Monday, July 30, 2007

FBI, Congress: Sibel Edmonds case 'unclassified'

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

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

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

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

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

(grfx love to One Pissed Off Liberal )


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said, I'm a dunce. The ACLU timeline on Sibel's case reads:
"JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004."

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

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

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

Sunday, July 29, 2007

free speech

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

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Which four Congressfolk are being bribed by Turkey?

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

We know that one of them was Dennis Hastert.

Who do you think the others were?


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

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

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

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

Who do you think is on the list?

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

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

Monday, July 23, 2007

Sibel & Gents against for Genocide

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

Crowley investigates the efforts of Turkey's lobbyists in DC to block any recognition by Congress of the 1915 Armenian genocide.
"Even in modern Washington, where it's taken for granted that everyone has their price, flip-flopping on genocide has the ability to shock."


Crowley's article isn't so much about denying genocide, but rather what Sibel Edmonds rightly calls The Highjacking of a Nation:
"Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power."


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

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

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

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

It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day. In Washington, however, the Armenian genocide industry is in full bloom. And Dick Gephardt's shilling isn't even the half of it.
Those familiar with Sibel's case will recognize the Hastert reference. In the Vanity Fair article about Sibel, An Inconvenient Patriot, David Rose wrote:
"For many years, attempts had been made to get the house to pass a genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000, when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing and see that it received a full house vote... Thanks to Hastert, the resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed the International Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, minutes before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it.

At the time, he explained his decision by saying that he had received a letter from President Clinton arguing that the genocide resolution, if passed, would harm U.S. interests. Again, the reported content of the Chicago wiretaps may well have been sheer bravado, and there is no evidence that any payment was ever made to Hastert or his campaign. Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000. "
For the record, I believe that Rose was mistaken. Hastert did indeed receive the $500,000, stuffed into suitcases and delivered to his home - but the bribe was for reasons other than the genocide resolution.

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

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

Crowley would probably find that most of these lobbyists are very close to the American Turkish Council (ATC), "a front for criminal activity," according to Sibel. And Crowley would probably find that although these lobbyists purport to be working for the Republic of Turkey, that might not actually be true. Ex-CIA agent Phil Giraldi says:
"The money involved does not appear to come from the Turkish government, and FBI investigators are trying to determine its source and how it is distributed. Some of it may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit."
If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, home to all these lobbyists, he'll notice that the FBI has been running a counter-intelligence operation against them since the mid-Nineties. And he'd notice that Sibel's case, in part, is about the nuclear black market. And he'd also notice that Valerie Plame's CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was also investigating nuclear black market activities within the ATC. Crowley might even think that enabling, and covering-up, black-market nuclear proliferation, today, by Turkey, Pakistan, and other countries is weirder, and much more dangerous, than denying a genocide that took place 90 years ago. And Crowley would probably note that Stephen Solarz, author of the anti-nuclear-proliferation 'Solarz Amendment' to the Foreign Assistance Act, and current lobbyist for Turkey, had flip-flopped on the idea of illegal nuclear proliferation, for a price.

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

In Crowley's current piece, he writes:
"Earning a special commendation for dubious behavior is Washington's Jewish-American lobby. In one of this tale's strangest twists, the Turks have convinced prominent Jewish groups, not typically indifferent to charges of genocide, to mute their opinions."
If Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC, he'll learn that it was established by AIPAC (and JINSA) and that the groups have significant overlap in terms of members, goals and activities. When he appreciates that fact, he might begin to untangle the "strangest twists."

And if Crowley takes a closer look at the ATC and associated groups, he'd likely find that they have a habit of bribing congressfolks - Sibel says that there are four that she knows about - and Crowley would likely notice that the system of corruption has an inbuilt 'Continuity -of-Perma-Gov' plan. Sibel describes it thusly:
These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.
Those 'who still serve' are 'renumerated,' in part, while they stay in office, provided that they serve their paymasters, but they are promised even greater riches when they leave office. In some cases, the ex-congressmen will be given lucrative 'lobbying' contracts where they perpetuate the machine by bribing new congressmen. With rumours that Hastert will soon resign, we can probably expect to see a newly formed Hastert Group hanging out a shiny new shingle.

In other cases, such as that of Marc Grossman, the pay-off can appear in the form of an 'advisory' position. Since Grossman resigned in 2005, one of his new roles is an advisory position with Ihlas, "a large and alleged shady Turkish company which is also active in several Central Asian countries," earning $1.2m per year. Sibel says that Grossman
"used his position within the State Department to secure future higher-level positions while in office — and I would like to emphasize this — while in office..."
In other words, there was an explicit quid pro quo.

If Crowley were to take a closer look at some of these cases, he'd learn that this isn't garden-variety corruption. As Sibel says:
"The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security..."
Treason, in other words. And a clear, present, and ongoing danger.

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

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

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


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

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

(dkos, DU)

Friday, July 20, 2007

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

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

That's certainly true. Why?

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

That's not true. Senator Charles Grassley said:
"Absolutely, she's credible. And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the documents exist, maybe they dont - apparently they are the Schrödinger's cat of documentary evidence. For 5 years Sibel has staked her claim, her reputation, on the fact that they exist.
"Put out those tapes. Put out those wiretaps. Put out those documents. Put out the truth. The truth is going to hurt them. The truth is going to set me free."

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

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

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Osama: I've got nukes

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

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

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

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

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

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


In November 2001, in an interview with Hamid Mir (The New York Times calls him "a widely respected Pakistani journalist,") Osama bin Laden said:
"We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xposted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

Monday, July 9, 2007

Can we get Cheney & Libby?

"Imagine if Dick Cheney was a foreign agent."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CD: But you can start from anywhere –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, July 7, 2007

A Forgotten Patriot

This Letter to the Editor was published at Buzzflash:
Subject: A Forgotten Patriot

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

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

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

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

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