Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States News Your Rights Online

FBI Burying Doc Showing US Officials Stole Nuclear Secrets? 347

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the zomg-a-government-coverup dept.
BoingBoing is reporting that the FBI may be burying the existence of a document that proves US officials stole nuclear secrets for eventual sale to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. "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. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an 'outright lie.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Burying Doc Showing US Officials Stole Nuclear Secrets?

Comments Filter:
  • Gee... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:10PM (#22128688)
    Government agency lies; news at 11.
    • Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GroeFaZ (850443) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:25PM (#22128888)
      Right, and as we all know, there is no difference between "I did not have sex with this woman, Monica Lewinkski" and "No, this document that might prove if officials from our government are involved in trading nuclear weapon technology secrets with the country the 9/11 hijackers were from does not exist", the latter of which chosen because it happened within everyone's attention span, or so I hope. Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.

        It's all reality shows and reruns! Oh, the humanity!

        If the government really wanted to cover this stuff up, they'd get the writer's strike resolved.
        • by Abreu (173023)
          Mod parent up (I just used up my points in the Cellphone Sommelier story)
      • Not so different (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jmichaelg (148257) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:52PM (#22129894) Journal
        They're both examples of obstruction of justice.

          There are even huge bribes involving both parties - i.e., Marc Rich's $1 million 'gift' to Bill Clinton in exchange for a pardon.

        Corruption is corruption regardless of which party is practicing it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Vancorps (746090)

          You really think that is simply obstruction of justice if it means details about the selling of nuclear secrets to unstable regions? The person doing the selling obviously committed treason, I'm not sure how far it goes if you cover it up but obstruction of justice is hardly the right term here. Corruption at the level you are now referring to is quite different than the corruption to which you referenced in the past. Now the selling of arms by the same past president could be a more intelligent argument.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rtb61 (674572)
          Don't confuse the party with the individuals of the groups of individuals who have conspired to hijack the party. Remember you don't just vote for the party you voter for the representative who claims to believe in the parties principals. When those individuals have a history of not actually supporting the principles they claim and you voters for them don't be surprised when they betray you.

          Any politician with a history of receiving money from corporations whilst claiming the retain the principles of the

    • by necro2607 (771790)
      Yeah well, just because it's not a surprise doesn't make it any less fucking heinous.
      • Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ushering05401 (1086795) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:39PM (#22129756) Journal
        The fact that it is not a surprise is what makes it so heinous.

        The initial reaction of outrage that a populace has after finding out something rotten about their gov is one of the strongest tools of a citizenry to police their representatives. See, if there is this sudden burst of emotional outcry politicians have to get all hands on deck to control the situation... not knowing how far or deep the populace is willing to pursue the issue they must fear the worst. Knowing the populace is acting on emotions causes those who want to keep their power to make wide sweeping and highly visible adjustments to the system to calm the emotional response.

        Once that initial outrage is gone, the citizenry are reduced to working through channels controlled by the very people who are acting against their best interests.

        Just a thought.
    • by robertjw (728654)
      Isn't it supposed to be

      Film at 11
    • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:47PM (#22129850) Homepage Journal
      Can I have some of whatever drugs or videogames you're on? Because they must be pretty good for you to be bored by revelations that the US government is covering up theft of nuke secrets to threats like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

      What does impress you, news of maybe an alien invasion?
      • See, here's teh de41. That post was sarcastic. Ff it had not been, your outrage would have been valid. As it is, it was, and your was not, and you blew it.

        See how easy it is once you grasp the core fundamental basis of it all?
  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:13PM (#22128726) Homepage Journal
    ... try the original Times article. [timesonline.co.uk].

    The BoingBoing writeup is so irritatingly fragmentary it's hard to tell what it's even saying. Which is a good description of BoingBoing in general, actually.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by gnick (1211984)
      Thank you for that - The BoingBoing article left me completely unimpressed. For those who don't want to RTFA, don't bother. Everything pertinent is contained in the summary. Not enough to be at all persuasive, IMHO - One woman's claims that FBI agents were documenting their activities while stealing nuclear weapons secrets and selling them to baddies and a newspaper that claims to have evidence that a document (contents unknown) is missing. Not enough to persuade me.

      However, the timesonline article post
      • by tm2b (42473) on Monday January 21, 2008 @04:11PM (#22130074) Journal
        While that's true, the fraudulent response to the FOIA request is itself a notable issue.

        Somebody needs to go to jail for that - the ability of citizens to keep tabs on their government is too critical to the functioning of our democracy for us to just shrug when that ability is circumvented.
    • Despite the fact that this is a story now, is it a coincidence that the document in question went missing during the Clinton administration?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _KiTA_ (241027)
      ... try the original Times article..

      The BoingBoing writeup is so irritatingly fragmentary it's hard to tell what it's even saying. Which is a good description of BoingBoing in general, actually.


      Alas, I wouldn't know, as my workplace uses Smartfilter, and since BoingBoing was critical of Smartfilter once, they're on a permanent screw-over list -- even though they have more or less the same content as Slashdot, Smartfilter (now endorsed by the Iranian government! Oppress your serfs today!) blocks them as "N
  • by xannik (534808) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:14PM (#22128736)
    Maybe if CNN or another major news outlet picked this up it would gain the attention it deserves.
    • Re:More attention (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:23PM (#22128860) Homepage Journal
      Then again, maybe it is getting exactly the attention it deserves.
      It's kind of hard to tell at this point whether the allegations of the existence of a file by a whistleblower amount to Watergate or Haditha.
      If we swapped the media for the government, could we tell the difference on either end?
      • Then again, maybe it is getting exactly the attention it deserves. It's kind of hard to tell at this point whether the allegations of the existence of a file by a whistleblower amount to Watergate or Haditha.

        For one, there is the lack of any corroboration. Additionally...names or it didn't happen.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by torpor (458)
          The only way there's going to be the attention it deserves, is if the allegations are addressed in a legal court of law. The court of public opinion *obviously* won't get to the root of the matter, and the secret dealings of the government will definitely not get to it.

          Demand Justice, Americans! Deny those who seek to cover their crimes the right to do so, whether they are government or otherwise!

      • Re:More attention (Score:5, Informative)

        by Manchot (847225) on Monday January 21, 2008 @04:08PM (#22130048)
        Keep in mind that Watergate didn't happen overnight. It's easy to forget (especially if you're like me and was born in 1986), but it unfolded over the period of a couple years, with legal battles to obtain documents and all. Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) didn't just go to Woodward and Bernstein out of the blue: he did so after the story had already gained a lot of traction. It was a cumulative effect, and what started as a small story eventually led to the resignation of a president.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Splendid reply.
          I was, in fact, alive at the time, but not old enough to remember.
          At that age, I watched *M*A*S*H* and actually thought it was set in Vietnam, and couldn't grasp why Alan Alda was laughing and everyone in reality was pissed off.
          People don't scale. Organizations are hell. Centralized power, while tactically helpful, can lead to strategic woes.
          The fact that Watergate a) is not an isolated behavior pattern, and b) takes a long time to expose should be an important input into the political
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jackpot777 (1159971)

      Maybe if CNN or another major news outlet picked this up it would gain the attention it deserves.


      Well, it was run in the Sunday Times, which is Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, so it should be on Fox News in the US any minute because it's all part of NewsCorp -- ...yeah, I won't hold my breath either. Maybe Paris Hilton did something more 'newsworthy' over there...
  • by naturalog (1123935) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:15PM (#22128742)
    If you think this is scary, try to imagine all the things that we don't know about.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _Sprocket_ (42527)
      Yes, indeed. Let us fear monger. Gawd knows we don't get enough from the current administration. We need random wonks picking up the slack.

      And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Yes, indeed. Let us fear monger. Gawd knows we don't get enough from the current administration. We need random wonks picking up the slack.

        And no, I don't believe the Government has a secret fleet of unicorns.
        But if they did, what better crowd to capture them than the slashdotians?
      • Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible at least five times, you insensitive clod.

