Ex-FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Tests Justice Dept. Again

[nathan28]

Personally, I'd like to see some documentation for the reason she was fired. It's unlikey that the FBI is going to release any of their personnel records, whether it would supposrt their reason for firing her or not, so it would have to come from Edmonds herself. I want to rule out that she has an agenda, say for instance the Albanian/Turkish one. I'm not going so far as saying she's not credible, just that I get uncomfortable when I see only one side of the story. Well, and i suppose there's always the slim possibility that she's actually part of some government operation.

edit for clarity

I believe that initially she claimed she was fired for being a whistleblower; unnamed sources told the Wash. Post and NY Times she was fired for other reasons, incompetence or insolence or something like that, but the FBI later determined she was in fact canned for whistleblowing.

I might be jaded but I think her revelations aren't too revelatory. OMG, a state that makes a perfect place to ship oil and drugs is involved heavily in the twilight world of intelligence and terrorism? Duh.

OTOH I look forward to learning more about this congressional sexual scandal.

[seemslikeadream]

All of Bradblog seems to be down/gone (wordpress error page in its place). Is it just me?

yes down, maybe a take down like they did with Sibel or maybe he's loading the transcript, hopefully


Up now and they said this would happen

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7359

Several Charges Dropped in 'False Statements' Case Following FBI Whistleblower's Testimony
Rep. Jean Schmidt drops four claims in Ohio election case, following deposition by formerly-gagged Turkish-American translator Sibel Edmonds, adds another
Preliminary panel finds 'probable cause' in several claims against Krikorian...
Claiming that Ohio's Republican U.S. House Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-2nd) is "conced[ing] that she does deny the Armenian Genocide," the campaign of her Democratic challenger David Krikorian has just issued a press release (posted in full below), stating that Schmidt has dropped four of her "false statements" complaints against him in her Ohio Election Commission (OEC) case, while petitioning the court to add a new claim in the bargain.

The news comes on the heels of last Saturday's deposition by the FBI's former Turkish-American translator Sibel Edmonds who had been subpoenaed last week to testify in the case. The whistleblower had been previous-gagged by two different assertions of the "state secrets" privilege during the Bush Administration. She was finally able to testify on Saturday, under oath, about alleged infiltration, bribery, and blackmail by Turkish agents, of current and former members of the U.S. Congress and other high ranking officials in the Departments of State and Defense. The BRAD BLOG covered the stunning deposition as it happened last Saturday.

Schmidt had challenged Krikorian's claim, during his 2008 independent campaign against her, that she accepted "blood money" from Turkish agents in exchange for helping to block a Congressional resolution recognizing the 1915 killing of some 1.5 million ethnic Armenians as a genocide....


In today's statement, Krikorian says: "Jean and her friends at the Turkish Legal Defense Fund are on a fishing expedition ... First she brought the charges, then she realized that she could not win her case and petitioned the court to drop the charges, now she is adding a new one. Typical Jean Schmidt behavior, it's a shame she is not putting forward this kind of effort on the health care debate."

The campaign said that "the statements Schmidt claimed were false are in relation to her denial of the Armenian Genocide," adding that "In dropping the charges, Schmidt essentially conceded that she does deny the Armenian Genocide."

"Being #1 on the Turkish Lobby scoreboard has financial advantages for Jean, but what does it do for our district?" Krikorian asked in the release. He has alleged that the 2nd Congressional district in Ohio has very few, if any, ethnic Turk's among the voting population. Yet, he notes, "Jean Schmidt took more money from the Turkish Lobby during the 2008 election cycle than any other member of Congress."

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Jon Craig has quickly summarized Schmidt's claims in a blog item posted today.

Earlier this week, Krikorian had issued another press release following Edmonds' deposition, describing her testimony alleging that "the Turkish Lobby in the United States was under the direction of the Turkish Government and engaged in operations including bribery, espionage and blackmail with certain members of the US House of Representatives to further its objectives in the United States including one of which is the denial of the Armenian Genocide."

On Saturday, during a break in the whistleblower's deposition, Krikorian stated to The BRAD BLOG: "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." (Video of his comments, and those of Edmonds' and several of the attorneys on all sides was posted here.)

In response to the deposition and flurry of activity in this case, the Turkish Coalition of America posted a scathing, unbylined attack at their blog, on both Krikorian and Edmonds, describing the former's case as "desperate," and the latter as "disgruntled and discredited." That was on Wednesday, prior to yesterday's hearing in which three claims were dropped, and others were found to have enough "probable cause" to merit an evidentiary hearing in September. We examined that blog item earlier today.

Questions About Ohio Paper's Coverage of Schmidt/Krikorian Case

In a related matter, Krikorian also notes in his press release that the Cincinnati Enquirer's original article covering yesterday's preliminary hearing in the OEC's Schmidt v. Krikorian case in Columbus was biased in favor of the Schmidt campaign. The Krikorian campaign "challenged their first edition" and was successful in seeing some of the coverage modified, but it was "not good enough," as Krikorian himself told The BRAD BLOG late this afternoon in a phone conversation.

He charges that the Enquirer ownership is "totally bought and paid for" by the Schmidt campaign. "They never give a fair shake in my opinion," he said, though he acknowledged the reporter who wrote the story, Jon Craig, "is a good guy" and doesn't seem to have been the one to influence what he viewed as inappropriately negative coverage. In the press release, his campaign notes that the Enquirer endorsed Schmidt in last year's campaign.

"If you only read the first few sentences of the article," Krikorian told us, "you wouldn't know that she dropped four of the charges. Why isn't the fact that she dropped charges at least as important as the finding of 'probable cause' with a political board who uses a very low threshold to determine that?"

The finding of "probable cause" on several of the "false statements" allegations by the preliminary panel means that a full evidentiary hearing can move forward on September 3rd. "It's an extremely low bar," he said. "She's a sitting Congresswoman. They're gonna give her the benefit of the doubt. The threshold is very low on a 'probable cause' hearing," which Krikorian says he welcomes. He added that hopes to have Edmonds on the stand to testify during the full September hearing. Currently, Edmonds is out of the country, and may not be back in time to testify, though, she told The BRAD BLOG today, she would like to if it's possible to get an extension on the hearing.

The BRAD BLOG has obtained a copy of one of the earlier posted versions of the Enquirer article [PDF] and has compared it to the one now online following Krikorian's complaints to the paper.

The headline originally had read "Officials: Krikorian made 'false statements,'" while the current version, following pressure from Krikorian's camp, now reads "State hears Schmidt genocide case."

The first graf originally reported: "U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt's Armenian-American opponent made false statements during the 2008 campaign about contributions she received from Turkish political action committees, a unanimous three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission ruled today." The updated version adds the word "probably", as in "probably made false statements." Krikorian (accurately) notes that "probable cause" is not the same as "probably."

Beyond that, the only other substantive change that we noted was a the removal of the final paragraph, which had referred to a finding against Schmidt in a previous OEC "false statements" case, in which she was the defendant. The commission had found, by a 7 to 0 vote, that Schmidt had lied about having received a second undergraduate college degree from the University of Cincinnati. She had, in fact, received only one degree, despite repeated claims to the contrary on her resumes.

We've contacted the Enquirer's reporter Jon Craig, who cautions against reading anything nefarious into any of the changes. He notes that "we revise stories like ten times a day," particularly the online versions, and that the final graf was cut for space concerns in the print version, at the request of his editors.

He also notes that he's had "absolutely no interaction at all" with the Schmidt campaign concerning the story and knew of no contact with his editors either, adding that he'll normally hear from the editors if they receive such contacts and/or complaints. If we hear different word from those editors, we will, of course update this item with the new information.

* * *
The Krikorian Campaign's press release follows in full below...

Krikorian For Congress Press Release

Schmidt Drops Four False Statement Claims Against Krikorian

Republican Congresswoman Essentially Admits Denial of Armenian Genocide

Cincinnati, OH - August 13, 2009 - Attorneys for Jean Schmidt petitioned the court today to add a new claim after dropping four of her initial false statement charges against her Democratic opponent David Krikorian.

"Jean and her friends at the Turkish Legal Defense Fund are on a fishing expedition" said Mr. Krikorian "First she brought the charges, then she realized that she could not win her case and petitioned the court to drop the charges, now she is adding a new one. Typical Jean Schmidt behavior, its a shame she is not putting forward this kind of effort on the health care debate" said Mr. Krikorian.

The statements Schmidt claimed were false are in relation to her denial of the Armenian Genocide. In dropping the charges, Schmidt essentially conceded that she does deny the Armenian Genocide.

Jean Schmidt took more money from the Turkish Lobby during the 2008 election cycle than any other member of Congress. "Being #1 on the Turkish Lobby scoreboard has financial advantages for Jean, but what does it do for our district?" asked Mr. Krikorian adding, "We look forward to the full commission hearing in a few weeks."

A total of five false statement claims will be heard at a full commission hearing on September 3rd at the Ohio Elections Commission in Columbus.

In a related matter, The Cincinnati Enquirer, which endorsed Jean Schmidt in the previous, election is continuing to protect her with its online story about today's case emphasizing her new charge and downplaying the fact that she dropped four of her initial frivolous claims. The Enquirer changed its article after the campaign challenged their first edition. The editors of the Enquirer have consistently protected Representative Schmidt to the detriment of the citizens of the 2nd district. The phone number for the Enquirer's editorial department is (513) 768-8359.

Krikorian For Congress
Media@Krikorianforcongress.com
Palmer@Krikorianforcongress.com

[chiggerbit]

I've been giving this some thought, and I have to wonder if the smell that has been offending my nose with regards to the Edmonds claims and the Franklin scandal has been an attorney smell. Not meaning to diss attorney members here, of course, but it's an attorney's job nowadays to re-fashion the narrative so that it fits their client's best interests, which may have little to do with the truth. Not that there isn't any truth in the re-fashioning, just that the attorneys take a truthful thread out of the fabric from here, and one from there, and the next thing you know, a nearly unrecognizable fabric has been woven. All in their client's best interests, of course.

[8bitagent]

But the sweep of this is too vast, too damning, to expect the current PTB are going to allow it to see the light of day. They'll continue to deny, obscure, ignore, hide and disavow this conspiracy to be investigated or acknowledged, as they keep trying to destabilize China and Russia and the whole eurasian and 'stans region while devestating the lives of untold millions of people with their power-and-war games BS.

Not too mention use China to facilitate mass genocide in Darfur for huge oil corporate gains. Much as how Russia was manipulated into wiping out a huge section of the Chechen population after the FSB staged 9/99 false flag terrorism.

No doubt the PTB have been manipulating their favored "Islamic extremist" proxies, and even the big powers left toward what can only ultimately be a future world war as well as more global government/globalization.

[8bitagent]

So according to Edmonds, bin Laden was training anti Chinese government Uighurs seperatists, with full wink and nod approval of Washington? I know this was likely the case during the former Yugoslavia/Balkan war at least.

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm just getting old, but a lot of these conspiracy theories have reached the point with me that the word "fish" comes to mind all too often, one way or another. I used to swallow them, hook, line and sinker. The first eye-opener for me was to learn more about Ted Gunderson. Then there's the Franklin one. Man, did I ever strike at that Conspiracy of silence bait, until DE pointed me in the direction of John deCamp's connections to LaRouche. And when I read that DeCamp was a part of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, I couldn't spit the bait out fast enough. So, as I've said before, this Edmond's tale is beginning to smell fishy to me.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 420#141420

Yeah but that's like saying because notorious anti Semites David Duke and Christopher Bollyn question 9/11, that questioning 9/11 is a red herring.

The mainstream European media has long been reporting on the Turkish deep state, likening it to the Gladio/P2 days.

I agree though, with how conspiracy culture props up certain personalities as 100% gospel...especially if they've been rubber stamped as a "whistleblower". Which means everything they say MUST be true!

Thing is, Sibel has been pretty hearty bait for the conspiracy/deep research crowd(myself included) for some time. Is everything she says gospel? Does she even have any real news to tell re: 9/11 as people assume?

The deep state web of intrigue, as anyone who has looked into BCCI can attest, is quite vast.
Again, cant thank whoever posted this enough to understand just some of the layers of the globalist deep state:
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/artic ... l-drug.htm

As for the Decamp/Gundersen stuff...well, at least their heart is in the right place I would guess?

[nathan28]

Any updates w/r/t the deposition transcript? I can't find anything.

[Sounder]

http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/ ... l-edmonds/

[bks]

TRANSCRIPT!

http://newsdemocrat.com/SiteImages/File ... pt_393.pdf

Deposition video:

http://video.brownpublishing.com/video/ ... rat/sibel/

[seemslikeadream]

TRANSCRIPT!

http://newsdemocrat.com/SiteImages/File ... pt_393.pdf

Deposition video:

http://video.brownpublishing.com/video/ ... rat/sibel/

Thanks!~

Exclusive Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

By Khatchig Mouradian • on August 21, 2009 • Email This Post

On April 23, 2007, I sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was published in the Armenian Weekly and on ZNet and widely circulated. On Aug. 18, 2009, I conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds, who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.

Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the FBI’s Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The “state secrets privilege” has often been invoked to block court proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged to prevent further discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution from the House floor in 2000.

Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.

Below is the full transcript of the follow-up interview.

***

Khatchig Mouradian—I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. You said, “There has been no hearing and nobody has been held accountable. We are basically where we started…” Two more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask the same question again. Has there been any change?

Sibel Edmonds—Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned, the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have had zero interest from Congress on having hearings—any hearings—on this issue, whether it’s the states secrets privilege portion of it or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy enough to come and say, We’re not going to touch this. But the new majority is not saying anything!

The Obama Administration is pretty new. For what I see, they are continuing the previous administration’s state secrets privilege policies. As far as the whistleblower protection and related legislations are concerned, the new White House has already made it clear that they do not want to provide any protection for national security whistleblowers—these are the whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, and all the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and, of course, the Defense Department.

