What about Sibel Edmonds?

questioning Sibel's credibility. I don't understand where you get the impression that she's crazy. She has been gagged since 2002. I remember first reading about her in 2003 or 2004. Several FBI agents have vouched for her credibility. She has been inteviewed by a few Senators. Even Mueller said she was credible. So where does the "crazy" come into play?

The stuff about the lesbian blackmail is a little over-the-top.

Not impossible.

Just sounds unlikely.

I'm reserving judgment for now.

I didn't really have any idea who she was before but having read some of these articles, she is not a credible witness.

There is nothing verifiable in anything she says. No evidence supporting any of her claims. And offering to take a polygraph proves nothing. There is a reason polygraph tests are not admissible in court. They in no way demonstrate whether someone is actually telling the truth. So offering to do one does not enhance credibility at all.

It is interesting how many otherwise smart progressives believe ANYTHING that makes the Bush Administration look bad, and ignore the evidence or lack thereof.

There is no telling what a lot of these guys in Congress are doing personally. I don't care what Schakowsky does unless she was compromised and blackmailed. That would be different.

is just that. The only thing any of those people have found credible is her initial story about her co-worker. Over the years she's tacked one charge on top of another. I've always had my doubts about Edmonds and I still do.

Which is a red flag in itself for skeptics (e.g., the poster you replied to), since many hoaxes assume this basic form: yes I have a car that gets 50000 mpg, runs on Mr. Fusion and zero point energy beams; no you can't see it. Now that Edmonds showed her hand:

Easy enough to check out, right? Btw:

"I believe her. All of it.
Mainly because she has the right people named when it comes to criminal activity and TREASON: Doug Feith and Richard Perle. Especially Perle. Wherever he goes he leaves a slime trail. He'd sell his mother for a dollar.

And Doug Feith manufactured phony - pro Israeli "intelligence". He got so blatant in trying to get us to attack Iraq to protect Israel from Saddam, Condi finally cut him out of national security meetings.

If Holder really wants to 'get' Bush Admin people, he should start with Doug Feith and Richard Perle. Both those maggots should be sitting in prison."


Now, since Jan Schakowsky just happens to be Chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, doesn't the context that the above people haven't really been thoroughly investigated mean something?

and the more I read, the less sold I am.

As far as I can tell, the Senators, the IG and others have only found credible Edmonds claims about mismanagement of her department and some misconduct by some co-workers. I have not seen any evidence that these supporters are signing on to her claims about treason by officials at the highest level of our government.

In short, simply because her claims that her department in the FBI was being mismanaged and that some of her co-workers may have been guilty of misconduct DOES NOT prove that ALL of her subsequent and additional claims are true by a long shot.

I will add that I am a bit skeptical that Edmonds could have gleaned so much information as a translator in just SIX months on the job as well as being the target for recruitment into the very spy network she was reading about in the documents she was reading at the FBI.

Also, why did she wait until 2004 to offer that the FBI had been given DETAILED information about Osama Bin Laden's attack on 9/11. She had made claims prior to that date. Why did she wait to drop that bombshell?

Why did she wait until recently to offer that the documents she was reading at the FBI implicated Rep. Shakowski of being involved with a female Turkish agent? Why didn't she offer this in 2004 when she dropped the OSama bombshell?

I guess someone doesn't like free speech. The unrec's are unbelievable. I had 3 recs and by the time I wrote a response there were 2....

little or no credible evidence.

I wish I could sponsor a poll of corporate media heads to see how many of them could even identify Sibel Edmonds.

I suppose all the indpendent media who are covering this aren't on your list.

By the way, your brainless attack poster in oversize format totally marks you as a major genius and wins the day! As all good Rovians know, it's all about talking points and repetition!

Kinda like Orly Taitz.

... I'll wait :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think I'll shift my focus away from these light headed readers of Cliff Notes!

One opinion that matters is not to question the legitimacy of the National Security State.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but if sibel's story is true, that is all that would happen if it came out. it is just nuts to think that anyone could blackmail her with that stuff.
obviously, i do not know what goes on between her and her (second) husband. but she is too forthright a person to not be on the up and up with him if she was bi. she has stood by him through some difficult and embarrassing stuff, including his stint in prison. and her constituents would be thrilled to death.
plus she had factual errors in her story.

so, i think there might be some people out there that could be in a spot with something like this, but jan is for sure not one of them. period. seems nuts to me that she would even do it in the first place. but blackmailed? just can't think of a politician less likely to get trapped in something like this.

her story is just not credible. and the fact that this is the first thing that comes out after all this time- weekly world news territory.

Ms. Edmonds, having hewed to strict ethical standards, went far off the track with this decision.

Why wasn't this an issue here back when she was naming Grossman, Perle, Feith, Scowcroft, et al.?

although I've always had a fair amount of skepticism about her claims and the hooplah around her. Everytime I ventured to say that I wasn't sold, I was jumped on. In any case, Feith, Perle, etc, aren't people I ever felt I needed or should defend. And Sibel dear saved her most inflammatory crap for a progressive dem who's widely thought of as a very straight shooter. sibel slimed her with no fucking evidence. it's reprehensible.

You say:

"and the fact that this is the first thing that comes out after all this time- weekly world news territory."

In fact, "this" (Schakowsky) is pretty much the LAST thing that has come out after all this time. If you'd followed this story at any point, you'd know that. You'd know that she started violating the gag orders and telling the outlines of her whole story to the foreign press last year. You'd know that in laying out allegations against two dozen former officials, she kept one part of the story vague and anonymous for more than a year: the part relating to Schakowsky.

So, basically, you are telling us you knew nothing about the Edmonds case, despite its seven-year history and heavy coverage at DU, until the revelation of the last part, about Schakowsky.

I've run into a few brick walls on the issue with some congressional staffs but I think at some point, it could change. The fact the DOJ and the FBI did not stop the deposition in the Schmidt v Krikorian case means the door is now ajar.

This must be the first time in around 8 years they have stopped taking her seriously.

People here want it to be a story for their own reasons, but it isn't.

2002? Or perhaps yesterday?

Parts of Edmonds's story -- which mainly consists in repeating items she claims to have read in FBI files while working there -- have been corroborated in the past by Sen. Leahy and the Justice Department IG report that acknowledged her firing was unjust.

Long as it was about the Turkish lobby, AIPAC, Hastert, Perle, Feith and Grossman, many people here didn't even notice.

??

And further, don't most people with real stories write books or have someone ghost write them? She's been trying to get her story out for years. I can't believe nobody anywhere is interested. Unless, that is, she doesn't have a credible story.

Is it possible that have you been at DU since 2005 and only heard about Sibel Edmonds now? Also, have you read her deposition in the Krikorian/Schmidt case?


You want some obvious tips, if you really care? There are several informative DU threads on this issue, right now. Search the Web for "Leahy AND Edmonds." The NY Times reported on the DoJ report.


She's been under gag order for seven years. She has spoken to closed hearings of the Congress. She has been silenced by a long series of court decisions in which the Justice Department invoked the previously dormant "state secrets" doctrine. Only recently did she decide to challenge that by violating the orders. In doing so she is putting herself directly at risk of prosecution and imprisonment.


Her statements to Leahy were RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED. Did you ever hear of such a thing? She is the poster child for Orwellian policy.


The ACLU has filed repeatedly on her behalf:



from the aclu website
www.aclu.org...

SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.

FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.

FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.

MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.

JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.

JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.

JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.

AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.

FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.

((NOTE: This resulted in NO treatment of her allegations in the report.))

MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.

JUNE 2004: The Project On Government Oversight files suit against the Justice Department and Attorney General Ashcroft, saying the retroactive classification violates the organization's First Amendment rights.

JULY 2004: A Justice Department investigation into Edmonds' dismissal is completed but is entirely classified. The report finds that Edmonds' allegations of corruption within the FBI ""were at least a contributing factor" in her dismissal.

JULY 2004: Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses Edmonds' lawsuit, relying on the government's states secrets privilege.

JANUARY 2005: ACLU files brief urging the D.C. Court of Appeals to reinstate the Edmonds' case, saying that the government is abusing the ""state secrets privilege"" to silence employees who expose national security blunders. Oral argument is scheduled for April 21, 2005.

JANUARY 2005: The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General releases an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds' termination. The report concludes that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported.

If it were, we'd all be literally walking about with tinfoil on our heads and God knows what else.

Burden's on Edmonds.

And by the way, if her credible, corroborated claims are just that there were some bureaucratic irregularities, big deal. :eyes:

Edmonds has been very specific about where the corroboration of her claims lies.

When the government responds with seven years of gag orders and RETROACTIVE CLASSIFICATION of already published statements, the burden shifts to them to stop suppressing the story and acting like an Orwellian caricature.

And also to people like you, to stop dismissing it with irresponsible, dumbed-down talking points.

I shall lay down money that you have not, as of the moment you read these words, read Edmonds's deposition, or glanced at it, at best; and that you had no concern about this story back when it was almost all about Republicans subverting the law and committing treason.

of what she is claiming, to spend time reading some dull deposition. And I guarantee you this is what news media producers think.

It's a dull story about from a disgruntled ex-employee complaining of bureaucratic irregularities. Nothing more. But we'll have 12 more threads about why she is being gagged next week, and the week after that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Carry on. :hi:

It was not until an open letter written by Edmonds in April of '04 that she made the bombshell claim that the FBI possessed DETAILED information about the 9/11 attacks masterminded by Bin Laden.

Why did she wait so long to make that claim?

In addition, the FBI has only acknowledged Edmonds claims in regard to the mismanagement of her department and misconduct by some other translators. That is all.

Senators Leahy and Grassley specifically asked that investigations take place to explore her claims of mismanagement of her department at the FBI. Nowhere has either Senator offered support of Edmonds claims about 9/11, treason or the selling of state secrets by highly placed government officials. It is not accurate to claim that simply because her story about mismanagemnt of her department and employee misconduct has been proven true that the restof her allegations are true. Not by a long shot!

has it on his blog. he has been after jan for a long time. it will become an issue. it will just take a little time.

When it was just Republicans she was making up shit about, the freepers were silent.

When are we going stop devoting so much time and effort to this kook? She's like the liberal Orly Taitz...

The outrage being manufactured by fellow kook Malloy is growing tiresome.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ray McGovern thinks so, too.

needs some help, DU is starting to look like a good place for them to look.

Don't they gag you for talking about classified stuff that they don't want the general public to know about? Or is Sibel breaking new ground?

n/t