Posted
by Chris Tackett
January 20, 2008 at 10:48 p.m.
Pentagon Papers Redux Pt. 2
(UPDATE 1: See also [this Op-Ed penned by Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the original Pentagon Papers.][1])Following up on [my piece][2] from two weeks ago about how gagged FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is trying to get her story out, The Sunday Times of London reports [that:][3]THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets.And:"One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file."[Luke Ryland][4], considered by many to be the leading expert on the Sibel Edmonds story, succinctly sums up what we should make of these two differing statements:"The FBI's comments demonstrate conclusively that either: a) They are lying, or b) They have destroyed the evidence of this multi-year investigation concerning the corruption of high-level US officials, the nuclear black market, money laundering and narcotics trafficking.The FOIA request that the FBI was responding to was filed by an American watchdog organization called the Liberty Coalition. They were informed about this particular file by an anonymous letter.According to The Times: The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.*It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official's warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause celÃbre in the US.While The Times does not name this "high-level government official", Brad Friedman, another blogger who has followed the Edmonds story for the past 5 years is also in possession of the anonymous letter that sparked the FOIA request, and [writes][5] that this official was Mark Grossman, "a former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, who served as the #3 official in the State Department under Colin Powell and Richard Armitage from 2001 to 2005."For those of you that followed the [CIA-leak case, which involved the outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame,][6] by members of the Bush Administration, Brewster Jennings may sound familiar. For those of you not familiar with that organization, it was a CIA front company that was involved in counter-proliferation of nuclear arms.According to Ryland, "One of Brewster Jennings [targets][7] was the American Turkish Council, a lobbying group [known to be][8] a hub of the activity facilitating the theft and sale of nuclear secrets, among other things."...Sadly, major American media outlets do not view the selling of nuclear secrets by top government officials as news-worthy, as this has not been covered by any "mainstream" news outlet.Friedman spoke with Edmonds about this shocking lack of coverage and quotes her as saying:"I have had [American] reporters call me and tell me that I have 'stumbled on some big time national security, covert operation', she continued, explaining that as the reason given by some for staying away from the story.*"Well, Iran-Contra was a goddamn covert operation too! Even if that's what they're telling reporters in the U.S., it doesn't make the operation any less illegal. And the cover-up of that is outrageous,"Agreed.For more on the story, I strongly-recommend you read the latest coverage from [Luke Ryland][4] and [Friedman's][5]who are perpetually on-top of this incredible story.UPDATE 2: [Former CIA officer, Philip Giraldi, has a piece worth-reading on this in The American Conservative magazine.][9] [1]: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5583 [2]: http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/makes_sense_me/2008/jan/06/sibelspeaks/ [3]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece [4]: http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-times-official-documents-prove-fbi.html [5]: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5582 [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Af... [7]: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/3502361.asp?m=1&gid=69 [8]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece [9]: http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
The internals of the FBI problems will be squeaky clean before this hits the MSM.
It's no surprise to me that there is corruption among the McMansion class greedy. The cost of living inside of and surrounding the beltway is astronomical. What is disheartening is this missed opportunity Sibel Edmunds has presented us with. I mean, for cripe's sake, it's an election year.
What better time to focus the "War on Terror" here at home. Who needs Hamas when our own government is selling nukes to the enemy? But, no. Crickets chirp. And, against this deafening silence, assholes like me are supposed to be cracking our tired old rickety bones out from under our rocks in order to exercise some pretense that this election should be taken seriously.
bob_brown (anonymous) says…
I don't know shit from shinola on this so I'll keep reading, albeit with a highly skeptical eye. Sibel Edmonds could be an American hero, honestly mistaken, or innocently caught up in a counter-espionage operation that she royally fucked up. And pity her if her story gets any more complicated. Soon only Lyndon LaRouche and Chris Carter will have the expertise to sort it out.
Couple of things. On this:
***Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. . . . "The FBI's comments demonstrate conclusively . . ."***
I disagree. It demonstrates little. FOIA office workers are often clerks, not highly trained operatives. Maybe they just didn't look very hard. Or maybe the request was assigned to the new guy and he didn't know what he was doing.
Or maybe the fbi foia office doesn't track by that number or it lacks access to the system that uses that number. Or maybe 203A-WF-210023 isn't an FBI case number... maybe it's another agency's number. Or maybe The Times' document allegedly signed by an "FBI official" (is it posted anywhere btw?) is a forgery or was altered. Likewise, this oft-mentioned anonymous letter may also be a dodge.
