Posted on 07/05/2005 5:57:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
The New York Times, NBC and other dominant media have destroyed the Constitution's Freedom of the Press. Today giant tears are shed at the New York Times because one of their own, Judith Miller, appears to be on the way to prison for up to 120-days because she nobly refused to give up a source. The Supreme Court recently ruled that she, as a journalist, must assist a federal government investigation when ordered to do so.
The First Amendment, in pertinent part, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .
"Abridging" means placing limits on. The Supreme Court ruled that these words must be interpreted from the perspective of the federal government. The Government's ability to use journalists as agents of the federal government when so desired cannot be abridged.
The American National Security State is supposed to grab all the power it can. Its mission is to project power. It is not entrusted with the mission of maintaining a healthy First Amendment Freedom of the Press. To the contrary, it is in the best interest of the National Security State to whittle, attack, whine and cry at every opportunity to turn dominant media into a tool by which federal propaganda is spewed across the nation twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
The Founding Fathers gave dominant media the mission of counterbalancing the State's natural inclination to destroy the Constitution. Dominant media, as envisioned, was to probe and question the National Security State, especially when it displeased the National Security State.
But that takes courage and a willingness to be called very bad names by National Security State propagandists. It means being leaned on by the Justice Department, snarled at by its biggest, meanest federal legal guns; careers threatened, wives intimidated. It means watching your Rolodex go up in smoke.
All those wonderful federal sources who spoon-fed you, the dominant media journalist, story after story for which you were praised and rewarded with even better stories – as long as you did not demand that officially sanctioned stories be backed up with actual documents and other provable facts.
These "sources" would never again be available to you if you ever crossed the Beast, the National Security State. You'd actually have to push away from your desk, get out of your chair, go out into the cold, cruel world, walk past your favorite pub and find sources.
Real sources, not the federal shills that made you a household name and provided a very comfortable living, feeding propaganda you knowingly and willingly placed into the collective mind of the masses. Now you would have to join those journalists you so despise and look down on – the "bottom-feeders," "conspiracy theorists," Internet journalists and other journalistic lowlifes who continually bang away at the National Security State.
So, when the tough stories appeared, stories like TWA Flight 800, you shuddered at the thought of challenging a very determined cover-up, even though you knew the federal propagandists were feeding you garbage. You shuddered and then folded, jumping into the warm, safe lap of the Beast, wagging your tail, whispering "feed me, feed me."
According to three media sources - one deep inside NBC on July 17, 1996, when missile-fire brought the giant 747 down - in the hours after TWA Flight 800 was shot down a bidding war ensued for a video showing missile-fire bringing down TWA Flight 800. The bidding went above $50,000, at which time, the Fox News team, New York, was blocked from further bidding. The video ended up in the hands of NBC, where it was confiscated by the FBI.
The head of the Fox News team in the field on Long Island was then approached by an American military officer who said there was a major screw-up, the White House had ordered a 48 hour "stand-down" while it decided how to handle this crisis. Dominant media had a decision to make. Significant evidence of missile-fire was already in hand. Much more was easily available. There were witnesses who watching TWA Flight 800 as it headed east toward Paris. They then watched as a missile approached and brought the plane down. They didn't see some mysterious light way off in the distance. They were not confused. They knew what they had seen.
We now know the FBI and CIA knew they witnessed missile-fire, according to documents recently unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act.
The New York Times would have had this vital information if it merely conducted an honest investigation. It did not. Instead, it allowed the FBI to feed it an approved storyline, complete with selected facts – a bomb brought the 747 down. A political decision was then made at the top of the Clinton administration. It was an election year. A criminal act might provoke the sleeping masses.
The lapdog New York Times might lose its role as the dominant media "investigative" team. The Beast could lose control of the crisis. Truth could conceivably prevail if the shills at the New York Times ceased running interference for the National Security State.
But it was not to be. Federal propagandists told the New York Times a criminal act did not bring down TWA Flight 800. All that explosive residue was from a dog training exercise. The New York Times did not interview the St. Louis Airport Police Officer who conducted the training a month before TWA Flight 800 crashed. He would have given the New York Times information proving beyond any doubt that the dog training exercise did not take place on the 747 that would later become TWA Flight 800.
If the New York Times had interviewed the pilots who were onboard the 747 at St. Louis during the entire time the dog training exercise took place, it would have quickly become apparent that the dog training took place on a 747 parked at the adjacent St. Louis Airport gate. Mere competence would have exposed the cover-up.
At that point courage would have been required. The New York Times had neither. It was the Beast's official lapdog.
In all probability, 9-11 would never have happened if the New York Times had merely done the job the Founding Fathers assigned. In the aftermath of TWA 800, with a fully informed citizenry, America's masses would have demanded real protection based on real facts, not federal propaganda.
We can reasonably infer that today's constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court's removal of the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press would not have occurred. The Supreme's are political creatures; dare we suggest political whores? Would they dare destroy this most vital portion of the First Amendment if they knew they were attacking journalism's junkyard dog?
The Supreme's knew they were destroying a National Security State lapdog that did not need or deserve special protection under the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, non dominant media journalists who do sally forth to battle the dreaded Beast now do so without any pretense of a constitutional amendment protecting them. And now the ultimate irony – New York Times reporter Judith Miller now gets to go to prison because of the failure of the New York Times to protect and defend the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press.
concerning residue, two journalists were arrested for stealing into the hangar where the plane was being reconstructed.
their goal was to steal fabric from the seats, to have it independently chemically analyzed for residue to show whether the incindary was a tank explosion or a missile.
