FBI Burying Doc Showing US Officials Stole Nuclear Secrets? 347
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.'"
*Shudders with fear* (Score:5, Insightful)
Art of War Chapter 13 (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:More attention (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More attention (Score:3, Insightful)
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 --
Re:Double standards... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they have to steal nuclear secrets? (Score:3, Insightful)
conspiracy... (Score:1, Insightful)
US media will *not* touch this, probably ever (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [timesonline.co.uk]
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 [timesonline.co.uk]
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/ [justacitizen.com]>here.
"I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers." - Daniel Ellsberg
Re:Double standards... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And reading between the lines... (Score:3, Insightful)
And your point was?
Re:Double standards... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:arrgghhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double standards... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: Gee... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which party will be embarrassed if it comes out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy Leaping Conclusions, Batman (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:Gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
slashkos (Score:3, Insightful)
What's "Democratic" about caring that your government is so corrupt that it threatens nuke war?
Numb From the Neck Up (Score:4, Insightful)
What does impress you, news of maybe an alien invasion?
Not so different (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:More attention (Score:2, Insightful)
Demand Justice, Americans! Deny those who seek to cover their crimes the right to do so, whether they are government or otherwise!
...liberal fuzzy thinking that gets people killed (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Instead of the BoingBoing snippet ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Why the gag order? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you make everything secret, no one trusts you.
Re:slashkos (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not so different (Score:3, 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.
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other countries with nuclear secrets (Score:3, 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.
Re:conspiracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not so different (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 [bradblog.com]
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...
Re:Double standards... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not so different (Score:3, Insightful)
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.