Who Wants To Gag Sibel Edmonds, And Why? (With Answers)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/9/72948/02959

Luke Ryland
5/9/2007

I was explaining the Sibel Edmonds' case to a friend, and she asked a good question:

"Do we have a good sense about why the FBI didn't want to pursue this investigation?"

The short answer is "Yeah, mostly" - I'll lay out what we know, and then we'll discuss some possible complications/wrinkles to the narrative.

Sibel has repeatedly emphasized that much of what she learnt was the result of FBI Counter-Intelligence (CI) programs - and a large component of CI is simply monitoring places like embassies, and groups like AIPAC and the American Turkish Council (ATC).

We know that CI was conducting ongoing monitoring of these groups, and by all accounts it would be a breach of duty not to do so - that's why there's such a body of documented evidence in Sibel's case. We know that embassies are 'protected' space (legally, I don't think they are actually on "US soil" - or some similar concoction) - and any nefarious activity that is uncovered there can't be acted on - however, once the activity extends beyond an embassy, then it falls within the purview of the FBI. Vanity Fair reported that there were many phone calls discussing illegal activity between the Turkish Embassy and the (non-'protected') ATC which ought to mean that the case becomes actionable.

When CI discovers such illegal activity, they are supposed to hand the case over to the relevant division at the FBI - e.g. Counterterrorism (CT), narcotics, criminal etc. As Sibel repeatedly states, in her case(s) this never happened. (Remember that Sibel's cases include drug-running, terrorism, public corruption, nuclear black market & illegal arms trafficking.)

For example, in Sibel's Hijacking of a Nation, Part 2, she writes:

"For years and years, information and evidence being collected by the counterintelligence operations of certain U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been prevented from being transferred to criminal and narcotics divisions, and from being shared with the Drug Enforcement Agency and others with prosecutorial power."

(as an aside, it's interesting here that Sibel is saying that the problem extends beyond the FBI, she is apparently saying that CI investigations by the CIA are buried in the same manner. We know that the CIA's cover company, Brewster Jennings, was also investigating the ATC.)

In Sibel's open letter to Thomas Kean and the 911 Commission, she also notes that even when CI uncovers relevant information pertaining to terrorism, say the 911 attacks, that information isn't handed over to the counterterrorism branch at the FBI. As I understand it, CI had relevant information pertaining to 911, and they didn't hand it over to CT, even after the attacks.

Why didn't counterintelligence hand these cases to the relevant bodies?
In Sibel's letter to the 911 Commission, she writes:

"If counterintelligence receives information about terrorism that implicates certain nations, semi-legit organizations or the politically powerful in this country, then that information is not shared with counterterrorism, regardless of the consequences."

In other words, CI (under pressure) is protecting:
  • Certain nations - Turkey, and probably Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some of the 'Stans.
  • Semi-legit organizations - the American Turkish Council, Assembly of Turkish American Associations (and others), and probably AIPAC.
  • Politically powerful - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eric Edelman, Marc Grossman and Dennis Hastert - and probably Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz and others.

Who is pressuring CI to not move on the cases?
In Sibel's letter to the 911 Commission, she writes "In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents have cited "direct pressure by the State Department."" In an interview with Chris Deliso, Sibel states "The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies."

Not only was the State Department ensuring that none of these cases were acted on, they were also in charge of shutting down all aspects of Sibel's case, with guidance from the Pentagon. As ex-CIA agent Phil Giraldi notes in Kill The Messenger, the recent movie about Sibel's case:

The 'State Secret Privilege' was invoked not by the FBI but by the Pentagon and the State Department!

Apparently the State Department can dictate to the Dept of Justice, as well as the FBI, as Sibel relates in Gagged But Not Dead:

The attorney general cites two reasons to justify the unconstitutional, panic-driven assault on me. Reason one: to protect certain diplomatic relations – not named since our officials are obviously ashamed to admit to these relations. Reason two: to protect certain U.S. business interests.

Let's take each one and dissect it (I have given up on our mass media to do that for us!). Since when is the Department of Justice in the business of protecting U.S. diplomatic relations? They appear to be acting as a mouthpiece for the State Department. Now that's one entity that has strong reasons to cover up what will end up being considered a mammoth blunder. It is the American people and their outrage they must be worried about; they wouldn't want to have a few of their top officials held criminally liable; would they?

As for reason two, I can assure you that the U.S. foreign business relations they may be referring to are not among those that benefit the majority of the American people. But the American people's security and best interests are being sacrificed for a handful of military-industrial entities and their lobbying arms. And since when are nuclear black market activities considered legitimate business, one may wonder?

In other words, for those of you who might think that the State Dept might have legitimate reasons for burying investigations in order to maintain diplomatic relations, that's not what is going on here.

End Part I