Tweet
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH FBI WHISTLEBLOWER SIBEL EDMONDS
By Khatchig Mouradian
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/ 21/exclusive-interview-with-fbi-whistleblower-sibe l-edmonds/
August 21, 2009
On April 23, 2007, I sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI
whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was
published in the Armenian Weekly and on ZNet and widely circulated. On
Aug. 18, 2009, I conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds,
who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what
has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition
in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.
Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the
FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting
security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the
bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The
"state secrets privilege" has often been invoked to block court
proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged
to prevent further
discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship
between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
(R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in
bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution
from the House floor in 2000.
Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and
psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public
policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She
is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman's Own First
Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.
Below is the full transcript of the follow-up interview.
*** Khatchig Mouradian-I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the
five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary
Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level
U.S. officials. You said, "There has been no hearing and nobody has
been held accountable. We are basically where we started..." Two
more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask
the same question again. Has there been any change?
Sibel Edmonds-Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned,
the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have
had zero interest from Congress on having hearings-any hearings-on
this issue, whether it's the states secrets privilege portion of it
or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at
least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy
enough to come and say, We're not going to touch this. But the new
majority is not saying anything!
The Obama Administration is pretty new. For what I see, they are
continuing the previous administration's state secrets privilege
policies. As far as the whistleblower protection and related
legislations are concerned, the new White House has already made it
clear that they do not want to provide any protection for national
security whistleblowers-these are the whistleblowers from the FBI,
CIA, and all the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and,
of course, the Defense Department.
As far as the mainstream media is concerned, at least from what I have
seen, the situation has actually gotten worse. To me that seems to be
the major reason behind the Congress' and the White House's inaction
and lack of desire to pursue accountability. As long as the pressure
from the mainstream media is not there, of course they aren't going
to act. They are driven by that pressure, and the mainstream media
in the U.S. today does not fulfill its role and responsibility by
providing that pressure.
Of the three-Congress, the executive branch, and the media-I would
say the biggest culprit here is the mainstream media.
K.M.-The most recent example of the deafening silence of the mainstream
media was your deposition during the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case on
Aug. 8. There, you spoke, under oath, about how the Turkish government
and a network of lobby groups and high-ranking U.S. officials and
Congressmen have engaged in treason and blackmail.
A big story by any standards, it was only covered by Armenian
newspapers and a few blogs. How do you explain this silence?
S.E.-I know field reporters who are so excited and want to chase
the story. But when they went to their papers-and I'm talking about
mainstream media and very good investigative journalists-their
editors are refusing to touch it. When you watch the video or read
the transcript, you will see how explosive the deposition was. And
remember, I was speaking under oath. If by any standard, if I
were to lie or be untruthful in any way, I would go to jail. I am
answering these questions under oath, and yet, the mainstream media
is refusing to touch it. And this is very similar to what we saw with
the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case.
I have emphasized the fact that the American Turkish Council [ATC],
the Turkish lobby, and these Turkish networks, they work together,
in partnership with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
and JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]. So not
only is there pressure on media outlets from the Turkish lobby and
the corrupt U.S. persons involved, but they also have this pressure
placed on the media via their partners from the Israel lobby-and the
latter's influence on the mainstream media in the U.S. is undeniable.
The irony is that my deposition has made it to the front page of
Turkish newspapers-and Turkey doesn't even pride itself with freedom
of the media-yet the mainstream media has not written a single word
about it.
K.M.-In an article you wrote about the 4th of July titled, "It Ain't
about Hot Dogs and Fireworks," you say: "Recall the words of the
Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges,
all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step
back, and pay special attention to these lines: 'support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
all enemies-foreign and domestic.' Now ask yourself who is meant by
'domestic' enemies."
Talk about these "domestic enemies."
S.E.-The domestic enemies I refer to are the U.S. officials, whether
elected or appointed, who do not represent the interest of the American
people-whether they are national security or foreign policy-related
interests-and instead, they represent their own greed, their own
financial benefit and/or foreign interests. A good example here is
Dennis Hastert.
Less than three years after Vanity Fair ran a story about Hastert's
covert relationship with Turkish groups, Hastert's group announced that
it's the registered lobbyist for the government of Turkey receiving,
$35,000 a month from the Turkish interests. How much more vindication
does the American mainstream media want? This man, for years, cashed
in while he was under oath to be loyal and represent American interests
and the
Constitution. While in Congress, this man was not only representing
foreign governments, but also foreign criminal entities. As soon as
this man got out of Congress, he came out of the closet and officially
became a representative of foreign interests. Bob Livingston [a former
Republican Congressman from Louisiana] is another example. As soon
as he got out of Congress, he registered under FARA [Foreign Agents
Registration Act] to represent foreign interests. Steven Solarz
[a former Democratic Congressman from New York] is yet another example.
Another prominent example is Mark Grossman at the State Department. For
years, he has been representing foreign entities. In fact, he's been
violating criminal laws in the U.S. And guess what? He leaves the
State Department in 2005 and he's immediately placed on the payroll
by a company in Turkey called Ihlas Holding, and he goes and joins
a lobby and starts representing Turkish entities' interests.
These opportunities do not come when these people leave their
offices. In order for these people to secure these jobs and lucrative
payments, they have to serve these foreign entities while they are
in office. And they have done just that!
The victims here are the American people, their national security,
and the integrity of this government. And in many cases that I know
about, it is about our national security-related, intelligence-related
information that is being easily provided to foreign entities by
these individuals. Based on the laws we have since the beginning of
this nation, these people should be prosecuted criminally.
K.M.-I am reminded of the saying, "God protect me from my friends,
and I'll take care of my enemies." Isn't Turkey supposed to be an
ally of the U.S.?
S.E.-If you were to go and see our government's own latest report,
under the espionage section, the top countries are Israel, China, with
Turkey coming third or fourth. You are looking at two ally countries
here, Israel and Turkey, penetrating and stealing our intelligence,
military, and classified technology information.
Why would your allies penetrate your State Department, Department of
Defense, and get away with it? Why would your allies want to steal
from you?
K.M.-Let's talk about the Krikorian vs. Schmidt case. Specifically,
why did you decide to testify and what can you say about the efforts
to block your testimony?
S.E.-I was contacted by Mr. Krikorian's attorneys, who said they
wanted to receive my sworn testimony and also depose me as a witness
on the case they had in court. I went and checked out their case,
and I saw that it involves the Turkish lobby and certain Turkish
interest groups, and also, a Representative, Jean Schmidt [R-Ohio],
who was receiving campaign donations from these groups. I saw, based
on the publicly available information from their case that there was
a pattern, and decided that my testimony would be directly relevant
and extremely important to this case, despite the fact that I did
not have any information specifically about Schmidt (I left the FBI
in 2002). So I said yes, if they were to subpoena me and officially
ask for my deposition under oath, I would provide it for them.
And then I fulfilled my obligation, as a former FBI contractor who
has signed various non-disclosure agreements, to inform the FBI
and the Department of Justice that I have been requested to provide
my testimony and I am supposed to let you know. They had a day or
so to respond. They passed the deadline. And after the deadline,
they came back with some whimsical unconstitutional warning saying
that under the non-disclose agreement, the FBI and the Department
of Justice needed 30 days to review what I was about to testify. I
had the attorneys check that and it turned out this is not legal,
because oral testimony cannot be submitted-you don't know what is
going to be asked in court. Therefore, the warning they gave me was
unconstitutional and not legal. They didn't have any legal grounds
to stop me from testifying, so I went and, under oath, during this
five-hour long deposition, answered all the questions, and talked
about everything I knew that had to do with Congressional corruption
cases that involved various Turkish entities.
K.M.-For years now, this has been a very frustrating issue for
you. Have you given up at this point? Is there any hope for change?
S.E.-On the micro level, I have given up. I have done everything
anybody could possibly think of, whether it's approaching the Congress,
the court, the Inspector General's office, the mainstream media,
or providing testimony under oath. There's nothing left to do. It is
what it is. It's being blocked.
On the macro level, I am a U.S. citizen and I am a mother. I have the
obligation, the responsibility, to defend the Constitution when it's my
part, my role, to make a difference. And for that, I will never give
up. In the U.S., we are witnessing many elements of what we consider
a police state. I expect that in countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt,
or Saudi Arabia. But we're looking at these elements in the U.S.,
a nation that prides itself at being at the forefront of freedom,
democracy, and civil liberties. What happened to that nation?
As a mother, I want to raise my daughter in a place where she feels
free to express her opinion. She is right now in a country where her
mother has been silenced with gag orders and state secrets privilege.
I grew up with these and I don't want my daughter to grow up with
these.
By Khatchig Mouradian
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/08/ 21/exclusive-interview-with-fbi-whistleblower-sibe l-edmonds/
August 21, 2009
On April 23, 2007, I sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI
whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was
published in the Armenian Weekly and on ZNet and widely circulated. On
Aug. 18, 2009, I conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds,
who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what
has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition
in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.
Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the
FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting
security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the
bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The
"state secrets privilege" has often been invoked to block court
proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged
to prevent further
discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship
between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
(R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in
bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution
from the House floor in 2000.
Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and
psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public
policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She
is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman's Own First
Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.
Below is the full transcript of the follow-up interview.
*** Khatchig Mouradian-I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the
five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary
Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level
U.S. officials. You said, "There has been no hearing and nobody has
been held accountable. We are basically where we started..." Two
more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask
the same question again. Has there been any change?
Sibel Edmonds-Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned,
the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have
had zero interest from Congress on having hearings-any hearings-on
this issue, whether it's the states secrets privilege portion of it
or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at
least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy
enough to come and say, We're not going to touch this. But the new
majority is not saying anything!
The Obama Administration is pretty new. For what I see, they are
continuing the previous administration's state secrets privilege
policies. As far as the whistleblower protection and related
legislations are concerned, the new White House has already made it
clear that they do not want to provide any protection for national
security whistleblowers-these are the whistleblowers from the FBI,
CIA, and all the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and,
of course, the Defense Department.
As far as the mainstream media is concerned, at least from what I have
seen, the situation has actually gotten worse. To me that seems to be
the major reason behind the Congress' and the White House's inaction
and lack of desire to pursue accountability. As long as the pressure
from the mainstream media is not there, of course they aren't going
to act. They are driven by that pressure, and the mainstream media
in the U.S. today does not fulfill its role and responsibility by
providing that pressure.
Of the three-Congress, the executive branch, and the media-I would
say the biggest culprit here is the mainstream media.
K.M.-The most recent example of the deafening silence of the mainstream
media was your deposition during the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case on
Aug. 8. There, you spoke, under oath, about how the Turkish government
and a network of lobby groups and high-ranking U.S. officials and
Congressmen have engaged in treason and blackmail.
A big story by any standards, it was only covered by Armenian
newspapers and a few blogs. How do you explain this silence?
S.E.-I know field reporters who are so excited and want to chase
the story. But when they went to their papers-and I'm talking about
mainstream media and very good investigative journalists-their
editors are refusing to touch it. When you watch the video or read
the transcript, you will see how explosive the deposition was. And
remember, I was speaking under oath. If by any standard, if I
were to lie or be untruthful in any way, I would go to jail. I am
answering these questions under oath, and yet, the mainstream media
is refusing to touch it. And this is very similar to what we saw with
the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case.
I have emphasized the fact that the American Turkish Council [ATC],
the Turkish lobby, and these Turkish networks, they work together,
in partnership with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
and JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]. So not
only is there pressure on media outlets from the Turkish lobby and
the corrupt U.S. persons involved, but they also have this pressure
placed on the media via their partners from the Israel lobby-and the
latter's influence on the mainstream media in the U.S. is undeniable.
The irony is that my deposition has made it to the front page of
Turkish newspapers-and Turkey doesn't even pride itself with freedom
of the media-yet the mainstream media has not written a single word
about it.
K.M.-In an article you wrote about the 4th of July titled, "It Ain't
about Hot Dogs and Fireworks," you say: "Recall the words of the
Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges,
all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step
back, and pay special attention to these lines: 'support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
all enemies-foreign and domestic.' Now ask yourself who is meant by
'domestic' enemies."
Talk about these "domestic enemies."
S.E.-The domestic enemies I refer to are the U.S. officials, whether
elected or appointed, who do not represent the interest of the American
people-whether they are national security or foreign policy-related
interests-and instead, they represent their own greed, their own
financial benefit and/or foreign interests. A good example here is
Dennis Hastert.
Less than three years after Vanity Fair ran a story about Hastert's
covert relationship with Turkish groups, Hastert's group announced that
it's the registered lobbyist for the government of Turkey receiving,
$35,000 a month from the Turkish interests. How much more vindication
does the American mainstream media want? This man, for years, cashed
in while he was under oath to be loyal and represent American interests
and the
Constitution. While in Congress, this man was not only representing
foreign governments, but also foreign criminal entities. As soon as
this man got out of Congress, he came out of the closet and officially
became a representative of foreign interests. Bob Livingston [a former
Republican Congressman from Louisiana] is another example. As soon
as he got out of Congress, he registered under FARA [Foreign Agents
Registration Act] to represent foreign interests. Steven Solarz
[a former Democratic Congressman from New York] is yet another example.
Another prominent example is Mark Grossman at the State Department. For
years, he has been representing foreign entities. In fact, he's been
violating criminal laws in the U.S. And guess what? He leaves the
State Department in 2005 and he's immediately placed on the payroll
by a company in Turkey called Ihlas Holding, and he goes and joins
a lobby and starts representing Turkish entities' interests.
These opportunities do not come when these people leave their
offices. In order for these people to secure these jobs and lucrative
payments, they have to serve these foreign entities while they are
in office. And they have done just that!
The victims here are the American people, their national security,
and the integrity of this government. And in many cases that I know
about, it is about our national security-related, intelligence-related
information that is being easily provided to foreign entities by
these individuals. Based on the laws we have since the beginning of
this nation, these people should be prosecuted criminally.
K.M.-I am reminded of the saying, "God protect me from my friends,
and I'll take care of my enemies." Isn't Turkey supposed to be an
ally of the U.S.?
S.E.-If you were to go and see our government's own latest report,
under the espionage section, the top countries are Israel, China, with
Turkey coming third or fourth. You are looking at two ally countries
here, Israel and Turkey, penetrating and stealing our intelligence,
military, and classified technology information.
Why would your allies penetrate your State Department, Department of
Defense, and get away with it? Why would your allies want to steal
from you?
K.M.-Let's talk about the Krikorian vs. Schmidt case. Specifically,
why did you decide to testify and what can you say about the efforts
to block your testimony?
S.E.-I was contacted by Mr. Krikorian's attorneys, who said they
wanted to receive my sworn testimony and also depose me as a witness
on the case they had in court. I went and checked out their case,
and I saw that it involves the Turkish lobby and certain Turkish
interest groups, and also, a Representative, Jean Schmidt [R-Ohio],
who was receiving campaign donations from these groups. I saw, based
on the publicly available information from their case that there was
a pattern, and decided that my testimony would be directly relevant
and extremely important to this case, despite the fact that I did
not have any information specifically about Schmidt (I left the FBI
in 2002). So I said yes, if they were to subpoena me and officially
ask for my deposition under oath, I would provide it for them.
And then I fulfilled my obligation, as a former FBI contractor who
has signed various non-disclosure agreements, to inform the FBI
and the Department of Justice that I have been requested to provide
my testimony and I am supposed to let you know. They had a day or
so to respond. They passed the deadline. And after the deadline,
they came back with some whimsical unconstitutional warning saying
that under the non-disclose agreement, the FBI and the Department
of Justice needed 30 days to review what I was about to testify. I
had the attorneys check that and it turned out this is not legal,
because oral testimony cannot be submitted-you don't know what is
going to be asked in court. Therefore, the warning they gave me was
unconstitutional and not legal. They didn't have any legal grounds
to stop me from testifying, so I went and, under oath, during this
five-hour long deposition, answered all the questions, and talked
about everything I knew that had to do with Congressional corruption
cases that involved various Turkish entities.
K.M.-For years now, this has been a very frustrating issue for
you. Have you given up at this point? Is there any hope for change?
S.E.-On the micro level, I have given up. I have done everything
anybody could possibly think of, whether it's approaching the Congress,
the court, the Inspector General's office, the mainstream media,
or providing testimony under oath. There's nothing left to do. It is
what it is. It's being blocked.
On the macro level, I am a U.S. citizen and I am a mother. I have the
obligation, the responsibility, to defend the Constitution when it's my
part, my role, to make a difference. And for that, I will never give
up. In the U.S., we are witnessing many elements of what we consider
a police state. I expect that in countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt,
or Saudi Arabia. But we're looking at these elements in the U.S.,
a nation that prides itself at being at the forefront of freedom,
democracy, and civil liberties. What happened to that nation?
As a mother, I want to raise my daughter in a place where she feels
free to express her opinion. She is right now in a country where her
mother has been silenced with gag orders and state secrets privilege.
I grew up with these and I don't want my daughter to grow up with
these.