AL Tube Red Flags Ignored by Media
Sunday's New York Times' had a 10,000-word indictment on the Bush Administration's claims that Iraq's Aluminum Tubes were meant for nukes while the nuke experts thought that they were most likely for conventional rockets.
Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell critiques the NYT's critique.
Mitchell sets the scene:
- on Sept. 23, 2002, a respected Washington arms control group, the Institute for Science and International Security, released a report, based on information from Energy Department insiders, which the Times today calls "the first public airing of facts that undermined the most alarming suggestions about Iraq's nuclear threat."
And the NYT confesses that it just wasn't on their radar screen:
- The reports got little attention, partly because reporters did not realize they had been done with the cooperation of top Energy Department experts. The Washington Post ran a brief article about the findings on Page A18. Many major newspapers, including The Times, ran nothing at all.
Most of the media totally ignored this story during this crucial period. Some rare exceptions were Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel and the Guardian of London's Julian Borger.
Here are some excerpts from pre-war timeline starting at Monday, September 23, 2002:
9/23/02: David Albright at ISIS releases their report on the AL tubes.
9/25/02: The Washington Post stuffs their AL tube coverage on A18.
10/4/02: CIA releases "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"
10/4/02: Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay writes "CIA report reveals analysts' split over extent of Iraqi nuclear threat"
- Several senior administration and intelligence officials, all of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity, charged that the decision to publicize one analysis of the aluminum tubes and ignore the contrary one is typical of the way the administration has been handling intelligence about Iraq.
and
- Albright, the director of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-partisan think tank, said he has been told that scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and other U.S. nuclear weapons facilities disagreed with that assessment but have been ordered not to say anything.
Landay told me that he picked up on the story after reading the CIA assessment and hadn't seen the previous media reports on the AL tubes.
10/8/02: Landay and Warren Strobel write "Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq"
10/9/02: Julian Borger writes White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
The other mainstream editors and reporters at other newspapers completely dropped the ball on this issue after this point.
I interviewed Mitchell, Landay, Strobel, and Borger for this project because they have been on top of this story like no one else. Mitchell characterized the pre-war failings of the media as the worst that he's ever seen.
I hope to get all of the interviews transcribed soon so that you can see what else they've said, but I need more volunteers.
Get involved and sign up to help transcribe some interviews.
Project SHAD/112 Information, #8, above
Submitted by J.B. Stone (not verified) on Mon, 2007-08-13 09:10.
You will find WAY more truthful information on the Government's illegal Human Test Subject Bio-Chemical Weapons Testing Experiments at:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14556
Ignored by the media.
Documented is the now ongoing defective Checks and Balances JUSTICE DENIED. Continued under the present national security cover are the proven “to harm" lessons learned? These are from the many U.S. Senate stated Department of Defense (DOD) “experiments that were designed to harm", under the cover of past wars! [6] Reported is that this DOD Research and Development (R&D) was conducted on "hundreds of thousands”. In December 2006 the civilian “Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)” was established. [7] Starting in 2007, their R&D is under the cover of its "NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS". Are the lessons learned BARDA continued on the general public, e.g., those from the DOD’s “Biomedical” Project 112? [8]
Each project completes the R&D process. Reviewed are the prior R&D lessons learned. The then Scope of Work defines what the experiment is “designed” to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, the needed for treatment and protection. All is in the Executive Branch (DOD & BARDA) record! This needed for treatment evidence is: 1. Not in a subject’s Medical History, so that they never the wiser become. And 2. The resulting alerting disabilities are not in the Executive Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) “schedule of ratings for disabilities”!
""IT WAS NECESSARY "TO CONCEAL THESE ACTIVITIES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN GENERAL," BECAUSE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE "UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC CIRCLES AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS MISSION."" U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiments case; Footnote 4, Page 688. [3] Verified is the Executive Branch’s for the greater good end justifies the covered up “to harm" means!! The STANLEY case confirms the Supreme Court FERES Doctrine “activities incident to service” decision [1] that correction is by the U.S. Congress. Followed by Congress’s few 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. Established was the Veteran’s Legislative severely restricted, Article I Court. "The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.", i.e., the R&D experimental effects and their causes! The Veterans Court Chief Judge's no teeth statement. [5] The Secretary of the VA was given FINAL DECISION authority on these issues. [9] Included is the power of NO APPEAL to this Legislative Veterans Court or to the independent U.S. Judicial Branch Courts. The needed for treatment, policy revealing evidence is withheld during the entire VA “disabilities” procedure. If allowed an APPEAL, it is not part of the record at the Article I Veterans Court. It is also missing during the next step at the U.S. Judicial Branch Article III, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In 2007 the U.S. Congress still has not corrected the U.S. Senate’s 1994 reported 50 years of DOD “designed to harm" policy. There is now no 63 years later “Right to Know”. The “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission bill was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. It never became law. This is consistent with a few in Congress’s 1988 established severely restricted Veteran’s Court. Confirmed by its Chief Judge’s “The court may not review” the needed for treatment R&D evidence. [5] These experiments were in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 1953 TOP SECRET order. [2] Then known by the Secretary's of all Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the DOD R&D Board.
Lost are those prior to rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep! [4] After they complete Honorable Service, despite the efforts of some, Congress has not given back these rights to veterans. All is justified by the for the greater good end justifies the means! The Executive Branch (BARDA & DOD) hides behind it and the security cover up. The U.S. Supreme Court has left redress to the U.S. Congress. A few in Congress also support the end justifies the means and are preventing correction, i.e., the still no “to harm" reforms.
PLEASE, HOLD YOUR MEMBERS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE! WITH CONGRESS’S TO-DATE BEHAVIOR, DO NOT THE PROVEN “TO HARM” EXPERIMENTS CONTINUE? AND ON YOUR LOVED ONES?
AN EXAMPLE & VETERANS BACKGROUND provided on request from dhm2828@yahoo.com.
REFERENCES:
[1] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).
[2] DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In REFERENCE [6] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.
[3] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY, 107 S. CT. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). In REFERENCE [6] cited in NOTE 169.
[4] U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7".
[5] Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker.html
[6] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170.
[7] Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Bill S. 3678 2006. Signed into law 16 December 2006.
[8] “Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home” chemical and biological experiments; www.1.va.gov/shad/
[9] United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality. www.law.cornell.edu