WHY IS FBI SPYING ON TURKS?: TURKISH AGENTS BRIBING U.S. OFFICIALS
Anti-Virus
Vanity Fair is reporting in its September 2005 issue that a Turkish
diplomat spoke about arranging for $500,000 in illegal payments to
House Speaker Dennis Hastert in order to kill a congressional
resolution on the Armenian Genocide, in the fall of 2000.
Joel Robertz, an F.B.I. special agent in Chicago, had asked Sibel
Edmonds, one of F.B.I's Turkish interpreters, to review more than 40
recorded conversations of "a senior official" at the Turkish Consulate
in Chicago, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the
Assembly of Turkish American Associations in Washington, D.C.,
according to Vanity Fair.
The subject of the wiretapped conversations sounded like attempts to
bribe several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
"Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to
large scale drug shipments and other crimes," the magazine said.
In the wiretaps, the Turkish callers frequently used the nickname
"Denny boy," to refer to the Republican Congressman from Illinois,
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The Turks monitored by the F.B.I.
said they had "arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to
Hastert's campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election
Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be
itemized in public filings. Hastert himself was never heard in these
conversations," Vanity Fair's David Rose wrote.
The magazine's examination of Speaker Hastert's federal filings for
the years 1996-2002 showed his campaign committee to have received
close to $500,000 in un-itemized payments - the second highest amount
in such contributions for all Congressmen. Vanity Fair stated that
there was no evidence that such payments were in fact made by these
Turkish subjects. "Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish
Consulate [in Chicago] is said to have claimed in one recording that
the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at
least $500,000."
David Rose reported that Edmonds told congressional investigators: "The
recordings contained repeated references to Hastert's flip-flop, in
the fall of 2000, over an issue which remains of intense concern to the
Turkish government - the continuing campaign to have Congress designate
the killings of Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 a genocide.
For many years attempts had been made to get the House to pass a
genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000,
when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing
and see that it received a full House vote. He had a clear political
reason, as analysts noted at the time: a California Republican
incumbent, locked in a tight congressional race, was looking to win
over his district's large Armenian community. Thanks to Hastert, the
resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed the International
Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, minutes
before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it. At the time, he
explained his decision by saying that he had received a letter from
President Clinton arguing that the genocide resolution, if passed,
would harm U.S. interests."
In another wiretapped conversation, "a Turkish official spoke directly
to a U.S. State Department staffer." Vanity Fair reported. He
"suggested that the State Department staffer would send a
representative at an appointed time to the American-Turkish Council
office, at 1111 14th Street NW, where he would be given $7,000 in
cash."
A congressional source told the magazine that Edmonds testified that
"she'd heard mention of exchanges of information, dead-drops - that
kind of thing.... It was mostly money in exchange for secrets....
Another call allegedly discussed a payment to a Pentagon official who
seemed to be involved in weapons-procurement negotiations. Yet another
implied that Turkish groups had been installing doctoral students at
U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information about black
market nuclear weapons. In fact, much of what Edmonds reportedly heard
seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity. There was
talk, she told investigators, of laundering the profits of large-scale
drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the
highest bidder."
The main focus of Vanity Fair's expose is the controversial firing of
Sibel Edmonds for complaining to her bosses at the F.B.I. that she
believed one of her Turkish co-workers was leaking confidential
information to the Turkish officials who were being investigated by the
F.B.I. The Bush Administration has banned Edmonds from talking to
anyone about her case and has prevented her from filing a lawsuit for
her mysterious dismissal.
Besides the bombshell about the Turkish plot to bribe Hastert in order
to prevent the passage of a congressional resolution recognizing the
Armenian Genocide, one wonders why the F.B.I. would wiretap for several
years the Turkish Consulate in Chicago, and even more intriguing, the
offices of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of
Turkish-American Associations. What did the F.B.I. suspect about these
Turkish-American non-profit groups that merited such intrusive
surveillance?
Even more incredible is the allegation that officials working at the
Pentagon and State Dept. were receiving cash payments from Turkish
sources. Is there a Turkish network that has bought its way and
infiltrated the highest levels of the U.S. government?
The fact that Edmonds is prevented from talking about her work and
filing a lawsuit could be due to the U.S. government's intent to file
charges against these Turkish entities and its desire not to have the
case jeopardized by Edmonds' actions. It could also be that
Washington is trying to cover-up the suspected illegal activities of
these Turkish groups in order to protect their co-conspirators at the
top echelons of the Bush Administration.
The ACLU has appealed Edmonds' case to the Supreme Court. We hope
that the highest court of the land would hear her case, thereby
revealing to the American public what the U.S. government has
discovered about the activities of the suspected Turkish diplomats and
Turkish American organizations.
By Harut Sassounian; Publisher, The California Courier
Anti-Virus
Hastert slices Turkey bill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
House GOP leaders are vowing to kill a controversial amendment that
chastises a key U.S. ally following a successful Democratic maneuver to
pass the bill late last week.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Appropriations Foreign
Operations Subcommittee, exasperated House leaders last Thursday when
he accepted a Democratic amendment, which would bar Turkey from
lobbying against a Republican-backed resolution that would call the
Ottoman Empire's killings of 1.5 Armenians during World War I
"genocide."
patrick g. ryan
Turkey would be barred from lobbying against a bill sponsored by Rep.
George Radanovich (Calif.) under a foreigh-operations amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-Calif.) amendment would deny Turkey the use of
U.S. foreign aid money to lobby against the Armenian genocide
resolution sponsored by GOP Rep. George Radanovich (Calif.). If
enacted, Radanovich's resolution would be the first time Congress
formally marked the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and
1923.
But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not schedule
Radanovich's bill for a vote this Congress even though the Judiciary
Committee has passed it.
Schiff, who represents one of the highest concentrations of Armenians
in the United States, said he used the appropriations process because
Hastert has not scheduled a vote. "Leadership understands the House
will vote overwhelmingly to recognize Armenian genocide. ... They chose
wisely to let it be voice voted," he told The Hill.
Radanovich told The Hill: "I think [the amendment] was a good way to
keep Armenian genocide in front of people," adding that his bill will
never be passed because "of the force of the Turkish lobby."
Turkey has tapped former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob
Livingston, a lobbying powerhouse, as its Washington representative.
Livingston's associate referred calls to the Turkish Embassy,.
"There is a Turkish-American presence here. [But] the Turkish lobby
is not considered a very strong lobby," said Timur Soylemez, a
Turkish Embassy official. "We are not putting [this issue] at heart
of the Turkish American relationships. Some on the Hill are trying to
poison that relationship. I would very much doubt either the Armenians
or Turks would call it symbolic."
Schiff had redrafted his original proposal, which could not have been
considered under the House rules. But his redrafted account caught
House leaders off guard. During the debate, Kolbe said that was the
first time he had seen the amendment and complained that the language
was not clear.
Republican sources told The Hill that they did not think the House
parliamentarian was going to make Schiff's amendment "in order"
and were surprised when the parliamentarian decided it was. With a few
minutes' notice, appropriators and their aides chose to accept the
amendment. The alternative choice was to risk losing a roll call vote.
In a harshly worded statement, Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay
(R-Texas) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) acknowledged their
displeasure with Kolbe and the amendment.
"We are strongly opposed to the Schiff Amendment to the
foreign-operations appropriations bill, and we will insist that
conferees drop that provision in conference. We have also conveyed our
opposition to Chairman Kolbe, and he has assured us that he will insist
on it being dropped in the conference committee," Hastert said.
Kolbe said, "I allowed this because I determined that the amendment
had no practical effect. ... As the chair of pending conference
committee on the Foreign Operations bill, I will insist this
meaningless language be removed in conference."
Armenian genocide has flummoxed Hastert and House Republicans over the
past several years. Many lawmakers want the House to acknowledge the
genocide even though Turkey, a longtime U.S. ally and NATO member,
objects to any such legislation.
In 2000, Hastert promised Schiff's predecessor, then GOP Rep. Jim
Rogan, a vote on a resolution condemning the genocide. But the Clinton
administration lobbied against a vote and Hastert yanked the bill
minutes before its consideration.
Also that year, George W. Bush said that as president, he would
"ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of
the Armenian people."
The White House was less involved this time, said John Feehery,
Hastert's spokesman, simply because House leaders knew the
administration's position.
Even if GOP leaders strip his amendment in a conference committee,
Schiff said:
"I think amendment succeeded in drawing out opposition into the open.
The battle has been joined."
Debate over spending bills has grown increasingly bitter as lawmakers
push their own projects or gain political points. On the foreign aid
bill, lawmakers used the process to object to Bush administration
policies toward Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment that would bar the
government from using taxpayer money to have United Nations officials
monitor the 2004 elections.
Anti-Virus
WASHINGTON (AP) - A watchdog group filed a complaint Tuesday urging
U.S. government election officials to investigate whether House
Speaker Dennis Hastert's campaign fund illegally accepted campaign
contributions from foreign nationals.
The complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government
- a self-described nonpartisan, progressive group - relied upon an
article published in the September issue of Vanity Fair to argue the
FEC should pursue the matter.
The account in Vanity Fair says a former fired FBI translator, Sibil
Edmonds, has reported having heard Turkish wiretap targets boast
that they had a covert relationship with Hastert. It says the targets
reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in
secret payments in exchange for political favors and information.
The group, whose executive director, Melanie Sloan, is a former federal
prosecutor and counsel to House Democrats, suggested that the Illinois
Republican's campaign fund could have received hundreds of unitemized
contributions of $200 (162.43) or less from foreign nationals in 2000
and 2001 because Hastert raised so much money in small amounts.
Name and address information is not required for such small donations.
"The sheer number of small contributions should have raised a red
flag," Sloan said in a statement. "Hastert's campaign committee was
obligated to ensure that no laws were being broken. It's now time for
a thorough investigation into Hastert's finances." Hastert spokesman
Ron Bonjean ridiculed the complaint.
FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said the agency, traditionally, has
no comment when complaints are initially filed.
Anti-Virus
U.S. News & World Report
Aug 5 2005
Linda Spillers/Getty Images
Former FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds poses for a portrait at her home in
Alexandria, Virginia.
Posted 8/5/05
By Danielle Knight
...Edmonds is the subject of a 10-page story in September's Vanity
Fair released this week. The article reveals some new details of the
wiretaps Edmonds translated that involved conversations by members of
Turkish associations and the Turkish Consulate in Chicago as part of
an FBI counterintelligence investigation. According to the wiretaps,
the article claims that members of these Turkish groups had arranged
for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to the campaign funds of
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, in small checks
under $200, so they wouldn't have to be itemized in public campaign
filings. Hastert's voice was never heard in the recordings, however,
and his office denies knowing anything about this.
The article says that the wiretap recordings contained repeated
reference to Hastert's flip-flop in 2000 on a congressional proposal
to designate the killings of Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1923
a genocide. At first he supported the idea, but later he withdrew
the proposal. Hastert explained that he changed his mind because
President Bill Clinton was concerned about the resolution harming
U.S. interests abroad. But the Chicago wiretaps, according to Vanity
Fair, revealed that "a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is
Anti-Virus
Why Turkey is not in US plans
By Burak Bekdil
Kathimerini English Edition
Tuesday August 16, 2005
Ankara has little relevance within emerging energy map of world and
Washington's intentions to shape it
For over half a century the USA has deemed Turkey a staunch ally. The
end of the Cold War sealed the beginning of the end of the once-solid
alliance.
Since the start of the Iraq war, there has been every indication of
mutual mistrust, as well as a visible decay in bilateral ties.
It's perhaps too simplistic to blame the corrosion on Turkey's refusal
to allow US troops to use Turkish soil as a launch pad for an attack
against Iraq. There are broader, more realistic (and less sentimental)
reasons why Turkey does not appear in American plans for the future.
The USA today cannot get any reading on the position of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's "unreadable" governance. They think the Turks
are keeping their cards "close to their chest." Then again, to the
Turks the United States appears to be an object of hysterical fear and
hatred when viewed from the other side of the Atlantic. The new fight,
disguised as efforts to promote democracy in non-democratic states,
will be for energy.
Although the USA would welcome it if Turkey decided to participate
in Washington's new war on terror at any level they wish, it is hard
to imagine, today, that the Americans want anything but amicable and
business-like relations with Turkey, and at a minimum.
According to well-informed US sources, Turkey has not exerted any
influence in Central Asia on behalf of the effort to support US
anti-terrorism operations and promote democratic reform. Turkey is
sympathetic to the Shanghai Group, which the US thinks solely exists
to advance Chinese and Russian interests against the allied efforts
to stabilize Central Asia.
There is much evidence that this seemingly new conceptual framework
for dealing with the Islamic fundamentalist movement will represent a
large change in how the US will do business around the world. There are
a number of important trends that must be combined into any foreign
policy strategy, and the new Pentagon formulation indicates a "sea
change" in US operations and incorporates these various trends.
The steady rise in energy prices is a trend that will probably continue
until most nations are flat on their backs. Oil should be at $70/bbl
by this winter. In 2006, one may look for prices in the $90 range,
and a deep worldwide depression should set in by 2008. The United
States is quite aware of this trend. Already, drastic conditions are
developing in numerous countries. Indonesia has a shortfall of 20
percent in oil usage which the US thinks is a disaster. The US is
having troubles on its southern border too.
Mounting pressure Mexico is a major source of oil for the US market
and has announced that its largest oil field, El Cantarell, has
reached its peak of production. That field accounts for 62 percent of
Mexican production and is now depleting at a rate of 14 percent per
year. Conservatively, the US absorbs approximately 3 million Mexican
refugees, and the pressure will probably increase.
The stability of China and its international intentions is a major
US preoccupation. Africa is collapsing, and the US intends to protect
the West African oil fields.
Europe, according to US sources, is disarming itself and is of little
to no use beyond its own borders. The US is currently withdrawing
the bulk of its armed forces back to US territory (two divisions are
returning from Germany, leaving only one brigade; three brigades are
returning from South Korea, and probably about 70-90,000 personnel
will withdraw from the Middle East by the end of 2006).
The era of the stabilizing influence of large numbers of US forces
stationed around the world is probably over. The USA is retrenching
and providing its main support to what it deems "reliable/democratic"
allies. And that would be Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan,
India and Israel. Otherwise, it is trying to reach out to nations
that wish to assist in anti-terrorist and stabilization efforts on
their own behalf. Turkey does not appear to be in either group.
Also, the US thinks certain places must be protected one way or another
without fail. These are the critical geopolitical pressure points:
that would be Egypt, the Malacca Strait, Panama, the Horn of Africa,
South Africa, US territorial waters and approaches.
Access to Middle Eastern oil is extremely important, but not as
important as one might expect. If it comes to priorities, says one
US expert, and it soon will, West Africa, Mexico, the North Sea,
Trinidad, Canada, Australia, and Japan are more important than what
the United States is doing in the Middle East today.
"Now," the expert says, "if we had reliable allies in Europe and
Turkey, things would look differently. That is not the case. So,
at some point, the problem will belong to Europe and Turkey without
major US participation. If you want oil and stability, you go get it."
He continues, "Frankly, with oil at $90-150 a barrel and even more,
Kurdish Iraq, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and the Azeris may be more important
than Turkey.
In a world of extremely high-priced oil and diminishing supplies,
who knows, even Turkey might find that its eastern provinces are a
bigger liability than they are worth."
All that should ring alarm bells in Ankara. It may, soon. But there
is little Turkey can do in an emerging energy map of the world and
US intentions to shape it - especially at a time when the Americans
think Turkey has been cast adrift by US policy.