@@ Cracking the Case: Interview With Sibel Deniz Edmonds @@
Arash
August 22, 2005
Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Deniz Edmonds
SCOTT HORTON: Perhaps your case is tied in with the AIPAC spy scandal?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Absolutely. And I cannot go into any details. … But even the
AIPAC spy scandal, as far as I'm reading today, is just touching the surface of it.
It's going only to a certain degree. It doesn't go high enough, in what it involves
and how far it goes, and that's as far, and the best – as far as I can explain".
The following is the transcript of my August 13th interview
(http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=124) with the courageous
FBI linguist/whistleblower Sibel Deniz Edmonds.
What connection does Sibel Edmonds' story have to the prosecution of
(http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/4942.stm) Larry Franklin, Steven Rosen, and Keith
Weissman of the Pentagon/AIPAC spy scandal? And for that matter, to the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001?
The answer has something to do with international drug, weapon, and money-laundering
rings, and their ties to terrorists and unnamed officials of the Departments of State
and Defense. This mess also goes back to at least "1997".
Sibel Edmonds says that when the truth comes out, it will make the AIPAC case look
"lame" by comparison.
Who are the State Department officials "1" and "2" and the Defense Department
officials "1" and "2" referred to in the AIPAC indictments [1]
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/ArchivePress/JunePDFArchive/05/20050613franklinI.pdf
and [2] http://www.antiwar.com/rep2/FranklinSupersedingIndictment.pdf ?
Are they the same unnamed officials in the new Vanity Fair
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm) piece about Edmonds?
Are these the same neocons who hired Ahmed Chalabi, lied us into war with Iraq, drew
up the occupation plans, and leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press?
Is the quashed federal investigation out of Chicago into corruption on the part of
high-level members of both parties, referred to in the article as "the reason" Sibel
was gagged by John Ashcroft, related to the investigation of terrorist financing by
former agent Robert Wright? http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_2469.shtml
What does Patrick "Bulldog" Fitzgerald know about it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1_4.html
Which countries involved in the international heroin market are the subject of such
"sensitive diplomatic relations" that their involvement in 9/11 should not be known
to the people of the United States? Uzbekistan? Tajikistan? Kyrgyzstan? Pakistan?
Kosovo?
The recent stories about the Army's "Able Danger" program having identified Mohammed
Atta as the leader of a terrorist cell in New York a year before 9/11, coupled with
Sibel Edmonds' statements in her own case and her reference to 25 other sworn and
proven instances of precise knowledge of an impending attack that were omitted from
the 9/11 commission report, ought to be enough to reopen the 9/11 case entirely.
http://news.google.com/news?q=Able%20Danger&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-22,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=wn
All of the congressmen and senators who have heard her story, and Glenn Fine, the
head of the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, agree: Sibel Deniz
Edmonds is telling the truth – not that they'll do anything about it.
http://justacitizen.com/JustaCitizen-OIG_Report.htm
Forget the cops, they're the criminals. The case has been filed with the Supreme
Court, but we can't count on them
(http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/1340214). It's time to call our
congressmen and demand public hearings into these questions immediately. Or are they
in on it too? http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=3729319&nav=1sW7dOiz
Sibel Edmonds has not given up, but she needs your help. Raise hell with Congress
(http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir) and sign
her petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/deniz18/petition.html).
Listen to the most recent interview
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=124
Read the recent Vanity Fair article "An Inconvenient Patriot".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm
Check out Sibel Edmonds' Web site: http://justacitizen.com
Read her Antiwar.com archives here http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds
Find my previous interview of her here
http://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=62
See Christopher Deliso's excellent interviews of her here
(http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P2286_0_1_0), here
(http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917) and here
(http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=6934).
Transcript
SCOTT HORTON: Welcome back to the Weekend Interview Show, Sibel
(http://weekendinterviewshow.com).
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Thank you, Scott. Thank you for inviting me back on your show.
SCOTT HORTON: It's very nice to talk with you again. It's kind of fun to question
around the state-secrets privilege.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Yeah, we'll try to have fun with that part.
SCOTT HORTON: Tell us, first of all, we know you were a contract linguist for the
FBI, which languages were you a specialist in?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: First of all, let me tell you that according to the Department
of Justice, all the languages that I speak are considered "top secret classified" in
the state secrets case, which is ridiculous. That means that even my resume is
considered a top secret document. You can go and find it at all the Web sites that
cite my languages. I speak Turkish, Farsi, this is the language spoken in Iran – the
Persian language, and Azerbaijani.
SCOTT HORTON: For what length of time did you work for the FBI?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: I worked for the bureau for a little bit longer than six
months – six and a half months.
SCOTT HORTON: And that was from pretty much right after Sept. 11th, through…
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Three days after September 11th until March 22nd, 2002.
SCOTT HORTON: We know already there were problems with some of your colleagues in the
translation department which we will discuss in more detail later. Now the big story,
why I brought you back on the show, is that finally a reporter has come from across
the ocean to dig into this story. And it seems he's unearthed quite a bit from others
in government who have had a chance to hear your whole story behind closed doors.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: I'm so glad you pointed out the fact that David Rose came from
England and spent four or five months on this story, while for three – three and a
half years nobody here, at least from the main press, has bothered to do so. And
David worked diligently on this story and interviewed many officials in the FBI and
from the Congress and basically put out this 11 page story. I'm very thankful to
David and to Vanity Fair to a degree.
SCOTT HORTON: It seems from this article that the reason he was so successful in
being able to dig up all these the facts is that from the very beginning you have
gone through all the proper channels, you told your story to all the people who
should have had it told to them. So basically what David Rose did was follow you
around and got anonymous leaks from the people you have been allowed to tell your
story to in secret, right?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: See, this is why I love interviews with you Scott because you
are right on the facts. Great. You are absolutely correct, because I testified
several times before various representatives and senators in the summer of 2002, and
gave them my testimony and as you know, two senators, Grassley and Senator Leahy.
They came out three years ago, publicly they said the FBI, during their meetings with
the Senate confirmed all my allegations and denied none – and in fact Senator
Grassley said "she is very credible" because even the FBI management have
corroborated all her stories and all her reports. And he pointed out that he was
going to turn the department upside down and get to the bottom of this issue and
here, three years later nobody has even touched it.
I have several gag orders. In fact, based on the research that my attorneys, the
ACLU, has conducted, I am the most gagged person in United States history, believe me
or not – someone who worked for six months as a language specialist at the FBI. As
you know, they gagged the Congress in May 2004. The Department of Justice issued a
gag order, and ordered the senators to pull off everything from their Web sites, and
not to comment on anything that has to do with my case. The inspector general's
report was gagged and completely classified. They issued the state-secrets privilege
for the second time when the 9/11 family members attorneys subpoenaed my deposition,
they came out and invoked this gag order. So there has been so many gag orders, and
some of it so ridiculous that basically they are gagging even my existence. And as
you pointed out, I've provided this information to the Congress, to the 9/11
commission – all tape-recorded – to the inspector general's office, and the
Department of Justice. If today you were to call the Congress and ask them, they
would say it's under investigation; well it's been for three and a half years. How
can it be under investigation for three and a half years, with all these gag orders,
and we have not gotten to the bottom of this thing, and these criminals have not
faced prosecution in this country?
SCOTT HORTON: What sort of criminal investigation should we expect from the FBI on
this matter when they are the ones to be investigated?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: That's exactly the problem. If you're in some company or in
other places and you come across these criminal activities, who would you report it
to? You would report it to the Department of Justice and the FBI. But what happens
when you come across these criminal activities – and find out through the Department
of Justice and the FBI and the fact they are blocking it from being investigated,
then who do you go to? I have been asking this question, and that's why I started
this court case three years ago (which is being gagged and stopped – they are
fighting it ferociously) is so that maybe through the court system, we can subpoena
witnesses and bring out these documents so I can give them to the American public and
say "here are these documents."
SCOTT HORTON: You have three branches of government to choose from. Obviously, your
problem is with the executive branch in the first place. Now, you say that Congress
has promised they would come to bat for you – Senators Grassley and Leahy – and they
never did, all you have left is the courts. Have you had any success with the courts
at all?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: No. To this day, they are not even allowing us any hearings.
They go in private, and have these private, secret conferences with the judges, and
then the judges come out and say, "OK, you cannot have any hearing." So, we filed
with the Supreme Court last week, and by mid-October we will know whether or not the
Supreme Court is going to accept the case, and question the legality of these gag
orders. It's unconstitutional for the government to come and say, "we don't even have
to present you with any reasons why we are issuing gag orders because the reasons
themselves are classified." This is so Kafkaesque, Scott.
SCOTT HORTON: It's interesting that the state-secrets privilege actually doesn't
exist. There's no law that has ever been passed by Congress that even says such a
thing. Wasn't it the Supreme Court that made up the state-secrets privilege in the
first place?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Yes, it's based on common law, and in fact, most judges don't
even know how it is applied, and therefore that is another challenge we are bringing
about: for the Supreme Court to look into this and say this is time for us to clarify
just what the hell is this state-secrets privilege. If you were to go ask many
attorneys in this country, they would tell you that, "Hey, I didn't know that the
United States had any official secrets act," and they act surprised because even most
attorneys don't know that we have this arcane draconian common law that is being
exercised to gag people and rid them of their First Amendment rights.
SCOTT HORTON: Sibel, let's see if we can figure out why they [the government] are
going to such lengths to keep you quiet. Can you tell me, what is the American
Turkish Council – let me rephrase that, can you tell me what the American Turkish
Council is?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Well sure, it's on the Web site. They are this lobbying
organization for Turkish business and relationship between U.S. and Turkey. It's
exactly like AIPAC
SCOTT HORTON: Oh good, exactly like AIPAC !
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Exactly. In fact, they have so many crossovers, if you look at
their members you will see many that are members of both organizations. And if you
look at the people who are in the management and are in charge of these lobbying
groups, you come across the same names, which is very interesting.
SCOTT HORTON: That is very interesting. In fact, my next guest after you will be Bob
Dreyfuss about the AIPAC spy scandal and something that occurred to me last night as
I read the Vanity Fair piece An Inconvenient Patriot about you, was that some of the
things I read about in there, and we'll try to get to some of this a little bit
later, were about "unnamed Department of State and Department of Defense employees,"
which made me wonder whether perhaps your case is tied in with the AIPAC spy scandal
case in any way.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Absolutely. And I cannot go into any details – and maybe some
other investigative journalist from across the ocean will come here and do the rest
of this article – as article part two. But even the AIPAC spy scandal, as far as I'm
reading today, is just touching the surface of it. It's going only to a certain
degree. It doesn't go high enough, in what it involves and how far it goes, and
that's as far, and the best – as far as I can explain.
SCOTT HORTON: Thank you very much for that, and we'll see what we can make of it. Can
I ask you how you first learned of the American Turkish Council?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Oh, no, you can't.
SCOTT HORTON: That's classified. Well, according to this article, which is written
everybody by David Rose, it's in the current issue of Vanity Fair magazine. It's
called "An Inconvenient Patriot". And I'm going to go ahead, because the
states-secrets privilege has not been invoked against me so far – I don't think.
David Rose says in this article – he basically talked to the congressional staffers
who have debriefed you. And what they say, is while you were translating intercepts
for the FBI you overheard American Turkish Council employees discussing criminal
activity among both Republicans and Democrats, and even including the Speaker of the
House of Representatives Dennis Hastert. Can you cough or sneeze or blink twice or
anything for me?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: All I can tell you is that the sources that David Rose
interviewed – they were the people that were present during the investigation of the
Congress and their meetings with the FBI, so I am sure that it was not based on
hearsay that they made these comments. I am sure that they based it on the wiretap
recordings they heard and the documents. So they didn't just come and say this is
what it was without having all those documents and files from the FBI to go over, and
I guess their statements were based on the evidence that was presented to them both
by the inspector general's office – Glenn Fine briefed the Congress – because as you
know the IG report was classified, but they briefed the Congress. So I guess they
relied on the documents from the inspector general's office and the FBI to make those
statements. I guess that was the case.
SCOTT HORTON: So this just doesn't come from you but from the official investigations
of your accusations as well?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: That's what I would assume because if these are Congressional
sources who were in these investigations, and also David Rose spoke with certain FBI
officials who were part of these files and case investigations within the FBI – they
would not make comments on what they think it is but they would provide facts, that
is my assumption. Otherwise, Vanity Fair would not print it.
SCOTT HORTON: The article quotes one unnamed official as saying, "This is the reason
why Ashcroft reacted to Sibel in such an extreme fashion. It was to keep this from
coming out".
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Uh, when you say "this," I don't know. If you go to my CBS 60
Minutes transcript of October 2002 – even though they chose to broadcast mostly the
administrative problems and issues – I had one statement there that said that this
involved people, officials, well-recognized names in the Department of State,
Department of Defense, and certain elected officials. So I believe the source is also
quoted somewhere else talking about the fact that in the late '90s they were going to
have a special prosecutor to uncover these criminal activities and corruption,
including the politicians – this is in the article. But later, after the
administration changed, they decided to cool it and not do anything with it, so they
stopped the investigation and they went against the initial decision of having a
special prosecutor trying and indicting these criminals in the Department of State,
the Department of Defense, and the Congress.
SCOTT HORTON: Okay, before we get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of what was
learned in those wiretaps about Dennis Hastert and other Republicans and Democrats
involved with the American Turkish Council, let's go back and discuss – as much as
you can say without going to prison – the role of Melek Can Dickerson in the
intercept office where you worked at the FBI.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: As far as Dickerson goes, I would like to point out to one fact
that hasn't really been talked about. In September 2002, there were 3 active
investigations on Dickerson: one by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation,
one the Department of Justice, and the third by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and
in September 2002, while these three active investigations were taking place, the
Dickersons left the country. They left their house, their car, and they fled the
country and they were allowed to leave the country and they haven't come back. It's
been three years, and they haven't come back.
SCOTT HORTON: And it's even worse than that. Because Douglas Dickerson continued to
be employed by the U.S. military. Didn't he have a job at NATO or something?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct. And with access, unlimited access, because of his
clearance, to the nuclear secrets of the United States.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, let's get back to why that ought to concern anybody. Who is this
guy Douglas Dickerson, and what do you ever have against him?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: As far as I know, Douglas Dickerson was stationed in Turkey
between 1992 and 1997. During those years he came under certain… some investigation –
but I don't know much about that investigation – that focused on certain bribery he
accepted, and I don't know by whom and I don't have any details on that. And then he
came to U.S., and even though he had this access and clearance, he was in touch with
certain organizations – and that's plural again – and some of these organizations I
would call "semi-legit." And while his wife worked for… this article in Vanity Fair
says she worked for two years for American Turkish Council, but for the same two
years she was also working for this organization called the ATA, American Turkish
Association, and again that information is public. So she was working for these two
organizations, and ATC has a lot of sub-organizations like ATA, ATAA with chapters
all over the United States. They have hundreds of chapters. They have it in various
states and several in certain states.
SCOTT HORTON: And this woman, Melek Can, when she came and got her job working at the
FBI – it says in this article that on two different official pieces of paperwork, she
neglected to mention the fact that she had worked for the American Turkish Council,
who, it turns out were – at least partly – the targets of the intercepts that she was
overhearing and reporting on.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Well, I cannot talk about the targets, however, that's correct.
Melek Can Dickerson, in her application, did not disclose. In order to get the top
secret clearance you have to disclose everywhere you have worked, every organization
you have been a member of, and she had left every single one of those empty, blank,
as if she had never worked a day in her life, never been a member of any
organizations. Then after I reported these issues in 2002, within the FBI, they
opened one investigation, and during the questioning, she was still telling them that
no, she had never worked anywhere else, and that this was her first job that she had
held, and had never worked for any foreign organization or lobbying firm, that she
had not been a member of any organization. So, yes, that's correct.
SCOTT HORTON: Interesting. So we have this "semi-legit" organization, the American
Turkish Council, and this woman who worked for them for years comes and gets a job at
the FBI helping with the translations. And now, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to
talk about this, but the VF article goes into pretty astounding detail as to how she
said, "You know, what we ought to do? Instead of dividing up the intercepts randomly,
I ought to get all the important ones and you ought to overhear all the stuff that
doesn't matter," and then, according to this Vanity Fair article, your common boss,
Mike Feghali took her side.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct. There is much more on Mike Feghali, and he himself, is,
or was, was under investigation both by the inspector general's office and the
Congress because his case goes even beyond Dickerson, which is very interesting, and
he is still there in charge of Arabic translation, a division of the FBI Washington
field office.
SCOTT HORTON: Now Sibel, you had a different boss at the FBI, I guess the guy who was
the customer of your information, a guy named David Saccer.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Dennis Saccer.
SCOTT HORTON: Oh, Dennis, my mistake. Now, who exactly was he, and I guess in this
article it says that he sort of took your side against Mike Feghali and Melek Can
Dickerson, right?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct. In the FBI, at least for the language division, you
basically have two supervisors, one would be the administrative supervisor, who
actually has no control or supervision over your actual work or investigation. They
just take care of your hours and your schedule, etc. – which was Mike Feghali. He was
not an agent. Then the agent who was in charge of the main department of language
that I was working for – because I did work for several language departments, Farsi,
Turkish, and Azerbaijani, but for the Turkish division it was Dennis Saccer – special
agent Saccer.
SCOTT HORTON: Okay now, he expressed concern to you, according to this article, that
perhaps there was some espionage going on there on the part of Melek Can Dickerson.
I'm curious, was that before or after Melek Can and her husband had come to your
house and tried to recruit you and your husband?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: It was around the same time, and in fact, before I even found
out about it he was reporting it to the FBI headquarters, and his boss, the
supervisory special agent about suspicious activities by Dickerson in terms of
certain wiretap information that was being lost, and documents that she was forging
signatures on and various other cases that he had come across and this was even
before I started reporting these issues to the FBI management.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, and then when he found out about the new arrangement where Melek
Can Dickerson was assigned all of the important stuff, and you were assigned all of
the unimportant stuff, he had you go back and retranslate and take a look at some of
the things that she had marked "not pertinent" right?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct. He asked me and another language specialist to go over
all those pieces of communication that were stamped "not pertinent to be translated"
by Dickerson, – and some of them were really long conversations pieces – but to go
back and translate them, and find out whether or not the information there was
pertinent.
SCOTT HORTON: And did you find that she had mostly been correct in marking things
"not pertinent"?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: No, just the opposite. Just through our first batch, the first
10 or 12 communications that had been blocked we came across extremely important,
pertinent – information that had to do with illegal activities between certain
foreign elements and certain agencies in the United States.
SCOTT HORTON: And for reporting all of this to your superiors, you are the one who
was punished.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Initially, actually, they wanted to give me a raise and a
promotion. In return, they asked me to just leave it alone and not report it further
up to the headquarters. And that's how it worked within the FBI's language division.
There were things like that happening all the time. After I insisted that this needed
to be investigated and went higher up, they started threatening me and retaliating
against me. They busted into my home and confiscated my home computer – my husband's
home computer – and they forced me to take a polygraph, and then later they fired me.
SCOTT HORTON: Also it says in the Vanity Fair article that Melek Can Dickerson
actually threatened you.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct, that occurred in January 2002.
SCOTT HORTON: If I remember correctly the quote was something to the effect of "Why
are you doing this? You could be putting your family back in Turkey in danger."
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: That's correct.
SCOTT HORTON: Did anything ever come of this threat?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Well yes… I really don't feel like going through that, because
that is really hard for me to speak about because my family's life has changed. They
had to come to the U.S. They had to apply for political asylum, in fact, the Congress
helped them to apply for political asylum based on documents they received from
Turkey that had various threats in it. But that is not the point I want to make as
far as the country goes, and that's why I usually tell people that I don't think the
issue here is about whistleblowing, being fired, being wronged – that is not the most
important issue here. The most important issue is: What were these criminal
activities, and why instead of pursuing these our government chooses to cover it up
and actually issue classification and gag orders so the American public will not know
about what is going on within these agencies within their government – and even
within the Congress? That is my focus point, and I have been trying – it is what I
have written and have said in my interviews – to steer away from the fact that yes, I
was fired, yes I was wronged, and they retaliated against me, and how they ruined my
life – which is all true. But this is not where I want to focus, and this is not
where I want the country to focus, this is not where I want the Congress to focus.
I'm not saying, "Look, they did wrong to me, and this is not fair." I'm saying, "I
came forward because criminal activities are taking place – have been taking place –
some of them since 1997." Some of these activities are 100 percent related to the
9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and they are giving this illusion that
they are pursuing these cases, but they are not. If the case touches upon certain
countries or certain high level people, certain sensitive relations, then they don't.
But, on the other hand, they go and talk about lower-level criminal activity that
boils down to people like Atta and Hamdi.
SCOTT HORTON: So let's get into some of that criminal activity then. The semi-legit
organization that I think you are most often referring to is the American Turkish
Council, which is headed by Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser of
the United States, and is packed with the leaders of Raytheon, Motorola, Boeing,
Lockheed, Martin Marietta, and some of the most powerful company names in the
military-industrial complex.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct.
SCOTT HORTON: Is the ATC just one of many semi-legitimate organizations that you are
referring to, or is most of this story focused on the ATC itself?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: There are many.
SCOTT HORTON: And many organizations that you actually were overhearing?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: I cannot talk to you about what I was overhearing, but as I have
pointed out there are several organizations.
SCOTT HORTON: Okay, and you mention when you talk about criminal activity,
drug-running, money-laundering, weapons-smuggling…
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: And these activities overlap. It's not like okay, you have
certain criminal entities that are involved in nuclear black market, and then you
have certain entities bringing narcotics from the East. You have the same players
when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players,
they are the same people
SCOTT HORTON: Well, when we're talking about those kind of levels of liquid cash
money we probably also have to include major banks too, right?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Financial institutions, yes.
SCOTT HORTON: Did you learn anything that implicated Brent Scowcroft and/or the
leadership of the ATC in this corruption?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: As I said, I do not talk about this information. I do not talk
about targets.
SCOTT HORTON: I understand. And David Rose did write in the Vanity Fair article that
there wasn't anything that he knows of that you found that directly implicated Brent
Scowcroft.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: That again depends on who was the source and the particular
information that that particular source provided, but I cannot confirm or not confirm
it.
SCOTT HORTON: I see. I want to get a promise out of you that when they finally lift
this gag order, that I get to interview you first. I have a long list of questions
that I can't ask.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Sure. And believe me, once they lift the state-secrets privilege
and once the court case actually begins and we have the witnesses and we can subpoena
documents, it will be public. And it will be major. And it would make the AIPAC case
look lame, actually.
SCOTT HORTON: Oh, it will make the AIPAC case look lame?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct.
SCOTT HORTON: I can't wait. Let me go ahead and share with the people some things I
know you're not allowed to talk about but are in the Vanity Fair article. Now [David
Rose] talked to the debriefers from the different agencies, the FBI, the
congressional investigators and, I believe, also the Sept. 11 commissioners, and they
shared with him some interesting allegations that Sibel is not allowed to talk about
or she'll go to prison. Most importantly that Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the
House of Representatives, at least is implicated, in cooperating on some very
important issues with the ATC, and that one of the phone calls overheard was that one
of the ATC officials bragging that they bought the Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert for $500,000, they gave him half a million in order to change his vote on an
Armenian genocide resolution. I think we all know the genocide against the Armenians
by the Turks in the 19-teens, and various states around the world have passed
resolutions condemning that, and the Americans were about to pass a resolution – in
fact, there's a pretty substantial Armenian population in California and the press
all the time that this was happening pointed out that it was pretty obvious that
Dennis Hastert was pushing this condemnation of Turkey for the genocide of the
Armenians was in order to help some Republicans in California get reelected. But
then, at the last minute he changed his mind and withdrew the resolution – right as a
major helicopter deal was going through – this resolution that would have made Turkey
look really bad. And according to David Rose in Vanity Fair, Dennis Hastert got paid
$500,000 to change his position on that. Am I going off the story anywhere Sibel? Can
you comment either way?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: No, but as I said, the reason I went to the Congress and to the
9/11 Commission had to do with criminal activities and the criminal activities I
provided information on had a lot to do with 9/11. And it's very interesting for
example this latest development with the 9/11 Commission and this information from
the Department of Defense that had to do with Atta, right?
