No Sibel Edmonds thread??!
- Thread starter Darios
- Start date
Some links reposted, but I think this adresses your question.
Regarding the destruction of the tapes. Apparently, CIA directors are due for hearings about it on January the 16th according to the Sunday Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece
All the focus is on whether the tapes where destroyed because they contained ‘harsh interrogation’ that the CIA wanted to keep quiet. However given what we know and what Zubadayah disclosed during interrogation, I don’t believe that is the whole story. In short, this Time piece shows how Zubadayah revealed that his boss was a prominent Saudi royal. Incidentally, this same royal was the leader of the group of Saudis that was allowed to fly home during the general flight ban after 911.
Confessions of a Terrorist
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908-480226,00.html
In this light, as well as Edmonds revelations about protection of foreign agents and cover-ups of information, and all the games that get played across all the agencies and departments. The question for me is why doesn’t the press pick up on these instances? Well we know that they are not allowed, i.e. in Edmonds case, but even so… This for me is a major obstacle to putting out the fire of corruption. I note that the Sunday Times did this recent article on Edmonds
For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
.
Furthermore, it is considered very likely that the orders to destroy the CIA tapes came from the White House, as the linked article (Times- first link at top) shows.
I think therefore that we will see spin and limited hang-outs in this instance. Why doesn’t the truth get a proper hearing? I think Edmond’s testimony can give you the picture.
Some articles by Edmonds and a documentary on her.
http://www.justacitizen.com/
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...338&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I think there is so much scandal and corruption, and determined people like Edmonds, that I think there is a chance that Washington will be shook up this year. All we need is the press to start garnering controversy and generating news feedback, or, spectacular victories for the likes of Edmonds and her supporters in Washington circles.
Regarding the destruction of the tapes. Apparently, CIA directors are due for hearings about it on January the 16th according to the Sunday Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece
All the focus is on whether the tapes where destroyed because they contained ‘harsh interrogation’ that the CIA wanted to keep quiet. However given what we know and what Zubadayah disclosed during interrogation, I don’t believe that is the whole story. In short, this Time piece shows how Zubadayah revealed that his boss was a prominent Saudi royal. Incidentally, this same royal was the leader of the group of Saudis that was allowed to fly home during the general flight ban after 911.
Confessions of a Terrorist
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908-480226,00.html
In this light, as well as Edmonds revelations about protection of foreign agents and cover-ups of information, and all the games that get played across all the agencies and departments. The question for me is why doesn’t the press pick up on these instances? Well we know that they are not allowed, i.e. in Edmonds case, but even so… This for me is a major obstacle to putting out the fire of corruption. I note that the Sunday Times did this recent article on Edmonds
For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
.
Furthermore, it is considered very likely that the orders to destroy the CIA tapes came from the White House, as the linked article (Times- first link at top) shows.
I think therefore that we will see spin and limited hang-outs in this instance. Why doesn’t the truth get a proper hearing? I think Edmond’s testimony can give you the picture.
Some articles by Edmonds and a documentary on her.
http://www.justacitizen.com/
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...338&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I think there is so much scandal and corruption, and determined people like Edmonds, that I think there is a chance that Washington will be shook up this year. All we need is the press to start garnering controversy and generating news feedback, or, spectacular victories for the likes of Edmonds and her supporters in Washington circles.
A more recent update on the story by Gerald Posner, who originally revealed the connection between senior Al-Quaeda figure Abu Zubadayah and prominent Saudi royals. Posner's Time story was from back in 2003.
Regarding the latest controversy, that of the CIA being brought under scrutiny for the witholding and destruction of taped interrogations of Zubaydah, Posner wrote about this in December, when the story initially broke.
The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 911 Connection
Zubaydah revealed connections to a number of prominent Saudi royals. His boss Prince Ahmed, was the leader of the Saudi party that was allowed to fly home during the general flight ban after 911. All of the Saudi's that where named have since met a variety of unfortunate and untimely fates as the linked article chronicles.
It only required a press release from the CIA director to tell the press why the tapes where destroyed for the MSM to roll over and follow the bullshit he was giving the public. Hence the unquestioning adherence to the establishment.
Regarding the latest controversy, that of the CIA being brought under scrutiny for the witholding and destruction of taped interrogations of Zubaydah, Posner wrote about this in December, when the story initially broke.
