[NYTr] Sibel Edmonds Case 'More Explosive than Pentagon Papers' - Ellsberg

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Bradblog - Nov 19, 2007
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260

Daniel Ellsberg says

Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers'

'Gagged' FBI Whistleblower, Risking Jail, Says American Media  Has
Refused Her Offer to Disclose Classified Information, Including
Criminal  Allegations, Information Concerning 'Security of Americans'
Charges Several Mainstream Publications Have Been Informed of 'Full
Story' by Other FBI Leakers Nearly a Year Ago, Have Remained Mum...

Mainstream Corporate Media, Sibel Edmonds, Dennis Hastert,  9/11,
Whistleblowers, Impeachment, Mainstream Media  Failure, Accountability,
Dept. of Justice, FBI,  Henry Waxman, Daniel Ellsberg

posted by Brad Friedman

"I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon
Papers," Daniel Ellsberg told us in regard to former FBI translator
turned whistleblower Sibel  Edmonds.

"From what I understand, from what she has to tell, it has a major
difference from the Pentagon Papers in that it deals directly with
criminal activity and  may involve impeachable offenses," Ellsberg
explained. "And I don't necessarily  mean the President or the
Vice-President, though I wouldn't be surprised if the  information
reached up that high. But other members of the Executive Branch may
be impeached as well. And she says similar about Congress."

The BRAD BLOG spoke recently with the legendary 1970's-era
whistleblower in the  wake of our recent  exclusive, detailing Edmonds'
announce[ment] that she was prepared  to risk prosecution to expose the
entirety of the still-classified information that the Bush
Administration has "gagged" her from revealing for the past five  years
under claims of the arcane "State Secrets Privilege". See:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197

Ellsberg, the former defense analyst and one-time State Department
official, knows well the plight of whistleblowers. He himself was
prepared to spend his life in prison for the exposure of some 7,000
pages of classified Department of  Defense documents, concerning
Executive Branch manipulation of facts and outright lies leading
the country into an extended war in Vietnam.

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's  American mainstream
broadcast media has so far failed to take Edmonds up on her  offer,
despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times,
who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could
have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed
the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't
even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating
national security,'" he told  us.

"I have been receiving calls from the mainstream media all day,"
Edmonds recounted, the day after we ran the story announcing that
she was prepared to violate her gag-order to disclose all of the
national security-related criminal allegations she has been kept
from disclosing for the past five years.

"The media called from Japan and France and Belgium and Germany and
Canada and from all over the world," she told The BRAD BLOG.

"But not from here?," we asked incredulously.

"I'm getting contact from all over the world, but not from here.
Isn't that disgusting?," she shot back.

An Iranian-born American citizen, the linguistics expert Edmonds
has been described by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as
"the most gagged person in the history of the United States of
America" since filing her original complaints at the FBI, where she
had been hired in late 2001 to translate a backlog of pre-9/11
wiretaps.

She has previously  indicated a litany (See:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2498) of criminal corruption, malfeasance,
and  cover-ups concerning the penetration of the FBI and Departments of
State and  Defense by foreign agents in senior positions;
influence-peddling and bribery by  shadowy Turkish interests throughout
the U.S. government over several administrations; undisclosed
information related to 9/11; including alleged illegal activities of
former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and, most recently
(http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197), two other "well-known" members
of Congress who she will now name to the mainstream media.

Edmonds has taken whistleblower her case all the way to the Supreme
Court.

She, and her allegations, have been confirmed as both serious and
extremely credible by the FBI Inspector General (See: 
(http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html), several
sitting Senators (http://www.thememoryhole.com/spy/edmonds_letters.htm)
both Republican and Democratic, several senior FBI agents
See: 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2295034 ,
the 9/11 Commission,  and dozens of national security and
whistleblower  advocacy groups. See:
http://www.libertycoalition.net/state-secrets-privelage/coalition-letter-to-the-house-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-on-criminal-activities-by-the .  

She was even offered the possibility of public hearings on  these
matters by the Chairman of the U.S. House Government Accountability
and  Oversight Committee, after briefing his staff in a special
high-security area of  the U.S. Capitol reserved for the exchange of
classified information.

Her extraordinary story was first aired by CBS' 60 Minutes in 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
(and re-run twice thereafter), and via a detailed 2005
exposi in Vanity Fair. See:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm

All while she was unable to violate the yoke of the unprecedented
use of the arcane "States Secrets Privilege", invoked by the DoJ
in such a draconian fashion that she is still "gagged" from disclosing
even innocuous personal details such as her date of birth.

After five years of being vetted and investigated, with a great
deal of her allegations having leaked out via others sources and
confirmed by myriad sources, her publicly undisclosed claims would
appear to be as credible --- and as critically serious to national
security --- as any whistleblower in the history of the nation.

After bringing her charges to the FBI, Congress and the nation's
highest court --- all of whom failed to take action or legitimately
pursue her claims --- she now feels "obligated" to share the
information with the American public.

But the American Mainstream Media are apparently unwilling to air
it.

Three weeks ago, she told The BRAD BLOG she had "exhausted every
channel" and was prepared to "let them see how far they're going to get
[by  bringing] criminal charges against someone who divulges criminal
activity." She  was ready to disclose all.

Her "promise to the American public" at the time: "If anyone of the
major networks --- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX --- promise to
air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them
everything that I know."

"I don't think any of the mainstream media are going to have the
guts to do it," she told us. We didn't believe that could be the
case. Surely, we thought,  loads of folks in the mainstream broadcast
media would jump at the chance for such an explosive exclusive. 60
Minutes, after all, had re-run  their initial story on her, including
interviews with her, Senators Grassley and Leahy, and several FBI
agents, not once, but twice!

It turns out, however, that she was correct. So far.

"How Do We  Deal With Sibel?"

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government
as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first
line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media.
I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to
to the government and they would be told 'don't  touch this, it's
communications intelligence.'"

Edmonds, who founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
(NSWC) at http://www.nswbc.org/  contends that she's very
sensitive to matters of national security and  would never reveal
information that could put the country at risk.

"I am not about to expose any methods of intelligence gathering. I
am not going to expose any ongoing investigations, or even any
investigations that may be ongoing," she told us, explaining that
all relevant  investigations about which she has information were
long ago shut down by the  government.

"I am not going to name any informant's name. I am not going to
jeopardize any ongoing intelligence. Anything I'm going to be talking
about, I know they are investigations that have been shut down by
January and February of  2002."

"I am  Obligated"

When it comes to the sort of Executive Branch classification of
information that's been used to stop Edmonds from revealing alleged
criminal culpability, she contends it is the government, not she,
who is violating the law.

Legally and constitutionally, she asserts, such classification "may
not be used to cover up illegal criminal activities with consequences
to public health,  security, safety and welfare. It cannot be used
to cover up illegal activities."

"The reason I went to Congress, the reason I went to the IG, all
of this, is that I was obligated to do so. Because they are covering
up  illegal activities that effect the public health, security and
welfare."

"I am obligated," she repeated again.

Ellsberg agrees. "What is involved in protecting Executive Branch
crimes, the duty is to protect the law and to uphold and defend the
Constitution. Though most don't understand that and they see loyalty
to their boss and their party  and their secrecy agreement as more
important."

"They'll never get in trouble for that," he emphasized. "But they'll
get in a lot of trouble if they are truthful to their oath to defend
the Constitution."

Whether Edmonds will ever get that opportunity remains unclear.

Why Not YouTube It?

"When you have a publication like Vanity Fair, running a piece and
naming someone like Dennis Hastert [as being allegedly involved in
bribery by shadowy Turkish interests involved in narcotics trafficking]
and nothing happens  with it, you think they are going to pay
attention to YouTube?" Edmonds  explained when we asked why she
didn't release the information herself as a  video on the Internet.

Readers around the web have asked the same question in the wake of
our previous story, which climbed to the top ranks of most linked
and recommended at  a number of Internet sites such as Digg.com,
Reddit.com, DailyKos and  others.

"Listen, I'm willing to have these people come after me with a
prosecution --- they [the media] should be willing to do their
part."

"This is the biggest risk that a citizen has ever taken...I guess,
after Ellsberg...And I know why he did that with the New York
Times," she explained referring to his giving thousands of pages
of  documents to the paper, who, at the time, went all the way to
the Supreme Court  to fight for their right to publish them, as
they eventually did.

"What about the BBC? Would you do that?," we asked.

"Why am I going on BBC? This is about this country! This is about
this country, and more of America needs to know the true face of
the mainstream media,"

she exclaimed.

"The only way they got away with it was because of the mainstream
media. They are the biggest culprit for the state of our country.
Whether it's Iraq, or torture or the NSA wiretapping --- which the
New York Times sat on for  over a year! --- these people are the
real culprit."

"Nibbles"

There were some "nibbles," as she called them. A producer from CBS
Evening News had contacted The BRAD BLOG within hours of publishing
our  previous story, asking for Edmonds' contact information to forward
to 60  Minutes producers. Nothing has come of it so far.

ABC News also inquired. Despite allowing Presidents and other
officials to make previously undisclosed claims on live programs
such as This Week and others, they declined to extend the same
opportunity to Edmonds. That, despite dozens of high-ranking
officials, elected and otherwise, who have heard her claims over
the years and repeatedly declared them to be exceedingly credible
and meriting serious investigation.

What about Kieth Olbermann? Surely he'd pick up this story! A
producer at MSNBC's Countdown --- perhaps the outlet most often
suggested to us as likely willing to interview her --- expressed
interest during multiple inquiries we'd made to them. Each time,
the promise was made to call us back with on the record information
on whether they would do the interview, and if not, why not.

They never called us back.

Edmonds' phone was "ringing off the hook" for requests for interviews
from independent radio shows. Ours was too, and our email inbox
yielded dozens of similar requests.

But Edmonds has been clear: "I'm gonna do one major interview" to
tell all of the 'states secret' information. "Afterwards, I'll do
the others.  But this is gonna be one round, give it all and say
'here it is.'"

The ground rules seem fair enough. She is risking being rushed off
to prison after all.

"Setting Records for Shamelessness"

The mainstream media is "shameless", Ellsberg says, so is Congress,
so is Bush.

"He's setting records for shamelessness. He should probably be in
the Guinness Book of Records. He doesn't care what he says. And the
media is shameless as well, as they'll run anything he says. And
Congress is pretty  shameless as well. You can't really shame these
people."

Without mainstream corporate media attention, Ellsberg contends,
Edmonds' story will stay off the radar, and her damaging contentions
will do no harm to the powers that be.

"She's not going to shame the media, unless the public are aware
that there is a conflict going on. And only the blog-reading public
is aware of that.

It's  a fairly large audience, but it's a small segment of the
populace at large."

Unless her claims reach the mainstream, he says, "they don't suffer
any risk of being shamed. As long as they hold a united front on
this, they don't run the  risk of being shamed."

They Already  Know Edmonds revealed an additional tasty morsel while
wrapping up one of our recent conversations. One that might help
explain the American media's reluctance to jump at the chance for
a scoop: apparently many of them already know the story.

"I will name the name of major publications who know the story, and
have been sitting on it --- almost a year and a half."

"How do you know they have the story?," we asked.

"I know they have it because people from the FBI have come in and
given it to them. They've given them the documents and specific
case-numbers on my case."

"These are agents that have said to me, 'if you can get Congress
to subpoena me I'll come in and tell it under oath.'"

Yet, despite promises she says she had received from staffers in
Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) office to hold hearings once he became
chairman of the House Oversight Committee, they no longer respond
to her. "The only reason they couldn't hold hearings [previously],"
they'd told her, "was because the Republicans were blocking it."

They're not blocking it anymore. Ever since the Democrats have taken
control of the House. Nonetheless, there are still no plans for
hearings. Even with more  than 30,000 people having signed her
petition calling on Waxman to do so. See:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/LibertyCoalition/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1728&t=Liberty%20Coalition.dwt

A spokesperson from his office finally replied to our repeated
requests for comment on why they had not yet held hearings on
Edmonds' case.

We were told only that there are no hearings currently scheduled
on her case.

Repeated attempts to gather a more specific explanation or confirmation
that the  office had previously promised hearings yielded the same
answer, and nothing  more. No hearing is presently scheduled on the
matter.

"It's disgusting," Edmonds said about the broken promises. "They
won't do it anymore. It's disgusting."

"This is criminal activity. That's why I went to Congress, to the
Courts, to the [FBI] IG. I am obligated to do so. And that's what
I've  been doing since 2002."

"By not doing so, someone should charge me for not coming  forward
to say something about this," she continued.

"If they come after me...when they come after me --- to indict me,
to bring charges --- it's going to be up to the American public to
see it's not  about some bogeyman in some Afghanistan cave. It's
about an American citizen  coming forward to expose information
that concerns the security of  Americans."

"An American citizen is coming forward to say that, no, they are
depriving you of your security."

Ellsberg says there's a reason that the Government, and both political
parties, would rather not deal with something as explosive as Sibel's
charges.

Much like his own case, when the Republican Nixon administration
fought against publication of the Pentagon Papers even though they
were bound to embarrass the  Democratic Johnson administration far
more than Nixon's.

"It involves our allies in various places in the Middle East. It
involves our allies in Turkey and in Afghanistan and involves people
in our Congress and our  State Department," he says.

Yes, Israel and the extremely powerful AIPAC lobby which supports
both parties, is said to be involved as well. See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/9/11226/2103 

"There's no way that the President and Vice-President can escape
culpability in this case," Ellsberg charges. "If they claim they
don't know about it, then  they are culpable in not knowing about
it, and that's impeachable right there."

Just as Ellsberg had hoped in 1971, and later encouraged others
over the years, Edmonds remains hopeful that somehow, in telling
her story ---  if she will be allowed tell her story --- it will
help others to step  forward and do the same.

"Maybe it'll cause other whistleblowers at NSA, FBI...to see that
they should come forward and tell what they know," she said in a
telephone interview yesterday. "We haven't been seeing them come
forward. Maybe it takes just one person to see what's going to
happen."