Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the mystery of Alexander Litvinenko's death by polonium 210 continues to unfold--and the shadowy world of spies, former agents, defectors and seedy characters revealed seems lifted from a twisted Le Carré plot--questions continue to arise about the poisoning of the former FSB agent and defector to Britain.
What we do know is that Litvinenko died in London on November 23. What we also know is that in the days after many in the British and US media rushed to judgment--reporting rumor and speculation as fact.
As one British journalist put it, four days after Litvinenko's death: "As the case rolls on, and the media hysteria continues, more and more, I feel what the situation is exposing is not the evilness of the Kremlin but our own gullibility, the sloppiness of our media, the irresponsibility of our politicians, and the greed of our PR industry." Take the British magazine The Spectator, whose end of November cover featured a caricature of Russia's president and the headline, "The Long Arm of Putin." The story didn't even engage other hypotheses than that the Kremlin was responsible for the poisoning. In one typical paragraph, the author wrote, "poisoning a British citizen on British soil demonstrates a new level of chutzpah even for the Putin regime."
In its editorial on November 25, the venerable Times of London demanded that "President Putin must prove by deeds that he is not linked to Mr. Litvinenko's murder."
In the United States, the Washington Times's Arnold Beichman trumpeted: "Meet today's Murder Inc. Headquartered in the Kremlin." Echoing the charge, the Times's Wesley Pruden wrote, "A hit job worthy of the KGB." Pruden went on to assert that "nearly everybody assumes that the Russian government probably with the assent, if not the encouragement, of Vladimir Putin, ordered the hit and assigned the hit man." The Wall Street Journal on November 26 announced that Russia is "the enemy of the United States," arguing that "Alexander Litvinenko's death is the latest in a series of killings, attempted murders, imprisonments and forced exiles whose victims just happened to be prominent opponents of Mr. Putin." And last weekend, the New York Post's headline told the world that it was "Putin's poison."
In more respected media outlets--such as the Washington Post--regular columnists Charles Krauthammer and Anne Applebaum were more sophisticated in their indictments. Nevertheless, they too concluded that Putin did it. "Well, you can believe," Krauthammer wrote, " in indeterminacy. Or you can believe the testimony delivered on the only reliable lie detector ever invented--the deathbed--by the victim himself, Litvinenko directly accused Putin of killing him" ("The Murder in London," 12/8/06). Applebaum, just a few days earlier, wrote: " But though it's doubtful that he ever gave an actual order to an actual thug, Putin is certainly responsible for Litvinenko's death in this deeper sense: He presides over this web of old intelligence operatives, indeed sits at its center. And he approves of their methods." A central piece of evidence: According to Applebaum, "One of his first acts as Prime Minister in 1999 was the unveiling of a plaque to Yuri Andropov."
What does it reveal about the Western media's standards that so many news organizations--even the most reputable--have rushed to confuse speculation and rumor-mongering with fact-based reporting? "It seems safe to say," wrote a Western commentator in Moscow news, "that the juridical dictum 'innocent until proven guilty' does not apply to Russia."
As the investigation unfolds, we're bound to see more media hype. Witness yesterday's New York Times article, "When an ex-KGB man says they're out to get him" (December 10).
But what is also emerging, as the investigation and radioactivity spread to Germany, is an alternative hypothesis, a counter-story--focusing on the business dealings of members of Russia's private security industry and the security (and health) risks posed by trafficking of the dangerous (and extremely valuable) radioactive isotope polonium 210.
(To its credit, the New York Times's William Broad--in two stories, "Polonium, $22.50 Plus tax," Dec. 3, 2006, and "US and Foreign Regulators Consider Tightening Controls on Deadly Polonium 210," Dec. 10--debunked the conventional media line that only the Kremlin had the wherewithal to administer a lethal dose. Broad writes that "public and private inquiries have shown that it proliferated quite widely during the nuclear era, of late as an industrial commodity.")
As an antidote to the media frenzy, it's been valuable to read investigative writer Edward Jay Epstein's blogs about the Litvinenko case. What sets him apart is his interest in cooly and rationally raising the questions that few are asking. On November 30, Epstein raised the question of whether it was murder--or an accident which, as he put it, is even "scarier." And in "The Polonium Puzzle: The Alternative Hypothesis," Epstein suggests the alternative hypothesis to murder: polonium smuggling--for profit rather than assassination.The real question we have to ask, Epstein says, is not who killed Litvinenko but how did it come about that he was exposed to a very rare isotope--one which is produced only in a few grams? In his latest blog, " A Diversion From Hell: The Polonium Mystery" (December 10), Epstein raises a whole new set of questions--specifically about the relationships Litvinenko had with his contaminated associates--that need to be answered in order to resolve the extraordinary mystery of the poisoned ex-spy.
Stay tuned.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Just curious, Christopher Hayes went after the "Bush and Cheney conspired to create 9/11" Paranoia Crowd....
why hasn't Ms vanden Heuvel with the same tenacity that she debunks THAT hysteria?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 12:12pm
It's not that much of a rush, in all fairness, and the fact that a possible alternative exists isn't sufficient justification to say that the "Russia Hypothesis" is a hasty judgment.
There are very legitimate reasons to believe that the Kremlin was involved. Putin opponents have been, as Krauthammer puts it, "dropping like flies"; one could theoretically pin that on coincidence, but such an explanation doesn't seem very credible. One could believe that this was an accident, but that of course is difficult to reconcile with Litvinenko's firm conviction that Putin was responsible for his death.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2006 @ 12:17pm
KVH
What does it reveal about the Western media's standards that so many news organizations--even the most reputable-- have rushed to confuse speculation and rumor-mongering with fact-based reporting? "It seems safe to say," wrote a Western commentator in Moscow news,
"that the juridical dictum 'innocent until proven guilty' does not apply to Russia'."
Nor does it apply to Bush, Cheney and Rummy or any other REP in this country.
I never ceased to be shocked by your hypocrisey.
Posted by CPT at 12/11/2006 @ 12:36pm
I just put CPT on ignore after forgetting to do it two days ago. He's like an eternal-loop tape recording seeping through from a parallel universe.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 1:02pm
.The real question we have to ask, Epstein says, is not who killed Litvinenko but how did it come about that he was exposed to a very rare isotope--one which is produced only in a few grams? In his latest blog, " A Diversion From Hell: The Polonium Mystery" (December 10), Epstein raises a whole new set of questions--specifically about the relationships Litvinenko had with his contaminated associates--that need to be answered in order to resolve the extraordinary mystery of the poisoned ex-spy.
i dont know...i kind of think that if we find out who did it, other questions will have light shed upon them...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 1:06pm
I just put CPT on ignore after forgetting to do it two days ago.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/11/2006 @ 1:02pm
FRB has more trouble with managing his "Ignore Button", than a 90 year old woman has programming her VCR!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 1:08pm
I just put CPT on ignore after forgetting to do it two days ago.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/11/2006 @ 1:02pm
FRB has more trouble with managing his "Ignore Button", than a 90 year old woman has programming her VCR!
hehe
Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 1:08pm
I have noticed the word management and FRb totaly opposite ..a sort of 2 different poles and are not congruent. He is just a kook plain, simple and ordinal kook, who is tolerated with smiles.
And never really read much any more..even some esteemed left bloggers appear to have him marginalized, if one reads their posts, or what appears to be responses to him...which is difficult and usually a waste.
Posted by john maasch at 12/11/2006 @ 1:49pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 1:49pm
I love the guy. He's actually nuttier than RESE in some ways.
1. His "on-again,off-again" "Ignoring" of me. Once, swear to God, he posted that he had just "re-set his screen" (!?!?!?) and saw a post I made and HAD to answer it, but then was going to immediately "put me back on Ignore".
2. The gloating posts of November 7th-about 10th, where he constantly informed me that I had LOST (despite the fact I had noted I voted a straight Dem ticket this year)....followed almost immediately by his endless posts SINCE then that "It doesn't matter if the Dems have Congress, they're no better than the Repubs!!!!" (indicating I guess, that he LOST as well...hehe)
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 2:07pm
Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 1:08pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 1:49pm
You picked the wrong ally, MAASCH. MASK, for about the last week, has been engaged in herculean efforts to overcome his tagging as a perpetual naysayer and general spreader of negativity vis a vis Democrats and liberals in an effort to get himself off the numerous ignore lists he is on. It's funny how facts slapping you in the face can do that. The ultimate purpose, of course, is to continue his perpetual naysaying and general negativity vis a vis Democrats and liberals in a revamped form.
You, on the other hand, will always remain stuck in a J. Edgar Hoover-style, early 50's, brain tumor-enhanced perspective on the world. You're probably on a lot less ignore lists simply because your most serious posts are just too damned funny to pass up.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 2:16pm
I have noticed the word management and FRb totaly opposite ..a sort of 2 different poles and are not congruent. He is just a kook plain, simple and ordinal kook, who is tolerated with smiles.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 1:49pm
? ? ?
