A plea for civility & factual argument in the Sibel Edmonds matter.

[JackRiddler]

This is a plea to stay factual and calm in our arguments.

Sibel Edmonds does not claim to be the original source of her stunning allegations of treason among high government officials. She says she is a messenger. Her claims derive entirely from what she says she read in FBI files during her employment there as a translator. These files were compiled from 1997 to 2002 by investigators probing the Turkish lobby and AIPAC, Edmonds says.

According to Edmonds, the FBI gathered overwhelming evidence that these lobbies were the main clients to a network of freelance spies who in effect sold information to the highest bidder. The network included Marc Grossman, Richard Perle, Dennis Hastert and many other well-known officials. The usual bidders were Turkey, Israel and, if neither of them were interested, the Pakistani ISI.

In the course of the surveillance, Edmonds says, the FBI also happened upon involvement of this network with the very same "mujahedeen" forces under "Bin Laden" later blamed for the September 11th attacks.

For the details, please see Edmonds's deposition in Schmidt vs. Krikorian, which is available both on video and as a complete transcript at:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

Sorry to say, but anyone who hasn't read or viewed the deposition shouldn't be making any claims about this case.

Back in 2002, after bringing the matter to her superiors, Edmonds says she was told to forget about it. She also claims that her associate at the FBI, Can Dickerson, attempted together with her (Dickerson's) husband to recruit Edmonds on behalf of the Turkish network. When Edmonds refused and started complaining about Dickerson to her superiors, she was fired.

Then she tried to reveal what she had learned to the public, but was gagged by a series of orders and bans from the Justice Department as upheld by federal Judge Reggie Walton. She testified in secret hearings chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy and was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, but neither body chose to review her allegations in public. A Justice Department Inspector General report was published in 2005. It avoided treating Edmonds's allegations, but confirmed that she was fired for her whistleblowing activites.

In the seventh year, she decided to defy the bans, risk prosecution, and go to the press. This led to the publication of articles detailing her story about the Pentagon/Turkish/Israeli spy network last year in the London Times.

That is Edmonds's story in a nutshell.

She does not say that everything in the FBI files is true, nor could she have any way of knowing it herself. She says only that she read the details in the FBI files, and that these files were closed over the objections of the investigators who had compiled them. She has specified the numbers of these files. They can be released, or subpoenaed, or given over to a new investigation. That is what progressives should be calling for, dispassionately but insistently!

Though the charges involve treason and the plotting of an aggressive war by the already well-known cabal within the Bush regime familiar to many of us as “the neocons,” until this week their revelation was greeted with silence in the US corporate media (still the case), and a resigned, muted approval among those who have followed the Edmonds story on the progressive blogosphere.

The accused persons did not issue denials, possibly because they were involved in a lot of stuff that may land them in jail, even if none of Edmonds’s specific accusations should pan out.

The one detail Edmonds omitted revealing until this last week was the name of the Democratic congresswoman alleged to have been seduced by a female Turkish agent, actually a minor detail in the overall story.

As soon as that name was dropped however, the story finally started garnering attention from thousands of Web sites, prompting denials from the office of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).

C. Wright Mills might say this is a triumph of the prurient over the sociological imagination.

Another dynamic at work, of course, is that the congresswoman is a Democrat. Partisans whose own words reveal they knew nothing about the Edmonds case until now rise up reflexively to defend the “D.”

And so, recent days have seen the rise of a reactionary approach to the Edmonds case.

A set of talking points, no doubt formed spontaneously, now circulates for use in summary dismissals of the Edmonds allegations. The techniques parallel the standards of Rovian politics.

It all starts with labeling. Magic thought-stopping words are supposed to instantly kill discussion, like

- "Orly Taitz!1!"

- "@!teh batshit! OMG CRAYZEE!"

- "disgruntled employee!"

(Note: These are generic examples or paraphrases of a type of comment.)

The sophistry shotgun also fires pellets that sound vaguely political, even if untrue:

- "Anti-Turkish racism!"

- "Homophobia!"

- "Right wing CTs!"

- "Somewhere on the Internet a freeper agrees - therefore it's untrue!"

Etc. etc.

The most curious treatments are those who say there must be nothing to the allegations, either because they never heard of her until now or because Edmonds has had almost no traction with the US corporate media. Yet there are many reasons why we should have all heard of Sibel Edmonds at some point in the last seven years, and not simply last week when Schakowsky's name was dropped for the first time:

- seven years of court gag orders and sanctions

- sometimes heavy coverage on progressive areas of the blogosphere during those seven years

- a report on 60 Minutes

- Edmonds's secret testimony to Leahy's committee

- the Ashcroft Justice Department's historic use of RETROACTIVE classification of already published statements; a true Orwellian high point!

- protests to the 9/11 Commission and support for Edmonds from the Family Steering Committee

- the IG report by the Justice Department and coverage of it in the NY Times

- finally, Edmonds's decision to defy the gag order and start spilling the beans in the foreign press, and, last week, to The American Conservative (a paleocon magazine).

Despite this, there is a danger that the first exposure many people will now have will not be the actual summary of the allegations given by Edmonds in her deposition and interview, but brief, dismissive caricatures, often in three words or less - or else, treatments that focus in distorted fashion on the details of greatest prurient interest, although these are not the most important.

Who gets to write the "talking points"?!

Sadly that's a question central to the exercise of rhetorical power in our attention-addled society. Here's my hope that people will avoid the mini-versions and actually learn the details of the case, before they resort to thought-stoppers.

Thank you for your attention!

[Taverner]

1. I promise, but could someone explain the whole thing to me?

I don't understand it...too many variables...

[eomer]

16. The article by Philip Giraldi is pretty accessible.

The opening paragraph of the http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/">article gives a good overview:

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

Here is the part of the story where a Democrat comes in:

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

This latter bit has been part of the story all along but Sibel had not named the congresswoman involved. Even the party was unknown until a few weeks ago, I believe, and then only a few days ago in the Giraldi article was the first time the name was named.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raster]

2. Kick!

:kick:

[Octafish]

3. Thank you, JackRiddler. Well stated.

In the Information War,
the uninformed are no where near as bad as the misinformed.

That's why Sibel Edmonds is so important.

That's also why the smears come on hot and heavy for certain subjects,
principally centered on the national security state.

They are very interested in warfare. And control.

[nashville_brook]

28. there ought to be a way to measure how threatening an idea is, by

the degree to which the counter arguments go ugly. like 'reducto ad hitlarium' -- there should also be a 'reducto ad hominum,'

[Octafish]

60. Exactly know what you mean.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=247659&mesg_id=269442

Sometimes I want to I'm getting a bullet-proof vest, but I'd learn that it couldn't stop teflon-coated bullets.

[nashville_brook]

78. great example -- extra points for insufferable self-aggrandizement and out-grouping!!

It's why I stay out of the D -- too much aggressive ignorance concentrated in one place.

[timeforpeace]

4. I thought she was being gagged. This is being gagged?

[JackRiddler]

9. Indeed, she is in violation of the gag order and effectively...

challenging the Justice Department to prosecute her. She is flouting the law.

After seven years of invoking state secrets privilege, why aren't they doing it?

[bigbrother05]

117. Waited to see how the new DOJ was leaning

She must feel the atmosphere has changed enough to risk defying the gag order.

The substance of her allegations is that insiders were conspiring with foreign agents to compromise Congress and powerful individuals to a further RW/NeoCon agenda.

[JackRiddler]

130. I'm afraid DOJ doesn't seem to be leaning at all...

Looks more like crouching behind a rock. Otherwise it would have investigated her charges or hauled her into court. They seem to trying to ignore it and hope it goes away.

[sabra]

5. k & r

:kick:

[NanceGreggs]

6. Excellent post, my friend!

:kick: & REC'D!!!!!!!!!!

[sui generis]

7. as an inveterate contrarian myself

willing to take on hordes of keyboard challenged magic thought-stopping wordsmiths, I have to agree that there is a mob mentality sometimes that prevails on a topic, even if it ends up entirely irrational.

Take health care for instance - oh my gosh we must save the insurance companies with the biggest single bailout in human history and anyone who doesn't agree must be a troll. Whaaaaaa?

"Shut up and vote, homo. the republicans are worse."

"How dare you quote me when I said I voted for Obama because of his skin color. You racist!"

What happens when the outside looks into the snakepit is either people willing to go 20 rounds will do so here, or only people who enjoy snake wrangling will hang around.

Mostly like the gunjeon, some days in GD only the batshit people rise to the bait or stick around for the chum, but there are a lot more fish in that school. On extra bad days, just like in the real world, only the bad news makes the news, and the rational voices mostly end up being ignored.

When someone generalizes about a bias in DU's commentary - it can usually be characterized any damn way you want to. Who's going to defend it?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. Excellent post. Well said! K&R n/t

[AntiFascist]

10. I would also add...

if the information regarding Schakowsy has been fabricated, and Sibel has merely functioned as the messenger, then shouldn't we be demanding an investigation into who at the FBI would be attempting to frame a progressive, Democrat who happens to be the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and who at one time co-sponsored a bill to file articles of impeachment against VP Cheney? It's too bad that Schakowsky simply wants to dismiss this, but there is quite a bit below the surface that needs to be investigated one way or the other.

[JackRiddler]

11. Excellent point! Thank you!

[nashville_brook]

27. eggsactly!

[Selena Harris]

67. Speaking of FBI investigations-how about Hastert?

Dennis Hastert & The Republican Culture Of Corruption | Oliver WillisWonder why Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, has been so up in arms over criminal investigators raiding the House of Representatives? Wonder no.
www.oliverwillis.com/.../dennis-hastert-the-republican-culture-of-corruption/ - Cached - Similar

[AntiFascist]

98. Reported by Vanity Fair...

http://sibeledmonds.blogspot.com/

n December 2001, Joel Robertz, an F.B.I. special agent in Chicago, contacted Sibel and asked her to review some wiretaps. Some were several years old, others more recent; all had been generated by a counter-intelligence that had its start in 1997. “It began in D.C.,” says an F.B.I. counter-intelligence official who is familiar with the case file. “It became apparent that Chicago was actually the center of what was going on.”

Its subject was explosive; what sounded like attempts to bribe elected members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican. “There was pressure within the bureau for a special prosecutor to be appointed and take the case on, “the official says. Instead, his colleagues were told to alter the thrust of their investigation – away from elected politicians and toward appointed officials. “This is the reason why Ashcroft reacted to Sibel in such an extreme fashion,” he says “It was to keep this from coming out.”

In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing. In all, says a source who was present, she managed to listen to more than 40 of the Chicago recordings supplied by Robertz. Many involved an F.B.I. target at the city’s large Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associates.

Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes.... One name, however, apparently stood out – a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname “Denny boy.” It was the Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert."

[Tace]

12. Sensible Words

We'll see.

[Malikshah]

13. Straight out of Casablanca with regard to the the naysayers and those who wish to

bury this issue. The usual suspects are out and about.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the connections? Hmmmm.

Who pays these people?

[ShortnFiery]

14. +1

:thumbsup:

[Qutzupalotl]

15. I encourage everyone to read the transcript.

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf

It goes faster than watching the videos.

Don't accept anyone's "Cliff's Notes" version without checking out the main source for yourself. Too much is at stake, and too many powerful interests would benefit from throwing us hounds off the scent.

[G_j]

17. thank you

knowledge is a good thing!

[Ignis]

26. Very helpful for cuberats, thanks! (nt)

[pberq]

56. thanks for the link! nt

[Echo In Light]

18. Rec - thanks for posting

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Recommended. I wish I could rec it 1000 more times, too. Thanks JackRiddler

Another thing that needs to be remembered is the fact that Ms Edmonds is also a DU'er. I've seen people here call her a liar, which is against DU rules. The smears by people on this board should not be tolerated and the posts should be alerted on and deleted by the mods.

If people want to disagree with her, by all means do so, but try to keep it civil and have something besides ad hominem attacks against her character.

Ugly truths are coming out about the depth of corruption and some people, even here on DU, still aren't ready to handle that truth.



Peace,

Ghost

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinnie From Indy]

50. What do you call this?

In the open letter to Rep. Shakowsky that Edmonds just released she wrote the following:

"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations."

The fact is that Shackowsky's office did respond with factual information. They offered that Edmonds was dead wronga bout the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral and the location of the alleged sexual encounter with a foreign agent. Shakowsky has never lived in a townhome which is where Edmonds claims this encounter took place. The response by Shakowsky to Edmonds claims seems to contain many facts to me. What say you?

[Selena Harris]

70. Parsing

location of the alleged sexual encounter with a foreign agent. Shakowsky has never lived in a townhome which is where Edmonds claims this encounter took place......................Now, that doesn't say an encounter didn't take place...now does it?

It only objects to the correctness or incorrectness of the address.

[Vinnie From Indy]

76. Not really!

"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness."

Please explain how this opening sentence by Edmonds is true? It is indisputable that Shakowsky did refute Edmonds initial claims with FACTUAL information.

Do you not find it odd that Edmonds would summarily dismiss and fail to address her errors in fact regarding such serious allegations against a sitting member of Congress? She was obviously aware that her initial claim had errors because she went to the trouble to respond to Shakowsky's rebuttal. Further, in Edmonds initial allegations in regard to Shakowski she only offered a very few actual details about Shakowski and two of those were incorrect. I find it inconceivable that Edmonds would not explain or address these errors of fact in such a long open letter.

Lastly, I think one could make the argument that it is Edmonds that is guilty of attempting to discredit people when they have no facts. Edmonds closes her open letter by hoping that Rep. Shakowsky doesn't follow in former Congressman Hastert's shoes and become a lobbyist for a foreign country. This statement by Edmonds is pure slime and it attempts to discredit Rep. Shakowski by implication and guilt by association.

[Vattel]

106. This should be an OP

Well-argued

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. All of which has nothing to do with Edmonds' credibility -

as stated repeatedly, it is not Edmonds saying "I know this" - it is Edmonds saying "I read reports about this" and she specified which reports she read that made the claims. The accuracy of what she is reporting is not to be judged by the facts on the ground, but by the accounts in those specific reports, which she had no part in generating.

IOW her 'fact' is not that Rep Shakowsky did this or that - her 'fact' is that she read a report, which has since been kept under wraps, that alleged that Rep Shakowsky did this or that. The way to refute her fact is to find the stated report and see if it says what she says it does.

[Vinnie From Indy]

77. Kind of reminds you when Joe McCarthy famously held up a piece of paper

with the names of alleged communists on it huh?

I agree that this should be investigated, but I somehow doubt that will be the end of it.

[JackRiddler]

136. Your witchhunt on Edmonds, you mean?

Since you have the nerve to invoke that name, I guess it's appropriate to use the comment from that time: Have you no shame, sir? Have you no decency?

McCarthy was the extreme point man in what was for years a government backed campaign that ruined thousands of careers and lives. Such a comparison is possible only in a state of widespread political and historical ignorance.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. What do you call this?

From Jan Schakowsky's release:

"The American Conservative's most recent hit piece against Congresswoman Schakowsky is complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by "birthers" that President Obama is not an American citizen. The source of this story subscribes to the bizarre conspiracy theory that elements of the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story.

It would be just as accurate to say the Congresswoman was kidnapped by little green men and carried in a space ship to the planet Xenon."


She jumps right out of the gate trying to discredit & smear the messenger before offering up any "facts". To me, it just takes away from the rest of the denial. Don't you think so?

Is it possible that Schakowsky had a *stepmother* who died in 2000? :shrug: I've been trying to find some info on that, but I'm not the best researcher in the world.... in fact, I pretty much suck at it..

As for the "townhouse", is it possible that it could have been an apartment or condo? Some people interchange the 3 of them to mean the same thing. The denial also says "she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life".... ok, but what about her husband? Could he own a townhouse that they don't live in? That could give her a truthful non-denial denial, right? She doesn't own it, and they don't "live" in it, maybe they just use it as a little hideaway. I've never owned, or lived in, a condo on Hilton Head Island. My father-in-law owned it and we only "used" it for a long weekend, or a week during vacation.. we never *lived* in it.

[eomer]

20. Very well put.

One talking point often repeated is that Sibel has no evidence.

Sibel has no evidence in her personal possession, it is true, but that is because the evidence is held by the FBI. It is not true that the evidence does not exist as the misleading talking point invites the reader to mistakenly conclude. Furthermore, Sibel has asked Congress, the DOJ, and their various offshoots to go look at the evidence to verify her statements, a foolish thing to do if the evidence is not going to match what she has said (under penalty of perjury).

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. To declare that Sibel has no evidence immediately brands the

writer as knave or a fool. Almost certainly both. They do tend to go together anyway - without necessarily providing the reader with such a flamboyant demonstration of cretinous knavery as that.

[ShadesOfGrey]

21. Good post! Recommended. nt

[mmonk]

22. Bravo. The issue isn't partisan but the scope is bipartisan.

A lot of it is the defending the "D" and thus, some throw out the baby with the bathwater. The know nothing about it contingent around here are suddenly experts in what is true and what is real. Now when I come in here, I have to hold my nose. GD now would be a nice hiding place for grey wolves and Schmidt staffers. It will pass I hope, soon. I'm sure it will.

[Kaleko]

23. Very good thread. Highly recommended for everyone

who wants to discuss any aspect of the Edmonds saga.

[HamdenRice]

24. She was reading spooks, and spooks lie and exaggerate

I think this point is overlooked. People in the world she was translating are congenital liars.

That doesn't mean that everything she is reporting is untrue, but only that one has to make a judgment about what, overall, the stuff she was translating means. If you've ever read, say, 20 depositions and trial transcripts, you'll know that 20 people describing events are going to have wildly divergent views of "what happened." But by reading all 20, the reader gets an overview of what likely happened. That's the position Sibel is in. I trust her judgment, even if details are wrong.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. The issue of the possible element of exaggeration, etc, may not be

as significant in an area such as this. Indeed, I would suspect it, rather, to be non-existent. Others may have a more informed idea about it.

[nashville_brook]

25. So well put. Thank you for putting this into an OP JR!

The labeling of strong, outspoken women as "batshit crazy" is beneath us. The details of this story are worth paying attention to -- remember, Sibel is reporting what she had access to. The Schakowsky allegations are reported as what the FBI was doing. If the allegations offend, the proper place to direct anger is at the FBI and the chain of command that fired Sibel -- not at the messenger.

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Any mention of "rambling" yet in articles on the proceedings?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. Have you read this article Jack? K&R too

Get the picture? It's play for pay. Nukes, drugs, guns, war, terror -- our Establishment paladins will peddle them all, if the price is right, if there's a slice in it for them, if it suits their personal agenda.

