by Jim
Hogue
|
INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds
and Behrooz Sarshar, beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to
their superiors at the FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a
corrupt power structure that has a stranglehold on the very institutions that
are obligated to control it. We cannot excuse these institutions, for while
they fiddle, they pass death sentences on their own troops, and on the people
of
On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for
50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the
interview. The editing is for the sake of a more readable piece.
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She
blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the
culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the
Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the
Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms.
Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention
the names of the people or the countries involved.
THE INTERVIEW
JH: The
people who have so far been interviewed on this program have all been authors
and researchers, and here we have someone who, for the most part, has
first-hand information. Ladies and Gentlemen, your guest is Sibel Edmonds,
formerly of the FBI, a translator who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11.
Ms. Edmonds, what I'll do is invite you to
tell us whatever you would like--your stint with the FBI--and what the brouhaha
with Ashcroft and company is all about.
SE: I started working for the
Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several
languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance.
And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties
included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way
before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be
re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be
translated for the first time due to the backlog.
During my work there I came across some very
significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the
mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone,
because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of
worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic
management I took it to higher levels all the way up to [assistant director]
Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any
further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against
me.
At that point, which would be around February
2002, they came and they confiscated my computer, because, they said, they were
suspecting that I was communicating with certain Senate members and taking this
issue outside the Bureau. And, at that point, I was not. They did not find
anything in my computer after they confiscated it. And they asked me to take a
polygraph as to the allegations and reports I'd made. I volunteered and I took
the polygraph and passed it without a glitch. They have already confirmed this
publicly.
In March 2002 I took this issue to the Senate
Judiciary Committee and also I filed it with the Department of Justice
Inspector General's office. And as per the Senate Judiciary Committee's request
the IG started an expedited investigation on these serious issues; and they
promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that their report for these
investigations would be out by fall 2002 latest. And here we are in April 2004
and this report is not being made public, and they are citing "state
privilege" and "national security" for not making this report
public.
Three weeks after I went to the Senate
Judiciary Committee the Bureau terminated my contract, and they cited
"government's convenience." I started working with the Senate
Judiciary Committee that was investigating this case, and I appeared before the
Inspector General's office for their investigation several times, and I also
requested documents regarding these reports under the Freedom of Information
Act; and they blocked this by citing again the "state secret
privilege" and "national security" refusing to make these
documents public.
On
I testified before the [9/11] commission on
JH: And it is the Attorney General who is blocking your testimony.
SE: Senator Leahy, on
JH: So Hatch has the power to keep Leahy and Grassley....
SE: Correct. And now it is
becoming a partisan issue. However, I keep reminding them that this issue is
not a new issue that has come out for this election. This issue has been in the
courts for two years and two months now.
JH: I've watched Hatch perform since the Contra Hearings in the mid
1980s, and I can assure you that for Hatch, everything is a partisan issue. You
have a tough one.
SE: We have to remind the
people: Congress has the constitutional obligation and public responsibility to
oversee these issues and the Department of Justice's operations. That's why
they are elected. That's why they are there. That's what they are getting paid
for.
JH: Do you think that Leahy and Grassley are going to try to plow ahead
with this, or do you think that there is a back door deal with Hatch?
SE: Well....as far as I see,
Senator Leahy has been trying, and it's a strong letter that he issued a few
weeks ago. [Ms. Edmonds refers here to the GPO's PDF (Senate--
However, I'm very disappointed with Senator
Grassley's office and his staff members. They initially were very supportive.
But what I am getting from their office every time I call is, "Well this
issue is under the Inspector General," and that their hands are tied. And
then I press further and ask, "Well, what do you mean, 'our hands are tied'?
Who's tying your hands? Untie it. Let's get it untied." They don't have
any response. They say, "Well, this issue is very complex, and as you
know, it is being investigated." And I'm not seeing any issue being
investigated. What I'm seeing is that this issue is being covered up, and
relentlessly being covered up, in consideration of "state privilege,"
which people are calling "the neutron bomb of all privilege."
