Steven Hatfill Vs. The Media
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | June 29, 2008
There was never any evidence indicating that Hatfill is anything other than a patriot who tried to help America prepare for the terrorist attacks that were blamed on him.
If the left wants an example of the Bush Administration’s incompetence in the war on terror, they’ve got it in the case of former government scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill, who was falsely accused of the anthrax murders. The U.S. Government “has determined that settlement is in the best interests of the United States and has agreed to pay Dr. Hatfill and his attorneys $2.825 million dollars and purchase for Dr. Hatfill an annual annuity of $150,000,” the Department of Justice said in a statement released on Friday, June 27. But there was no apology for ruining an innocent person’s life and career.
There was never any evidence indicating that Hatfill is anything other than a patriot who tried to help America prepare for the terrorist attacks that were blamed on him.
The problem for the left is that they never took his side in this dispute because he was too conservative for them. They were suspicious of him because he had done biowarfare research for the government. Their bogus theory of the case, apparently shared by the FBI, was just a short step from the Al-Jazeera-promoted disinformation that the U.S. government had attacked itself on 9/11.
Hatfill’s accusers, in addition to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and anonymous Justice Department officials, included such media luminaries as Pulitzer Prize-winning liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. As we pointed out, without contacting Hatfill or his representatives, Kristof wrote five columns and thousands of words urging FBI scrutiny of the scientist. He portrayed Hatfill as a despicable character with an unsavory past.
The case demonstrates that not all “leaks” to the press are good and that anonymous sources should not be trusted. Hatfill’s reputation and career were ruined by FBI agents and other government officials leaking damaging but false information. One of the motives of the leakers was to convince the public they were making progress in the case and had solid leads and suspects. They used the media to mislead the public. Meanwhile, the real perpetrators, most likely associated with al Qaeda, got away with murder. In short, both the government and their media lapdogs blew it. They should all be forced to pay.
Pleading His Case
Accuracy in Media came to Hatfill’s defense early on. At an October 5, 2002, Accuracy in Media conference, Hatfill said, “Like many Americans I trusted that the news that would be presented to me on television and in the newspapers would be filtered and have some degree of accuracy. I took this for granted.” He quickly learned the truth―that reporters could be faithful mouthpieces of their misinformed and devious “sources.”
The campaign against Hatfill had all the earmarks of the corruption that we had witnessed in the Richard Jewell case. Jewell was falsely accused of the Olympic Park bombing and sued and collected financial damages from the government and the media.
For the complete story, which we had less than a year after 9/11, of how the FBI went wrong in the Hatfill case, please read our August 2002 AIM Report, “Another Richard Jewell?”
Hatfill has now gotten his settlement from the government. But it took many years and he still needs to collect from the media. I have asked New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. at the last two Times annual meetings to settle with Hatfill and admit that Kristof’s columns on the case were malicious and wrong. Sulzberger and the Times refuse and continue to fight in court. They spend millions of dollars on expensive lawyers when they should be giving Hatfill the money, in compensation for the Kristof columns suggesting he was the anthrax killer.
This case is also a big black eye for the Bush Administration. President Bush should have cleaned out the FBI and the CIA when he took office. But he stuck with the bureaucrats and later inexplicably rewarded one of them, former CIA Director George Tenet, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The invasion of Iraq, launched in part on the basis of false information provided by Tenet, can be justified today by the argument that American troops are helping to build a democratic and lasting government in Baghdad that may, over the long term, stabilize the area and reduce the terrorist threat. But the handling of the Hatfill case can’t be justified under any circumstances. Who has paid for this incompetence?
We frequently hear that the Bush Administration has kept us safe since 9/11. But tell that to the families of the victims of the post-9/11anthrax attacks. Five people were killed and many others sickened by the anthrax that was mailed in envelopes featuring statements attacking Israel and praising Allah. Some FBI officials, operating on the basis of left-wing theories of the case, figured these statements were a diversionary tactic and an attempt to blame Muslims, even though other government officials were noting evidence of an actual al-Qaeda program to develop and use anthrax. It was worse than the Keystone cops because American lives had been lost and others were at risk.
Making a financial settlement to Hatfill doesn’t solve the case. It only makes us acutely aware of how much time, money and resources were wasted. In its statement about the Hatfill settlement, the Department of Justice said that “we reassure the public and the victims that this investigation remains among the Department’s highest law enforcement priorities.” That’s hardly reassuring at this late date.