        Off to Gitmo with you.
  • Double standards... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Philotechnia (1131943) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:19PM (#22128798)
    When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?

    Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WiglyWorm (1139035)
      Honestly? There are things going on in the government that absolutely should not be made available to the public. There are tons of things that would harm us overall as a country if we just released them for public disemination. The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight. So I don't believe at all that the government should operate with as much transparency as you seem to indicate. That being said... politicians selling nuclear secrets to forgien (and hostile) powers does not fal
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721)
        The notion of National Security should carry a bit of weight, but at the same time, it has become the tendency of the US government, and of many other governments as well, to hide embarrassing information. Congressional oversight in the the US is supposed to overcome this, but I'm certain that there are cases where the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Executive branch both will decide "Wow, this is such a hot potato that it could damage us along with the FBI" that they keep things s
      • by Philotechnia (1131943) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:46PM (#22129130)
        I'm going to guess that we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the best interests of national security.

        I would imagine that a great many of those items classified as "matters of national security" are items that would damage the bureaucratic class, and would more or less do no harm to the security of the American people. Or, perhaps this abuse, if it exists, actually harms the people, by failing to show us what government truly is, and by keeping us ignorant and placated. After all, the bureaucratic class is damaged only by our indignation at its existence, no?

        The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in my opinion.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian (840721)

          The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in

        • by pegr (46683) *
          I believe you are missing one small nuance. Even in regard to nationsl security issues, nothing should be secret forever. To maintain a transparent government, even national secrets such as covert agents should eventually be made public.

          It's kind of like encryption. Encryption is not for keeping your secrets secret forever; it's for keeping your secrets secret long enough to be effective.
          • even national secrets such as covert agents should eventually be made public.

            I think it would be too hard to figure out when an agent could be uncovered. Even if you wait till after their death, admitting they were an agent can put at risk any of their contacts. You also put at risk any secrets they might have stolen that you don't want the other side to know you have. You also put at risk any other agents that are still in the field because they might have met or have similar operation profiles. There
      • by azrider (918631) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:46PM (#22129142)

        The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight.
        This would be the case if the phrase (and it's cousin - Executive Privilege) were not used so frequently and so obviously to hide illegal/unethical actions on the part of members of the current (and former) administrations.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Scrameustache (459504)

        There are things going on in the government that absolutely should not be made available to the public. There are tons of things that would harm us overall as a country if we just released them for public disemination.
        Like what goes on in those secret CIA prisons out of the judicial jurisdiction of the US legal system, the list of dictators installed by the US to replace democratically elected representatives, stuff like that?
      • And what about when the government deems some information so inflammatory to the general populace that releasing it would create a threat to the stability of the nation, and therefore national security?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?
      Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar?

      The thing is that these are American citizens that are running the government, trying to keep these secrets. They suffer (indirectly) as well when they operate in such a way...but you see, I think they are just happy to have more power than the next guy, AND they may not see it as everyone else does.

      Having said that, covering up is nothing new, and getting caught is nothing new. Most people in America are just happy to have enough money for food, shelter, and gas for the car, there's no time to worry abo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Philotechnia (1131943)
        Well then, label our American democratic project a hypocracy and let's get on with it.

        I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built. I believe in the virtuous nature of a democratic-style government. I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, and in our capacity to come together and strive for something greater. Fundamentally, I believe in our ability to own our government, and make it work for us.

        And I also believe we have a lot of work t
        • I was going to mod you insightful even though I don't agree with you (really - and I'm not Karma whoring so nobody mod this up please!) However, I'd rather discuss the idea further. Here's the rub: what if I suggest that our system has already been perverted by those in power to the point that the political involvement you're looking for is already impossible? Perhaps we have lost the ability to 'own our own government'. Too many of our people are too poorly educated to be informed and motivated voters.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:19PM (#22128808) Journal
    She is labeled an International Terrorist, since they can't out her husband as a spy

    10... 9... 8...
  • by techpawn (969834) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:22PM (#22128844) Journal
    7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.
    8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.
    9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.
    10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.
    11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.
    12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.
    13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.
    14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies. None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

    Oh yeah, we're so stupid that we're going to let some reporter just find this filing we're trying to hide... NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
    The Art of war has been around since 5 BC, misinformation has been around longer than that...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Your post itself could be the misinformation, meant to throw people away from the truth. Afterall, while what you say is true, it is also true that sometimes government has its dirty laundry aired inadvertantly. The best way to avoid a public panic and concern over this is to get people believing it was intentional, serving some higher goal known only to our government.

      It's like most conspiracy theories involving government taking part in bad actions... it's a lot more comforting to believe that our gover
      • by techpawn (969834)

        it's a lot more comforting to believe that our government is almighty and in control doing bad things, rather than believing that shit can and does happen beyond their control.

        I'm just pointing out a section of an old book that is almost required reading of people in high military rank. The same people who know that the "enemy" is using the internet and newspapers as a source of intel. What better place to set misinformation than there? Turning the newspapers into doomed spies is just an alteration of Sun

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Aardpig (622459)
      FNORD! FNORD!
    • Oh yeah, we're so stupid that we're going to let some reporter just find this filing we're trying to hide... NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
      The Art of war has been around since 5 BC, misinformation has been around longer than that...

      Yeah, well the Art of War also says:

      "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."

      WMDs? What WMDs? Mission accomplished!!

      There's another book out there, Murphy's Law, one of those passages reads:

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

      • by techpawn (969834) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:19PM (#22129544) Journal
        17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
        (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
        (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
        (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
        (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
        (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
        18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

        I hate it when people only quote half of it, like "judge, not lest ye be judged"
        It's funny that the way to LOSE a war according to the art of war is to have the army in a distant land and run the people into recession in order to fund that war (that you should be using the supplies from the fallen army/land to restock).
  • arrgghhh (Score:4, Funny)

    by revlayle (964221) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:24PM (#22128876) Homepage

    Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive.

    PUNNED!
  • by AxemRed (755470) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:34PM (#22128978)
    Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours. And wouldn't messing with other countries and stealing secrets fall under the CIA's realm anyway?
  • by heroine (1220) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:35PM (#22128988) Homepage
    Fortunately Iran stole nuclear secrets from US in time to fix the problems with US stealing nuclear secrets.

  • Why would we do that when it'd be much easier for Pakistan to buy secrets when we already more or less openly trade arms with them? i.e. we just finished a 20 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia... what can't 20 billion dollars worth of arms do that a nuke can do?
  • by br00tus (528477) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:39PM (#22129032)
    From the New York Times [nytimes.com]:

    Dr. Khan recounts how Western companies sold him whatever was desired. These were the same businesses, he says, that sold equipment to the nuclear enrichment facilities at Almelo, in the Netherlands, where Dr. Khan worked in the 1970's, and at Capenhurst, England:


    While a lot of biased and unfounded propaganda is directed against us, the Western world never talked about their own hectic and persistent efforts to sell everything to us. When we bought inverters from Emerson, England, we found them to be less efficient than we wanted them to be. We asked Emerson to improve upon some parameters and we suggested the method .

    At that time we received many letters and telexes and people chased us with figures and details of equipment they had sold to Almelo, Capenhurst, etc. They literally begged us to buy their equipment. We bought what we considered to be suitable for our plant and very often asked them to make changes and modifications according to our requirements.

    • by eli pabst (948845)
      Is that really that shocking? Obviously companies anywhere in the world are going to be trying to peddle their wares to anyone willing to buy them. Much of the equipment used in uranium enrichment and preparation of a nuclear weapon is for the most part multi-purpose and could be used for completely innocuous purposes, such as a gas centrifuge. Most of it is extremely expensive as well, so vendors would be jumping over themselves to make a sale. So I don't find his quote all that inflammatory and you ha
  • by Eternal Vigilance (573501) on Monday January 21, 2008 @02:45PM (#22129122)
    So it's up to the foreign press, in this case the Times Online. (Makes my head hurt that a Murdoch-owned outlet counts as the best source of investigative, or at least reportive, journalism.)

    "The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

    Which was itself a follow-up to

    "For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

    Basically, the story was that Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator listening to comm intercepts looking for Middle Eastern "terrorists," discovered evidence of a network of US, Israeli, Turkish and Pakistani nuclear weapons secrets trading. She's told the FBI - they fired her. She told Congress - they placed her under a gag order and threatened to jail her if she talked about it. She's even agreed to tell the story to any American media outlet (which means she's willing to go to jail so people can know), as long as the outlet agrees to tell the whole story, and not edit it to hide the truth. So far, all American sources have refused to cover the story.

    Interesting tidbit - the CIA front company, "Brester Jennings," for which Valerie Plame worked before she was outed by Cheney and company, had as its mission tracking nuclear weapons activity in the ME. Outing Plame meant the Brewster Jennings cover was completely blown, like a wiretap being discovered. Which means that Plame's outing, with its supposed rationale as payback for exposing Bush's lies about Iraq and uranium, may have been nothing more than a convenient two-fer with a great cover story, when the real goal was to take out CIA assets who were getting too close to something far more important.

    Sibel Edmonds' web site is http://www.justacitizen.com/ [justacitizen.com]>here.

    "I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers." - Daniel Ellsberg
  • by PPH (736903) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:02PM (#22129320)
    Its not like we haven't slipped a few nukes to some of our allies in the Middle East before.
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:17PM (#22129506) Homepage
    Won't someone at least hint at who those officials were, so that I can start making my ideological prejudgments on the credibility of the allegations?
  • by PMuse (320639) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:24PM (#22129606)
    They say: Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by incompetence.

    Which has this corollary when leveling accusations at slipper, duplicitous people: Before you accuse some one of an illegal cover-up, be sure that they can't simply say, "Oops, my bad".
  • "Steal" (Score:2, Informative)

    I'm confused. How can anyone steal something they already have? Shouldn't it be "leaked" nuclear secrets?
  • slashkos (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday January 21, 2008 @03:44PM (#22129804) Homepage Journal
    If only liberal Democrats cared about whether the government is stealing our own nuke secrets and selling them to threats like Pakistan and the Sauds, I'd certainly hope that (American) Slashdotters turned Slashdot into something like the Daily Kos [dailykos.com].

    What's "Democratic" about caring that your government is so corrupt that it threatens nuke war?
  • Perhaps the FBI should take a lesson from the EPA [slashdot.org]:
    1. Claim Executive Privilege.
    2. See Step 1.
  • and you'll find them.
  • Why the gag order? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pros_n_Cons (535669) on Monday January 21, 2008 @04:12PM (#22130082)
    I read about this the other day on fox so although you didn't see it on CNN other news sites apparently did.
    People on slashdot haven't mentioned yet the reason for the gag order apparently is cause they want to investigate the officials and see whats going on.
    I know its a good knee jerk reaction to yell conspiracy but if you caught a spy in your midst wouldn't you want to counter intel back instead of just firing him and posting the paperwork? This whistle blower might have blown an investigation for all we know.
    • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Monday January 21, 2008 @07:48PM (#22132244) Homepage
      No, you've got it entirely backward.

      Edmonds WAS the "investigation." She was translating documents that had been mis-translated before by FBI personnel who were apparently in the pay of those being investigated. When she brought this to the attention of her superiors, she was fired in retaliation. The FBI internal affairs investigation confirmed this.

      The "investigations" you are referring to were ongoing and were being sabotaged inside the FBI itself. The people involved even tried to recruit Edmonds to continue the sabotage, which she refused to do. Once she was fired and went outside the FBI to Congress, the DoJ gagged her.

