"Fatal Error" Changed Nuclear History

New Book Claims That The U.S. Turned A Blind Eye To Pakistan's Black Market Dealings

(CBS)  By CBS News producer Wendy Krantz.

As searing images of Pakistani policemen with automatic weapons and riot gear appeared this week on our network and elsewhere, hours after Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law, two dogged investigators for the National Security News Service suggest in a new book that we may be one step away from a catastrophic meltdown in a country where the Taliban, al Qaeda and nuclear weapons are all in play.

In the book by David Armstrong and Joe Trento, titled "America and the Islamic Bomb: The Deadly Compromise," the authors provide a new perspective on Abdul Qadeer Khan's nuclear black market scandal and the circumstances that brought us to this nuclear crossroads today.

"Right now, we have a government that is barely hanging on, controlling a vast stash of nuclear weapons," Trento told CBS News. "American may be facing nuclear terrorism if the Pakistani government doesn't hang on."

Trento and Armstrong recently sat down with CBS News, discussing why we should be concerned about ongoing nuclear proliferation from members of Khan's former network and how a "fatal error" in 2000 changed the course of nuclear history forever.

"We heard about this amazingly brave, British customs inspector who had run up against the network," Trento said. "As he makes his discoveries and gets closer and closer to AQ Khan, he's pulled off the case, and told to stop it, leave it alone."

That's when it became clear, says Trento, that the intelligence services of Britain and the U.S. were actually protecting members of the AQ Khan network in what Trento calls "a cover-up." The result: proliferation continued for four more crucial years, allowing North Korea and Iran to move forward with their WMD programs. That's a gap, according to Trento, that could never be recovered.

U.S. intelligence sources tell CBS News that this is a misinterpretation of the situation, and that there was no fatal error. Rather, in an effort to protect "assets" and develop "actionable" intelligence, they say that the continued monitoring of Khan's network allowed them to develop further intelligence on the nuclear weapons programs in other countries.

That's an answer that doesn't sit well with Trento and Armstrong, or that loyal customs inspector, Atif Amin, who identified the front companies, the financial conduits, the middlemen and even the players who were procuring and providing all of this nuclear know-how for AQ Khan in early 2000.

In a recent videotaped interview with the National Security News Service, provided to CBS News, Amin says that he was puzzled that the U.S. waited to shut things down, adding that they could have been "more proactive" in disrupting this network years ago.

Armstrong and Trento offer example after example in their book of this "blind eye" policy, where members of Khan's network who were linked to proliferation activities were let off the hook. In some instances it was a case of intelligence sources tipping off some of the proliferators. In others, it was a case of Washington's long arm reaching down and tampering with the legal system. Evidence, Armstrong said, of Pakistan's nuclear "get-out-of jail-free" card.

Today, few members of the network have been held accountable, and many are free to travel. Not only are they not on the "no fly" list, says Trento, but some of Khan's middlemen are even living here - including an import/export businessmen in South Florida, recently granted U.S. citizenship, who appears to be using the social security number of a man currently in jail.

---

Watch an interview with the authors

---

Still others appear to be in the same line of business, working for some of the same companies Amin uncovered in his Dubai investigation seven years ago, according to corporate records obtained by CBS News. All this despite public assurances from the Bush administration that the Khan network has been "dismantled, and the culprits "brought to justice."

"We know that members of the network have largely escaped any kind of sanction, and in cases where there have been attempts at prosecution, it's been primarily slaps on the wrist, suspended sentences, small fines," Armstrong said. "There has been no real penalty, no repercussion, for the people who have participated in this and no real serious effort to wrap up the members of network and bring them to justice."

That leaves a potential pool of skilled engineers and technicians trained by Khan's gang available to anyone willing to pay.

"We have situation where you have warlords who first the CIA paid, and bin Laden has paid, who are basically available to the highest bidder, who may end up in control of a weapon," Trento said. "That is something that gives me great pause."

[realpatriot1]

Beofre we all start spinning this fr partison advantage, let it be said this is an albatross
around the neck of both parties.

The question now is who will take steps to close the loophole that allow the black market in nuclear proliferation to operate unimpeded.