I am not questioning the "validity" of the journalists who were arrested. I'm simply saying that their arrest had nothing to do with precisely what the government was trying to hide -- just that the government was trying to hide SOMETHING.
1. If TWA 800 had been shot down by a terrorist, then the government arrested them to keep the cause of the crash from being made public.
2. If TWA 800 had been blown up by an on-board explosive, then the government arrested them to keep the cause of the crash from being made public.
3. If TWA 800 had been accidentally shot down by a missile from a naval vessel, then the government arrested them to keep the cause of the crash from being made public.
4. If TWA 800 had been deliberately shot down by a missile from a naval vessel, then the government arrested them to keep the cause of the crash from being made public.
5. If TWA 800 had been shot down by aliens from outer space, then the government arrested them to keep the cause of the crash from being made public.
Every scenario I've posted involves a government attempt to suppress the truth about what happened, and every one of them involves the government arresting journalists to keep the truth from being told. The fact that the journalists were arrested doesn't make any one of the five scenarios more likely than the other (in other words, the arrest of the journalists does not necessarily mean that Scenario #1 was exactly what happened) -- but it does indicate that the government is trying to hide SOMETHING.
yes, sir.
i've read your points and understand them.
gracias!
senor, ken
LOL. Thanks -- I thought I was losing my mind. :-)
So...you going to back up that bold statement with your expertise on Navy doctrine for conducting live fire missile exercises?
No terrorist organization claimed the Khobar Towers either...you saying that was a result of a U.S. military SNAFU too?
Hezbollah does not need or want to identify itself. Ironically, Khobar was a bit of a government SNAFU.
I had a friend in the airforce, who said he was there and saw the missle hit the plane.
The area off the south shore of Long Island that is used by the U.S. Navy for military exercises -- designated W-105 -- was active that night. That little tidbit wasn't made public until months after the incident.
How does that sound?
I think you are right Peach.
.
Teflon CLINTONS =
NBC News
CBS News
ABC News
...still refuse to tell the American People about the CLINTONS' own worst misbehaviors against them.
Even in a new time of war
in a new century
with an enemy that's now
just around the corner and
up your street,
with our own Freedom
directly at stake
here at home.
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger.
.
I would make a couple of points in response to that:
1. You are assuming that every person -- or even most people -- on a Navy vessel are aware of everything that goes on at any given time. If an accidential shoot-down occurred during what would otherwise be described as "routine" naval exercises involving multiple vessels, and the aircraft was far enough away from the ship that fired the missile that it couldn't be seen clearly, then most crew members on the ship in question wouldn't even know exactly what happened.
2. An incident involving the military and civilian aircraft is not unprecedented. In addition to the well-publicized downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes in 1988, there was another intriguing case in the last 25 years that hasn't received much exposure at all.
An Italian DC-9 crashed in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Italy in 1980 under very mysterious circumstances, killing all 81 passengers and crew members. The formal investigation of that incident never really identified a cause, and the circumstances surrounding the investigation generated a lot of suspicion almost immediately. Information from the voice and data recorder was never made public, and data from air traffic control was conveniently "lost" during the investigation.
The case was never truly resolved, but by 1996 -- seventeen years later -- it was pretty much accepted in Italy that the aircraft had been accidentally shot down during an incident involving a Libyan fighter jet and military aircraft from one or more NATO countries. The secrecy surrounding the case was sufficient evidence in and of itself for this kind of speculation, and what made the whole thing particularly sensitive from Italy's standpoint was that the involvement of other NATO countries (naval vessels and aircraft from France and the U.S. were apparently involved to some degree or another) added an element of jurisdictional confusion that would not otherwise have been present.
You can characterise him as a felon if you choose, but he is a courageous investigative writer who got too close to the truth, and was selectively prosecuted to shut him up.
Why isn't James Kalstrom in jail for giving away several parts of TWA800 when Sanders was prosecuted for receiving a small swatch of explosive residue impregnated seat covering?
And you explain the independent testimony of over 130 witnesses from all over Long Island Sound (Whose testimony was supressed by the FBI/NTSB) that independently corroborate the Triangulation of a source point for a streak of light that went up from the surface to the plane .....how?
What did Sanders do to become a felon?
I've got the video produced about that crash. Very chilling.
In the course of investigating the cover up of the crash, he persuaded someone to appropriate a swatch of the seat covering from the area of the plane where he believed the missile penetrated so he could have an independent analysis performed to see if any propellant or explosive residue was present.
clinton had him, and his wife, prosecuted under the law forbidding the removal of debris from a crash site, despite the fact that James Kalstrom had given away parts of the plane to survivor's families as a (political) symbolic gesture.
The Sanders' prosecution was clear act of intimidation and an attempt to silence them and suppress their book "The Downing of Flight TWA 800".
Check it out.
Nitrogen in military fuel tanks reduces damage when a plane is hit by hostile fire.
There is no method for "fuel inerting" for non-military planes.
It proved impossible to produce an explosion in a scale model - at any any temperature, much the actual rather cool temperature the fuel would have been at at 13,000 feet and at that interval after takeoff.
It proved impossible to even produce a deflagration in a scale model without just lighting the fuel using much more voltage and power than would have been present in any wiring in the 747 fuel tank.
TWA800 was probably shot down. Probably by terrorists who have been shooting at our airliners since, at least, the Air Arrow crash in Gander, and against which we have ZERO defence.
When you fly, you are a sitting duck. And our government will LIE LIE LIE to us about that because the price of AMR stock is more important than your life.
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.