      There is nothing here involving "national security". The gag order was intended to prevent her from revealing that, as she puts it, "senior elected US officials" are engaged in wholesale treason. She has provided information to several US Senators in a secure facility inside Congress. She testified before the 9/11 Commission - and her testimony was reduced to a footnote in the final report. She was promised by Henry Waxman that her case would be number one on his list when the Democrats came to power in January - since then, his office has refused her calls.

      The reality is that what she knows is so dangerous to the stability of the US government that I'm surprised she's still breathing - although of course if she ended up dead, that would be pretty much a problem for these people, too, especially as you can imagine she has some sort of "dead man" trigger set up so that the info gets revealed anyway.

      I, personally, think she SHOULD just dump it all on her Web site. In fact, after the Time Online article two weeks ago, she posted several pictures of certain officials on her Web site without comment. You are supposed to understand that these are the people involved.

      Without some sort of legal immunity, however, and given the Guantanamo situation, it obviously is a very great risk for her to just defy the ban without having enough public impact as a result that it would blunt any attempt to "disappear" her.
  • Kill the Messenger! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HongPong (226840) <hongpong@hon g p ong.com> on Monday January 21, 2008 @06:02PM (#22131190) Homepage
    Anyone on this thread should drop what they're doing and check out 'Kill the Messenger', a documentary produced for Canal+ Television by some French guys. They followed Sibel Edmonds around for a while and spelled out the basic scene here. Its an hour long on googlevideo:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283&q=kill+the+messenger&total=348&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 [google.com]

    Also i have a special section on my website dedicated to the subject, tho the page is pretty half assed: http://www.hongpong.com/sibel_edmonds_9_11_the_turkish_spy_scandal [hongpong.com]

    Essentially here is my understanding of what this weird scandal means:
    Sibel edmonds was hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11 to digest the backlog of foreign-language wiretaps run by the counter intelligence division. However Sibel also could listen to English-language conversations recorded on those lines. Within three months she heard extensive conspiracies involving the American Turkish Council, which were being actively covered up by Melek Can Dickerson, who was working alongside Sibel in the translation unit.

    However, there was also evidence that the FBI was tracking an international criminal network that includes the big name neocons (Feith and Perle among others) which was funnelling and covering for nuclear secrets pilfered from the national nuclear laboratories (ever notice their shitty security?) and routed to brokers in Pakistan, Turkey and Israel.

    Additionally the Turks were caught by the FBI wiretaps doing cash/secret handoffs from the ATC to the State Department. Once 9/11 occurred, it seems that then-State Dept official Marc Grossman was helping get foreign spies who had foreknowledge of 9/11 out of the United States, after the FBI had become very interested in talking to these guys. The wiretaps and intelligence fragments finger real people - and Kill the Messenger details how Sibel was momentarily a famous 9/11 whistleblower because of this. 60 Minutes ran a special with very heavily edited footage and has never released the raw footage of the interview. (yes in fact even the highly controversial Israeli art student 9/11 conspiracy theory appears to fit here)

    Finally, this criminal network was deeply opposed to the CIA's counter proliferation operations - attempting to block turkey and pakistan from getting more nuke bits. So therefore Scooter Libby fits in quite differently than widely known. He used to be a lawyer for billionaire israeli-american fugitive Marc Rich, the moneyman for arms trafficker Viktor Bout. These guys seem to roughly be part of this same network. There is apparently an FBI recorded conversation of Marc Grossman tipping off the Turks/and/or Pakis to Brewster Jennings' status as a covert front company. This was certainly treasonous!

    Also there is an important revolving door dimension: lobbyists, retired generals, military industrial complex. Turkey is able to convert laundered drug money into funding for the military industrial purchases - its something like 25% of GDP.

    this is all a great example of an orwellian cryptocracy getting tangled up in all the criminal evidence it observes. oops. kinda like the federal reserve logging all that drug money moving around.

    i realize all of this sounds quite bottom-of-the-barrel everything and the kitchen sink kind of super conspiracy. But hey, it does in fact have odd threads that go back to the weirdest events of the Bush administration - and before. Sorry. I'm offering this stuff in good faith: there is just too much material to ignore.

Byte your tongue.

Working...