And Giraldi points out the very crux of the matter: "of course, none of this has been investigated." Why should it be? It's the just the way things are done. The Turks and Israelis certainly aren't the first foreign interests to buy congressfolk and government officials like so many cheap suits off the rack. The Nazis and Brits did a wholesale business in bribery and influence-peddling in the years before America's entry into World War II. Gore Vidal has been a prime chronicler of the vast British espionage operation in the pre-war United States, especially in his last novel, The Golden Age. He's also touched upon the similar Nazi effort as well, writing of

...the corrupt Senator William Borah, the so-called lion of Idaho, who had once roared, "I'd rather be right than president," causing my grandfather to murmur, "Of course, he was neither." In 1940, when the poor and supposedly virtuous Borah died, several hundred thousand dollars were found in his safety deposit box. Where had the money come from? asked the press. "He was my friend," said Senator Gore, for public consumption, "I do not speculate." But when I asked him who had paid off Borah, the answer was blunt. "The Nazis. To keep us out of the war."


William Borah, Dennis Hastert, Brits and Nazis, al Qaeda, Turks and Israelis: the players change, but the game goes on -- with ever-higher and more destructive stakes.

...

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1845-curtain-call-grim-glimpses-of-the-worlds-true-workings.html#comments

[JackRiddler]

30. Flashback: Sibel Edmonds Open Letter to Thomas Kean of the 9/11 Commission, Aug. 2004

Sibel Edmonds is a determined, persistent fighter who has not relented in what she says or her struggle to say it for SEVEN YEARS.

Let us hope more people consider the facts before engaging in reflexive attacks!



http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801215339657

Sunday, August 1 2004 - Blog
Edmonds: FBI knew about 9/11 plot in April 2001

Open Letter To Thomas Kean, Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission, from FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

August 1, 2004

Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate 'facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001' and to 'provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism', and has now issued its '9/11 Commission Report'. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives.

Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up ( please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish Translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau's investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI's targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI's targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as ? Not Pertinent.' Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI's investigations and our fight against terrorism. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain 9/11 detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret clearance. Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the Bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen's case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Leahy and Grassley's letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley's statement on CBS-60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (Please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to Director Mueller, the Inspector General criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments' security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI's Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important ?chit-chats' and ?chatters' are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, 'Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ?keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing ( Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information ( Please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours testimony by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ? use of airplanes', ?major US cities as targets', and ?Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.' Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet, your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned; despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ( Please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a ?time limit' excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over two years ago, and after two ?unclassified' sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary level English. He had failed English proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet, Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist related information, and he was sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic language detainees (Turkish, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc.). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet, the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen's case ( Please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). CBS-60 Minutes showed Kevin's picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantanamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI ( Please refer to CBS-60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice Inspector General had a detailed account of these problems ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen's case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS-60 Minutes broadcasted Taskesen's case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI's hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions. Yet, your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI's hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI's largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ? direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases ?sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ? protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ? safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.' Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?

I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.

I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI's translation unit during the most crucial times after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the Bureau's language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by NO means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a Senior Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, and a Senior Democrat Senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on my allegations, ? none of my allegations were disproved.' As you are fully aware, even FBI officials ? confirmed all my allegations and denied none' during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission's hearings, nor your commission's five hundred sixty seven-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report's coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote #25). Yet, your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.

In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing ?visible', because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing ?visible' because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.

Respectfully,

Sibel D. Edmonds

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. As a newspaper columnist called William Strawberry, I believe, put it -

The finding of the 9/11 Commission was like that of a young child, who simply says, "The lamp broke".

[JackRiddler]

31. TODAY: Sibel Edmonds Responds to Schakowsky Statement - "Inviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join" !

It's an open letter, hence fully quotable.

But please follow the link to the annotated text, as that contains further links backing up what she says. For example all the Congress members who have backed her up.

This is a remarkable document.

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

Thursday, September 24, 2009
In Pursuit of the Facts

Inviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join…….

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:

It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations.

When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?

I fought another court case to expose government criminality through key witnesses and documents. As in the FOIA case, I bore tremendous costs and was again blocked by the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege and National Security. The court case identification is Civ.No.1:02CV01448(JR)).

No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were “fantasy, lies, and nonexistent” as you say?

I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.

Several senior members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle--have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg--Sen. Lautenberg Statement—and Senator Grassley--Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?

You have been described as a “true blue” civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me “the most gagged” person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?

I have testified under oath, and my public biography will provide you with information about my educational background, financial background, and family life. I am fully aware of the consequences of perjury, and as you can see, I would have a lot to lose were that the case. I am sure you are familiar with my sworn testimony, but you can review it here.

I’ve done more than my share through the courts, IG offices, Congress, and media. I don’t have your power. You sit on the House Intelligence Committee, and you are one of the members of the majority party in Congress.

Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.

Also bring in former FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager & Espionage Investigator John M. Cole and have him testify under oath regarding espionage cases involving State Department officials, Pentagon officials, and Congressional members. Here is a preview of some of the information disclosed and confirmed by Agent Cole: Interview and Radio Interview.

Also bring in the sworn testimonies of current FBI special agents in the Chicago and DC field offices who dutifully and patriotically led the counterintelligence operations on Turkey and corrupt US officials, only to see their investigations blocked and covered-up. Their names are public.

Order the Justice Department to release the two main Counterintelligence Operations Files on Turkey and “US persons of interest”—one from FBI Chicago Field Office-1996-2002, the other from FBI DC Field Office-1996-2001. These will help bring out the facts regarding your story too. I have documentation supporting the existence of these files.

Recall that I did not accuse you of any criminal or espionage-related activity.

The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you.

Sibel Edmonds

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. A very impressive statement by Sibel.

[Vinnie From Indy]

49. Edmonds letter is horseshit!

Edmonds writes,
"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness."

This is simply nonsense and it is not true. The fact is that Rep. Shakowsky's office DID respond to Edmonds claims with FACTS. They pointed out that Edmonds was wrong about the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral. They also responded with the fact that Shakowsky NEVER lived in a townhome as reported by Edmonds in regard to an alleged lesbian tryst with foreign intelligence agent. Edmonds starts her open letter with a statement that just is not true. What should one think of that?

Edmonds writes,
"When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?"

Is this true? Edmonds claims to have become aware of incriminating evidence during her 180 days working at the FBI in 2001/2002. She waited until 2004 to make her most serious allegations and file a FOIA request. Why did she wait? It appears she is claiming that she immediately began to publicly "uncover" these documents when she actually waited until 2004.

Edmonds writes,
"No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were “fantasy, lies, and nonexistent” as you say?"

The invocation of the State Secrets Privilege was done by the same office twice. I have yet to see any proof that Congressional representatives supported the invocation.

Edmonds writes,
"I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.

Several senior members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle--have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg--Sen. Lautenberg Statement—and Senator Grassley--Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?"

This is appears to me to be the lynchpin of Edmonds claims of complete credibility. Is this true? Well, yes it is true that the IG and senior members of Congress have endorsed Edmonds credibility but only in regard to the initial and most mundane allegations made by Edmonds. The IG, Leahy and the rest have only found that Edmonds claims of mismanagement of her department at the FBI and misconduct by fellow employees was credible. Edmonds is using these endorsements to imply that ALL of her claims are credible. As far as I could determine, NONE of these entities or people endorse her credibility in regard to her most shocking claims of treason and the sale of state secrets by high government officials and sitting members of Congress.

Edmonds writes,
"You have been described as a “true blue” civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me “the most gagged” person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?"

Regardless of the fact that ACLU has declared Edmonds "the most gagged" person in the history of the nation, that does nothing to corroborate Edmonds claims.

Edmonds writes,
"The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you."

The end of Edmonds letter to Shakowsky shows a complete lack of class in my opinion. Why in the world would she take such a cheap shot at Shakowsky by hoping she does not give up her seat and sell her services to a foreign lobby. That is sophomoric bullshit.

In the end, it could still be true that Edmonds has created a cottage industry for herself as a patriot being ground down in the face of a massive conspiracy of hundreds in the FBI, Congress and the White House to shut her up. She claims that she has paid a great price for her yet to be proven claims of high treason and the rest while she founds her own non-profit and is interviewed by media the world over. Any bets that a book deal is not far off? It seems to me that Edmonds has done a masterful job of keeping herself in the spotlight by dribbling out new sensational claims against government officials and members of Congress. Not bad for an unknown that did a six month stint as a translator at the FBI. Not bad at all!

[cascadiance]

96. And this is horseshit trying to claim horseshit!

Edmonds writes,
"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness."

This is simply nonsense and it is not true. The fact is that Rep. Shakowsky's office DID respond to Edmonds claims with FACTS. They pointed out that Edmonds was wrong about the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral. They also responded with the fact that Shakowsky NEVER lived in a townhome as reported by Edmonds in regard to an alleged lesbian tryst with foreign intelligence agent. Edmonds starts her open letter with a statement that just is not true. What should one think of that?

Whatever "FACTS" they give do not provide ANY proof that such a blackmail attempt didn't occur. Just try to call in question the credibility of what details were presented, which don't necessarily show intent to discredit the congresswoman, but perhaps are errors in either the evidence gathering, interpretation of what she is referring to or the like. I see NO fact that is cited here that clearly shows Sibel of intentionally trying to fabricate a story on the congresswoman. That is NOT established!

