Clinton in treason's shadow ANNOTATED
http://www.brookesnews.com ^ | Thursday 19 June 2003 | Peter Zhang
Seeing as Hillary Clinton's book has decided to mock history in an attempt to clear a path to the White House,
I think it behoves us to once again draw attention to the enormous damage her husband wilfully did to America's national security.
Several years ago I put forward the view that Clinton's cooperation with Beijing's intelligence operations were so extensive that it could be decided in the interest of saving the presidential office to suppress evidence that might directly incriminate Clinton and some of his associates. I also stated that "the damage to American national security is very deep and longstanding".
The release of the Cox Report tends to support the first statement and most certainly confirms the second.
In addition, FBI wire taps appear to have confirmed that Jiang Zemin approved the cover stories for the PLA's money conduits. Whatever Jiang did was done with the knowledge of Zhu Rongji and the rest of the leadership. It is now believed that FBI investigations also led to the conclusion that Clinton was fully aware of the details, including payments of what amounted to nothing less than bribes.
As I have said more than once: "The Americans gave Clinton the key to the candy store and he sold it to Beijing." And this, readers, is basically what the Cox Committee discovered. My old English teacher used to say that "the devil is in the details". I also said that "in accordance with my previous assessment, that it is these very details that will be withheld from the American public." This is exactly what has been done.
Despite the spin Clinton
and his horde of media friends
tried to put on this terrible situation, it still boils down to treason.
Observing the Clinton propaganda machine, even from this distance, I predicted that, using its media allies, it would launch a multi-pronged attack: 1. It would claim that most of the damage was done during previous administrations. 2. That most of spying occurred in nuclear facilities. 3. In any case, the loss of American military secrets to China represent only a marginal threat to national security. Again, I was right. What is more, none of these excuses can withstand an honest appraisal of the facts, which a quick examination will easily reveal.
Number one is simply not true. If it were, why was Chung given a top security clearance and access to the White House at the suggestion of Chinese officials? I made clear elsewhere that Beijing laid down conditions that gave it access to all of America's secrets. To fulfil this condition Clinton abolished Department of Energy internal controls that restricted access to sensitive facilities thus allowing Chinese intelligence operatives free reign.
In addition, and this is of critical importance, Clinton virtually abolished controls on exports to China of high-tech equipment that had important military applications. Moreover, to make it even easier to access this equipment and knowledge Clinton transferred responsibility for technology exports from defence to the Commerce Department. Why? Because this had the effect of removing these technologies classified status.
What is not classified cannot therefore be secret. This is the Clintons' devious legalistic logic at work. "How could I have sold secrets", he can now claim, "when they weren't secret?"
This allowed certain companies to sell formerly classified equipment to the People's Liberation Army in return for making heavy donations to the Democrats &emdash; especially one in particular. One would have to be incredibly naive, or fanatically partisan, to think all of this was due to administrative ineptitude. The important fact here is that previous presidents did not sell their country's secrets.
Defence number two that espionage of any significance only occurred in nuclear laboratories is made risible by a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Such a defence is the fruit of desperation. The third defence that any damage to US security is only marginal is worthless.
Marginal or not it would still have unnecessarily put at risk the lives of a great many Americans. Moreover, this too is a hollow defence. By selling this technology to the PLA Clinton strengthened the hand of China's crude nationalists at the expense of more liberal forces. The longer it took the PLA to develop these technologies the more time Chinese liberals would have had to consolidate their influence.
Clinton has also saved Beijing an enormous amount of time and resources, which can now be put to other military uses.
Even if the damage has been greatly over-stated, it should not be used to conceal the fact that treason is treason. An American who did far less by giving secrets to Israel is now serving a very long prison term. Clinton should do no less. Unfortunately this will never happen. I fear the American people could not live with the disgrace of knowing that a president had betrayed them, even though the networks apparently can.
Americans are now confronted with the spectacle of Hillary Clinton cynically trying lay down the foundations for a presidential bid. This woman is far worse than her husband ever was. God help America, not to mention the rest of us, should she manage to fulfil her overriding ambition.
The Manchurian Candidate?
Or Being There?
by Mia T
The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton-gore must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.
If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
If they don't believe what they are saying, then they are traitors.
Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton-gore corruption. The clinton (and gore) crimes -- perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies.
Yet privately few clintonites would deny that bill clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"
Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.
William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his counterintuitive, postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case.
Broad writes in part:
- Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative"
- has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the
- 1980s saw two such actions. The unveilings have included no details of
- specific weapons, like the W-88, a compact design Chinese spies are
- suspected of having stolen from the weapons lab at Los Alamos, N.M. But
- they include a slew of general secrets.
- Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification
- Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such
- things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making
- hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium
- fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding
- atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a
- second).
- No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It
- took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.
- The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness
- would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms
- and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department,
- told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the
- possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of
- nuclear arms.
- And the devaluing of nuclear secrets, highlighted by the rush of atomic
- declassifications, was seen as a prerequisite to the ban's achievement.
- The symbolism alone was potent, officials say. Openness let them
- advertise a dramatic new state of affairs where hidden actions were to
- be kept to a minimum, replacing decades of secrecy and paranoia.
- "The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news
- conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are
- declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the
- department."
- Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to
- foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former
- Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front
- of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda."
- Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense
- Council in Washington, a private group that has criticized the openness,
- said the declassifications had swept away so many secrets that the
- combination had laid bare the central mysteries.
- "In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons," Cochran said, "the
- cat is out of the bag."
- Even before the China scandal broke, experts outside the administration
- faulted the openness as promoting the bomb's spread. Last year, a
- bipartisan commission of nine military specialists led by former Defense
- Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of
- secrets had inadvertently aided the global spread of deadly weapons.
- ["inadvertently" ???!!!!]
- The ultimate brake on nuclear advances was to be the Comprehensive Test
- Ban Treaty, which clinton began to push for as soon as he took office in
- 1993, hailing it as the hardest-fought, longest-sought prize in the
- history of arms control.
Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain...(or, alternatively, to fail to understand that the underlying premise of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the absense of madness.)
But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton 's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton 's campaigns, clinton 's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton 's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton 's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another desensitizing clinton apologia by The New York Times.
But even if clinton is a thoroughgoing (albeit postmodern) fool, China-gate is still treason. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does"applies.
(The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or mens rea runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.)
Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone" (if he must say so himself), clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.
According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" [-- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton , hillary clinton , the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) --] "could be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal [especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job]. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.
Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."
Few who have observed clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for a rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."
BUMP!
