Posted on 03/12/2003 11:16:44 PM PST by JohnHuang2
One cannot underestimate the impact of what has just transpired in James and Elizabeth Sanders' ongoing civil suit against the federal government and seven named individuals. The case number is federal EDNY, #01-CV-5447 JS.
The United States government has declined to respond to the Sanders' summary judgment motion – "Rule 56.1 Statement." Incredibly, by so declining, U.S. Attorney Kevin Cleary has conceded that the Sanders' 32 damning charges against his clients cannot be rebutted.
In so conceding, the Justice Department tacitly acknowledges that, yes, the TWA Flight 800 investigation has been corrupted and, no, we are not prepared to contest this fact.
In sum, Cleary has thrown in the towel on a case that ranks among the most egregious violations of a reporter's constitutional rights in the history of American journalism.
From the beginning, the story of TWA Flight 800, the one that James Sanders chronicled, has been a story of humanity betrayed – none more so than the 230 good souls aboard that doomed plane.
Fifty-three of the dead were TWA employees. James' wife, Elizabeth Sanders, had trained many of the attendants on board and knew several of the pilots. Their deaths wounded the sweet, vulnerable Elizabeth deeply. In the weeks afterward, she and her TWA colleagues passed numbly from one memorial service to another, their grief matched only by their growing anger at the obvious misdirection of the investigation. One of those colleagues, 747 pilot and manager Terry Stacey, would become James Sanders' best source within that investigation.
From the beginning, too, James Sanders has recognized the humanity of those who have tried to block him from telling this story. In his civil suit, as in his reporting – including the book he and I have co-authored, "First Strike, TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America" – Sanders has never shied from putting a human face on injustice.
What makes Sanders' legal case so powerful is that he targets not merely the anonymous monolith of "government," but seven named defendants within. These are real people with real fears who, for a variety of reasons, yielded to those fears and betrayed the trust of the American people. For several years now, Sanders is all that has stood between them and knowledge that they got away with it. No doubt, they are anxious about this turn of events. One hopes major media will seek them out and exploit that anxiety.
As Sanders argued in his summary judgment motion, the named defendants used their legal authority not to protect the federal Flight 800 investigation, but to thwart Sanders' reporting on their own lawlessness. In the process, the defendants knowingly violated the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The persecution of Sanders can be traced to March 10, 1997, when California's Riverside Press-Enterprise headlined its front page with an article titled, "New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800." Written by Loren Fleckenstein, the story identified James Sanders as an "investigative reporter," provided information on his previous non-fiction books, and described his inquiry into the FBI and NTSB Flight 800 investigation over the preceding five months.
This story created a significant problem for the Justice Department. The article's text confirmed that Sanders was on the trail of potential criminal activity within the Flight 800 investigation. As to those charged with containing the investigation, their worst nightmare had been realized. Forensic evidence had left the hangar. Some unknown person within the investigation had removed a pinch of material from the plane as telling and potentially damaging as Monica's famed "blue dress." That person was Terry Stacey. He removed it of his own volition and sent it to Sanders.
This piece of seat back was laced with the DNA of the crash, a reddish-orange residue trail that streaked across a narrow section of the plane's interior. The FBI had lifted samples in early September 1996, then refused to share the test results with the NTSB. For the record, those tests today remain classified under the guise of national security.
Once the story had broken, the Clinton Justice Department used its considerable powers to thwart Sanders. The key to its strategy was the denial of Sanders' standing as a journalist by two Justice Department lawyers, Valerie Caproni and Benton Campbell. The current Justice Department now concedes that these two attorneys did the following:
conspired to print factually false information in a Justice Department letter to deprive [James Sanders] of his civil rights afforded by the PPA (Privacy Protection Act). By falsely alleging they did not know plaintiff was a journalist, defendants conspired to create an illegal scheme allowing them to subpoena and obtain work product and documents because, per the scheme, they did not know [Sanders] was a journalist until after receiving work product and documents.
The charges went beyond the two attorneys. The current Justice Department has chosen not to contest the following related charge from Sanders' civil suit.
Within seconds of learning that the overarching conspiracy [FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall, NTSB head of investigation Bernie Loeb, and NTSB head of the Fire & Explosion Team Merritt Birky] were engaged in to alter the outcome of the TWA 800 federal 'investigation' was compromised by [James Sanders], CAPRONI and CAMPBELL knew beyond any doubt that [Sanders] was a journalist protected by PPA and Justice Department CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 50.10. Defendants CAPRONI and CAMPBELL, in order to protect themselves and their co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully widened the overarching conspiracy to include violating [Sanders] PPA civil rights by using grand jury subpoena power to illegally seize work product.
The Sanders' suit details the way this conspiracy worked and names those responsible. Again, the Justice Department has let these incriminating charges stand unrebutted:
Defendants, no later than March 11, 1997, falsely said the reddish-orange residue was glue. Defendants HALL and LOEB made this false statement to Congress on March 11, 1997. Defendant BIRKY inserted this false information into the Fire & Explosion Team "Factual Report" … Defendants removed substantially all reddish-orange residue from rows 17-19. LOEB was then given the assignment to lie to Congress and state there was no residue trail on the seats inside Calverton Hangar.
At the FBI's Nov. 18, 1997 press conference, Kallstrom made the following claim about this residue trail:
The seat cushion residue, reported in the Riverside, Calif., press, of the residue that someone said was rocket fuel. The truth is the material is contact adhesive.
We know without a doubt – without any doubt whatsoever – that it's the adhesive that holds the back of the seats together. It's not rocket fuel. It's not residue of a rocket, never was, never will be.
The Justice Department, in essence, now concedes Kallstrom's "statement was false, [and] known to be false." Justice also concedes that "KALLSTROM and KINSLEY conspired to create a factually false illusion that [James Sanders] had misrepresented the [red residue tests]."
In fact, the residue was demonstrably not glue. The Justice Department also concedes that another FBI agent gave false testimony about the red residue by choosing not to contest the following charge:
FBI agent Ken Maxwell, testifying at the [Sanders'] criminal trial April 7, 1999, falsely stated the FBI first observed the reddish-orange [trail] in late October to early November [1996]. This factually false statement was made as a part of a conspiracy with [Justice Department attorney] PITOFSKY to place the peak FBI point of interest in the residue at the same period of time [James Sanders] and [Terry] Stacey were discussing removal for testing purposes.
If there were a consistent strategy among the seven defendants, it was to de-humanize the Sanders – to strip away their dignity and individuality. This strategy reached its tragi-comic peak on Dec. 5, 1997 when the FBI's New York office Internet site proudly headlined the story of the Sanders' arrest: "Conspiracy theorist and wife charged with theft of parts from airplane," and scrolled it across the top of its home page. The arrest warrant was shot through with false statements. In his suit, Sanders would credit FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley for this misrepresentation – and the Justice Department now concedes these constitutional violations.
Here is another critical point that the Justice Department has chosen not to contest: "On Dec. 5, 1997, the New York Justice Department-FBI website, coordinated with the KALLSTROM-KINSLEY conspiracy to vilify [James Sanders]." By labeling Sanders a "conspiracy theorist" on its website, the FBI employed a subjective characterization that violates the FBI's own guidelines.
Things got uglier four days later when FBI agent Jim Kinsley paraded James and Elizabeth through a throng of reporters, their hands cuffed behind their backs. Throughout it, Elizabeth worried deeply about what her aging mother, a Philippine immigrant, would think. Sanders would remember her hurt in his civil suit and charged Kinsley with inflicting it by orchestrating a gratuitous and illegal "perp walk."
Kinsley was also involved in one of the more clever bits of illegal mischief. As the Sanders charge, and the Justice Department concedes, federal prosecutor David Pitofsky recognized that Kinsley's seizure of Sanders' computer was illegal. So Pitofsky initiated a scheme in which relevant printouts of that information would be sent to publisher Alfred Regnery. He and Kinsley then jointly contacted Regnery and demanded that the publisher turn all over related documents in his possession, which he did.
At almost every turn in this sordid tale, cleverness trumped honor. The legal deck was stacked from the beginning and the jury pool poisoned. In April 1999, James and Elizabeth Sanders stood trial in Long Island before a jury shielded from the knowledge that James Sanders was acting as a journalist uncovering the criminal acts of federal agents, let alone that he was being prosecuted by the very agents he had hoped to expose.
As typical in a criminal trial, the prosecution got the last word. "A conspiratorial government going after these people?" David Pitofsky scoffed. "And, to what end? What is the government's motive? Ask yourself that. What is the government's motive to falsely implicate these people?"
One can hardly fault the jury for not knowing. They heard nothing about corruption within the investigation. They did not know about James Sanders' First Amendment right to expose that corruption or that his attempt to assert that right had been denied.
