Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FBI divulges secrets in Sibel Edmonds case.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:56 AM
Original message
FBI divulges secrets in Sibel Edmonds case.
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:53 AM by lukery
I recently wrote a post called "FBI, Congress: Sibel Edmonds case 'unclassified'" where I highlighted the fact that, for months, the FBI and Congress openly discussed the details of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' case in unclassified settings, with participants who did not have security clearances. That is, none of the participants, including high level Counter-Intelligence agents, considered that the information was 'secret.'

It was only later that Attorney General John Ashcroft decided that he needed to protect certain criminals (high level US officials at the Pentagon and State Department), and he slapped the State Secrets Privilege across the case.

In an apparent about-face, attorneys from the FBI and Dept of Justice have been discussing previously-classified elements of the case and placing it on the court record.

Is the information now declassified? Will the attorneys be prosecuted for harming national security? Is the State Secrets Privilege a scam? Will Sibel Edmonds be allowed to tell all?

****

You may remember the bizarre hearings from last week on the NSA illegal spying / State Secrets case which gave us this memorable exchange (from Wired's liveblogging):

Judge Hawkins wonders if the document is really that secret?

"Every ampersand, every comma is Top Secret?," Hawkins asks.

"This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described," (Assistant U.S. Attorney General) Bondy answers.


Judge McKeown: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland."

(Plaintiff's attorney) Eisenberg: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland, too."

(see the Toldeo Blade When secrets are secret' for more ludicrousness)

The reason that the USG needs to argue that "Every ampersand, every comma is Top Secret" and that the whole information is "non-redactable and non-segregable" is because the State Secrets Privilege (SSP) was originally constructed to exclude certain pieces of information from public disclosure in court actions in case the disclosure of those particular elements might harm national security interests by exposing certain justifiable State Secrets (sources and methods etc). The intent was never to use the SSP to shut down entire cases.

To get around this 'problem,' some government lawyer-types came up with a concept called the Mosaic Theory in which they argue that they can't disclose anything because foreign enemies might be able to put all the apparently disparate pieces of the 'mosaic' together and come and kill us all.

However, in actual usage the Mosaic Theory is used by governments to throw a blanket of secrecy over entire cases in order to cover-up their own criminality. In the NSA case, they need to argue that 'every ampersand' is protected and that everything is 'non-segregable' because once we start sliding down the slippery slope of actually identifying which elements of the case are legitimate secrets and which elements are covering up criminality, then the criminals within the government will be exposed and convicted.

And so it is in Sibel Edmonds' case.

The government has to argue that even the most mundane minutiae - including her date of birth - is a State Secret, and that everything about her case (actually, she's still permitted to use her name and state that she lives in the US) is 'non-segregable' because otherwise they'd be forced to explain/defend other elements of the case which can prove that high-level US officials are engaged in various criminal activities which can't be defended on legitimate grounds of national security / state secrets.

To put it more simply, they have to say 'everything is classified' otherwise they'd be in prison.

So this brings us back to the latest news. For five years the USG has said that 'everything' pertaining to Sibel and her case has been classified as a State Secret. This SSP has meant that Sibel hasn't been able to move her own case forward in the courts, and has also scared off Congress from doing anything about the case.

However, in recent depositions, FBI and DoJ attorneys have been openly discussing various items which were previously designated State Secrets under the SSP.

What say you, law-and-order types? Divulging State Secrets is treason, no?

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition statement:

GOVERNMENT REVEALS ITS OWN ABUSE OF STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE

Department of Justice, Which Claimed State Secrets Required Termination of Whistleblower Suit, Now Relies on Same "Secrets" to Avoid Tort Liability


Department of Justice and FBI attorneys, during recent depositions taken in FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ Federal Tort Claims case, Civil Action NO. 1:05-CV-540 (RMC), questioned witnesses regarding information previously designated "state secrets" by the Attorney General.

In April 2004, the Justice Department succeeded in preventing Edmonds from testifying in a lawsuit related to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The law firm of Motley Rice, representing September 11 family members, had subpoenaed Edmonds for a deposition, but the government argued that information provided by Edmonds "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States." By invoking the state secrets privilege and citing classification concerns, the government quashed the subpoena, and even seemingly innocuous questions regarding Edmonds’ birth place, her date of birth, her languages, even her position as a translator with the FBI, were deemed covered by the state secrets privilege. To view the information classified in the Motley Rice subpoena Click Here

Other Court proceedings in Edmonds’ case were also blocked by the assertion of the state secrets privilege, and the Congress was gagged and prevented from investigating her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ. In May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations. The congressional gag applied to all information related to Edmonds’ case, including the interrogation and arrest warrant issued for her sister in Turkey as a result of a leak regarding Edmonds’ monitoring of certain foreign targets of the FBI. To read the timeline on Edmonds’ case Click Here.

