Does Sibel Edmonds = Hope for America?

[quote=“j.scholl”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]The pre-prison babblings of H.R. Haldeman may not be the wisest choice of support for your campaign here.[/quote]You think I’m eliciting support for the need of an open and honest government by citing any of Nixon’s henchmen?[/quote]Uh…yes…that is exactly what you have done. Nothing wrong with using that analogy per se…just a bit weird.[quote=“j.scholl”] On the contrary… Haldeman represents the rat’s ass that belittles the importance of uncovering and correcting illegal government activities.[/quote]No history has shown that Haldeman and his antics represents what can happen when a Chief Executive, gov’t or otherwise, is so isolated by his staff from outside contact, transparency and accountability that they are able to cook up and implement hair brained schemes that are contrary to the laws of the country.[quote=“j.scholl”]And if sharing Sibel’s case of injustice and unaccountability within the U.S. Gov. proves to be a campaign, so be it. Campaigning against it provides you and yours something more worthwhile apparently, and I’m interested to read how and why.
[/quote]…LOL…my posse vs your crew…super soakers…This Town Ain’t Big Enough for the Two of Us Pardner!

[quote=“j.scholl”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]how do you actually answer his query re:"who worked as translator for the FBI for all of 6 months. "?[/quote]You call it a query?[/quote]Uh…yeah…thats what it says…[quote=“j.scholl”] Why?[/quote]Because it is.[quote=“j.scholl”] Apparently less than 6 months following 9/11 is all it took for a top-secret intel analyst to confront her superiors with evidence of corruption.

And reading beyond her hire and fire dates, what happened when she did the right thing by sounding the silent alarms? She was abruptly fired. Here’s an ACLU overview that might help (mind you they’re providing legal representation):[quote]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.

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.

On January 14, 2004 , the Justice Department’s Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s report on Edmonds found that many of her claims “were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.” … 50126.html[/quote]
So does 6 months on-duty represent enough time to uncover dirty secrets and anti-American activities amongst elected and appointed US government officials?
YES, obviously 6 months WAS enough time,[/quote]Ah…so the 6 months figure was indeed accurate. Thank you Mr. Obfuscation…hint:…a simple yes or no would have sufficed.[quote=“j.scholl”]… since our Federal government didn’t feverishly – fire her, raid her home, interrogate family members in Turkey and impose more gag restraints than anyone in history – just for any rat’s ass reason.[/quote]A bit unclear here…did or did not…the Government(US) do these things or not?[quote=“j.scholl”]
TheGingerMan or TainanCowboy - If either of you are done flailing personal attacks,[/quote] My Dear Lad…my comments are nowhere near a personal attack on your delicate self or ego…simply seeking to clarify your hyperbole and rantings. Perhaps others would also appreciate knowing and possibly even understanding what the heck your are on about.[quote=“j.scholl”]… do tell… Is America (and the world) better off by keeping the truth of corruption hidden?[/quote]Is this rhetorical? It appears so.[quote=“j.scholl”]
Or do you see any merit to exposing illegal activities that undermine national security?
[/quote]Ahh…now this does have the ring of rhetorical reasoning to it. No answer required…right?[quote=“j.scholl”]In case you’re tempted to ask, “Why, if this story IS so hot, hasn’t American media spashed it everywhere a rat’s ass has to read, swallow and find discomfort in?”[/quote]Again with the ‘rats ass’…Do they read now also?[quote=“j.scholl”]You’ll find a couple answers here by the same whistle-blower who brought us those inconvenient Pentagon Papers:
Covering Up the Coverage - The American Media’s Complicit Failure to Investigate and Report on the Sibel Edmonds Case
(1/20/2008)[color=darkblue]You’ll notice 8 (eight) questions (
)… marked for you to contemplate and remark on.[/color]
When you’re ready, take them one at a time or all at once, its up to you. Lest your attacks be uncivil, and frivolous.[/quote]Pot…kettle…black…:smiley:

I’m so looking forward to the next installment… :bravo:

[quote=“j.scholl”]You’re insinuating that one shouldn’t appreciate the gravity of blowing the whistle on corruption?
That’s right. Especially as said blower was only employed for 6 months.

[quote] Or you’re suggesting that corruption is essential to a healthy and trustworthy political system?
Say it’s not so, and please feel free to intellectually contribute. [/quote] Since when has any society at any time been able to enjoy “a healthy and trustworthy political system”, whatever that highly subjective phrase might mean? In any case, it may have existed in some unquantifiable gilded hallowed age, but it hasn’t existed on Earth for quite some eons, if it ever did at all.

[quote]TGM, while you’re hinting at enlightening us on history, do tell us if the Pentagon Papers proved to be a significant scandal.
“Us”, who’s “us”? You mean yourself, beating a dead horse even further after you’re called on it. Your fetish with the 70’s will only compound your malfuntion. [quote]After that, if you’re on a roll, do tell why would Sibel Edmonds’ testimony about criminal elements in the U.S. Government after 9/11 be regarded as a non-issue to the 9/11 Commission yet be gagged by the “state secrets privilege” in every possible way?
That’s usually common protocol, is it not? Especially amongst the legal hawks that usually control the reigns of power…

[quote][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Compare me to Haldeman again, and I’ll…[/quote]Compare YOU? No, but you’re kind of touchy on this subject, sorry about that. Your rat’s ass reflection on the importance of Sibel outing high-level corruption directly echoes Haldeman’s gobbledygook reflection to Nixon about the scandal that tipped power and jailed crooks. Why don’t you step back and compare the two scenarios. If you still think they are vastly different, tell me how and I’ll consider retracting the comparison.
Again with the 70’s stuff. “Directly echoes”, indeed. You seem to have a pinhole slotted for any & all supposed adversaries. Little do you know ANY of my personal politics, yet pre-suppose in a manner Dr. Goebbels would have found quite quaint. I’m about as far away from Haldeman as one could imagine. It’s drooling & heinous quacks like you that give anyone left of far right a bad name. For shame that such limp-wristedness is taken as a supposed representative of the centre-left. Give it a name, whydoancha? Yet, one that takes issue with your REPEATED regurtitation of sloppy, pedantic, juvenile, quackery is labelled, stickered and foisted away in the approriate pinhole characterization? Do you color code these things, to ease your fuddled mind in navigating what must seem like a teeming writhing mass of yuckiness?
Oh, bother!
Back to the shallow end of the pool, guppie!
I suggest you start by reading something other than off the internet.
Enid Blyton, perhaps?

Note the inference was 100% inspired by TGM’s brave opening post.

Tongue in cheek in right? “isolated by his staff from outside contact” as opposed to “left out of the loop” or “leveraged by prior CIA directors and ultra-special interests”?

Knee-slapping aside, do you classify yourself as a “Yes, I’d like reduced corruption and justice served to government criminals” person??

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“j.scholl”] Apparently less than 6 months following 9/11 is all it took for a top-secret intel analyst to confront her superiors with evidence of corruption.

And reading beyond her hire and fire dates, what happened when she did the right thing by sounding the silent alarms?

So does 6 months on-duty represent enough time to uncover dirty secrets and anti-American activities amongst elected and appointed US government officials?
YES, obviously 6 months WAS enough time,[/quote]Ah…so the 6 months figure was indeed accurate. Thank you Mr. Obfuscation…hint:…a simple yes or no would have sufficed.[/quote]
First, I didn’t find a question in TGM’s comment since most people interested can quickly find out as much as they wanted to know. And sorry the yes answer appeared confusing. It all started because she was fired when she expected the corruption within the government to sound the alarms of justice rather than feed a federal cover-up.

I understand not everyone wants to familiarize themselves with a case that has the potential to imprison a host of corrupt US officials. Apparently such knowledge makes riding the proverbial fence uncomfortable. You would probably agree?

And more. And more.
Tell me TC, what’s really stopping you from reading the information or researching the opposite possibility that she’s just a cookoo who accidentally became the most gagged intel analyst in US history?

OK, you don’t want to be lumped with TGM’s crude remarks. Understandable and admirable. But laddie, referring to my (‘hyperbole’) posts as exaggerations without considering the information yourself nor presenting alternate analysis says what exactly? However, referring to my (ranting) posts as emotionally charged, well, I might agree.

Well, do you find it to be a difficult question to answer here? Bluffing isn’t really an option. Is there fear involved with answering the question? I see TheGingerMan also copped out of answering it.

Yes, you think there is merit?

No, you don’t think there isn’t any merit?

TheGingerMan’s rat’s ass and Haldeman’s gobbledygook speak volumes about spheeple psyche.[/quote]
TGM introduced a rat’s ass as being more important to his ‘reasonable people’ than the topic of corruption-coverup since before 9/11. Maybe the relevant question is… can rat’s asses or ‘reasonable people’ read? Hmmmm… reasonable questions…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“j.scholl”]You’ll find a couple answers here by the same whistle-blower who brought us those inconvenient Pentagon Papers:
Covering Up the Coverage - The American Media’s Complicit Failure to Investigate and Report on the Sibel Edmonds Case
What? For someone who has yet to traverse the implications of Sibel’s case, firing facetious blanks in opposition to the topic hardly seems prudent.

Ditto, but some more preparation on subject is preferred.

Really? Sounds like you think she herself quit the bureau, ask to be gagged and helped cover-up the corruption. Hmmm… its almost as if you’re saying that the implications of criminal conduct are unworthy of investigation and prosecution because the brave whistleblower was ejected by the ‘said’ corrupt officials too early in the game.

You believe reasonable people consider this a non-story…? Because treason amongst the top ranks is an impossibility, right?

I give you that. We know corruption will exist as long as greed and power go unchecked. Has the US justice system ever been forced to take corrective actions to satisfy the outcry of an educated public? Upton Sinclair was only 27 when he wrote THE JUNGLE, combined with pressure, the system was forced to change. Apparently time on-the-job and age have little to do with advancing truth to help change our lives. It only invites nay-sayers to pretend there really isn’t a problem.

You’re calling me on what? Playing the dead horse doesn’t deny that the Pentagon Papers DID provide a significant step towards government accountability. Where’s the malfunction in comparing the '71 whistleblower scandal with the one you are blasting now? You picked the word “US” as if you think its just you and I reading this. Why wiggle away from actually answering?

I agree its all too acceptable that justice doesn’t visit the corrupt nearly as often as it should. I’ll always remember that the White House appointed Kissinger to chair the 9/11 Commission and then decided to step down when he was called-out by victim family members about his Saudi clients named bin-Laden. Did that make headlines? “White House selected adviser to bin Ladens - Kissinger - to steer the 9/11 investigation.”

How powerful a network of disinformation professionals and party junkies does it take to convince average Americans that criminal elements in the government before, during and after 9/11 are all just a non-issue, and off-limits? Whatever that number is, I HOPE the truth will one day be common knowledge. Hence the hope in the title of this topic.

Most people will never know about all plots and crimes (i.e. Northwoods, Tonkin truth hidden for so long, and still now not everyone knows), BUT, Sibel’s case may wedge some relevant truth into TODAY’S headlines, when something CAN be done to serve justice. Although our political history found cover-ups easier to convict, the mother of cover-ups published and sold to Americans as the “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks” is but a BUBBLE. And when enough Americans demand accountability, the bubble could turn into cell bars.

One of the biggest bubbles is the MONEY.
Wouldn’t YOU follow the money if your job was to investigate how 9/11 occurred? Well, it was Sibels’ job to help analyze top-secret activities… but corruption has been rewarded so far by eliminating her voice. No investigation occurred.

Follow the Money: Bush, 9/11, and Deep Threat

  • The Bushes, bin Ladens, and Carlyle
  • The Taliban and Pipeline Politics
  • The CIA and Other Deep Pockets
  • Warning Signals and Criminal Negligence

[quote=“William Bergman”]On p. 172 of the final [9/11 Commission] report, after discussing money laundering issues, the commission concluded, “To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance.”

One of those reportedly involved in making the transfers [General Mahmoud Ahmed] left his position as Director of the Pakistani intelligence service soon after September 11. This person happened to be visiting Washington the week before 9/11, and was having breakfast with leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on the very morning of 9/11 – leaders of the subsequent Congressional Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11.

A complete discussion of what we know about these transfers, whether these transfers were or were not made, and if they were, who arranged them and how, would seem to be a critical element of any full and complete investigation. Yet, amazingly, and yet, perhaps not so amazingly, they went unmentioned in the 9/11 commission’s final report.

William Bergman, MA, MBA, Former Economist and Senior Analyst, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 1990 - 2004. In 2003 - 2004, he was assigned to investigate terrorism-related money laundering.[/quote]
Colossal bubble of corruption.

Thank you, retraction not necessary.

You jump into this thread not to discuss anything but rather to make attacks. What’s to be appreciated in that? I hadn’t considered prescribing pinhole slots, but would ‘ferociously hypothetical’ settle well with you?

YOUR consideration that a rat’s ass be more important than Sibel’s case may very well still be your opinion. But that may change. I’m very close to some extremely decent people who dismiss investigating allegations in Sibel’s case. Why? Because its not popular, YET.

While you are tapping into the mind of Goebbels, tell me, which part of uncovering government corruption and lies do you believe he’d be pleased with and would support?

That’s refreshing to hear.

What part of sharing Sibel’s case do you think amounts to drooling, heinous, limp-wristed quackery, or even more, settled in favor of the ? Labeling another instead of making a point on topic doesn’t say much for your convictions, or does it?

If the case does hit mainstream and elected criminals are thrown in prison (or executed for treason), and potentially both parties are effected… how will our desire for the current system of left vs. right be altered? Actally I posed a similar question to a representative in my district and received an acutely chilling answer. I [url=The Big Questions - #13 by j.scholl that in another thread[/url] if you care to see the response.

So, TGM, is there a better way for you to voice your contention than attacking the messenger? Couple that with the pomposity to suggest you’ve been unfairly confronted because I don’t ‘know any of your personal politics’… just doesn’t appear rational.

Since when does objective rationality have anything at all to do with this partisan thread of hackery?

'at Boy talks a lot but he don’t say much.

OK Mr. Scholl, you want a juicy bit of federal employee being fired and a cover-up…here is one for you to get yer teeth into…

[url=]Coughlin sacked
Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military’s Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government’s most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.[/url]


[url=]Coughlin backed

Some Pentagon and military leaders, along with lots of working-level officials, are quietly rallying to support ousted Joint Staff counterterrorism analyst Stephen Coughlin.

Pentagon officials said a number of generals and admirals who share Mr. Coughlin’s well-reasoned assessment of the Islamic law underpinnings of Islamist terror are voicing support for the lawyer and former military intelligence official.

Mr. Coughlin was fired as a Joint Staff contractor after his confrontation with Hasham Islam, a special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, was reported here last month.

Mr. Islam, a Muslim, referred to Mr. Coughlin as a “Christian zealot with a pen” during the meeting several weeks ago, a slur rejected by Mr. Coughlin’s supporters.

Critics of Mr. Coughlin are spreading word – falsely – that he is being let go because he talked out of school to the press. One official suggested the action was due to budget cuts.

But defense and military officials supportive of Mr. Coughlin said the real reason is that critics, like Mr. Islam. want him sidelined because they oppose his hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine. Those views have triggered a harsh debate challenging the widespread and politically correct view of Islam as a religion of peace hijacked by extremists.

“Steve Coughlin is the most knowledgeable person in the U.S. government on Islamic law,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. “The secretary of defense should ensure that he stays at DOD.”

Another booster is Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Corps, who said in November that Mr. Coughlin’s briefing for Marines bound for Iraq “hit the mark in explaining how jihadists use the Koran to justify their actions.”

“Your presentation has armed service men and women with more intellectual ammunition to take the fight to the enemy,” Gen. Helland said in a letter.

A U.S. Central Command analyst, Neal Harper, stated in an e-mail to friends, that if Mr. Coughlin is allowed to become a casualty in the war of ideas “then I’m deeply concerned about the future course of the war on terrorism.”

“Ignoring Steve Coughlin’s honest assessments and terminating his contract sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent,” Mr. Harper stated. “We struggled for many years to get our heads around radical Islam, and Steve has been a leader in the effort.”

Mr. Harper said Mr. Coughlin should be promoted, but instead “Hasham Islam is allowed to insult him publicly.”

How is it that he is allowed to call anyone a Christian zealot?" he asked. "This alone exposes his bias, his poor perception of Christians, and a complete lack of professionalism, …”[/url]
(keeping in mind that bit is not a reference to

Further discussion and analysis of what this means at this time is presented here:


Claudia Rosett continues to follow the saga of Hesher Islam versus Stephen Coughlin. Coughlin was an expert on Islam at the Pentagon who was allegedly fired because he “made it his mission to set aside the feel-good assumptions about Islam which have been guiding U.S. strategy, and take an unblinkered look at facts”.

In a thesis accepted last year by the National Defense Intelligence College, entitled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” Coughlin came up with heavily documented findings that Islamic law, to a dangerous extent, supports the global spread of Islamic extremism, through both violent and non-violent means. In presentations to the military, based in part on court documents connected to the case of the Holy Land Foundation, Coughlin warned of Muslim Brotherhood plans to subvert the U.S. system via front groups, and “destroy western civilization from within.”

And then, Coughlin got the shove. Earlier this month, he was told that his contract with the Joint Chiefs of Staff will not be renewed when it expires in March. Why? According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, who on Jan. 4 broke the story of Coughlin’s ouster, Coughlin ran afoul of a Pentagon “key aide” named Hesham Islam. Attributing his information to unnamed “officials,” Gertz, who in a series of subsequent articles has stood by his story, alleged that Hesham Islam at a Pentagon meeting late last year sought to have Coughlin soften his views, and called him a “Christian zealot or extremist ‘with a pen’” — or words to that effect.

By implication the struggle between Hesher Islam and Coughlin is symptomatic of a far larger and unresolved debate, which might be summarized as being over whether or not “Islam is a religion of peace”, an assumption which has undergirded the War On Terror From September 11 onwards. As it happens, Bill Roggio, writing in the Weekly Standard, notices a development that I think confirms that hypothesis. “CJTF-82, the U.S. military command for eastern Afghanistan, has taken Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders to task for announcing the production of a short film on the Koran. CJTF-82 begins its piece, provocatively titled ‘Stirring the Hate,’ by questioning Wilder’s motivations.” Roggio says:

Leaving aside Wilders's motivation for making the film, one wonders why CJTF-82 posted this article on its website in the first place. Should CJTF-82, which is engaged in the fight in Afghanistan, be injecting itself into a debate over free speech in Holland, an allied nation with troops currently deployed in Afghanistan? Is it appropriate for the U.S. military to criticize the actions of a leader of a foreign political party? And has CJTF-82 officially determined that Wilders is responsible for "igniting further violence" by publishing the Muhammad cartoons?

The Belmont Club[/quote]

How about this Mr. Scholl?

added - 0942 today/ 31 Jan:

Maj. Steve Coughlin for Beginners

Link to PDF file… “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad …A 333 page PDF document.

Maybe you’re asking me if I see any parallels between the two stories? Off the top… one:

“State Department severs contract with an opposing voice, now fueling debate about how an ambiguously endless war on terror will be \embraced/+\supported/ by an under-informed American public.”

Do you, or I, think Coughlin is right about Islamic doctrine being extremist to the core, or has Islam, a religion of peace, been hijacked by al Qaeda (AQ)?

I think that consideration draws a bigger and separate topic, “How ruthless are the real enemies of the US Constitution?”, and it will remain a deep and questionable concern. Debating how someone characterizes the genuine WoT villians would be quite interesting, but those enemies of 9/11 haven’t clearly been identified, have they? Sure we’ve been conditioned (and paid) to fight against ‘enemies of America’… ‘remember 9/11’… but we don’t dare inquire about solid evidence that AQ or Osama bin Laden (OBL) orchestrated and accomplished 9/11. MSM doesn’t have much to say about the Israelis cheering for the NYC 9/11 attacks or the art student spy ring, because maybe that too borders too closely on fueling anti-Neocon transfaith fear-mongering. Or does the whole notion touch too closely on a more sinister plot possibly concocted by corporate-owned wolves in ‘public-servants’ clothing?

Of course that would be hogwash to someone who ideologically refuses to admit Able Danger existed, or that half of the implicated ‘extremist suicide hijackers’ are reportedly still alive, or that Indian Intelligence outed Pakistani’s ISI director who was in DC for talks on 9/11 as being the money-man behind Mohamed Atta. NONE of these issues are even mentioned in the so-called ‘full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks,’ so it has to only be hogwash, right?

So Coughlin’s contract isn’t being renewed, maybe because of his thesis. But in reality, AQ and OBL pose insignificant threats to Americans at home when compared to the homegrown corporatist regime who exploited the mysterious 9/11 suspension of physics and Norad. The conclusion itself to forego 9/11 proof|evidence to attack one and then another ‘strategic’ nation requires independent non-partisan pro-American investigation. But since the executive’s deathgrip on National Security scare tactics have taken unconstitutional precedent over Congressional hearings and Judicial rulings, the levels of hearings directly pointed at the illegalities of either invasion don’t seem to have a remote possibility. Hence the support of Sibel’s right (and sworn duty) to disclose evidence of corrupt officials, especially in regards to correcting the genuine truth about the 9/11 nightmare.

Back to your question… maybe another parallel relevance to your Coughlin post… is that some members in congress are said to be questioning if Hesham Islam and Gordon England (Rumsfeld’s replacement) have something to hide by dismissing Coughlin and his thesis, and subsequent inquiries may occur. But that’s about all that appears to relate to this thread about Sibel’s case. You can let me know if any serious implications arise out of Coughlin’s lost contract.

Sibel’s testimony of evidence on the other hand points to several serious charges.

TC, would you agree that these charges appear quite significant?

[quote]She (Sibel Edmonds) has given evidence to closed sessions of Congress and the 9/11 commission, but many of the key points of her testimony have remained secret. She has now decided to divulge some of that information after becoming disillusioned with the US authorities’ failure to act.

The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology.

The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official.

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

Source (Times Online)[/quote]

And your thoughts?


12:14 PM CST on Sunday, February 17, 2008

Most Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will.

The former FBI translator turned whistle-blower tells a chilling story of corruption at Washington’s highest levels – sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, illegal arms transfers, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, espionage. She may be a first-rate fabulist, but Ms. Edmonds’ account is full of dates, places and names.

And if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.

But Congress has refused to act, and the Justice Department has shrouded Ms. Edmonds’ case in the state-secrets privilege, a rarely used measure so sweeping that it precludes even a closed hearing attended only by officials with top-secret security clearances. According to the Department of Justice, such an investigation “could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.”

It’s true that she probably knows only part of the story, but if that part is correct, Congress and the Justice Department should have no higher priority. Nothing deserves more attention than the possibility of ongoing national-security failures and the proliferation of nuclear weapons with the connivance of corrupt senior government officials.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy. This essay was adapted from a longer version that appears on the Web site of The American Conservative magazine (

Not quite headlines yet. But those of us who care to see justice served will keep telling fellow Americans about this story’s relevance, importance and urgency.

Sibel Edmonds’ Deposition Disclosures: Congressional Bribery, Blackmail, and Espionage

Breaking down the formerly-gagged FBI whistleblower’s sworn testimony…

[quote]The under-oath, detailed allegations include bribery, blackmail, espionage and infiltration of the U.S. government of, and by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and agents of the government of Turkey. The broad criminal conspiracy is said to have resulted in, among other things, the sale of nuclear weapons technology to black market interests including Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya and others.

In this first break-down article, we’ll look at the answers given by Edmonds during her deposition in regard to bribery and blackmail of current and former members of the U.S. Congress, including Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA, deceased) and an unnamed, currently-serving, married Democratic Congresswoman said to have been video-taped in a Lesbian affair by Turkish agents for blackmail purposes.

In further breakdown articles, we’ll look at her disclosures concerning top State and Defense officials including Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and, perhaps most notably, the former Deputy Undersecretary of State, Marc Grossman, the third-highest ranking official in the State Department. Also, details on the theft of nuclear weapons technology; disclosures on Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA front company Brewster-Jennings; items related to U.S. knowledge of 9/11 and al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001; infiltration of the FBI translation department and more…[/quote]
Full Story

Huffington Post published one damning part part of Sibel’s testimony:

FBI Whistleblower: Hastert,
Burton, Blunt, Other Members of
Congress ‘Bribed, Blackmailed’

[quote=“Huffington Post”]The under-oath, detailed allegations include bribery, blackmail, espionage and infiltration of the U.S. government of, and by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and agents of the government of Turkey. The broad criminal conspiracy is said to have resulted in, among other things, the sale of nuclear weapons technology to black market interests including Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya and others.

Even as many of these allegations had been previously corroborated to varying extents, by a number of official government reports, documents and independent media outlets (largely overseas), not a single major mainstream media outlet in the U.S. has picked up on Edmonds’ startling claims since her deposition has been made fully available.[/quote]
Let’s see if there aren’t deafening crickets from both Democrat and GOP cheerleaders

Well, Sibel has recently been referenced in radically different angle - through a hypothetical meeting with President Obama about 9/11 - requested by Charlie Sheen, reported in jest or spite, from vastly different angles:

In the explosive 9/11 Obama-Sheen meeting, Question or Briefing #2 sparks from the testimony of Sibel Edmonds[quote=“Charlie Sheen’s hypothetical Obama meeting”]CN – Number 2; FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001. In July of '09, Mrs. Edmonds broke the Federal gag order and went public to reveal that
Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11
.[/url][/quote]And what’s to say this might be possible?[quote=“Bibliography for briefing point #2”]Briefing Number 2

Sibel Edmonds was dismissed after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001.

During a court case that arose out of her dismissal and the evidence surrounding 9/11, reporters were barred from recording any details of the case, and Edmonds herself was barred from even entering the court room. When Edmonds’ case was dismissed in May 2005, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited. … 20Dead.htm

During an interview on the Mike Malloy Show In July 2009, Edmonds stated, “To say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - 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.” … l-911.html … until-911/[/quote]
Stories are springing up advancing that Osama bin Laden was actually still working with the CIA up until 9/11. Well that would certainly blow away any justification for blaming and invading Afghanistan for harboring the accused " mastermind ", now wouldn’t it?

C’mon people! This stuff is what war crime trials are made out of.

So we pray.
Zec 8:16-17 / Prov 17:15 / Ex 20:13, 15, 16, 17 / Prov 29:12

Charlie Sheen? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: You’re really calling in the “intellectual” cavalry. :laughing:

Ah yes my Chewycorns quipster, attacking the messenger and avoiding the message makes for a tasty intellectual snack. Well, not really.

Maybe you’ll circle around for another dive bomb attempt to discredit her testimony? What’s in it for you I wonder.

Hitting the stands this week,
cover story on FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in The American Conservative
by former CIA agent Phil Giraldi is sure to get some feedback.

The cover title:
Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

The gagged FBI whistleblower
on espionage, al-Qaeda,
and secrets for sale

I still think Sibel can provide hope to those of us Americans who care about rooting out corruption and getting back to the Constitution.

Again I’ll say…[quote]Let’s see if there aren’t deafening crickets from both Democrat and GOP cheerleaders[/quote]

[quote=“j.scholl”]Hitting the stands this week,
cover story on FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in The American Conservative
by former CIA agent Phil Giraldi is sure to get some feedback.

The cover title:
Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

The gagged FBI whistleblower
on espionage, al-Qaeda,
and secrets for sale

I still think Sibel can provide hope to those of us Americans who care about rooting out corruption and getting back to the Constitution.

Again I’ll say…[quote]Let’s see if there aren’t deafening crickets from both Democrat and GOP cheerleaders[/quote][/quote]

Paleoconservative Buchananites (American Conservative Magazine) publish that magazine…why am I not surprised?

The entire Republican Party can be summed up in two words these days. Fossils and fanatics.

[quote=“Chewycorns”]Paleoconservative Buchananites[/quote]Will you please explain what that means?

[quote=“Chewycorns”](American Conservative Magazine) publish that magazine…why am I not surprised?[/quote]Sibel doesn’t seem to have much testimony that will shine glory on conservatives, at least party-loyal GOP conservatives.

So for them to open this up, it may be signs of shifting? I’m probably not going to spend any time comparing different publications and labeling them left or right, but your comments make me wonder what exactly doesn’t ‘surprise’ you.

I’m just waiting for the public to be concerned about their government, and choosing to demand justice. Not the violent kind of justice as in attacking Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, but the justice that serves to scare all future government officials into understanding they really do work for the American public.

So Sibel Edmonds has suggested in previous testimony there is evidence of…

Corruption of the most vile?
Violation of oaths?
More GOP/Democrat humiliation?
Black-marketing nuclear technology?
CIA working closely with Osama bin Laden up to 9/11?

These apparently make up some of the subjects the Bush/Cheney/Rove White House DID NOT want being publicly discussed during their stretch of the War of Terror. And her gag is apparently wearing off since the original dogs of war have vacated their seats of power. Her full testimony to the 9/11 Commission, completely blacked out, maybe that will come to light soon as well.

In regards to Sibel Edmonds’ secret testimony before the 9/11 Commission, only one statement is attributed to her account:[quote=“9/11 Commission Report page 77”]The FBI did not dedicate sufficient resources to the surveillance and translation needs of counter-terrorism agents. It lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts.[/quote]They stop right there about her. What did she learn, and did she find criminal elements within the US government before and during 9/11?

Oh wait, the very next two sentences give us their answer:[quote=“9/11 Commission Report page 77”]Finally, the FBI’s information systems were woefully inadequate. The FBI lacked the ability to know what it knew: there was no effective mechanism for capturing or sharing its institutional knowledge.[/quote]They insinuate blaming intelligence gathering, but deliberately decline to mention the gag order that WOULD help make sense of what we should have known before 9/11.

If you’ve read Phil Giraldi’s work before, you may expect a stinging line of questions that will clearly deconstruct White House managed public presumptions about 9/11, intelligence gathering, and more.

Personally, I have never given as much as a dollar to the AmCon mag, but its is said that Phil Giraldi contributes stories for them, and the mag decided to make it a cover story. We’ll see what transpires.

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

[quote]EDMONDS: Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.[/quote]

[quote]EDMONDS: There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes.
People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.[/quote]

WELL, one of the guys running scared is this guy.

Anyone think a little cheney-interrogation action won’t get this guy squealing for mercy, spilling a whole mess of things?

This is from the archives of Wiki’s first link (now 404’d):

Interesting Wiki says: “Grossman served as the Department’s third-ranking official, supporting U.S. diplomacy worldwide.

Marc Grossman
Under Secretary, Political Affairs
Term of Appointment: 03/26/2001 to present

Marc Grossman was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 23, 2001 and sworn in as Under Secretary for Political Affairs on March 26, 2001.

Ambassador Grossman has been a career Foreign Service Officer since 1976. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, from June 2000 to February 2001, and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, from August 1997 to May 2000. From November 1994 to June 1997, he served as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. Prior to this, from January 1993 to September 1994, he was Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and Executive Secretary of the Department of State.

Before assuming these duties, Ambassador Grossman served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs. He was Executive Assistant to Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead, from September 1986 to January 1989.

From 1984 to 1986, Ambassador Grossman was the Deputy Director of the Private Office of Lord Carrington, then Secretary General of NATO.

Other overseas assignments include tours as a political officer at the U.S Mission to NATO and in Islamabad. In Washington, DC he also has served as Deputy Special Adviser to President Carter and in several capacities for the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.

Ambassador Grossman earned a B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara and an MSc. in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science.


Released on May 22, 2001

Former FBI Agent Confirms: Bush State Official Was Target of ‘Decade-Long’ Espionage Probe

[i]George W. Bush’s third-highest ranking State Department official, Marc Grossman, who became the Under Secretary of State after previously serving as Ambassador to Turkey, was targeted as part of a “decade-long investigation” by the FBI, according to an 18-year veteran manager of the bureau’s Counterintelligence and Counterespionage departments.

For still-unknown reasons, the investigation, which also involved a multitude of cases involving Israeli espionage, was ultimately “buried and covered up,” according to the official.

The comment from the former FBI official John M. Cole, in response to recent, stunning disclosures made by former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, helps to shore up a key aspect of her allegations. Cole is now calling for an investigation to help “bring about accountability” in the matter.[/i]