[terrorislam5]

BE AFRAID,,, BE VERY AFRAID,,,

PICTURE FASCIST NAZI GERMANY WITH NUKES,,,

WAKE UP! The Crisis in Pakistan Is Much More Dangerous Than You Think
Musharraf''''s Emergency Crackdown Is Anathema to Everyone Who Cherishes Human Rights and Democracy. But His Grip on Power Is Slipping Just as Islamic Extremists Are Escalating Their Bloody Insurgency. If They Succeed in Overthrowing Musharraf and Seizing Power, al-Qaida Will Gain Access to Pakistan''''s Nuclear Weapons.
http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2007/11/wake-up-crisis-in-pakistan-is-much-more.html

Iran could have nukes by 2009
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380749027&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[terrorislam5]

thank you dimmy kkkar-ter and the demonic-rats,,, good one

[xlib]

realpatriot1-You ask a very good question. However I must bring up a partisan question. Which party helped/turned blind eye, whatever, Iran and North Korea in their quest for nukes?? I have no doubt that if the dems get in we will have more of the same. Which candidate has a very close relationship, dating back to her hubby''s presidency, with the chi coms.
Both parties are at fault for this one but I maintain it is the dems who must bear the biggest brunt of this one.
The only date mentioned in this article is 2000, no presidents name is mentioned in relation to that date. I find that interesting.
I doubt that this story will run for long as it won''t be interesting to the lib factions that post here.

[tbweb]

"We have situation where you have warlords who first the CIA paid, and bin Laden has paid, who are basically available to the highest bidder, who may end up in control of a weapon," Trento said. "That is something that gives me great pause."

This logic applies to the so-called security firm Blackwater too, isn''t Blackwater available to the highest bidder?

[xlib]

No, nancy, you would have a pesident who would do what the previous dem one did-NOTHING. You would have one who would ignore, placate, take money from and do nothing.
Your scenerio is surely one of a true elitist. Just where do you park your lear jet, my dear.
So you don''t care what happens to the rest of the world. It''s all good just as long as it doesn''t touch your little part of the world. Tell us, is it getting crowded there in the sand with so many heads hiding.

[cbs_oliver]

Well I looked up the guys at the National Security News Service and trento in particular and am not sure what to make of them.

They may be legit journalists - or not. It''s hard to tell without more detailed research.

Off the top they seem OK.

They do seem to cover stories where political people have died or are about to die.

I am skeptical. I wish somebody would investigate them.

[terrorislam5]

The Death of a University

how social progressives killed a great university

The University of Ingolstadt was founded in 1472 by Louis the Rich, the Duke of Bavaria at the time, and its first Chancellor was the Bishop of Eichstdtt. It consisted of five faculties: humanities, sciences, theology, law and medicine, all of which were contained in the Hoheschule (''''high school''''). The university was modeled after the University of Vienna, and its chief goal was the propagation of the Christian faith. The university closed its doors in May of 1800, by order of the Prince-elector Maximilian IV (later Maximilian I, King of Bavaria).
The 1700s gave rise to the Enlightenment, a movement that was opposed to the church-run universities of which Ingolstadt was a prime example. The Jesuits gradually left the university as it sought to change with the times, until the university finally had become so secular that the greatest influence in Ingolstadt was Adam Weishaupt, founder of the secret society of the Illuminati. On November 25, 1799, the elector Maximilian IV announced that the university''''s depleted finances had become too great a weight for him to bear: the university would be moved to Landshut as a result. The university finished that year''''s school term, and left Ingolstadt in May of 1800, bringing to a quiet end the school that had, at its peak, been one of the most influential and powerful institutes of higher learning in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ingolstadt

[forthepeopl1]

"Right now, we have a government that is barely hanging on, controlling a vast stash of nuclear weapons," Trento told CBS News. "American may be facing nuclear terrorism if the Pakistani government doesn''t hang on."

Trento and Armstrong recently sat down with CBS News, discussing why we should be concerned about ongoing nuclear proliferation from members of Khan''s former network and how a "fatal error" in 2000 changed the course of nuclear history forever.

"We heard about this amazingly brave, British customs inspector who had run up against the network," Trento said. "As he makes his discoveries and gets closer and closer to AQ Khan, he''s pulled off the case, and told to stop it, leave it alone."

That''s when it became clear, says Trento, that the intelligence services of Britain and the U.S. were actually protecting members of the AQ Khan network in what Trento calls "a cover-up." The result: proliferation continued for four more crucial years, allowing North Korea and Iran to move forward with their WMD programs. That''s a gap, according to Trento, that could never be recovered.

[terrorislam5]

VOTE FOR JEFFERSON VOTE AGAINST FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAM VOTE GOP

dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone

gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam, he killed plenty of them

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli''s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
muslim justifies slavery and piracy%u2026
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7

[myidoncbs]

xlib whines, "The only date mentioned in this article is 2000, no presidents name is mentioned in relation to that date. I find that interesting."