As we pointed out in 2006, the evidence suggests that, in addition to the al-Qaeda operatives responsible for 9/11, there was another al-Qaeda cell that staged the anthrax attacks. The perpetrators fled the country, were deported for immigration law violations, or are still here. The FBI certainly doesn’t know. And that means we are still vulnerable.
No Lessons Learned
There are undoubtedly many good people in the Bureau struggling to protect us against terrorist attack. But some clearly haven’t learned the right lessons. We recently discovered that FBI Special Agent Andrew Bringuel had invited Weather Underground terrorist Mark Rudd to lecture at the FBI training Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Rudd, who traveled to Cuba before returning to the U.S. to lead the violent protests at Columbia University as a member of the Students for a Democratic Society, now lists his occupation as “writer, organizer” and is with “Progressives for Obama.” Rudd writes about his FBI visit on his blog.
According to declassified government intelligence information, Rudd had traveled to Cuba as part of a program designed to provide training to foreign radicals in revolutionary and guerrilla tactics. Now’s he’s an FBI lecturer.
It turns out that Bringuel also invited a member of the Animal Liberation Front to come to the FBI to speak to a group of “police executives.” The animal lover turned him down. In 2002, an FBI official had testified that groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front had emerged as a serious terrorist threat in the U.S.
Shouldn’t the FBI be putting terrorists in jail rather than inviting them to lecture?
If the Congress wants to do oversight of the Bush Administration, Hatfill is the perfect case, even if the victim isn’t a left-winger. Here is a concrete example of a real innocent victim of the “war on terror.”
More than anything, however, the Congress should not make the problem worse. The proposed media shield law, known officially as the Free Flow of Information Act, would make it easier for unscrupulous officials in the FBI and other agencies to use the media to smear people and damage their reputations. With a media shield law in place, we could have many more Steven Hatfills, who would be prohibited from even attempting to get justice.
With justification, Hatfill argues that the leaks from the government violated his right to privacy. As a result, he wants to identify the government agents who fingered him because he wants them to pay. In order to do that, however, he wants reporters to identify sources who provided them information about the Justice Department’s investigation. He has gone to court to force the disclosure of these sources. That’s the only way to root out these corrupt government officials. A media shield law would make it impossible for Hatfill and his lawyers to identify and punish those dishonest government officials.
Back in 2005 we said that “It is important for our national security and survival to find out why the case is unsolved and who in the government used the press to finger an innocent man. Members of the media must tell us what they know. They are citizens as well. They are not above the law.” This is why we call the shield bill the “Special Rights for Journalists Act.”
Pandering to the press, politicians such as Senators Barack Obama and John McCain favor the media shield bill. It has already passed the House and a Senate committee and awaits action by the full Senate. The good news is that there is growing opposition and Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid has refused so far to schedule a full Senate vote.
But the pressure from the media, which rarely report on their own lobbying efforts, is intense. A “Media Coalition” of 63 different journalism and media organizations is pressuring Reid to bring the bill up. It includes media giants such as ABC News, the New York Times Company, Gannett, Associated Press, National Public Radio, NBC, the National Press Club, and News Corporation.
You can let your senators know how you feel. They can be contacted through the official Senate website. When they want to know why you oppose the bill (S. 2035), answer in two words: “Steven Hatfill.”
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
17 Comments
Seeker, when we all come to the realization that the media is not a news organization. It’s job no longer is to give us the facts.
It is a propaganda machine. From the largest corporate owned newspaper to the smallest hometown corporate owned newspaper.
In Mr. Hatfill’s case, it convinced most of the country that he was guilty so no one was demanding real investigation. I just wonder if they will dedicate as much time and space to his innocence as they did to proclaim him guilty?
I won’t hold my breathe.
Ladytexan,
I agree with you. Name, once destroyed, will remain destroyed forever.
But you know, some exceptions exist. I call them DIVINE JUSTICE.
Kincaid is right. Bush’s failure to clean out the FBI, CIA, and State Dept. has left this country more vulnerable.
As bad as it is, bureaucratic incompetence is perhaps the least worrisome aspect to this case. Shouldn’t we also consider the possibility that someone within the FBI purposely routed the investigation away from the real suspects and toward an innocent man.
I do not doubt that the vast majority of FBI agents are honest hard working patriots but this is the same agency that allowed Robert Hanssen to pass secrets to the Russians for over 15 years.