SCOTT HORTON: Able Danger.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of
information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last
summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA,
CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of
witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do
with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11
Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some
of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain
informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the
attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August
2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent
to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted. With
my case they just said, "Refer to the inspector general's report," even though I had
provided the commissioners with the documents and names of witnesses. So now today
you're seeing the press talk about "Oh, one piece of information," which right now
the Commission is denying: "We don't recall seeing that information." Well, I can put
out 20 other cases. These are agents who worked for agencies such as FBI, CIA, some
of them for 20 years, some for 18 years. I have their list, I have their affidavits
that provided documents, and they were all omitted. But the media is treating it as
if "oh, look, this one piece of information was omitted" from the 9/11 Commission
report.
SCOTT HORTON: And as you pointed [out], some of this information has been confirmed
in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant…
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct.
SCOTT HORTON: …who warned in April of 2001 – that was even confirmed by Mueller, the
director of the FBI.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune
in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings,
the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these
omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20
affidavits from experts and veteran agents
SCOTT HORTON: This is all about the question of prior knowledge and who knew what,
when before the attack.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: And also what happened afterward. I started working three days
after Sept. 11 with a lot of documents and wiretaps that I was translating. Some of
them dated back to 1997, 1998. Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations
and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says,
"You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular
country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of
Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this.
They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are
none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda.
Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage
comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from
narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming
from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today,
three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it
getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?
SCOTT HORTON: Perhaps the same people who make it illegal [in order] to drive up the
price? Maybe not, I don't know. Now listen, when you talk about the State Department
cites diplomatic ties to foreign countries they would prefer not be stepped on. I'm
sorry, but the word "Israel" is just screaming inside of my head here. I guess you
can't give me any indication "yes" or "no" if that's what you're talking about?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Well, one of the interesting things about the Vanity Fair
article… I don't know how many people picked up on that. But they're saying Turkish
countries. It's plural people. And to say OK, we're looking at this region of the
world that nobody is referring to [in] the War Against Terror. OK, you're looking at
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and these are the countries that now we
are busy establishing bases in. And a large portion of their GDP depends on
narcotics, and there is a huge al-Qaeda presence in their countries. We don't hear
anything about Balkan countries, and again, their direct ties and direct relevance to
al-Qaeda. They are not even naming these countries. The role that Pakistan played
before and the role that Pakistan is playing today. So, as I have said before, there
are several countries, there are several organizations, and you can't just isolate
one country or one organization.
SCOTT HORTON: I want to get to your appearance on Democracy Now! earlier in the week,
referring to officials at the State Department, you used the word "treason." And I
wonder whether this is specifically referring to the Sept. 11 attacks and whether you
have information that indicates complicity on the part of American elites who are
part of these semi-legit organizations that funded Sept. 11, or are we talking seven
degrees of Kevin Bacon here?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Again, it's hard to talk about this around the gag order, but
this is what I have been saying for the past three years, that's why I refer to the
transcript of CBS 60 Minutes. These people who call themselves Americans and these
people are using their position, their official position within these agencies – some
of them in the Department of Defense, some of them in the Department of State – and
yet, what they are doing with their position, with their influence is against the
United States' national security, it's against the best interests of its people, and
that is treason. Be it giving information to those that are either quasi-allies – and
I would underline quasi, who one day will be another al-Qaeda – and who are already
are engaged in activities that are damaging to our country, its security and its
interests – and that is treason. So that's what I was referring to. And what would
you call someone who, let's say if they were to go after Douglas Feith, and if they
were to establish that Douglas Feith with his access to information, willingly,
intentionally used the information he had and gave it to those that would one day use
it or maybe right now are using that information against the United States. Would you
call that treason?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, if it's an overt act to benefit an American enemy then yes,
that's treason.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because
there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies,
these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.
SCOTT HORTON: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside
the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer
affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this
kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John
Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at
all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have
been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the
mid-1990s.
SCOTT HORTON: So more career officials rather than political appointees.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Or maybe a mixture of both.
SCOTT HORTON: Maybe a mixture of both. Thank you very much for your time Sibel. I
sure wish they'd let you talk.
SIBEL DENIZ EDMONDS: Thank you, Scott. Maybe one day.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=7032