During recent depositions conducted by the Justice Department in a lawsuit filed by Edmonds under FTC, Department of Justice and FBI attorneys, Dan Barish and Ernest Batenga, questioned witnesses on and discussed information that was previously declared state secrets. This information was communicated on the record in the presence of parties who did not have security clearance. Information such as the nature of Ms. Edmonds’ work with the FBI, the specific FBI units where she performed translation, FBI target countries, the arrest warrant issued by the Turkish government for Ms. Edmonds’ sister, and congressional letters regarding the consequences of Dickerson’s espionage case in Turkey and here in the U.S., all of which were retroactively classified by the Justice Department, was discussed and put in the court record.

Edmonds’ responded to this recent development: “The Department of Justice has now confirmed what we knew all along: it is abusing the state secrets privilege to avoid accountability, not to protect national security. How can it be that the very same information is a state secret when it would assist plaintiffs suing the government, but not a state secret when it would assist the government in defeating plaintiffs? It's long past time for Congress to put an end to the government's misuse and abuse of the state secrets privilege."

Currently Edmonds, her attorneys, and civil liberties group are reviewing this latest disturbing development and its implications on other SSP and government secrecy cases. The law firm Motley Rice has also been notified since their case is still active.

The following quotes are from legal experts and government watchdog organizations:

“This latest revelation proves that throwing Ms. Edmonds’ case out of court was a travesty and a ploy, because no state secrets would have been revealed,” said David K. Colapinto, General Counsel for the National Whistleblower Center. “If the courts won’t prevent the government from using the State Secrets Privilege as a trump card to cover-up agency wrongdoing and to defeat meritorious claims, like Ms. Edmonds’ whistleblower case, then Congress must act to stop this odious practice,” Colapinto added.

"These latest revelations are indicative of the arbitrary and self-serving and excessive use of the state secrets privilege by the Executive Branch in order to defeat specific cases of concern at the time," said Mark S. Zaid, a Washington, D.C. attorney who served as counsel to Sibel Edmonds during her state secrets litigation and who has handled several such cases. “This is just another example of why either the Judiciary needs to aggressively challenge state secret assertions by the Executive Branch or Congress needs to intervene and legislatively limit the government's ability to utilize the privilege,” added Zaid.

"This proves the point we have been making all along,” said Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition. "The use of the state secrets privilege against Mrs. Edmonds is not about protecting true national security. The government was not created to protect itself and various political and financial interests but to secure Americans rights.

Nancy Talanian, Director of Bill of Rights Defense Committee, stated "The DOJ's opportunistic classifying and divulging information raises suspicions about its motivation for using State Secrets to silence Ms. Edmonds. Now that the classified information has been revealed, it is time for Ms. Edmonds to have her long-awaited day in court." (emphasis mine)


The National Whistleblower Center also issued a statement:
National Whistleblower Center Joins Coalition in Calling For An End To "State Secrets" Abuses

The National Whistleblower Center, along with a broad coalition of liberal, libertarian and conservative groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, and the Liberty Coalition, condemns the Government's abuse of the State Secrets Privilege in the case of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and calls for swift action by Congress and the courts to stop this abuse .
<...>
On August 23, 2007, it was revealed that the Justice Department recently publicly revealed information that it had claimed was "privileged" and "secret" in Ms. Edmonds' case. The DOJ's recent actions show that it abused the State Secrets Privilege in Ms. Edmonds' whistleblower case in order to convince the court to dismiss her case.

NWC President, Stephen M. Kohn, issued the following statement in support of Ms. Edmonds:
"...the government used that alleged 'privilege' to have her case thrown out of court and cover up FBI wrongdoing. The government abused a 'privilege' to undermine constitutionally protected free speech and ignore an Inspector General's findings of retaliation..."

(Full NWC statement)

This youtube is from a recent speech Sibel gave describing the abuse of the SSP
http://www.youtube.com/v/KUt_gbRP3EA


Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498

(let me know if you want to be added to my email list which announces whenever I have a new Sibel-related post. Subject: 'Sibel email list')


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yep. Repeating and disclosing the information
makes the claim it's covered under "states secrets" kind of screwy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. shhhhh!
don't tell anyone.

perhaps we wont notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. Makes for an easier strategy and pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. sibel has repeatedly said
that this whole SSP thing (in her case) is nonsense.

the activity they have covered up is *criminal*

in the recent ALA speech she mocked the insta-declassification voodoo that they use to support their own political needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. From the OP:
Edmonds’ responded to this recent development: “The Department of Justice has now confirmed what we knew all along: it is abusing the state secrets privilege to avoid accountability, not to protect national security. How can it be that the very same information is a state secret when it would assist plaintiffs suing the government, but not a state secret when it would assist the government in defeating plaintiffs? It's long past time for Congress to put an end to the government's misuse and abuse of the state secrets privilege."

The hypocrisy of this is just astounding. I would think Jack Cafferty might take an interest in this aspect of Sibel's case if it could somehow be called to his attention. I'd love to listen to him just blister the shit out of what they're trying to pass for a Department of Justice over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. sibel sure knows how to drive home a point! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. She's a very good speaker too...
...and drips with integrity -- this is why they're so deathly afraid of her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. When are these people going to be Patriots and not lackeys?
They took an oath to defend the Constitution, not little Lord Pissypants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. as SIbel repeats continually
"against all enemies.... i thought the enemy was foreign"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
46. Doesn't that explain Waxman?
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:38 PM by noise
By refusing to investigate foreign leads (Saudi, Pakistan, Israel and Turkey) the public is led to believe the US Establishment is covering for these countries (because of powerful domestic lobbies and because they are important MIC related partners). Yet, these foreign leads may simply be hired hands...doing the bidding of domestic sponsors. Thus, an investigation of the foreign leads could point to the domestic parties.

Perhaps hearings would reveal everyone in Congress is an accessory after the fact to 9/11.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. 'an accessory after the fact'
hearings would certainly expose the entire 911 Commission - so that would be a start.

re domestic vs foreign - i think that distinction is a little misleading. There really isn't a distinction, there are just criminals - some of whom happen to hold american passports, some hold other passports. (altho sibel does point specifically to the US folks, because they are the ones that most people should care about (and recognize)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. If the 9/11 Commission is exposed
the entire political Establishment is exposed. The 9/11 Commission was basically a proxy for both political parties.

We have had a cover up by the intelligence community, the mainstream media and the political Establishment. I don't see any possibility of narrowing the culpability to a few corrupt officials.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. correct
correct, correct, correct, and correct.

my only point, specifically, was that Sibel will explicitly demonstrate that the 911 Commission was a lie, and that all of the commissioners know it.

As far as congress goes - I think it's only the judiciary and intel committees, and Waxman, who have interviewd her, and seen the classified IG report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. Prima facie evidence (via actions) that Sibel is being "Star Chambered" eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neohippie Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. it's the same thing Cheney is doing
Cheney claims in one instance that his office is protected by executive privilege when he wants privacy, but when it's pointed out that he is bound to turn over records to the National Archives, he is not a part of the executive office, these guys want to walk on whatever side of the fence suits their immediate needs to hide their criminal enterprise.

We need a good RICO investigator to uncover the mountains of criminal activity going on in the executive branch these daze, but when Clinton was in office all they could get on the guy was his lie to cover up his inappropriate sexual activity...

Where is the outrage, where is the media where are the special prosecutors, where is justice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. The outrage will not be televised. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. let's hope the hearings are :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. good point
Sibel recently mocked the insta-declassification from cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. The best RICO investigator/prosecutor is now governor of New York.
I'd bet he could take this republican house of cards and blow the whole thing down.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. it wouldnt take very much
just a mandate or two...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland."
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:49 AM by seemslikeadream
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
13. LINK BROKEN!
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:52 AM by seemslikeadream
bizarre hearings :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. fixed - thnx SLAD n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. a little ducky alerted me to it
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Lucky! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
20. If it were truly secret, Sibel would be in a very different situation.
It simply isn't really secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. so secret
it's apparently so secret that not even the fabled US free press can discuss it... or the 'world's most deliberative body'

maybe, maybe, maybe this current news will get some attention. a bunch of organizations are going to pushing this latest story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. It's a double dog dare you secret.
It became a secret later you see so the administration double dog dares the congress or the judiciary to say anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. Lukery comes thru again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. knr n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
25. My Question is Why Has Congress Not Acted In Sibel's Case?
Leahy and Grassley both received a briefing before this SSP was slapped on her.

There is some kind of political dynamic driving this, not national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. "State secrets"
But with the FBI and DOJ attorneys discussing the same things, it's time for congress to do something about it since it can't be one way for her and another way for the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Now wait a minute... Congress is a co-equal branch....
Congress can very well investigate whatever it pleases. That falls in their domain.

It is not enough to say 'state secrets.'

That is why we have members of Congress with top secret clearance who can look at the budgets of secret operations, and the actions of people who deal with classified information.