It could have been someone misdirected the investigation - it could have just been lazy work - it could have been they were directed to investigate, but not find.
Dr. Hatfield is most definitely owed vindication from this horror! Even as a young schoolgirl I quickly learned anytime the US government was involved in anything, the results were always incompetent but this inexcusable injustice literally makes me sick! It seems to me it most likely will be sooner than later our vaunted government will lead us to being a non-nation due to its acute stupidity. I see the US acting like a damn fool and especially so when our half-witted Congress is involved, but who cares? Just shut up and “it,” whatever “it” tends to be [in this sad injustice, Dr. Hatfield], “goes away.” Cliff Kincaid is a remarkable human being seemingly instinctively sniffing out these cases of rotten mismanagement such as this one. Dr. Hatfield is owed public vindication and restitution and a VERY public apology plus restitution!
Mr. Kincaid’s article should be sent to every voter (living and dead, for those in Chicago).
I am confident that those who have commented and who will comment on this article understand the immense and in most cases unbridled power enjoyed by the media.
Combine a “main stream media” leftist propaganda entity with the many ways true investigative journalism (Mr. Kincaid reports injustice, incompetence etc. regardless of the political party of the perpetrator) can be buried…....Pelosi is anxious to bring the Fairness Doctrine to the floor when passage is assured; we are one FCC appointee away from having the Fairness Doctrine implemented without any legislative vote and should Obama, with the assistance of his choreographed third party attacks against Sen. McCain and a compliant media, become our next president, he would clearly make that appointment.
Personally, based on the innumerable errors and intentional inaccuracies printed in the New York Times, I am not surprised at Jr.‘s refusal to settle the case with Dr. Hatfield. Admitting that the story was not properly researched, vetted or fabricated, would require integrity, albeit after the fact. Jr. has proven he has none.
The thought of the passage of the Media Shield Law and re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine should cause real fear and encourage action by all.
Dr. Hatfill got a settlement that will partially compensate him for his lost reputation and the lost years of his life. The fact that he is named “Hatfill” and is White made it easy for the government to attempt to put him in jail for a crime that he didn’t commit.
Why does everyone say this is a left-wing media.
This media has gone along with everything this President has wanted to do and has done. It has supported him.
They are neither right nor left - but corporate.
The FBI going after Mr. Hatfill was certainly NOT a left wing agenda.
Wake up and stop thinking in terms of right or left - stop thinking in terms of politics - but in terms of facts.
Why does the government and media get away with what they do - because we are too busy trying to peg something ‘right/left’ and too busy fighting, insulting and being nasty to each other and not focusing on what they are dong.
All anyone has to do to divert public attention from any wrongdoing is to label it - either right or left - doesn’t matter. When they do that, we are off to the races to denounce or defend some mythical right or left position.
Look at the facts, look at what is happening - we have got to begin doing that or we are lost.
With all due respect, I contend that anyone who believes the opinions expressed in the New York Times are motivated by corporate dictate rather than ideology need only look at the paper’s bottom line. Subscriptions are down, advertising revenue is down, staffing has been cut but none of these corporate issues have had an impact on the leftist tripe Jr. continues to publish.
I wish you would read my comment once again. My primary concern focused on the implementation of the media shield law and the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine.
I don’t know which periodicals you read or what news programs you watch, but I have not seen the media go along with President Bush, support him or even show him the respect he deserves if for no other reason other than the position he holds.
Ms. Pelosi has stated that she supports the Fairness Doctrine. Jr. has refused to settle this abomination against Dr. Hatfield even after our Department of Justice has righted this horrendous wrong. Stating that Jr. therefore has no integrity is not a nasty remark, but rather an obvious observation.
If you don’t believe the media is, for the most part, left-leaning try to recall the last time you heard the New York Times referred to as a “liberal” newspaper. Next, try to recall the last time you heard the Washington Times mentioned when it was not premised by the word, “conservative”.
I do my best to work to improve our country. I don’t, however, ignore the obvious.
How do you answer the fact that the FBI has never been considered a ‘liberal’ organization, and the NYT seems to have been aiding and abetting them in this travesty?
Do you really think the people of this country would have been so gung ho on this war if the media had asked the right questions? Questions they knew needed to be asked?
I’m thinking the media has given this President great respect - and little scrutiny.
As far as the NYT, individually, it has seemed to march a little out of step with the rest - but only a little. It was right in there on Mr. Hatfill.