However, unlike Sibel, Ms. Schakowsky's response was also cluttered with flowery comments that are NOT fact and more closer to clear attempts at lies than what Sibel said about Ms. Schakowsky. The obvious one is the comment that she wasn't from the planet earth, which perhaps shows how seriously we should take her comments. If she truly wants to get to the bottom of the truth, and not just try to find a way to continue having things covered up, she would have expressed more concern and could still state she was innocent, but that an investigation needs to be done to clarify where these errors could exist in these case files on her and who was responsible for them. Done that way, it would have made sure we got to the bottom of who was really responsible for an injustice against her, if it was Sibel or someone else in the intelligence services. The way she responded made it almost sound like she has something to hide as she doesn't want to have Sibel taken seriously at all and that the case not get pursued any further, which sounds to me like she has something to cover up.

Edmonds writes,
"When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?"

Is this true? Edmonds claims to have become aware of incriminating evidence during her 180 days working at the FBI in 2001/2002. She waited until 2004 to make her most serious allegations and file a FOIA request. Why did she wait? It appears she is claiming that she immediately began to publicly "uncover" these documents when she actually waited until 2004.

Why should she NOT wait? She has made it very clear through the years that she tried to go through many different channels and chains of command to do proper reporting of what she felt was wrong before she went to the press or tried to work on her own to investigate the problems. And if I were in her shoes, I'd not jump the gun and try to release stuff too soon before talking to some heavy duty lawyers as well. Again, meaningless criticism.

Edmonds writes,
"No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were “fantasy, lies, and nonexistent” as you say?"

The invocation of the State Secrets Privilege was done by the same office twice. I have yet to see any proof that Congressional representatives supported the invocation.

She didn't say that congressional representatives "supported the invocation of state secrets privilege". She said that they "went to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question". That's a different thing. The Congress could have called her in to testify any time it wanted to and not be bound by the State Secrets privilege but they DIDN'T. And you can write it off until 2006 being due to the Republicans being in control of congress, and Waxman's saying that he'd put her on the stand. Come 2006? Waxman backs away from this commitment, and no other congressional committee tries to get her to testify either, supporting just what she says here? WHY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMy3xylXS9k

Edmonds writes,
"I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.

Several senior members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle--have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg--Sen. Lautenberg Statement—and Senator Grassley--Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?"

This is appears to me to be the lynchpin of Edmonds claims of complete credibility. Is this true? Well, yes it is true that the IG and senior members of Congress have endorsed Edmonds credibility but only in regard to the initial and most mundane allegations made by Edmonds. The IG, Leahy and the rest have only found that Edmonds claims of mismanagement of her department at the FBI and misconduct by fellow employees was credible. Edmonds is using these endorsements to imply that ALL of her claims are credible. As far as I could determine, NONE of these entities or people endorse her credibility in regard to her most shocking claims of treason and the sale of state secrets by high government officials and sitting members of Congress.

How do you KNOW what the content of her allegations were what was reviewed by the Senators and the IG? Do you work in the government offices with access to this SECRET information? If not, then you have no basis to make these statements. You have no basis to claim that they aren't standing up for the basis of her allegations.

Edmonds writes,
"You have been described as a “true blue” civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me “the most gagged” person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?"

Regardless of the fact that ACLU has declared Edmonds "the most gagged" person in the history of the nation, that does nothing to corroborate Edmonds claims.

If Jan Schakowsky doesn't demand an investigation in to this and wants this brushed under the rug and just trash Sibel Edmonds' reputation perhaps unwarrantedly then yes, these statements are sure as hell relevant. Because then she can't lay claim to want to be a champion for the civil rights of whistle blowers when she doesn't want to get at the truth of what one of them says (whether its false or not).

Edmonds writes,
"The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you."

The end of Edmonds letter to Shakowsky shows a complete lack of class in my opinion. Why in the world would she take such a cheap shot at Shakowsky by hoping she does not give up her seat and sell her services to a foreign lobby. That is sophomoric bullshit.

In the end, it could still be true that Edmonds has created a cottage industry for herself as a patriot being ground down in the face of a massive conspiracy of hundreds in the FBI, Congress and the White House to shut her up. She claims that she has paid a great price for her yet to be proven claims of high treason and the rest while she founds her own non-profit and is interviewed by media the world over. Any bets that a book deal is not far off? It seems to me that Edmonds has done a masterful job of keeping herself in the spotlight by dribbling out new sensational claims against government officials and members of Congress. Not bad for an unknown that did a six month stint as a translator at the FBI. Not bad at all!

Compared to the crap that and lack of respect that Schakowsky's office showed to her with their statements, it still seems a lot more respectful than theirs were. She emphasized that Jan Schakowsky had a choice to go down the path of looking for the truth (since Jan hasn't been found to be guilty of any wrongdoing, and Sibel has in effect said that a number of times), or to follow the paths of other congress people that are basically continuing to sell out our country in the same way she warned they would up front.

She has a "cottage industry" because it takes many of us to help make sure that she has enough support to get the truth out. I support getting the truth out! I'm not a "fan boy" of Sibel Edmonds that's just following her and not the substance of what she's trying to do. If she was making this up, it would have been pretty damn easy for the government to prove that she was and shut her down and put her away in prison many years ago. But they haven't! WHY! There are far more government figures out there that have moved a LOT sooner to get "book deals" than she has. As for writing books, she's making no bones about writing an *academic* book at the end of her deposition along with a Professor Weaver:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582662/ARMENIAN-GENOCIDE-Sibel-Edmonds-Deposition-Schmidt-vs-Krikorian

Q Now, have you written any books?
A I'm in the process of writing a book, and I am also writing a book, academic book, which would be studied at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown University with Professor Weaver called "Shoot the Messenger". That has to do with whistleblower legislation, specifically national security whistleblowers and intelligence whistleblowers, which will be published at the end of 2010 by Kansas University Press.

Just because someone is writing a book doesn't mean that they are necessarily trying to profit from something they're manufacturing. When one has put this much time of their life on very important issues like those she's worked on for the last 8 years, I can't see how one would NOT write a book on such an experience.

You need to work more on being a loyalist for our *system* of government and its principles, not just for a given party and its members. The latter is what has gotten this country in so much trouble over the last decade or so, whether it be Republicans or Democrats. Yes, we're going to be disappointed at times and have bad feelings about those who let us down, but ultimately we need to stick to our quest for the truth, not just trying to apologize for it and rationalize it away, nor "invent" truths before they are known yet.

[CanSocDem]

142. Nicely done.

Yours and the OP.

[Selena Harris]

87. Follow the $$$

The one canard that has NOT been flown is that SIbel is out for some $$$.

Since she has footed the financial bills herself for the legal filings,the fact she has never asked for money,substantiates her motivation for me.

How do you put a pricetag on the truth?

[JackRiddler]

90. She also hasn't produced a book...

I saw one comment saying she wasn't for real because of this.

Imagine if she had published, you'd be hearing that it was all to promote sales of her book!

[JackRiddler]

32. midnight kick!

[madfloridian]

33. So now that she mentioned Schakowsky without proof of guilt....

she is calling on her to defend herself and demand an investigation of herself.

Something is wrong with that picture, but I am sure as hell in the minority here.

Why don't the rest of you worry that Schakowsky was outed and accused of things that may have no basis!!?

[troubledamerican]

35. Ever seen Hitchcock's "North By Northwest"?

Cary Grant disrupts a public auction to try to get himself arrested.

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. As somebody intimated above, maybe the original accusation is false, a

Neocon frame-up, but Sibel is evidently reporting the fact of its being documented.

What possible interest could she have, amid all of this, in making a false accusation about Schakwsky's sexuality, whatever it is. Would she have done so in the hope of gaining a little traction in the media - since it did eventuate? Surely not, quite apart from trying to anticipating the media's reactions being so speculative.

Sometimes, there are more important issues than "outing" or not "outing" an individual, painful as it may be to them, as I expect you would agree on further reflection.

[nashville_brook]

80. right on -- it's much more nefarious that groups are using "outing" as a means of blackmail.

[Vinnie From Indy]

45. I agree with you madfloridian

I think Edmonds claims demand a large and healthy dose of skepticism.

One issue that routinely gets glossed over or ignored by the Edmonds cheerleaders is the fact that only PART of Edmonds claims have been supported by Senators Leahy and Grassley, an IG report and the FBI itself.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Leahy, Grassley or anyone else supports her claims of treason by sitting members of Congress and high government officials.

[blueworld]

46. I join you on that side - hope you're wearing flame retardant pj's.

Ms. Edmond's statements & her courage to date more than deserve (at least) an investigation into this entire situation. However, I had the same strong feelings about that BEFORE she named the Congresswoman.

I rather had the impression that "outing" Schakowsky had more to do with trying to force MSM coverage than with anything else. That remains my concern.

These types of entrapments have been going on for generations in every intelligence agency throughout history. If you discover the weakness & set up your target for blackmail...yadda, yadda. However, sometimes the target doesn't "turn" & work for you. Then should we publish the weaknesses & attempts by every sleazy operative?

Nevermind foreign agencies, I'm sure that every Congress critter in DC (plus lobbyists) is gathering info on everyone else as "insurance" as we speak. The seriousness of THIS case is possible treason.

I still applaud Ms. Edmond's efforts, but wish that she had not yet named Schakowsky publicly or that Buchanan had enough integrity to withhold the name for awhile longer. It should have been more than adequate that Congress members were possibly compromised.

[madfloridian]

52. Yes, I agree. I think she used Schakowsky's name to call attention to herself.

I always wear flame retardant clothes here lately.

[Selena Harris]

54. I respectfully disagree

In her deposition, she did not name Schakowsky,nor did she name her in interviews after her depo-although other sources and reporters DID.

And might I add, that if Ms. Schakowsky was being compromised by foreign agents, it was her DUTY to report that she was being blackmailed or coerced in any way. That is the important issue.

[madfloridian]

59. Then why did she name her now with no more proof than before?

To get attention?

Well, she is getting it.

[Selena Harris]

65. Consider the source

Well, why don't you go to the source- her blog,or to bradblog and ask the question yourself?

[nashville_brook]

81. Sibel is NOT the accuser -- she's trying to out the accusers. Ergo, JS made a big mistake attacking

Sibel. It makes her look defensive, when really she should be thanking Sibel for trying to bring the blackmailers to justice.

[cascadiance]

97. Because you don't KNOW that they have no basis!

You are just taking Jan Schakowsky's word for it!

The only way we can know whether Schakowsky has been outed, or if she or someone else (whether it be Sibel or someone else in intelligence services, etc.) has something to hide, is to ask for an investigation. Now Schakowsky would probably be smart to have someone else investigate this, or perhaps even the government oversight committee to investigate this and keep her out of positions of party of that committee to ensure that there's no impropriety, and if she's not guilty of anything she shouldn't have to worry about that.

If it was found that someone made this up, and she's innocent, then yea, many of us here will want to see that person packed away to jail. But if she was investigated, and the tapes are there and she's shown to have lied in her response to Sibel, even if she's innocent of doing anything through blackmail, her district will have to judge her for lying about what Sibel did, and take her to task for her honesty there. But we can't make judgments about anyone until we've had a full investigation.

[LeighAnn]

34. K&R

:grr:

[annabanana]

38. Most of DU's "heavy readers" and longer time members are

aware of these facts. Thank you for a post that ties together the high(low) points of the treatment of this badly mistreated American.

I will bookmark the thread to use as reference for anyone who sounds genuinely interested in figuring out "what's the real story, anyway"?

(Wish I could multi-rec)

[truedelphi]

95. Very good point. Ilike that the article ties a lot of it all together

And wish I could K & R but hte time limit is there.

[slay]

47. Very interesting

K&R

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. And yet for all the words written about and by Edmonds,

her story still raises questions and large parts of it do not make sense.

Edmonds worked at the FBI for roughly 180 days.

In that period of time she allegedly uncovered treason by sitting members of Congress, government and White House officials and became a target for recruitment by a fellow FBI member into one of the very spy networks she was reading about in documents she was translating. Quite a few first weeks on the job!

Edmonds and many defenders on DU offer that Edmond's claims are "supported" by the likes of Sen. Leahy and Grassley and that her allegations were found to be true by an IG report. The part that is ROUTINELY glossed over or ignored is that the parts of Edmonds claims that are supported or were found true have NOTHING to do with treason, the sale of state secrets or the blackmailing of a sitting US Representative. As far as I can tell, the ONLY aspects of Edmonds story that have ever been supported or found true regard the mismanagement of her department and misconduct by fellow workers in her section. THAT'S IT! Edmonds, and others, have been using these endorsements of support about the mismanagement and misconduct at the FBI department where Edmonds worked as proof that all of her claims are credible. That is just not true as far as I can determine. I would welcome anyone to post the links to any information that Senators Leahy or Grassly support her claims of treason, the sale of state secrets and the rest of her bombshell claims. Anyone?

It should also be noted that Edmonds claims have never been static. Her claims have expanded and grown as time goes on. She continues to drop new bombshells. Why is that?

JAckRiddler writes,
"Sibel Edmonds does not claim to be the original source of her stunning allegations of treason among high government officials. She says she is a messenger. Her claims derive entirely from what she says she read in FBI files during her employment there as a translator."

While this could be true, all DUers should realize that this technique has been used by demagogues, charlatans and character assassins the world over since time began. It demands a high degree of skepticism. She should not be held blameless should the carnage she unleashed be found to be untrue simply because she "read it" and is merely a messenger.

In addition, Edmonds only began making the most serious claims of treason etc. in an open letter in 2004. Why did she wait so long to start dropping bombshells? As far as I can tell, her first allegations only involved mismanagement in her department and misconduct by fellow employees.

While many of you will not accept the possibility that Edmonds could be lying, it is still a viable possibility. It is also a possibility that Edmonds has been using these gag orders as a shield to hide behind rather than an obstacle to be overcome. I will admit that I have no knowledge that any of Edmonds claims are true or untrue, but I do think that many of her claims deserve a great deal of scrutiny. I caution all DUers not to simply accept her claims as true because the most serious of her allegations have NEVER been supported by hard evidence or corroborating witnesses.

Flame away!

[Selena Harris]

51. Qui bono?

Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if the FBI tapes are finally revealed?Who stands to gain by not releasing them?

It is inconceivable to me that Edmonds would intentionally make herself a target of ridicule,not to mention at the expense of her personal finances, to perpetrtae a hoax targeting a specific set of politicians.

If she were intent upon fabricating,she could have chosen to say anything about anybody .But, the tapes she reviewed and translated would prove her a liar if those people were not mentioned in them.

Then again, the tapes can verify what she has testified to,also.

Release the tapes.

[JackRiddler]

55. The questions should be answered by release of the evidence, not a priori guesses

Edmonds worked at the FBI for roughly 180 days.

Six months is time enough to read many thousands of pages.

In that period of time she allegedly uncovered treason by sitting members of Congress, government and White House officials

She doesn't say that she uncovered these alleged crimes.

She says FBI investigations had already spent years uncovering evidence of high crimes, possibly including treason.* She says that in the course of her six months at the bureau she had occasion to review the resulting files.

and became a target for recruitment by a fellow FBI member into one of the very spy networks she was reading about in documents she was translating. Quite a few first weeks on the job!

The plausibility of what she says is not affected by your wonderment at how quickly all this happened. Six months is long enough.

In her story, the attempted recruitment follows directly from the fact that she saw the case material, and is not coincidental.

Edmonds and many defenders on DU offer that Edmond's claims are "supported" by the likes of Sen. Leahy and Grassley and that her allegations were found to be true by an IG report. The part that is ROUTINELY glossed over or ignored is that the parts of Edmonds claims that are supported or were found true have NOTHING to do with treason, the sale of state secrets or the blackmailing of a sitting US Representative.

The statements they made corroborated parts of her story. They made no statements denying any other parts of her story. They did choose to support her as a credible witness in general. Thus it is valid to point out that she has partial corroboration from the senators. It would be invalid to say the senators expressed an opinion on the rest of her story.

You have no case for dismissing the rest of her story when it has not been called untrue by them, or, more importantly, established or falsified through subpoenas of the relevant evidence and witnesses.

As far as I can tell, the ONLY aspects of Edmonds story that have ever been supported or found true regard the mismanagement of her department and misconduct by fellow workers in her section.

That any of her statements were supported and found true speaks to her credibility.

As for other statements, they are not therefore false, as you imply. Clearly, they are uninvestigated. Do you support an investigation?

Did authorities or officials make public statements on her other allegations? In a sense, yes: the most dramatic statements by the authorities came in the form of gag orders. Sibel Edmonds didn't invent those, did she?

Was there a prosecutorial investigation of her allegations? No.

Did the 9/11 Commission treat her allegations in its report? No.

There were gag orders. She was threatened with prosecution if she tells what she claims to have learned through the files. Which is why she did not do so, until her recent decision to risk prosecution.

THAT'S IT! Edmonds, and others, have been using these endorsements of support about the mismanagement and misconduct at the FBI department where Edmonds worked as proof that all of her claims are credible.

No. That's your strawman. The endorsements are used as arguments that she should be allowed to speak without fear of prosecution, and that her allegations in turn should be subject to investigation.

Do you support an investigation?

Do you support the opening of these FBI files? Edmonds's letters are highly specific as to the location of files and, no doubt as important, the names of people who should be questioned.

Do you support answering those questions?

That is just not true as far as I can determine. I would welcome anyone to post the links to any information that Senators Leahy or Grassly support her claims of treason, the sale of state secrets and the rest of her bombshell claims.

Can you show them denying any of these claims?

How about we allow the alleged authors of the FBI files to speak? How about we release those files? How about a prosecutor is appointed to check out the files?

Do you support an empirical study of her claims to establish truth or falsehood?

It should also be noted that Edmonds claims have never been static. Her claims have expanded and grown as time goes on. She continues to drop new bombshells. Why is that?

Actually, she began by intimating the later story, given that she was threatened with prosecution for speaking. She revealed details gradually, but the story as she tells it was outlined long ago.

I agree with you that this is a terrible state. The files should be released in full now, so that we get one bombshell instead of many. Everyone involved in the FBI investigations she said were suppressed should be allowed to speak. A prosecutor should investigate the claims.

Are you for an investigation?

While this could be true, all DUers should realize that this technique has been used by demagogues, charlatans and character assassins the world over since time began.

I hear Hitler was a vegetarian, does that prove anything about other vegetarians? You can draw parallels of technique all you like.

The only words that matter in your sentence are "this could be true." Indeed. Therefore it requires investigation. Do you support investigation?

Do you support disclosure of the evidence, so that we don't have to debate on speculation and insinuation?

It demands a high degree of skepticism.

Indeed. Skepticism in turn is not rejection, it is not a static faith or a proof. If it is not to be faith by another name, then its mission must be to suggest empirical studies and tests by which the questions it raises may be answered.

In this case, skepticism demands disclosure of the evidence to the public or at least to a prosecutor.

She should not be held blameless should the carnage she unleashed be found to be untrue simply because she "read it" and is merely a messenger.

Nor should those who issued the gag orders and obstructed disclosure be held blameless, if the files do indeed say what she claims, or if the files provide evidence of crimes by officials that were covered up. In that case, it is those who obstructed who caused "carnage," in part against her.

In addition, Edmonds only began making the most serious claims of treason etc. in an open letter in 2004.

No, that's only what I cited above.

Why did she wait so long to start dropping bombshells?

Because she was not allowed to divulge information and therefore tried to get it out through channels like the Congressional hearings and the 9/11 Commission. Said efforts got her gag orders.

As far as I can tell, her first allegations only involved mismanagement in her department and misconduct by fellow employees.

No, that's how those allegations were usually presented in the press during the initial period, before she began challenging the restrictions that barred her from talking, after which she was slapped with the gag order.

While many of you will not accept the possibility that Edmonds could be lying, it is still a viable possibility. It is also a possibility that Edmonds has been using these gag orders as a shield to hide behind rather than an obstacle to be overcome.

Sure. It's also a viable possibility that Perle, Grossman, Feith et al. were committing treason and high crimes for profit, in addition to the already established body of evidence that implicates them in the planning and launching of an aggressive war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

So an investigation to establish the truth or falsehood of Edmonds's allegations is advisable, don't you think?

I will admit that I have no knowledge that any of Edmonds claims are true or untrue, but I do think that many of her claims deserve a great deal of scrutiny.

Bravo. Since neither of us have direct knowledge, that "scrutiny" should be applied. I hope you understand that means an investigation of her allegations. Not just a witchhunt against her personally.

Do you support an investigation that calls the witnesses and releases the files she specifically identifies?

I caution all DUers not to simply accept her claims as true because the most serious of her allegations have NEVER been supported by hard evidence or corroborating witnesses.

Bravo. So do you support an investigation that calls the witnesses and releases the files, thus establishing the truth or falsehood of her claims?

Sorry if the obvious needed to be repeated so often in the above post.


====================

(* NOTE: Final question, in your 2920 days of living under the Bush administration, did you notice any evidence of treasonous activities, cover-ups and refusals to investigate same? Perhaps the matter of an aggressive war launched on the pretext of outrageous lies? No?)

[Vinnie From Indy]

57. Quite simply, yes!

You and I share common ground in regard to the formal investigation of Ms. Edmonds claims of high treason and the selling of state secrets by sitting members of Congress and White House officials. This should also include the most recent allegations against Rep. Shakowsky.

You write,
"Indeed. Skepticism in turn is not a static faith or a proof of anything. Its mission must be to suggest empirical studies and tests by which the questions it raises may be answered, or else it amounts to philosophy by another name."

While I applaud your interesting use of language in your response, I do not believe that asking readers to apply a high degree of skepticism in regard to Ms Edmond's allegations is fairly described as an offering of proof. My statement was merely a simple reminder that any follower of this issue should apply reasonable levels of skepticism and critical thought.

Cheers!

[mopinko]

61. here is a part that smells funny to me-

and i do say- i have paid some attention to sibel's case, although i do not pretend to have read every word here. i gave weight to the fact that shortly after she started talking denny hastert felt the urge to spend more time with his family. i always was curious how this schlemiel got picked for speaker, anyway.

but this part does not make sense to me-

"She says FBI investigations had already spent years uncovering evidence of high crimes, possibly including treason.* She says that in the course of her six months at the bureau she had occasion to review the resulting files."

i do not see how a contract translator of short tenure gets to look at files of longstanding investigations. this has nothing to do with her job, and presumably requires a security clearance beyond that necessary for a translator. can someone explain this to me?

[Vinnie From Indy]

63. I agree and have asked the same question

Why would a newly hired employee of the FBI be privy to such explosive and highly sensitive information? Even if she was translating bit and pieces concerning these investigations, would she have such a clear understanding of the scope of the efforts. One would think that the FBI would have some procedures for compartmentalizing information especially in regard to newly hire, contract employees.

[Bonobo]

64. As a translator, I can tell you...

People that can translate from Turkish to English and back do not grow on trees.

When you need something translated right away, you don't always have the luxury of getting to choose who will do it.

[mopinko]

66. yes but the fbi files would not be in turkish.

the statement that i quoted was about her seeing fbi files, reports of longstanding investigations. why would she have access to that information?

[cascadiance]

99. If they are speaking Turkish in this country it is the FBI's job, not the CIA's...

And that is likely what was happening with groups of people contributing money to Denny Hastert's campaign, or trying to set up a lesbian "scam" operation that is also located here.

And they would be in Turkish until someone translated them in to English, which was Sibel's job!

[mopinko]

101. fbi agents take notes in turkish?

it says she gained this knowledge from fbi case files, with allegations against certain actors. this is not what she was translating, this is what agents were accumulating. they wouldn't be accumulating it if they didn't know what was being said.

[cascadiance]

102. Sure they have Turkish stuff, if they're audio recordings, copies of mails, emails, etc...

There would be a lot of stuff in Turkish that they "collect" but need a translator to make sense of for them. They don't "transcribe" everything in the field. Why would the FBI even need a translator's division if they had no reasons to translate foreign languages. There's plenty of stuff for them to do.

[mopinko]

131. are you trying not to follow the logic

or what?

[cascadiance]

132. Hmm... Not following you.

You said "yes but the fbi files would not be in turkish."

I just said that the *raw untranslated* files of audio, video, email, and other formats that have been kept on file UNTIL THEY COULD GET TRANSLATED were what she was looking at, and that if they were gathered in the domestic U.S., they would be under the FBI's domain, and not the CIA's. They were *BACKLOGGED* because they didn't have enough personnel that were able to translate Turkish and Farsi language documents.

And how do you know she didn't go through a secret clearance background check? Why should she NOT get a background check to do this work? Who else, if you needed these language skills would be able to do it? If you are suggesting that she wouldn't pass a background check, I think you need to explain why she wouldn't.

And as noted, she also reviewed other translated agent's work on other files (like Melek Can Dickerson), and likely she also looked at other related English or already translated case files to the one she translated to see how the information correlated with each other. At least I would imagine that would be one of their responsibilities, so that she could assign a threat level or whatever importance rating they deserved so that certain documents could be escalated over others.

It would seem that YOU rather than me are not trying to follow logic here.

[JackRiddler]

133. To do such a job properly she'd have to access to more than the source-language material.

To understand what's being said on a surveillance tape and translate it with the proper referents, of course she'd have to be given an idea of the context, in effect access to the files. That's why employees get security clearances.

It's amazing how people reach for every type of "common sense" argument or thought experiment to deny that Edmonds might be right, when the only way of determining the veracity of her statements is obvious - and she provides a frackin' roadmap to the supposed case files, materials and witnesses to be interviewed!

I'll go out on a limb and declare that by now, if the investigations Edmonds cites didn't exist, or if they didn't at least focus on the people she claims, then the FBI and DOJ would have announced as much.

As for the exact content? Is she right that crime and possible treason are being covered up? There's only one way to know: Let's have disclosure, rather than speculation!

[Selena Harris]

93. Pre-Emptive strike?

Dem Rep: CIA Officials Could Be Charged For Lying To CongressJul 10, 2009 ... Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), chair of a key intelligence subcommittee, called for an investigation Friday to determine if the CIA lied to the ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../dem-rep-cia-officials-cou_n_229496.html - Cached - Similar

[newspeak]

62. then how about Colleen Rowley?

She was a FBI agent who also came forward and said they knew something was going down as they were keeping tabs on some of the terrorists. The information was passed to upper echelon. She was not the only FBI agent, I believe there was also another FBI agent who came forward to validate her claim.

[Vinnie From Indy]

71. You actually bring up a great point

As I understand the facts, Agent Rowley's letter to Director Mueller about the 9/11 attacks came well before Ms. Edmonds began telling her tales. Rowley's letter was written to Mueller in May of 2002. Edmonds was fired in April 2002.

As I understand the facts, Edmonds began telling her tales of the FBI having pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in 2004. It is entirely possible that Edmonds simply used widely available speculation about the FBI's pre-knowledge of 9/11 in her allegations.

[Vattel]

91. well-said, and with civility to boot

[Bonobo]

53. Holy shit! A great post! Reminds me of the "Old Days"...

Clear thinking, an appeal to reason and logic! Picture perfect.

K&R! Bravo!

[pberq]

58. Excellent post!

For those who have not been following Sibel's case over the years, please do yourself a favor and read the background.

[H2O Man]

68. Outstanding.

Thank you for this wonderful OP.

Recommended!

[FourScore]

69. K&R

Thanks, JR! Excellent post!

:hi:

[madfloridian]

72. Factual is what I am asking for also.

Sibel's words..."I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman."

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman."

Those are her words from the Brad Blog.

So why did she mention Schakowsky if indeed she did not know if "Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman."

[Selena Harris]

74. Re: Hastert and FBI

See #67

BTW, possibly the info was being gathered well before 2000 on Schakowsky,BUT she wasn't added to the list UNTIL 2000-AFTER enough data had been collected.

Just a thought.

[Vinnie From Indy]

79. Edmonds web of traitors grows with each new bit of evidence

In her above statement we now learn that not only were highly placed members of Congress and senior White House officials engaged in treason, we find out that the Mayor of Chicago (I am assuming Chicago) and SEVERAL Illinois state legislators are engaged in high treason and foreign intrigue. WOW!

Is there any politician not working for the Turks?

[Selena Harris]

82. Who works for whom

Have you actually read the deposition?It seems as though you are more interested in discrediting rather than truthseeking.

