Posted on 06/07/2007 11:16:02 AM PDT by Hal1950
James Sanders is stirring again.
Two items have put the veteran investigative reporter – and my partner on the documentary "Silenced" and the book "First Strike" – on his own personal Code Orange.
One is the news out of JFK that Islamic terrorists are up to their old tricks again. At JFK? My, who da thunk it?
The second, and more personally galvanizing, is that Sanders has just gotten a big batch of new TWA Flight 800-related documents from the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act.
These documents stem from Sanders' stillborn civil suit against a government that convicted him and his wife, Elizabeth, of conspiracy for his reporting on the TWA Flight 800 investigation.
In the course of our history, citizens have received worse treatment at the hand of a generally benign government. But no reporter has been treated more shabbily at the hand of the media – ever.
In truth, the Clinton years did not bring out the best in the major media. During the TWA 800 investigation in particular, they hewed to the government line with a pride and passion that would make Edward R. Murrow squirm in his grave.
And God help the poor soul, like James Sanders, who got out of line.
Undaunted now as then, Sanders wades through these new documents like a wily prospector in Sutter's Creek. Most of the gold has been stripped away or redacted, but if you know what to look for, as Sanders does, the nuggets stand out.
His sense of humor somehow intact, Sanders forwards key documents to my shared fax under the heading, "SECRET – sensitive journalism. Do not read. If you do, you will turn into a Democrat."
The one document that intrigues me most tells of Sanders' treatment at the hands of that great 57th Street institution, CBS News.
In the way of background, Sanders had granted an exclusive interview to Emmy Award-winning CBS producer Kristina Borjesson the same day a story about his research broke in California's Riverside Press-Enterprise.
"New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800," screamed the paper's one-inch, front-page headline on March 10, 1997.
Working with Terrel Stacey, TWA's 747 top manager inside the investigation, Sanders had received, among other information, a few foam rubber bits of seatback that contained the DNA of the investigation, streaks of an unknown red-orange residue.
Sanders had the residue tested at an independent West Coast lab, which found it to be consistent with exhaust from a solid fuel missile. To verify his claim, Sanders had sent a separate sample to CBS.
After the CBS interview had been videotaped, however, Borjesson grew alarmed when she realized no one at the "Evening News" was editing the piece.
Frustrated, she walked into a meeting of news executives and asked why the network wasn't doing the story on Sanders and his documents.
"You think it's a missile, don't you?" queried an executive she didn't recognize.
"I don't know what the hell it is," Borjesson shot back, "but don't you think we should be doing a story that asks a few questions about this guy and his documents?" The silence that followed was, as Borjesson admits, "deafening."
When she had walked in to the room, she honestly believed she was about to correct an oversight at a level where it could be corrected quickly. "I walked out of there," said Borjesson, "feeling like I'd cooked my own goose."
When CBS finally aired the story, it used what Borjesson calls "a classic avoidance tactic" to keep Sanders off the air while reporting – and dismissing – his side of the story.
Borjesson was elated, however, when "60 Minutes" expressed its interest in doing the story. She thanked its senior producer, telling him "60 Minutes" was the "last broadcast with balls." Borjesson put the residue sample in the producer's desk for safekeeping until she could locate a lab.
The FBI 302 tells the dispiriting story of what happened next. Two special agents visited CBS and talked to a senior attorney, Howard Jaeckel. Jaeckel told the FBI that "disclosing a source is very sensitive to us."
That much perfunctory business out of the way, Jaeckel and CBS eagerly cooperated with the FBI to the point of deep-sixing any scheduled production on the subject and meekly handing over the untested residue sample.
Abandoned by the last broadcast with balls, James and Elizabeth Sanders were charged with conspiracy under a law that had been enacted to discourage scavengers and souvenir hunters, not reporters.
At the time of their arraignment on Long Island, none among the media managed to pose even one First Amendment question. The reporters found it much more comfortable to frame the Sanders' transgression as simple theft.
When the Sanders' lawyer attempted to bring this issue into focus, Newsday's Bob Kessler argued the government line, insisting the Justice Department had not found sufficient evidence to declare James Sanders a journalist entitled to First Amendment protection.
This shocked Sanders in that the Riverside Press-Enterprise article had identified him as an "investigative reporter," detailed his previous nonfiction books, and described his inquiry into the TWA 800 investigation over the preceding five months.
Another reporter asked the attorney why his client did not immediately return the residue to the NTSB and turn Stacey in to the FBI. Sanders shook his head in disbelief. Was it only a generation ago that the New York Times made Daniel Ellsberg a hero by publishing the purloined and fully classified Pentagon Papers?
Of course, just four years later, as soon as a Republican re-occupied the White House, whistleblowing came roaring back into vogue with almost comic ferocity.
No state secret was safe anymore, even if its revelation endangered the world.
At the end of 2002, self-parody reached something of journalistic peak when Time magazine named as its "Persons of the Year" three female whistleblowers.
"They took huge professional and personal risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at WorldCom, Enron and the FBI," said the newly vigilant Time, "and in so doing helped remind us what American courage and American values are all about."