God love 'em.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 2:17pm
. . even some esteemed left bloggers appear to have him marginalized, if one reads their posts . .
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/11/2006 @ 1:49pm
Who, exactly, are these esteemed left bloggers, MAASCH? Or, would you prefer to spare them the embarrassment of meeting with your approval?
Posted by fromredbird at 12/11/2006 @ 2:30pm
his tagging as a perpetual naysayer and general spreader of negativity vis a vis Democrats and liberals in an effort to get himself off the numerous ignore lists he is on.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/11/2006 @ 2:16pm
1st- Obviously FRB hasn't been reading HIS OWN posts lately and what HE has been saying about Democrats and how they're "no different than the Repubs".
2nd...HOW does he know this?...if he has me on "Ignore"?!?!?!?!?
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 3:00pm
BTW, think I figured out why Ms vanden Heuvel is onto this....
it's a flashback...to the ol' Cold War days.
"a counter-story--focusing on the business dealings of members of Russia's private security industry and the security (and health) risks posed by trafficking of the dangerous (and extremely valuable) radioactive isotope polonium 210."
See, like back then, it's not the fault of the leadership in the Kremlin (ahh, for an old fashioned 1980s "Reagan is a warmonger, Gorby is our hope and salvation" article....sigh!)...
it's "business" and "nuclear technology spread"!!!!
If only Putin were bald with a grape-stain on his forehead, he'd be MUCH more popular on the American punditry Left!
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 3:03pm
The "false flag" phenomenon which I relearned at this site some weeks ago courtesy of the much maligned Rese seems at least plausible in any tragic circumstance in these days of soap opera geo-political intrigue.
Posted by lewwelge at 12/11/2006 @ 3:50pm
The Washington Post may be more "respected," but I would hardly characterize its journalist Krauthammer that way. Case in point: his assertion about the "only reliable Lie Detector Test - the deathbed." It makes no sense in the context of not the alleged perpetrator but the victim being on that bed. And the victim has nothing to confess.
Posted by ash at 12/11/2006 @ 4:28pm
Nice point well taken Ash. Certainty is elusive for we the living, not for dem da dead.
Posted by lewwelge at 12/11/2006 @ 5:28pm
If only Putin were bald with a grape-stain on his forehead, he'd be MUCH more popular on the American punditry Left!
Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 3:03pm
All I can say is...Wow.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2006 @ 5:46pm
The Washington Post may be more "respected," but I would hardly characterize its journalist Krauthammer that way. Case in point: his assertion about the "only reliable Lie Detector Test - the deathbed." It makes no sense in the context of not the alleged perpetrator but the victim being on that bed. And the victim has nothing to confess.
Posted by ASH 12/11/2006 @ 4:28pm
I think this misses the point of Krauthammer's argument. The specific claim that he's preempting is that Litvinenko might have lied; he's saying that this isn't reasonable because Litvinenko will not receive any kind of gain from such a charge, seeing as he'll be dead either way.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2006 @ 5:48pm
I saw his wife, now widow speak on TV this evening and from it he doesn't come across as a self-martyring type, or even undue risk taker.
The investigator always poses the question "Who profits?" from the crime. Frankly, I see no upside to Putin's crowd doing it. What's more salient is that two spokespeople from the Carnegie Commission for World Peace (or something like that...I shit you not!) failed to mention the Russian woman progressive muckracking journalist assassinated mere weeks ago in Russia proper. Politskaya? KVH and Pollitt were all over that story, but now, kaput, nada, nadie. I don't get it. I'll bet there are some serious dots to connect.
Posted by lewwelge at 12/11/2006 @ 8:47pm
hey RESE, PLUNGER...i find this blog entry of ms kvh strange for some reason. maybe its post election change of pace.
maybe the nation is trying to distract people from the 9/11 stuff by conjuring up old style cold waresque intrigue...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 10:43pm
Mask's first comment made no sense. Does anyone understand what he was trying to say?
As for the rest of the crowd who feel that Bush and Cheney are being unjustly accused while Putin is getting away with murder, you need to look at the evidence. Bush and Cheney DID lie to get us to invade Iraq. They knew that there was no attempt to get uranium from Niger. They knew there was no contact between Hussein and al Qaeda. They knew that Iraq's military capability had been controlled by sanctions. They knew that there was a lot of disagreement about the validity of their "proofs" when they presented only their side to the Congress to vote on military action. Bush has admitted indulging in illegal surveillance of innocent people. Bush has boasted about illegal acquisition of banking records. Bush has said that he will convict, torture and imprison anyone he chooses without oversight by the courts. Bush has said that he is responsible for renditions of innocent people to places like Syria and Egypt where they are tortured. Bush has said that international law applies to other people but not to him. And so on.
With this amount of evidence, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they are innocent. They HAVE been proven guilty.
Posted by danmiller at 12/12/2006 @ 01:28am
i cant believe KVH or someone here has yet to comment on the passing of augusto pinochet...
not exactly a sweet victory...93...this is where my buddhist beliefs on rebirth give some comfort...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/12/2006 @ 07:04am
oops - 91
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/12/2006 @ 07:06am
Posted by DANMILLER 12/12/2006 @ 01:28am
DAN, my point was that Ms vanden Heuvel is rushing to defend Putin against conspiracy charges, but (unlike Christopher Hayes) has NEVER made the same arguments against the "9/11 Conspiracy" nuts.
Why?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 09:20am
Has anyone considered that John Le Carre or his publishers killed Litvinenko? What publicity! Has there been a story about the poisoning that is not prefaced by (what journalists must presume to be clever) asides about the Le Carre-esque aspects of the case? Pointing to what I believe is the real power behind the story, and what KVH hints at (even though she used the tired Le Carre line herself), Anglo-American love of clandestine intrigue and our need for bad guys, particularly one's housed in the Kremlin.
Posted by johnnytfras at 12/12/2006 @ 2:02pm
Right, but it's not like we're just going "some guy died...spooky....must have been the Kremlin!" There are actually strong circumstantial indicators that suggest this, including Litvinenko's own belief that Putin killed him, and the series of Putin opponents who have been killed recently.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/12/2006 @ 3:31pm
I agree that there are "strong circumstantial indicators" that point to the Russian government, but I don't think the story would have lead natiional news broadcasts if it did not involve trendy restaurants off Picadilly and former KGB officers.
Posted by johnnytfras at 12/12/2006 @ 3:43pm
I voted a straight Dem ticket this year
Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person
As Anyone wanting to boost the credibility of their arguments would necessarily do
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/12/2006 @ 3:45pm
I agree that there are "strong circumstantial indicators" that point to the Russian government, but I don't think the story would have lead natiional news broadcasts if it did not involve trendy restaurants off Picadilly and former KGB officers.
Posted by JOHNNYTFRAS 12/12/2006 @ 3:43pm
True, but it also might not have been as important. If the Russian government is systematically executing people who have opposed it, I would suggest that's pretty significant.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/12/2006 @ 5:51pm
Point, as George Smiley might have said, well taken.
Posted by johnnytfras at 12/12/2006 @ 6:30pm
All,
Whatever you may personally think of the people writing these articles this much is clear: This is a security issue to be taken very seriously(but not to panic of course). This substance is odorless, can not be detected with current scanning equipment at airports, is easier to carry around than cash, and to this point we are not sure how closely monitored and regulated this stuff is. Like the White House putting plans to make nuclear bombs on its website, the news has made it clear to terrorists how dangerous and perhaps how easy to obtain this stuff is.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/12/2006 @ 6:43pm
What about this hypothesis! After the debacle in Iraq, UK, USA and Israel are desperate for future oil and gas supplies. Their 'investments' in the Russian oil and gas industry using oligarchs as front men are being nationalised. The Yukos investigation is hotting up. Russia needs to be destabilised and one of their men put in. Therefore, shoot a few pro-demcracy activists especially those in the know about who controls some Russian banks. Find a witless man who has been paid to be anti-Putin, all the better if he has just been granted British citizenship to make more of a fuss. And then poison him in a slow and excruciating fashion splashing his photo across obsequious newspapers and don't forget to contaminate lots of other people to make it so much more dramatic. A few Europeans would be helpful. But, before all of this, of course, splash plutonium everywhere leaving a trail of polonium that goes to Putin's front door. And last but not least, get rid of any 'loose' ideas on the Internet.
Posted by relheri at 12/12/2006 @ 8:12pm
And we care because? Yes, so maybe Putin didn't do it, but it's an ex spy so let's assume he did and get back to real issues. Plus, Russia is acting like another third world scumbag by forcing Shell to give up some of it's revenues. First off let me make this clear - I'm a registered Mass democrat, not another republican heckler. I actually find it amusing that this forum will denounce the "9/11 truth" movement as detracting from the credibility of dissent and then the most inspiring voice of this magazine will step in and defend Russia in the name of innocent until proven guilty. Are we really supposed to believe only the Bush administration is capable of sleazy public/private collaboration to perform the unethical and illegal?