Makes a body wonder who you work for.

[Vinnie From Indy]

85. Welcome to DU!

You should mosey on over to the rules that regulate this board and take a gander!

I notice that you did not in any way address my specifc points. Why is that?

[cascadiance]

100. If you were being honest in this other post you wouldn't be calling us a "band of traitors"...

You and I share common ground in regard to the formal investigation of Ms. Edmonds claims of high treason and the selling of state secrets by sitting members of Congress and White House officials. This should also include the most recent allegations against Rep. Shakowsky.

You write,
"Indeed. Skepticism in turn is not a static faith or a proof of anything. Its mission must be to suggest empirical studies and tests by which the questions it raises may be answered, or else it amounts to philosophy by another name."

While I applaud your interesting use of language in your response, I do not believe that asking readers to apply a high degree of skepticism in regard to Ms Edmond's allegations is fairly described as an offering of proof. My statement was merely a simple reminder that any follower of this issue should apply reasonable levels of skepticism and critical thought.

So yes, people like me are calling foul if you continue to try to do more to slam her reputation rather than just express skepticism (which I actually have no problem if people are putting forth honest skepticism). But trying to define all of her actions and those around her as the actions of traitors and similar colorful descriptions don't help us here look for the truth. It just serves to divide and intimidate others away from following the truth, which is why I think the person you responded to here kept asking the question,

"Do you support a full investigation?"

That's something we can all agree on, without calling either Ms. Schakowsky or Ms. Edmonds and others around them names. The only thing I take issue with Ms. Schakowsky at this point is her office's response to Sibel, which I don't think was either helpful to her cause or the cause of finding out the truth (if she is really truly innocent of anything that's been said). I don't want to criticize her otherwise until after I've heard the facts from an investigation that I feel can be trusted to get to the truth. You should do the same towards Sibel if you are truly interested in your last statement I quoted here.

[Vinnie From Indy]

103. I'll bite!

Please show where I called anyone here a traitor?

[bertman]

83. Isn't it interesting that Sibel Edmonds' story is only known to those of us who frequent

the "hard-core" left-wing websites?

This woman appeared before a Senate committee. She was interviewed by the 9-11 Commission. She is an FBI WHISTLEBLOWER who was gagged during those halcyon days of the Bush administration when NOTHING of import escaped the grip of the totalitarian regime that controlled the state's intelligence/police state apparatus.

No mention of any of this in the corporate media?? Astonishing isn't it?

Thank you for this post, JackRiddler.

Recommend.

[Selena Harris]

84. Markopolis Matrix

Do you recall the whistleblower who begged and pleaded with the SEC to investigte Madoff-providing calculations to substantiate it was a Ponzi scheme?

The SEC blew him off for years,too.

[bertman]

89. Thanks for the reminder, Selena.

[Selena Harris]

94. The pleasure is all mine,bertman

[AntiFascist]

109. "60 Minutes" interview, you can't get anymore MSM than that....

too bad there hasn't been a followup:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

...

Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages, Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after Sept. 11 and given top-secret security clearance to translate some of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who have been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad.

...

[bertman]

113. Sure you can, AntiFascist. You can get talked about all day and all night on MSNBC,

CBS, CNN, and every other network. And for days on end, or even weeks, if you're talking about a blonde American teenager who has disappeared somewhere in the Caribbean.

You are absolutely right about the followup.

Thank you for reminding me of the "60 Minutes" interview.

[JackRiddler]

86. Thank you so much for all the K&R (and presumably K&U)!

[Selena Harris]

88. Regrets

I regret that I have only one rec to give for my country!

[KoKo]

92. Nicely Done, "JR." Shouldn't we wonder why Orly Tatiz, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh

and the rest can get media attention for the most outrageous of accusations and yet the Sibel Edmunds information is squelched for years. Some attention in Guardian and by Giraldi and now in the paleocon, Pat Buchanan mag...but why is it only progressive blogs (and few) would continue her fight to get what she has documented out there covered by any MSM? If the media really loves reporting outrageous comments by Republicans and their operatives...why is it that no one is touching Sibol's information? And, why is it that the Repugs aren't all over the Jan Shakowsky revelation?

I've seen Chris Matthews give a lot of air time to Bernie Keric (discredited Giuliani partner), Tom DeLay (he just loves that scamp) and now this week, that weird congressman who was just released from prison. Matthews is known for putting some of the most disreputable characters out there to "hear their story" and yet...where is Sibel Edmunds?

What is it that not even rabid Repugs will give attention to this...since we know that they would love to eliminate a progressive Democrat like Shakowsky.

Why the silence? Is it because Sibel's REAL story is so big that even a scandal about Shakowsky would not be worth it for either Dems or Republicans to allow out to the public? Too many persons of power would be unmasked and many connections revealed about how the "Empire" really works? :shrug:

[jberryhill]

104. Staying "factual"

This is how one asserts a "fact"?

"The accused persons did not issue denials, possibly because they were involved in a lot of stuff that may land them in jail, even if none of Edmonds’s specific accusations should pan out. "

...or quite possibly because they do not feel compelled to issue denials.

I do not believe it to be either civil or factual to assert that the absence of a denial is an admission of wrongdoing. But it surely is a good rhetorical device.

[JackRiddler]

105. The "accused persons"...

happen to include Perle, Feith, and other major engineers of the Iraq war lies.

These were lies, meaning witting falsehoods, and they have been exposed as such amply, including in declassified documents and de facto confessions, and they were used to allow the launching of an aggressive, unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, in violation of international law. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries and inestimable damage both to that nation and our own followed as a direct result.

As a lawyer you may wish to dispute or put caveats on all that, and it is true that these criminals have not been brought up before a tribunal, but I shall say this is entirely for political reasons, and not because their crimes and mens rea can be doubted by any reasonable person who was paying attention to these events during the last eight years.

So thinking of those involved in the Iraq attack complex (and perhaps being unfair to others mentioned by Edmonds who may not have been) I am happy with my statement and its implication that these men would not want to risk stirring up investigations that examine anything about them, even if they might not fear the Edmonds allegations in particular.

[jberryhill]

108. Broken Logic

It is perfectly well known that Feith et al. provided the fabric of lies to support an unjust war.

That proposition is not strengthened by the sideshow carnival that is Sibel Edmonds' dance of the seven veils. But creating a circus of distractions around clearly evident fact is nothing new.

[Vinnie From Indy]

110. I agree and your observations are completely viable

As I understand the Edmonds saga, it is completely plausible that she has simply grafted to her own story readily available information about the attacks of 9/11 and other bits of information regarding espionage and the like.

Each time Edmonds writes an open letter or grants an interview, the questions multiply. She has by no measure provided direct corroboration for her tales of high treason by dozens of government officials and elected representatives.

It seems that it bears repeating for readers that Edmonds claims of high treason, the selling of state secrets and the blackmailing of sittiing members of Congress have never been corroborated or supported by anyone. What I have read over and over again is that Edmonds claims have been supported by Senators Leahy and Grassley and an FBI IG report. The fact is that these declarations of support are very limited and concern only Edmonds initial allegations of departmental mismanagement at the FBi and misconduct by fellow FBI employees. That is it. I would welcome any information by any reader that would show that Sen. Leahy or Grassley support Edmonds allegation of high treason, the selling opf state secrets and the blackmailing of sitting member of Congress. Edmonds and her supporters habitually offer these LIMITED declarations of support as proof that her entire story is credible. That is simply not true.

There are also many other aspects of Edmonds story that demand a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thought.

[JackRiddler]

115. VinnieFromIndy: Here we go again! Are you for or against investigation?

I thought you said you shared in the demand for an investigation?

What's this then?

"She has by no measure provided direct corroboration for her tales of high treason by dozens of government officials and elected representatives."

This is at most a provisional truth. How can she provide this "direct corroboration"? She has always specified very precisely where and how such corroboration can be found: in the case files, the surveillance tapes, the testimonies of investigators who have not been called before grand juries or other prosecutorial bodies.

So it's time for disclosure, rather than contempt in advance of investigation.

If she's lying, it can be proven. Does that interest you, or do you prefer repeating the same talking points about whether you find her story "credible" or how far Leahy's and Grassley's statements of support go?

Investigate! Disclose the data! That's what she demands. Do you agree?

[Vinnie From Indy]

118. Yes, I do agree

I think that it is important to remind readers that the most explosive of Edmonds claims have not been corroborated. It is also my opinion that there are reasons to be highly skeptical of Edmonds claims using the available evidence and Edmonds own statements. I plan on writing an OP on Edmonds later this weekend. I think it will be illuminating for DUers to see just how many people Edmonds claims are guilty of treason and spying. It is quite a list and it keeps growing.

I will also offer that I see some similarities in what Edmonds is doing now and what Sen. Joe McCarthy did in the 1950s. Edmonds should not expect to be immune from scrutiny if she is going to make such serious allegations against people with no offer of proof beyond her word that it exists.

[JackRiddler]

122. Do readers need reminding that Edmonds's claims lack "corroboration"?

Hardly!

That lack highlights the heart of the story: the gag orders, the classifications, the omissions of the 9/11 Commission, the use of a totalitarian "state secrets" doctrine that the government itself had not dared to invoke in decades. That "lack" is what Edmonds has been fighting for more than seven years.

