Sibel has responded. Inviting Congresswoman Schakowsky

[mmonk]

to call for an investigation.

You can read it http://123realchange.blogspot.com/">here .

[Ian David]

1. Wow. Good response. n/t

[mmonk]

4. Yes, here is her call:

Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.

[JackRiddler]

15. This is an open letter and may be quoted in full. In fact it SHOULD be...

although everyone, please follow the link to the annotated text, as that contains further links backing up what she says.

This is a remarkable document.

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

Thursday, September 24, 2009
In Pursuit of the Facts

Inviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join…….

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:

It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations.

When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?

I fought another court case to expose government criminality through key witnesses and documents. As in the FOIA case, I bore tremendous costs and was again blocked by the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege and National Security. The court case identification is Civ.No.1:02CV01448(JR)).

No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were “fantasy, lies, and nonexistent” as you say?

I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.

Several senior members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle--have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg--Sen. Lautenberg Statement—and Senator Grassley--Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?

You have been described as a “true blue” civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me “the most gagged” person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?

I have testified under oath, and my public biography will provide you with information about my educational background, financial background, and family life. I am fully aware of the consequences of perjury, and as you can see, I would have a lot to lose were that the case. I am sure you are familiar with my sworn testimony, but you can review it here.

I’ve done more than my share through the courts, IG offices, Congress, and media. I don’t have your power. You sit on the House Intelligence Committee, and you are one of the members of the majority party in Congress.

Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.

Also bring in former FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager & Espionage Investigator John M. Cole and have him testify under oath regarding espionage cases involving State Department officials, Pentagon officials, and Congressional members. Here is a preview of some of the information disclosed and confirmed by Agent Cole: Interview and Radio Interview.

Also bring in the sworn testimonies of current FBI special agents in the Chicago and DC field offices who dutifully and patriotically led the counterintelligence operations on Turkey and corrupt US officials, only to see their investigations blocked and covered-up. Their names are public.

Order the Justice Department to release the two main Counterintelligence Operations Files on Turkey and “US persons of interest”—one from FBI Chicago Field Office-1996-2002, the other from FBI DC Field Office-1996-2001. These will help bring out the facts regarding your story too. I have documentation supporting the existence of these files.

Recall that I did not accuse you of any criminal or espionage-related activity.

The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you.

Sibel Edmonds

[JackRiddler]

17. While we're at it, here is her 2004 open letter to Thomas Kean of the 9/11 Commission...

Sibel Edmonds is a determined, persistent fighter who has not relented in what she says or her struggle to say it for SEVEN YEARS.

Let us hope more people consider the facts before engaging in reflexive attacks!

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801215339657



Sunday, August 1 2004 - Blog
Edmonds: FBI knew about 9/11 plot in April 2001

Open Letter To Thomas Kean, Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission, from FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

August 1, 2004

Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate 'facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001' and to 'provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism', and has now issued its '9/11 Commission Report'. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives.

Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up ( please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish Translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau's investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI's targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI's targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as ? Not Pertinent.' Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI's investigations and our fight against terrorism. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain 9/11 detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret clearance. Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the Bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen's case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Leahy and Grassley's letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley's statement on CBS-60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (Please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to Director Mueller, the Inspector General criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments' security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI's Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important ?chit-chats' and ?chatters' are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, 'Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ?keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing ( Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information ( Please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours testimony by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. 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.' Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet, your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned; despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ( Please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a ?time limit' excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over two years ago, and after two ?unclassified' sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary level English. He had failed English proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet, Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist related information, and he was sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic language detainees (Turkish, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc.). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet, the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen's case ( Please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). CBS-60 Minutes showed Kevin's picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantanamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI ( Please refer to CBS-60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice Inspector General had a detailed account of these problems ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen's case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS-60 Minutes broadcasted Taskesen's case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI's hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions. Yet, your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI's hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI's largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ? direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases ?sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ? protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ? safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.' Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, ' Intelligence Czar', in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?

I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.

I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI's translation unit during the most crucial times after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the Bureau's language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by NO means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a Senior Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, and a Senior Democrat Senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on my allegations, ? none of my allegations were disproved.' As you are fully aware, even FBI officials ? confirmed all my allegations and denied none' during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission's hearings, nor your commission's five hundred sixty seven-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report's coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote #25). Yet, your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.

In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing ?visible', because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing ?visible' because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.

Respectfully,

Sibel D. Edmonds

[mmonk]

46. Thanks for putting it up.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. Gee, we seem to be missing some posters here all of a sudden...

... Maybe they are finally busy reading the historical account, brought up to date by SE here.

It would be a great move if the Schakowsky were open to Edmonds assistance!

[JackRiddler]

55. When allowed to speak, she has a way of bowling over resistance.

[nashville_brook]

80. some are giving it their best shot -- they're so cute when they're outclassed.

[Poll_Blind]

96. Sunovabitch! -SNAAAAAP!- Sibel is the Daniel Ellsberg of our time. One of them, anyway. We...

...need to support these people and help them pursue justice and the truth, wherever it leads.

PB

[mmonk]

2. Here is some of it:

It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations.

When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials—elected and appointed—I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?

I fought another court case to expose government criminality through key witnesses and documents. As in the FOIA case, I bore tremendous costs and was again blocked by the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege and National Security. The court case identification is Civ.No.1:02CV01448(JR)).

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

[Kaleko]

7. Powerful and convincing.

We need a comprehensive official investigation, not personal attacks against the whistleblower in this case.

[Vinnie From Indy]

74. There is a Mt. Everest sized untruth in Edmonds letter

Edmonds writes in her open letter as a response to Rep. Shakowsky's response to her initial allegation,

"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations."

This is simply not true! The truth is that Shakowsky DID respond to Edmonds wild claims with facts. They pointed out that Edmonds was incorrect on the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral by many years and they pointed out that Edmonds was wrong about Shakowski engaging in a sexual tryst with a foreign agent in a townhouse owned by Shakowsky. She never has owned or lived in a townhouse. What is one to think when Edmonds BEGINS her open letter with glaringly untrue assertions?

[Blue Meany]

78. I think Sibel only would have access to a small section of

the intelligence data--that requiring Turkish translation--so she may have incorrectly constructed a narratve based on what she does know. Also, remember this is all from memory and no one's memory is perfect. Nevertheless what she says does dovertail with some known facts, such as Hastert lobbying for Turkey, so it certainly merits investigation. Clearly, some of the info about Shakowsky is not correct--which could have resulted from incomplete data, misunderstanding or mistranslation of data, or faulty memory. But there seems to be no reason she would just make this up. The information she provides, however incomplete and imperfect, give us enough of a perspective on the larger picture to merit a full investigation.

[Vinnie From Indy]

79. I appreciate your reply!

Again, while Edmonds claims might be true, each new claim or open letter by Ms Edmonds reveals just a bit more about her. In this latest allegation by Edmonds about Rep. Shakowky it is indisputable that she did indeed have her "facts" wrong. Granted, you are correct that this could simply be a lapse of memory, but it could also be that Edmonds is simply making things up.


Further, I find it odd and distressing that Ms. Edmonds did not address anywhere in her open letter that she had some of the details in her initial allegation concerning Rep. Shakowsky wrong. Ms. Edmonds begins her letter to Shakowsky by simply dismissing the facts provided by Shakowski in her response. One would think that Edmonds would have addressed, explained or apologized for her errors of fact in her initial allegation. Not only does Ms. Edmonds not apologize or explain these glaring errors of fact, she attacks Rep. Shakowski further by "hoping" she will not give up her seat and go to work for a foreign lobby as former representative Hastert did. That bit of slime reveals just a bit more about Edmonds.

[Blue Meany]

86. DELETE - Dupe

Theoretically she could be making it all up, but I can't see how she gains anything by doing so; in fact, if she were hoping to cash in a book deal, she would be better of stringing the public along with vague revelations lacking details. I supsect that she is angry and jaded from her experience with the govt. bureaucracy, isolated from people who know enough to assess her information in a dispassionate non-partisan manner, and is surrounded by those who have political agendas and who want to exploit her for their own purposes and are pushing her to be confrontational. This would help to explain her less-than-professional response to Shakowski, though not the apparent misinformation in her testimony.

[Blue Meany]

87. Good points...

Theoretically she could be making it all up, but I can't see how she gains anything by doing so; in fact, if she were hoping to cash in a book deal, she would be better of stringing the public along with vague revelations lacking details. I supsect that she is angry and jaded from her experience with the govt. bureaucracy, isolated from people who know enough to assess her information in a dispassionate non-partisan manner, and is surrounded by those who have political agendas and who want to exploit her for their own purposes and are pushing her to be confrontational. This would help to explain her less-than-professional response to Shakowski, though not the apparent misinformation in her testimony.

[autorank]

88. Your input and observations are valuable

I'm all for open access to the information that is used to make major decisions or that's related to law enforcement violations by the "rulers." We pay for it, it's ours to review. However, your point on factual errors in the allegations about Shakowsky are well taken and raise serious questions. Why were they not corrected and if they were, what would that mean with regard to the broader allegation?

[metapunditedgy]

94. So let's have an investigation, and get *everyone* under oath.

Trashing Edmonds is not the same as defending the truth. I'm sensitive to this because a lot of right-wing rhetoric I hear these days just boils down to discrediting the messenger.

Let's get to the bottom of this.

[G_j]

3. my rec, got unreced

but, thanks for this post

[mmonk]

6. One of the travails of some of my posts. Thanks for it.

It is appreciated.

[Selatius]

5. The ball is in Schakowsky's court, now. What is she gonna do?

My hunch is she's simply going to not respond.

[mmonk]

8. We shall see. My instincts say you are right.

But fate runs through many twists and turns.

[Stand and Fight]

9. As well as she shouldn't respond.

I will think all the better of her if she ignores this.

[mmonk]

13. It might have been better if she had not responded

in an attack but rather calmly with statements. Sibel was dealing with wiretaps and translations. She could have just said the information was incorrect and made any corrections.

[madfloridian]

31. Well, she might have been pretty stunned at the accusations....

plus the lesbian/bisexual stuff.

She is being said to MAYBE have succumbed to blackmail.

She will be forced to respond, guilty or not.

[madfloridian]

19. So Schakowsky must defend herself against unclear attacks?

What's fair about that?

[Selatius]

51. I doubt she can. The onus is on Sibel, but she has no evidence. If there is evidence, then...

it's locked up and classified in the FBI. This is being pushed forward primarily as a media war at this point. If she doesn't respond, or like if someone pleads the 5th Amendment, then in the eyes of the public, she looks guilty, even if she isn't.

[troubledamerican]

58. Bush's State Secrets Gag Order is smoking gun evidence of Sibel's veracity.

Which at the very least warrants an investigation into the FBI files that Sibel has named and directly identified by number.

Unless, of course, we'd prefer to give Cheney/Bush the benefit of the doubt.

[Selatius]

60. See, it'll be bigger than Sibel at that point. She has no access to the relevant files.

I am guessing she is hoping the firestorm started up over this will provide the impetus for a federal investigation into the FBI and other agencies involved in this situation.

[Jazzgirl]

10. I find it interesting that the DU'ers that most

denied Sibel's credibility aren't posting in this thread. This woman has been fighting this for years. It took her 6-7 years to even mention Schakowsky's name and she was hesitant to do it. She also never said Schakowsky accepted any bribes because she didn't know. What say you now deniers?

[mmonk]

12. Yes, she avoided it because she didn't know it's outcome.

[madfloridian]

29. Does she have proof she accepted bribes? Does she have it now?

.

[druidity33]

43. well

she probably wasn't allowed to remove the tapes she was translating from the FBI. Since that's really the only way she would have gotten "proof", i don't know what you're getting at...

i'm gonna give you the :eyes: because the more i think about it, the more that's a ridiculous statement for you to make.

[madfloridian]

44. There is a difference in being blackmailed and succumbing to it.

That is not a ridiculous statement.

It is a sensible one.

What if someone published a list of everyone being blackmailed and why? How would you feel about that?

[druidity33]

52. it is ridiculous

to expect her to be able to remove ANYTHING from the FBI's custody in order to "prove" what she says she heard on the tapes! How else would she be able to get the "proof" you require?

All she can do is call for an investigation! Which she has done. Over and over and over.

Wouldn't you rather know if a Congressional Rep is being BLACKMAILED?!


If someone published a list such as you propose (someone with credentials as impeccable as Sibel's), i would be delighted.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

57. ok would you want them publishing what they were blackmailed FOR?

I would not think so.

[druidity33]

99. Yes, i would.

Let them respond to the allegations as Schakowsky has done. If it happened, her life and career will probably go to shit, but maybe the folks who did it will get busted too, no? Or maybe, like Foley, Vitter, Sanford, and Craig she'll obfuscate and refuse to resign... but i doubt it because she's a Democrat. If it didn't happen, she can sue Sibel for slander or talk about her allegations, or whatever.

But i'd rather have the shit OUT THERE.

The real question should be has she been compromised by the Blackmail that allegedly occurred. Does her vote in any way get affected by an unknown party that blackmailed her?


:shrug:

[troubledamerican]

59. Jazzgirl is correct. Sibel's veracity is confirmed by existence of an 8-yr State Secrets Gag Order

Res ipso loquitur

[jumptheshadow]

93. I say, why did she mention the name?

And to those of you who would respond, "she mentioned other names," well, she accused the others of illegal activity.

She does not know if the Congresswoman engaged in illegal activity.

She basically is accusing the Congresswoman of engaging in an affair, and being betrayed by her purported lover.

Everything Ms. Edmonds has done has been above board, persistent and wise. Until now.

[mmonk]

11. For people's interest:

http://justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Leahy_Grassley_Letter_to_Fine_6-19-02.pdf"> Sen. Leahy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml"> Grassley statement in this link

[bleever]

14. Excellent response.

People with negative knee-jerk reactions to Sibel's story seem much less informed about the actual facts than people who've taken the time to be familiar with it in depth.

[flyarm]

81. Exactly!!!!!!..Thank all of you for keeping Sibel's story alive and her truth alive!!

from a former ( NOW RETIRED) flight crew of one of the airlines involved on 9/11..

Sibel is a hero to me!!

NEVER FORGET.. Sibel was marched into the 9/11 commission hearings by 9/11 victims families begging for her to be allowed to testify ! She wasn't allowed to in the open hearings!

And those now ..nowwwwwwwww..so late to the dance.. WHO WANT PROOF ..WHERE WERE YOU THEN???????

[AntiFascist]

16. Excellent, K&R

"I’ve done more than my share through the courts, IG offices, Congress, and media. I don’t have your power. You sit on the House Intelligence Committee, and you are one of the members of the majority party in Congress."

[madfloridian]

18. In light of all the insults to people who felt Jan's name should not have been mentioned...

without a reason to think she had done something wrong....

It is childish to say we question Edmund's credibility, when we are actually questioning the wisdom of her mentioning Schakowsky's name with evidence she succumbed to blackmail.

It has harmed her reputation probably for good.

Why mention her name?

It left a bad taste in my mouth for her to out her like that.

I question Edmund's judgment, not her credibility.

Stop making snide remarks directed toward those of us who previously spoke out.

I resent it.

[Malikshah]

22. Resent away-- Sibel Edmonds has been made into Bev Harris over the last two days here.

Don't like it? Then deal with the usual suspects who jumped in the orgiastic dogpile.

It makes the "bad taste" in one's mouth look like ambrosia.

[madfloridian]

23. No, her outing of Schakowsky has been criticized.

When there was no proof.

DU seems thrilled that one of our own is outed.

[conscious evolution]

73. It should not matter

what party one belongs to in cases of such magnitude.

[AntiFascist]

24. I have to keep repeating this until it sticks...

Schakowsky happens to chair the subcommittee responsible for overseeing and investigating intelligence matters in the House. Is it just a coincidence that her district happens to contain such notables as Talat Othman, and may be one of the primary areas where al Qaida funds have been funneled into the US? Inquiring minds should want to know, and this issue is far more important than a mere lesbian affair.

[madfloridian]

25. Does Sibel have proof she caved to blackmail?

Because her reputation is sure as hell gone now.

[AntiFascist]

36. She could heroically redeem herself...

by spearheading a proper investigation.

[madfloridian]

38. So Sibel has you convinced that Jan needs to "redeem" herself?

Now that is just wonderful. :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

63. "As I said Schakowsky's reputation is ruined."

Those are your words. Your histrionic hyperbole is folding in upon itself. Personally, I agree with Sibel: if Schakowsky would go ahead with an investigation of all of the issues in question, then this could be easily cleared up.

[madfloridian]

20. Raise your hand if you think Schakowsky will be tainted...

even if she has done nothing wrong at all?

That's the tragedy here.

Her reputation is in shatters over something that she may never have done?

And we are cheering here?

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. You cannot unring a bell. n/t

[madfloridian]

28. As I said Schakowsky's reputation is ruined. As DU cheers.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[avaistheone1]

61. Edmonds is saying these are allegations based on what she heard on tapes and translations she made.

I don't think Edmonds is saying these are facts, but certainly areas that deserve to be explored to establish if they are true or not.

We are talking about elected officials who may have compromised themselves with spys from another country. I don't think Edmonds is saying Schakowsky is guilty, but she among other US representatives need to address what was on those tapes. It really is a national security matter, not a National Enquirer matter.

[rosesaylavee]

33. I am not in her district here in IL but would think that this may not

have the effect on her some may think. Her district is very liberal and she is extremely well thought of here in Illinois. Very admired. I would be shocked if this did hurt her. What it may have done is stopped her exploration for the senate seat but that is not known at the moment.

[madfloridian]

34. I would hope that would be the outcome.

I have admired her a lot.

[rosesaylavee]

37. She's pretty tough

My gut says this will hardly leave a flesh wound.

:hi:

[orleans]

83. i'm not in her district either but i don't think this will hurt her too much.

i think you're right--people around her/here love her.

[mopinko]

39. she stopped her senate bid. she is petitioning right now for re-election

to the house. i think she might survive, but it will certainly give a lot of ammunition to those who hate her. and like all powerful women, there are many who do.
she may well respond with an investigation. she has tried to get the truth out about a lot of things.

[tritsofme]

56. The last time her district elected a Republican was 1946.

Schakowsky regularly gets more than 75% of the vote.

She has nothing to worry about.

[madfloridian]

21. Cheer on, DU.

One of our more progressive women in Congress has been outed and accused, though there is not proof she did anything wrong.

:-(

[Autumn]

26. " I will be delighted to assist you."

:rofl: Sibel rocks. Tell it girl.

[madfloridian]

30. Sibel is right, Jan is judged. There is such pathos there.

Schakowsky will have to defend herself even if she did nothing at all.

[Bonobo]

32. Here is my favorite spot, at the end:

"The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you."

Great work, Sibel. Keep fighting.

[madfloridian]

35. That is a very strong statement implying guilt on Schakowsky's part.

I hope Sibel finds proof soon or quits accusing.

[mopinko]

41. a baseless accusation that does sibel no service. comparing jan to fat denny-

completely uncalled for. there is no reason to believe such a thing.

[jumptheshadow]

95. Why stoop to such language?

This is catty stuff and doesn't sound like the credible woman who put her career on the line to clean up corruption.

This almost sounds like Ms. Edmonds is compounding the original purported crime by trying to blackmail the Congresswoman herself.

This is a mistake, and will be used by lawyers who cross examine Ms. Edmonds in the future. They will try to paint her as somebody who makes accusations without proof when, for years, the opposite may have been the truth.

[SpiralHawk]

40. You go, Sibel

Tell the truth. Again and again and again.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Uh... Yeah.

I'm sure Edmonds is going to be getting *tons* of help from Schakowski now.

[madfloridian]

45. Sibel's words..."I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed

or did anything for the Turkish woman."

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman."

Those are her words from Brad Blog.

So why publicize her name?

[mmonk]

47. Maybe you can tell us why complain now and not earlier?

Here is the day Sibel gave testimony (deposition) in the Schmidt v Krikorian case from my blog:

http://americancommentary.wordpress.com/page/2/

I suggest you play the video. Why wait now to raise a fuss after the American Conservative article? Why not issue a statement about inaccuracies right after the deposition instead of waiting until September 23rd? Why do it in a personal attack approach? This was not an attack but a recount of what she had been exposed to.

[madfloridian]

49. Simple reason. I have not been following her testimony closely till now.

If I had known she had earlier named Schakowsky I would have spoken out then as well.

I am sorry you are calling what I say a personal attack. It is a criticism of Sibel's judgment, not her person.

I still have the magazine with her interview from several years ago...I just have not paid attention lately until I heard she had outed Schakowsky.

I don't appreciate your saying I am personally attacking her.

[eomer]

54. Aren't you missing the bigger picture?

I'm certainly not cheering the part about Rep. Schakowsky being outed and I don't think anyone else here is.

But what you're missing, in my opinion, is the huge significance of the larger events and what is at stake. Any harm done to Rep. Schakowsky will hopefully be fleeting but even if it is not it still pales in comparison.

Given the importance of these events, Rep. Schakowsky (and every other member of Congress) should force the facts out into public view. Let the focus for once be on justice and doing what's right for the country and its citizens. It is democracy itself that is hanging in the balance. If Schakowsky doesn't see that then maybe she's in the wrong line of work.

[madfloridian]

62. So Sibel thinks Jan should investigate herself for what she may not have done?

[eomer]

64. No. Have you read through the story more broadly?

The investigation that is needed is not one that would focus on Schakowsky. Edmonds has not accused Schakowsky of any wrongdoing, actually, unless you consider an extra-marital affair to be wrongdoing.

What needs investigating is members of Congress (including the Speaker of the House and members in other important positions) and high officials of the Executive Branch taking bribes, facilitating the sale of nuclear weapon secrets and other secrets of high national security importance, being under the influence of foreign agents, and essentially being active participants in an ongoing criminal enterprise to an extent that calls into questions whether our country is a democracy.

In other words, just like on the Brady Bunch, it's not about Jan.

[madfloridian]

72. Hell, yes, it is about Jan now.

Her name has been tossed out that she might be lesbian or part lesbian, and that she might has given out secrets because she was compromised.

All that though there was no proof in Sibel's own words.

[pberq]

77. madfloridian, it seems that YOU are making this

about Jan. Does the much bigger story mean nothing to you? We're talking about high treason, compromised national security.

[mmonk]

67. My apology on my reply to you.

I made an error in that though the incident was discussed at the Krikorian Schmidt deposition, Schakowsky's name was not discussed as had been Sibel's decision through all of this. I will say that the issues Sibel Edmonds has brought forth are real and can be verified. I've spent many years on this, including discussion and document dumps to Congressional staffers. Last night, I was getting tired. I was confusing when I knew who most likely it was that Turkey had tried to influence with the timing of this incident. I usually agree with what you post on DU. I will continue to support those points. However, I've started to become testy about things here, especially due to all the time, research, contacts, etc. I have engaged in on this issue. So when a member of Congress instead of denying she was the target but chooses to give a response in a personal attack in order to destroy the whistleblower's credibility, especially given that much of what Sibel reported has been supportable (even by the OIG), I will naturally become testy. I have gotten more testy recently here, because this issue has made it so no matter what I post on and no matter what the subject, my posts start off in the negative through the unrecommend feature with no explanation. I could post on the finer points of fly fishing now, and the unrecommends will start before others begin to reverse it whenever it is a worthy post. It is starting to become a waste of my time. So therefore, I'm taking a break from posting here except for something I feel is really important and needs to be in my journal. I will still scan here for the valuable information, especially in LBN, and the video collection and if I run into a post you have posted I agree with (which is most of the time), I will recommend it. In the meantime, take care and keep up the good fight, especially on healthcare issues and, of course, the progressive cause.

[madfloridian]

84. I still have the Sept. 2005 Vanity Fair issue with An Inconvenient Patriot.

I kept it because I trust her on what she is trying to accomplish.

I would not have kept a Vanity Fair that long if I did not think the article was correct.

My issues are not with her knowledge of the subject, but are narrowly limited to the Schakowsky outing.

There is no need for you to apologize to me at all. You were nicer than I am sometimes when I am not even tired.

:hug:

[mmonk]

85. .

:hug:

[autorank]

91. Question

I've followed Edmonds a bit, particularly her court efforts seeking simply to speak about her story. She was gagged from the start. The information she has on policy, illegal activities, etc. is important. The only question I've had came up when I saw the allegations about Shakowsky's sexual preferences and possible blackmail.

Here's my question. In comment #74, Vinnie says: "They (Shakowsky's response) pointed out that Edmonds was incorrect on the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral by many years and they pointed out that Edmonds was wrong about Shakowski engaging in a sexual tryst with a foreign agent in a townhouse owned by Shakowsky. She never has owned or lived in a townhouse. What is one to think when Edmonds BEGINS her open letter with glaringly untrue assertions?"

Is this statement correct regarding the date of the funeral and the ownership of a townhouse?

[mmonk]

97. Whatever she is saying was obtained from translations from wiretaps

and the like. That is what she is claiming.

[autorank]

101. Thanks n/t

[druidity33]

100. i don't believe so

The AMerican Conservative article is online now, so here's the pertinent quote:

http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

If Vinnie is responding to the article in some way, Sibel never mentions 'when' Shakowsky's mother died, only that Rep Shakowsky was added to the list in 2000. And when she says "Shakowsky's townhouse"... maybe it wasn't hers, but the tapes led her to believe so. Maybe she has access to a townhouse that she doesn't own and can say with a clear conscience "i don't own a townhouse" without actually refuting the charge as it was laid out. Sly deflection?



from Bradblog:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433

"Following the publication of the story, The BRAD BLOG received a formal response to the allegations from Schakowsky's office. The Congresswoman's spokesperson vehemently denied them all on her behalf, pointed to seemingly contradictory facts in Edmonds' claims in order to undermine them, and disparaged her as a fantasist and conspiracy theorist. The charges, her spokeswoman Trevor Kincaid wrote, were "cut from the same cloth as the stories by 'birthers' that President Obama is not an American citizen."

I understand that Rep Shakowsky has to deny the charges at least at first. But if she's been marked, we should know it. I haven't been able to find a public statement where she directly addresses the charges.



:(

[WeDidIt]

69. I don't know if Sibel Edmonds ever sold secrets to the Iranians, either

and my statement is just as factual as the Edmond's bathshit insane allegations.

[cascadiance]

90. And what is the FBI case number to the case that alleges she sold secrets to the Iranians?

If you want to be as "factual" as Sibel is and not just one that's trying to inflame the rhetoric and name calling here.

[BuyingThyme]

48. kcik

[loudsue]

53. Lots of information here.

Bookmarking, kickin' and recommending.

[slay]

65. This info needs to be known

by all! K&R.

[WeDidIt]

66. Yeah, make up batshit insane crap and then ask the person you blew bullshit about to join you

That's gonna work.

:eyes:

[foo_bar]

68. for someone discussing potential blackmail, she sure makes a long list of demands

Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.

Also bring in former FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager & Espionage Investigator John M. Cole and have him testify under oath regarding espionage cases involving State Department officials, Pentagon officials, and Congressional members. Here is a preview of some of the information disclosed and confirmed by Agent Cole: Interview and Radio Interview.

Also bring in the sworn testimonies of current FBI special agents in the Chicago and DC field offices who dutifully and patriotically led the counterintelligence operations on Turkey and corrupt US officials, only to see their investigations blocked and covered-up. Their names are public.

Order the Justice Department to release the two main Counterintelligence Operations Files on Turkey and “US persons of interest”—one from FBI Chicago Field Office-1996-2002, the other from FBI DC Field Office-1996-2001. These will help bring out the facts regarding your story too. I have documentation supporting the existence of these files.

Recall that I did not accuse you of any criminal or espionage-related activity.

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

No explanation of her story being 13 years off (at least), so the takeaway is: peform a laundry list of unlikely Heraclean tasks or I'll make more unsupported accusations. I think there's a word for that.

[WeDidIt]

71. I think two words describe her behavior

Batshit insane.

[pleah]

70. K&R

[Hubert Flottz]

75. K&R

[pberq]

76. Thank you mmonk, for posting this

Sibel's case needs to be investigated and reported widely.

[flyarm]

82. Thank you MMONK for posting this and please do not leave because some unrec..

there are many here at DU now ...that forgot what we used to all stand for and that was truth..

There are some here now that post for winning and not for truth..those of us who came here for truth ..are still here for the same reasons..others seem much more nafarious in their purpose.

We need the strength of truthtellers..

fly

[valerief]

89. K&R

:kick:

[Ken Burch]

92. An investigation actually makes sense.

It's entirely possible the Bulgarians faked this, using a Schakowsky look-alike. Since Sibel had never(to my knowledge) seen the Congresswoman before, this is plausible.

[mmonk]

98. Update: Schakowsky responded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6630759&mesg_id=6630759