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.'"
If you think this is scary, try to imagine all the things that we don't know about.
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
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
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.
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 --
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
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.
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?
...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.
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
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.
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.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
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.
Yes.
And your point was?
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.
Would that make Edmonds a "pun"dit?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
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?
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.
Money is the root of all evil?
You can't take the sky from me...
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?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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. --
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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."