All they knew was that these two likely thieves may or may not have conspired to steal evidence from a crime scene. And why believe these "conspiracy theorists"? The establishment media obviously didn't. Besides, what reason did their government have to "falsely implicate these people?"
The jury returned after less than two hours of deliberation. Elizabeth clutched her husband's hand, almost too anxious to speak. She hoped for the best, but feared the worst. The worst is what they got.
"Guilty as charged" – both Sanders – not only for conspiracy, but also for aiding and abetting in the theft of the fabric. The audience gasped in disbelief. Even Judge Joanna Seybert looked stunned.
David Pitofsky beamed in delight. "The jury understood," he said, spinning nonsense even in victory, "that no responsible reporter would believe they could break into a place to get a story.'' At this sad moment of truth, as she wept softly, one thought flashed through Elizabeth's mind, "What will my mother think?"
The Justice Department now concedes that it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanders' civil action. It also concedes there is no defense for the 32 counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife.
Today, as the Sanders await Judge Seybert's summary judgment ruling, the major media have the opportunity finally to recognize the innocent, to rebuke the guilty and to avenge the dead. Whether they choose to tell it or not, this is a story that will not go away.
Read "Jailed author of Flight 800 book vindicated"
LS, you are misinterpreting the graph data.
The blip referred to has ALREADY impacted TWA-800 and is travelling away from that impact at mach 2. The vector of that object(s) is from left to right... FROM TWA800 toward the Orion, not right to left. It apparently is ejecta travelling toward the Orion after that impact with the airliner. The speed is calculated on the two blips observed (one close to TWA 800 and the second slightly south of the Orion's track) and the distance covered in the ~4.34 seconds between active radar sweeps.
This may be the body of the "drone" missile you postulate or parts of the stricken 747. However, it is extremely unlikely to be ejecta from a low velocity fuel/air mixture explosion in the center wing tank. Aircraft that have had low velocity explosions occur in interior parts are very unlikely to eject something traveling at Mach 2 that have sufficient mass to continue close to that velocity for over 1.2 miles. Any large (capable of returning a radar echo), massive object close enough to the explosion center to be imparted with such a high velocity in split second would have encountered other parts of the aircraft on the way out and transferred a lot of its momentum to the struck object.
What is perhaps not mentioned is that there are OTHER parts of the aircraft that were ejected on this vector totally at odds to the 450 MPH north-easterly vector of momentum of TWA800, including some seats (3, IIRC) from 1st class and other objects from the passenger cabin. These items represent a debris field entirely seperated from the other debris fields of the main body and the nose. The objects found in this debris field are probably among the first items that left the body of the aircraft. Note that it would be impossible for a Center Wing Tank explosion to impart a high velocity to passenger cabin items (above the CWT) with the vector observed. It would require more of Arlen Spector's Magic Bullet manouvers for the energy to leave the CWT, go up into the 1st class passenger cabin, make a sharp right turn, pick up the objects, push them throught the cabin wall, and propel them a mile or so away on a vector completely different from with the momentum they had been carrying which would tend to make them keep moving in the direction TWA800 was taking.
You are damn right it raises issues...
Exactly what part of "cover-up" do you fail to understand, LS?
If there was an active effort to cover-up the fact that a missile or missiles brought down TWA-800, would those trying to hide this fact have been forthcoming with the rocket motor, casing, or ANY debris from the missile(s)??? Remember, the IDEA is to persuade the public that a missile was not involved... finding evidence of a missile would be COUNTER (if not fatal) TO THEIR INTENT!
The fact is, LS, that there is evidence they DID find such evidence. The FBI funded an extended trawling search effort, at a great deal of expense, LONG AFTER THE MISSILE THEORY WAS OFFICIALLY ABANDONED! Each of the searching vessels was provided with diagrams of missile parts... and one of the Captains said he had ALREADY found an obbject that exactly matched the drawing of the booster engine. It was caught in one of his nets and he tossed it overboard as junk before he was involved in the search. All of this is fact, backed up by physical evidence (a copy of the FBI search protocols and exemplar drawings) and testimony of crew members from the search boats. As an aside, the area the FBI assigned these boats was one consistent with the vector of that mysterious Mach 2 debris track...
Once the "official" stance of "anything BUT a missile" was adopted, any missile evidence had to be made to go away. To do this, those involved in the cover-up did everything necessary to make it go away: lie about the "red residue" and claim it was 3M contact cement (which, incidentally is GREEN), persecute and prosecute the Sanders (one of whom is a qualified journalist), remove all traces of the red residue from the reconstructed plane, re-position the seats so that the track is no longer obvious, confiscate and "send to the FBI lab" any metal parts that appear to show high-velocity explosion indications where they will be lost and never returned, discredit the numerous eye-witnesses by not allowing their testimony and confabulating an impossible zoom-climb scenario to explain anything that cannot be discredited by smearing the witnesses as drunk, drugged, or lying.
You are probably absolutely correct that the radar tracks and the recordings from the numerous military radars operating in the area would reveal exactly what happened.
Perhaps, LS, that is why they are STILL, to this day, classified secret in the "interest of National Security" and HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED.
Several (if not all) of the ORIGINAL radar recording tapes were taken directly to the Clinton White House in the hours following the event... and only those that were innocuous (or so they thought) were allowed to be released. The rest were "classified."
In what OTHER air disaster have the radar tapes been couriered to the White House? Exactly what expertise (or authority, for that matter) do the political appointees in the White House have to sieze and examine such evidence???
What was their purpose... and who thought it was absolutely necessary????
What was it? Sanders ORIGINAL position was that it was the exhast of a "runaway" missile that did not explode, but "passed through" TWA. Again, at the risk or repeating myself for the zillionth time, this raises TWO problems:
First, the radar data, which is either "not available" or "controlled" or in dispute.
Second, what type of missile would reach this altitude? (I'm going to use "civilian" terms here.) A Navy AA missile could reach this altitude, but not a Stinger. So we have eliminated a terrorist, right?
A "pass through" missile is not an AA missile. It is characteristic of a DRONE. Why would a drone be at that altitude? And drones do not "lock on" to anything. They are TARGETS or are used to gather data. So let's grant that a drone did get that high and ACCCIDENTALLY flew through TWA 800. I know from personal experience that I cannot discuss with you that a) missiles do not "escape" (unless, as we are now in a war, you don't really care if they "escape.") Cruise missiles are always "chased" by military planes to shoot them down if they get off course. Other drones do not need such chase planes, because they either a) wouldn't have the fuel needed to get off course; b) have an abort mechanism; or c) pose no threat to anyone.
Therefore it is ridiculously unlikely that a drone escaped and totally by happenstance intersected with TWA.
That leaves a "hunter/killer" type AA missile. There are monstrouls problems with this. 1) The Navy does not test such weapons in crowded airspace. A low-level drone, possibly. But not high-altitude AA weapons. NOT DONE.
2) The firing mechanisms on these are such that they simply do not "escape." You have to actively target, and actively fire at a target. Again, fine, except that no one does this over civilian air space.
3) if this was a missile that just "got loose," explain to me how it managed to MISS several other closer "targets" and just home in on TWA. There was a Navy Pc-3 Orion much closer.
There are MILLIONS of dollars riding on the interpretation of the data: the airlines have a HUGE stake in saying it was NOT a fuel tank explosion; and the families stand to make gazillions if they can prove it was a government screwup. So I suggest, that in addition to the radar data, the conspiracy people---since you obviously "know" that a captain found "the" rocket motor---pool your bucks and get some private salvage guys to go where those previous salvage guys were and get that motor. If that captain indeed found this, he knows exactly where he was. It's still there. Easy enough to prove, though not cheap.
If you can claim this caviat, then surely you will extend the same consideration to others who, for very good reasons, will not reveal sensitive details of newly acquired data on an open forum...Won't you???
As do I...And you obviously don't, judging by your efforts to learn what new data has surfaced from those who have seen it and, for legitimate reasons (that you have claimed for yourself), refuse to post it on an open forum...
I have yet to see where the radar data of either of the shootdowns was requested by independent investigators under the Freedom Of Information Act and denied. Nobody doubted the fact that the Navy screwed up in the case of the Iranian Airbus, and the Navy was forthcoming in admitting to culpability. Unlike TWA 800...
No, LS, I don't think you DO understand. I did not say that they "looked for" evidence to support their view, I said they deliberately destroyed, obfuscated, confiscated, mis-interpreted evidence that would deny their pre-determined cause of the downing of TWA-800. There is a world of difference.
Yes, they DID, indeed, look for evidence that supported their "view" but to manufacture evidence in support of that view (the useage of butane combined with a far higher than possible electrical arc to get an explosion in a replica CWT), profering expert testimony on the results of chemical analyses that NEVER TOOK PLACE (The so called NASA analysis of the red residue that supposedly "proved" it was 3M contact cement that was later denied by the chemist cited), the creation of impossible explanations to discredit eyewitnesses (the creation of a cartoon presenting a 3700 foot zoom climb that is impossible according to the well understood laws of aerodynamics and physics), and the alteration of the physical evidence (the high-pressure power washing of the recovered aircraft parts with salt water before forensic analysis was allowed, the re-shuffling of the seats to hide the trail of the red residue as witnessed AND PHOTOGRAPHED AS IT WAS BEING DONE, the confiscation, removal to FBI labs, and subsequent loss of metal parts with any possible high velocity damage, the seizure and sealing of all military radar records) is FAR BEYOND merely looking for evidence that supports their view... it is cheating for their view.
. . ."red residue" What was it? Sanders ORIGINAL position was that it was the exhast of a "runaway" missile that did not explode, but "passed through" TWA.
That was one theory Sanders considered. It is not the only theory. incidentally, Sanders did not call it a "runaway" missile. It is also possible that the missile, hitting the fairly weak side of the 747 failed to detonate because it never struck a structural member. 747s are constructed with far more empty space than military aircraft. It may have also passed through and detonated on the far side of the aircraft. Second, what type of missile would reach this altitude? (I'm going to use "civilian" terms here.) A Navy AA missile could reach this altitude, but not a Stinger. So we have eliminated a terrorist, right?
Wrong, we have not eliminated a terrorist. There are more than "stinger" missiles available on the world market. I will grant that the altitude of TWA-800 was on the outside edge of the range of a shoulder fired anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon like a stinger... but there are also THREE MAN missiles that fire from tripod launching frames that have sufficient range. A few months before the downing of TWA-800 a fully operational tripod mounted anti-aircraft missile was found, abandoned, assembled and ready to fire beside a county road on Long Island near the airport.
A "pass through" missile is not an AA missile. It is characteristic of a DRONE. Why would a drone be at that altitude? And drones do not "lock on" to anything. They are TARGETS or are used to gather data. So let's grant that a drone did get that high and ACCCIDENTALLY flew through TWA 800.
It is also characteristic of an AA missile that fails to detonate. Your "drone" argument is a strawman. Easy for you to knock down... but it really does not fit the facts. Drones are generally NOT powered by solid rocket fuel which cannot be shut off once started and whose flight time is limited to seconds... and drones do not generally fly at Mach 2.
Cruise missiles are always "chased" by military planes to shoot them down if they get off course.
Again you are erecting a strawman... no one said anything about a cruise missile being the culprit in bringing down TWA800. Cruise missiles are essentially unmanned jets that use conventional jet fuel, again not solid rocket fuel.
3) if this was a missile that just "got loose," explain to me how it managed to MISS several other closer "targets" and just home in on TWA. There was a Navy Pc-3 Orion much closer.
Did you fail to read my previous post??? The missile was NEVER close to the Orion. Look at the chart again and pay particular attention to the radar time-stamps for both TWA-800 and the "missile" tracks. The radar track you are referring to is POST initiating event and shows the ejecta from the aircraft. There were no closer targets for the missile to home on. The radar returns, the anomolous debris field all demostrate a missile that originated from the North of TWA-800 and, according to the radar returns, went progressively SOUTH while the main body of the crippled, noseless aircraft continued north-easterly. The ORION was always at least two miles SOUTH of TWA-800s position.
There are MILLIONS of dollars riding on the interpretation of the data: the airlines have a HUGE stake in saying it was NOT a fuel tank explosion; and the families stand to make gazillions if they can prove it was a government screwup.
No, there is no money riding on this. The lawsuits have long since been adjudicated, the plaintiffs have received their settlements and gone on with their lives. The statute of limitations has expired on any new suits. Only justice and truth are in play here.
If that captain indeed found this, he knows exactly where he was. It's still there. Easy enough to prove, though not cheap.
Wrong again, LS. The captain knows he found an object that matched the description given to him by the FBI and he told them he had found it... but he was uncertain of when and where. It was somewhere in the area he normally worked... and that was in the area the FBI had mapped for possible launch sites. We're talking MANY square miles of ocean. He stated it was after the crash while he was trawling and it was just bothersome junk to him. He untangled it from his net and tossed it overboard; just as he has done with countless other pieces of debris. He did not recognize it for what it was until the FBI showed him their drawings of what to look for.
You are right, in that Sanders was careful NOT to say a drone because he knew that realistically no shoulder-fired/terrorist weapon could reach that high, and he also knew that the Navy didn't operate like that.
Swordmaker didn't destroy anything, hoss...The FBI/NTSB attempted to, but failed.
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.