And just in case you were wondering... the Judicial Branch can interpret the constitution and our laws, but they don't have the power to tell Congress what they can and cannot investigate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I know but they've tried it
and both the congress and courts have abided by it. It's time to let Sibel have a public hearing and tell the DOJ to cut the crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. lobbyists
the lobbyists for israel and turkey don't want congress to investigate sibel's case...

neither do the lobbyists for the 'defense' companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Hopefully, the state secrets privilege the congress members
as well all others involved is going to take a hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. oh
and neither does congress itself.

it would illustrate how many of them are being bribed. there are four that we know about just by these Turkish interests. How many others are being bribed by Turkish interests that sibel doesnt know about?

how many by china? saudi arabia? israel? australia (heh!)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
29. Thanks for that
K & R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. Be honest with us, Henry..... what is REALLY going on?
We have the right to know what is happening with our Congressional Dems!

All the hopes and promises of '06.... dead....

:cry:

Thanks, lukery!

embarrass Henry, indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. maybe henry is on the take too
i have no evidence of that - but he sure has some weird behaviour

Here's sibel:
"The fascinating change in Chairman Waxman of the so-called ‘Government Reform Committee’ can only be described as a transformation from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
60. It isn't what I wanted to think, lukery.
But, sad to say, it's looking that way.

Sibel certainly has it right.

I really admire that woman!

I'm so sad about the state of this nation.... it's definitely a profound grief that I feel.

She must feel the same... she's looked the beast right in the eye! Yet, onward she trudges.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
31. Abuse of power. Who wudda thunk it?
:kick:& R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
36. Kick
:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:
:kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
39. I wonder if her secrets are the ones you can read
in Robert Baer's book See No Evil in which he writes about the ties of various politicians to drug traffickers and hangers-on in the oil industry. Since he wrote about the Clinton administration at that point of that book, some of the people he wrote about are Democrats. I leave it up to you to read it. It is definitely worth the read if you have not read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. her secrets
thanks - i havent read that book - but you can read some of her secrets here
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-heck-is-sibel-edmonds-case-about.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
41. If there was proper judicial oversight, this "debate" wouldn't be taking place
Where IS the judiciary on this?

Can one branch of government unilaterally decide what documents to put under the SSP? Is there no way to challenge these decisions short of exposing the documents themselves?

I'm just talking to myself here. I think I know the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. timeline
one judge said 'who am i to argue with the Executive on matters of National Security?'

in the appeals case, sibel and her lawyers couldnt even hear the govts argument in court. the judge simply kicked them (and the public & press) outta the court room.


and SCOTUS refused to take the case, i dont think they've EVER taken an SSP case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #41
52. She's been to ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT for help.
As she has asked since "where do you go?". That's why this state Secrets privilege canard has been an issue. It's time to remove that canard. No more excuses since the DOJ and FBI still get to talk about the things they have gagged her for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
42. to me this is the key:
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 10:07 PM by izzybeans
The FBI has confirmed that the contract linguist had 'unreported contacts' with that foreign official." From your link question 17b: -http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C177199123/E1350718859/

and I think that key will unlock more than just some spy activity working for a foreign operative it will open up on the multi- national bushocracy. If there is something that goes hand--in-hand contracting, its cronyism. Whose crony chose not to translate this? doin' a heck of job brownie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. NOT state espionage
sibel's case is NOT about state espionage, but a criminal ring. she's made this point repeatedly.

'that foreign official' was a Turkish dude working at the turkish embassy

re 'whose crony?' - i wrote about that last week: "Who are the FBI 'Juice men' in Sibel Edmonds case?"
http://lukery.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-are-fbi-juice-men-in-sibel-edmonds.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. There is nothing to indicate that it was a foreign criminal ring, which I've seen some mention of.
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 11:07 PM by izzybeans
it was a contracted person, it needn't be someone in the government. It need be just some dunce wearing the hiring cap clapping for party donors. Turkey backed down real quick with their pre-Iraq posturing. The M.O. is too familiar to conservative politics to not be a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. hmmmm
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. It appears (to me) that you are mixing up a few separate things - or maybe I'm just reading you incorrectly.


re your "nothing to indicate..."

"In fact, much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. What part of criminal activity is not "criminal"?
This isn't just one contracted actor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
49. Judge McKeown: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland."
You would too if all you heard from Alberto and Bush's DOJ was, "Eat Me".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
54. I just emailed this to Olbermann...
don't know if it will do any good. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Thanks, rateyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
56. Have you sent this info to Waxman? If not, please do. He may not
be aware of the latest testimony. I will call also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. You can bet your last penny I'm going to
to send him a letter and links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
58. Government = tyranny
worse than Watergate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
59. I realize I'm living in a fantasy world here,
but John Ashcroft should be brought up on charges, along with so many others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. The facts of this appear to be some sort of fantasy
like a novel with many twists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC