Time: Fri Dec 05 02:07:42 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA25247
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:05:12 -0700 (MST)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA17720;
Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:03:11 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd017672; Fri Dec 5 02:02:59 1997
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 02:02:52 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "D-Notice" under British Official Secrets Act (fwd)
<snip>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>THE FOSTER DEATH: U.S. JOURNALISTS OPERATING UNDER A "D-NOTICE?"
>================================================================
>
>In *Above Top Secret* (ISBN: 0-688-09202-0), author Timothy Good
>describes a British government mechanism known as a "D-Notice":
>
> A D-Notice is a formal letter of request circulated
> confidentially to newspaper editors, warning them that an
> item of news, which may be protected under the [British]
> Official Secrets Act, is regarded by the defense
> authorities as a secret affecting national security. It
> has no legal authority and can only be regarded as a letter
> of advice or request, but it warns that "whether or not any
> legal sanction would attach to the act of publication,
> publication is considered to be contrary to the national
> interest."
>
> ...since a D-Notice warns an editor that publication of a
> given news item may violate the [Official Secrets] Act, the
> effect is similar to censorship.
>
>Does the United States have some sort of similar mechanism? Has
>the U.S. government ever contacted prominent news outlets,
>suggesting that pursuit of a particular story could adversely
>affect national security? At least one instance comes to mind:
>ABC News had reportedly been set to air a story on how the U.S.
>government seems to have had prior knowledge that the Murrah
>Building in Oklahoma City was about to be bombed. The story was
>pulled at the last minute, however, reportedly due to concerns
>that its airing might greatly weaken and even topple the U.S.
>government.
>
>In "The Secret Report and the Death Warrant" (CN 9.02), Sherman
>H. Skolnick describes how the late Vincent Foster was employed
>for years by the National Security Agency (NSA), and may have
>been doing some "freelance" work on the side:
>
> The report goes on to show that since the early 1980s,
> Foster held the equivalent rank of Military General with
> the super-secret satellite spying and code-cracking
> operation of the U.S., the National Security Agency [NSA].
> Foster continued this work for the few months before his
> death in the Clinton White House. Travelling for NSA,
> hundreds of thousands of miles, Foster was the master-mind
> of an NSA Project that tracked wire transfers between banks
> worldwide -- trillions of dollars per day, of banks both
> friend and foe. Because of being on top of this
> enterprise, Foster never believed that project might
> someday find his purported foreign secret coded accounts
> that could finger him as having violated various American
> espionage laws.
>
>Skolnick's allegations are corroborated in a classic series of
>reports by J. Orlin Grabbe, "Allegations Regarding Vince Foster,
>the NSA, and Banking Transactions Spying." [1] Further support
>for claims that Vince Foster was a high-ranking NSA official
>appear in a story in the May 15, 1996 Washington Times newspaper
>("Spy Agency Holds Large File On Foster," by Bill Gertz.)
>Referring to revelations contained in the April 24, 1996 issue of
>Strategic Investment newsletter, the Washington Times article
>reports that "secret documents held by the electronic spying
>agency [NSA] indicate Mr. Foster's death was a matter of 'highly
>sensitive national security.'"
>
>There's that word: "national security." Was Foster's death a
>"national security" matter and, for that reason, were prominent
>news outlets in the U.S. given some version of the "D-Notice?"
>That would explain why most mainstream journalists here have been
>so remarkably blind regarding inconsistencies surrounding
>Foster's supposed "suicide." Furthermore, given that Foster was
>a high-ranking NSA employee and had apparently violated his trust
>by engaging in espionage, it ought to be considered whether
>Foster had been secretly sentenced to death by some sort of
>secret tribunal. A clue to this possibility is found in Dr.
>Stanton Friedman's book, *Top Secret/Majic* (ISBN:
>1-56924-741-2). Friedman writes about mere =civilians= and
>the possible extreme penalty they can be subject to for
>violations of "national security":
>
> Civilians unfortunate enough to be caught up in the
> security web were made to sign silence agreements ending
> with the phrase "upon penalty of death" according to a
> witness who very quietly spoke to me about it after a
> lecture.
>
>If a civilian can potentially be secretly found "guilty" and
>sentenced to death, then the same fate could definitely await
>high-ranking NSA officials who violate their trust and engage in
>espionage.
>
>But why, if Foster had been secretly sentenced to death, was the
>sentence executed so sloppily? Surely NSA could have done a
>neater job of terminating the errant Foster. Widely reported as
>a deep-level cohort of Foster was Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Ms.
>Clinton had been involved in Foster's alleged espionage, then a
>poorly executed termination of Foster might have been designed to
>embarrass the First Lady, weaken her influence, and thereby
>incidentally punish her as well.
>
>--------------------------<< Notes >>----------------------------
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail