Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

The List

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...sp=22&Trace=on

    War on Terror
    See other War on Terror Articles

    Title: Did Pentagon Reveal Name of Edmonds’ 'Semi-Legit' Group?
    Source: Balkan Analysis
    URL Source: http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php? name=News&file=article&sid=391
    Published: Aug 5, 2004
    Author: CDeliso
    Post Date: 2004-08-08 12:12:20 by aristeides
    66 Comments

    B>US: Did Pentagon Reveal Name of Edmonds’ 'Semi-Legit' Group?

    Posted on Thursday, August 05 @ 18:25:00 EDT by CDeliso

    The ongoing saga of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ small war with the Department of Justice has garnered increasing media attention in recent weeks. However, this has almost entirely centered on free speech and legal issues: John Ashcroft’s gag order, Judge Reggie Walton’s dismissal of her case, and now, her open letter to the 9/11 Commission. Incredibly, the Commission’s final report failed to include her shocking testimony confirming crime, corruption and incompetence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – a failing that greatly diminishes the credibility and trustworthiness of the Committee itself.

    However, this is just one dimension of a very far-reaching story.

    For aside from Sibel Edmonds’ legal crusade is the issue of persons and organizations she encountered whose part-time activities touch on things from arms and drugs trafficking to espionage and even terrorism. Some of these figures (such as Can and Doug xxxxerson) have been publicly named, but the Department of Justice gag order on Sibel has prevented her from doing anything more than alluding to the other, and presumably bigger fish involved.

    That said, a previously unreleased document from September 2002 may contain a key to unraveling the mystery at the heart of the case: who or what are the “semi-legitimate organizations” that Edmonds has cryptically referred to as being the major players behind the major organized crime rings whom Edmonds charges with endangering American national security?

    On 7 August 2002, Sibel Edmonds launched a complaint with the US Air Force over the suspected illegal activities of USAF Major Douglas xxxxerson and his wife, Turkish-born FBI translator Melek Can xxxxerson (more information on them here).

    On 10 September, Colonel James N. Worth, the director of the Inquiries Directorate in the USAF Office of the Inspector General, sent an official reply. This letter assured Edmonds that the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) had “…conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns,” and therefore the case was closed. Of course, this did not deter the indefatigable Edmonds, whose lawyers whipped off a letter challenging the validity and depth of the Air Force’s investigation – had one even taken place – on 19 September.

    This 5-page challenge was addressed to Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, and copied to Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, previous backers of Edmonds’ cause.

    Earlier today, Sibel Edmonds told us that, “…nobody has mentioned the DOD angle [of her case] to this date.”

    Therefore we thought it would be appropriate to publish this last letter in its entirety (see below). According to Edmonds, the correspondence can be published because it “…was never classified… and their responses [were] sent via regular mail, thus, not classified either.”

    While this letter mostly refers to long-known aspects of the case, there is one very striking reference which may shed light on a nagging mystery: who or what are the “semi-legitimate organizations” Edmonds has alluded to in the past?

    According to the Edmonds team’s reply of 19 September, the USAF Inspector General’s letter had referred specifically to one American-Turkish Council, based in Washington, D.C., as being related to the xxxxersons. For the Edmonds team, this was a very strange disclosure:

    “…notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI’s investigation focused on ‘Major xxxxerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council.’ This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter.”

    We asked Sibel earlier today if the American-Turkish Council was in fact the name of the key “semi-legitimate organization” that had infiltrated the FBI during her time there. Because of the DOJ gag order she is currently under she could only say, “I cannot confirm that… they said it, we did not.”

    Yet why would the Pentagon specifically name an organization, connecting it with the suspect in the case, if there was no relationship? And why would they bring it to the attention of exactly the people they would have wanted to conceal it from? Did they assume that the story would break, and therefore that it wasn’t worth concealing? Or was the whole thing merely a mistake, a misunderstanding, a typo? In any case, there are clearly suspicious shades of the old paradox, ‘are you still beating your wife?’ at work here.

    Whatever it may or may not be, the American-Turkish Council is a Washington-based “…business association dedicated to friendship and the promotion of U.S.-Turkish commercial, defense and cultural relations.” Again according to the ATC website, its “...diverse membership includes Fortune 500 and Turkish companies, multinationals, non-profit organizations, enterprises and individuals with an interest in U.S.-Turkish relations.” It boasts a star-studded board of directors, including Chairman and Retired USAF Lt. General Brent Scowcroft; President and CEO G. Lincoln McCurdy; Executive Vice-President George H. Perlman of Lockheed Martin; and several other ranking figures from corporate America. Some of these as well as many other American and Turkish business heavyweights are also well-placed on the ATC Executive Committee (PDF).

    Indeed, the ATC is clearly quite an important organization with the ability to bring together highly influential people. According to its website, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan addressed the organization’s “Golden Horn” members (i.e., those companies who cough up $9,500 annually) at a June event sponsored by Motorola, Raymond James, Boeing and Raytheon. In April, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers addressed the group. Every major company known to man is either a member or a well-wisher. And so on and so forth.

    However, scrutinizing the posted schedule covering the 244-day period of January through August 2004, one finds only 18 days that actually mention scheduled events. And there are no scheduled events at all for September through December (though they’re no doubt still being planned). So, unless the ATC is hurting for secretaries to put things down in writing, they don’t do too much meeting.

    Now the 64 million dollar question remains that, if the TAC or another organization like it was in fact a “semi-legitimate” organization, would all of its board members and officials therefore be wise to the illicit activities going on behind the scenes? Or just a few unsavory characters?

    We put this question to Sibel Edmonds today. It was understood that we were speaking here only in hypotheticals, since after all she has never mentioned any organization by name.

    So would such a nefarious side-business involve everyone? “No, it does not,” Edmonds replied. “It does not involve all on [the] board- but quite a few.”

    Yet this is only the case in regard to board members of the largest such organizations, however: “with the smaller organizations, depending on their geographic location in the United States, [it can include] all of them.”

    If the Pentagon did indeed inadvertently blow the cover of this “semi-legitimate organization” by mistake in the cited letter of 10 September 2002, it would answer a lot of questions – besides helping to put the pieces together in this jigsaw puzzle of intrigue.

    So, what do we know for sure from previous information about the specific, unnamed organization(s) accused by her of infiltrating the FBI, compromising American national security and being involved with global organized crime and terrorism? They are:

    -located in the Washington, D.C. area;

    -very appealing to those with socialite ambitions, boasting as they do influential members from high society, big business and government;

    -in cahoots with specific named and unnamed FBI and DOD employees, diplomats and “elected officials;”

    -involved in highly lucrative international drugs, arms and money laundering affairs;

    -allowed to continue with these activities because stopping them “…would hurt certain foreign relations abroad.”

    And, what we know for sure about Sibel Edmonds’ prime suspects, the xxxxersons? They:

    -had interesting backgrounds- she Turkish-born, he an Air Force man formerly stationed in Turkey and tasked with weapons procurement there for countries including Uzbekistan and Turkey itself;

    -asked Sibel Edmonds and her husband to join the specific “semi-legitimate organization,” unsuccessfully;

    -disclosed that joining that organization would be very lucrative for the Edmonds’ and in return would require passing over classified FBI information;

    -deliberately kept a FBI suspect of Turkish origin safe from investigators by obstructing translations;

    -later threatened Sibel Edmonds and her family;

    -allegedly influenced the Turkish government to harass Sibel Edmonds’ sister while in Turkey;

    -were protected by the system, even after Edmonds’ allegations had been made, and allowed to escape to work for NATO in Belgium;

    -have financial assets in Turkey, making “…both of them vulnerable to foreign influence.”

    We mention these bits of salient information, deriving from the testimony of Sibel Edmonds and other sources, strictly as matters of public interest. Reader is left to make his own conclusions.

    What follows is the previously unpublished document cited above, the letter of 19 Sept. 2002 from Sibel Edmonds’ lawyers to DOD Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz. The letter is reprinted as received from Sibel Edmonds, including bolded texting, the only changes being the removal of some unfriendly HTML tags and internal linking that caused formatting problems, hence footnotes are listed as endnotes.

    September 19, 2002

    Via Fax: (703) 604-8567

    Joseph E. Schmitz

    Inspector General

    U.S. Department of Defense

    The Pentagon

    Washington, D.C.

    Dear Inspector General Schmitz:

    We represent Ms. Sibel Edmonds, who filed allegations regarding violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program by letter dated August 7, 2002. An inquiry into Ms. Edmonds’ allegations was opened under Hotline case number 85069.

    By letter dated September 10, 2002, Colonel James N. Worth, Director, Inquiries Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Air Force, informed Ms. Edmonds that the matter was being closed as a result of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) having conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns. I am writing to bring to your direct attention our concern that this matter was not thoroughly or completely investigated and that this matter was not properly handled. In addition, we ask that your office look into this matter further and investigate these very serious matters.

    Ms. Edmonds alleged in her letter of August 7th that both Major Douglas xxxxerson and his wife, Melek Can xxxxerson,(1) have committed numerous violations of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Personnel Security Program. Improper contacts with foreign governments, officials or organizations by spouses of military personnel also constitute violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. In addition, a security risk may exist when an individual’s family members may be subject to duress or other potential influence by a foreign country.

    Notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI’s investigation focused on “Major xxxxerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council.” This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter. Second, Ms. Edmonds’ concerns are not limited to whatever contacts Major xxxxerson might have with the American-Turkish Council. Third, this statement by Col. Worth is evidence that the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not properly review Ms. Edmonds’ concerns in this matter. Fourth, Col. Worth’s letter characterized Ms. Edmonds’ concerns in the narrowest and most limited way which demonstrates that both the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not appreciate the gravity and seriousness of Ms. Edmonds’ allegations in this matter.

    There is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG has investigated the xxxxersons’ relationships with other organizations and individuals which would be necessary in order to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of this matter. In addition, neither Ms. Edmonds nor her counsel was requested by AFOSI or the Air Force IG to provide additional information. Without obtaining additional information from Ms. Edmonds it would be impossible for the AFOSI or the Air Force IG to obtain the detailed information regarding the identities of the organization(s)/individual(s) and the scope of their relationships to the xxxxersons. In addition, there are a number of other allegations of wrongdoing that have been made (a number of which have already been substantiated) against Mrs. xxxxerson, which would constitute additional violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. Once again, there is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG is even aware of these matters involving Mrs. xxxxerson which impact her husband’s clearance, let alone that a complete and thorough review of such allegations has taken place.

    We are hereby providing you with additional information so that you may commence an investigation immediately. These allegations involve extremely serious matters, including but not limited to several leaks of sensitive information by Mrs. xxxxerson to a foreign country and direct threats that were made by Mrs. xxxxerson against Ms. Edmonds and her family. These allegations are also considered serious by the Senate Judiciary Committee. See, Letter from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy and Sen. Charles E. Grassley to Hon. John Ashcroft (August 13, 2002), attached hereto.(2) We also incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the attached August 13th letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to Attorney General Ashcroft.

    Mrs. xxxxerson was a contract monitor at the FBI Washington Field Office translations department and was granted a security clearance by the FBI to work as contract monitor to perform translation services for the FBI commencing in October or November, 2001. However, Mrs. xxxxerson had past and ongoing associations with one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an ongoing FBI investigation and failed to disclose those associations to the FBI. In June, 2002, the FBI confirmed in an unclassified briefing to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that Mrs. xxxxerson did, in fact, have undisclosed contacts with a foreign official who was the subject or target of an FBI investigation.(3)

    Ms. Edmonds believes there is credible evidence that both Mrs. xxxxerson and her husband, Major xxxxerson, had ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with one or more foreign officials. Such improper contacts are not limited to whatever contacts the xxxxersons may have with the American-Turkish Council. Notably, the public record already reflects that the xxxxersons maintained frequent associations with foreign nationals (aside from whatever relationship with the American-Turkish Council they may have). We believe that those associations and the frequency of such associations were not reported by the xxxxersons as required by FBI/DOJ and DOD requirements, and that these associations are such that the xxxxersons would be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from a foreign government.

    Moreover, the xxxxersons made statements to Ms. Edmonds and others that reflect that the xxxxersons have a substantial financial interest in a foreign country that makes both of them vulnerable to foreign influence.

    In addition, Mrs. xxxxerson was assigned to translate information obtained from FBI wire-taps concerning one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an investigation, but she had past and ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with the subject(s) or target(s). Mrs. xxxxerson is suspected of leaking information to one or more targets of an FBI investigation to which she was assigned to perform translation services.

    Mrs. xxxxerson also improperly instructed Ms. Edmonds and another employee at the FBI not to listen and translate certain FBI wire-taps because Mrs. xxxxerson claimed that she knew the subject(s) and was confident that there would be nothing important to translate concerning those subject(s) or their conversations.

    When Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. xxxxerson’s instruction and, after Ms. Edmonds reported Mrs. xxxxerson’s conduct to FBI management, Mrs. xxxxerson threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, a foreign country. Ms. Edmonds alleges that Mrs. xxxxerson made such threats because Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. xxxxerson’s scheme to obstruct justice and because Ms. Edmonds reported her concerns about Mrs. xxxxerson’s wrongdoing to FBI management.

    As a result of misconduct by Mrs. xxxxerson, numerous translations were not properly conducted, and/or intentionally not conducted, which threatened intelligence and law enforcement investigations related to September 11th and other ongoing counter-terrorist, counter-intelligence and law enforcement investigations. As a result of Mrs. xxxxerson’s misconduct, extremely sensitive and material information was deliberately withheld from FBI translations.
    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

    Comment


    • #22
      2.

      In addition, FBI work order documents concerning translations related to September 11th investigations were falsified and contained forgeries of Ms. Edmonds’ name and/or initials.

      By letter dated May 8, 2002, Ms. Edmonds, through counsel, notified Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a direct result of the FBI’s failure to address or correct the serious misconduct and security breaches that were reported by Ms. Edmonds, the safety and security of Ms. Edmonds and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Ms. Edmonds’ sister to be interrogated “and taken/arrested by force.” Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter of May 8, 2002 to the Attorney General and FBI Director also provided them with a copy of the arrest warrant served by the foreign country at the residence of Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country together with a copy of the English translation of the arrest warrant.(4)

      We believe that the warrant that was issued to Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country is the direct result of improper contacts between the xxxxersons and a foreign country, and was a result of the threats that were made by Mrs. xxxxerson when she threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, that same foreign country. In addition, we believe that the threats made by Mrs. xxxxerson, and the issuance of the arrest warrant, were the result of improper and undisclosed contacts by Mrs. xxxxerson and Major xxxxerson with a foreign official. Such acts taken by Mrs. xxxxerson (and other statements made and conduct by both xxxxersons) would indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States which would also make Major xxxxerson prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States, and such acts reflect a level of personal conduct and outside activities that raise a security concern that may be disqualifying. Our concern in this regard is heightened by the fact that it is alleged that Mrs. xxxxerson has maintained dual citizenship with a foreign country and has continued to possess a foreign passport from that same country as well as by the statements to others by both Major and Mrs. xxxxerson that they have financial or business interests in that foreign country.

      It is inconceivable how the Department of Defense could tolerate permitting one of its military officers to have access to classified information under such circumstances, especially when that officer’s spouse is alleged to have: (1) threatened another person employed as a translator for the FBI on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence cases; (2) committed other misconduct and serious security violations while employed by the FBI (such as having unreported contacts with one or more foreign officials while performing translation services for the FBI regarding conversations involving the same foreign officials); and (3) to make matters worse, carried out those threats by leaking information about the FBI translator to a foreign country (or agents thereof) so retaliation could be carried out against members of the FBI translator’s family who resided in that foreign country. Moreover, as outlined above, there is more than sufficient information to require a security investigation of Major xxxxerson based on foreign influence, foreign preference, personal conduct, security violations, and outside activities. See, e.g., Adjudicative Desk Reference (ADR), Adjudicative Guidelines, Version 2.2, pp. 3-13 (July, 2001) (Guidelines B, C, E, K, and L).5

      Additionally, we do not believe that Major xxxxerson could be considered an “innocent spouse” and there is ample evidence that he was involved in (and/or had knowledge of and failed to report) many of the activities of his wife that comprise her acts of misconduct. Moreover, in light of the serious allegations raised against Mrs. xxxxerson, and the alleged involvement of Major xxxxerson in his wife’s nefarious activities with, or on behalf of, foreign interests, Major xxxxerson is vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from foreign interests.

      We do not believe that these matters could have been thoroughly or completely reviewed in the short time that AFOSI and the Air Force IG devoted to reviewing Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th. After reviewing this matter further we believe that you will agree that Ms. Edmonds’ allegations of Personnel Security violations are very serious and that they warrant further investigation by your office. For all of the above reasons we hereby request that you re-open this matter and that the DOD OIG thoroughly investigate these matters.

      Please direct all correspondence or communications about these matters to this office. If you, or anyone at the Department of Defense or Inspector General’s offices, has any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

      Sincerely,

      David K. Colapinto

      Attorney for Ms. Edmonds

      Enclosure

      cc: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

      Senator Charles E. Grassley, Senior Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

      ENDNOTES

      1.) Mrs. xxxxerson is believed to be a United States citizen, but maintains dual citizenship with a foreign country and she is believed to possess a passport issued by that same foreign country. In addition, Mrs. xxxxerson and her husband also are believed to have financial interests in that foreign country.

      2.) We believe that the “contract monitor” mentioned by Senators Leahy and Grassley in their August 13th letter to Attorney General Ashcroft is Mrs. xxxxerson.

      3.) A copy of the June 19, 2002 letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to the DOJ Inspector General, which referenced this FBI confirmation, was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ original letter to DOD OIG of August 6, 2002.

      4.) A copy of Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter to the Attorney General dated May 8, 2002 was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th.

      5.) The Adjudicative Guidelines are the “official U.S. Government policy that guides decisions on an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information.” See, ADR, p. 1. The ADR was developed by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center. Id.
      General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Joseph
        In addition, FBI work order documents concerning translations related to September 11th investigations were falsified and contained forgeries of Ms. Edmonds’ name and/or initials.

        By letter dated May 8, 2002, Ms. Edmonds, through counsel, notified Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a direct result of the FBI’s failure to address or correct the serious misconduct and security breaches that were reported by Ms. Edmonds, the safety and security of Ms. Edmonds and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Ms. Edmonds’ sister to be interrogated “and taken/arrested by force.” Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter of May 8, 2002 to the Attorney General and FBI Director also provided them with a copy of the arrest warrant served by the foreign country at the residence of Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country together with a copy of the English translation of the arrest warrant.(4)

        We believe that the warrant that was issued to Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country is the direct result of improper contacts between the xxxxersons and a foreign country, and was a result of the threats that were made by Mrs. xxxxerson when she threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, that same foreign country. In addition, we believe that the threats made by Mrs. xxxxerson, and the issuance of the arrest warrant, were the result of improper and undisclosed contacts by Mrs. xxxxerson and Major xxxxerson with a foreign official. Such acts taken by Mrs. xxxxerson (and other statements made and conduct by both xxxxersons) would indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States which would also make Major xxxxerson prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States, and such acts reflect a level of personal conduct and outside activities that raise a security concern that may be disqualifying. Our concern in this regard is heightened by the fact that it is alleged that Mrs. xxxxerson has maintained dual citizenship with a foreign country and has continued to possess a foreign passport from that same country as well as by the statements to others by both Major and Mrs. xxxxerson that they have financial or business interests in that foreign country.

        It is inconceivable how the Department of Defense could tolerate permitting one of its military officers to have access to classified information under such circumstances, especially when that officer’s spouse is alleged to have: (1) threatened another person employed as a translator for the FBI on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence cases; (2) committed other misconduct and serious security violations while employed by the FBI (such as having unreported contacts with one or more foreign officials while performing translation services for the FBI regarding conversations involving the same foreign officials); and (3) to make matters worse, carried out those threats by leaking information about the FBI translator to a foreign country (or agents thereof) so retaliation could be carried out against members of the FBI translator’s family who resided in that foreign country. Moreover, as outlined above, there is more than sufficient information to require a security investigation of Major xxxxerson based on foreign influence, foreign preference, personal conduct, security violations, and outside activities. See, e.g., Adjudicative Desk Reference (ADR), Adjudicative Guidelines, Version 2.2, pp. 3-13 (July, 2001) (Guidelines B, C, E, K, and L).5

        Additionally, we do not believe that Major xxxxerson could be considered an “innocent spouse” and there is ample evidence that he was involved in (and/or had knowledge of and failed to report) many of the activities of his wife that comprise her acts of misconduct. Moreover, in light of the serious allegations raised against Mrs. xxxxerson, and the alleged involvement of Major xxxxerson in his wife’s nefarious activities with, or on behalf of, foreign interests, Major xxxxerson is vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from foreign interests.

        We do not believe that these matters could have been thoroughly or completely reviewed in the short time that AFOSI and the Air Force IG devoted to reviewing Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th. After reviewing this matter further we believe that you will agree that Ms. Edmonds’ allegations of Personnel Security violations are very serious and that they warrant further investigation by your office. For all of the above reasons we hereby request that you re-open this matter and that the DOD OIG thoroughly investigate these matters.

        Please direct all correspondence or communications about these matters to this office. If you, or anyone at the Department of Defense or Inspector General’s offices, has any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

        Sincerely,

        David K. Colapinto

        Attorney for Ms. Edmonds

        Enclosure

        cc: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

        Senator Charles E. Grassley, Senior Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

        ENDNOTES

        1.) Mrs. xxxxerson is believed to be a United States citizen, but maintains dual citizenship with a foreign country and she is believed to possess a passport issued by that same foreign country. In addition, Mrs. xxxxerson and her husband also are believed to have financial interests in that foreign country.

        2.) We believe that the “contract monitor” mentioned by Senators Leahy and Grassley in their August 13th letter to Attorney General Ashcroft is Mrs. xxxxerson.

        3.) A copy of the June 19, 2002 letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to the DOJ Inspector General, which referenced this FBI confirmation, was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ original letter to DOD OIG of August 6, 2002.

        4.) A copy of Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter to the Attorney General dated May 8, 2002 was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th.

        5.) The Adjudicative Guidelines are the “official U.S. Government policy that guides decisions on an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information.” See, ADR, p. 1. The ADR was developed by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center. Id.
        http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5757
        General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

        Comment


        • #24
          http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot....f-justice.html
          General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

          Comment


          • #25
            http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/de...ay&link=137900

            Turkey changes lobbying firm in US Congress

            Bob Livingston Turkey has parted ways with former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, whose lobbying firm has represented the country for the past eight years.


            Turkey has not renewed its long-standing contract with The Livingston Group, and is instead transferring its main lobbying business to DLA Piper, a multinational law firm that had split the government-relations workload with Livingston over the past year, US congressional newspaper The Hill reported on Monday.
            According to The Hill, former House Majority Leader xxxx Armey, a senior policy adviser with DLA Piper, will replace Livingston as Turkey's top GOP lobbyist with Congress. Armey, who lobbied alongside Livingston last year, will partner with former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, who lobbies Democrats for Turkey at DLA Piper.

            It is unclear whether Turkey or Livingston initiated the split, which both sides insisted was amicable. "We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship for eight years, we've had a lot of legislative victories together, and we wish the Turkish people lots of continued success and happiness in the future," Livingston said in a statement to The Hill.

            Turkish Ambassador to the US Nabi Şensoy, who said Livingston helped transfer the lobbying business to DLA Piper, released a statement praising the lawmaker as "a gentleman of remarkable capabilities and stature."

            Şensoy also noted that Turkey had begun to restructure its lobbying team by hiring DLA Piper last year and described that as part of a transition.

            The parting of Turkey and The Livingston Group ends one of the more lucrative Washington lobbying contracts for foreign governments. In April 2006, Turkey renewed its relationship with Livingston through a year-long contract worth $1.8 million. In May 2007, Turkey hired DLA Piper on a $100,000-per-month contract while retaining Livingston. Turkey mounted a massive lobbying campaign last year to defeat a resolution supporting Armenian claims of genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

            Though the resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, many of its co-sponsors withdrew their support after meeting with Turkey's lobbyists. That, along with pressure from Republicans and the Bush administration, forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to postpone a floor vote on the resolution last year.

            02.04.2008
            General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

            Comment


            • #26
              TURKEY, LIVINGSTON CUT TIES
              By Kevin Bogardus

              The Hill
              http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-03-31.html
              April 1 2008
              DC

              Turkey has parted ways with former House Appropriations Committee
              Chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.), whose lobbying firm has represented
              the country for the past eight years.

              Turkey has not renewed its longstanding contract with The Livingston
              Group, and is instead transferring its main lobbying business to DLA
              Piper, a multinational law firm that had split the government-relations
              workload with Livingston over the past year.

              Former House Majority Leader xxxx Armey (R-Texas), a senior policy
              adviser with DLA Piper, will replace Livingston as Turkey's top GOP
              lobbyist with Congress. Armey, who lobbied alongside Livingston last
              year, will partner with former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
              (D-Mo.), who lobbies Democrats for Turkey at DLA Piper.

              It is unclear whether Turkey or Livingston initiated the split,
              which both sides insisted was amicable.

              "We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship for eight years, we've had a
              lot of legislative victories together, and we wish the Turkish people
              lots of continued success and happiness in the future," Livingston
              said in a statement to The Hill.

              Livingston's group did not respond to questions about whether the
              contract hampered business with other clients.

              Turkey Ambassador Nabi Sensoy, who said Livingston helped transfer
              the lobbying business to DLA Piper, released a statement praising
              the lawmaker as "a gentleman of remarkable capabilities and stature."

              Sensoy also noted that Turkey had begun to restructure its lobbying
              team by hiring DLA Piper last year, and described that as part of
              a transition.

              "Last year, we initiated a restructuring of our counsel and engaged
              DLA Piper. The Livingston Group stayed on as part of our counsel during
              a period of transition. As of now we continue to work with DLA Piper,
              Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Armey," said Sensoy.

              The parting of Turkey and The Livingston Group ends one of the more
              lucrative Washington lobbying contracts for foreign governments. In
              April 2006, Turkey renewed its relationship with Livingston through
              a year-long contract worth $1.8 million.

              In May 2007, Turkey hired DLA Piper on a $100,000-per-month contract
              while retaining Livingston.

              The Livingston Group saw a substantial decline in payments from Turkey
              after DLA Piper was added to the account. In 2006, when it was the
              top firm, Livingston took in a little more than $1.8 million. But
              in 2007, when it was sharing the workload with DLA Piper, Livingston
              earned just over $1 million, according to Justice Department records.

              For its part, DLA Piper took in more than $1.3 million from Turkey
              in the first nine months of 2007. It has yet to report earnings from
              foreign clients for the remainder of the year.

              Turkey's hiring of DLA Piper fit into a trend in which foreign
              governments are putting more of their resources into Democratic
              lobbyists. Armey indicated Turkey hired his firm because it had
              stronger ties to Democrats than did The Livingston Group.

              "It was time to be with some representation that was more expansive
              to both sides of the aisle," said Armey.

              Turkey mounted a massive lobbying campaign last year to defeat
              a resolution describing as genocide the killings of Armenians by
              Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century.

              Activists were optimistic a Democratic Congress would pass the measure,
              which had the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but
              Turkey was able to beat it back partly by threatening to cut supplies
              to U.S. military forces.

              Though the resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
              many of its co-sponsors withdrew their support after meeting with
              Turkey's lobbyists. That, along with pressure from Republicans and
              the Bush administration, forced Pelosi to postpone a floor vote on
              the resolution last year.

              In 2000, the resolution was close to a House floor vote, but then-House
              Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) withdrew the measure at the request of
              President Bill Clinton. Armey, who was majority leader at that time,
              opposed the resolution.

              "As I worked on it then as majority leader, my position still is our
              current concern should be what current policy interests are best for
              this country," Armey said. "It was easy to make those same arguments
              I made as majority leader with President Clinton."

              Activists who support passage of the resolution have criticized firms
              in the past for lobbying for Turkey.

              Livingston's group did not say whether such criticism hurt business
              with other clients.

              In lobbying for Turkey, Armey plans to emphasize how vital the Muslim
              democracy is to the United States.

              "On a broader-scale basis, folks in the United States and in Congress
              need to have a better understanding of the strategic importance that
              Turkey has," said Armey. "Turkey has been a very good citizen of the
              world, far more than it has been recognized or appreciated."
              General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

              Comment


              • #27
                More from our enemy Zeyno Baran

                http://www.today.az/news/politics/44089.html




                Today.Az » Politics » Zeyno Baran: "Even if Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, none of the countries, including its ally Russia, will support it"

                07 April 2008 [13:07] - Today.Az

                Day.Az interview with Zeyno Baran, head of the programs on Eurasian policy of Hadson Institute (the United States).

                -What is a purpose of your current visit to Azerbaijan?

                -I want to hold a number of meetings to discuss issues, regarding energy and some regional problems here.

                -You have arrived in Baku from Bucharest, where you took part in the NATO summit. Possible accession of two post-Soviet republics-Georgia and Ukraine to NATO was stressed during the event. Is Azerbaijan's accession to NATO real?

                -Indeed, Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to the alliance was discussed during the summit. It is important that the date of their accession has already been declared and due decision was made.

                Thus, NATO, by admitting Georgia, will enter the Caucasus, and then the accession will be possible for Azerbaijan.

                It should be noted that Ukraine and Georgia were more active in the striving to access NATO, but I think Azerbaijan will also become the member of the alliance in the end.

                Will NATO membership help Georgia and Azerbaijan to settle conflicts on this territory?

                -I can cite the example of Turkey and Greece. If these countries were not NATO members in culmination period of the conflict, they would have experienced greater tenseness in relations. But the NATO membership stabilized the situation timely.

                Therefore, if Georgia becomes member of NATO, its relations with Russia would be more independent than now as Russia will not be able to put such pressure on Georgia. For instance, Russia avoids confrontation with Poland and Lithuania, which have become NATO members.

                At the same time, it is not known, whether problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be settled before or after Georgia's accession to NATO.

                -What do you think of the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries to support the UN resolution, which fixed support to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?

                -On the whole, the Minsk group did not want the resolution to be raised. Presidential elections have been held in Armenia not long before, and a new President was elected. I think Azerbaijan should have worked moreat this issue before raising it. I think it would be better for it to avoid raising the issue.

                Nevertheless, the United Stattes, Russia and France, which are mediators of the conflict settlement, were able to express a single position on the said issue. In the result, they decided to vote against and explained it by the fact that the support of resolution would have undermined their influence on Armenia. By saying no they faced Azerbaijan's resentment. The co-chairs wanted to make amendments to the resolution but in the end they decided to say no. In the result each side was discontented.

                If the Karabakh problem was so easy, it would have been settled long before. The further resolution of the Konflict depends both on Azerbaijan and Armenia. The inauguration of the new president of Armenia will take place on April 9. If the sides can see the perspective, they will be able to take further steps.

                Official Baku should agree that the co-chairing countries, are not supporters of Yerevan, only because they voted against resolution. They recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I think the mediators should explain their position to the Azerbaijani people. The people of Azerbaijan should not think that the co-chairs are unfair.

                I understand the Azerbaijani side when they say: "If the United States recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, why don't they support us?". But the Azerbaijani powers should make the position of the OSCE Minsk group for themselves and explain it to their people.

                -The working president of Armenia Kocharyan, inspired by the Kosovo precedence, spoke of possible soonest recognition of independence of Nagorno Karabakh by Yerevan. Is this step real and what will be the results?

                -I think the president said it to consolidate positions of his country before talks with participation of the new President of Armenia. But the independence of Kosovo was recognized by another reason. Kosovo was controlled by NATO and was de-facto independent. In the result this independence was recognized officially, despite the protests of some countries, including Serbia and Russia.

                But if Armenia takes this decision, no one will recognize Nagorno Karabakh. No one will understand it. In the reality it will be like recognition of independence of Northern Cyprus only by Turkey.

                If Armenia recognizes independence of Nagorno Karabakh, this decision will be support by no one, including the Minsk group, including Russia, which is Yerevan's ally on some issues. Therefore, I do not take such statements of the Armenian leadership seriously.

                -What do you think of Armenians' reproaches that the objectivity of US co-chair of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bruza in the Karabakh issue was spoiled after he married Zeyno Baran of Turkish origin?

                -(Smiles) Certainly, these statements are groundless. Being professional diplomats, we execute decisions of our country. The United States conducts its own policy regarding the said region. Certainly, the relations of the United States with Turkey and Azerbaijan differ, but at the same time, there is a need to consolidate US-Azerbaijani relations. We see Azerbaijan as an important partner for Europe in the sphere of energy, we see a growing economy, expansion of not only oil but also non-oil sector and striving for democracy.

                The relations between Azerbaijan and the United States are on a high level. Me and Matthew Bryza do not take anyone's side. Being an American diplomat, he executes the policy of the United States.

                For example, the US Ambassador has not yet been appointed for Armenia, as the congress has not confirmed a certain candidacy due to its well-known position on the so called Armenian genocide, corresponding to the position of the official Washington. Anyway, the new ambassador should adhere to position of the US Presidential Administration, which implies non-recognition of the genocide of Armenians.

                Personal life should not be confused with state policy.

                -Your husband has recently done unexpectedly optimistic statements regarding prospects of Karabakh conflict settlement. At the same time, he ofjen rejects saying so in his interview to reporters, explaining that he was misunderstood in Baku or in Yerevan. He did the same rejecting his statement made in his interview to Day.Az in Mardrid by results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan held last year. Anyway, how do you assess prospects of the conflict resolution, being an influential political scientist and a spouse of the mediator of the conflict?

                -The co-chairing observing the internal and external policy of Azerbaijan and Armenia for already 10 years, can made optimistic conclusions. I can say that I am not so optimistic, but I am not participating in the talks. Both Bryza and other co-chairs meet with Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the two countries and they are well aware of the talks.

                As for Matthew Bryza's approaches to the problem. they are really optimistic. This is not a mere optimism. This is an optimism, caused by enthusiasm in search for the problem resolution. Certainly there are moments on which the parties have not yet achieved a compromise. But for example Bryza was also optimistic when prospects of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline construction, when many spoke of the difficult implementation of the project. But he was optimistic, he saw the problem, analyzed it and looked for the ways of its resolution.

                It should be optimistic while settling a problem to bring positions of those who are dealing with the issue resolution, to a common denominator. It is difficult to settle the problem if one lacks optimism. Today, a new stage starts with Sarkissyan. Ceryainly, Sarkissyan, arises negative association due to his Karabakh past. Yet, both Azerbaijan and Armenia long for the problem resolution. This is an old conflict which need fair solution to be approved by both parties.

                I hope the problem will be settled this year. I think the Aliyev and Sarkissyan did not meet in Bucharest as Sarkissyan has not been inaugurated yet. As is known, the elections in Armenia were accompanied with domestic political tenseness and Sarkissyan needs to restore situation in his country, prove his legitimacy and win the trust of people. We will see whether the leaders of the two countries will be able to find a resolution, which would be useful for their countries and the whole region. Anyway, the countries would not be willing to return to the past, the period of way.

                Anyway, the people of the two countries and primarily, hundreds of Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs would win if this problem is settled by the end of the year.
                General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

                Comment


                • #28
                  More from Zeyno:

                  http://www.projectinterchange.org/al...zeynoBaran.php

                  How has the Armenian Genocide Bill in US Congress impacted the nature of Turkey’s relationship with Israel and the US?

                  "It goes without saying that allegations of genocide are a serious matter. Thus, it should come as no surprise that if this bill passes, it would seriously damage US-Turkey relations. (It was not brought up, as many expected, before April 24, although it could still be raised at a later date.) However, the passage of this bill will also damage relations with Israel. American-Israeli lobby groups have typically been some of the strongest allies for the Turks on this issue. The successful passage of an Armenian Genocide Bill would signal a failure on the part of those lobbyists, or, more likely, a policy shift. Turks would feel betrayed by such a move as they have long felt that the Jews understood that genocide and ethnic cleansing operations are not in the Turkish historical makeup. It was, after all, Turkey who gave refuge to the Jews when they were facing ethnically-motivated violence during the Spanish Inquisition."
                  General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    http://www.lobbyinginfo.org/documents/RevolveDoor.pdf

                    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062407G.shtml
                    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I would also add the Jamestown Foundation to the list
                      General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X