Saturday, August 8, 2009

Sibel Edmonds Finally Gets to Speak

Sibel Edmonds, former FBI language specialist, was subpoened to testify today, in a closed door session, in Washington, DC. Most Americans don't even know who Sibel Edmonds is. What's so special about her testifying at a hearing today? It's because up to now, she's been gagged from speaking publicly about certain events which transpired while she was a contract translator for the FBI.

Sibel Edmonds claims to have discovered serious security breaches and attempts to cover them up, as well as the intentional blocking of incoming intelligence. She reported this to her superiors at the FBI. Instead of immediately looking into the matter, they harassed, intimidated and then fired her. That was in 2002--seven years ago. Since then, she has been effectively prevented from publicly discussing the case.

This brave woman has been repeatedly gagged from speaking in detail about her discoveries. And as of two days ago she has been unable to post anything to her blog. It has been blocked by Google, who informed her that it will be deleted within 20 days unless she fills out a special form and returns it to them to be reviewed for being a "potential spam blog". Two days before her testimony, her blog suddenly blocks her from posting anything. How interesting.

Sibel planned to talk today about "how certain Turkish entities had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government agencies and officials, including but not limited to the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress" ... and "how certain Turkish American cultural and business lobby groups conduct their illegal operations with direct and indirect support from the foreign governments."[1]

Certain entities would prefer that Sibel Edmonds not have brought this and other information to light. Which is why many of her supporters are concerned for her safety. One of them, a teacher currently on vacation in Washington, even offered to act as a body guard today while she was en route to give testimony, saying he "would take a bullet to keep her speaking out." [Comments section on her blog]

Why did I choose Sibel Edmonds as the topic for today's posting (apart from its timeliness)? Irony. I find it ironic that the U.S. is so concerned about security that it recently found it necessary to remove a sign with bright, yellow 6.4-metre-high letters that spell out "United States" from the border crossing at Massena, NY (just across the way from Cornwall, Ontario, Canada) as a security concern. (The reason? "The sign could be a huge target and attract undue attention," says a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency" [2]. Here they sensed a perceived security threat and acted.) It struck me as ironic that they're more concerned, apparently, with a sign identifying a U.S. border post, for fear someone might try to "target it" (throw eggs at the sign?) or attract attention to the fact that yes, this is, indeed, the U.S. border, than with a report from one of its translators about a serious internal breach of security in its own ranks, attempted cover up, and intentional blocking of intelligence. Their reaction to the second incident?--the whistleblower (Sibel Edmonds) was ridiculed, harassed, fired, and forbidden to discuss it. What's WRONG with this picture??!!

One would think, despite any possible embarassment resulting from the acknowledgment that elements of a government agency were or are incompetent, corrupt or in violation of the law (or might deliberately, for whatever reason, allow entities that normally would constitute a security risk to escape accountability or continue to operate undeterred), that concrete steps might be taken to immediately address and deal with the matter. But no, their solution is to ... punish the whistleblower, with smear campaigns, intimidation, and termination. Instead of a "Thank you for calling this to our attention," whistleblowers are told, "You're fired."

Maybe it's not a question of merely wanting to save face. Maybe there's more at stake than having to admit to a security lapse and correcting it. (Er... HAS it been corrected? Or have certain players simply been reshuffled?)

The Brad Blog has been following reports of Sibel's deposition today, where according to information from people emerging from inside the closed-door hearing, Sibel has been able to say "everything that she hasn't been able to say so far, implicating many members of Congress in a criminal conspiracy."( "Many"?? This could be potentially explosive.) I wonder if the mainstream media will pick up on it. (When pigs fly maybe.)

In short, Sibel Edmonds, a credible witness, testified today, under oath, implicating members of the U.S. Congress in acts of bribery and espionage.

What to make of all this? The media has been strangely silent on this news.

[For more on Sibel Edmonds's story, see these videos here, here, and here; and articles here and here.]

No comments: