It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


From his cold dead hands...FBI takes from family, journalists personal documents.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:29 AM
In memory of the man who in my opinion, should be counted as one of todays modern patriots. He and what it was he did should live on, carrying on the same traditions as those before him. It can be a good thing if carried on further by those after.

I looks to me that the government is covering up as much as they can. From raiding government offices, to takeing away the whistle blower protection act.
Some thing is getting swept under the rug, and in the name of national security.

Some thing is always going on, and time is more so on their side. Dragging out the distraction, manuvering behind the scenes, controlling the strings so to say.
The "Publication of Classified Information" hearings tuesday were very interesting and had a good part in inspiring me to write this, and connect a couple dots I found. It is my opinion that the whole hearing was more of an interrogation, to find out what else there was.

"He would be rolling over in his grave to think that the FBI was going to go crawling through his papers willy-nilly," said the son of the legendary investigative journalist.

Anderson built a 50-year career largely on government leaks, and many of his secrets may have died with him.

"It is both ironic and somehow fitting that Jack Anderson should again be at the center of a controversy like this," Aftergood told The Washington Post. "What the FBI couldn't do during his lifetime, they're now seeking to do after his death, and I think many Americans will find that offensive."
Jack Anderson

Does publishing classified information amount to civil disobedience? Who will be left to protect the public interest if the press is muzzled?
Of Leaks and Lockdowns

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) chairs a Judiciary Cmte. hearing on “Examining DOJ’s Investigation of Journalists Who Publish Classified Information.” Matthew Friedrich, chief of staff of the DOJ Criminal Division; Rodney Smolla, dean and professor, University of Richmond School of Law; and others testify.
6/6/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 30 min.
Senate Hearing on Classified Information Leaks

[edit on 7-6-2006 by ADVISOR]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:40 AM
Well they belong to the family for now, why not publish them for all to see, thus defeating the seizure and loss of them?

[edit on 7-6-2006 by goose]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:46 AM
The FBI already took the 80 some boxes. In todays hearing, Washington university mentioned some 200 boxes that they were not going to show anyone, until it was all first reviewed by family and educational staff.

The government are moving fast, and it might already be too late.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:02 AM
Good move FBI. Screen that stuff to be sure their are no damaging disclosures sitting around in his papers. Jack Anderson published many articles dealing with things that he had absolutely no business talking about. Some of his disclosures cost this country dearly, far more than has ever been revealed.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Good move FBI. Screen that stuff to be sure their are no damaging disclosures sitting around in his papers. Jack Anderson published many articles dealing with things that he had absolutely no business talking about. Some of his disclosures cost this country dearly, far more than has ever been revealed.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

Can you give some examples, or is this just another 'the Government should be trusted' piece? Sorry to sound snarkish, but the FBI should be kept away from it, so that it can be gone through. The FBI and the US government has been re-classifying data that has been in the public domain for a while. This is unacceptable.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:30 AM
I'll give you a great example. And bear in mind, this is but a single example of the kind of damage this man regularly inflicted upon his own nation:

On September 16th, 1971 Jack Anderson published an article in the Washington Post that revealed that the NSA had developed a technique for exploiting the RF telephone conversations that were originating from the limousines used by senior members of the Soviet Politburo in Moscow. These early versions of today's modern cell phones were cumbersome and not very secure, but the Soviets used them with gusto - and without encryption. Politburo members regularly buzzed around Red Square, yapping away on these devices about all sorts of sensitive internal issues. For months, Project "GAMMA GUPY" provided reams of invaluable political, economic, and military intelligence for digestion at the CIA.....until Mr. Anderson opened his mouth.

This loss to the nation's strategic intelligence program was incalculable.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:00 AM
kudo's to the fbi for it's quick action!!!

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:28 AM
Anderson is one of the reasons I have always felt that the Media should be censored because in some cases their reporting has caused more harm then good too our intelligence community.

Too bad they have not been prosecuted as they should have been.

One can only think the the phrase "Loose Lips Shinks Ships" no longer has a meaning as it did during WWII.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:38 AM
Though I understand the anger that comes from certain government exposés, I don't see a good way around that. Something that "should be withheld for good reason" to one person will often be seen as "information vital to the public good" by another, depending on political leanings and even the vaguaries of mood on that day.

For those who applaud this move by the FBI, do you have any solutions to suggest for how to deal with stories of a sensitive nature in the future? Should an independant pannel be established to review news articles on government programs? Should journalists "err on the side of caution" and simply not look too deeply (in their professional duties, personal is another thing entirely) into government action? How would you suggest dealing with those that do step over the line, even inadvertantly?

For me, I'd err on the side of caution towards the journalists. While there are certainly any number of partisan hacks, on both sides, who inflate issues or otherwise blow things out of proportion, I'm very wary about any move to put restrictions on the freedom of the press. Even the recent rumblings that seem to be trying to establish some official criteria for who is and who is not a journalist make me ill at ease.

Simply put: I don't trust the government. I'm not a proponent of vast conspiracies, just a cynic when it comes to human nature. Powers given to government officials will, inevitably, be used for personal gain at some point. Even if the current officials are beyond reproach (which I don't believe, but I'm just saying for the sake of argument), there is no guarantee that the next people in those positions will adhere to the same standard.

I understand that, were everyone to hold similar beliefs to mine, it would make most of the government's jobs, even national defense, a bit harder than some feel it should be. But to me, that's a price I'm willing to pay for my ideals. As the late president Kennedy said, we do these things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard . . . "

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
I love this as much as it hurts...

there is NO BETTER WAY to angle the spotlight on these government coverups, than trying to restrict access to this material...

if they haven't made 20 copies and sent them to various places on the net for archiving, then they haven't been as busy as i thought...

also, these documents in the universitys hands...
If there aint 2000 copies going around campus by now, then college students of today are far to lazy to survive...

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:37 PM
Let me ask this of those among you who are supposedly against what Jack did.

How did he get that information, who leaked it to him, and why. Was he infilitrating the government and stealing this info. No he obtained it lawfully, it was given to him. If that was otherwise the feds would have been all over it sooner.

He didn't ruin things for any one, exept a lazy and stupid government. A government that should have known better, and had control over the information they originally owned. What else did they expect from a journalist, to keep a story quiet is not what one expects from a publication oriented person. If they didn't want him releaseing the information, they should not have let it get to him in the first place.

The real fault lays within government, in the hands of those who had control over the info. As it does to this day, like it did over 50 years ago.

You all have to realize, it was Jack who recieved the stories from some body else on the inside. Some body else, who was useing Jack to release the leak, looks like clandestine activities to me. That Soviet phone bit sounds alot like the Ruskies had more to gain from the exposure than any one else did, even Jack.

There is a reason for every thing, the hard part is finding out what that is.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:03 PM
Well said advisor...

In this day and age. It is about following the spirit of the law, rather than concrete law...
concrete law, says that the government can do anything, then keep us locked up, to keep the info from getting out...

spirit of the law states that if the governments actions are illegal, or unethical... then we have a responsibility to spread the info...

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:25 PM
Jack Anderson seemed to care about one thing--the circulation numbers for his column. Yes, he received inside information from insiders, information that was very highly classified for damn good reasons and he published it without regard for the damage it would or could do to this country. I cannot go into details, but once he published a series of articles that I know cost this country over 8 billion dollars. I did not like the man, his journalistic methods, or anything else about him. As far as I'm concerned the man was a traitor to his country.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:40 AM
That is too bad, what a shame you cry over 8 bil when already 500+ bil has been wasted, oh wait it was used to build the worlds biggest embassy. Ok, what ever.

I really wish you could go into "details", because it would help make things more clear for myself and perhaps others. Understandably you are obviously for the sensitive classified information being protected. That much is smart, I agree, but the governments track record of being clean with the people is not exactly a good one.

Those documents have been thus far kept out of harms way. Nothing has changed exept now the feds want to paw the mans life work. They are looking for some thing, could be some thing not even a matter of national security, but to be covered up.

I don't want to argue with you on the moral character of Jack, it's not up to us.
What would be an interesting debate though, is what material exactly is questionable. Why didn't he have business talking about it, what other reason would he have for being given the info?

What reason did the person who gave it to him have for doing so?

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:59 AM
I do know one thing they are possibley looking for...

I know that this reporter was the holder of one of the only official documents that proved that senior president Bush was an asset of the CIA many years before it was 'Known"
apparently, these papers showed that he was involved with secret ops, of delicate nature in Central/south America...

I can't remember all the details, but the entire history of the little know scandal, is within the thread in my sig.

new topics

top topics


log in