As far as the mainstream media is concerned, at least from what I have seen, the situation has actually gotten worse. To me that seems to be the major reason behind the Congress’ and the White House’s inaction and lack of desire to pursue accountability. As long as the pressure from the mainstream media is not there, of course they aren’t going to act. They are driven by that pressure, and the mainstream media in the U.S. today does not fulfill its role and responsibility by providing that pressure.

Of the three—Congress, the executive branch, and the media—I would say the biggest culprit here is the mainstream media.

K.M.—The most recent example of the deafening silence of the mainstream media was your deposition during the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case on Aug. 8. There, you spoke, under oath, about how the Turkish government and a network of lobby groups and high-ranking U.S. officials and Congressmen have engaged in treason and blackmail. A big story by any standards, it was only covered by Armenian newspapers and a few blogs. How do you explain this silence?

S.E.—I know field reporters who are so excited and want to chase the story. But when they went to their papers—and I’m talking about mainstream media and very good investigative journalists—their editors are refusing to touch it. When you watch the video or read the transcript, you will see how explosive the deposition was. And remember, I was speaking under oath. If by any standard, if I were to lie or be untruthful in any way, I would go to jail. I am answering these questions under oath, and yet, the mainstream media is refusing to touch it. And this is very similar to what we saw with the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case.

I have emphasized the fact that the American Turkish Council [ATC], the Turkish lobby, and these Turkish networks, they work together, in partnership with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]. So not only is there pressure on media outlets from the Turkish lobby and the corrupt U.S. persons involved, but they also have this pressure placed on the media via their partners from the Israel lobby—and the latter’s influence on the mainstream media in the U.S. is undeniable.

The irony is that my deposition has made it to the front page of Turkish newspapers—and Turkey doesn’t even pride itself with freedom of the media—yet the mainstream media has not written a single word about it.

K.M.—In an article you wrote about the 4th of July titled, “It Ain’t about Hot Dogs and Fireworks,” you say: “Recall the words of the Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges, all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step back, and pay special attention to these lines: ‘support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies—foreign and domestic.’ Now ask yourself who is meant by ‘domestic’ enemies.”

Talk about these “domestic enemies.”

S.E.—The domestic enemies I refer to are the U.S. officials, whether elected or appointed, who do not represent the interest of the American people—whether they are national security or foreign policy-related interests—and instead, they represent their own greed, their own financial benefit and/or foreign interests. A good example here is Dennis Hastert.

Less than three years after Vanity Fair ran a story about Hastert’s covert relationship with Turkish groups, Hastert’s group announced that it’s the registered lobbyist for the government of Turkey receiving, $35,000 a month from the Turkish interests. How much more vindication does the American mainstream media want? This man, for years, cashed in while he was under oath to be loyal and represent American interests and the Constitution. While in Congress, this man was not only representing foreign governments, but also foreign criminal entities. As soon as this man got out of Congress, he came out of the closet and officially became a representative of foreign interests. Bob Livingston [a former Republican Congressman from Louisiana] is another example. As soon as he got out of Congress, he registered under FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] to represent foreign interests. Steven Solarz [a former Democratic Congressman from New York] is yet another example.

Another prominent example is Mark Grossman at the State Department. For years, he has been representing foreign entities. In fact, he’s been violating criminal laws in the U.S. And guess what? He leaves the State Department in 2005 and he’s immediately placed on the payroll by a company in Turkey called Ihlas Holding, and he goes and joins a lobby and starts representing Turkish entities’ interests.

These opportunities do not come when these people leave their offices. In order for these people to secure these jobs and lucrative payments, they have to serve these foreign entities while they are in office. And they have done just that!

The victims here are the American people, their national security, and the integrity of this government. And in many cases that I know about, it is about our national security-related, intelligence-related information that is being easily provided to foreign entities by these individuals. Based on the laws we have since the beginning of this nation, these people should be prosecuted criminally.

K.M.—I am reminded of the saying, “God protect me from my friends, and I’ll take care of my enemies.” Isn’t Turkey supposed to be an ally of the U.S.?

S.E.—If you were to go and see our government’s own latest report, under the espionage section, the top countries are Israel, China, with Turkey coming third or fourth. You are looking at two ally countries here, Israel and Turkey, penetrating and stealing our intelligence, military, and classified technology information. Why would your allies penetrate your State Department, Department of Defense, and get away with it? Why would your allies want to steal from you?

K.M.—Let’s talk about the Krikorian vs. Schmidt case. Specifically, why did you decide to testify and what can you say about the efforts to block your testimony?

S.E.—I was contacted by Mr. Krikorian’s attorneys, who said they wanted to receive my sworn testimony and also depose me as a witness on the case they had in court. I went and checked out their case, and I saw that it involves the Turkish lobby and certain Turkish interest groups, and also, a Representative, Jean Schmidt [R-Ohio], who was receiving campaign donations from these groups. I saw, based on the publicly available information from their case that there was a pattern, and decided that my testimony would be directly relevant and extremely important to this case, despite the fact that I did not have any information specifically about Schmidt (I left the FBI in 2002). So I said yes, if they were to subpoena me and officially ask for my deposition under oath, I would provide it for them.

And then I fulfilled my obligation, as a former FBI contractor who has signed various non-disclosure agreements, to inform the FBI and the Department of Justice that I have been requested to provide my testimony and I am supposed to let you know. They had a day or so to respond. They passed the deadline. And after the deadline, they came back with some whimsical unconstitutional warning saying that under the non-disclose agreement, the FBI and the Department of Justice needed 30 days to review what I was about to testify. I had the attorneys check that and it turned out this is not legal, because oral testimony cannot be submitted—you don’t know what is going to be asked in court. Therefore, the warning they gave me was unconstitutional and not legal. They didn’t have any legal grounds to stop me from testifying, so I went and, under oath, during this five-hour long deposition, answered all the questions, and talked about everything I knew that had to do with Congressional corruption cases that involved various Turkish entities.

K.M.—For years now, this has been a very frustrating issue for you. Have you given up at this point? Is there any hope for change?

S.E.—On the micro level, I have given up. I have done everything anybody could possibly think of, whether it’s approaching the Congress, the court, the Inspector General’s office, the mainstream media, or providing testimony under oath. There’s nothing left to do. It is what it is. It’s being blocked.

On the macro level, I am a U.S. citizen and I am a mother. I have the obligation, the responsibility, to defend the Constitution when it’s my part, my role, to make a difference. And for that, I will never give up. In the U.S., we are witnessing many elements of what we consider a police state. I expect that in countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. But we’re looking at these elements in the U.S., a nation that prides itself at being at the forefront of freedom, democracy, and civil liberties. What happened to that nation?

As a mother, I want to raise my daughter in a place where she feels free to express her opinion. She is right now in a country where her mother has been silenced with gag orders and state secrets privilege.

I grew up with these and I don’t want my daughter to grow up with these.

[seemslikeadream]

SH: And this was the infamous Melek Can Dickerson, right? Who was this lady?

LR: She was married to Major Doug Dickerson - actually he's had a promotion since then, whatever his title is today, he's an airforce Major who'd been involved in weapons procurement in Turkey going back a decade. So, the two of them turned up to Sibel's house and tried to recruit Sibel. Sibel's husband was there, and they were all having a friendly chat when Major Doug Dickerson said 'Why don't you come and join this organization - the American Turkish Council?' And he basically said, 'If you work for these guys, we'll be able to get you in there, and you'll never have to work again.' He was basically trying to recruit Sibel to either mistranslate documents that were incriminating, or steal other documents that were in the building and feed them out to targets of the investigation so that the targets would know where the investigation was going.

SH: Now this lady, Melek Can Dickerson was really giving Sibel problems in the translation unit - is that correct?

LR: I don't know that specifically - I'm not sure if that was true before the recruitment attempt, or only after the attempted recruiting had failed. Sibel rebuffed the espionage recruiting attempt and then reported it to her boss a day or two later.

SH: Who's her boss that she reported it to?

LR: Sibel's boss was a guy called Mike Feghali - he was in charge at that time of the Turkey desk. Dickerson was also Turkish - she actually joined the FBI after Sibel did. Sibel was actually the first and only Turkish translator in the FBI translation unit when she first joined. They didn't have anyone else there.

SH: They didn't have anyone??

LR: Nope. They recruited Sibel, and then Dickerson, and then another guy, Kevin Taskasen. It turns out that Dickerson was a spy, and Taskasen could speak neither Turkish nor English - so the FBI translation unit in Washington was just a disaster.

SH: And what is this American Turkish Council that they tried to recruit Sibel Edmonds to join?

LR: The ATC is basically a mini-AIPAC (ref) - in fact it was established using the AIPAC model, I believe. It had the same people on the board, common members etc. It is basically the Turkish version of AIPAC, the Israeli lobby group. The ATC is basically, as Sibel says (ref) "an association in name and in charter, the reality is that it and other affiliated associations are the U.S. government, lobbyists, foreign agents, and MIC." So the members include people like the CEO of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, and Boeing, I presume (I'm not sure). So it's basically a lobbying group for the military industrial complex.

SH: I see - and there are a lot of common interests there - I guess you have the Iron Triangle, the Revolving Door, where the politicians get jobs working at the firms and the regulators and the lobbyists and they all go back and forth in these little circles, and also internationally, you keep bringing up Turkey here, and the American Turkish Council, it makes sense when you think of the fact that America has been a NATO ally with Turkey since World War Two and has armed them and supplied them all along, that the American contractors - I guess what you're saying is that this is their forum to make sure that Turkey buys American planes with American dollars, specifically from these corporations. It's that kind of networking, right?

4 months prior 9/11 Iranian asset provides FBI with specific info

Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order. ’



Mike Feghali is the bottleneck between all of the FBI and any Arabic speaking terrorists. Do you feel safer? Do you think that he's become more diligent since he got promoted for being negligent? Do you think that he's become more competent since he got promoted for being incompetent? Do you think that he's become less susceptible to being bribed? Do you feel comfortable knowing that the FBI knows all of this and still promoted him to be the key bottleneck?

Who are the FBI 'Juice men' in Sibel Edmonds case?

In a new-to-me 2004 interview, Super-Interviewer Scott Horton spoke to two FBI whistleblowers, former translator Sibel Edmonds and Frederic Whitehurst from the FBI crime lab in Washington, D.C.

Whitehurst observes that, due to the lack of any external audits in the FBI:

" The safest place in the USA right now for a criminal is within the walls of FBI headquarters. The safest place!"


Whitehurst also makes a related point:

The Bureau has an expression: 'Who is your juice-man back at HQ?' Who is the guy that is supporting you?


So who are the 'Juice Men' protecting the criminals within the FBI in Sibel Edmonds' case?

Those two quotes from Whitehurst juxtapose nicely against two other issues that I want to mention. We'll get to those in a minute.

First, some background.

Sibel's case involves a whole bunch of criminality from the nuclear black market, illegal weapons trafficking, heroin-trafficking, 911-related cover-ups and the bribery of congresscritters. For various reasons, these issues are rarely discussed, but one part of her story that everybody, including the corporate media, can agree on is that there were serious problems within the FBI translation unit - so let's focus on that for present purposes.

Sibel's boss was a guy named Mike Feghali. He was head of the Turkish and Farsi desks when Sibel was at the FBI, having been promoted from a contract linguist. Feghali's promotion to this position was itself suspicious - he was being investigated by the FBI for various corruption when he was a 'mere' translator and was repeatedly rejected for promotion. He hired an expensive 'white-shoe' lawyer (who paid for that?), claimed racial discrimination and was promoted to head the Turkish and Farsi desks.

In October 2001, the FBI hired a Turkish translator by the name of Melek Can Dickerson. Dickerson had worked for at least three organizations - all of them targets of FBI counter-intelligence operations (most famously the American Turkish Council (ATC)), and was close friends with targets from other counter-intelligence operations - none of this was picked up by any background checks. Within weeks of Dickerson joining the FBI, she:
1. Tried to recruit Sibel (and other translators) to engage in espionage
2. 'Apparently' started having an affair with Feghali
3. Re-arranged the 'work flow' (with Feghali's help and approval) at the FBI so that she, and only she, was translating all of the wiretaps of her friends, and the ATC
4. Intentionally mistranslated wiretaps, stole documents, etc

At the same time, Feghali was engaged in all manner of shenanigans with Sibel - from the very serious (refusing to send her extremely important 911 related output to FBI agents who were desperate for it) to the more 'administrative' (deleting her work product, telling her not to do any work etc)

Sibel reported all of this to FBI management and it was all confirmed in short order. Despite this, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to stay on the job, translating (and probably still stealing, and probably still mistranslating) for another 6 months with Top Security Clearance after Sibel's claims were all confirmed. Even worse, Feghali was also able to stay on the job for another 6 months till he was fired has since been promoted and is now, today, head of the entire Arabic desk - with 300 translators under his command.

I've previously documented all this in "Sibel Edmonds' Corrupt Boss is STILL the key to National Security"

So my questions are this:

Who are Mike Feghali's 'Juice men' back at HQ?' Who are the guys that are supporting him?


and this:

Who were Melek Can Dickerson's 'Juice men' back at HQ?' Who are the guys that are supporting her?


In my recent "FBI, Congress: Sibel Edmonds case 'unclassified'" post, Kossak avahome commented
Who was the FBI agent in charge (of Sibel's case)? Sometimes if you dig backwards a little bit the big picture comes to light? (For instance US Attorney Carol Lam and FBI Agent Dan Dzwilewski who also involved in Guam, O'Neill dying on 9/11, and the latest case being dropped involving John W.(Bill) Crews..FBI Dave Hulser) It just boggles the mind what goes on in the FBI and what they know.


The answer is: Dale Watson, James Comey, John Ashcroft, Tim Caruso, and Robert Mueller.

Are these guys the Juice Men for the criminals in the translation department?

Ashcroft and Mueller you all know.

Dale Watson "former Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI, as such he headed the FBI investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks. " He left the FBI in 2002 to join the spooked-up Booz Allen.

James Comey joined Lockheed Martin.

Tim Caruso: "In June 2001, Mr. Caruso was designated Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterterrorisim Division at FBI Headquarters." In January 02, Caruso was promoted to Deputy Executive Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism.

All of this might seem a little tin-foil-hattish, which brings me to the other issue that I wanted to mention. In late July, FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee - and Betty Sutton (D-OH) (Nope, I'd never heard of her either) asked him about whistleblowers - specifically Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley and John Roberts.

This will surprise you, but I actually want to focus on the John Roberts issue, rather than Sibel (specifically).

You see, John Roberts was the head of FBI's Internal Affairs Department. He was interviewed (he was given permission by the FBI) in the 60 Minutes segment on Sibel's case in October 2002 and was subsequently slammed by the FBI.

Here is the video of Roberts appearance (at least until CBS removes it. I've posted this before and it was removed)
Youtube http://www.youtube.com/v/DoFccUW7oqI

Transcript:

ED BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Special agent John Roberts, a chief of the FBI's Internal Affairs Department, agrees. And while he is not permitted to discuss the Sibel Edmonds case, for the last 10 years, he has been investigating misconduct by FBI employees and says he is outraged by how little is ever done about it.

Mr. JOHN ROBERTS: I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done the internal investigations that I have and has seen what I have and that knows what has occurred and what has been glossed over and what has, frankly, just disappeared, just vaporized, and no one disciplined for it.

BRADLEY: (Voiceover) Despite a pledge from FBI director Robert Mueller to overhaul the culture of the FBI in light of 9/11, and encourage bureau employees to come forward to report wrongdoing, Roberts says that in the rare instances when employees are disciplined, it's usually low-level employees like Sibel Edmonds who get punished and not their bosses.

Mr. ROBERTS: I think the double standard of discipline will continue no matter who comes in, no matter who tries to change. You--you have a certain--certain group that--that will continue to protect itself. That's just how it is.

BRADLEY: No matter what happens?

Mr. ROBERTS: I would say no matter what happens.

BRADLEY: Have you found cases since 9/11 where people were involved in misconduct and were not, let alone reprimanded, but were even promoted?

Mr. ROBERTS: Oh, yes. Absolutely.

BRADLEY: That's astonishing.

Mr. ROBERTS: Why?

BRADLEY: Because you--you would think that after 9/11, that's a big slap on the face. 'Hello! This is a wake-up call here.'

Mr. ROBERTS: Depends on who you are. If you're in the senior executive level, it may not hurt you. You will be promoted.

BRADLEY: In fact, the supervisor who Sibel Edmonds says told her to slow down her translations was recently promoted. Edmonds has filed a whistle-blower suit to get her job back, but last week, US Attorney General Ashcroft asked the court to dismiss it on grounds it would compromise national security. And also on the grounds of national security, the FBI declined to discuss the specifics of her charges, but it says it takes all such charges seriously and investigates them.


These are astonishing statements by John Roberts (at least, it's astonishing that someone at the FBI made them) - and it isn't surprising that the FBI came down on him like a ton of bricks. Apparently the Juice Men don't like to be called on their games. Let's not forget, he was the head of Internal Affairs - so he has some serious credibility. As he says: "I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done the internal investigations that I have and has seen what I have and that knows what has occurred..."

Roberts was attacked ferociously by FBI HQ - to the extent that his wife, who also worked at the FBI, literally collapsed in public.

Back to Betty Sutton and her questions to Mueller
Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/v/cLL2HT7sHRI

Transcript (mine):

John Conyers: The Chair is pleased to welcome Miss Betty Sutton of Ohio.

Betty Sutton : ... At this moment I'd just like to talk to you a little bit about something we haven't discussed, the Whistleblower protections. We've had some problems in the Bureau and actually they reflect upon some of the facets and consequences that Mr Delahunt, the distinguished gentleman, points out, and it emphasizes the importance that we have proper Whistleblower protection, not just because governmental employees need to have that safeguard, but it's also a matter of ensuring that our national security, and the integrity of the Agency is intact. I know that you've given personal assurances in the past that you were going to take action to ensure that Whistleblowers would be proteceted, but we know that there's been a culture within the FBI through some years, where that just hasn't been the case.

So I'd like for a moment to go through a couple of those instances, and then you can share with me how things have changed so that their plight would have changed, and the outcomes would be different.

In 2001, Coleen Rowley claims that she was blocked at every turn from pursuing her concerns about 911 co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui. In a statement you issued in response to that case you stated that there's no room for the types of problems and attitudes that could inhibit our efforts.

In 2002, you're familiar with John Roberts' case. He blew the whistle on several senior FBI officials, all of whom were subsequently promoted and some of whom received bonuses, and of course, the Inspector General subsequently issued a report endorsing John Roberts' findings of wrongdoing within the agency, and concluded that the FBI suffered, and still suffers, from the strong perception that a double-standard exists within the FBI with regard to the treatment of senior officials versus lower-level employees. And, of course, he was humiliated, because he came forward with evidence of wrongdoing.


Does it seem a little less tin-foil-hattish now?

The testimony continues:


Betty Sutton: And we're all familiar with Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator, who did work for the Counter-Terrorism program, who was fired after reporting serious problems in the Bureau's translation services department. And of course, when she sought recourse, she was completely blocked after the Bureau invoked the State Secrets Privilege. So my question to you is: What have you done specifically to make sure that moving forward - not redressing these cases, but moving forward - that these things shall not happen, and the chilling effect that this culture produces, and the consequences beyond that, are no longer being felt?


Robert Mueller: Initially I had an outside panel come in and look at how we were handling OPR, how we were handling our response to incidents of misconduct including those that would be set out by whistleblowers, and we have changed our procedures. At least every year I set out statements that I will not put up with retaliation for persons who bring to our attention that which should be brought to our attention. Whenever that occurs it is immediately referred to the Inspector General so the Inspector General can do an indepenedent investigation, and I have followed the recommendations of the Inspector General as to what steps should be taken when retaliation has been found - retaliation for those who bring to our attention those matters that should be brought to our attention.


Betty Sutton : Well, could you be more specific in the changes that have been implemented?


Robert Mueller: I can get back to you, specifically I think the biggest change is the ability in putting in place the mechanisms to ensure an independent investigation of allegations of retaliation for whistleblower activities, and our willingness to followup immediately with the results of the independent investigation which has been done by the Inspector General.

Betty Sutton : Ok Director, but let's say that fails, and we have a situation like Sibel Edmonds, how does her plight change? How does she deal with the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege? How does she have any recourse?

Robert Mueller: Well, I can't get into the rationale behind asserting the State Secrets Privilege in the particular case. It's a matter that sealed by the court, but in that case as well, the case was investigated independently and actions that were necessary to be taken as a result of the investigation, as to individuals in the FBI, have been taken.

Betty Sutton : But with respect to somebody facing the same situation, they would face the same outcome. Is that correct?

Robert Mueller: It depends on the circumstances of the case.


I'll refrain from snarking about Mueller's responses - but good on Betty Sutton for raising the issue. You can thank her here and ask her what else she will do to help. Will she bring Sibel's case to the floor?

But I come back to Whitehurst's question? Who are the FBI Juice-Men in Sibel's case? Who 'owns' them? If we agree/accept that the translation department has been infiltrated, and there are people at HQ who are protecting those that are compromised at the Translation desk, then how much confidence can we have in those at HQ? As Sibel says
"I took an oath to protect my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I assumed that the enemy was foreign."


We know that there are at least four congresscritters on just the Turkish payroll. We know that foreign interests would love to penetrate the FBI, particularly the translation unit, and per Whitehurst, it seems that the safest place for criminals and foreign agents is within the walls of the FBI where they are apparently unaccountable. And it appears that there are those in FBI Senior Management who are protecting, and promoting, dodgy folks within the translation department.

We know from Roberts that senior FBI officials were promoted and given bonuses despite being involved in various misconduct. And we know from Sibel that senior management at the FBI covered up various criminality within the FBI and other places in the US Government.

So who are the FBI Juice Men in Sibel's case? And who are their Juice Men elsewhere in the USG?

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list for new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list.')

[cptmarginal]

Thanks for all the posts in this thread. I've been reading through the transcript and I just got to an interesting part which I have not seen posted:

I don't know what reasons they had, why they just didn't do money. They needed -- I was trained as a language specialist by my agent for -- to find personal information, and one of the things that we was taught in the FBI -- everyone was taught in the counterintelligence -- that the target U.S. persons, whether they are in Congress or executive branch or whatever, first go by foreign entities to what they refer to as hooking period, and it was very common; it's a very common way of trying to find vulnerability, and that is sexual, financial, any other kinds of greeds, and it was -- it was done a lot, was being done a lot, and in some cases certain people from Pentagon would send a list of individuals with access to sensitive data, whether weapons technology or nuclear technology, and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues, and the State Department, high level State Department person would provide it to these foreign operatives, and those foreign operatives then would go and hook those Pentagon people, whether they were at RAND or some other Air Force base.

And then the hooking period would take some times. Sometimes it takes months, sometimes one year. They would ask for small favor, but eventually after they reviewed the targets that the U.S. person -- some small favor, then they would go blackmail and that person would give them everything, nuclear related information, weapons related information. It always worked for them. So it was not always money.

[...]

So there were a lot of things that certain field office had provided me to go over, and some of that I didn't complete, but one example would be with regard to Mr. Hastert. For example, he used the townhouse that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities.

Now, whether that was being used as blackmail I don't know, but the fact that foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week.

So I can't say if that was used as blackmail or not, but certain activities they would share. They were known.