Sibel Edmonds and the Cowardly USDOJ (090518)

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: sedm...@nswbc.org, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov,
brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com,
jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org,
thomas...@usdoj.gov, thoma...@po.state.ct.us,
kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, rrmcg...@aol.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org

Subject: Sibel Edmonds and the Cowardly USDOJ

Date: May 18, 2009 10:25 PM

BLOGCHARGE, BELOW
===============================

NYTimes' Holc Noble had the Lyme crymes
story in around May 2000 or 2001 from
the Lyme Disease Foundation (www.lyme.org)
but the Times refused to publish it. Holc
quit but was paid off to keep his mouth
shut. I think he lives in Kent, Corrupticut
near Heiney Killinger.

Now, we know the Rockefeller Institute was
involved in sponsoring bioweaponeering along
with Plum Stupid Island and Yale, and their
scientists shuffled back and forth in the 1950s
and 1960s (OSS--> CIA):
http://www.actionlyme.org/KISSINGER_NAZI_PAPERCLIP.htm

[I have no way to confirm that Heiney was a
German translator for the likes of the Dulles-Bush
Paperclipping Crew. But we know for *sure* the
Rockys were interested in Racial Purity for the
sake of not having to pay for the social services
to the disabled and the under-abled:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRITISH_PSYCHIATRY.htm ]


Here the Rockys disclose the truth about
Lyme or Relapsing Fever:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ROCKEFELLER_UNIVERSITY.htm
1) "The ability of the borrelia, especially tick-borne strains to
persist in the brain and in the eye after treatment with arsenic or
with penicillin or even after apparent cure is well known (1). The
persistence of treponemes after treatment of syphilis is a major area
which currently requires additional study (3,5,10,11)." -Jay
Sanford, US Military Hospital, Bethesda


It's an accidental release of information,
as I call it.


The problem is the no-dick USDOJ and FBI, as
Sibel points out, putting the pressure on the
MSM to HALT!! on running the truth. Too bad
there's no kinda moral Viagra we could dump in
their vanilla lattes.


Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
========================================
http://www.123realchange.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 18, 2009
Dissecting the Mainstream Media
Part 2- Pressure Points

‘Pressure’ is one of those buzzwords you hear in almost all
discussions involving the mainstream media and related topics:
Government Pressure, Corporate Pressure, Special Interest & Lobby
Pressure, Management Pressure, Colleagues Pressure…It’s always
pressure - whether its pressure placed directly on the reporter,
editor, or on the board and or ownership…So how does it work? How much
pressure? What methods are used? Of course, the answer largely depends
on ‘who’ the pressure comes from (government or corporate or …), ‘who’
is the target of the pressure (is it the source, the reporter, etc.).
For this post I am going to focus on what’s referred to as ‘government
pressure,’ provide you with my take by providing context and case
examples, and then let you bring in yours.

Just to make sure you understand - I don’t claim to be an expert, nor
do I pretend to have all the right answers. I am drawing upon eight
years of direct first hand experience in dealing with the media on my
case, four years of interaction with the MSM on and with our
organization and our National Security Whistleblowers, and years of
association and friendship with many journalists, authors, attorneys
and experts active in the area of national security and civil
liberties. I am still seeking answers and looking for solutions…


Flexing Muscles

Many cases of the government resorting to intimidation and harassment
to prevent a story from coming out go unreported. I suppose this
proves the effectiveness of this method. The flexing muscles method
ranges from subtle threats to overt harassment. Many of these cases go
unreported simply because the ‘pressure’ takes care of the ‘problem,’
and the ‘pressured’ party, either due to the shame of giving in or the
fear of ‘further pressure,’ goes mum into their grave.

Here is a case where government agents’ muscle flexing through overt
harassment did not go unreported because the target happened to be an
investigative journalist with a proven track record and integrity; a
rare breed, indeed:

Bill Conroy is an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal and a
contributing journalist for Narco News and an author. The Reports
Committee for Freedom of the Press was one of very few outlets to
report the story of the government’s harassment and intimidation,
targeting Conroy for his reporting of a leaked memo regarding the
centralized database for tracking terrorists.

“A leaked memo from the investigative arm of the Department of
Homeland Security sparked its officials to interview a writer last
month in an attempt to discover his source for an article on the
online news service Narco News.”

You can read the story and the leaked memo in question here. The memo
divulged that DHS supervisory agents in the field were directed to
alter terrorism related files without preserving their original
versions. This is equivalent to shredding during the pre-computer era.
Rather important, right? The government then sent some agents who
apparently were instructed to teach Conroy a lesson or two:

“Two agents came to his home and spoke to his wife while Conroy was at
work, and appeared at his office the next day. Conroy, an editor at
the San Antonio Business Journal, contributes to Narco News. The
agents spoke to Conroy as well as his boss at the Journal in an
apparent attempt to intimidate him into revealing his source, said Ron
Tonkin, Conroy's attorney.”

So they send a couple of tough looking agents with a mission to
intimidate and harass. Send the agents to the target reporter’s office
and have them treat him as a ‘criminal suspect,’ and make sure his
colleagues and boss are around to watch… Send them to his house, make
sure the neighbors see the agents knock on his door and flash their
badges, and instruct them to intimidate the spouse and or the
children. You might be surprised to learn how many ‘targeted
reporters’ actually do get ‘pressured’ out of reporting in cases like
this; how many divulge sources; and how many pledge not to ever enter
the ‘no no zone’ again. Bill Conroy didn’t, but Conroy is among a tiny
group…

“Bill Conroy did not divulge the source of the leak in his article and
refused to when agents visited his home and workplace on May 23 and
24, respectively, asking for his sources in the department.”

And guess what? In the end, they couldn’t do anything to him.
Shouldn’t this be a lesson to reporters who follow a different path?

“Although the agents reportedly mentioned speaking to the U.S.
attorney, implying they might obtain a subpoena for the information,
no such order has been issued. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Johnny
Sutton of the western district of Texas declined comment. Calls to the
Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Professional
Responsibility were not returned.”

Intimidation can also come in the form of a legal bluff. This approach
seems to be gaining popularity since the September 11 attacks. The
government can, and has been, using ‘National Security’ to declare
many embarrassing or incriminating stories ‘classified.’ This allows
them to flash their ‘we’ll take you to court’ card, and wait to see
whether the target publication or reporter decides to ‘hold or fold or
walk away.’

Let’s look at New York Times reporter James Risen’s case:

“A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to a reporter of The New
York Times, apparently to try to force him to reveal his confidential
sources for a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the
reporter’s lawyers said Thursday.”

The same article emphasized that this trend is not isolated:

“Mr. Risen, who is based in Washington and specializes in intelligence
issues, is the latest of several reporters to face subpoenas in leak
investigations overseen by the Justice Department.”

How many reporters can afford the hefty legal fees to fight a case
like this in court, when the government has at its disposal unlimited
resources in dollars, legal maneuvering expertise, and manpower? Not
many, I can assure you. Lucky lucky Risen! As for publications, also
not many who’ll be willing. And unfortunately, not many reporters can
easily secure pro-bono representation by a civil liberties
organization with enough muscle to challenge the government. Thus many
at an early stage, when ‘pressured’ by threats of legal action, give
in and abandon a story yet to be written. Then add to this the
recently revealed NSA targeting of journalists and you get the kind of
pressure that may even eliminate the need for legal threats. Just the
knowledge of being monitored is enough ‘pressure’ to dissuade many
editors and reporters from pursuing‘radioactive’ cases in the first
place.

The same government intimidation and threat tactics are also applied
to ‘sources.’ Here is a brief account of my own experience:

In 2002, a few days before the airing of the CBS-60 Minutes segment on
my case, my attorneys received a letter by fax from the Justice
Department attorneys. The letter was to let us know that I would be
pursued legally and severely if I went through with this interview.
They strongly claimed that any information I was to disclose was being
considered ‘classified.’ Of course, my attorneys knew better, and we
didn’t bulge. And low and behold no ‘action’ ever came from the
government following the airing of the segment. It was bluff, threat
and intimidation; just that.

Not only did the government try to stop my appearance on the program,
they took similar action with another FBI whistleblower, John Roberts,
who also was interviewed for that same segment.


Source Pressures

Everyone knows ‘high-level government sources’ to reporters on
politics and intelligence related matters is what the rolodex is in
business. The net-worth, the value, of these reporters is frequently
judged based on their ‘access.’ Sure; it makes sense. First, a
reporter tries to make his/her way up the chain and establish the
‘relationship and trust’ necessary for this access. Next, and equally
important, is to ‘maintain’ this relationship. This too makes sense,
and is part of the job. Now, the question is, at what price? What are
the things a reporter is willing to do, how far is he/she willing to
go to ‘maintain’ his or her access?

Successful experienced journalists with a solid sense of ethics and
integrity are good at ‘balancing’ when it comes to ‘source
maintenance.’ This appears to be one of those disappearing qualities
within the mainstream media. When the publication, the editors, lean
towards, sorry, bend over, the government’s angle on stories, the
reporters follow by compromising ‘a lot’ to keep and maintain their
news/information ‘feeders’ within the government agencies.

I am going to provide you with another first-hand witnessed and
documented incident. The only reason I am not naming ‘the well-known
reporter & publication’ is to protect the source who obtained and
passed on the incriminating documented evidence - the communication
that occurred in writing between him and this particular ‘reporter.’

The individual who dealt with the congressional and press side of my
case during the early stages of my whistleblowing journey wrote an e-
mail to a well-known and well-placed journalist, saying, ‘Man, I can’t
believe you guys did not cover this!!! Ashcroft comes out and invokes
the State Secrets Privilege, first time ever asserted by the Bush
administration, and you don’t write about it?! What the hell, man?!
What’s the deal? I sent you the press release and attached a bunch of
documents on that e-mail…’

Here is the response from that well-known journalist, and stupidly
enough in writing: ‘I was going to call you. A few months ago I
finally got this big DOJ guy, I mean BIG! Our deal-exclusive. You
can’t do better than that in Washington. Anyhow, he doesn’t want us to
touch Edmonds’ story. Period. I am not going to piss off my source for
some God Damn translator whistleblower…’

The reporter’s refusal to cover the story was irrational - the State
Secrets Privilege invocation was first released through an official
DOJ press release and other major publications ran with the news. So
what does this tell you? To maintain high-level government sources
well-known reporters cut deals like this: You be my man, and I and
what I cover will be yours. Unfortunately, through several reporter
friends I was given many more examples and was told ‘that’s the name
of the game when it comes to covering politics and government in this
city.’


Soft Pressures

I touched on this type of pressure in the previous piece and in my
last op-ed, and the recent revelations on Harman-New York Times
provides both the context and case example. The fact that the NSA, DOJ
and whatever other agency can softly ask the editors and management of
the New York Times to sit on a major story involving criminal
government action against it’s own people for over a year, and the
request be complied with. The fact that a Congresswoman has enough
‘ins and pull’ to dial the decision-makers’ number at the New York
Times and ask them ‘as a favor’ to not publish a story. The fact that
a LA Times editor dutifully reports to NSA its source’s disclosure on
wiretapping and the AT&T, takes his marching orders, comes back, and
kills the story.

You see what I mean? There are many, many ‘soft pressure’ cases out
there.

As with the various theories on the factors contributing to MSM
degradation, the pressure styles can also be applied in combination.
While the Justice Department attorneys are ‘flexing muscles’ by
threatening the information source with legal action, their Attorney
General or Deputy or whomever can be making his ‘soft’ call to
dissuade the editor from moving forward with the story, and their
Special Agent in Charge of whatever department may be summoning his
‘pet reporter’ to ban him from working on this same target story.

"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci