distract from unwelcome news surfacing? I mean, the people whose names are attached to selling nuke technology have some pretty big pull. . . Yes, they're just managers for the real behind-the-scenes powers that be, but maybe they can't be sacrificed at the moment, given that it would likely unravel the U.S. leadership right up the ladder.

    I admit it's a thought with fairly thin connective tissue, but I figured I'd point it out nonetheless.


    -FL

  78. The FOIA allows for certain coverups by roninamano · · Score: 1

    Certain matters of national security are allowed as "exceptions" to the Freedom of Information Act in the FOIA statute itself. Given the topic is nuclear secrets, I could imagine that these fit properly within those exceptions. That may be why they deny the document exists. Exclusions mean they have to admit it exists and can refuse production. Exceptions allow them to deny the existence altogether (or do I have that backward). The FBI may be doing nothing illegal or unusual here at all. From reading the article it sounds like the author has no clue that "exceptions" exist for just that sort of national secret. The best course of action for pursuing items like that is to take the FBI to court and sue under the FOIA to have an "independent" federal judge. The quotes are because many of the judges are former USA attorneys- prosecutors for the FBI, who roll over like Fido for them. Nonetheless, worth a try. But then again, I just had a panel of three federal appeals judges affirm an order declaring discovery of two certified mailing records from the Post Office burdensome- so don't hold your breath. But then again, they may have been doing the Second Circuit corruption protection thing for the presidential campaign sex tape scandal that's being primed. Oh well.

  79. YouTube- Daniel Ellsberg supporting Sibel Edmonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone interested in potential viral videos on this story?

    Here's a current one to start off with-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VMnOxMuOAk

  80. Re:Doesn't this contradict another conspiracy theo by Xross_Ied · · Score: 1

    Great choice of words...

    "Israel colonises the place"

    Sort of like how the white man colonized north america, right?

    --
    This sig space tolet, reasonable rate.
  81. They'd never lie to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Twin Towers were brought down by foreign hijackers.
    Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
    And it was just a weather balloon that crashed in Roswell.

  82. Re:Which party will be embarrassed if it comes out by Lukery · · Score: 1

    This particular individual is Marc Grossman, identified here. Re:'Which party?' The short answer: 'both' Sibel named 18 people 2 weeks ago, some of them Dems

  83. Re:Doesn't this contradict another conspiracy theo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    OK - maybe they are actually called settlements or something but the reality is the same. There's no reason to read good or bad into it becuase you get both. There are parallels with putting the indians into a reservation and then taking over the reservation because that's how uneven colonial wars work. It will improve once the extremist loonies on both sides settle down but that is hard to do while blood is being spilled.

  84. la la la la - i cant hear you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ipod!

    guitar hero!

    my big screen tv!

    nah nah nah nah

    the government will fear my next blog entry!

    that will change everything.

  85. Is this kind of like the Chinagate scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this like the Chinagate scandal?

  86. Mafia didnt die, it just put on a suit!!!. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    And got a badge, and a fake police history check....

    Oh man LEOs do a good job, its just that they have dual roles.... one to protect the public, and two to protect the govt and VIPs, or are their priorities the other way around?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  87. Arent they xians fundamentalists looking for war? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    I thought that the guys high up actually believe that jesus will come in aid if there is WW3, and half the planet nuked, thats why they are actively
    and indirectly making sure it happens, kind of like teasing god to wakeup and come down here or we will nuke the whole earth.

    I hope they realize, that most likely the aliens will come down save the earth then kill all those who started this nutcase warfare.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  88. Re:Arent they xians fundamentalists looking for wa by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The guys high up have done so much evil that there's no way they think there's a god, especially one with a hell.

    But supposedly they do have some insider info on the aliens. Not a reassuring thought.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  89. FBI are the wimps of the US government by technobabblingfool · · Score: 1

    The FBI is the closest thing to a national police force that the US has so you'd think that the national police force of a powerful country fighting terrorists would be somewhat powerful itself. You would be wrong. The FBI is routinely slapped around by every other part of the federal governement including the CIA, Secret Service, White House, Congress, DIA, and Defense Department. All thanks to J. Edgar Hoover who undermined the FBI with his weird pogroms. The FBI used to conduct overseas intelligence-gathering which the CIA grabbed away from it in the early 50s. When Kennedy was shot, the Secret Service literally pushed the FBI aside (they wouldn't even let them watch the autopsy) and conducted what little investigation was ever done even though there was originally a suspicion of a coup-in-progress that Secret Service agents were mixed up in up to their eyeballs. The only things the FBI really does today are background checks, services for municipal police departments, and investigation of corruption by petty local officials.

  90. Re:Election time again by spun · · Score: 1

    And here comes the "America is perfect and can do no wrong" party to defend treason, torture, extortion, coercion, lying, theft, abuse of power, destruction of the constitution, and any other evil under the sun. All so you can feel good about yourself as a "patriotic American" and excuse the fact that you don't have the courage to stand up to tyranny. What if, just what if your country was engaging in evil? Would you have the balls to stand up and do something about it? Or would you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and shout "LALALA I can't hear you!" at the top of your lungs? Would you be so quick to excuse if democrats were in power?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  91. We have always been at war with Oceania by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "It's funny that the way to LOSE a war according to the art of war is to have the army in a distant land and run the people into recession in order to fund that war (that you should be using the supplies from the fallen army/land to restock"

    Lose a war? That assumes your beloved General and his army are fighting a war _for_ _you_. Funny assumption to make given the circumstances.

    After all guess who is winning and who is losing. It sure isn't the citizens of the US or Iraq who are winning :). It was pretty obvious what would happen before the battle even started.

    Know thyself and the real enemy indeed.

    "We have always been at war with Oceania/Iraq/Iran/Drugs/etc".

    So does all that secrecy protect you from your _real_ enemies?

    --
    1. Re:We have always been at war with Oceania by techpawn · · Score: 1

      (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

      We, where doomed to fail if we are to believe Sun Tzu. The Sovereign believed himself to be a general or at the very least "the decider"

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    2. Re:We have always been at war with Oceania by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Allegedly the USA is a democratic republic - so the Sovereign = voters.

      As I implied earlier somewhere down the line the "General" has become the Sovereign and an _enemy_ of the voters/citizens.

      If you see carefully most of them don't do stuff truly for the voters (or plan to), they just throw a bone or two to the voters and hope that distracts them enough so they can do what they want.

      --
  92. Corrupt public officials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corruption, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
    They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
    They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
    They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
    Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this country.
    Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

    1. Re:Corrupt public officials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns were not confiscated during Katrina. I was there. I did have some friends who had their gun taken away when they were waving it around like an idiot, and I was in favor of that. But I went around armed in the wake of Katrina and didn't get hassled.

  93. MOD PARENT UP by jamie(really) · · Score: 1

    MOD PARENT UP