Replies

piasa,

Please forgive me, but I would suggest to amend your remarks ... that actually Ms. Rosenberg gets too much credit.

She should not be singled out from the operations intelligence work performed by the Federation of American Scientists ("FAS") for the purpose of keeping the "liberal media" up on the features of the U.S.A.'s defense and industrial complex.

So that the Democrat- leftist, socialist, "internationalist," echo-system of "intelligencia" ... are equipped to define all that we do to sustain freedom, as being bad.

The FAS has one purpose, to support "Hate America First," by eroding confidence in common sense about what is right and what is worth fighting for: liberty.

Mr. Hatfill is not the target of Ms. Rosenberg's ambitions; rather, the entire U.S. war department is the target of the FAS.

Hatfill just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time --- making himself an easy target.

Yet Mr. Hatfill does have a serious problem with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, because there are many coincidences un-reported to the public, between his past and the events of September 11, 2001.

There is more about him, which the FAS has on file, and there is more about him that the F.B.I. has on file.

Another one of the coincidences in all this, is the connection between the "White House F.B.I. Files" maintained by Hillary Clinton during Clinton Administration, and the organizations, FAS and PFAW (People for the American Way), the "beneficiaries," you might say, of that information.

Part of the "sustainable development" thing.

The befuddlement for the Justice Dept., is how to prosecute the bad guys, when there are so many roads which lead back to both of the major political parties' fiefdoms.

The FAS and PFAW are major intel ops for the political left. Mr. Hatfill is not a big player, but he has been a popular associate of certain "informed sources" for the political right.

You might say that this is one of those "interesting times" in which Chinese warlords must settle something that is not going to "just go away," and is upsetting the status quo.

Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Hatfill are the gladiators for their respective camps.

Question: What liberals have stepped forward to defend Hatfill?

Question: What conservatives have stepped forward to defend Ms. Rosenberg?

RE: Babs -

Actually, her evolved "Profiling" was structured to pick out Hatfill specifically - she apparently took facts she learned about Hatfill, or suspected about him, and added it to her "Profile". I suspect that after meeting with Congressional dems they put pressure on the FBI for "progress", for which they would take credit. Her pseudo-scientific analysis had the imprimatur of "science" which the Senate panel/FBI may have fallen for.

When Hatfill repeatedly states "I did not have a anthrax shot" he's specifically responding to one of the allegations in her profile that could easily be disproved. Others he can't. FOr example, Babs says in her profile "Probably knows Dr. "X"" - she knew full well that Hatfill had done a paper with that scientist. This is not profiling, but framing, giving the title "profile" after the fact.

She may have had a general agenda, but she got caught up with Hatfill - perhaps for credit grabbing, perhaps out of obsession, perhaps misled in part. She herself admits that she joked, before 9/11, about how America needed a wake-up call bio-attack. Probably all those people in that "industry" have thought similar at times.

I couldn't tell where FAS gets their funding, but I did find this:

The Federation of American Scientists is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501c3 organization founded in 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists. Our founders were members of the Manhattan Project, creators of the atom bomb and deeply concerned about the implications of its use for the future of humankind. FAS is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose.
Known in its early years as the "scientists lobby," FAS combines the scholarly resources of its member scientists and informed citizens with knowledge of practical politics. Endorsed by the nearly 60 Nobel Laureates in biology, chemistry, economics, medicine, and physics as sponsors, FAS is uniquely qualified to bring the scientific perspective to public policy. FAS' strategies include advocacy, briefings with policy makers and the press, public education and outreach, collaboration with civil rights, human rights, and arms control groups, and grassroots organizing.

Thanks for the pings, Mike and John.

Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Hatfill are the gladiators for their respective camps …. First_Salute

Let’s all pray that we never find ourselves on the FBI’s persons of interest list (translate: list of American citizens to whom Constitutional rights no longer apply).

Guilty or innocent of the anthrax-related crimes, Hatfill was right on the money a few weeks ago when he observed that a ‘person of interest' is someone who comes into being, when the government is under intense political pressure to solve a crime, but can't do so.

Nicholas Stix, in a recent editorial, hit the proverbial nail on the head when he observed that ‘….unfortunately, in the age of Leviathan's war against terrorism, the FBI is under constant pressure. And its officials have increasingly responded to that pressure by adopting the habit of behaving like either madmen or outlaws.’

Hatfill/anthrax case = Jewell/Centennial Park bombings = déjà vu? Coincidental dots crying out to be connected? Hard to say …. but bears close watching.

Small aspects of the apparent harassment of Hatfill are reminiscent of the atrocities committed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and, even moreso, the demonization and crucifixion of Richard Jewell. All three abuses of power …. and persecutions (even murders) of law-abiding American citizens by agents of their own justice department …. were perpetrated because the bureau either needed a generalized facelift, or was under pressure to solve a particular crime.

During and after both Ruby Ridge and Waco, FBI 302’s abounded. And in both instances, the 302’s served one simple purpose: to cover up gross government misconduct. How can a justice department which boasts access to the most modern crime fighting/solving technological advancements known to man still rely on vague, written, subjective records of what amounts to summaries of what somebody thinks somebody else said. The only reason 302’s are still part of standard FBI operating procedure is because their use allows the bureau to contort interview results to its advantage. And justice (and in department of same) be damned.

It’s a vicious cycle. The more inept the bureau becomes, the more it finds itself in need of a PR facelift, and the more likely it is to prey upon innocent Americans to attain the needed cosmetic surgery – after which the predators are often commended or promoted. So we wind up with an even more corrupt organization, in which the bad and inept agents and officials rise to the top (covering up each others’ blunders, or blaming (probably more capable) underlings, when blame is necessary). In the Hatfill case, it seems apparent that the FBI is one of two things: either (1) amazingly incompetent, or (2) conveniently nefarious, in the name of self-promotion.

Janet Reno was an incompetent, agenda-driven (Kathleen Parker: ‘the nicest socialist I ever met’) blithering idiot. And, if he truly is the defender of justice that he claims to be, Ashcroft’s house cleaning abilities stink. The Reno scent still permeates Ashcroft’s house.

As for the press coverage of the Hatfill ‘harrassment’, the press has a (sordid) reputation to defend – as purveyor of rumor, and constructor of truth of convenience. Research and investigation are passé, having been replaced by the (much more convenient) ability to quote one another, and label the (random, self-aggrandizing, subjective, leftist-agenda-based) verbiage as ‘fact’.

Combine the media’s ability to fabricate/convolute, and the justice department’s willingness to publicize accusations or suspicions in advance of thorough investigation or solid evidence, and any one of us might find ourselves the target of a modern-day (legal – can you believe it?) witch hunt -- instigated, in part, by the very department of government whose job it is to prevent such travesties.