For most of that time she remained circumspect and cautious about what she said, until, finally, all legal avenues had been exhausted and in fact twisted to prevent disclosure. Only then did she start to tell the heart of her story. Thus it is not Edmonds who fails to corroborate. It is the government bodies who have blocked any chance of corroboration! In the Edmonds case, the government's conduct is the real story. It seems, however, that you'll resort to any rherotical device in an effort to distract from that.

Now you'll even draw a parallel between Edmonds and Joe McCarthy! Such an outrageous statement must necessarily rely on complete ignorance of who McCarthy was, and what he represented.

[JackRiddler]

114. jberryhill: Clearly, you've prejudged the case, so who needs to examine the evidence?

You say:

"sideshow carnival"

"dance of the seven veils" (some might find this phrasing unfortunate!)

"circus of distractions"

What need then is there for you to support an investigation to determine the truth or falsehood of her claims? Apparently you already know, without needing to see the files or the tapes, that she's spent seven years fighting to declassify information that (you seem to be implying) doesn't even exist.

Why? Those dancing women of the Orient, they just want to distract and make circuses, I guess. It's not like they'd do anything out of rational considerations, right?

-------

Re: "Feith et al."

At the moment, the more significant fact for the future than that Feith et al. "provided the fabric of lies to support an unjust war" is that Feith et al. are not only getting away with this great crime, but prospering in its wake. This teaches an important lesson to the war criminals and imperialists of the future: crime pays.

Our "perfectly well" knowing of what Feith et al. did doesn't substitute for justice. But apparently expressing a blind, reflexive dismissal and mocking disrespect for Edmonds is a higher priority for you than the opening of an investigation into the crimes of Feith et al.

[jberryhill]

119. "The Case"

Yes, Jack, you nailed it. I already have judged the absolutely corrupt actions of those that are responsible for the US invasion of Iraq and a host of other activities. So have you. Big deal.

Your tactic of "Don't you demand an investigation?" which you use as a conversational bludgeon, as if posting "I demand an investigation" on DU was off any consequence, is a tiresome discussion ender. Sibel Edmonds hearsay includes factually erroneous information, such as the objectively verifiable date of the death of a congressperson's mother, which doesn't make it particularly credible, nor does her years of shouting "lookit me, I know seekrit stuff I can't talk about."

I'm not impressed by it, Jack. You'll just have to find a way to cope with that.

[JackRiddler]

124. Tell me, why was she "shouting" for years about suppression?

Could it be because she was being subjected to it? Or were the court orders a figment of her imagination?

And if you think what I say on DU doesn't matter, why does what you say matter? What's the point of being here?

[midnight]

107. Many times, I come to D.U. and I'm completely grateful for the

truly brave and intelligent commentary. So many smart people post here, so it is hard for me to understand how anyone reading this blog would not be on top of this story. Not know who Ms. Edmonds is or to understand how hard she has been working within the parameters she was given to get an investigation into a situation that is not in the best interest of our country.

[earcandle]

111. Does Edmonds have access to the Jan blackmail video? That would help validate her case.

[earcandle]

112. BTW, I see no wrong in Jan having an affair. I see the wrong in the exploitation of her as a result

of staging an event to generate content for blackmail.

Sort of like the Acorn video makers that were staging them as
well.

yea, the affair is a private preference matter to be dealt
with in the marriage only, as indicated by Ensign and Sanford.
 

[AntiFascist]

116. Why are people completely ignoring the underlying security issues?

Schakowsky is an important member of the House Intelligence Committee. If she is being compromised then it is a very important matter. Blackmailing politicians with some information relating to sex or other scandals is (probably) a common practice when they are compromised in this way. The FBI has investigated others in Congress on related matters.

[Selena Harris]

120. See #93

Interesting timing on the article-one month before Edmonds deposition.

Involves the same time frame,that is,starting immediately following 9/11/01.

And yes, I agree that the ENTIRE issue is about compromised security.

[Selena Harris]

121. See #67 and #68 ,also

The states of Missouri and Illinois play prominent roloes in the Edmonds deposition.

Dennis Haster is prominently mentiones-he's from Illinois.

Roy Blunt is from Missouri.

Both of these men had extensive ties to Jack Abramoff.

[Selena Harris]

123. See #67 and #68 ,also

The states of Missouri and Illinois play prominent roles in the Edmonds deposition.

Dennis Hastert is prominently mentioned-he's from Illinois.

Roy Blunt is from Missouri.

Both of these men had extensive ties to Jack Abramoff,whose crony,Kevin Ring is on trial for the past two weeks.Many of the same players mentioned in Edmond's gallery were featured in the court exhibits for Ring's trial.Ring was the middleman between Abramoff and Rep. John Doolittle of California.

National Journal-Under the Influence has been doing daily diaries on the trial.

[earcandle]

125. Thanks for the info!

[AntiFascist]

127. There's also the case of Jane Harman....

Sibel says:

"I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117

Earlier this year, certain NSA whistleblowers have claimed that they have direct wiretap evidence implicating Harman, but in the irony of all ironies this was dismissed by Alberto Gonzales (at the time) because Harman was instrumental in executing the NSA wiretap bill! Those tricky RepubliCONS.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=1

[JackRiddler]

128. We have a corrupt nomenklatura...

especially pronounced among those involved in the national security state. They're found in both parties and solipsistic, referring always to a set of narrow ideological constructs to justify highly destructive foreign and "defense" policy. They either are rich and identify accordingly, like Richest Member of Congress Jane Harman, or get rich playing the revolving-door game. No one is elected who can't raise millions in campaign money from corporations and the rich. No one who challenges the consensus about the need to spend trillions of dollars on "defense" and "intelligence" has a chance, either, unless they're Dennis Kucinich. ;)

In this situation, what Edmonds describes could well be a normal atmosphere for the top operators. One of the denialist tricks is to make this widespread and deep-rooted corruption sound incredible, as though it's outrageous to suggest that our government-corporate power structure is run as a form of organized crime.

[AntiFascist]

129. "a form of organized crime"....

I think that keys into the problem precisely; and, it doesn't matter what race, party, nationality, or religious ideology they are, whether they be Democratic or Republican, Iranian, Israeli or Turkish, those differences are only useful in dividing up the populace and pitting us against each other.

[wildbilln864]

126. a kick....

sadly I'm too late to rec. :patriot:

[JackRiddler]

134. Good news, everyone! NARA releases 9/11 Commission interview with Sibel Edmonds

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00236.pdf

The link leads to the "declassified" version of Sibel Edmonds's interview by the staff of the 9/11 Commission on February 11, 2004.

For those of you too lazy to link, here's the punch line:

The "declassified" document consists of a cover page specifying where and when the interview was held, and giving a short bio of Sibel Edmonds. This is followed by the "interview," which consists of

FIVE ENTIRELY BLANK PAGES.

This is a mockery to very idea of declassification, and an insult to everyone who believes in democracy and open government.

THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU ANGRY.

As a people, we should not tolerate this kind of treatment.

Is this what Edmonds's attackers on this board wish to defend?

If this pattern continues, and we see a series of other "declassified" but mostly blank documents, are the attackers going to say, "Well, hey, they RELEASED the documents, didn't they? Why is she still complaining?"

No doubt we'll hear how important it is to let the government redact for national security reasons.

"Golly, they must have had their reasons to redact the entire interview! Case closed!"

[JackRiddler]

135. kick

[JackRiddler]

137. Brad Blog update: FBI agent confirms key Edmonds allegations?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6650531

And he won't be the only one. Edmonds has provided a list of people who should be interviewed. She is specific about where the files are located. Let's have an investigation to settle the claims, without attacking her or making her into a saint.

As far as the plausibility of her story is concerned, it's implausible only to those who can't allow the idea that organized criminality without fear of oversight is widespread in government.

[JackRiddler]

138. Final kick?

Maybe the Polanski frenzy's dying down?

[fascisthunter]

139. Here's another kick

from somebody who wants to know the truth!

[JackRiddler]

140. Edmonds & Schakowsky, some more thoughts

Some people say that Edmonds (or BradBlog) have "attacked" Schakowsky. That would be the case only if Edmonds's story is a whole-cloth fabrication. What would motivate her to make up actionable libels, I do not know. At any rate, we cannot know enough to say such a thing as long as her FOIA case is blocked by invocation of the "state secrets" doctrine. The relevant FBI case files are closed to public disclosure and even to federal prosecutors.

Edmonds's story is not about Schakowsky. It is about what she says she read and heard in the FBI archives of investigations into the activities of the Turkish and Israeli lobbies. If the FBI archives do actually contain the allegations and findings that Edmonds claims, then Edmonds in fact kept Schakowsky's name out of the public for years, long after she revealed the names of Perle, Feith, Grossman, Hastert et al. as participants in a spying-for-cash ring that served the Turkish and Israeli lobbies as its clients.

Again, if the FBI archives do read as Edmonds says, then it was the neocons and lobbyists she attacked by violating the government gag orders, and she shielded Schakowsky for many months after spilling the beans on the neocons. Schakowsky, in Edmonds's telling, is described as a target of the spy ring, not a perpetrator.

It matters not what one thinks is the likeliest or most plausible out of all the scenarios. Here's my binary opposition: Either you are for disclosure of the FBI archives in the cases Edmonds cites, and an investigation to follow that may in the end indict her for libel and slander; or you are for the invocation of state secrets doctrine in a way that prevents us from knowing the truth or lies of her story, and may protect the architects of the Iraq invasion -- the bloodiest crime against humanity committed in the young century -- from prosecution on charges of treason.

[pauldp]

141. Wow. I missed this one. Thanks Jack, great focus.

Lets see a new investigation and subpoena for those docs!