Posted on 09/20/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by TheGeezer
Edited on 09/20/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Newsweek
Updated: 11:31 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2003Dec. 17 - A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.
The new document, supposedly written by the chief of the Iraqi intelligence service, was trumpeted by the Sunday Telegraph of London earlier this week in a front-page story that broke hours before the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein. TERRORIST BEHIND SEPTEMBER 11 STRIKE WAS TRAINED BY SADDAM, ran the headline on the story written by Con Coughlin, a Telegraph correspondent and the author of the book "Saddam: The Secret Life."
Coughlin's account was picked up by newspapers around the world and was cited the next day by New York Times columnist William Safire. But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery--part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime.
"It's a lucrative business," says Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents. "There's an active document trade taking place ... You have fraudulent documents that are being fabricated and sold" for hundreds of dollars a piece.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/ <-- Link
You're mixing apples and oranges there. I was trying to be brief in expressing the "fraud" angle of this forgery. My general project has been to put the Killian forgeries and CBS broadcast in the framework of criminal statutes.
Just throwing sticks at me isn't helpful at all.
I think I'll stop now. :)
Here are some links to pictures of the newspaper of the time. A bit of history. I have no idea if criminal charges were brought.
http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe16/rbpe160/1600140b/001dq.gif <-- Picture
An American Time Capsule: Three Centuries of Broadsides and Other Printed Ephemera
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/rbpehtml/rbpebibTitles35.html
In October 1924 the MI5 intercepted a letter written by Grigory Zinoviev, chairman of the Comintern in the Soviet Union. In the letter Zinoviev urged British communists to promote revolution through acts of sedition. Vernon Kell, head of MI5 and Sir Basil Thomson head of Special Branch, were convinced that the letter was genuine. Kell showed the letter to Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Prime Minister. It was agreed that the letter should be kept secret but someone leaked news of the letter to the Times and the Daily Mail.The link has lots of comments and additional history. Quite an amazing event there, too.The letter was published in these newspapers four days before the 1924 General Election and contributed to the defeat of MacDonald and the Labour Party. After the election it was claimed that two of MI5's agents, Sidney Reilly and Arthur Maundy Gregory, had forged the letter and that Major Joseph Ball, a MI5 leaked it to the press. In 1927 Ball went to work for the Conservative Central Office where he pioneered the idea of spin-doctoring.
Research carried out by Gill Bennett in 1999 suggested that there were several MI5 and MI6 officers attempting the bring down the Labour Government in 1924, including Stewart Menzies, the future head of MI6.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUzinoviev.htm <--
Well I'm impressed. You've been copied by Rush!
I am sorry. That stick was not to you personally, but against the Profession in general; every time I've been involved (Thankfully few) or heard of esoteric cases, the bottom line is always what did it 'cost' the aggrieved party, and how much will make it whole. Because of that, Principle has taken a back seat far too often, as it appears this situation will.
My bottom line take is that this was a fraud perpetrated by Rather and CBS using false evidence provided by known members of the Democrat party, and knowingly presented as truthful in order to undermine the elected Government of the United States. I don't care how anyone tries to spin or excuse it; it was a naked attempt to stage a coup.
Also, thank you for the info and knowledge you and others have brought here. The thing that the MSM fails to grasp is that there are hundreds of experts from all fields available at the click of a key here on the web, and FR has more than anyplace else I've seen.
I see it exactly as that, myself, although as a matter of being "neutral," I call it as attempting to discredit a candidate for the Office, instead of undermining the elected government. Semantics only. We agree that the DEMs were using dirty tricks, including a complicit media, to manipulate the public.
thank you for the info and knowledge you and others have brought here. The thing that the MSM fails to grasp is that there are hundreds of experts from all fields available at the click of a key here on the web, and FR has more than anyplace else I've seen
My pleasure. This is one of the best places I have seen for hashing out ideas and facts, speculation, etc. It is in general a bit noisy, but once the skills of "speed reading" and "cutting through the crap" are developed, there is more accurate, raw information here than any other place I have seen.
I'm having fun looking up historical instances of forgeries being used in election dirty tricks. The KGB used to feed garbage to the press all the time. A manipulable public is desired by all who aspire to be elites or kings.
Here's an interesting case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=950140p
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1995 FED App. 0140P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 95a0140p.06
No. 94-5040
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
HUB PLASTICS, INC.,
Respondent.