Another issue - each and every time a country forces a company that came in to explore energy to renegotiate their contracts, they basically are throwing away their obligations and stealing it from the oil companies. I may not like big oil, but I'd rather big oil paying the money to it's industrialised world shareholders than to Middle East and Latin American regimes, so that it gets spent here and taxed here. It's the same way Fair Trade just goes to increase the deficit - we need to stop the hemorraging of our country's wealth and use what strength is left to enforce the social goals the Democrats have always had - health care, fair wages here, and see the resurgence of labor. You don't do that making Jordan treat their modern day slaves better, you do that by tariffs that makes it useless for them to import them in the first place.
Posted by cammycam at 12/12/2006 @ 9:52pm
I have to wonder what might have become of this story if Valerie Plame had been allowed to continue in her work tracking the marketing of radioactive isotopes.
Posted by toddlo at 12/12/2006 @ 11:04pm
Posted by TODDLO 12/12/2006 @ 11:04pm
!!!
Posted by drhammer at 12/13/2006 @ 07:20am
The ultraright Pennsylvania jurist Michael Musmanno, who served as muse to Nino Scalia, memorably scouted the hearsay exception for dying declarations. Yet how often, in fiction, does the victim inscribe the killer's name on the wall in the medium of his own blood! And who murdered Politkovskaya? Meanwhile, when out of court -- and journalism is very much out of court -- the presuption of innocence doesn't apply, and anyhow presumptions are rebuttable. Does anyone suppose KGB loyalist Putin is morally or intellectually above murdering his critics? At present he needn't -- nobody in Russia cares about the opposition -- but that never stopped Stalin or any other modern dictator. On the other hand, LeCarré wouldn't let it end that way, and he seems to have written the whole script to this point.
Posted by dhdunlap at 12/13/2006 @ 08:20am
The critique of the press on the Litvinenko affair is pertinent and to the point. Where KvdH needs to be corrected is in referring to the 'venerable' Times of London. This paper hasn't been venerable for quarter of a century. Since Murdoch bought it from the previous owner its standards have declined piteably and most of its journalism is third-rate. Fox TV may be the vanguard of the Empire of Sleaze and Propaganda, but the newspapers aren't all that far behind.
Posted by c-tariqali at 12/13/2006 @ 5:33pm
Frankly, I have had my doubts about the string of assassinations credited to Putin in Russia, and Syria in Lebanon. I rather suspect these murders are designed as disinformation campaigns against Russia and Syria. They are too overt. However, I want to see real evidence and not conjecture.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/14/2006 @ 2:36pm
Ms. VD Heuven, again demonstates that she does not know the difference between polonium 210 and pultonium 239.
Ms. VDH wants other to check their facts, where is she checking her's, with Putin??? What smuggling of Po210 is she refering to??? Any facts, or is this just more of that stuff she likes to put out, and pretend that hers has no oder.
Posted by rwe9 at 12/16/2006 @ 9:20pm
Concerning the theory that the killing of Litventenko was a "disinformation" campaign by others to embarrass Putin. There are a few problems with this theory, one Po 210 has a half life of 3 days, and can only be made in a nuclear reactor, when you have some Po handy. These are just the things that dissidents keep in their frig. How many dissidents have access to a nuclear reactor, Po, and the ability to deliver it before it is gone? Very very few.
Not a very good dissident item, but if you have a few handy reactors, and lots of scientists, as does Russia under Putin's control, then not so hard. Remember your nuclear physics, half of the radioactivity is gone every 3 days. Forgot, you never took nuclear physics, you were too stupid, but qualified to believe the Russian government is not behind this. Again demonstrating that annoying stupidity.
But, you won't let it bother you, that you are too stupid to understand that the "disinformation" against Russia or Putin, is about as technically possible as is "cold fusion." Oh, you believe in that also. Sorry, just have trouble lowering my comments to your level of ignorance, and stupidity in reasoning. But, don't let your limitations bother you, everyone has a right to their opinion. But, that doesn't make every stupid and baseless opinion true.
Get it??? Didn't think you would, but can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That's an analogy for your ____________(fill in the blank), get it now???? Still no, well work on it, I don't do physics or politics in baby talk for a 2 year old level of understanding and intelligence.
Posted by rwe9 at 12/16/2006 @ 9:39pm