Why would one label a newspaper liberal or conservative? To keep others from reading it or to form a preconceived idea of anything that is read in it?
I ask you to just look at the discussion regarding this Fairness Doctrine. How many discussions are speaking to the fact that it is very dangerous, controlling and unconstitutional?
How many are thinking enough to realize what a tool this will be for any wannabe tyrant that could get him/herself elected using this and totally destroy this nation? Very few, they almost all contain something about Ms. Pelosi, liberals, or talk shows. It is so much bigger than that. That kind of talk trivializes this very monumental danger.
If however, they label it ‘liberal’, then half the country will be for it - no matter what. The other half will only fight because of the idea of ‘liberal’ and not because of the true dangers of it.
Please wake up, Fairness Doctrine has little or nothing to do with liberals or conservatives - talk show hosts or not. It has to do with limiting the amount of information we can get - for either viewpoint. It will make the viewpoint we get that of the government and whatever horror that might be there.
While everyone is focusing on the pompoms of liberalism or conservatism, behind our backs, they are both working to destroy something truly wonderful.
As for the ‘liberal’ bent of newspapers, most of them,actually all of them for a while, champion illegal immigration. That makes you think they are liberal - right? Then how does one explain that they are doing exactly what this President has done from day one? How about their reporting of the ‘huge’ ICE raids that net 5-20-50 - when there are millions working here in the US. They are disseminating propaganda for this administration. That doesn’t sound ‘liberal’ to me.
Illegal immigration isn’t a liberal thing - it is a corporate, big busines, globalist thing. The media and our politicians (all of them) did their part in pretending it didn’t exist for 20 years. Our PResident even called us bigots who thought something should be done? Liberal?
As to the NYT not doing well, I don’t keep up with that and by corporate, I wasn’t speaking to the individual paper, but to the fact that papers are pushing the corporate agenda. Many of them are simply one holding of a vast conglomerate of varied corporations. Might that have a little effect on their ‘reporting’?
Hatfill vs Media + FBI…hopefully Mr. Hatfill will have much sucess in outing the perps in both these org..thanl you AIM for the follow up!
I served as a Foreign Service Officer for 27 years, including overseas and Dept. of State. Though I seldom engaged in political discussions with my colleagues, I formed the impression that about 80% of them leaned to the left - some, fairly far left. I did not work closely with emough FBI and CIA agents to form an opinion, but from all I have read recently about them, I feel it is likely that they (like the State Dept) have been extensively infiltrated by leftists, young people coming out of universities, indoctrinated by the Marxist- oriented faculties. One good friend was an FBI agent (now dead) who was one of the principal investigators in the Vince Foster “suicide”. I could never get him to talk about it, or even answer simple questions. He said everything about the case was highly classified, and he was always extremely uncomfortable when asked even fairly simple questions about it. I got the strong impression that there were fabrications and a total cover-up, which, as a good, decent man and agent, he had a very hard time living with.
I never though the CIA had any political leanings - as in left or right.
Actually, I don’t think politicians really do, either.
Both these groups seem to me to have an agenda and it has little to do with what we call left/right - or right or wrong, for that matter.
I am always puzzled how one decides that someone is left or right.
What is the criteria for being a leftie?
These days, just say anything negative about this President, China, Iraq War, and ‘you must be a leftie’.
Having been a ‘rightie’ all my life - 3rd generation - real conservative, that is so funny.
What passes for ‘right’ or conservative today would be totally opposite of what it once was.
Putting labels on people, organizations, etc., truly is against what this country is all about.
The Democrats of my youth would be so far to the right of this adminsitration, one would get lost looking for it.
Carolina
Throughout my career, I investigated and supervised the investigation of the gambit of criminal activity. I also spent a major portion of my career as a supervisor of a Task Force comprised of members of a variety of State investigatory agencies as well as federal agents committed to the Task Force from the FBI, ATF, DEA and the Secret Service, to name a few.
My personal library contains books written on the abomination that was deemed an investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Please accept my consolation regarding the death of your friend who was a member of the FBI and involved in the investigation of Foster’s death. His discomfort at the mention of the case and unwillingness to address any question involving the case, its classified status not withstanding, support many questions and concerns I had at the time the investigation was conducted regarding the manner in which the investigation was pursued. That same discomfort, in my opinion, speaks to the man’s torment created by the knowledge he possessed and the integrity he maintained by not violating the oath he took not to disclose classified information. Informants with whom I worked for many years knew that I would accept personal incarceration, if necessary, to ensure their identities would never be revealed.
Finally, your comment regarding the infiltration of government agencies by those sympathetic to the left relates perfectly to an article written on June 26, 2008 by David Harris in “The Ottawa Citizen”, in which he discusses a case adjudicated in Texas last year referred to as “The Holy Land Foundation” trial during which US prosecutors presented previously classified documents seized from extremist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) sources. MB is described in the article as a subversive worldwide organization from which have come a number of hardline “mainstream” (his emphasis) North American Islamic front groups and “representative organizations” (again, his emphasis) which include unsuspecting interfaith and even government officials.
The prize document disclosed was a 1991 document containing the Brotherhood’s “long-term plan to subvert and collapse the United States and its political, economic and other infrastructure, preparatory achieving a forced radical Islamicization of that Country and others”. This was to be accomplished, according to this document, “Through a malign combination of immigration, intimidation, psychological warfare and subterfuge…..colonizing the U.S., infesting its infrastructure and relying on societal openess, constitutional freedoms and influence operations to proceed from there”.
Most recently, according to the article, Abu Bakr Naji, al-Qaeda’s senior operational strategic thinker, said radical Islamists are to be “infiltrating the adversaries and their fellow travelers and establishing a strong security apparatus” to support the underground movement now and the resulting theocratic Islamic state later. Most disconcerting, he states further, “(We) should infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies…private security companies, sensitive civil institutions etc.” “That,” concludes Mr. Naju chillingly, ” actually began several decades ago, but we need to increase it in light of recent developments.”
Examples are cited involving the police, an American 911 operator, as well as questions regarding certain figures in the FBI, CIA, the State Department, U.S. Muslim military chaplain corps, the White House, Homeland Security, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. If it is acceptable on this forum to provide links, more information regarding this information can be found at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280367130714172
David Harris’ June 26th article can be found at http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9f21ec5a-e493-4885-bb14-47551110a297.
For the first time in three years, the FAA has released the identity of one of the “sensitive security aircraft” listed in FOIA’s we have been persuing. They used to list the “accuracy in media” case as to the reasons for using exemption 7 (e) and still do when it comes to request for radar plots,in flight radio communications etc. They did release the identity of Portland Police as being the aircraft in question and radio call sign “IDAHO16”. This was unexpected release,although the aircraft was already identified along with the F.B.I’s. For all FOIA’s requested control numbers call (425) 203-4141 NW Mountain region FAA FOIA officer or e-mail us for a list.
There probably is no question that Islamics are trying to infiltrate and immigrate us into something other than the US.
They are being aided and abetted by our very own government, though.
This President has been openly supportive of Mulims, even to siding with them when Franklin Graham spoke out against their religion. This was a purely regligious debate - nothing for the PResident of this country to enter.
Also, he did not round up illegals who were here in this country, many ME, didn’t even round up the ME illegals that worked at the airports - he made them federal employees.
He called people bigots who spoke out against Islam.
How can everyone overlook such things?
That is the problem with partisan politics. It blinds people to looking at someone ‘of our party’ and it make us make excuses for what is clearly wrong and dangerous doings.
In the first budget or list of things money would be used for in the Iraq war, was money earmarked for ‘relocation’. At the time, I wondered just how many this government was planning on ‘relocating’ into the US. I heard they have already begun.
But since the Mexicans want this country, and I’m thinking China does as well, the Muslims might have to take a number.
Our government, both so-called parties and for decades has had a suicidal immigration policy - both legal and illegal.
Won’t it be great if that same policy has filled this country with people who begin to war with each other for this possession???? With us in the middle.
Again, we could fix it -
Think it can’t happen???
June 30 at 4:29 am | #1 | Link
It is time for Senator McCain to flip flop on Media Shield Bill.
When a report is proven to be wrong, there is a need for an investigation whether:
1. it is just a pure and honest mistake.
2. there is a malicious intention behind the wrong report.
Disclosing the facts are essential to ensure justice served.
McCain, if he really wants to embrace the conservative viewpoint, MUST STOP ASSOCIATION TO THIS BILL.
Said Bill is too much incentives to the MSM NOT to do its own work of verifying its sources before releasing the same to public. No need for this kind of wrong incentives…. MSM is already rotten…. another viral stimulus will drag MSM to its own death.