Sibel Edmonds, NSA Spying, State Secrets and Kafka

There's been a lot of outrage these last couple of days about the absurd court hearings in the NSA spying cases where the US government basically said to the court 'Yeah, we could tell you, but we'd have to kill you.'

None of this comes as a surprise to me because I've been following the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds for a number of years.

As I've been saying, Sibel has been the canary in this coal mine since 2002.

In many ways, Sibel's situation regarding State Secrets is much worse than what we've seen this week. For starters, her passport, drivers license and birth certificate all contain Top Secret information.

Let's first review the court cases pertaining to illegal spying this week.

Super Blogger Scott Horton gives a representative overview

Beyond Kafka
In Franz Kafka’s novel "The Trial", Josef (Kafka) awakens one morning to discover that he has been charged with a crime. He never really ascertains what the crime is—apparently it’s secret, or what the court is before which he is to be brought, which apparently is also secret. And he’s not sure if he really has a lawyer, either, though people appear from time to time claiming to be that. At the core of the novel is the parable “Before the Law,” in which we learn that the law, itself, is a secret, so he may never know what it is. Now this could be the fantasy world of Franz Kafka. Or it could be the legal world which George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales are very busy crafting in America this very day.

Consider this report of a trial proceeding in Kafkaesque absurdity, which is to say, in accordance with Bush Administration secrecy notions, in San Francisco. Coverage courtesy of Wired magazine:

2:20pm PDT

Judge Harry Pregerson suggests the government is asking the courts to “rubber stamp” the government’s claim that state secrets are at risk “Who decides whether something is a state secret or not? ... We have to take the word of the members of the executive branch that something is a state secret?”

[U.S. Attorney] Garre counters that the courts should give “utmost deference” to the Bush Administration.

Judge Pregerson: “What does utmost deference mean? Bow to it?”

2:30pm PDT

All three judges are giving Garre skeptical questions about the power of the state secrets privilege. They’re also getting stonewalled a bit.

“Was a warrant obtained in this case?” Judge Pregerson asks.

“That gets into matters that were protected by state secrets,” Garre replies.

2:45pm PDT

Judge McKeown asks whether the government stands by President Bush’s statements that purely-domestic communications, where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitored without warrants.

“Does the government stand behind that statement,” McKeown asks.

Garre: “Yes, your honor.”

But Garre says the government would not be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect for the court record.

Pregerson, by his record, is the most liberal judge on the panel, and he clearly thinks the government is just looking for a blank check for their secret program. But the other two judges aren’t thrilled either. They seem perplexed that the government attorney can’t swear under oath that the Bush Administration isn’t warrantlessly spying on domestic phone calls.

Note the core: whether the Government is breaking the law is a “state secret.” This will, I believe, be used by historians as a hallmark for the entire Gonzales Justice Department: the use of the state secrets doctrine to cloak criminal conduct. The question now is whether we still have judges with a spinal column.

More from Wired:

Expanding on that theme, the government argues that the Al-Haramain case needs to be thrown out because the secret document that the government accidentally gave the foundation is so secret that it is outside of the case.

Bondy claims the plaintiff's memories of the document can't be allowed into the case because the only way to test them is against the "totally classified" document.

"Once the document is out of the case, which it has to be since it is privileged, the only way to test the veracity of their recollections is to compare it to the document," Bondy says.

The lower court allowed the case to go forward based on the Al-Haramain Foundation lawyers' memories of the document, but ruled that the document itself was not allowed into the case.

Judge Hawkins wonders if the document is really that secret?

"Every ampersand, every comma is Top Secret?," Hawkins asks.

"This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described," Bondy answers.

The government says the purported log of calls between one of the Islamic charity directors and two American lawyers is classified Top Secret and has the SCI level, meaning that it is "secure compartmented information." That designation usually applies to surveillance information.

4:25pm PDT

Judge McKeown: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland."

Eisenberg: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland, too."

Now, let me highlight some differences between this particular case (I'll call it 'NSA' for simplicity) and Sibel's case (in no particular order):
1. If I'm not mistaken, Sibel's case was the first invocation of State Secrets Privilege (SSP) by the Bush administration. We are now approaching 30 invocations.

2. The NSA case arguably does involve State Secrets. The NSA case is ostensibly trying to protect sources and methods which ostensibly pertain to national security (even though the activity might be criminal). In Sibel's case, the SSP was invoked purely to hide self-serving criminal activity by "high-level officials." Further, the NSA case has essentially been a secret since it began. In Sibel's case, the details weren't even considered classified until the Attorney General invoked the SSP and retroactively classified the information.

3. In the NSA case, the plaintiffs (and reporters, and bloggers) were actually in the court to hear the government lawyers spout their nonsense. In Sibel's case, the public and the press were kicked out of court before her (ACLU) lawyers could present her case. Even worse, after Sibel and her lawyers presented their case, they were kicked out of court so that the government could argue its case in private.

4. In the NSA case, the judges are skeptical, to the point of hinting that they might give an adverse ruling. In Sibel's case, the judge ruled in favour of the government, stating 'I know this is draconian, but who am I to argue with the government on matters related to national security?'

5. In Sibel's case, the State Secrets Privilege specifically classified much of her personal history:
a) her date of birth
b) her place of birth
c) the languages she speaks
d) the universities she attended
e) the university degrees she attained
f) the fact that she worked as a translator at the FBI
g) the fact that she was fired from the FBI

6. (etc)

Sibel's drivers license, her birth certificate and her passport are all therefore classified Top Secret.

So, yep, let's focus on the outrages of the NSA case and the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege, but let's also remember that Sibel's case is Ground Zero for abuse of State Secrets Privilege. If we didn't let them get away with it in her case, they probably wouldn't dare attempt the stunts we saw yesterday.

Check out the folly of her situation in this YouTube



Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list for new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list.')

Sibel Edmonds' case and the heroin connection

Everyone is talking about "How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad" in yesterday's NYT - but what stands out for me is that in a 7-page article on Afghanistan, there's not one mention of heroin, opium, or even poppies.

As a companion piece to the NYT article about losing the 'good war,' I strongly suggest that you read this recent article by former UK Ambassador to Uzebekistan, Craig Murray from late last month. Murray explains that Afghanistan is run by drug lords.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds often points to the fact that whenever the media does mention the heroin industry, they almost never go beyond reporting about the poor farmers in the Afghan poppy fields. Sibel asks the leading question: "Who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?"

Before I proceed, let's start with a little background into Sibel's case. When Sibel worked as a translator for the FBI, one of the main cases she was working on was a counter-intelligence operation against Turkey's equivalent of AIPAC, the American Turkish Council (ATC). On the Turkish side, the ATC is (largely) represented by Turkey's "Deep State – the politicians, military officers and intelligence officials who worked with drug bosses to move drugs from Afghanistan..." (On the American side, the ATC is represented by the 'Defense' contractors, and Turkey's American lobbyists - people like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, former House Speaker Bob Livingston, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, former Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and others.)

Now, we've all heard the statistics that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world's opium etc - but what many people don't know is that most of that opium is imported into Turkey where it is transformed, on an industrial scale, into heroin. It is warehoused on an industrial scale, repackaged and marketed on an industrial scale, and re-exported on an industrial scale.

As Sibel says:

"This multi billion-dollar industry requires highly sophisticated networks and people. So, who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?
[snip]
These operations are run by mafia groups closely controlled by the MIT (Turkish Intelligence Agency) and the military. According to statistics compiled in 1998, Turkey’s heroin trafficking brought in $25 billion in 1995 and $37.5 billion in 1996. That amount makes up nearly a quarter of Turkey’s GDP. Only criminal networks working in close cooperation with the police and the army could possibly organize trafficking on such a scale. The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks.

In other words, the folks who supply much of the world's heroin break bread (and share lots of dough) with their American counterparts at places like the American Turkish Council.

Sibel says that there are at least four people in Congress that she knows of who are being bribed by the Turkish gang, and according to Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, they also have "spies... inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."

In Craig Murray's article, he notes all of the impressive statistics regarding Afghanistan's opium production - 2006 beat the previous record by 60%, and this year promises to be stronger still - and then he makes two important points. Firstly, he says that all of the 'value-add' activity that was previously performed in Turkey (turning poppies into heroin) is now conducted within Afghanistan. We don't know whether this is a massive shift in the underlying structure of the industry, or whether the incumbent gangs that Sibel refers to have simply decided to 'off-shore' their production from Turkey to Afghanistan. I suspect that it is the latter, simply because we haven't seen the type of blood-bath that we would expect to see if there was a serious turf-war taking place.

From Murray's piece:

" According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

(FTR, I have seen no evidence for Murray's claim that Afghanistan is now primarily exporting heroin rather than opium)

The second point that Murray makes is that this activity takes place with the the active participation of the authorities, just as Sibel said was the case in Turkey.

Murray:

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.

More Murray:

He became concerned at the vast amounts of heroin coming from Afghanistan, in particular from the fiefdom of the (now) Head of the Afghan armed forces, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, in north and east Afghanistan.

Dostum is an Uzbek, and the heroin passes over the Friendship Bridge from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it is taken over by President Islam Karimov's people...

The heroin Jeeps run from General Dostum to President Karimov. The UK, United States and Germany have all invested large sums in donating the most sophisticated detection and screening equipment to the Uzbek customs centre at Termez to stop the heroin coming through.

But the convoys of Jeeps running between Dostum and Karimov are simply waved around the side of the facility.

More Murray:

"In Afghanistan, General Dostum (Head of the Afghan armed forces)is vital to Karzai's coalition, and to the West's pretence of a stable, democratic government.

Opium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east – Dostum's territory. Again, our Government's spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.

That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. "

None of this information was included in the NYT's 7 page article on how we 'lost' Afghanistan.

In fact, in a fantastic recent interview, Sibel wonders aloud whether the media silence is intentional:

"Who prevents the media, or is it happening, from publishing the real facts? The Turks, their involvement, UAE and their position in laundering this money, Pakistan and narcotics. It's saying "Oops! They are our 'allies' and we don't want to touch them. We don't want to turn them off." In fact, we have a lot of business, "sensitive diplomatic relations", as John Ashcroft put it."

As if to prove Sibel's point, just last week, ABC's blog The Blotter reported:

Heroin Found in Car Allegedly Owned by Top Afghan Border Official

A manhunt is on in Afghanistan for the man President Hamid Karzai wanted to name head of his country's border police, ABC News has learned, following the discovery that the official owned a car filled with heroin intercepted by members of the Kabul City Criminal Investigations Division.

U.S. authorities confirmed the seizure of 130 kilograms of heroin in June in a car that allegedly belonged to Haji Zahir Qadir, the former chief of the border police for northern Takhar province.

Haji Zahir was not in the car when it was intercepted. His cousin and "right hand," Bilal, was present and arrested.

Afghan officials say Karzai wanted to name Haji Zahir to head the border police, but a U.S. military intelligence assessment obtained by ABC News in 2006 named Zahir as a drug smuggler.

News of the seizure and the manhunt came at a most embarrassing time for Karzai, who was at Camp David with President George Bush to meet on regional issues, including the upsurge in violence in Afghanistan and cross-border issues with Pakistan.

The information fed to The Blotter was apparently designed to cause some embarrassment (coming 6 weeks after the event), but it wasn't very embrassing at all. As best as I could tell, ABC's blog entry was the only mention of this story at all, anywhere (1,2,3).

For more on my coverage of the heroin angle of Sibel's case, see Sibel Edmonds: America's Watergate, Sibel Edmonds & the Neocons' Turkish Gravy-Train, and Daniel Ellsberg: Hastert got suitcases of Al Qaeda heroin cash, should be in jail.

I'll give Craig Murray the final word:

"Remember this article next time you hear a politician calling for more troops to go into Afghanistan. And when you hear of another brave British life wasted there, remember you can add to the casualty figures all the young lives ruined, made miserable or ended by heroin in the UK.

They, too, are casualties of our Afghan policy."

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list for new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list.')

Henry Waxman finally speaks out on Sibel Edmonds Case!

For months we have been trying to get Henry Waxman to hold hearings into the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds but we have been met with a stony silence.

Until now!

The Hollywood Liberal snagged an interview with Henry Waxman and asked about Sibel's case.

The full interview is 25 mins long. I've posted the relevant 3-minute audio snippet here.

Transcript:

Hollywood Liberal: From what I understand Ms. Edmonds was a translator and an FBI whistleblower and uncovered a case that involved The American Turkish Council who is Turkey’s main lobbying group in the US. Turkey receives Billions of dollars in aid from the US. The case involves vast corruption at the State Department including drug running, trading state secrets, arms trading, and the trading of Nuclear information and implicates, according to Ms. Edmonds, Neocons like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Dennis Hastert, The ATC, AIPAC, and Democratic and Republican congressmen. From what I understand you promised to hold hearings into this matter, those hearings have not happened. Will they? And if not why not?

Henry Waxman: Wow! (laughs) That's one hell of a conspiracy theory you've got there. Can you please slow down a bit and repeat that? (laughs) I think, if I heard you correctly, you just said that Perle, Feith, Hastert and AIPAC are involved in, what did you say? Drug running, arms trading and the nuclear black market market (laughs)? Well, if you and/or Sibel have any evidence of this I'd sure like to hear about it!!! That certainly sounds like a job for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee! If you can provide me with any witnesses or documents or anything, we'll have the hearings as soon as possible! If what you say is true, then these people should be held accountable! This sounds like treason!

Actually, that exchange didn't really happen. I fabricated Waxman's entire response. The fictional response would have been appropriate though, don't you think? But that's not how he responded.

Here is the actual exchange:

Hollywood Liberal: From what I understand Ms. Edmonds was a translator and an FBI whistleblower and uncovered a case that involved The American Turkish Council who is Turkey’s main lobbying group in the US. Turkey receives Billions of dollars in aid from the US. The case involves vast corruption at the State Department including drug running, trading state secrets, arms trading, and the trading of Nuclear information and implicates, according to Ms. Edmonds, Neocons like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Dennis Hastert, The ATC, AIPAC, and Democratic and Republican congressmen. From what I understand you promised to hold hearings into this matter, those hearings have not happened. Will they? And if not why not?

Henry Waxman: I don’t recall that I ever said that I was going to hold hearings on her specific case.... But I really don’t particularly have a comment on her case.

Hollywood Liberal: Would you consider holding hearings on what she has to say based on the fact that she was with the State Department, or the FBI, pretty high up, pretty credible witness.

Henry Waxman: I know my staff has been in touch with her case, and maybe with her, and her supporters. I don’t want to say at this point that we are going to hold a hearing on her specific issue. There are lots and lots of matters to pursue for matters of investigation of oversight. And we are working as hard as we can. We’ll look at in the context of all the other issues we want to pursue.

For the record, as an aside, immediately prior to Waxman saying 'I don't recall,' this exchange took place:

"Hollywood Liberal: And there seems to be a lot of this “I don’t recall” going on with members of the Bush Administration isn’t there?

Henry Waxman: Absolutely Alberto Gonzalez is the best example of a man who uses that exact excuse over and over again."

Heh.

I've put together a youtube video with some of Sibel's substantive comments, with Waxman's weasely statements juxtaposed against Alberto Gonzales' recent 'I don't recall' testimony. Is it a cheap shot? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm furious, disgusted, and don't care at this point.

But consider my fictitious, hypothetical response that Waxman could have delivered, and compare it with his actual response. That dog didn't bark.



Here are Sibel's extended comments that I used in the video:

Some respected, great Representatives, Democratic Congressmen, have expressed interest in my case. The leader of that group was Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and I briefed his staff several times, by giving them the same details I gave five years ago to the Judiciary Committee. They obtained the classified version of the Inspector General’s report two years ago and they were outraged. I have several letters from Congressman Waxman saying he finds these actions against me and these gag orders stunning and that he would hold hearings into my case if it wasn't for the Republicans preventing a hearing from taking place on my case.

Well, in January, after we went through the change [in Congress], Congressman Waxman is now Chairman Waxman and there is no power within Congress that can prevent him from holding this hearing. He has the jurisdiction, the authority to put the hearing there, and I have already obtained the consent and names of conscientious, good agents. One of them was the head of the Turkish counter-intelligence operations who actually retired two years ago. They’re all willing to come forward and testify on all the issues I have been gagged on. And that gag doesn’t work in Congress during a hearing.

So in January, after the election results, especially since we have such a great Chairman today, 30 organizations have put together this petition addressed to Chairman Waxman saying you have been promising us for the past five years. These are major organizations, and we call them transpartisan, because there are organizations from the right, organizations from the left, organizations that are whistleblower-related such as the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the Government Accountability Project (GAP), the National Whistleblower Center, human rights organizations, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), civil liberties-related organizations such as the American Civil Liberties union (ACLU). We have 30 solid organizations that came together and put together this petition, addressed to Chairman Waxman, saying 'You have been promising us for the past five years.'

According to the ACLU, there has been no case of an American citizen who has had so many gag orders issued on her.

We also had 15,000 citizens sign the petition, and we had these 30 organizations, and they delivered it to Chairman Waxman’s office in March 2007, just over a month ago. And based on the office’s own report, tens of thousands of people in the past 3-4 weeks have called to say, well, when are you going to hold a hearing?

But we have received no response and we don’t know why. None of these organizations know why, because Waxman's office has all the facts, they have all the confirmation, they have the IG report, they have the executive branch’s own report saying she’s credible and her allegations have been supported by other witnesses and documents. We are not talking about allegations. We are talking about facts, documented and witnessed facts.

And I still believe that the Americans who care about their rights, their country, can make this happen. Maybe it hasn’t happened because one of the factors that is not present there is the mainstream media. We know the mainstream media has such influence over the Congress, whatever makes the headlines. If issue ABC is in the headlines right now, I Congresswoman, Congressman am going to hold a hearing and get facetime and media time and attention - sometimes for good reasons, I'm not saying for negative reasons, but media has not paid attention.

Maybe Congress is not finding it worthy of their attention despite all these severe consequences because the media isn’t there.

The citizens can change this, the constituents of Chairman Henry Waxman in California, in the LA area, can change that. They can say, you represent us, you represent our interests, and you are the chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Government Reform. Well, this is about bringing reform into Government, this is about reforming the wrongdoings in our government, and the price is being paid by every citizen.

So after not hearing back from Chairman Waxman through this petition and 30 organizations, I’m trying to reach out to those constituents in California, I’m trying to reach out to all citizens in this country and say, forget about me, this is not about Sibel Edmonds. Let’s go to the core issues: What was it that I reported that caused all these gag orders and firings and threats? What was it? What I reported had nothing to do with me. It had to do with the interests of the American public being stomped upon. It had to do with those who have been elected and given authority betraying the citizens. It had to do with those people who are using their positions in the executive branch agencies to obtain lucrative early retirement positions afterwards as representatives of foreign interests, and not afterwards - and this is very important: In order to obtain it afterwards they had to serve those foreign interests while they were working and had those positions. That's how they earn those future positions, that's how it happens. In every single one of them, that’s how it happens. You start serving the interests of outside foreign influences before you obtain your positions afterwards and say bye to your civil service career. And that is, especially in some cases, criminal. That is not something that should be tolerated by this country, and we need to set an example of those people.

We have the facts, we have the documents, we have the witnesses, and it’s time to do it. So stand up and call Chairman Waxman’s office, keep calling until you get an answer on when the hearing will take place. For each citizen it may cost four minutes. But the benefit to this country, and the number of issues that we are going to shed light on, is way worth it. And if it was not, they would not have gone this far to gag it. I have been fighting very hard, but you need to pay attention to the fact they have been fighting very hard, too.

This is unprecedented. If I am the most gagged woman in the history of this country, and if they have gone as far as invoking the States Secrets Privilege, the issue is important enough. So for anyone who may say, well, how do I know this case is credible? I’ll tell you that there is a report, there are statements from bipartisan senators, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Congressman Waxman. And these are all on the record statements establishing the credibility of the case. The credibility has been established. The importance of this case has been established. Our government has taken unprecedented steps to silence and coverup this case. That should tell the American public how important this case is.

Call Chairman Waxman and write to him and do not stop until we have this hearing in place, and we have the agents testifying. I’m going to emphasize two things here: a) that they testify on oath, and b) that the hearings be public. I have had some hearings, and they have been behind closed doors in the Congress. I have briefed them. They already have this information, that's the point I'm trying to make here. They have the information. I have given this information to Chairman Waxman, to Senator Grassley, to Senator Leahy. It’s the American public’s turn to hear about this.

It’s possible that in light of the Chairman’s decision to hold a hearing, the government comes in and says it has to be in closed session and not in public because these are classified issues. But they’re not. If that happens, we won’t get anywhere because then it’s futile. I would not even be willing to testify because I have already done so. Five years ago I gave them testimony behind closed doors. So did other witnesses. It’s time to have open, public hearings and have people under oath. I will testify under oath, and the consequences of lying are severe.

So let’s make this happen, and let’s say that when all channels we rely upon — be it the courts and the Congress and the executive branch and the mainstream media — fail us, we still should move forward and not stop, and reach out to the American public, and make it happen. I hope we can do it, because not being able to do it sends a very bad, awful message to our children and our grandchildren, to say that active citizenry is dead in this country, and that either nothing comes out of it, or people don't care and don't do it.

We take pride in being Americans, and lovers and supporters of freedom - let's show that we can do it despite the fact that we don't have these four channels.

There is Chairman Waxman, an honourable individual, an established case, now we just need the public to say "Let's do it"

Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list for new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list.')

(see also Phil Giraldi's "Waxman’s Witness Protection Program")

Sibel Edmonds: Governments lie outrageously behind closed doors

If you have been following my posts these last couple of weeks you will notice some overlap in this youtube video - but today I wanted to focus on the fact that Sibel and her lawyers were literally thrown out of court in the midst of her own court case.

For some background, in the intro/setup, Sibel says:

"I had taken the oath to protect my new country, against all enemies, and this was my chance to serve my country. I assumed the enemy was foreign...

Within a few months, I came across some serious issues. Wrongdoing. Some of those would be considered criminal, within the FBI. Some of those involved security breaches, 911 related cover-ups, and sabotaged intelligence operations. In one case, due to the pressure of the State Dept and Pentagon, the FBI was prevented from criminally investigating certain US officials who were engaged in actions against our national security, having loyalties to other governments."

