Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9129)	8/18/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Hi Ron - thx for the elaboration. A couple of quickies. First, after being bounced around by the news, allegations and other leaks, I simply take a neutral stand. To chronicle my observations, I was one of the firsts to worry about Lee's predicaments. Then, there was an article released to the press, including the NYT, claiming to have damning evidence, at which point I ve backed away from a set mind position. Subsequently, there were presses on presses outbreaks, when the "well placed government source" might not be as genuine as one would have thought. Now, I see this whole episode with disinterested amusement [I'd have laughed had I not known someone's lives - literally speaking - are at stake here.] So, what does it mean to people like you and me? Well, I cannot speak for you, but I feel like the four blind men touching the different part of the animal allegory. To guide my mind, I said to myself, "hey, wait a minute, I am just a blind dude!" OTOH, if people here [or elsewhere] think they are seers, that's ok, so long as they don't hold position like the one who gets to flip the switch <SG>! For instance, while you keep claiming you do not believe in polygraph but keep citing one of the two polygraph results, maybe the dice is loaded. I mean, the same situation can be interpreted as "hey, the guy passed [one of] the polygraph test[s]. I guess ultimately one has to rely on one's conscience. The question is: is one conscience loaded <VBG>! best, Bosco Yes, some of the transgressions, regardless of intent, were committed beyond doubt. However, there are so a lot of doubtful circumstances. If my mind is to back away from reputable publications [in my books] like the NYT, I am not about to accept anything less --- like the free republic <vbg>.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9129)	8/18/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Someone explain to me how in the HELL this could happen: New York Times reporter James Risen revealed: "In spring 1997, Los Alamos National Laboratory chose a scientist who was already under investigation as a suspected spy for China to run a sensitive new nuclear weapons program, several senior government officials say. The scientist, Wen Ho Lee, asked that he be allowed to hire a research assistant, the officials said. Once in the new position, in charge of updating computer software for nuclear weapons, Lee hired a post-doctoral researcher who was a citizen of China, intelligence and law-enforcement officials said....the research assistant has disappeared." If any of this puts someone to sleep, they are using sleep to escape a very nasty reality.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9129)	8/19/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: Ron Bower	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Ron, You may be right on all accounts. Time may or may not divulge the truth. I feel it will be one of those news items that just disappears with no revelations - no prosecution of Wen Ho Lee or anyone else. I had read most of the items you posted on Wen Ho Lee, Peter Lee, and the 'situation' at Los Alamos. I have also read other articles that report the story differently - i.e. the results of the second polygraph test ordered by Richardson were deemed inconclusive - and - Wen Ho Lee filed reports on his trips to HK and China, but on one occasion he filed a report of a contact with a Chinese National later than requirements dictate. When one reads the various articles, one gets the impression that certain news organizations have a direct pipeline into the FBI and DOE, getting information almost as soon as it occurs. As you state, much of this information is biased to either protect or support the individuals or agency involved - and that causes me to doubt all reports. These days, very little 'news' is unbiased. You are well informed about US security organizations (I readily admit that I am not). Is it considered standard policy for so many 'leaks' to the press? Doesn't it appear that there's an effort to focus media attention on Wen Ho Lee? I have to be suspicious about the motives. It seems to me that a discreet investigation coupled with a tightening of security would have been more logical tactics to have taken. Instead we have Richardson being interviewed by every media source and appearance that the DOE is almost calling the reporters to provide the leaks. JMHO, Ron

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9129)	8/23/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Hi Ron - thought I'd updated you with the latest [as I noticed you were relying on some old materials in the post to which I make this reply] villagevoice.com specifically, the following excerpt One of the big news stories last spring was the release of the Cox report, a congressional investigation into claims that Chinese spies had stolen U.S. nuclear secrets. The report was heavily hyped in The New York Times, with coverage ranging from alleged crimes at Los Alamos to the threat of nuclear attack by China. But Lars-Erik Nelson of the Daily News quickly dubbed the report Cold War alarmism, a thesis he expanded in an essay in the July 15 New York Review of Books. After interviewing nuclear-weapons and intelligence experts, Nelson reported that the allegations of a threat were "overblown" and probably attributable to people who favor more U.S. spending on ballistic missiles. He scored the Times for being "more credulous" about the charges than any other U.S. newspaper. In a piece for the August 1 New York Times Sunday Magazine, Patrick E. Tyler, formerly the Times's Beijing bureau chief, also interviewed weapons experts about the nuclear threat described by the Cox report, and found the allegations to be unsupported, politically motivated, and dangerous for foreign policy. Tyler did not mention the previous Times coverage. Times Magazine editor Adam Moss declined to comment. However, one Times source noted that the differences in press coverage of China reflect the lack of consensus among political, academic, and foreign policy circles. That may be, but the contextualization was long overdue. good luck best, Bosco

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9129)	8/28/1999 1:42:00 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Hi Ron - just want to update you and others who have been actively discussing this issue, evidently, former Senator Warren Rudman was appointed by President Clinton to look into the matter, here is the second handed report from Newsweek of his impression with the title ESPIONAGE The Nuclear Spy Case Suffers a Meltdown Did investigators unfairly single out a Chinese-American scientist as a suspected agent of Beijing? By Daniel Klaidman newsweek.com [Note: personally, I may not agree with Senator Rudman political outlook - not all anyway - but I have great respect for his integrity. Besides, even though he was a Republican Senator, he is out of the beltway now, so chances are he has fewer reasons to do any CYA or to play any realpolitik.] best, Bosco