JH: I can assure you that there are probably thirty issues just like
yours that are being covered up. And they are allowing reporters, writers,
internet contributors, and journalists from around the world to do these
investigations, because they know that most Americans will never hear any of
that. But as soon as someone like yourself gets too close to actually finding
out who did anything, "state privilege" or something....
SE: "National
security" as a classification.
JH: Why that makes us more secure, to let the people guilty of 9/11 run
around free is, of course, the question that no one is willing to deal with.
I have a question having to do with
"mid-level" management at the FBI. Why do you think that mid-level
FBI management would care enough to stop you from doing your job?
SE: This was mainly for the
reason of accountability. As you know, and as the chairman for the 9/11
Commission [Thomas Kean] answered during Tim Russert's show: to this day, not a
single person has been held accountable. And certain issues, yes, they were due
to a certain level of incompetence. But there were certain other issues--you
know they keep talking about this "wall," and not having
communication. I beg to differ on that, because there are certain instances
where the Bureau is being asked by the State Department not to pursue certain
investigations or certain people or certain targets of an investigation--simply
citing "diplomatic relations." And what happens is, instead of
targeting those people who are directly related to these illegal terrorist
activities, they just let them walk free.
JH: And they interrogate people who are trying to make voting safe.
SE: And that is hypocritical. I
see people detained for simple INS violations. On the other hand I have seen
several, several top targets for these investigations of these terrorist
activities that were allowed to leave the country--I'm not talking about weeks,
I'm talking about months after 9/11.
JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours,
that were squelched in
SE: Correct.
JH: And yours was even outside of that.
SE: Correct.
JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told
something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of
these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that?
Can all of them have been incompetent?
SE: No. Absolutely
not.
JH: So they got the word down from Mueller, probably.
SE: I cannot confirm that for
sure, but I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did
let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not
talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint
Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the
mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see
several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that
is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do
everything to cover this up. And I am appalled. I am really surprised. I'm
taken back by seeing the mass media's reaction to this. They are the window to
our government's operation and what are they doing?
JH: We've been screaming about it for a long time. And it goes on.
SE: And you see many people just
turning away from these channels of mass media, and they're just turning in to
alternative providers, because they just see what's happening.
JH: I have another question: when the gag order was written, it had to
do with "diplomatic relations." Right?
SE: That is what Attorney General
Ashcroft cited.
JH: Are you allowed to say that it's the Saudis?
SE: I cannot name any country.
And I would emphasize that it's plural. I understand the Saudis have been named
because fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from
JH: And the information that you have been gagged on has to do with that
specifically.
SE: Correct. And
specifically with that and their ties to people here in this country today.
JH: I understand why you can't say anything about this, but there are
several books out about the Bush ties to the Saudis and the bin Ladens in
particular. And in David Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, there is
a very good synopsis of the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service.
He shows the direct connections between the CIA, the ISI, and Mohamed Atta. He
makes a very convincing case that the Pakistani ISI had been helping to plan
9/11 for a long time.
I don't imagine that you are allowed to say
much about that.
SE: You are correct. But I can
tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And
it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the
portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because
then it starts touching some people in high places.
JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?
|
SE: The most significant
information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism
investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from
counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have
to do with money laundering operations.
You get to a point where it gets very complex,
where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and
terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In
certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those
portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing
"foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking
about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations
and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really
ugly.
....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting
from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel
Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to
Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in
Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence
confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply
documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."
SE: I cannot comment on that.
But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real
terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this
country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.
JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is
al-Qaeda?
SE: This is a very interesting
and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of
al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization.
You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of
countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations
and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say
al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in
JH: [Laughter] I guess not. This leads me to think of a beef I have with
Seymour Hersh that I'd like to bring up with you? Do you know who he is?
SE: Yes.
JH: He seems to presume that the U.S. Intelligence Services want to
collect the kind of intelligence that you have been gagged from repeating. I
have suggested to him in a letter that there is an alternative to incompetence
as to why intelligence doesn't get through to where it is supposed to go. But
he's not interested. He doesn't seem to want to take that step.
SE: Not many people are willing
to do that.
JH: But there are a lot of people who have laid out the road map.
SE: But people and your
listeners have to go further than that. I understand this administration and
their anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes. But that aside, we are not made of only one branch of government.
We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how
about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our
representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system.
They should be counter-acting this corruption, but they are sitting there
silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen. Senators Leahy
and Grassley and Hatch have the obligation to do that. It's not that they can
choose not to do it. They don't have that luxury. This needs to be demanded of
them. People need to pick up their phones. They need to write to these people
and say, "You'd better fulfill your responsibilities."
JH: And you know what Senator Leahy is going to do? He's going to
forward his letter, his Senate testimony, on to us to prove how hard he is
working.
SE: I saw a reporter the other
day who had just spoken to Senator Leahy. And Senator Leahy said that,
well...he doesn't know what the next step will be. And it came to the issue of
the hearing, and investigating this case, and he basically ended the
conversation. And I think that with a little more pressure from us, from you
and from your listeners, we can change that.
JH: Some folks up here think of him as Saint Patrick, I'm afraid. Be
that as it may, are you aware of the on-line news service, TRUTHOUT?
SE: I've heard of it.
JH: There is an article in the April sixth TRUTHOUT by Paul Sperry from
WorldNet Daily about you and one of your colleagues...
SE: Mr. Sarshar?
JH: Behrooz Sarshar.
SE: He is another translator who
worked in the same department as I did. Mr. Sarshar wanted to make this
information public, however he just wanted to go to the Senate Judiciary
Committee and receive their support and protection under the whistleblower
protection act. And I facilitated this meeting, and several 9/11 family members
and I took Mr. Sarshar to the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in Senator
Grassley's office. Mr. Sarshar provided them with detailed information,
however, to this day Senator Grassley has not acted upon that, and he passed the
buck to the 9/11 Commission. Next we arranged for a briefing between the 9/11
Commission and Mr. Sarshar, and he went there on
So, all this information has been sitting in
front of them. They have not called any of those witnesses introduced by Mr.
Sarshar to them. And during the 9/11 Commission hearing with [FBI] Director
Mueller, none of these questions were asked. In fact they did not have any
questions for Director Mueller, and they left it at that [except for the remark
by Mr. Ben-Veniste that they should be addressing the translation issues behind
closed doors.] And "behind closed doors" has become a black hole for
me because I have been in these closed door sessions so many times within the
Senate, within the Inspector General's office, within the 9/11 Commission. And
whatever information you are providing them behind these closed doors, you know
for sure that that information will stay there and will never get out.
That is why we are demanding to have public
hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Senate floor and open to
the public.
JH: Do you think the Ellen Mariani case will help any of this? [Ellen
Mariani is a 9/11 widow whose attorney, Philip Berg,
is suing the
SE: I have read about her case.
But there is another lawsuit: the Motley Rice legal firm that is representing
over a thousand family members. They sent me a subpoena to provide them with a
deposition. And one day before that deposition took place, the government
attorneys intervened and asked the court for a hearing and they quashed this subpoena
request. They sent eight heavyweight attorneys from the Department of Justice,
and Mr. Ashcroft's right hand. And basically put on this show in front of the
judge, saying, "Sibel Edmonds, if you were to provide this information,
our national security and our state secret privilege and our foreign relations
will be destroyed. Therefore, Your Honor, we want you
to quash this subpoena." Motley Rice told the judge that they wanted to
ask for information that has already been made public. The government maintained
that even though the information was public, it was still classified. And Judge
Walton granted their request.
JH: There is some hope coming from statements made by former FBI
counterintelligence agent I.C.Smith who thinks that 9/11 would have been
stopped, had the FBI been allowed to do its job. He is strongly critical of FBI
assistant director Dale Watson.
Do you believe that 9/11 could have been
stopped if information like yours had been properly handled?
SE: At the very least, as early
as May/June 2001, we could have issued a red code alert to the public, and we
would have issued this very urgent warning system, which would, in return, have
increased our Airport and INS security. Could we have prevented in 100%
certainty? I don't think anything is that certain.
However, we would have had a very, very good chance for preventing it. And
agent Smith and I, we crossed the same person, because my case has to do with
Dale Watson too.
JH: The trouble is: once you make this information public, you mess up
the plan. And if one of the investigations from
SE: Look, Jim, they had those
four pieces you mentioned, and far more than that, believe me, far more than
that. And that has not been made public. And for them to say that we did not
have any specific information is just outrageous. Because what were they
waiting for? An affidavit signed by bin Laden?
JH: "Hey Dumb Ass! Coming 9/11!" So their statement that they
didn't have the information is outrageous.
SE: And they have been backing
off from that. About two weeks before Condoleezza Rice appeared before the 9/11
Commission she made the statement, "We had no specific information."
And I told the press that that was an outrageous lie. That was printed on the
front page of The Independent [
Yet the Commission didn't ask, "Well, who
is the rest of this 'we'?"
JH: They don't want to know.
SE: No, they don't want to know.
This is the heart of it. The attitude of the Senate members has been "See
no evil. Hear no evil. Just let it go." And you can't let that happen. The
only people I have seen who have been truly pushing for the truth are the
family members. All they have asked for are three things. They want the truth,
the facts, the real facts, the straightforward truth.
They want accountability. And they want us to improve our security. That's it.
They have no other agenda. And now they're smearing their names.
JH: They'll never run out of people to smear. Everybody who talks gets
smeared.
SE: I have been given a warning
that my turn is coming. I have been waiting for this for two years and two
months, Jim. And they have not done it to this day, and they have not even
denied anything. But I have been told to expect something to occur soon.
JH: Well, they have to figure out the angle.
[At this point we opened the lines for
callers, as the scheduled time for the interview was drawing to a close.]
CALLER: But, of course, you are trying to spoil our American Dream. We
want to dream in peace! What are you doing? [Laughter] Let us sleep!
JH: That's it. That's what
they're up to.
CALLER: The depth of that psychology
is incredible. It goes from A to Z through our life cycle. It's so
disempowering. It's so depressing. Well, thank you for being lunatics out there
who are trying to get yourselves shot. [Laughter]
JH: That's okay. Anytime. Just for you. Bye bye.
SE: Even from people from whom
I've been receiving support, so many times you run across people who say,
"Yeah, it's terrible. I understand. And it's very courageous what you are
doing." But you know how this thing is. It's a boat you can't rock. And
that is what is allowing these people to take everything this far. We need to
stop saying we can't rock this boat when it needs to be rocked. Listen, we pay
for this boat. We elect this boat. It's our money that maintains this boat. And
we are the ultimate boss here. If this boat or some section of it needs
rocking, you bet we have the right and we have the power to do it. And we have
the power to demand it. Otherwise we are making ourselves powerless.
JH: And if we don't do it, we
don't deserve it.
SE: Correct.
2nd CALLER: [Question re 9/11 stand down of the air defense system]
SE: I don't have direct
knowledge of it. And I have been trying to stay within what exactly I know--the
exact truth--not the conspiracy theories--no exaggerations--everything that I
know, that I came across that is well documented where I can say, "Pull
out this document; pull out this evidence. Make this document public; make that
document public."
However, I have been working with other people
who have been trying to address other aspects of this issue.
2nd CALLER: The issue of whether
or not they new it was going to happen becomes somewhat moot when you look at
the air force stand down. They new it was going to happen. Well, who did it
then? There was a show on TUC [Time of Useful Consciousness] radio with....