In this snippet of the video, Sibel also describes how her Date of Birth is classified under States Secrets Privilege, as is her country of birth. The fact that she was fired from the FBI is consider a State Secret. All in the name of protecting us from Teh Terrorists.

In the video, Sibel also describes how her ACLU attorney described in court that Sibel's case has been confirmed by the FBI, and by the Depart of Justice, confirmed by witnesses and documents.

Regarding getting kicked out of court, Sibel says

"We don't know what (the govt) told the judges... As far as we know they could give the most outrageous lies. There was no-one there to challenge them, so they could (lie) and we assume they did!"

Given all that, how much faith do you have in the behind-closed-doors-hearings in the Kontogiannis hearing from yesterday? (For those of you who aren't familiar with the case, see emptywheel, Laura Rozen, Mark Levey, Josh Marshall.)

For some perspective, the SDUT reported:
"It's almost Orwellian double-speak,” said Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “They say, 'We need secrecy, but the reason we need secrecy is also secret, so we can't tell you.' "

Yeah, it's almost Orwellian double-speak.

The fact that they kicked everyone out of the court isn't the only similarity with Sibel's case - as emptywheel noted:

"Now, the problem here, for District Court Larry Burns is that the government didn't say the contents of those hearings were classified until recently. Which is why we're at the Appeals Court in the first place."

As I noted last week:

"In a recent speech, Sibel again emphasized that the reason that she has been gagged is not for reasons of national security, but rather to cover-up criminality, treason, by high level US officials.

As evidence for this claim, Sibel explained that for the three months prior to Ashcroft blanket-gagging her case, the FBI was conducting unclassified briefings for Congress on the case.

In other words, from the beginning, neither Congress, nor the FBI, even considered that this information might be classified, let alone a 'national security' issue."

Kossack jennyjem in a comment to a recent diary of mine summed it up well:

"Let me get this straight

The FBI isn't denying the wrong doing, but they aren't doing anything about it. Congress agrees laws were violated, but they can't talk about it. The courts won't hear the case in the name of 'national security,' although it is evident that the cover-up has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering-up criminal activity. Am I really understanding this?

Where is justice? Where are the checks and balances for this outlaw administration? Who upholds the law in America? I would laugh if I didn't feel like vomiting.

You can bet your boots Henry's getting a call from me. This is a national disgrace."

That's about right. If you agree, Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list for new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list.' (If you think you should already be on the list but haven't heard from me, please try again. googlemail ate some of my homework))

How many others?

Here is the video of Sibel saying that her case was considered unclassified by congress & FBI until Ashcroft slapped the gag order on everything to do with her case. The video also includes Sibel saying that there are four congresspeople that are being bribed by the Turkish interests, and her Special Agent pointing out that if Sibel knows of four, just from the Turkish desk, how many others must there be?

Sibel Edmonds: I assumed the enemy was foreign

I've put together a quick 5 minute highlight reel of a recent speech by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds from the American Library Association conference

The intro is:

"I had taken the oath to protect my new country, against all enemies, and this was my chance to serve my country. I assumed the enemy was foreign...

Within a few months, i came across some serious issues. Wrongdoing. Some of those would be considered criminal, within the FBI. Some of those involved security breaches, 911 related cover-ups, and sabotaged intelligence operations. In one case, due to the pressure of the State Dept and Pentagon, the FBI was prevented from criminally investigating certain US officials who were engaged in actions against our national security, having loyalties to other governments."

The video isn't supposed to be representative of Sibel's entire speech (which you can see here) but rather I've just captured a few snippets about the efforts that Sibel has gone to in the past 6 years to get some accountability.

The FBI repeatedly investigated Sibel's claims (Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)) and found them to be valid ("Confirmed all, denied none") therefore the Executive Branch simply gagged her.

Sibel then went to Congress which also investigated her case. They found all her claims to be valid, supported by FBI agents and documents, therefore the Executive Branch gagged Congress.

The senators who had investigated, and confirmed, Sibel's case were outraged, and then complied with the gag order.

Sibel then went to the courts. Sibel and her attorneys were kicked out of court so the government could argue it's case in secrecy - where they were free to tell the most outrageous of lies if they so chose. Sibel and her legal team presume that is exactly what happened. The judge said:

"I know this is draconian, but who am I to argue with the government on matters related to national security?"

But as I wrote last week:

"In a recent speech, Sibel again emphasized that the reason that she has been gagged is not for reasons of national security, but rather to cover-up criminality, treason, by high level US officials.

As evidence for this claim, Sibel explained that for the three months prior to Ashcroft blanket-gagging her case, the FBI was conducting unclassified briefings for Congress on the case.

In other words, from the beginning, neither Congress, nor the FBI, even considered that this information might be classified, let alone a 'national security' issue."

It's now August, 2007, folks. Sibel was the canary in the coalmine. 70% of the population now, finally, understand that the Justice Department is corrupt from top to bottom, thanks to Alberto Gonzales' latest shenanigans. 70% now understand that 'national security' is a fraud. 70% now realize, thanks to Pat Tillman and other cases, that 'Executive Privilege' means 'This stuff is too embarrassing.' 70% will soon realize that there is little difference between 'Executive Privilege' and 'State Secrets Privilege.' Sibel has been saying for years that her case has been gagged to cover up criminal wrong-doing and that it has nothing to do with national security. In fact, in an alternate universe, if her story was to break for the first time today, it'd probably be front-page news all across the country, for weeks. For years, there have been many reasons to think that Sibel is crazy - but now only the 28%ers think that those reasons are legitimate.

Watch the video - and tell me which elements don't comport with everything that we now know to be true.


(Here is the same video, without the annoying music.)

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
(let me know if you want to be added to my email list which announces whenever I have a new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list')

Eric Edelman: key conspirator in Sibel Edmonds case

Until recently, Eric Edelman, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, was the most powerful neocon in the country that hardly anybody had ever heard of, despite his role in outing Valerie Plame.

For one reason or other, Edelman has been making a splash lately. He recently sent Hillary a letter telling her to stop giving aid & comfort to enemies, and earlier this week Bob Novak wrote that Edelman was briefing Congress on plans to secretly assassinate Kurdish fighters in Iraq.

Given Edelman's low public profile to date, there might be some things that you don't know about him. For example, did you know that Edelman replaced Doug Feith via a recess appointment? Do you know that he lied and told congress that he wasn't involved in the Plame investigation? Did you know that he was hated when he was the Ambassador to Turkey?

Oh. And did you know that he is neck-deep in the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?

**

I became aware of Edelman's involvement in the criminal activity involved in Sibel Edmonds' case a couple of years ago (see sibel edmonds, brewster jennings, edelman and grossman and eric edelman bio. part one.)

In March of this year, Sibel and I were jointly being interviewed on a radio show when she said:

"I would like to actually go back and talk about the individuals that Luke Ryland named - for example, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman - another individual is Eric Edelman, because most people here already know, and they associate these guys with the neocons and also Israel, but there is another element there that ties all four individuals here.

If you look at, for example, Richard Perle, & Douglas Feith, these two individuals between 1988/89 to about 1995/96, they set up a lobbying firm called International Advisors Inc, and they registered as foreign agents, representing the government of Turkey, this is Richard Perle, & Douglas Feith, and of course we know that they became top guys within the Pentagon after the Bush administration came into power.

And then you look at Marc Grossman - Marc Grossman was the US ambassador to Turkey, from 1993 to 1997, and Marc Grossman became the number 3 guy in the State Department in this administration, and he resigned in 2005 and currently he is hired by one very large Turkish company that is also a front for a lot of illicit activities.

Then you can look at Eric Edelman who, 2 or 3 years ago, took Douglas Feith's old position at the Pentagon, and Eric Edelman was another ambassador to Turkey until he took this position at the Pentagon, so not only do these guys have Israel in common, they have Turkey in common - and people really should be paying attention to this, and looking into it, and this is why Luke Ryland has been doing this incredible job in terms of piecing these elements together, and packaging it, because this information is public! It doesn’t matter if I’m gagged on some issues, there's so much out there and so much that can easily be pieced together that our mainstream media has failed us"

If I'm not mistaken, this was the first time that Sibel mentioned Edelman by name, although he had previously made an appearance in Phil Giraldi's superb article on Sibel's case.

One of the big mysteries about Edelman was why he was moved from the heart of the OVP as Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser to become the Turkish Ambassador in 2003, immediately after the Iraq invasion when tensions with Turkey were at their peak. It's an odd career move. Jim Lobe sheds some light on this in a blog post on Tuesday:

"Cheney obviously thought highly enough of (Edelman's) work (and ideological tendencies) to name Edelman as his principal deputy national security adviser under Scooter Libby in 2001 and worked with Libby in the run-up to the Iraq invasion after which he was named ambassador to Turkey (on the strong recommendation, according to one knowledgeable source, of Richard Perle, who has long-standing interests in Turkey)."

Fancy that.

Edelman failed as an Ambassador in Turkey, at least by any of the usual metrics. A typical observation in the Turkish press was:

"Edelman is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history, and his reputation is not likely to recuperate. Edelman’s actions have exceeded his diplomatic mission. His ‘interest’ in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the Turkish media and ethnic minorities make him go beyond his role as an ambassador. His presence here has never contributed to Turkish-American relations, and it never will. If we want to address the reasons for anti-Americanism, Edelman must be issue one. As long as Edelman stays in Turkey, the chill wind disturbing bilateral relations will last."

'Despite' Edelman's 'failures' in Turkey, Lobe reports:

My understanding is that both Cheney and Perle played a role in persuading Rumsfeld to take on Edelman at the Pentagon after Feith announced his departure.

Again, fancy that.

Now, why are Perle, Feith, Grossman and Edelman desperate to hold key positions in embassies and the Pentagon? Here's Giraldi:

"Sibel Edmonds, the Turkish FBI translator turned whistleblower who has been subjected to a gag order could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time. On one level, her story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection.
[snip]
Some of (the bribes) may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit."

Indeed. Keep that in mind while you try to process the recent announcement that the Bush Egadministration has just announced $30bn in new weapons sales to Israel, and $20bn in sales to Saudi Arabia. And don't forget the recent $15bn in fighter-jet sales to Turkey.

Oh - and when Eric Edelman's name pops up in the media again, remember, he's not just a guy who wrote Hillary a nasty letter. Eric Edelman is a key conspirator in the Sibel Edmonds case.



Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

FBI, Congress: Sibel Edmonds case 'unclassified'

Former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged woman in US history. Attorney General John Ashcroft twice invoked the rarely used States Secrets Privilege in her case under the guise of classified secrets and protecting national security.

In a recent speech, Sibel again emphasized that the reason that she has been gagged is not for reasons of national security, but rather to cover-up criminality, treason, by high level US officials.

As evidence for this claim, Sibel explained that for the three months prior to Ashcroft blanket-gagging her case, the FBI was conducting unclassified briefings for Congress on the case.

In other words, from the beginning, neither Congress, nor the FBI, even considered that this information might be classified, let alone a 'national security' issue.

As Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition, said: "The excuse of protecting national security is fallacious."


(grfx love to One Pissed Off Liberal )

****

During the Q&A session after the speech, Sibel was asked where we should draw the line between disclosure and national security. Sibel responded thusly (mp3 - 3 mins)"

I can tell you, just from my case (and from other whistleblower cases that I've represented) it almost doesn't deal with any classified information at all. That's why they went and retroactively classified the information.

Even with Congress, one important thing that I have tried to emphasize - and unfortunately the mainstream media is not there really as far as these real issues are concerned... When I went to Congress, I didn't know which Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators to go to! Because part of my case dealt with our representatives, (and this was based on some counter-intelligence operations) were getting cash bribery from foreign governments. And when I internally started reporting this, and it was not getting anywhere, this great agent that I worked with... said:

"Well, let's say you go to Congress. How are you going to determine who is clean to go to?"

And to me that was really sobering, because he told me:

Just based on Turkish counter-intelligence operations, you know of FOUR corrupt congressional people. Take a look at this room (of translators), we have the Chinese Department, we have, you know, the Arabic, including Saudi Arabia and everything. How many (other corrupt Congressfolk) do you think they have come across?

[snip]
When the two Senators, Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley, one Democrat and one Republican, they heard this information, the FBI discussed the entire case with them during an unclassified meeting - meaning the staff members present during that meeting, none - or most - of them didn't have clearances. So the FBI had decided in the beginning that this was not classified. What happened later? 3 months later? when the Attorney General says 'Oops, this is really going to hurt us' - meaning those who were guilty - 'so we're going to decide to classify it'

I'm a bit of a dunce, and I'd never fully appreciated this. Sibel has repeatedly mentioned that she often had to suggest that certain hearings be held inside SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) but I had presumed that was simply because the Senate Judiciary Committee staffers didn't really know what they were doing. But here we have the FBI - presumably Counter-Intelligence agents who likely know a thing or two about classification, secrecy and national security - confirming Sibel's allegations in unclassified sessions with Congress.

As I said, I'm a dunce. The ACLU timeline on Sibel's case reads:

"JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004."

You'd think that I'd have understood this already. That's the beauty of the Sibel Edmonds case - there's always something 'new' to learn. And this week I learnt that even the FBI didn't think that the information in Sibel's case deserved to be classified, even as a precaution.

(The 75 min video of Sibel's recent ALA speech is available here (500meg) )

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

free speech

Sibel gave a speech to the American Library Association recently - the whole thing can be see here (500 meg)- I'll be doing a highlight reel - with comment - as soon as I can master the art of video-editing.

Which four Congressfolk are being bribed by Turkey?

In a recent speech, former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds said that there were four congressfolk who were being bribed by Turkish interests.

We know that one of them was Dennis Hastert.

Who do you think the others were?

*******

Here is the quote from a speech Sibel gave to the American Library Association conference last month (mp3 - 90 seconds).

When I went to Congress, I didn't know which Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators to go to! Because part of my case dealt with our representatives, (and this was based on some counter-intelligence operations) were getting cash bribery from foreign governments. And when I internally started reporting this, and it was not getting anywhere, this great agent that I worked with... said:

"Well, let's say you go to Congress. How are you going to determine who is clean to go to?"

And to me that was really sobering because he told me:

Just based on Turkish counter-intelligence operations, you know of FOUR corrupt congressional people. Take a look at this room (of translators), we have the Chinese Department, we have, you know, the Arabic, including Saudi Arabia and everything. How many do you think they have come across?"

Sibel worked at the FBI in 2001/2002, so we don't know whether those congress folks are all still in congress, but we do know that members from both parties are included in the four.

Who do you think is on the list?


If you'd like to find out:
Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(we'll bring you the video of the speech soon)

Sibel & Gents against for Genocide

Michael Crowley has a devastating article (liberated in full here) in the latest New Republic.

Crowley investigates the efforts of Turkey's lobbyists in DC to block any recognition by Congress of the 1915 Armenian genocide.

"Even in modern Washington, where it's taken for granted that everyone has their price, flip-flopping on genocide has the ability to shock."

Indeed.

Crowley's article isn't so much about denying genocide, but rather what Sibel Edmonds rightly calls The Highjacking of a Nation:

"Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power."

More.


Crowley's article is much more damning than Ken Silverstein's recent article in Harpers, Their Men in Washington, about lobbying for Turkmenistan. Whereas Silverstein's terrific undercover assignment demonstrates what lobbyists will promise to do for money, Crowley's piece deals with observable facts - and is therefore all the more shocking. This single article ought to replace all Eighth-Grade Civics 101 textbooks.

Crowley's article demonstrates conclusively that:
a) Ex-politicians-turned-lobbyists will do anything for the right price.
b) These lobbyists have enormous influence over congress man and women.
c) These lobbyists are from both parties.
d) Incumbent congressfolk of both parties are highly susceptible to the ill-gotten influence of their former associates.

Those of us who have followed Sibel Edmonds' case are familiar with the people, issues and processes that Crowley identifies.

Crowley uses former Democratic minority leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, to demonstrate his case:

Even more striking than the historic Turkish-Armenian hatred festering in the halls of Congress, however, is the way Washington's political elites are cashing in on it. Take Gephardt.
While the Turks and Armenians have a long historical memory, Gephardt has an exceedingly short one. A few years ago, he was a working-class populist who cast himself as a tribune of the underdog--including the Armenians. Back in 1998, Gephardt attended a memorial event hosted by the Armenian National Committee of America at which, according to a spokeswoman for the group, "he spoke about the importance of recognizing the genocide." Two years later, Gephardt was one of three House Democrats who co-signed a letter to then House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging Hastert to schedule an immediate vote on a genocide resolution. "We implore you," the letter read, arguing that Armenian-Americans "have waited long enough for Congress to recognize the horrible genocide."
Today, few people are doing more than Gephardt to ensure that the genocide bill goes nowhere.

It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day. In Washington, however, the Armenian genocide industry is in full bloom. And Dick Gephardt's shilling isn't even the half of it.

Those familiar with Sibel's case will recognize the Hastert reference. In the Vanity Fair article about Sibel, An Inconvenient Patriot, David Rose wrote:

"For many years, attempts had been made to get the house to pass a genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000, when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing and see that it received a full house vote... Thanks to Hastert, the resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed the International Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, minutes before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it.

At the time, he explained his decision by saying that he had received a letter from President Clinton arguing that the genocide resolution, if passed, would harm U.S. interests. Again, the reported content of the Chicago wiretaps may well have been sheer bravado, and there is no evidence that any payment was ever made to Hastert or his campaign. Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000. "

For the record, I believe that Rose was mistaken. Hastert did indeed receive the $500,000, stuffed into suitcases and delivered to his home - but the bribe was for reasons other than the genocide resolution.

Crowley also discusses some of Turkey's other main anti-genocide lobbyists. There's former Republican House Speaker Bob Livingston, who has taken $13 Million from Turkey since his ignominious fall from grace (which incidentally led to Senator David Vitter's fall from grace, for the same reasons.) Former Democratic representative Steven Solarz is another who has flip-flopped on the genocide issue since he began lobbying for Turkey.

I do hope that Crowley writes another article and looks at Turkish lobbying in general - because then he'd be right in the middle of the Sibel Edmonds case. Crowley would have to take a closer look at some of Turkey's other lobbyists - past and present - and he'd find that Douglas Feith and Richard Perle used to lobby for Turkey (although he'd be hard-pressed to identify exactly what they did for their money.) And he'd find that The Cohen Group (former Defense Secretary William Cohen, General Joe Ralston, former State Dept #3 Marc Grossman) is currently lobbying for Turkey, as is Ret. General Brent Scowcroft.

Crowley would probably find that most of these lobbyists are very close to the American Turkish Council (ATC), "a front for criminal activity," according to Sibel. And Crowley would probably find that although these lobbyists purport to be working for the Republic of Turkey, that might not actually be true. Ex-CIA agent Phil Giraldi says:

"The money involved does not appear to come from the Turkish government, and FBI investigators are trying to determine its source and how it is distributed. Some of it may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit."

If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, home to all these lobbyists, he'll notice that the FBI has been running a counter-intelligence operation against them since the mid-Nineties. And he'd notice that Sibel's case, in part, is about the nuclear black market. And he'd also notice that Valerie Plame's CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was also investigating nuclear black market activities within the ATC. Crowley might even think that enabling, and covering-up, black-market nuclear proliferation, today, by Turkey, Pakistan, and other countries is weirder, and much more dangerous, than denying a genocide that took place 90 years ago. And Crowley would probably note that Stephen Solarz, author of the anti-nuclear-proliferation 'Solarz Amendment' to the Foreign Assistance Act, and current lobbyist for Turkey, had flip-flopped on the idea of illegal nuclear proliferation, for a price.

Crowley is correct that flipflopping on genocide denial for money shocks the conscience. It is demonstrably a step below plain-vanilla genocide denial. However, genocide denial is arguably 'just' a thought crime (and a crime of propaganda.) However, the people involved in Sibel's case are arguably much more deplorable, and they demonstrably, actively, endanger the lives of millions. These issues "concern not state espionage but criminal activity... selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder."

In Crowley's current piece, he writes:

"Earning a special commendation for dubious behavior is Washington's Jewish-American lobby. In one of this tale's strangest twists, the Turks have convinced prominent Jewish groups, not typically indifferent to charges of genocide, to mute their opinions."

If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, he'll learn that it was established by AIPAC (and JINSA) and that the groups have significant overlap in terms of members, goals and activities. When he appreciates that fact, he might begin to untangle the "strangest twists."

And if Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC and associated groups, he'd likely find that they have a habit of bribing congressfolks - Sibel says that there are four that she knows about - and Crowley would likely notice that the system of corruption has an inbuilt 'Continuity -of-Perma-Gov' plan. Sibel describes it thusly:

These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.

Those 'who still serve' are 'renumerated,' in part, while they stay in office, provided that they serve their paymasters, but they are promised even greater riches when they leave office. In some cases, the ex-congressmen will be given lucrative 'lobbying' contracts where they perpetuate the machine by bribing new congressmen. With rumours that Hastert will soon resign, we can probably expect to see a newly formed Hastert Group hanging out a shiny new shingle.

In other cases, such as that of Marc Grossman, the pay-off can appear in the form of an 'advisory' position. Since Grossman resigned in 2005, one of his new roles is an advisory position with Ihlas, "a large and alleged shady Turkish company which is also active in several Central Asian countries," earning $1.2m per year. Sibel says that Grossman

"used his position within the State Department to secure future higher-level positions while in office — and I would like to emphasize this — while in office..."

In other words, there was an explicit quid pro quo.

If Crowley were to take a closer look at some of these cases, he'd learn that this isn't garden-variety corruption. As Sibel says:

"The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security..."

Treason, in other words. And a clear, present, and ongoing danger.

Crowley would also learn that this state of affairs is an open secret within the US Government. Everybody Knows (youtube). He'd also learn that any attempt to investigate these crimes were thwarted (youtube) by people at the highest levels of the Pentagon, the State Dept, and the Justice Dept.

If Crowley were to investigate all this and write an article about it, the new article would form the basis of the new Eighth-grade Civics 101 text. In the meantime, make sure you read his place-holder.

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976 LA phone: 323 651-1040 fax: (202) 225-4099 Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

***********

I didn't want this post to focus on the Armenian genocide, or the proposed recognition of the genocide in congress, but last week Turkey's chief lobbyist Bob Livingston made the most craven appeal for genocide denial imaginable in an 8 minute video. I feel dirty just watching it (textual debunking by ANCA):



Do you think there's anything he wouldn't say for money?

(dkos, DU)

WaPo: "Sensational story of Sibel Edmonds" almost uniformly ignored by U.S. press.

Washington Post:

"(Sibel) Edmonds's story has been almost uniformly ignored in the U.S. daily press. "

That's certainly true. Why?

WaPo:

One possible explanation is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed.

That's not true. Senator Charles Grassley said:

"Absolutely, she's credible. And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

Grassley made that statement in 2002. The WaPo article is from 2004. And we've learnt a lot since then.

More.

The WaPo article, published in the "World Opinion Roundup" section, April 8 2004, began thusly:

The sensational story of Sibel Edmonds illuminates the world of difference between the international online media and the U.S. press.

Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator whose February allegations to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks directly challenge the credibility of the commission's star witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In an April 2 interview with the Independent of London, Edmonds said she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.

Given that the 'article' was in the "World Opinion Roundup" section of the newspaper, the purpose of the piece was primarily to highlight what was being discussed in foreign media vis a vis US media, so I don't want particularly want to bash the piece (and it is generally quite friendly to Sibel) but the piece does highlight, particularly in retrospect, a lot of what is wrong with the (lack of) reporting on Sibel's case.

The WaPo piece is very frustrating for a bunch of reasons - large and small - and I can't help myself but to deal with the small reasons (because they do point to larger institutional failings) before we get to the more significant reasons. Firstly, the piece juxtaposes US press vs "international online media." The Independent is one of the most respected English-speaking print publications on the planet. They put (this element of) Sibel's story on the front page.

Secondly, the WaPo piece suggests that maybe "foreign editors are less scrupulous" than their 'prudent' US counterparts because some Murdoch press around the world ran with the "unconfirmed" Drudge story that John Kerry was having an affair with an intern then we ought to take the Independent's front page story with a grain of salt.

And this brings us to the larger issues. WaPo argues "The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist." It is true that the documents haven't surfaced - but we have some circumstantial evidence that what Sibel is trying to say is true and valid. Sibel has been gagged by Attorney General John Ashcroft. The US Congress has been gagged by Attorney General John Ashcroft. These simple acts provide a prima facie case that there is some there, there.

WaPo argues that "One possible explanation (for US media silence) is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed." Firstly, the function of journalism is to test whether such allegations are true - usually by getting documents, or people, on the record. There are people who have gone on the record supporting Sibel's allegations - but still the US media ignores the case. Veteran FBI counter-intelligence agent John Cole said:

"I felt that maybe I could be of some assistance to her because I knew she was doing the right thing. I knew she was right...

I was talking to FBI colleagues in the administrative division who had read her file, who had read the investigative report and they were telling me a different story. They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was a 100% accurate, that management knew that she was correct."

As far as I know, the only media organization to report this was Congressional Quarterly, once. English journalist David Rose wrote an 11 page article, two years ago, documenting Sibel's case - actually, just two elements of the case - sourced to people with first-hand knowledge of her case. One of the claims in the article was that Dennis Hastert had received bribes by foreign officials - surely a significant story - but as far as I know, the only reference in the US media was a recent article in Wired magazine.

But the claims are never denied. We only get silence. And the silence of the US media marks them as co-conspirators. We don't get 'he said, she said' reporting, for once. Just silence.

WaPo says:

"The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist

"

Maybe the documents exist, maybe they dont - apparently they are the Schrödinger's cat of documentary evidence. For 5 years Sibel has staked her claim, her reputation, on the fact that they exist.

"Put out those tapes. Put out those wiretaps. Put out those documents. Put out the truth. The truth is going to hurt them. The truth is going to set me free."

That's a direct, verifiable challenge. The facts are either true, or they're not. Sibel has done everything she can to make her claims public where they can be tested, with documents. She tried to take her case to the Supreme Court - now her only chance is to get Henry Waxman to hold hearings into her case. She'll testify under oath, she says that all of her bosses will testify under oath. She's either telling the truth, or the USG is going to extraordinary lengths to prevent her from proving that she is crazy.

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

Osama: I've got nukes

The LA Times reports that al-Qaeda "is more dangerous than at any time since the Sept. 11 attacks."

A counter-terrorism official told the LA Times that al-Qaeda's "planning-to-execution cycle might suggest summer is the window of choice."

A new article by national security investigative journalist John Stanton argues that "Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook," adding "And that’s very worrisome, particularly when each August 6th and 9th come around."

Osama bin Laden has said that al-Qaeda has nukes. Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said that the US Government knows this to be true.

Dick Cheney wants to go to war with Iran and has indicated that any attack, by anyone, will be construed as an act of war by Iran.

We must demand that Henry Waxman must hold hearings into what Sibel Edmonds knows before we invade the wrong country again.

*****

In November 2001, in an interview with Hamid Mir (The New York Times calls him "a widely respected Pakistani journalist,") Osama bin Laden said:

"We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them."

At the time, CNN reported that "Bush administration officials said they do not believe the al Qaeda leader has weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them."

The Bush egadministration, famous for fear-mongering, has often said that we need to take Osama at his word, but I must admit that until last week I had no idea that Osama had ever claimed that he had nukes.

Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants a caliphate that extends half-way across the planet, and that we need to take Osama at his word. And Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants the US occupation of Iraq to continue indefinitely says that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror (TM), and therefore that the US occupation of Iraq must continue indefinitely.

And we've been told repeatedly that we can't allow Iran to have any nukes because Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" - but when Osama says that he has nukes and that "The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable," we were told that we shouldn't take him at his word, that he doesn't have nukes, and that he hates "us" for our freedom.

The Bush egadministration repeatedly says that "it's only a matter of time" before al-Qaeda does acquire WMD, and "If al Qaeda were to acquire nuclear capability..." - but they never actually refer to Osama's claims that he actually does have these weapons. I find that weird. It appears as though they are trying to thread the needle, suggesting that Osama undoubtedly wants nukes, and that it would be really scary if Osama did actually have nukes, but for some reason the few occasions where I did find the administration apparently responding to Osama's claims were in the few days immediately following the publication of Osama's interview in November 2001, and even then the headlines didn't correlate with the reported story. For example, a CNN story was headlined "White House dismisses bin Laden nuclear threat" but the story, as reported, gave no indication that this was the case. (I want to be clear that I haven't extensively reviewed the reporting. At a minimum, we haven't heard much of Osama's claim since then.) For other contemporaneous accounts which support my position, see Time, Guardian, NYT.

This brings me to Sibel Edmonds, again. In her blockbuster Highjacking of a Nation, she excoriates Porter Goss for playing the "It may be only a matter of time..." card, indicating that Goss and the rest of the US Government "has known for the longest time" that al-Qaeda has nukes.

Sibel was in a position to know. She was involved in the counter-intelligence group at the FBI that was tracking the American Turkish Council (ATC). Valerie Plame's front company, Brewster Jennings, was also tracking the ATC. Both the CIA (Plame) and the FBI (Sibel) were hot on the heels of what is known as A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network - which runs from Russia, the 'Stans, and Turkey, through the US Government (particularly the State Department and the Pentagon) to Pakistan and al Qaeda.

John Stanton has tracked Sibel's case and the ATC very closely. He has a new book coming out called "Talking Politics with God and the Devil in Washington, DC." He argues that:

"Bin Laden’s network/affiliates may have already engineered the deployment of nuclear weapons to US soil. US military and intelligence operatives surely know this. The matter has been discussed by the US security establishment since 1998 and actively monitored through intelligence operations. Nothing has happened yet but now the timing seems about right for an attack. There are far too many instabilities, like those mentioned above, playing havoc with the world’s governments and economies. A devastating blow to a couple of US cities would further weaken the US economy. Following a nuke attack, where would the US strike back? Millions of Americans would believe such an event was the handiwork of the US government like 911. Millions would call for an invasion of some country, any country—even if innocent.

Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook. That means going for two cities on the Gulf of Mexico that play a key role in US energy production and interstate commerce. Houston and New Orleans are two such cities. Both are in close proximity to US oil refineries. Houston has the 10th largest port in the world and houses companies who lead the energy industry in the development and production of oilfield equipment. New Orleans is home to a port that is the 5th busiest in the USA handling a sizeable share of US exports and imports. Lockheed Martin and Newport News Shipbuilding operate in close proximity to New Orleans. The stability of the US economy depends, in part, on the free flow of goods that traverse the Mississippi River to and from New Orleans.
[]
It’s time for some serious conversation with those the US brands as terrorists and rogue nations. Absent that, both sides will continue a fight that may spiral out of control and lead to a global conflagration: just what zealots on both sides want."

We've all been fearful of an attack on US soil, and, separately, we worry about a war with Iran. I really, really hope that New Orleans or Houston, or any other US city, doesn't get blown to smithereens, and I really, really hope that the US doesn't attack Iran. The worst situation of all would be that Cheney would use a nuclear attack on a US city by al Qaeda to launch an unrelated nuclear war of aggression on Iran.

For some reason the Democrats are more interested in holding hearings into Pat Tillman than Sibel Edmonds. Henry Waxman promised that he'd hold hearings into Sibel's case - but he has been silent since the Dems achieved majority status. We need to know what Sibel knows - for a bunch of reasons - not least that it might prevent an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

xposted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

Can we get Cheney & Libby?

"Imagine if Dick Cheney was a foreign agent."

That's what I was thinking while I was reading WaPo's Angler series about the VEEP. Imagine the damage that he could do.

We do know that Cheney salted the Defense Department with his cronies, some of who had been repeatedly investigated for leaking classified information to foreign entities. And at some point, Cheney learnt of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' case, and he learnt that Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others were involved in criminal activity involving heroin trafficking, terrorism, and the nuclear black market.

Cheney did nothing. If Cheney isn't a foreign agent himself, then he surely, knowingly, harboured some foreign agents in his administration.

Maybe the best way to get to Cheney, and Libby, is through the Sibel Edmonds case. As a bonus, we'll pick off a few others in the process.

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

Here's Sibel (SE) describing her case to Chris Deliso (CD):

SE: Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator, stumbled over one piece of it.

But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course a lot of people from abroad are involved. It's massive. So to do this investigation, to really do it, they will have to look into everything.

CD: But you can start from anywhere –

SE: That's the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group. And they are very dangerous for all of us.

Cheney, in loco presidentis, knew all of this was going on, and he did nothing. In fact, Eric Edelman, from Cheney's own office, is a participant in the criminal ring. Was Cheney a party to it as well? Did he use this information, for example, to blackmail Douglas Feith into providing false intelligence that sold the war? Eric Edelman currently has Doug Feith's old job at the Pentagon, and is no doubt doing Cheney's bidding there. I'm not confident that we'll get a better outcome than when Cheney was using Feith.

Of course, Cheney isn't the only person who knows the details of Sibel's case and did nothing, Everybody Knows (youtube), but if Cheney wants to play president, then the buck stops with him. And covering up and enabling treason? Well, that's impeachable.



Assuming, arguendo, that Cheney wasn't aware of these activities all along, we can only speculate about when he became aware that some of his senior officials were involved in treason. Knowing Cheney, his first questions at his first briefing on the first day of office was probably 'Who is bribing who? And why?' If so, he would have definitely learned that a special prosecutor was soon to be appointed to investigate claims, backed up by FBI wiretaps, that Dennis Hastert and other congressfolk had been bribed by the people involved in Sibel's case.

At that first briefing, Cheney may not have learnt about the claims against Feith, Perle and others. We don't specifically know (AFAIK) how much information was flowing up the chain of command at that point. Let's be charitable and say that the information about the ongoing counter-intelligence operation was being suppressed at a lower level.

And let's presume that Cheney, famous for planting his agents throughout the bureaucracy, didn't ever hear any whispers about the underlying crimes in Sibel's case until she was fired in March 2002.

But by March 2002, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was involved in Sibel's case, FBI Director Robert Mueller was involved, the highest levels of the State Dept and the Pentagon were involved. It's impossible to think that Cheney, with his coterie of spies in every agency, wasn't fully aware of every detail in Sibel's case.

Apparently President Cheney wasn't too concerned with this treason by Feith and Perle, and they proceeded to sell, launch and lose a war together. As Doug Feith noted in his recent 'Free Libby' letter, Feith and Libby worked together for "several hours," every day. Thick as thieves.

Open public hearings into Sibel's case can help us get to the bottom of this sordid mess. Sibel guarantees that we'll see Hastert, Feith, Perle and Grossman in prison by the end of the process, and we might even snare Libby, Cheney and others in the process.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for John Conyers' hearings into Libby's commutation on Wednesday, but if the outcome is less than satisfying, or if you feel like we are getting away from the core issues:

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

A Forgotten Patriot

This Letter to the Editor was published at Buzzflash:

Subject: A Forgotten Patriot

Hey Democrats in Congress! Wake the hell up! Are you just going to continue to treat this issue as a nonissue?

Now that you Democrats have been given temporary control of Congress by we, a fed-up citizenry, we, the citizenry who put you there, demand that you answer this question: Why the hell hasn't the Sibel Edmonds 9/11 espionage/spy scandal case been brought front and center into the public spotlight, open hearings and all?

http://www.justacitizen.org

What possible reason or mealy mouth excuse do you offer up to try to justify your continued silence and lack of investigation using every power and tool at your disposal? You just continue to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist - probably hoping Sibel Edmonds will just go away or that we'll forget - to the detriment of the nation's security and the enormously generous benefit of possible traitors in (or formerly in) your midst. Are you all so compromised with your own skeletons in the closet that you'll refuse to uncover such a huge betrayal of and threat to this country?

Sibel Edmonds has tried repeatedly to get you to act like you actually give a crap that she's uncovered highly probable treason by persons at the highest levels of our government, espionage, infiltration of spies with direct U.S. military ties into our intelligence apparatus caught trying to cover up vital intelligence intercepts regarding the events of September 11, 2001, etc.

Shame on the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House and Senate. You should all be run out of town on fast horses come election day, should you not get this into open hearings under sworn testimony, get to the truth, ferret out and remove the bad guys and hold those accountable who deserve to be held accountable. Your silence on the issue equates to complicity in the cover-up. Your silence betrays your loyalties, and it clearly isn't to the U.S. Constitution, the citizenry, or any real and honorable sense of Justice that deserves to be referred to as such. Corruption is destroying this country, rotting it to the core from within, and the federal government, whether it be democratic party or republican party at the helm of the levers of power, just keeps proving that it amply deserves the complete and utter disdain that the citizens hold for it.