Or maybe the g-men ARE lying. Too early to say.
As for reputable American media outlets, so far this story is little more than uncorroborated allegations, inferences drawn from silence, and shady anonymous letters. Why should any U.S. newspaper gamble it's reputation now just because the allegations are inflammatory, especially if the story turns out to be a bust? For all we know, they're diligently researching it (it is a juicy story, after all) but leaving the rumors and innuendo to the foreigners and bloggers.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
@bob_brown:
thanks for providing an opportunity to explain a few things.
First, I don't want to pretend that my two posts on the story are good overviews of the story. They are far from it. I'm just trying to write enough to hopefully lead readers here to go to the sources i link to to read more. And i know that I have not written enough about the instances her story has been validated.
Here are a few examples, though. The DOJ reported that the evidence clearly corroborated her allegations. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501... as did the FBI's own internal investigation. http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews11...
and here is a good overview of the case: http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot....
As for this: "Why should any U.S. newspaper gamble it's reputation now just because the allegations are inflammatory, especially if the story turns out to be a bust?"
Well, they shouldn't be doing it just because the allegations are inflammatory. They should report on it bc she has been shown to be credible. And the story won't turn out to be a bust, unless the story they write alleges more than what is already able to be proven, which is plenty news-worthy. And as w/ a lot of reporting these days, i think they would cover the controversy. The main goal is simply the need for investigations by congress, which would be the angle a newspaper or other outlet might take. that would hopefully lead to enough public interest that Congress would act.
But when you take a look at what has already been done, including investigations by the FBI, DOJ, and interviews w/ members of Congress and the 911 commission, there is clearly enough evidence that she is credible and I do think it is news-worthy that there is no investigation into this. I believe media outlets can cover this without getting themselves into legal or reputation-damaging territory.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
As for this: "I disagree. It demonstrates little."
The words you quoted, "The FBI's comments demonstrate conclusively that either:
a) They are lying, or
b) They have destroyed the evidence..." aren't originally mine, but I'll explain why I included them.
First, whether the FOIA request is written by a clerk or a high-ranking official, that response is technically an official statement from the FBI. It is entirely possible that the file does exist and as you write, "Maybe they just didn't look very hard. Or maybe the request was assigned to the new guy and he didn't know what he was doing." However, if that is the case, then Ryland's statement that they are lying is still correct, bc they said that it did not exist. A false statement is still false even if it is accidentally stated.
And when you wonder if, "maybe the fbi foia office doesn't track by that number or it lacks access to the system that uses that number...Or maybe 203A-WF-210023 isn't an FBI case number... maybe it's another agency's number" you seem to again be saying that perhaps the file _does_ exist and this clerk just didn't know how to find it. That would still mean that Ryland's statement would be true bc the FOIA response was false. Parsing of words, perhaps, but those are the thoughts I had when deciding whether to include his statement or not.
However, I can't dispute your point that the document signed by an FBI official might be a forgery. In general, I am always in support of questioning things before believing them as fact, but in trying to wrap my own head around this confusing story, I tend to side with the people that know about it more than me, which at the moment are Daniel Ellsberg, Ryland and Friedman and now the journalists from The Times. With any media, the readers can decide if they believe what they read, but my only motive is to pique interest and hopefully inspire readers to dig further than what you find here.
Thanks for reading!
bob_brown (anonymous) says…
@Shakedown
First -- "aren't originally mine, but I'll explain why I included them."
Apologies. I understood that but was admittedly sloppy about formatting the quotation.
Second --
"However, if that is the case, then Ryland's statement that they are lying is still correct, bc they said that it did not exist. A false statement is still false even if it is accidentally stated."
I disagree about calling it *lying* if it's an honest or even a careless mistake. It's a false statement, sure, but lies and false statements aren't the same. The hyperbole surrounding Edmonds is one of the reasons I'm leery about this. There are more than two reasons why the FBI's FOIA response said what it said, but instead Ryland assumes the most sinister. I'd give him more leeway if he'd at least acknowledge things like this when he posts.
Third -- Chris, you need to be careful about overstating your position. You say, "[t]he DOJ reported that the evidence clearly corroborated her allegations." I haven't read the report closely, but based on a only a quick scan, that's correct only in the most technical sense. To your credit, the report says, "[f]or example, with respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations." But the next sentence says, "[w]ith regard to some of Edmonds' allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts."
You also say that the FBI's own "internal investigation" also clearly support Sibel Edmonds' allegations. I disagree. Your link goes to a news story not an FBI report. Even then, the story doesn't cite an FBI report. Instead, it quotes a former FBI agent who claims to have talked to other people who read an FBI report which tells a "different story" than FBI officials. What that "different story" is and whether it supports Sibel Edmonds' isn't clear.
At the end of the day, I agree that there's something here, but it may only be that the FBI's translation department is a terrible place to work, the FBI doesn't respond well to whisteblowers, and the FBI is to quick to throw the state secrets privilege around. All problems, agreed. But that doesn't amount to a conspiracy among prominent former legislators and others to sell nuclear secrets to Turkey.
In the meantime, the story will be more credible if all involved mind the details and don't assume the worst.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
Re: Lying vs accidental false statements, Ryland can defend himself if you want to post your complaint with his word choice on his blog. I've explained why I included them, though i do see your point.
You wrote: "What that "different story" is and whether it supports Sibel Edmonds' isn't clear."
In linking to that source, I was referencing the following line, which I believe answers what that different story is (and it was immediately following the sentence you quoted above): ""They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was a 100 percent accurate, that management knew that she was correct."
anyway, in retrospect, i agree i should be more careful in not overstating what i'm prepared to prove (or google answers for). i don't want to pretend to be an expert on this, by any means, as i too am confused as hell about all this and i am really not interested in trying to defend her every claim. but i just know, having read about her story occasionally over the past 3 or 4 years, that it needs further attention so i'm using my limited means to give it that. thanks for helping keep me on the up and up :)
smerdyakov (anonymous) says…
Refreshing to read a civil exchange about a story that would seem to be the archetype of politically divisive stories. I tend to agree with bob_brown ... given how much juicy hay there is to be made from this in the mainstream media, one is left to conclude that the allegations are far from substantiated. The other conclusion is that the sum total of the mainstream media are conspiring with the gov't to suppress this story. I think Vegas odds would be firmly with the former.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
Smerdyakov,
I think her story is actually less /politically/ divisive than one might think. For instance, Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) is a public supporter of hers. And her allegations, if true, would implicate folks on both sides of the aisle, i think. And Grossman, for example, seems to (as of right now) be one of the main characters in the story and he was a member of both Clinton's and Bush's State Dept., etc.
As for why the American media isn't covering it, consider that due to the States Secret Privilege gag on Edmonds, any outlet that covered her story in-full would risk severe legal implications for doing so. I think that has more to do with it than there being some conspiracy to keep her story under wraps.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
just became aware of a good discussion on Steve Clemons' blog The Washington Note about Edmonds' story:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/arch...
He doesn't buy it or at least not yet and explains his reasoning. Then in the comments there is some nice back and forth between Clemons and some of her stronger advocates, including Luke Ryland and others.
I fall somewhere in between Clemons' and Ryland's views, closer to Ryland's, though it moves back and forth the more I read.
Intriguing stuff, nevertheless.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
i added this to the post above, but putting it here for those that have already read this and may not have seen it:
Former CIA officer, Philip Giraldi has a piece worth-reading on this in The American Conservative magazine.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_...
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
All in all, after perusing the links, and the various perspectives on this story, I have to hunker down to my original position.
1) Edmonds' description of the slow down order, if true, is enough. Against the backdrop of very real security threats against the US, it's tantamount to treason for the very agency charged with security to squander it's responsibility over cubicle politics. Sure, corruption is endemic in any bureaucracy, but there is a price to pay, and I'd just as soon see these fuckers at Gitmo as any brainwashed jihadist teenager.
2) The Nuclear intrigue is another level. We will never get the details about this, and maybe we shouldn't. I don't know. The integrity of her story is somewhat scuttled by her willingness to play this all to the foreign press. What's her motive? Patriotism? Truth? Glory?
I am curious to see how future President Clinton would respond to a question about Sibel Edmonds.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
What I'm saying is that the FBI is an entrenched bureaucracy and year after year there are fruitless attempts to clean it up. This story was an opportunity to take a public swipe at the culture, but I suspect now that it is the baby that will be thrown out with the bath water.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
dotdot,
i agree w/ you on Point 1 above. What is wild and hard to believe, is that (according to Giraldi's piece in the American Conservative) the people that ordered her to slow down and stall the translating are still in their positions and some have even been promoted. Shameful.