Airsickness bag, anyone?
That is exactly what I have been saying for years. Who would fly if the truth was known, and it only makes sense that the government would not want it known. I’ve always thought that one of the worse things terrorists could do would be to take out airliners on both coasts at the same time with shoulder-fired missiles. It would paralyze the country......
That night in Witchita staying at that Holiday Inn I ordered my dinner in the bar. Had a beer with it. That is how I managed to be with Boeing engineers that night too. They said that only a missle or a bomb on board could have brought that baby down. We saw the missle, same as you did.
There has never been any irrefutable evidence.
Allegations are not irrefutable evidence.
By who?
Again, allelgations are not irrefutable evidence.
BTW, thousands had their VCR recorders going that night but not even one has surfaced in the now nearly 11 years since the disaster. How could that be if it was on TV all over the country.?
Government agents weren't even able to suppress that one blue dress Clinton left a stain on.
At any rate, please tell us what the approximate altitude of the huge fireball was.
Yes. There were a couple of 737s that had fuel tanks explode while at the loading gate. Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 was a DC-9 that exploded in mid-air. Pan Am Flight 214 and LANSA Flight 508 both exploded in mid-air, and the cause was later identified as a lightning strike.
Some don't like to hear opposing points of view. It's to their detriment -- not yours.
Why is it that when Al Gore, John Kerry, or George Stephanopoulis talk about politics or global warming or almost anything else then most of the people here immediately suspect their truthfulness, but when it comes to TWA 800 suddenly their word is gospel?
So what nefarious terrorist group should we have struck back at? I'm not aware that any claimed credit.
What kind?
Though this is obviously the government's rational from tiny little brains, it is foolish. It would be equivalent to failing to tell the public about U-Boats in the Atlantic during the two world wars.
It is simply a coverup for the ineptness displayed by the agencies that are soaking up taxpayer dollars to "protect us".
The 747 fleet was not grounded for any real amount time to correct a bogus problem if the center fuel tank theory was actually real and the fuel tanks were not inspected on all planes along with the pumps, not one CFR by the FAA was used to correct any problem in 747's.
Not a single 747 or any other Boeing aircraft for that matter has had a fuel tank exploxsion on the ground or in the air since TWA800.
I know aircraft maintenance personnel for airlines that questioned the 747 fuel tank story from day one.
I have spoken to a few 747 pilots that have hinted about being told to shut up and not speak on the issues from fear of trouble from above.
The silence is so deafening from above in the government, FAA, Airline Industry bailed out by government subsidies, and media that it is obvious nobody wants the truth to be told.
Discussion about Iranian payback for the Airliner shot down over the gulf a few years earlier by U.S. Navy worships is ignored.
Evidence and clear eyewitness by military personal airborne and on the ground at the time of a missile track as well as another airline pilot viewing the track are suppressed.
The NTSB and CIA story so full of sh*t it is a joke to any engineer.
Than there are all the conspiracy pundit police who shoot down anyone who knows anything about the aviation industry and places them in the nut category as they shame knowledgeable people into silence.
There is no doubt the government simply kills this story by ignoring it and wants it dead and to go away because TWA was shot down and the government knows why and can't let it be known for some troubling reasons.
If friends, coworkers, or family of mine were on that flight I would not let it alone either.
And because no claimed responsibilty we should ignore the attack?
The fact that nobody claimed responsibility makes me wonder if there was an attack to begin with.
Not a single DC-10 has crashed due to a failure of their cargo hatch since the one that brought down Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Not a single DC-10 has crashed due to an engine coming off when a bolt failured since American Airlines Flight 191. Not a single 767 has been torn apart in mid-air by an unexpected deployment of the reverse thrusters since Lauda Air Flight 004. Not a single Airbus A310 has crashed ebcause a throttle jamed in the take-off position since Tarom Flight 371. Not a single...well, you get the idea.
Also, some missiles fly a little longer than others: they don’t read a manual and then say “OK, I’ve reached my theoretical maximum height but still have a little fuel left. I’ll quit flying right now and not coast a little (few hundred/thousand ft) higher.”
Is a fuel tank explosive possible? Yes. Likely? Not really.
Is a missile hit possible? Just barely.
Is a missile plausible? Yes.
Is a missile hit likely? Certainly.
Is a missile hit the cause? maybe.
To: tpaine
courtesy ping
KC Burke
Thanks KC.
Why Hal is so obsessed with this controversy is a minor mystery.
And why he insists on taunting/mischaracterizing me as a 'longtime supporter' is simply another obsessive act.
My involvement is simple, -- I and my wife saw the 'streak of light' video the night of the crash, - and we were both amazed the next morning that it no longer 'existed'.
I have no specific theory of what happened, but I know what I saw that night.
Apparently, this drives hal into hissy fits.
I'd suggest he get a grip on his emotions.
“What kind?”
Good question...as I recall, there were some navy operations going on in the area that evening...
Those of us who saw it need no "irrefutable evidence!" Your statement says we should not believe our lying eyes?
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.