The fact of the matter is, the problem with Kahn goes back much further, and includes many presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). You can''t blame this all on Clinton, even if you want to.

Seymour Hersh wrote a big piece about Kahn''s pardon by Musharraf, and the deal GW Bush made with Pakistan in 2004 to "look the other way". It was published in the New Yorker, March 8, 2004. "For two decades [beginning in the 80''s], journalists and American and European intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani intelligence service, the I.S.I. (Inter-Service Intelligence), to nuclear-technology transfers."

Pakistani prez Musharraf is Bush''s partner in the so-called "war on terror". As is usually the case when making war, Bush "made a deal with the devil" to get what he wants.

[tomtomasters]

Actually Kahn was doing work that US Politicians hate to admit, and that is why they were closed lip about it all. Most believe in balance, or MAD which achieves peace. Without the balance, there is always war. N.Korea would have balanced S. Koreas threat who have access to Nuclear Weapons, Iran would have balanced the Middle East, against Israels known Nuclear stock pile. Instead we have constant war, that goes on for years. Kahn was developing the strategy that if all sides have nuclear power, peace will engulf regions of the world. Instead we have unbalance and War.

[tomtomasters]

The real issue with binLadin was he wanted nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia. Who was to protect his country when he was instrumental in stopping Russia in Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia is one of many of the richest countries in the world in the Middle East because of the vast amounts of oil resources. Yet none of them have deterrence from the Super Powers, such as Russia to break the binLadin hand in Afghanistan or the USA who have no Oil resources. binLadin wanted deterrence for his country, but the USA said no. So binLadin made sure the Taliban supported his Construction company and turned down the USA which resulted in Enron''s demise, bringing about the Bush mania in constructing and doing 911 to stop binLadins quest to seek protection for his country. It is predicted that peace would develop in the Middle East if Arabs had the bomb, or Persians had a deterrence. We can see that binLadin was right because a Super Power has invaded his country and accuse him of being a terrorist. binLadin never did 911. He is only protecting himself now from the lies of the Bush Administration. Kahn is the hero in this Political Philosophy. Not the spin misters who live for war, and controlling other countries resources.

[watcher269-2009]

Is Bushit supporting Terrorists by supporting Pakistan?


I Say - YES!

[sean7phil]

They idea that Khan was contributing to peace through MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is false.

There is a HUGE difference between Cold-War MAD Deterrence and terrorists who believe that suicide is holy.

Not all Muslems think this way-- but some do-- and it would only take a small group of terrorists-- who could care less about MAD-- to commit an act of nuclear terrorism that would change the world forever.

That is why some (not all) on the Left are irresponsible in trying to minimize the threat of Islamic nuclear terror.

It is a greater threat than that posed by the former Soviet Union-- and should be taken very seriously by the political Left, Right and Center.

A single terrorist nuclear attack on the USA will destroy our democracy (the Patriot ACT will look trivial compared to the security measures that will come after nuclear terrorism).

It will also launch a Third World War.

**This is not fantasy speculation-- it''s a highly probable outcome.

The American and European Left in particular need to take this threat more seriously rather than viewing it as a ploy by the Right to manipulate the American public.

This is an issue that should transcend partisan politics. We should all be on the same page about dealing with this threat, rather than using it as a political football, as all sides have done.

Phil Murray, Boulder Colorado

[missingamerica]

That is why some (not all) on the Left are irresponsible in trying to minimize the threat of Islamic nuclear terror.

Posted by sean7phil at 11:50 AM : Nov 10, 2007

Let me get this right: The events this article covers occurred in 2000 and continued four more years under a Republican Congress and a Republican Administration, and this a a problem of the Left?

[truthheals]

The nuclear weapons in the hands of the judeo-facists are much more dangerous.

[truthheals]

The nuclear weapons in the hands of the judeo-facists are much more dangerous.

[prinzowhales]

Here is a story on a Chinese sub that surfaced in the middle of the USS Kitty Hawk task force after being well within torpedoe range of the huge carrier:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7491

Now, combine this capacity with the missiles designed to penetrate Aegis defences and even seek out the carrier for targeting in a task force...

