'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now'

[Hovik]

Antiwar.com, CA
Aug 15 2005

'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now'
An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
by Christopher Deliso
balkanalysis.com

In this brand new interview conducted last week, we find the
indefatigable Sibel Edmonds as spirited as ever and determined to
press on with her legal cases, in her attempt to alert the American
people of high-level criminal behavior and corruption in and around
the U.S. government.

The interview concentrates on her new appeal to the Supreme Court,
reactions to the recent Vanity Fair article in which she was featured,
some thoughts on the AIPAC-Larry Franklin investigation, more details
on high-level global criminal activities - and on what kind of
officials are involved in them.

Current Developments: Petitioning the Supreme Court

Christopher Deliso: It's nice to talk with you again, Sibel. A lot
has happened since we last spoke, for the first Antiwar.com interview
last July. What's the latest on your case?

Sibel Edmonds: Well, now we are trying to get the Supreme Court to
take my case. My lawyers and the ACLU are trying, and we have had
several meetings about this.

CD: Do you think they will they agree to hear the case?

SE: You know, I'm not very optimistic. They take less than 10
percent of the cases that are requested of them, maybe 75-100 cases
they take. And look at the make-up of the current Supreme Court -
it's tilting towards the Bush administration. But my lawyers are
more optimistic.

CD: If they reject your case, are they obliged to tell you why,
from a legal point of view, or otherwise?

SE: As far as I understand, sometimes they do, other times no. They
can just say, "sorry we refuse." And that's it.

CD: Now, I understand that it's an involved process, but do you have
any established timeline for when we can expect to hear yea or nay?

SE: The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case or not in
mid-October. But in the meantime, the government - that is, the DOJ
and FBI - will file their response to our Supreme Court petition by
the first week of September.

Further, we'll also be getting an amicus filing in support of our
Supreme Court petition from 9/11 family groups, government watchdog
organizations like POGO, GAP, the Center for Constitutional Rights,
and more. This will all take place in early September too. So things
are going to be getting busy pretty soon!

CD: Wow, it will be exciting for us to watch it all unfold. But tell
me, what if the Supremos refuse to take the case? Then what?

SE: If that happens, not only this suit but all my other cases will
be dead - the State Secrets Act will kill them all together.

CD: Then what?

SE: We will have to consider other options.

CD: Aha! Evasive action?

SE: There's a chance we could try for an independent prosecutor,
and an open hearing about these issues -

CD: Like another "Bulldog" Fitzgerald, you mean?

SE: Yes, perhaps. We have to continue until there is some
accountability and the American people know what kinds of things
their elected officials are involving themselves [in] again - things
directly contrary to national security.

The Media: Barking Up the Wrong Tree

CD: Well, I don't know if we can say a critical mass has been reached,
but you are appearing more and more frequently in the media, and I
think people are starting to take notice of whistleblower cases like
yours. Just the other day there was the story about the Pentagon
procurement whistleblower criticizing Halliburton, after all.

SE: Yes, okay, but the media is focusing on the wrong angle of these
stories - especially concerning my case.

CD: How's that?

SE: They are focusing too much on the whistleblower angle and not
enough on the state secrets one. They're saying, "oh, look at the
poor whistleblower, she lost her job for coming forward." That's
not important. The important thing is, why are they using this State
Secrets Act - which has almost never been used? What are they trying
to hide?

CD: I see.

SE: I mean, come on, I wasn't some big diplomat or official or
secret agent or something - I was just a lowly translator! So what
could possibly be so dangerous about letting me speak? Why are they
covering this up?

You know, I found out the other day that there has been no person in
the history of the United States to have had as many gag orders as
I have. So when I say I am the most gagged person in history, I mean
it. They are terrified of letting me speak, and just why they might be
terrified - well, this is what the media should be concentrating on,
not that the poor whistleblower got fired.

CD: So can you tell me, if the State Secrets Act is wheeled out so
rarely, why did they have to use it? Wasn't there a less drastic
measure they could have taken to prevent you from talking?

SE: Yes, and do you know what is the ironic thing about this? If there
had been an ongoing investigation, all they'd have to do is say so! To
shut me up, all they needed to do would have been to go into the court
and say, "Judge, you can't let her speak because we have an ongoing
investigating into these things she wants to talk about." That's all!

CD: So the point is -

SE: The point is, there was no ongoing investigation! They decided
to block all investigations! They could have quieted me very easily
from the beginning - but that would have meant they were taking my
allegations seriously -

CD: And thus you wouldn't have had to make them in the first place,
if they were already being investigated.

SE: Exactly! Very paradoxical. They had all the info - detailed
information, names, and everything else, so they can really launch
an investigation. What are they waiting for? But they are not
interested. And because they refuse to investigate - their only
remaining option to silence me is this "State Secrets" nonsense.

CD: That's an interesting way to look at it. I was not aware of
that procedural difference. So considering that the congressmen you
testified before agreed that you were credible and raised serious
concerns, why have there been no investigations?


SE: The fact that there are no investigations - I will give you an
analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in
the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black
guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of
them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never
to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas
and Hamdis - but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys,
and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before - this would upset "certain
foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected
officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs-
and weapons-smuggling - and thus with the criminal underground,
even with the terrorists themselves.

Renewed Scrutiny

CD: On that note, why don't we discuss the recent Vanity Fair article
in which your case was discussed. This is the first time any possible
official associated with illicit activities related to your case was
named. The author cites sources familiar with your testimony and
speculates that Dennis Hastert took bribes to squash the Armenian
genocide resolution -

SE: You know, that was such a surprise to me. I had no idea what the
final article would look like, but when I opened the magazine and
read this - well, it was a surprise.

CD: Why?

SE: Look, if you read the article you will see they mentioned
that there were several other officials suspected of crimes. It's
interesting because they mentioned the Department of State and the
DOD - but they didn't get into it.

CD: And maybe some of these others were more important than Hastert?

SE: Of course they were more important! But they went with the
Armenian angle.

CD: Now, I understand because of your gag order, you were not the one
giving the author his information. He was getting it from the other
sources familiar with your testimony. So maybe this angle they took
seemed like the most important because they didn't have all the facts -

SE: I really don't know.

A Pyrrhic Victory?

CD: So what have been the initial reactions to this article? I don't
think Hastert was particularly fazed. He said something like, "Next
they'll blame me for the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston breakup."

SE: Well, it's caused more problems for me than for him, obviously. I
have been getting some very angry letters from Turkish people - now
they think I'm an agent of the Armenian lobby! And so of course this
guy from the ATC, [American-Turkish Council President James] Holmes,
played on this. Because some of my allegations involved the ATC, he
loved getting a chance to blacken me as some Armenian collaborator in
the Turkish media - and at the same time made up outrageous claims,
such as that the government investigated my claims and decided that
I was lying about everything. So now I'm hated in Turkey.

CD: That's crazy. But doesn't the media there know any better? I mean,
haven't they been focusing on your case for a long time?

SE: Yes, but for people with power and prestige such as Holmes, it's
easy to smear someone. As you know, sensitivities are very strong
for both Turks and Armenians on this issue. So ironically even if it
[Hastert's alleged bribe-taking and the Armenian genocide issue]
was just a sidebar to the real focus of my case, by connecting my
name with the Hastert allegations, it just damaged my credibility
for Turks everywhere.

CD: This sounds like an absolute disaster.

SE: And it's just too bad, because none of this [my allegations]
has to do with the current government in Turkey.

CD: So do you mean the previous one was more corrupted, or involved
with these issues?

SE: I didn't say that. I just said that the current Turkish
government had nothing to do with any of these illegal activities I
documented. But still the campaign against me goes on in the media
in Turkey. It's very sad.

Who's in Charge Here?

CD: That's terrible. I have some thoughts based on what you just said,
but first let's talk about something else. For us on the outside, it
is very hard to know what is really going on in the government. And
with all of the governmental manipulation and deceit that things like
your case, as well as the whole Iraq War deception, show, critical
people have come to suspect that the government is more often than
not feeding us lies and working in our worst interests. And you talk
about good, honest agents as well as bad and criminal ones.

So, that said - how can we explain the case of Larry Franklin?

SE: Do you mean how the case came about, or how it is being conducted?

CD: I want to say this: the Turkish lobby might be powerful, but the
Israeli lobby is by far the most powerful in Washington, at least with
the current administration. So considering that the pro-Israel neocons
are in power, how was it possible that this AIPAC investigation - which
apparently started way back in 1999 - could have continued all these
years, and didn't end up getting squashed like your investigation was?

SE: I don't know. But it will be interesting to see how far they
pursue it - whether they will be satisfied just to make an example
out of the fairly low-level guys they're looking at now, or want to
keep going higher.

CD: When you were at the FBI, did you have any colleagues who were
working on this case, investigating the Israelis?

SE: Look, I think that that [the AIPAC investigation] ultimately
involves more than just Israelis - I am talking about countries,
not a single country here. Because despite however it may appear,
this is not just a simple matter of state espionage. If Fitzgerald
and his team keep pulling, really pulling, they are going to reel in
much more than just a few guys spying for Israel.

CD: A monster, 600-pound catfish, huh? So the Turkish and Israeli
investigations had some overlap?

SE: Essentially, there is only one investigation - a very big one,
an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator,
stumbled over one piece of it.

But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of
ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include
multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear
sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course
a lot of people from abroad are involved. It's massive. So to do this
investigation, to really do it, they will have to look into everything.

CD: But you can start from anywhere -

SE: That's the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You
can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all
end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same
nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group.
And they are very dangerous for all of us.

State Department the Source of All Evil?

CD: I know you can't name names, but are there any government agencies
in particular that you can single out as being more corrupt or more
involved with the substance of your allegations?

SE: The Department of State.

CD: What, the most corrupt?

SE: The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major
government agencies.

CD: That's interesting. I sometimes think of the State Department
as being fairly emasculated, relatively speaking, of course not the
"good guys," but surely not as evil as certain other agencies... but
you have some personal experience that tells you otherwise?

SE: You asked me before about the good FBI agents and bad, which
group is really in control. I can tell you, in my case, the decision
to terminate the investigation and bury my allegations, this decision
was not made by the FBI. It came directly from the Department of State.

CD: Really! I didn't know they had the power to interfere with
FBI work.

SE: Oh, of course they do! And the agent that handled the case I was
working on, that person was so frustrated. It was all stopped because
the State Department was dictating to us.

CD: So while John Ashcroft looked like the bad guy, for coming down
on you with the State Secrets Act -

SE: Look, according to Vanity Fair, in 1999 the FBI even wanted to
bring in a special prosecutor, to investigate - but guess what,
after Bush came to power, they pulled the plug. And how was this
request thwarted? By direct order of the Department of State!

CD: Wow. So what other powers did they have over you?

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level
officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented
from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department
of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there
was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and
this is why the terrorists pulled it off - as if we didn't want to
cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

[Hovik]

part 2

CD: So you're saying that the whole process of sorting through the
intelligence you received, executing investigations, and getting
information where it needed to go was prevented by the State
Department?

SE: Several times, yes.

CD: And again, because of the "sensitive foreign relations" excuse?

SE: Well, yes, obviously all of these high-level criminal operations
involve working with foreign people, foreign countries, the outside
world - and to a certain extent these relations do depend on the
continuation of criminal activities.

Countries to Consider

CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?

SE: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish
countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries - that is,
Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan.
All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have
been talking about.

CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing
that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these
issues. No one asks questions about these countries - questions like,
"OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?"

CD: But of course, you're not implying...

SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we've
been putting military bases in -

CD: I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

SE: You know how they always talk about these Islamic charities
funding the terrorists, right?

CD: Yes...

SE: Well, and this is not a firm statistic, just a sort of
ratio... but these charities are responsible for maybe 10 or 20
percent of al-Qaeda's fundraising. So where is the other 80 or 90
percent coming from? People, it's not so difficult!

How It All Works

CD: So tell me something, say, in the case of drugs from Central
Asia to Europe to America. When they come through Turkey, what is
the procedure?

SE: Well, I am not an expert on this. I know some of it gets to be
processed in Turkey and travels in the Balkans. I know Holland is
very important. But you might know better than me, being over there.
I only know from this end, in North America.

CD: Okay, so when the drugs -

SE: Not only drugs.

CD: Okay, so when whatever kinds of criminal contraband enter the U.S.,
then what happens to it?

SE: They are circulated by huge front companies. Of course, these
companies often have a legitimate side to their businesses; maybe
even the majority of their business is aboveboard. In this way,
they arouse less suspicion. Say if it was, I don't know, a textiles
company in Delaware. The stuff comes into port, and when it comes
off the boat they open it up, and -

CD: "Hey, great, more textiles!" Something like that?

SE: Sure. And then it gets sent everywhere, through other companies
in other cities, other front companies under different owners or
even different branches of the same company. They could be anywhere,
Denver, Detroit, San Diego, and everywhere in between.

CD: It sounds very sophisticated.

SE: Oh, it's so sophisticated and so big, you can't imagine... and
not only can they bring the stuff in, they can send it out. And do
you think for a second the government doesn't know?

CD: Can you give any specific examples of such an operation?

SE: Well, not from my case, but there is quite a lot of public
information about such things. A good example was the piece in the
L.A. Times -

CD: The black-market nuclear parts one?

SE: Yes, by Josh Meyer. From last year. That article gives a very
good example of how such a scheme works.

CD: But that report came out of an official government investigation
taking apart the smuggling ring, right?

SE: Yes it did, but that doesn't mean the business was ended.

CD: No?

SE: I think one of the guys involved, Asher Karni, got a short
sentence. But the other guy, the big guy, Zeki Bilmen? He got off
completely - nothing.

CD: How?

SE: It's beyond logical explanation. Maybe it was decided in high
places that no one would touch him.

CD: And we're talking about people who are trading in nuclear
black-market goods with terrorists and countries like Pakistan?

SE: And anyone else who's willing to pay, for that matter. Zeki
Bilmen is Turkish, but of Jewish background. He has a company, Giza
Technologies in New Jersey, and everyone who works there is Turkish.
He's worked closely with the Israelis. And business - well, business
is good.

They have many shipments going out, coming in, all day long. To places
like Dubai, Spain, South Africa, Turkey. They have branches in all
these places. Yep, they're sailing along very smoothly.

CD: So if we are talking about suspected nuclear proliferators here,
how can the government be protecting them when at the same time
they're talking about Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons?

SE: Exactly! You tell me!

Zeroing In

CD: It must be very frustrating for you, not to be able to speak
about what you know.

SE: Yeah, really, it's so frustrating.

CD: So since you are still gagged, is there anything you hope for,
aside from getting heard before the Supreme Court? I mean, is there
anything people can do?

SE: I hope that if anything comes of this new media attention,
they [congressmen] might say, "You know what, one name is out there
already," and maybe people will start to say the others.

Because enough people in Congress know who is involved and what the
stakes are. It's not necessary for me to do it; any number of people
can step forward. They just need to be a little more brave, and -
yes, more patriotic. Because like I told you before, these kind of
criminal acts some of our leaders are involved in do not have any
benefit for 99.9 percent of the American people. And in fact they're
actually very harmful for American and world security.

CD: So what do you hope for from the media? I mean, I know you
suggested the media should concentrate on the State Secrets aspect
rather than the "poor whistleblower" one. That's clear. But of course
we would love to know more details, even general ones.

For example, can you give any kind of insight into where to look? I
know some of these "semi-legitimate organizations" you've mentioned
and how they operate. You discussed that at length in our first
interview. But what about individuals? What is the profile of your
average high-level crook?

SE: Well, you can piece things together fairly well, I think, and
not just from what I have to say. A lot of information is already
out there. Things like the L.A. Times article I mentioned, they give
a lot of context. But generally, look at what we discussed here.

CD: You mean where such officials are to be found?

SE: Yes. Watch the Department of State. Watch people who are involved
with the countries I mentioned above. Watch their careers, where
they were stationed, what jobs they held, what were their areas of
expertise, where these interests overlap. Were they involved with
weapons procurement ever? Would anything in their resume indicate
knowledge of and experience in not one, but several of these countries
I have mentioned?

Because you know, it is not very often you can find someone with the
requisite linguistic and cultural training necessary for working with
several countries simultaneously, as well as the acumen and right
mindset for these kinds of adventures. There can't be many.

Look out for the organizations they're involved in. Look at where
these memberships overlap. Two major lobby groups that have come
out in one way or another have been the American-Turkish Council and
AIPAC. They're not the only ones, but you can start with them. Look
at their members, their leaders past and present. Look at where these
names overlap with the qualities I mentioned above.

CD: Yes, that is good for background, but at the end of the day to
have anything "real" it basically has to come down to what the guy
had for breakfast that day.

I mean, even the Vanity Fair "revelation" had to admit that there
was no way of proving Hastert was ever given $500,000 to scupper the
Armenian genocide bill. So obviously he could just laugh it off. It
ended on a very deflationary note.

SE: Yes, you have a point. But making specific charges in specific
cases, no one in the media can ever do that without explicit evidence
from someone very close to the investigation or activity.

What I am telling you is that this network is visible, and it is
possible to grasp what's going on. And I think to a certain extent it's
obvious that some of your neocons will be involved in these criminal
activities. You don't need me to tell you that. But too often, they
[the media] have looked in the wrong places.

CD: An example?

SE: Well, I'm wondering why in this "war on terror" they aren't taking
a look at the role of banks in Dubai, banks in Cyprus - they've always
concentrated on banks in places like, say, Switzerland. They almost
never look at these two other huge areas for money-laundering.

A Hypothetical

CD: Finally, Sibel, I was curious to ask you one sort of hypothetical
question.

SE: Okay.

CD: Do you ever look back and wish you had done things differently? I
mean, maybe you could have "played dumb" and stuck around a couple
months longer in the FBI, and collected more "smoking gun" evidence,
no? Like in some action/suspense movie.

SE: This is a very interesting question. But you know, I didn't have
the luxury to think about it. I didn't have time to make a conscious
decision.

CD: Why?

SE: Well, the biggest reason I started to talk and to push for an
internal investigation was because my family was already under threat.

CD: You are referring to the period after you refused Can xxxxerson's
offer to work with her illegally?

SE: Yes. I knew that the [Turkish] person under investigation had
already been given all my details, and at that point they were trying
to make problems for my younger sister back in Turkey. And Senator
[Chuck] Grassley was helping us to get asylum for her.

CD: So basically, my question is irrelevant.

SE: Well, how can you play it cool when your family is under threat?

CD: Indeed. So finally, even despite the total obstruction you have
faced just to be able to get your day in court, do you feel like it
has been worthwhile? And that there is something still that can be
done to change things?

SE: Yes. I believe, and everyone who is concerned about their safety
and security should know it is in their best interests to get this
information out and let the chips fall where they may. And since
this level of crime is so massive, it doesn't affect only Americans
- people in many countries have an interest in this too. The stakes
are too high for us to stop fighting now.

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=6934