Monday, May 11, 2009

sibel and scott again. Congress is a failed channel for whistleblowers.

There is a new Sibel Edmonds - Scott Horton interview at Antiwar Radio. Audio here, transcript here. The interviews with Scott have typically been the most informative interviews that Sibel has given.

Sibel contributes a wealth of valuable 'process' information for those who are trying to understand the Harman / AIPAC / Goss story, as well as those of you still trying to get your head around Sibel's case. I recommend that you read the whole thing.

I also want to highlight one particular issue that Sibel raises, namely that her organization, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), received important information about certain abuses of power by the Executive Branch, and the NSWBC attempted to assist these whistleblowers by helping them air their particular issues within the relevant channels available to whistleblowers - specifically, Congress:
"And it was not only for the reasons such as my own personal case with the State Secrets Privilege etc, but what really got me extremely upset (about the latest Harman stories) was the fact that in 2005 and 2006, my organization took several whistleblowers from the NSA and the Justice Department to certain offices in Congress including Harman's office and Pelosi's office, and now we are sitting here, feeling like fools."
Basically, these whistleblowers risked their careers so that Harman and others could feather their own political nests with the information provided to them by legitimate whistleblowers. It's no wonder that the entire US political system is broken.

1 comment:

noise said...

We are told al Qaeda was one of the biggest threats. Sources: Berger, Clarke and Tenet.

Yet the CIA, NSA and FBI UBLU (intel side) withheld information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US from criminal side agents which included the USS Cole investigators (one of whom was Ali Soufan). This withholding took place at a time when we are told the intel community was receiving tons of chatter about a possible terrorist attack.

My confusion is how this protection relates to mid or high level al Qaeda operatives. It seems that any protection of hijackers was intended to facilitate a terrorist attack as opposed to concealing involvement in other illegal activities. As FBI agent Bongardt supposedly stated: "If this guy (al-Mihdhar) is in the country, it’s not because he’s going to f***ing Disneyland!"

It's also hard to understand why the public is expected to give the intel community the benefit of the doubt when they are the ones who refuse to explain what happened. The "al Qaeda=main threat" comes from them. Why should the public find it reasonable when US intel protects the #1 threat from surveillance/arrest/deportation?