---W]e rule today that we will no longer probe into the truth or falsity of the parties' campaign statements, and that we will not set elections aside on the basis of misleading campaign statements. We will, however, intervene in cases where a party has used forged documents which render the voters unable to recognize propaganda for what it is. Thus, we will set an election aside not because of the substance of the representation, but because of the deceptive manner in which it was made, a manner which renders employees unable to evaluate the forgery for what it is.---
So, the court clearly distinguishes between false propaganda and forged documents to influence elections.
I'm not certain the law is on the books today, and in any event, the penalties aren't big. And, I wonder if the law is or would be narrowly construed to cover forged signatures of the candidates (see e.g., Garfield campaign) or contemporaneous "issues" writings, or both.Illegal Influence
666:6 False Documents, Names or Endorsement
. Any person who shall, without authority, sign the name of another person to any letter or other document, or falsely represent that any other has written such letter or document, knowing such representation to be false, for the purpose of influencing votes, or who shall by false representation, use, employ or assign the name of any other person, or a fictitious name on a radio or television broadcast or other means of communication, to signify endorsement of a political party, candidates or programs, or, for the purpose of influencing votes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.666:7 Publication of Forged Document
. Whoever publishes any such forged letter or document, knowing the same to be forged, with like intent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person and shall be guilty of a felony if any other person.http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa666.htm <- State of NH
The best antidote to campaign mischief is a skeptical and educated public, in any event.
Were it not the sitting President I would agree, but the result of this action were it successful would have been the overthrow of President Bush.
A manipulable public is desired by all who aspire to be elites or kings.
True; which is why I believe that the Founding Fathers basically had it correct in limiting the franchise to vote to those who directly contributed to the upkeep and maintenance of the Government and Country. The democratic ideals that are so vehemently touted by the socialists in both major parties will, I fear, hasten either the slide of the US into balkanized fiefdoms or another Civil War.
So you don't believe my cite from the US Code is pertinent to the situation?
No, I don't, for more than one reason. First, the entity defrauded is not an agent or agency of the US Government. Even if there was a fraud on CBS, is would not be a fraud on the US Government.
About an hour ago heard Rather's interview of provider of documents. He claimed he did not know the documents were fake and that he was pressured by CBS to authenticate them even though he had no way of doing so. THE QUESTION RATHER DID NOT ASK: "WHERE OR FROM WHOM DID YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS?" In other words, CBS is controlling this story. The pertinent information is being suppressed, and the story being touted is just a cover story.
OK. Now I see the problem. We seem to have different beliefs in what constitutes 'Government'. I maintain that you and I and the rest of the People are "the Government", and we elect our representatives to stand in for us to effect governance. While I admit that this seems rather altruistic, I believe it does represent the basis established by the Founding Fathers.
As to the fraud being against CBS, Rather himself admitted that their own experts warned them before they broadcast that there were strong reservations against the documents that they discounted, because it 'felt' like the type of thing Killian would have said. That Rather did not divulge those expert misgivings during the initial broadcast tells me he and CBS willingly supported and permitted this fraud to occur. Knowing receipt of a forged instrument is a crime, and has the same or similar penalties attached as the creation of the forgery.
Well, we probably hold the same principles. But it is undeniable that there is a difference between the Federal Government, and the citizens that it works for. You and I can't grant broadcasting licenses, or patents, we can't arrest people, or incarcerate them, etc. So, there is a difference between defrauding the government (which in principle is getting over on all of the public), and defrauding a business entity.
CBS is supposed to use care so that it doesn't broacast propaganda based in fraud, but it didin't. Even if it hadn't crossed this line, a person would have to have a very closed mind to accept what CBS puts out as an accurate reflection of reality.
My reference to "fraud on CBS" was that if CBS paid money for the forgeries, on the pretext they were authentic, then CBS got taken. I don't think that reflects facts, I think CBS was suspicious, and ran it anyway, for whatever reasons and rationalization.
In an alternative scenario, CBS get documents, examines them, concludes they are forged, and never uses them. They know they received forgeries, but so what? Thy have a heads up that a certain source is not reliable.
When I posted the complete text, the moderator had not yet updated the post to include the statement. I posted it as soon as it was released when this thread was just a headline.
i demand a recount >http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1d07247bd8.htm<
perhaps dan should return his award...
teeman
I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of over-30 computer users who have no idea what a font is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.