Who Is Sibel Edmonds And Why Is She Dangerous? (To Some People!)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html
Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.
Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds' case, citing the government's state secrets privilege. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Edmonds in her appeal of that ruling. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 21, 2005.
The privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block the release in litigation of any material that, if disclosed, would cause harm to national security. However, the government has employed the privilege to dismiss Edmonds' entire case in an effort to protect itself from embarrassment. While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.
Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) sued the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft in June 2004 claiming the retroactive classification of Edmond's testimony was a violation of the First Amendment. That lawsuit is still pending, although Ashcroft and the Justice Department have moved to dismiss the suit.
The remarkable act of retroactive classification exemplifies a dangerous abuse of secrecy by the government regarding Edmonds' case. At least two Senators, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), publicly support Edmonds and have pushed the Justice Department to declassify at least some of its investigation into her dismissal.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&rls=gm&q=Sibel%20Edmonds
LIVE BLOG: Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a 'No Show', Bombshells Under Oath
8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order
8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case
8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: DoJ Pressures Ohio Election Commission to Block Edmonds Testimony
UPDATES INCLUDE: CONGRESS MEMBERS NAMED IN ESPIONAGE, BRIBERY, SEXUAL BLACKMAIL SCHEMES; NEW BREWSTER JENNINGS / VALERIE PLAME DISCLOSURE...
'State Secrets' privilege NOT asserted by DoJ; FBI whistleblower answered ALL questions under oath on Turkish infiltration of U.S. Government...
Live blogging coverage of the Sibel Edmonds deposition at the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington D.C. For background see previous coverage:
8:00am PT (11:00am ET): The deposition has now begun inside the National Whisteblowers Center, and has not, apparently, been blocked by an assertion of the "state secrets" privilege by the DoJ.
The BRAD BLOG has some folks covering outside the testimony this morning, and I just spoke to some of the folks on the ground outside the NWC, just before the deposition was set to begin, including David Krikorian who flew in last night from Ohio.
Krikorian said that he hadn't yet seen anybody from the DoJ there yet, and both he and Edmonds confirmed that there hadn't been any new action (that they knew about) since the late-night legal back and forth between the DoJ and OEC on Friday night. Though Krikorian added that he "wouldn't be surprised" if someone from DoJ showed up. We'll find out later today if they did.
He said his team intended to ask detailed questions on the three major points they'd described in their press release [PDF] issued earlier this week, focusing on whether and how "The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress."
Krikorian did not seem dissuaded by the FBI's and then the DoJ's attempts to block Edmonds' testimony, and that they intended to be thorough in their deposition. "That's pretty much the whole point of this exercise," he told me.
Schmidt (R-OH)'s attorney is Bruce Fein, the one time Assoc. Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration who has, over the past several years, become a fierce critic of the George W. Bush Administration. He believed the deposition would not take long, though Krikorian's people may have a differing opinion there.
There are apparently a handful of mostly independent and foreign media outlets present outside the NWC. No corporate MSM, from the reports I've gotten. Independent TV/media, an Armenian English language weekly, and press attache representatives of some foreign governments are among those present.
8:40am PT (11:40am ET): During a break, Edmonds and the attorneys stepped outside.
DoJ still a no-show, so the questioning has proceeded, and Edmonds has been able to say "everything that she hasn't been able to say so far, implicating many members of Congress in a criminal conspiracy," according to interviews with Fein and others.
Edmonds' attorney, Michael Kohn said: "The Justice Department decided not to show. Therefore, the deposition has gone much more smoothly than we had anticipated."
Edmonds told me in a brief phone conversation during the break: "Bruce Fein is raising objections to everything", though that's to be expected. She said she's been asked, and has answered, questions on Dan Burton (R-IN), Dennis Hastert (R-IL) (who is now a lobbyist for Turkey), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), and other questions on those high-ranking officials and lobbyists in her "State Secrets Gallery".
She added that "somebody said the FBI was given the wrong time, for 11:30 instead of 10:30", though she didn't see how that could be, given that the time for the start of the deposition has been well publicized. In any case, it's now 11:45am ET, so we'll see if they showed up during this break. They have now gone back into session...
9:41am PT (12:41pm ET): Another break...Edmonds still being questioned under direct. Fein believes his cross-examination will last two hours or so once he begins. They are now breaking for lunch. DoJ/FBI still did not show up.
The deposition is being videotaped and Edmonds hopes that it can be released as soon as possible after the deposition, though there has been some objections about releasing the video tape...
10:09am PT (1:09pm ET): Wow... just had lengthy conversation with Krikorian about Edmonds' testimony. Just wow... coming momentarily...
...
Spoke to Edmonds, who says she's "tired, gotta put some sugar into her system", but that she's satisfied with what's being put on the record so far. "Things we have never discussed outside before".
A lengthy conversation then, with Krikorian, may give you some idea of what she's referring to.
Here's Krikorian, directly quoted. Hang on to your seats...
"From my opinion, if I'm some of the current members of Congress, I'd be very very worried about the information that's going to come out of this. There are current members of Congress that she has implicated in bribery, espionage. It's not good. It's crazy, it's absolutely crazy. For people in power situations in the United States, who know about this information, if they don't take action against it, in my opinion, it's negligence.
[Which current members have been implicated?]
[Dan] Burton (R-IN), described as basically accepting bribes and involved in espionage for the Turkish government...she could not discuss the extremely illegal activities that Mr. Burton committed against U.S. interests, as she put it.
Also, a current female Democratic [ed note: I misheard, he later said he didn't know if she was Dem or Rep] member of Congress who has been blackmailed by the Turkish Government...called a 'hooking exercise'...she's apparently bi-sexual and they bugged her apartment, she's married with children, and they set up a relationship with another female who went in and had sexual relationships with her. And they had all the episodes bugged within this current Representatives home and they blackmailed her. ... She wouldn't give her name, but her photograph [is the one with the question mark on it in the "Sibel Edmonds Rogue Gallery" ] .
The context of the discussion was that this particular Representative was amenable to passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. And then based on this 'hooking' operation, changed her position. She was reluctant to put this person's name on record.
[CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION FROM EDMONDS, 4:26pm PT (7:26pm ET): After reviewing our coverage, Edmonds clarifies that she did not discuss the specific voting record of the Congresswoman in question discussed above, because she didn't, and still doesn't, know her record on that particular issue. As Krikorian's quote above may have been inadvertently misleading on that point, she wanted to correct that record. - BF]
[Other people implicated included] Livingston (R-TX), Hastert (R-IL), Dick Gephardt (D-MO), other non-Congressional members, people like Brent Scowcroft, other appointed members of the U.S. government.
One of the reasons we sought her testimony is especially for these reasons. I can tell you that counsel for Schmidt has been objecting to much of the testimony. I stopped counting the number of objections that were raised. But, she's an extremely credible witness, she knows a lot about what happened. She's implicated Turkish organizations operating in the U.S. with both overt and covert operations.