[tomflint69]

Eh, no big deal. ....
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 06:30 AM : Nov 10, 2007

I have seen that we (Americans)need to learn ''how to accept defeat''. If it was that easy to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear weapons, we had done it long ago. We are bound to have Pakistan as our ally forever.
We should accept the reality. Iran will also become a state full of nukes. Actually the black market has its links accross the E.U and U.S that''s why no action goes against them.
So, Nancy_Naive its not that easy. Not all countries are Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon.
You must learn and accept ground realities.

[usayesterday]

Some person (or group of people) somewhere, wanted this to happen. Constant reports of cover-ups, leaks, and obvious errors (conveniently ignoring warnings) are proof that this person (or group of people) are willing to sacrifice tens-of-thousands of innocent lives for their absolute power.

[winnerindia]

Eh, no big deal.

The odds on favorite for receiving a Pakistani nuke in the mail is India, who will pound Pakistan to rubble with dozens of their own. ...
............Last in line is New York; it could use a cleansing.

Regards,
------------------------------------------------------Posted by Nancy_Naive at 06:30 AM : Nov 10, 2007


Haaa haaaa.... you are saying just like you are playing a computer game Duke III or the U.S Administration would ask you what to do.
Where are you flying?
We, the Indians, have no plans to initiate any nuclear war with our neighbours be it Pakistan or China. India is only improving its relations with Pakistan especially since it has stopped infilterations in Indian Kashmir. Further Indians know that Pakistan will never make a mistake to wage a war on us. I am not against nukes cuz they only ensure the safety.

[usayesterday]

You must learn and accept ground realities.

Posted by tomflint69 at 04:44 PM : Nov 10, 2007
.............

I accept ground beef. But "ground realities"... well, that''s another story entirely.

But seriously...

People should watch the movie "Lord of War". Its a usual "based on a true story" type of Hollywood movie. But it gives a glimpse into the reasons why such people (such as A.Q. Khan) were able to exist and do their dirty work for such a long period of time before being lightly punished.

AQ Khan is still under "house" arrest in Pakistan, last I''ve heard. But if there is a regime change in Pakistan, that could change everything... literally.

[name_verify]

This happened on Clintons watch. Another good reason to torture Libs who respect other nations security more than their own.

[gkc99]

"This happened on Clintons watch. Another good reason to torture Libs who respect other nations security more than their own. "--Posted by screen_ident


And on the watch of Bushit the Elder, and on the watch of the great Neoconscum hero, Ronny Reagan.

And of course since Ronnie was busy selling hi tech weapons to the Irans, who knows if the traitor wasn''t also in cahoots with the Pakis?

[toolmangler-2009]

You cannot win a nuclear war, you might get away with using one or two but sooner or later it will not matter how many you ''have'', if you use them you die also, even if no one shoots back, You kill your self with your ''own'' bombs and missles. Blackmail and extortion won''t work either. The US knows this and is steadily building up its fighting ability. We have the best planes, ships, Tanks and soldiers, the next war will not be a geurilla war like we got caught in this time.

[tomtomasters]

MAD does work, because jihad extremists who use suicide do not want all their own people to perish. If that was the case, they would all be committing suicide now, and there would be no threat. So to think islamic extremists only care to kill innocent people is not true. If americans kill innocent people, that is not terror? That is fighting terrorism, but when Islamic people kill innocent people in retribution for American deeds, they are nuts, terrorists, and villians? No.. America needs to support Nuclear Arms to Middle Eastern Countries, so there is a balance. If they use them they know they will all die. They fight now so they can live, they want the nuclear deterrence. The richest countries in the world are in the Middle East yet none have super power deterrence. Go figure! Kahn is right, and should be recognized for his struggle to bring peace to the World. He is not a terrorist. He is a hero.

[onetimedeal1]

Actually "the fatal error(s)" occured under the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations.

A nuclear Pakistan was allowed because Reagan was a staunch anti-communist. He used Pakistan to ship arms to Afghanistan (The Mujahideen) during the Soviet invasion. Reagan deliberately allowed them to develop the bomb so long as Pakistan acted as an arms conduit.

Moreover, Pakistan was illegally given nuclear technologies by us (Regan/Bush) and they in turn funneled those technologies to N. Korea.

The articles are enclosed below.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840824/posts


http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03082004.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1992/920731.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19801101/dugger

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/Reagan.asp

[firststate]

Some (not all) on the Right (Bushndick) are irresponsible for allowing the threat of nuclear terror regardless of the religion, to spread almost unimpeded.

DickNBush, in particular should have taken taken this threat seriously, and devoted every effort to stop it.