JH: Michael Ruppert.
2nd CALLER: Yes. He went
step-by-step of what actually happened with the Air Force stand-down. It's so
obvious that we're in some sort of farcical dream, and what [the previous
caller] said was quite relevant, that most people don't want to wake up from
this. So I was just curious. I appreciate your work very much. And those are
the two things that stand out to me--the Pentagon and the air force stand down.
But what else can you really do at this point than just make a little noise?
Anyway, thank you for doing what you are doing.
SE: He has a point there. There
are so many questions that they don't want answered. And they remain
unanswered. And I'm afraid they will not be answered unless we have a real
investigation. And to this day there has been no real investigation. Without
this, people cannot just let them wrap it up and say, "OK this is the
report from the 9/11 Commission," where anything that has any value is
redacted because it is top secret classified information.
JH: And pretty much all the shoes
have dropped. The evidence at this point is overwhelming, and still nobody
seems to be doing anything about it.
2nd CALLER: Right, but if you look
at the Warren Commission--you look at the magic bullet theory--you know that's
official! But who buys it? What can we do? This is going to happen. They're
going to pull it off because the press won't report the truth.
SE: That goes to the heart of
the matter: The media, as I said is the window to the government, and that
window has turned into a wall.
JH: We can have a little more
faith in the average person despite what [the two callers] say. I just did an
informal survey in southern
2nd CALLER: I would have suspected
the opposite. These are emotional issues where people don't want their bubble
burst. They say, "Well, the government would never kill their own
people." Psychopaths go oversees and kill people with war machines.
They're over the notion of patriotism. And I think that for most people it's
hard to make that step.
JH: I'm not saying they made or
didn't make a step. I'm just saying that, for these workers, the machinations
of government are beyond their concern. But Ms. Edmonds has to leave
shortly....
2nd CALLER: OK I'll let you go. I
appreciate very much what both of you have done, and thank you very much.
JH: Ms. Edmonds, thanks for being our guest.
SE: Thank you very much. I'm
honored to be on your show and I hope I'll be on again. And I hope you will
able to get Senator Leahy. I'd like to be able to have a chat with him.
[Laughter]
JH: Fat chance. He withers at
the thought.
SE: We're going to still be
pounding. I'm preparing this petition, and it's going to be signed by many,
many people and I'm going to be wheeling it in personally to both Senators
Leahy and Grassley. And it will have some level of coverage. And once they see
the cameras and the people, suddenly their personalities change. It's like Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They become very sweet.
JH: If you see either one of
those two [Leahy or Grassley], I'd be more than happy to have either one them
on - with you. Let's see what we can do.
SE: Okay, let's hope. Thank you,
Jim. Bye.
EDITOR'S
NOTE: Jim Hogue provided the following conclusion to this interview: "The
facts reported by Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar are incontrovertible.
Result: Silence. And you must agree to be a part of this silence.The gag order
permeates the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, all levels of the FBI,
the CIA, the 9/11 Commission, the NSC, the Pentagon, the Republican Party, the
Democratic Party, and the mass media. The media and the White House will next
assassinate Miss Edmond's character, as they have done to others who haven't
rolled over and played dead. Never in the course of human events has so great a
story been covered up by so many on the orders of so few.
The likes of Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodard and Judith Miller should put their
tails between their legs and slink away, while the obscure academic, Dr. David
Ray Griffin, while candidate John Buchanan, citizen Eric Hufschmid, author Gore
Vidal, independent journalists Michael Ruppert and Christopher Bollyn, and the
9/11 families are recognized among those who kept open the window to Democracy.
Miss Edmonds has challenged us to do our jobs as citizens. It isn't often that
a phone call could change the course of history. Now is such a time."
Jim Hogue, a retired high school teacher and professional actor, has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over 10 years. Prior to 9/11, the show was literary in nature, but since then Hogue's coverage has greatly expanded.