[Q: Which ones?]
ATC, ATAA, TACA...She talked about how she was recruited to join these operations, she talked about the fact that the Inspector General's report exonerated her, she talked about the circumstances around her dismissal, she talked about the fact that these the fact that these Turkish American operations were, she said in her words 'all receiving support from the Turkish government'.
She talks about one of the main lobby issues is suppressing U.S. media coverage of the Armenian Genocide and preventing the Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress from passing. She said very very strongly that is one of their major issues.
She also attested there is no credible opposition to the historical facts of the Armenian genocide, that it's only coming from Turkey.
[Ed note: Edmonds was raised in Turkey, though is a U.S. citizen. Krikorian is of Armenian descent. Schmidt is neither, but she is co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus.]
Did not have very flattering things to say about former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. ... Actually, I stopped taking notes because I was o fascinated by what she was saying. ... She talked about the Rand Corp., Brewster-Jennings, nuclear secrets...
Frankly it's disappointing that things like this are happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Is it a huge surprise? No. Should it be tolerated? Absolutely not. I can't imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson allowing this sort of thing to go on in the Republic that they created. I cannot imagine it.
We're talking about High Crimes against the United States government. If the Government is aware of these High Crimes and doesn't prosecute them, I'm not sure what can be said about this.
...
[Q: Do you predict problems with Democrats whose support you will need when running against Schmidt as a Dem in 2010?]
Problem with Democrats...?
Well, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Solarz are no longer Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives. I think it would be extremely naive and the height of folly for the Democratic leadership to suggest for a moment that Democrats aren't also corrupt. I don't mean as an entirety, but that there aren't corrupt members of the Democrat caucus. I think there was a recent Democrat down south somewhere who was found with thirty thousand dollars cash in his freezer, or whatever.
If Democratic National Committee or the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Comm.] came out and said, 'hey, we're entirely clean and there's no fault on us', I think the American public would laugh at them. So, this is not an indictment of one party or the other. This is about standing up for what's right for the country, and what is right for the citizens of our country.
Again, I ran as an independent last time [in 2008]. I'm running as a Democrat [in 2010] because I think right now they're probably the better of the two parties. But nevertheless, I don't necessarily buy into the fact that they're without blood on their hands...
[Q: Did she implicate any sitting Democrats?]
She did not indicate any names of any currently serving Democrats that I'm aware. [Though he wasn't certain if the unnamed female Representative was either Democratic or Republican].
Krikorian went on to say that he expects to release the video of the deposition, which, along with the transcript, is the property of his legal team. says "There will be...This could be a 10 part YouTube video segment, that we'll put out there."
He doesn't yet know when a transcript will be available.
The cross-examination of Edmonds, by Schmidt's attorney Fein is still in progress...
12:24pm PT (3:24pm ET) Apparently the proceedings are now wrapping up. It's believed that Edmonds and Krikorian and the attorneys will speak to whatever media is outside the NWC. Will cover...
12:56pm (3:56pm ET) Okay, I believe this will be the final update. But it will end with a BANG. Big time...Read to the end...really...
The attorneys and Krikorian and Edmonds all had a media avail after the deposition completed.
Bruce Fein, the attorney for Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) --- who began all of this with her complaint at the Ohio Election Commission against David Krikorian, claiming he made "false statements" by alleging she took "blood money" from Turkish interests to suppress a vote in the U.S. House on the Armenian Genocide resolution --- was confronted by a reporter with Armenian TV who asked if it wasn't the "cornerstone of free speech for candidates to talk about freely about these matters.
Fein became very defensive, said that Krikorian "can say whatever he wants about the Armenian Genocide, but what he's not allowed to do is state lies. We don't want to close anybody's mouth when it comes to taking about the Armenian Genocide...What we're trying to do is promote freedom of speech. Some versions are trying to harass individuals who are trying to dispute history."
The reporter, Elizabeth Chouldjian, freelancing coverage today for Armenian Horizons TV, is also with Armenian National Committee of America, and she continue to press her points, and asked Fein if he didn't have a conflict of interest in this case. She had earlier told me that Fein was a Board member of the Turkish Coalition of America, Turkish American Legal Defense Fund and legal counsel for Assembly of Turkish American Associations. She wondered if it was appropriate for Fein to represent Schmidt, since he himself could be called to testify, as a witness on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.
Chouldjian had told me that he's been flying around the country, essentially trying to deny that the genocide ever occurred, has sued the state of Massachusetts to put Armenian genocide "denialist" material in text books, is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for putting out an article last year called "State of Denial" which, she says, focused on Turkish interests trying to block Armenian Genocide resolution from being passed.
Fein left very quickly thereafter, so I didn't get a chance to ask him if he, himself, recognized what he called, several times, "the Armenian genocide".
Chouldjian later told Edmonds of Fein's connections to those organizations, several of whom came up in the deposition apparently. Edmonds had no idea Fein was allied with those organizations.
Michael Kohn, Edmonds attorney, working on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center made his statement to say he's "glad her testimony has finally count out...It's been many years in the making. We're delighted that the Justice Department did not intervene and allowed the testimony to go forward." He said it was "a breath of fresh air from the previous administration." He didn't "think it would have happened with the previous administration."
He was not sure when the transcript of the session would be released. New information today, he said, including naming persons by name and with a great deal of specifics. NWC would review the testimony and disseminate publicly as soon as possible.
Krikorian stated: "We came here to get the sworn testimony of a very very credible witness in defense against a current Congresswoman. And then, beyond that, doing what is right for the country, which is why I'm running. I plan to win this case, and I plan to win this election," he said.
He said their is an Ohio Election Commission preliminary meeting on Aug. 13th, and a hearing on Sept 3rd, and that he would look at releasing both video and transcript thereafter.
Edmonds, however, seemed to suggest that the video tape, at least, might be released in full sooner.
Here comes a bombshell or two...
At the venue, Edmonds said that she named names and details on all of the Congress members noted on her "State Secrets Gallery" page. And then some.
She said she told them about "Mr. [Marc] Grossman and Brewster Jennings...And thereal story about them, not the crap they got from the media."
I was unable to follow up that statement with a question, before she got into a cab, but was able to track her down on her cell thereafter.
First, I asked if she specified whether the sitting bi-sexual, married Congresswoman who had been taped sleeping with a woman, without knowing, and then bribed by Turkish interests with the tape, to vote against the Armenian Genocide resolution had been a Democrat or a Republican. She said she is a Democrat, and that she testified to that during her deposition. (See Krikorian's long statement above for more details on that woman.)
Second, I asked about the the "real" story on Brewster Jennings, as opposed to the "crap...from the media" as she mentioned at the venue.
"Basically," she said, "I told them how [third-ranking State Dept. official in the Bush Admin and former Ambassador to Turkey] Marc Grossman disclosed" that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front company] to the target of an FBI investigation. "And it was under oath and that some some lives may have been lost."
"Novak has nothing to do with it. Wilson has nothing to do with it. Valerie Plame has nothing to do with it. The whole operation has to do with something totally different and it had to do with the American Turkish Council and the Turkish clients who were about to hire Brewster Jennings as an analyst ... and Grossman found out about it, and tipped off his diplomatic contact who was a target of the FBI counter-intelligence, and that person notified the ISI [Pakistani intelligence agency], etc."
She says that Brewster Jenning was then "dismantled as soon as the FBI notified the CIA" after which "FBI requested CIA to do a damage assessment, to see if lives would be lost."
All of this, she re-iterated was "long before, three years before" Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in his newspaper column.
Brewster Jennings was "absolutely" dismantled in August of 2001.
"Grossman and [Richard] Armitage, they are the only two people involved. Later on Cheney and his people may have used it, but it had nothing to do with those other things, [Brewster Jennings] was completely destroyed and gone by the summer of 2001."
For those not fully up on Edmonds story, her job at the FBI was to listen to wiretaps in the counter-intel department, to translate foreign targets caught on those taps. Presumably, that's where her details on the destruction of Brewster Jennings comes from. She was hired by the agency shortly after 9/11.
Bombshell enough for ya? Let's see if anyone in the corporate media bothers to agree, and/or pick up on this --- now that it's officially "on the record" and, as Edmonds took pains to point out: under oath!
Here endeth today's live-blogging session. We hope to be hitting the road this afternoon (we were supposed to go on "vacation" today, but have had to put things off for this), so if anyone feels like tipping us some gas money, to make up for three hours sleep and today's marathon coverage, we'd much appreciate it!
EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: DoJ Pressures Ohio Election Commission to Block Edmonds Testimony
Long-gagged FBI whistleblower re-iterates request for citizen media in D.C. to show up at Saturday morning deposition...
The DoJ is now jumping into action, at least on behalf of covering the FBI's rear, if not yet to issue any "states secrets" claims to stop the scheduled testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in D.C. tomorrow morning in the Ohio Election Commission (OEC) case of Schmidt v. Krikorian.
For background, first see Wednesday night's report:
• FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order Unless DoJ Intercedes
Former agency translator called to testify in Ohio election case this Saturday on Turkish infiltration of U.S. government...
...and then today's update:
• EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case; Attorneys Say Effort Insufficient to Stop Her
Whistleblower org says FBI/DoJ attempting 'censorship,' trying to 'silence whistleblower' answering 'lawful subpoena'
Tonight Arthur Goldberg of the DoJ's civil division sent a letter to the OEC's Executive Director Philip C. Richter, and Richter has replied. Both letters are downloadable below, and the text is posted there as well.
In short, the DoJ has informed the OEC that Edmonds has "not complied with the procedures for obtaining authorization from the FBI, her former employer, prior to making any disclosure relating to information that she acquired in the course of her work for the FBI. Therefore, she is not authorized to testify at the deposition."
Edmonds and her attorneys argued earlier today in their letter to the FBI (see today's earlier story and documents) that her employment agreements do not preclude her from answering a lawful subpoena, which they consider this to be, nor further do those agreements require approval from the FBI for oral, versus written, testimony. She was subpoenaed earlier this week on behalf of candidate David Krikorian, who is defending himself in an OEC "false statements" claim by U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH-2nd).
The DoJ further claims in its letter that the OEC's subpoena is not enforceable, because the deposition is to take place outside of Ohio.
In response, the OEC has said it will not enforce the subpoena, but it has not withdrawn it, either. Thus, it seems, Krikorian is still within his rights to carry out the deposition at this time, and Edmonds tells The BRAD BLOG she plans on being there in the morning to answer it.
As we reported earlier today, the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund, representing Edmonds, issued a statement [PDF] today blasting the FBI and DoJ's attempts to block Edmonds' testimony as "censorship" and trying to "silence [a] whistleblower."
The Bush Administration's DoJ had twice invoked the "state secrets" privilege in order to gag Edmonds, to keep her from testifying on matters they argued were of national security. So far, however, the Obama Administration's DoJ has failed to re-invoke that privilege, though it's possible it still could do so prior to tomorrow's testimony.
In a brief conversation with Edmonds moments ago, she re-iterated her belief that the "MSM will be a no-show tomorrow," and therefore says "citizen journalists are needed" to cover what may happen at the deposition. Both she and Krikorian, as well as attorneys from all sides, will be available to answer questions from media --- both corporate and citizen --- before and after the scheduled deposition tomorrow. It is slated to begin at 10:30am Saturday morning (8/8/09) at the National Whistleblowers Center, 3238 P St. NW, in Washington D.C..
* * *
Tonight's letter from the DoJ's Arthur Goldberg to the OEC's Philip C. Richter may be downloaded here [PDF]. Richter's reply to Goldberg may be downloaded here [PDF].
The text of both letters now follow below in full...
Aug 7 2009
BY FAX
Philip C. Richter
Executive Director
Ohio Elections Commission
21 West Broad Street, Suit 600
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Re: Schmidt v. Krikorian --- testimony of Sibel Edmonds
Dear Mr. Richter:
Thank you for taking the time to speak with my colleagues and me this afternoon about the above-captioned matter.
As stated in our letters of August 6, 2009, to the parties in the matter, Ms. Edmonds has not complied with the procedures for obtaining authorization from the FBI, her former employer, prior to making any disclosure relating to information that she acquired in the course of her work for the FBI. Therefore, she is not authorized to testify at the deposition now scheduled for Saturday, August 8, 2009, here in Washington, D.C. Nor has Mr. Krikorian, whom we understand requested you to issue the subpoena from the Ohio Elections Commision, complied with the Department of Justice regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21 - 16.29, governing the provision of information by current and former employees of the Department.
In our telephone conversation, you acknlowedged that the subpoena you issued to Ms. Edmonds' attorneys was not enforceable because the Commision's jurisdiction does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State of Ohio, and that it was only entitled to whatever weight the parties to this dispute decided to give it.
In light of these circumstances, the Department of Justice requests that on behalf of the Ohio Election Commission you withdraw the subpoena in question and promptly notify the parties of this action.
Alternatively, we request that a copy of this letter be placed in the appropriate file or record related to this proceeding to note that the Department of Justice has a standing objection to any testimony provided at any deposition by Ms. Edmonds that relates to information she obtaine3d in the course of her employment with the FBI.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
Sincerely
//signature//
Arthur R. Goldberg
Assistant Director
Federal Programs Branch
Civil Division
cc: Mark Geragos (via email)
Josh Bollinger (via email)
Donald C. Brey (via email)
Stephen Kohn (via email)
August 7, 2009
Arthur Goldberg, Esq.
Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
Room 7316
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Re: Ohio Elections Commission Case No. 2009E-003
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
For your information, on Tuesday August 4, 2009 at 4:04 p.m., the Commission received a Request to Issue Subpoena for the Deposition of Sibel Edmonds for the deponent to appear on Saturday August 8, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §3517.153(B), the Commission has the authority to issue subpoenas in matters pending before it. The applicable sentence in this section reads as follows
The commission or a member of the commission may administer oaths, and the commission may issue subpoenas to any person in the state compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, accounts, and reports.
Even though the deponent and the location of the deposition in this situation are not "in the state" of Ohio, it is standard operating procedure for Commission Staff to issue a subpoena when the parties submit a request to the Commission, unless the staff attorney to the Commission makes a determination that such issuance would be "overly burdensome or requested solely for the purpose of harassment or delay". This is true even if the party to whom the subpoena is issued is outside of the state. This is done as an accommodation to the parties or a witness with the understanding that an issuance to a party outside of the State of Ohio is otherwise unenforceable by the Commission, an administrative agency in the state of Ohio.
In this situation, the Commission has no desire to involve itself in any controversy that attempts to extend the authority of a Commission subpoena beyond the statutory allowance granted the Commission under the terms of R.C. §3517.153(B). On behalf of the Commission, I was both unadvised and unaware of any limitations to which the deponent is subject. While in the past I have taken vigorous action to enforce a Commission subpoena, and should a situation arise am prepared to do so in the future, I acknowledge that the Commission's ability to take action to enforce one of its subpoena [sic] and any authority to compel the appearance of or testimony by a person receiving a Commission subpoena can only occur within the boundaries of the state of Ohio. In light of your letter and these circumstances, I am not prepared to take any action available to the Commission under R.C. §3517.153(B) to compel the enforcement of the Commission's subpoena to Sibel Edmonds on behalf of the Commission.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Philip C. Richter
Executive Director
cc: Vesper Mei, Esq., Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Christopher P. Finney, Esq. & Joshua B. Bollinger, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, David Krikorian
Donald C. Brey, Esq., Counsel for Complainant, Jeanne Schmidt
Steven Kohn, Esq., Counsel for Deponent, Sibel Edmunds [sic]
Whistleblower org says FBI/DoJ attempting 'censorship,' trying to 'silence whistleblower' answering 'lawful subpoena'
Letters from FBI, Edmonds attorney posted...
[Update 8:08pm PT: The DoJ has now attempted to intercede, on behalf of the FBI, with the Ohio Election Commission. Details, and letters between DoJ and OEC now posted here...]
The BRAD BLOG has obtained both the FBI's response to FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' notice of her intention to give a deposition this Saturday in response to a subpoena she received in a case before the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). We've also been given exclusive access to her attorneys' response in turn, which is to be officially released later this afternoon.
The FBI stated its objection to Edmonds' plans to testify in a two-page letter [PDF] on Thursday, sent to Edmonds' attorney Stephen Kohn, at the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund. Edmonds and her attorneys, however, in their own two-page letter [PDF], say the objections raised so far by the agency are not sufficient to block Edmonds from "truthfully answer[ing] questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena" on Saturday morning in D.C. as scheduled.
Their press release [PDF], to be issued publicly later today, accuses the FBI and DoJ of attempting "censorship" and trying to "silence [a] whistleblower."
As we reported in detail on Wednesday, Edmonds' attorneys had notified the Department of Justice earlier this week, in a hand-delivered letter of declaration [PDF], that she intended to testify in the pending Schmidt v. Krikorian case about the information she has concerning infiltration of the U.S. Government by agents of Turkey. She informed the DoJ of her intentions to move forward, unless the DoJ re-invoked the "state secrets" claim that the Bush Administration had twice used to gag any public testimony, her own whistleblower suit, and all other disclosures in regard to information she was privy to during her employ as a linguistics specialist with the FBI following 9/11. So far, the DoJ has not done so.
As of this afternoon, Edmonds tells The BRAD BLOG she still "absolutely" plans to testify...
"As you know, your client executed a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which applies to disclosure of any information relating to the services she provided to the FBI," the August 6th letter to Edmonds attorney Stephen Kohn, from FBI General Consel Valerie Caproni reads. "That agreement expressly prohibits disclosure (without prior approval from the Director of the FBI or his delegate) of information acquired as part of the performance of her contract or her contractor status. She also signed a Security Acknowledgment Form and Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement."
Caproni notes that Edmonds' agreements with the agency requires the "approval of the Director of the FBI before making any disclosure of information (oral or written) to any unauthorized party by presenting the full text of the proposed disclosure to the Director...at least thirty days prior to disclosure."
"The purpose of the agreement your client signed," writes Caproni, "is not to prevent her from speaking about the FBI, but to prevent the disclosure of information where disclosure is contrary to law, regulation or national security."
She concludes "the FBI has not and will not waive" requirement for compliance with the BOA, Security Acknowledgment form and Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement, and thus, "she does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by" those documents.
The "CLASSIFICATION" of the letter itself, as hand-checked on the FBI's facsimile cover sheet, is specified as "Sensitive."
Edmonds' attorneys, however, have rejected Caproni's letter as insufficient to keep her from testifying, and have requested copies of the employment documents referenced.
"In order for Ms. Edmonds' counsel to consider your request it is essential that you provide me with full copies [of] the document(s) you claim to prohibit Ms. Edmonds from testifying under compulsion of a subpoena," Michael D. Kohn wrote on behalf of Edmonds.
He goes on to note that if those documents are not provided by "close of business today" they will presume they may go ahead with the deposition.
"We also require that you produce a copy of Ms. Edmond's employment agreement as this document may impact on Ms. Edmonds' ability to testify. I trust that this information wil be promptly provided. However, if the documents are not received by close of business today we will interpret this failure as a release of the government's right to suppress Ms. Edmonds' ability to truthfully answer questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena."
Kohn writes that he believes "the Agency's pre-publication clearance rules" do not preclude "oral disclosure, including oral testimony," such as that which will be required by Edmonds in response to questioning at tomorrow's scheduled deposition.
While he notes that "Ms. Edmonds will attempt, to the best of her ability, [to] not disclose classified information," her "recollection and judgment as to what information may be subject to lawful non-disclosure would, at best, be imperfect."
Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG today that she "absolutely intends to answer any questions, unless it's about intelligence gathering or informants." But, since "that has nothing to do with this case," she didn't anticipate any such questions.
She did say, however, that she was "obligated to respond to any questions that come out about any of the people in the 'State Secrets Privilege Gallery.'" The "State Secrets Privilege Gallery" referenced is a webpage of unnamed photographs --- featuring current and former Congressmembers, high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials, as well as lobbyists and agents from Turkish public interest groups --- which Edmonds posted in 2007. The names of most of those officials, and their ties to Edmonds own whistleblower case, have been detailed by Edmonds expert Luke Ryland here. Some of the names, said to have been illegally tied to Turkish influences, include former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Congressmen Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Stephen Solarz (D-NY), as well as Bush Administration officials such as Richard Perle, Marc Grossman, Douglas Feith, and others.
Kohn continues in his reply to Caproni to detail the "three avenues available [to the FBI and DoJ] to guard against such inadvertent disclosure [of classified information]: 1) file a request for a protective order with the body that issued the subpoena; 2) file a motion to quash the deposition; and 3) dispatch legal counsel to the deposition capable of raise [sic] appropriate objections."
He concludes by notifying the FBI that "failure to take appropriate action...may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying about certain matters central to an important legal dispute."
Both his and Caproni's letters are posted in full at the end of this article, along with the press release from Edmonds' attorney team at that National Whistleblower Center, in which Kohn alleges "The thrust of the government's action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship."
"The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds' right to testify truthfully without government intervention," says Kohn in the statement, "and we are disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a different approach."
* * *
The matter of the "state secrets" privilege, invoked by the Bush Administration twice against Edmonds, is separate from the issues of non-disclosure involved with her employment at the FBI. In other words, Edmonds could choose to dispute the claims being made by the FBI and give her deposition, as required by the legal subpoena, as she currently plans, in the event that the Obama Administration's DoJ declines to invoke the "state secrets" claim again. Similarly, while the FBI might have allowed Edmonds request to testify, that testimony could then have been blocked by the invocation of the "state secrets" privilege by the DoJ.
We have no word yet on whether the DoJ will attempt to invoke that "privilege" again. Though, as we noted in an update to our Wednesday night story, Edmonds explained to The BRAD BLOG that during her experience with the cases of other whistleblowers, as founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), she has seen DoJ attorneys arrive at the last minute, just before scheduled testimony, leaving no time to oppose or challenge such an order.
It is also possible for a DoJ attorney to be present, and object on a question by question basis, as referenced in Kohn's reply to Caproni, at which time Edmonds would have to confer with her attorney as to whether or not she'd choose to answer the question anyway, despite the DoJ objection.
Another possibility is that U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH-2nd District) could be facing pressure to drop her case against Steve Krikorian --- who challenged her as an independent in 2008 and plans to do so again as a Democrat in 2010 --- entirely, given the potentially enormous can of worms she may be about to open here. As co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus, it's not unlikely she's facing some presure from her Turkish supporters to do just that.
Krikorian's campaign is being challenged by Schmidt in the Ohio Election Commission proceeding, for his 2008 campaign allegation that she accepted "blood money" from Turkish interests to help derail a vote in the U.S. House over whether the murder of some 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks during WWI amounted to a "genocide." Krikorian announced [PDF] this week that his attorneys intend to ask Edmonds at the deposition about evidence she obtained while employed by the FBI concerning whether:
1. The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress
2. The Government of Turkey had engaged in practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had in fact resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives
3. Turkish American cultural and business groups conduct operations with direct and indirect support from the Government of Turkey
A great deal of information based on Edmonds' case (much of it linked to in our previous post on this matter, and in many Edmonds-related articles in the years prior) suggests that a number of current and former members of Congress and high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials, as well as lobbyists for various Turkish public policy organizations, have been bribed, or have otherwise infiltrated the U.S. government towards the end of obtaining nuclear secrets for sale on the black market in Pakistan, Turkey, Libya, Iran, and elsewhere.
* * *
Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG this afternoon that she believes she has an obligation to respond to questions raised during the deposition.
"This is not about being idealistic or heroic," she told us. "I am responsible to inform the citizens, and these people's constituents about who they're voting for. I'm responsible to the citizens of this country and the Constitution. I'm going to do my best answer to those citizens, especially when it comes to important issues of the Constitution."
While the deposition will not be open to the media, as the National Whistleblower Center had originally announced, attorneys from all parties, as well as Edmonds and Krikorian, intend to be available both before and immediately following the deposition on Saturday to take any questions from media.
Unless blocked somehow between now and then by the DoJ, the testimony is currently set to commence at 10:30am on Saturday morning (8/8/09), at the National Whistleblowers Center, 3238 P St. NW, in Washington D.C.
* * *
The two-page, August 6th letter from FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni to Edmonds' attorney Stephen Kohn, Esq, of the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund may be downloaded here [PDF]. The two-page August 7th response from Michael D. Kohn to Caproni may be downloaded here [PDF]. The press release from Edmonds' attorney may be downloaded here [PDF].
The complete text of all three brief documents follow below...
August 6, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.
National Whistleblowers
Legal Defense & Education Fund
3238 P Street N.W.
Wasington, DC 20007
Re: Sibel Edmonds
Dear Mr. Kohn:
This letter is being sent in response to your undated letter addressed to Attorney General Holder with regard to the anticipated testimony of your client, Sibel Edmonds, before the Ohio Elections Commission (Commission) on Saturday Authust 8, 2009. The letter included a copy of Ms. Edmonds' proposed affidavit, which she seeks to submit to the commission. You had the letter and affidavit delivered to the Department of Justice on August 3, 2009. The FBI received them on August 4. As you know, your client executed a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which applies to disclosure of any information relating to the services she provided to the FBI. That agreement expressly prohibits disclosure (without prior approval from the Director of the FBI or his delegate) of information acquired as part of the performance of her contract or her contractor status. She also signed a Security Acknowledgment Form and Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement.
When signing the BOA your client agreed to request the approval of the Director of the FBI before making any disclosure of information (oral or written) to any unauthorized party by presenting the full text of the proposed disclosure to the Director of the FBI at least thirty days prior to the disclosure. The purpose of the agreement your client signed is not to prevent her from speaking about the FBI, but to prevent the disclosure of information where disclosure is contrary to law, regulation or national security.
Compliance with the BOA, Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement are the obligation of Ms. Edmonds and the FBI has not and will not waive that compliance. Your client did not comply with the terms of those documents. Therefore she does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by the BOA, the Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement.
Sincerely,
//signature//
Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
VIA FACSIMILE
Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington D.C. 20535
Re: Sibel Edmonds
Dear Ms. Caproni:
This letter responds to your letter of August 6, 2009, and specifically to your assertion that Sibel Edmonds "does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by the BOA [Basic Ordering Agreement], the Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement."
In order for Ms. Edmonds' counsel to consider your request it is essential that you provide me with full copies the document(s) you claim to prohibit Ms. Edmonds from testifying under compulsion of a subpoena. We also require that you produce a copy of Ms. Edmond's employment agreement as this document may impact on Ms. Edmonds' ability to testify. I trust that this information wil be promptly provided. However, if the documents are not received by close of business today we will interpret this failure as a release of the government's right to suppress Ms. Edmonds' ability to truthfully answer questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena.
In any event, consistent with my understanding of the Agency's pre-publication clearance rules, oral disclosure, including oral testimony, is permitted without prior review. Consistent with the Agency's pre-publication rules, Ms. Edmonds will attempt, to the best of her ability, not disclose classified information. However, Ms. Edmonds' recollection and judgement as to what information may be subject to lawful non-disclosure would, at best, be imperfect. As such, the FBI has at least three avenues available to guard against such inadvertent disclosure: 1) file a request for a protective order with the body that issued the subpoena; 2) file a motion to quash the deposition; and 3) dispatch legal counsel to the deposition capable of raise [sic] appropriate objections.
In the past the Agency denied Ms. Edmonds her right to a day in court by raising the States Secrets Privilege. If the government is still of the opinion that the state secrets privilege still applies then it is up to you to raise this privilege with the necessary accompanying affidavit to the body that issued the subpoena, the Ohio Election Commission. It is our understanding that the States Secrets Privilege is not portable and, as such, the failure to renew the privilege concerning information Ms. Edmonds learned while employed would have to be raised in this forum as well.
We hereby place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e., seeking to quash the deposition, dispatching legal counsel to the deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying about certain matters central to an important legal dispute. Moreover, the failure to send an attorney to the deposition risks the inadvertent disclosure of information as Ms. Edmonds may not be aware whether certain information would qualify as confidential.
Very truly yours,
//signature//
Michael D. Kohn
Counsel to Sibel Edmonds
National Whistleblowers Center
3238 P Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
http://www.whistleblowers.org
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Michael D. Kohn (202) 342-6980
Lindsey M. Williams (202) 342-1903
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sibel Edmonds Fights To Testify
National Whistleblowers Legal Defense and Education Fund Contests FBI and Department of Justice Attempts to Silence Whistleblower
Washington, D.C. August 7, 2009. Today the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund fought efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice to prevent Sibel D. Edmonds from testifying in a case of alleged election fraud. Sibel Edmonds is scheduled to testify before the Ohio Elections Commission in response to a subpoena in theSchmidt v. Krikorian case. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI are attempting to halt her from testifying.
On behalf or Ms. Edmonds, the Fund sent a letter earlier this week requesting that Attorney General Holder independently review the basis upon which the State Secrets privilege was initially invoked against Ms. Edmonds.
Yesterday, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel of the FBI, and Vesper Mei, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice responded by claiming that the subpoena to testify served on Edmonds was invalid and sought to bar her from appearing. The DOJ claimed that that Edmonds is under "no compulsion" to testify in the Krikorian case and the FBI asserted that she, "does not have approval for any disclosure of any information."
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has stated why testimony in a case of alleged election fraud would involve State Secrets and/or involve national security.
According to Sibel Edmonds' counsel, Michael D. Kohn (President of the National Whistleblowers Center), "The thrust of the government's action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship." To this end, Edmonds' counsel responded to the FBI and DOJ stating: "We hereby place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e., seeking to quash the deposition dispatching legal counsel to the deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying" and "If you believe that the FBI or the Justice Department has any legal basis to halt the deposition or to prevent Ms. Edmonds from testifying, please take whatever action you deem necessary in that regard. The responsibility for doing so is yours not Ms. Edmonds."
According to Mr. Kohn: "The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds' right to testify truthfully without government intervention and we are disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a different approach."
***
UPDATE 8:08pm PT: The DoJ has now attempted to intercede themselves, on behalf of the FBI, with the Ohio Election Commission. Details, and letters between DoJ and OEC now posted here...
FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order Unless DoJ Intercedes
Former agency translator called to testify in Ohio election case this Saturday on Turkish infiltration of U.S. government...
[Update 8/7/09: FBI has now attempted to block Edmonds' testimony. Exclusive details now here...]
Unless the Dept. of Justice re-invokes their twice-invoked "state secrets privilege" claim in order to once again gag former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, her attorneys have notified the department by hand-delivered, sworn letter of declaration [PDF] this week, that she intends to give a deposition, open to the media [Updated: see bottom of article for details], in response to a subpoena this Saturday in Washington D.C..
Edmonds has confirmed her intentions to answer any questions asked of her during the sworn proceedings, fully and publicly, during conversations with The BRAD BLOG this week. She notes that her agreement with her former employer, the FBI --- who fired her illegally after she filed whistleblower allegations about corruption and foreign infiltration in the linguistics department --- includes certain non-disclosure requirements. However, those requirements do not preclude her answering to a legally issued court subpoena.
The subpoena and request for sworn deposition is part of a case now pending before the Ohio Elections Commission in which Ohio's Republican U.S. Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-2nd District) has filed a complaint against her 2008 independent challenger, David Krikorian who Schmidt has charged distributed false statements about her during last year's campaign.
The resulting testimony, if it indeed occurs this weekend, could be far more explosive than either Schmidt or Krikorian might have ever guessed...
'Blood Money'
Schmidt has alleged that Krikorian --- who has announced plans to run against Schmidt again, as a Democrat, in 2010 --- libeled her when he alleged in campaign materials that she had taken "blood money" as campaign donations from Turkish interest groups. Schmidt is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Turkish Caucus,according to Politico's coverage of the case, and has received more than $10,000 from the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, "making it one of her top campaign contributors", since taking office in 2005. She recently took a trip to Turkey sponsored by the Turkish Coalition of America, valued at more than $10,000.
At immediate issue in the initial Schmidt v. Krikorian tussle, is the century-long debate over whether the extermination of some 1.5 million ethnic Armenians during WWI will be declared a "genocide" by the American government. The issue is a highly contentious one that has cut across party lines in Congress, and has ensnared dozens of U.S. Congressmembers and highly-ranked officials in a lobbyist-funded, politically-charged battle.
The same Turkish lobby has also, according to information gleaned from Edmonds and others, based on her first-hand knowledge as an FBI case translator, helped to ensnare many of those same officials in a broad infiltration scheme of the U.S. Government and sensitive military facilities, by operatives from the U.S., Turkey, Pakistan and elsewhere, including alleged bribery of then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Some of the charges against Hastert were detailed in a remarkable2005 Vanity Fair exposé. Additional allegations, concerning the the proliferation of nuclear secrets to the black-market in Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and beyond, as detailed in an explosive front-page series by London's Sunday Times last year.
These are among the issues which Edmonds --- whose classified allegations were found to have been "credible", "serious" and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI," according to their Inspector General in 2002 --- will be asked about on Saturday if the deposition moves forward without being quashed by the DoJ.
Krikorian's campaign has released a statement [PDF], detailing several of the potentially explosive points about which they intend to ask Edmonds to testify in an "open to the media deposition"...
Ms. Edmonds is prepared to testify this Saturday in an open to the media deposition in Washington DC that during the time she was employed by the FBI she obtained evidence that:
1. The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress
2. The Government of Turkey had engaged in practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had in fact resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives
3. Turkish American cultural and business groups conduct operations with direct and indirect support from the Government of Turkey
"Jean Schmidt and the Turkish Legal Defense Fund have been attempting to squash my right to political free speech by abusing the OEC (Ohio Election Commission) process by filing frivolous complaints against me for their own political gain," Krikorian alleges in his statement.
He also notes that "Schmidt has previously been convicted by the OEC for having a reckless disregard for truth." During her run for Congress, the OEC found, in a 7 to 0 vote, that Schmidt had lied about having a received an undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati and she was issued a letter of reprimand for the "false statements".
The Backstory...
Edmonds agreement, via affidavit, to give testimony on the points mentioned by Krikorian above, under oath, and in public, would be a first. Much of her previous sworn testimony, to Congress and to the 9/11 Commission, has been entirely classified, leaving those of us in the media with an interest in her case to piece together the puzzle of what has made her, in the words of the ACLU, "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".
On Tuesday, Congressional Quarterly's intelligence reporter Jeff Stein filed a reporton Edmonds' upcoming "test" of the Department of Justice in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case. However, it's fallen largely to the independent media in the U.S. and the foreign mainstream media to dig into the details of Edmonds' allegations,described by one former CIA analyst early last year as "treason at the highest levels of the United State government."
In October of 2007 --- after she had exhausted all other options, having been shut down by both Congress and the Supreme Court due to the Bush Administration's twice-imposed gag order --- The BRAD BLOG broke the exclusive news of her promise to break the gag in order to relate the entire story to any U.S. mainstream broadcast media outlet willing to allow her to do so. Despite that story itself having made news in papers across the globe, nobody in the U.S. mainstream broadcast media took her up on her offer.
In November that year, legendary "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg guest blogged at The BRAD BLOG, describing Edmonds' case as "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". Still, the U.S. media ignored her.
Even CBS' 60 Minutes --- who ran a story on her in 2002 (which re-ran twice therafter), when she couldn't speak at all about her case --- chose not to tell her story once she had promised to tell all. That, even though Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), when asked about her credibility in their original piece 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."
2005's detailed exposé in Vanity Fair by investigative British investigative journalist David Rose, detailed extraordinary allegations that then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and bribes from Turkish interests tied into the drug-trade. Edmonds was said to have been the translator for FBI wiretaps in that case. Few in the media bothered to advance the story at all, even years later when, as Edmonds had years earlier predicted, the retired Hastert became a highly-paid lobbyist for Turkey.
And, as recently as last month, during our own recent interview with Edmonds while we were guest hosting the Mike Malloy Show (audio here, partial transcript here), she dropped details described as a "bombshell", about the U.S. having retained "intimate relations" with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda through Turkish proxies right up until September 11, 2001. That interview has made news across the globe over the last several days (e.g. the Times of India coverage is here), yet it made nary a peep in the U.S. corporate mainstream.
Many other top U.S. officials are indicated to have been involved in the dark and sordid influence peddling, infiltration and treason as highlighted by a "Rogues Gallery"of photographs posted by Edmonds in 2007 without comment. Among the photos posted, in addition to Hastert's: current and former Congressmembers Roy Blunt (R-MO), Dan Burton (R-IN), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Stephen Solarz (D-NY); current and former State and Defense Dept. officials including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eric Edelman, Marc Grossman (specifically targeted by the landmark Sunday Times exposé), Brent Scowcroft and Larry Franklin; and photographs of a host of registered and non-registered Turkish lobbyists and agents.
Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG this afternoon that, though the DoJ has yet to timely answer her hand-delivered request for the revocation of the prior-issued "states secrets" privilege orders, she expects they may still intercede to quash her testimony before Saturday morning, when she's currently scheduled to give her deposition at 10:30am in Washington D.C..
More details are available from Edmonds herself, on her planned deposition in Schmidt v. Krikorian at her blog, 123 Real Change...
UPDATE 8/6/09: Just heard from Edmonds who, in turn, has just heard from attorneys working on the case that they have been informed that Ohio Election Commission (OEC) regulations disallow media from attending depositions. So, despiteKrikorian's press release yesterday stating that her testimony would be "open to the media" (presuming it's not blocked by the DoJ) it will not in fact be open to them now.
However, Edmonds tells us that Krikorian's team will have their own videographer there to record it, and that tape is allowed to be released immediately after the proceeding. As well, court transcript should be available within 24 to 48 hours after the deposition.
Moreover, immediately following the deposition, attorneys from both sides will be able to speak to the media and answer any questions about it outside of the deposition room. If any media bother to cover it, that is.
(National Whistleblower Center's update on this matter is now posted here.)
Edmonds still believes it's likely that a last minute intervention by the DoJ, to block all or part of her testimony, will occur. As founder of the National Security Whistleblower's Coalition (NSWBC) she relates that she's seen a number of cases in which official whistleblower testimony is blocked at the last minute by DoJ attorneys who arrive with court orders just minutes beforehand, leaving no time for the opposition to challenge the ruling.
UPDATE 8/7/09: FBI has now attempted to block Edmonds' testimony. Exclusive details now here...
Though we'd planned to be on the road this Saturday, we'll do our best to stay in touch as things move forward if at all possible.
Sibel Edmonds Fights To Testify
WEBWIRE – Friday, August 07, 2009
CONTACT INFORMATION
Lindsey M. Williams
Advocacy Director
National Whistleblowers Center
202-342-1903
National Whistleblowers Legal Defense and Education Fund Contests FBI and Department of Justice Attempts to Silence Whistleblower
Washington, D.C. August 7, 2009. Today the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund fought efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice to prevent Sibel D. Edmonds from testifying in a case of alleged election fraud. Sibel Edmonds is scheduled to testify before the Ohio Elections Commission in response to a subpoena in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI are attempting to halt her from testifying.
On behalf or Ms. Edmonds, the Fund sent a letter earlier this week requesting that Attorney General Holder independently review the basis upon which the State Secrets privilege was initially invoked against Ms. Edmonds.
Yesterday, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel of the FBI, and Vesper Mei, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice responded by claiming that the subpoena to testify served on Edmonds was invalid and sought to bar her from appearing. The DOJ claimed that that Edmonds is under “no compulsion” to testify in the Krikorian case and the FBI asserted that she, “does not have approval for any disclosure of any information.”
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has stated why testimony in a case of alleged election fraud would involve State Secrets and/or involve national security.
According to Sibel Edmonds’ counsel, Michael D. Kohn (President of the National Whistleblowers Center), “The thrust of the government’s action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship.” To this end, Edmonds’ counsel responded to the FBI and DOJ stating: “We hereby place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e., seeking to quash the deposition dispatching legal counsel to the deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying” and “If you believe that the FBI or the Justice Department has any legal basis to halt the deposition or to prevent Ms. Edmonds from testifying, please take whatever action you deem necessary in that regard. The responsibility for doing so is yours not Ms. Edmonds.”
According to Mr. Kohn: “The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds’ right to testify truthfully without government intervention and we are disheartened that the Justice Department’s actions evidence a different approach.”
Links:
Letter to Attorney General Holder
Letter from Valeire Caproni (FBI)
Letter to Valerie Caproni (FBI)
Letter from Vesper Mei (DOJ)
Letter to Vesper Mei (DOJ)
NWC August 4, 2009 Press Release
Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 by Luke Ryland
Posted on July 31, 2009 by dandelionsalad
by Luke Ryland
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Luke’s blog post
July 31, 2009
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript).
In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained ‘intimate relations’ with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, “all the way until that day of September 11.”
These ‘intimate relations’ included using Bin Laden for ‘operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ‘operations’ involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, fighting ‘enemies’ via proxies.
As Sibel has previously described, and as she reiterates in this latest interview, this process involved using Turkey (with assistance from ‘actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia’) as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army.
Control of Central Asia
The goals of the American ’statesmen’ directing these activities included control of Central Asia’s vast energy supplies and new markets for military products.
The Americans had a problem, though. They needed to keep their fingerprints off these operations to avoid a) popular revolt in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), and b) serious repercussions from China and Russia. They found an ingenious solution: Use their puppet-state Turkey as a proxy, and appeal to both pan-Turkic and pan-Islam sensibilities.
Turkey, a NATO ally, has a lot more credibility in the region than the US and, with the history of the Ottoman Empire, could appeal to pan-Turkic dreams of a wider sphere of influence. The majority of the Central Asian population shares the same heritage, language and religion as the Turks.
In turn, the Turks used the Taliban and al Qaeda, appealing to their dreams of a pan-Islamic caliphate (Presumably. Or maybe the Turks/US just paid very well.)
According to Sibel:
This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.
Uighurs
Sibel was recently asked to write about the recent situation with the Uighurs in Xinjiang, but she declined, apart from saying that “our fingerprint is all over it.”
Of course, Sibel isn’t the first or only person to recognize any of this. Eric Margolis, one of the best reporters in the West on matters of Central Asia, stated that the Uighurs in the training camps in Afghanistan up to 2001:
“were being trained by Bin Laden to go and fight the communist Chinese in Xinjiang, and this was not only with the knowledge, but with the support of the CIA, because they thought they might use them if war ever broke out with China.”
And also that:
“Afghanistan was not a hotbed of terrorism, these were commando groups, guerrilla groups, being trained for specific purposes in Central Asia.”
In a separate interview, Margolis said:
“That illustrates Henry Kissinger’s bon mot that the only thing more dangerous than being America’s enemy is being an ally, because these people were paid by the CIA, they were armed by the US, these Chinese Muslims from Xinjiang, the most-Western province.
The CIA was going to use them in the event of a war with China, or just to raise hell there, and they were trained and supported out of Afghanistan, some of them with Osama Bin Laden’s collaboration. The Americans were up to their ears with this.”
Rogues Gallery
Last year, Sibel came up with a brilliant idea to expose some of the criminal activity that she is forbidden to speak about: she published eighteen photos, titled “Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery,” of people involved the operations that she has been trying to expose. One of those people is Anwar Yusuf Turani, the so-called ‘President-in-exile’ of East Turkistan (Xinjiang). This so-called ‘government-in-exile’ was ‘established‘ on Capitol Hill in September, 2004, drawing a sharp rebuke from China.
Also featured in Sibel’s Rogues Gallery was ‘former’ spook Graham Fuller, who wasinstrumental in the establishment of Turani’s ‘government-in-exile’ of East Turkistan. Fuller has written extensively on Xinjiang, and his “Xinjiang Project” for Rand Corp isapparently the blueprint for Turani’s government-in-exile. Sibel has openly stated her contempt for Mr. Fuller.
Susurluk
The Turkish establishment has a long history of mingling matters of state with terrorism, drug trafficking and other criminal activity, best exemplified by the 1996Susurluk incident which exposed the so-called Deep State.
Sibel states that “a few main Susurluk actors also ended up in Chicago where they centered ‘certain’ aspects of their operations (Especially East Turkistan-Uighurs).”
One of the main Deep State actors, Mehmet Eymur, former Chief of Counter-Terrorism for Turkey’s intelligence agency, the MIT, features in Sibel’s Rogues Gallery. Eymur was given exile in the US. Another member of Sibel’s gallery, Marc Grossman was Ambassador to Turkey at the time that the Susurluk incident exposed the Deep State. He was recalled shortly after, prior to the end of his assignment, as was Grossman’s underling, Major Douglas Dickerson, who later tried to recruit Sibel into the spying ring.
The modus operandi of the Susurluk gang is the same as the activities that Sibel describes as taking place in Central Asia, the only difference is that this activity was exposed in Turkey a decade ago, whereas the organs of the state in the US, including the corporate media, have successfully suppressed this story.
Chechnya, Albania & Kosovo
Central Asia is not the only place where American foreign policy makers have shared interests with Bin Laden. Consider the war in Chechnya. As I documented here, Richard Perle and Stephen Solarz (both in Sibel’s gallery) joined other leading neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, and Morton Abramowitz in a group called the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). For his part, Bin Laden donated $25 million to the cause, as well as numerous fighters, and technical expertise, establishing training camps.
US interests also converged with those of al-Qaeda in Kosovo and Albania.
Of course, it is not uncommon for circumstances to arise where ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ On the other hand, in a transparent democracy, we expect a full accounting of the circumstances leading up to a tragic event like 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was supposed to provide exactly that.
State Secrets
Sibel has famously been dubbed the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice. Her 3.5 hour testimony to the 9/11 Commission has been entirely suppressed, reduced to a single footnote which refers readers to her classified testimony.
In the interview, she says that the information that was classified in her case specifically identifies that the US was using Bin Laden and the Taliban in Central Asia, including Xinjiang. In the interview, Sibel reiterates that when invoking the gag orders, the US government claims that it is protecting ” ’sensitive diplomatic relations,’ protecting Turkey, protecting Israel, protecting Pakistan, protecting Saudi Arabia…” This is no doubt partially true, but it is also true that they are protecting themselves too, and it is a crime in the US to use classification and secrecy to cover up crimes.
As Sibel says in the interview:
I have information about things that our government has lied to us about… those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.
Summary
The bombshell here is obviously that certain people in the US were using Bin Laden up to September 11, 2001.
It is important to understand why: the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years, promoting the Islamization of Central Asia in an attempt to personally profit off military sales as well as oil and gas concessions.
The silence by the US government on these matters is deafening. So, too, is the blowback.
see
from the archives:
Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam & Madrassas
No comments:
Post a Comment