After these pondering this,
please continue on ....
- use links at top also -
Dedicated to all the Angels as they search for the truth. Those Living and those on The Other Side.
FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on AngelsForTruth.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
CIA Claims the Right
to Decide What is News
to Decide What is News
Archive Sues to Break FOIA Fee Barrier for Journalists
For more information contact:
Meredith Fuchs/Thomas Blanton - 202/994-7000
Patrick J. Carome, 202-663-6000
Meredith Fuchs/Thomas Blanton - 202/994-7000
Patrick J. Carome, 202-663-6000
Opinion
U.S. Court of Appeals in re: National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of Defense, decided 28 July 1989
U.S. Court of Appeals in re: National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of Defense, decided 28 July 1989
Memorandum and Order
U.S. District Court in re: National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, filed 30 January 1990
U.S. District Court in re: National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, filed 30 January 1990
Washington D.C., 14 June 2006 - The National Security Archive today filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), challenging the Agency's recent practice of charging Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fees to journalists pursuing news. The FOIA says that "representatives of the news media" can be charged only copying fees since they help to carry out the mission of the law by disseminating government information; but the CIA last year began claiming authority to assess additional fees if the Agency decides any journalist's request is not newsworthy enough. In adopting this new practice, the CIA reversed its prior 15-year practice of presumptively waiving additional fees for news media representatives, including the National Security Archive.
"The CIA takes the position that it should decide what is 'news' instead of the reporters and editors who research and publish the stories," explained attorney Patrick J. Carome of the law firm Wilmer Hale, who is representing the Archive. "If the CIA succeeds in exercising broad discretion to charge additional fees to journalists, despite the plain language of the law, then too often we will find out only what the government wants us to know."
"Today is the day that federal agencies are turning in their FOIA improvement plans under President Bush's Executive Order for a more 'citizen-centered' and 'results-oriented' FOIA system. But the CIA has taken the opposite approach, and is instead trying to close off use of the FOIA by journalists," commented Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs.
In 1989 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized the Archive as a representative of the news media that cannot be charged for searches for records requested under the FOIA. The next year, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held the CIA "must treat plaintiff as a 'representative of the news media' within the meaning of" the FOIA. For over 15 years, the CIA, like other federal agencies receiving FOIA requests from the Archive, abided by these decisions. Since these decisions, the Archive's news media activity has expanded dramatically, and its journalistic work has received numerous awards, including most recently the 2005 Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in News and Documentary Research.
Suddenly, in October 2005, the CIA changed its practice and began to require the Archive to meet a new test for what information qualifies as "news." The CIA demanded that the Archive show that its requests for records meet several criteria that are not found in the FOIA itself, specifically, that the requests "concern current events," "interest the general public," and "enhance the public understanding of the operations and activities of the U.S. government." Among the requests that the CIA determined did not concern "current events" were two requests for biographical documents relating to members of the Taliban in Afghanistan and documents regarding the development of U.S. policy in Afghanistan in the five months before President Carter authorized U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen opposition to the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. The CIA rejected the notion that information about U.S. knowledge regarding the Taliban and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Afghanistan could result in "news." And although the CIA determined that FOIA requests about NAFTA and illegal Mexican immigration could result in "news," it rejected the idea that President Clinton's 1993 meetings with President Salinas on the subject could result in "news."
"This policy is a clear attempt to prevent journalists from getting information out to the public," said Archive Director Thomas Blanton. "Given the timing - when the intelligence community is under serious scrutiny about its activities - this appears to be an effort to shut down the growth of a vibrant public debate in the print, broadcast and online communities."
Just a few examples of why Americans trust George W. Bush:
• Nuclear reactors leak radioactive water yet Bush is trying to push more nuclear power plans on America; virtually ignored by broadcast news.
• Bush administration issues orders (prior to 9/11) halting investigations into the bin Laden family completely ignored by broadcast news.
• Bush administration architect James Baker’s firm is hired by the Saudis to defend Saudis from a lawsuit brought by victims of 9/11 , completely ignored by broadcast news.
• Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz supported Iran’s nuclear program in the 70s completely ignored by broadcast news.
• Rumsfeld personally helps to arm Saddam for Reagan administration, completely ignored by broadcast news.
• The Bush administration sides with Iran against the family members of the hostages who were held there, ignored by the broadcast media.
George W. Bush and the US news media industry, are they with us, or against us? I think you know the answer. Think about it!
Journalists besieged over Iraq, terror news
REPORTS RISK LIVES, GOVERNMENT ASSERTS
By Charles J. Hanley
Associated Press
NEW YORK - Headline by headline, a trickle of news leaks on Iraq and the anti-terror campaign has grown into a steady stream of revelations, and from Pennsylvania Avenue to Downing Street to Copenhagen, governments are responding with pressure and prosecutions.
The latest target is the New York Times. But the unfolding story begins as far back as 2003, when British weapons expert David Kelly was ``outed'' as the source of a story casting doubt on his government's arguments for invading Iraq, and he committed suicide.
And it will roll on this fall, when Danish journalists face trial for reporting that their government knew there was no evidence of banned weapons in Iraq.
In London's Central Criminal Court, too, accused leakers will be in the dock this fall, for allegedly disclosing that President Bush talked of bombing Al-Jazeera, the Arabic television station. The British government threatens to prosecute newspapers that write any more about that leaked document.
Media advocates are alarmed at what they see as a mounting assault on press freedom in country after country, arguing it is potentially chilling the pursuit of truth as U.S. and European leaders pursue wars on terror and in Iraq.
``It's grotesque that at a time when political rhetoric is full of notions of democracy and liberty that we should have this fundamental right of journalists to investigate and report on public-interest matters called into question,'' Aidan White, general secretary of the Belgium-based International Federation of Journalists, told the Associated Press.
But others counter that national interest requires stopping leaks of classified information, and that some media reports endanger lives by tipping terrorists to government tactics.
``We cannot continue to operate in a system where the government takes steps to counter terrorism while the media actively work to disclose those operations without any regard for protection of lives, sources and legal methods,'' Sen. Pat Roberts said in Washington.
The Kansas Republican was reacting to a June 23 report by the Times -- and other papers -- detailing a U.S. government program that taps into a huge international database of financial records to try to track terror financing.
Some Republican lawmakers called for criminal investigations of the journalists responsible and of the government insiders who leaked the information.
Investigations are already under way in other U.S. cases, reaching back to 2003, when whistle-blower Joseph Wilson questioned a Bush administration claim about Iraq's supposed nuclear program. Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail in that complex case last year, as investigators sought whoever leaked the name of Wilson's CIA-agent wife.
The Washington Times says the Justice Department is also investigating New York Times and Washington Post reporters -- the Times for disclosing in 2005 that the government was monitoring Americans' phone calls without court warrants and the Post for reporting that the CIA was operating secret prisons for terrorism suspects in Eastern Europe.
The CIA in April fired a top analyst as an alleged source for the reports on covert prisons.
Getting Hot Out There For Real Journalists...
IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP AND SUPPORT HONEST MEDIA... SUPPORT THE TRUTH
An Amazing
Coincidence
Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.
It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when "Hannity & Colmes" (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen "attack theme" (they got their "facts FOXED," as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, "Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer."
Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, "So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?"
While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), "I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a "reasonable" facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.
Obviously, the producers of the "Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour" had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over "their" airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.
Here's the Real Kicker...
The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly "exposed" to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.
What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!
Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.
There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM "elite."
A Final Thought
I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?
Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.
[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]
Short Video
