A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.

            Now it is pretty clear that the American people should have known about this effort because our interests are obviously involved if Pakistan’s nukes are not secure.  But we are not told why secrecy was necessary lest “premature disclosure . . . hurt the effort to secure the weapons,” and no obvious or overriding reason presents itself to this writer’s mind.

            On the contrary, perhaps public knowledge would have led to greater public and congressional pressure to do even more and to do it faster.  This is especially so because there are a lot of people who have thought that the Pakistani political situation is not just currently unstable but has long been a disaster-in-waiting, and because some “American officials and nuclear experts . . . were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable.”  As well, had the public and Congress known of the matter, maybe Congress would have removed the impediments of American law, and/or maybe smart nongovernmental lawyers would have given the public and Congress reasons why domestic and international law did not stop us from aiding in securing the Pakistani weapons.  The Times’ own article points out that such legal impediments were able to be circumvented in the past with regard to various other countries, and one would bet the same could have been done here.  The secrecy smacks a lot more of the current Executive’s penchant for secrecy whenever possible than of true legal impedimenta.  By bending the knee, the Times may have made the situation worse than it need have been.

            This possibility is further advanced by a front page Wall Street Journal attitude of November 29th, eleven days after the Times broke the story.  (The Journal did not say it had been sitting on the story, so one assumes -- rightly? -- that it learned of it from the Times’ article and then began its own investigation.)  The Journal said that the Pakis (as the Brits call them) are particularly concerned about fervid Muslim fundamentalists who have “‘extreme thoughts’” or “are inclined to force their religious beliefs upon others.”  The threat is increasingly pronounced because of “a rising tide of young people inclined to be more religiously conservative -- and spurred by the U.S. led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more anti-American.  That includes the college campuses that are most likely to supply recruits to the nuclear program.  ‘You can improve physical security by building high walls and establishing a well-guarded perimeter.  It’s much harder to defend against insiders,’” says Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former assistant secretary of state for weapons and nonproliferation . . . . “Critics say religious conservatism gripping the applicant pool makes it too difficult to discern potentially dangerous zealots.  ‘It’s a source of worry that the secret institutions are seized with religious fervor,’ says Pervez Hoodbhoy, chairman of the physics department at Quaid-e-Azam University, a large source of scientists for Pakistan’s nuclear program.

            Moreover, the Journal says that “In late 2001, acting on tips from U.S. intelligence, Pakistan detained two of its retired nuclear scientists who had met with members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including Mr. bin Laden.”  One, “who remains under house arrest, had sketched a rough diagram of a nuclear bomb for Mr. bin Laden . . .” although “Pakistan intelligence agents later described the drawing as absurdly basic.”  (How they know that to definitely be true is not disclosed.)

            As well, the Journal says that “Pakistan’s hardline Islamic parties have vigorously promoted the nation’s nuclear program as a way for Muslim countries to combat American hegemony -- and don’t share the government’s concern about the kind of security lapses that alarm the U.S. . . . At Quaid-e-Azam University, the nuclear critic Mr. Hoodbhoy says his students are more radical than a previous generation.  They have come up through an education system that increasingly stresses Islamic ritual and came of age in a charged political environment.  There’s widespread sympathy for those fighting Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, he adds, although most wouldn’t want to live under a Taliban-like regime.”

            Now, all of this is enough to worry any American, and presumably could have been learned and become a subject of discussion in America a long time ago had the Times not bent the knee and withheld the story for three years.  The information casts further doubt on George Bush’s misadventure in Iraq, which is fueling the problem, and could even cause one to say, if one wishes, that we went after the wrong enemies entirely when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we should stop those disasters before middle easterners turn even more against us.  Or maybe one should say that the real enemies, and the truly dangerous ones, are people the imbecile in the White House and his worse-than-that Vice President choose to call allies.  I really don’t know.  What I do believe, however, is that the problem of nukes in Pakiland is a big one, and our efforts to see that they are secured against misuse is something that should have been under public discussion for a long time, and could have been under public and Congressional discussion for awhile had the Times not bent the knee yet again to King George and his minions.

            As well, the latest disclosure of Art and Bill on bended knee raises another question which has been asked here before.  What other stories is the Times sitting on instead of disclosing, and how important are they to the safety and well being of this country?  Nobody seems to be asking this question, let alone applying pressure for the Times -- in the absence of re-examination which confirms overriding reasons for secrecy -- to reveal what it knows about matters that are secret from the rest of us.  Isn’t it high time [no pun intended] that writers began to raise questions about the Times’ penchant for secrecy, and began to bring pressure for disclosures of matters currently hidden from the public and thereby immunized from discussion?  Doesn’t history indicate that raising questions and bringing pressure about this would be wise?*