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.'"

79 of 347 comments (clear)

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

    Government agency lies; news at 11.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. 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!
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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. . . .
    9. 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.

    10. 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!

    11. 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!
    12. 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.
    13. 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
    14. 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!
    15. 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?

  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 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. :)

  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 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. --
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

  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 _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.

    2. 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?
  5. 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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)
    6. 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.
    7. 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? :)

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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!
    11. 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."
  6. 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...

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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...
  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.
  16. Re:And reading between the lines... by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes.

    And your point was?

  17. 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.
  18. 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?

  19. 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
  20. 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)
  21. "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.
  22. 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

  23. 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 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

  24. 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 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...

    3. 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
  25. ...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.
  26. 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 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!
  27. Re:Liar by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, you're just being sarcastic.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  28. 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.

  29. 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!
  30. 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!
  31. 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.

  32. 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