It shouldn''t be partisan but DicknBush have limited their efforts to stop this spread to verbal ones. They''ve done almost nothing even when the presented with the evidence and shamed into action, except give the black-marketeers stern warnings and severe suspended sentences. Are they really so incompetent, or have they allowed these activities so that next time they invade a country for WMD''s, there will actually be at least some kind of nuclear program there?

They have a record of deciding what they want to do and then doing whatever necessary to come up with excuses to do what they already wanted. Their blind eye to the nuclear black market may have injected some truth to enter their fear-mongering, but at what cost? They''ve allowed the spread of nuclear technology to go unchecked so they can complain about that very spread. It''s a really dangerous game of "See, told you so!"

[realpatriot1]

tomtomasters,

You''re right where state-sponsered nuclear programs are concerned. Iran or North Korea won''t launch nuclear arms against others who have them. The fear that nukes will be launched against those who don''t have them is what drives nations to have them.

If the U.S. and Israel and India and Russia and China who have extensive nuclear arsenals committed to no 1st use we wouldn''t have this crisis of developing countries seeking the same in order to have a deterrent.

The real threats posed by proliferation are in the level of security of these missles in all countries and the potential for independent fanatics to obtain the technology and material to develop portable nukes without a return address.

Given the recent incident where nuclear-armed bombers passed through all the fail safe measures(if you believe the official story)and were flown from Minot,N.D. to Barksdale,La.(the operational hub for mideast operations)the threat is real.

[closethippy1]

So the US knew about Pakistan irresponsable behavior with its nuclear technology and did nothing.
Why? What is this American insanity that allows Pakistan to get away with it while at the same time picks on Iran who doesn''t have nukes and are a signatory to the international agency that oversees nuclear technology?
I tell you why? I-S-R-A-E-L.
You can have all the nukes in the world and even give a few of them to some of your friends as long as you don''t make demands on Israel to respect human rights and stop stealing land.
That''s why many Arab countries are talking about having nuclear technology and the US is not saying anything about that except, of course, when Syria wants to do the same.
And why? Because Syria has not learned like the rest of the Middle East to keep quiet when it comes to Israel.
What''s so shortsighted and irrational about this approach is that the US has only succeded in having the heads of states in keeping quiet about Israel while the rest 300 million Arabs under their control are seething in anger about how Palestinians are being eaten alive in front of their eyes.
And after Hillary wins the elections and tries to outman Bush in the Middle East the situation is bound to get worse and the US will lose control of the entire area.

[mocalleo]

in the CBS article:

"how a "fatal error" in 2000 changed the course of
nuclear history forever."

.

Bill Clinton was still president in 2000,
Bush didn''t take office until January of 2001 .

It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch
It happened on Clinton''s watch

.

Just thought I''d act like a liberal for a minute

LOL

[klifton2-2009]

Another realization that who you put in power is not as important as WHAT you put on power. Clinton could very well botch things up, but Bush has 6 years to correct that "fatal error" and not compound it! War is a business. It is a business of arms, and like all business it is about money and profits and power. To think otherwise and is to be in a perpetual state of denial and outright foolishness. The gullibility of the American public knows no bounds. Look at the heap of manure in the White House. Many still cannot smell the stench.

[missingamerica]

This happened on Clintons watch. Another good reason to torture Libs who respect other nations security more than their own.

Posted by screen_ident at 05:30 PM : Nov 10, 2007

screen_ident''s post is precisely why the thought of a neocon serving as an intelligence analyst is so very scary - and why actually having them serve is so very dangerous.

The story plainly says:

"That''s when it became clear, says Trento, that the intelligence services of Britain and the U.S. were actually protecting members of the AQ Khan network in what Trento calls ''a cover-up.'' The result: proliferation continued FOR FOUR MORE CRUCIAL YEARS, allowing North Korea and Iran to move forward with their WMD programs."

Does the story say that the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and Britain just "forgot" about Khan et al when Bush took office, as if having a Republican Administration shook up their minds like so many organic Etch-a-Sketches?

No.

Right-wing neocons are incapable of absorbing and interpreting intelligence because they can''t see past their prejudices and preconceptions.

[xlib]

klifton, My God, are you serious?? You give a pass to clinton and blame Bush for this "fatal error". You are truly a good student of the left. It''s never our guys fault always someone elses.
This was not the only "fatal error" of the clinton reign. How about Nortk Korea, China, Iran, letting binLaden get away. You people are unbelievable, unbelievable.