Nuclear secrets leaker found (1 Viewer)

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,116
Age
40
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
Unfortunately it seems to be the US government.

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 3, 2006


Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...ex=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all
 

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
This must be The New York Times November suprise. It reminds me of the Times' 2004 Al-Qaqaa November suprise:



The New York has launched its final, pre-weekend October Surprise of the silly season. An article entitled U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide has just been posted on its site, and is getting the all caps, red text treatment from the Drudge Report. The article alleges that the US archive of seized Iraqi documents, released on the internet in March of 2006, contained some documents with detailed plans for the construction of nuclear weapons.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
The Times is careful to note that these plans were from before the first Gulf War.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
The alarm was raised by the IAEA, according to the Times.
In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.


The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, “Summary of technical achievements of Iraq’s former nuclear program.” It runs to 51 pages, 18 focusing on the development of Iraq’s bomb design. Topics included physical theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early October, diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New York and their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do.
Commentary

The diplomats "were alarmed and discussing what to do." It seems obvious, does it not, to pick up the phone and call your nearest American colleague and tell him he's got an anarchist's cookbook up on his internet? Certainly no government official who expects to keep his job would sit on such information? If, as the Times notes, the documents in question were only a dozen or so in number, then would it not take the retasking of a couple of translators and perhaps 6 hours of time from a nuclear physicist to determine if the documents in question are what the diplomats suspected them to be?

Or does one sit on this information for a few weeks, instead picking up the phone to the New York Times, and craft yet another October Surprise?

It's not impossible. In fact, it happened before -- two years ago, with the same agency! The IAEA, that is. The IAEA played a big part in the last October Surprise by the New York Times -- the aptly named Al Qaqaa story, now safely ensconced behind the TimesSelect firewall. The abstract notes, "International Atomic Energy Agency warned of danger of these explosives before war . . ."

There is one other aspect of the Times story that seems strange. The documents in question are described by -- surprise! -- an anonymous intelligence official, like this:
A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”
Doesn't this buttress the argument that Saddam could easily have restarted his nuclear weapons program if the sanctions regime collapsed? If the Arabic documents can show Iran's scientists how to get around failures, then surely they could show Iraq's?

Another question: why were the nuke documents only begun to be released in September and earlier October? Where were they until then?
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2006/11/the_final_surpr.html
 
OP
Severum

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,116
Age
40
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
Blogger Captain Ed on the New York Time's article:

So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit

Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers with a number of translations from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have been translated by either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free Republic website. I even engaged two interpreters to verify one particularly explosive memo last April, after Shahda published his own translation. That memo dealt with IIS plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to 'strike American interests".

One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents in Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the Internet. Now we find another verification of their authenticity, this time from the New York Times, which reports today that the documents constitute a national-security threat:
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
This is apparently the Times' November surprise, but it's a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.

It doesn't end there with the Times, either. In a revelation buried far beneath the jump, the Times acknowledges that the UN also believed Saddam to be nearing development of nuclear weapons:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.
That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.
What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:
* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.
* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq
* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7
* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it
* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002
Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php
 

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
The headline of this story should be something like:

The New York Times confirms that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program

Did the New York Times put on it's front page that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was trying build a nuclear bomb? No way!

The line from the war critics has been that there was no WMD and therefore there was no threat. Now the New York Times is trying to say that Bush screwed up by making public information that could help a country make a nuclear bomb.

One more time:Iraq had a nuclear weapons plan that was so detailed and so advanced that any country could have used them.

The New York Times was hoping this story would come across that the idiot Bush screwed up once again. The New York Times just destroyed the antiwar argument and they don't seem to realize what they did.

The antiwar critics are going to have to try argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It can't be both no threat to the US and also somehow a threat to the US once it's in the hands of Iran.

Did Rove sneak this paragraph into their article?
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Does the New York Times think that we are supposed to believe that Iraq had "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building", but there was no chance that they would restart their nuclear program, or give them to terrorists or another rogue regime?
 
Last edited:

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
32,977
Reaction score
42,250
Age
12
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
WASHINGTON – A severe case of a leak of classified information from one of the most top-secret facilities in the world was revealed this week in the United States. When police raided the trailer home of Jessica Quintana, a worker at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in Texas, in search of her drug-dealer boyfriend, they stumble upon extremely sensitive documents which Quintana had taken from the facility.

According to the expose on the CBS television network, the documents confiscated from 22-year-old Quintana’s home describe how to neutralize the locks of nuclear weapons, as well as data regarding strategic weapons design. It was further reported that the young woman, who worked in three safes in the facility, had “Sigma 15 Q” security clearance, which gave her access to additional data on subterranean nuclear trials in Los Alamos.

Quintana has not yet been arrested, and at this stage there are no charges against her. According to her lawyer, she took the documents to work on at home and forgot to return them.

At this stage there is no specific proof suggesting that the documents were sold or transferred to outside elements, but the US administration is not certain that the documents did not end up in foreign hands. The investigation at the moment is focusing on three USB thumb-drives storing 408 documents with intelligence and nuclear weaponry information and a 228 page document taken from the laboratory.

A federal source expressed concern that stolen information could reveal to terrorists "all they need to know" to operate nuclear weapons, and defined this possibility as “devastating”.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3323438,00.html

How exactly did this lady get security clearance is my question? Did her boyfriend sell meth to Haggard, who then called Bush and got him to do a political favor? Hmmm.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 1998
Messages
1,139
Reaction score
2
Offline
US posted Iraqi nuclear bomb documents on Internet: report

WASHINGTON, Nov 3 (AFP) Nov 03, 2006
The US government posted on the Internet Iraqi documents that explain how to build a nuclear bomb, the New York Times reported Friday on its website.

The Times said that officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency had complained to US officials last week about the postings of "roughly a dozen" documents from Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear research that contained diagrams, equations and other details for making a nuclear bomb.

The Times cited experts who said the documents "constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061103113416.mfivbj0x.html
 

specter

Guest
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
886
Reaction score
52
Age
50
Location
Electric Land
Offline
I just hope that no one makes a bomb from that info.
God Bless America and may she be free from a nuke strike forever!AMEN!
 
OP
Severum

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,116
Age
40
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
The headline of this story should be something like:

The New York Times confirms that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program

Did the New York Times put on it's front page that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was trying build a nuclear bomb? No way!

The line from the war critics has been that there was no WMD and therefore there was no threat. Now the New York Times is trying to say that Bush screwed up by making public information that could help a country make a nuclear bomb.

One more time:Iraq had a nuclear weapons plan that was so detailed and so advanced that any country could have used them.

The New York Times was hoping this story would come across that the idiot Bush screwed up once again. The New York Times just destroyed the antiwar argument and they don't seem to realize what they did.

The antiwar critics are going to have to try argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It can't be both no threat to the US and also somehow a threat to the US once it's in the hands of Iran.

Did Rove sneak this paragraph into their article?

Does the New York Times think that we are supposed to believe that Iraq had "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building", but there was no chance that they would restart their nuclear program, or give them to terrorists or another rogue regime?
Yes they had a nuclear program...before 1991, we already knew this. Saddam was contained, inspectors were in the country, and they had no active nuclear programs. If you see this as sufficient reason to go to war, then you must see making the information freely available to anyone was a monumental blunder.
 

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
Yes they had a nuclear program...before 1991, we already knew this. Saddam was contained, inspectors were in the country, and they had no active nuclear programs. If you see this as sufficient reason to go to war, then you must see making the information freely available to anyone was a monumental blunder.
Did Iraq have to have an active nuclear program for it to be a threat? Iraq having nuclear program parts and "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building" was not a threat in Sadamm's hands, but it is threat posted on the internet?

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking....

Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.

"I have very important things at my disposal that I have been ordered to have, to keep, and I've kept them, and I don't want this to proliferate, because of its potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants, in the hands of dictators or of terrorists," said Obeidi, who has been taken out of Iraq with the help of the U.S. government.

Obeidi also said he was not the only scientist ordered to hide that type of equipment.

"I think there may be more than three other copies. And I think it is quite important to look at this list so they will not fall into the hands of the wrong people," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

Both you and the New York Times thinks that this information about the Iraq nuclear program was dangerous enough that Iran could have used it to help their program. If that is true then how could it not be a threat in the hands of Sadamm? Couldn't he easly restart the program when the international community's attention waned?

What about the other FMSO documents that were found in Iraq after the war that are listed above in my previous posts? The New York Times has verified their authenticity . What about the IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden?
1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.
2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden's group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American.
3. In case Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were proven to have been involved in carrying out these terrorist operations, it could be possible that the United Stated will attack both Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. The Afghani consul heard about the connection between the Iraqis and the Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. Upon what has been presented we suggest writing to the Intention Committee with the above information.
 
Last edited:

Comus

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 12, 2003
Messages
6,195
Reaction score
416
Age
87
Offline
I have a manual on how to make Commander's Palace Bread pudding.
 
OP
Severum

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,116
Age
40
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
Did Iraq have to have an active nuclear program for it to be a threat? Iraq having nuclear program parts and "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building" was not a threat in Sadamm's hands, but it is threat posted on the internet?
Yes Iraq would have to have an active nuclear program for it to be a significant threat. This has been hashed out in previous debates on the war, we knew the progress of their nuclear program 15 years ago. There were inspectors in the country and Israeli and US assets ready to destroy any new nuclear facilities. Yes posting nuclear secrets online is probably not a good thing to do.

As for the other unrelated documents I'm sure some responses can be found at http://blogsearch.google.com/.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom