|
Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel
Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers'
Brad Friedman,
The BRAD BLOG
Monday November 19, 2007
"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
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".
(Article continues below)
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 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,
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, several sitting
Senators, both Republican and Democratic, several senior FBI agents,
the 9/11 Commission, and dozens of national security and whistleblower
advocacy groups. 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 (and re-run twice thereafter), and via a detailed 2005 exposé
in Vanity Fair.
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
(NSWBC), 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 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.
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.
"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."
"For now, as you can see," she added, "the fear
tactics have worked."
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