The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 911 Connection
Zubaydah revealed connections to a number of prominent Saudi royals. His boss Prince Ahmed, was the leader of the Saudi party that was allowed to fly home during the general flight ban after 911. All of the Saudi's that where named have since met a variety of unfortunate and untimely fates as the linked article chronicles.
It only required a press release from the CIA director to tell the press why the tapes where destroyed for the MSM to roll over and follow the bullshit he was giving the public. Hence the unquestioning adherence to the establishment.
Kenny Vermouth
Wankers
It's probably virtually impossible to substantiate and calling or emailling media organisations and "demanding" that they do stories about something is surefire way of ensuring that they won't.Darios said:
It's pretty strange how little attention this thread is getting. Perhaps both her message and her credentials don't fit some people's fixed ideas on this whole topic...
It also goes to show how much power the state has over its apparently free press. So much for freedom of speech and democracy in that big land.
It also goes to show how much power the state has over its apparently free press. So much for freedom of speech and democracy in that big land.
Kenny Vermouth said:
What a strange thing to say.
If that is the case then why does she appear to have the support from so many other ex or currently serving intelligence officers, not to mention the unprecedented legal sanction being applied to her by the state?
Is it now the task of the citizen to substantiate the allegations of others before asking the media to cover it? If that were the case then the only news that would ever be reported would be press releases and perhaps "stories" based on direct audio and video evidence (think Big Brother).
Media organisations often seem fairly compliant in the face of a sufficient number of complaints - sometimes even a few hundred.
And besides all of that, surely her allegations alone (substantiated or not) are sufficient for immediate and intense media scrutiny!? How many times have we seen "major" news stories on the basis of "celebrity x alleges y"?
Given the level of support Edmonds appears to have by others highly likely to be 'in the know' plus the incredible response to her by the very state she is threatening I would argue that I, and all of you, have every reason to pursue this story and ensure her case receives maximum publicity.
The content of her allegations could very well undo the fabric of government in the U.S. and perhaps the U.K. too as it appears the trail leads also to officials in our government too. What do you recommend Kenny? Sitting on our hands?
A follow up from the Sunday Times yesterday:
Further context is provided by Luke Ryland
One of Luke's previous pieces is also notable:
His January 12 piece begins the identification of the UK angle (something I was hoping the conscientious hardcore "activists" who supposedly populate this forum may have got onto, they're too busy though...):
Luke links to this Guardian editorial which bizaarely does not identify the obvious links to the Edmonds case (though contributors in the comments section have done so).
Also of interest is Larisa Alexandrovna's piece at The Huffington Post in which she says:
Further context is provided by Luke Ryland
One of Luke's previous pieces is also notable:
His January 12 piece begins the identification of the UK angle (something I was hoping the conscientious hardcore "activists" who supposedly populate this forum may have got onto, they're too busy though...):
Luke links to this Guardian editorial which bizaarely does not identify the obvious links to the Edmonds case (though contributors in the comments section have done so).
Also of interest is Larisa Alexandrovna's piece at The Huffington Post in which she says:
free spirit
more tea vicar?
there is the alternative possibility that the thread has a shit thread title, which means that unless you already know about the story, you're unlikely to be arsed to read it.fela fan said:
I also think there's a fair degree of 911 troofer fatigue around this place, it's a boy who cried wolf scenario, in that the troofer brigade in using the scatter gun approach over the last 8 years, and jumping on every half baked theory with no attempt to filter out obvious bollocks, has meant that most people will just roll their eyes and move on rather than waste their time with yet another crackpot theory.
Please note that I'm not making any comment on whether or not this story has legs or not, just pointing out to the troofers why everyone's not going to instantly fall to their knees in awe at the new troof you're revealing.
that said, this does look interesting.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I think what Kenny's getting at, is linked to what I was saying above.Darios said:
getting fuckloads of semi informed people to bombard media organisations with demands that a story like this be covered, is a surefire way of severely fucking off the media organisations who will link this story in their minds with the multiple other troofer non-stories they'll have previously been bombarded with over the years. Filling an inbox with hundreds of emails also makes it impossible for the media peeps to wade through them all to find the odd well written, and well researched press release smong the crap.
basically bombarding the media is a shit media strategy. A better strategy being to target a few key investigative journalists, with a well researched, fully sourced, briefing document.
but of course it must be the media at fault, not the press strategy.
free spirit said:
That's a good idea. Thanks.
free spirit said:
Yes the media is clearly at fault irrespective of the "press strategy". If there was no self-censorship there would be no need for a "press strategy". You don't see a problem with us doing the media's work for them? One of the key aspects of this story is that Edmonds approached the major US news providers and offered to give them her entire story if they broadcast it unedited. None of them stepped up to the plate.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
no problem.Darios said:
Darios said:
lol, no wonder she got nowhere... hello major news networks, I'd like you to publish an unedited statement making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption, and potentially treason against multiple high ranking government officials. I'll only give you this statement if you agree to publish it in full, without editing it.
i take it she was also offering to indemnify the paper against any legal costs, and damages stemming from libel actions brought by the people she was going to name, and that she had the cash to back that up?
If not, then she's no place making those demands, and is never going to get any editor to agree to publish uneditied a series of accusations that they've not been given the chance to see, or do background research on / find secondary sources to back her up.
there's a reason that a newspaper editor is called the editor you know.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
the media aren't interested. they're busy flogging us celebrity news!
More bread and circuses for the masses!
More bread and circuses for the masses!
Currently on the front page of slashdot and boingboing
http://slashdot.org/
http://slashdot.org/
free spirit said:
OK that's a fair argument.
However it doesn't get the remainder of the media off the hook for not reporting the allegations already made in the Sunday Times article.
Edit: also am I right in thinking that the libel legislation in the U.S. is not nearly so restrictive as in the U.K?
DogorKat - thanks for the heads up.
Fox News.com have repeated the latest Sunday Times article in full.
This makes the absence of this being reported on the BBC now officially off the scale.
This makes the absence of this being reported on the BBC now officially off the scale.
Well, seemingly fox have broken ground.
Here are efforts to get this story into the mass american media by someone eminently suited to be doing so:
“For the last two weeks — one could say, for years — the major American media have been guilty of ignoring entirely the allegations of the courageous and highly credible source Sibel Edmonds, quoted in the London Times on January 6, 2008 in a front-page story that was front-page news in much of the rest of the world but was not reported in a single American newspaper or network.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/16/6523/
Here are efforts to get this story into the mass american media by someone eminently suited to be doing so:
“For the last two weeks — one could say, for years — the major American media have been guilty of ignoring entirely the allegations of the courageous and highly credible source Sibel Edmonds, quoted in the London Times on January 6, 2008 in a front-page story that was front-page news in much of the rest of the world but was not reported in a single American newspaper or network.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/16/6523/
teqniq
DisMembered
Fox aren't exactly known for their courageous 'defender of the truth' stance though, otherwise sites/organisations like foxattacks wouldn't exist. Which begs the question, first the Times now Fox. What's Murdoch playing at? Rats deserting a sinking ship perchance?
Guardian blog entitled 'US journalists ignore Sunday Times scoop on FBI nuclear scandal'.
Anyone catch the Guardian today? Did this run in the print version?
Anyone catch the Guardian today? Did this run in the print version?
Harry Shearer in the Huffington Post:
Are any of you sufficiently convinced now that this story warrants substantial attention and scrutiny?
Is anyone here interested in helping to chase the UK angle on the Edmonds story? I'm thinking customs and excise (as already mentioned by Edmonds, with the additional material provided by the Guardians article back a few posts) and perhaps following the Chris Floyd connections re: BCCI . The latter would be working on the theory that the same people (and their associates) who Edmonds has identified that have had associations with BCCI in the past might lead us to their UK counterparts who had similar associations previously. The BCCI was set up in London after all and the exercise might help us to at least narrow the potential targets given how limited our FOI privileges as citizens are in the UK compared to the US.
Let's get on this case.
Are any of you sufficiently convinced now that this story warrants substantial attention and scrutiny?
Is anyone here interested in helping to chase the UK angle on the Edmonds story? I'm thinking customs and excise (as already mentioned by Edmonds, with the additional material provided by the Guardians article back a few posts) and perhaps following the Chris Floyd connections re: BCCI . The latter would be working on the theory that the same people (and their associates) who Edmonds has identified that have had associations with BCCI in the past might lead us to their UK counterparts who had similar associations previously. The BCCI was set up in London after all and the exercise might help us to at least narrow the potential targets given how limited our FOI privileges as citizens are in the UK compared to the US.
Let's get on this case.
Not sure I *want* to see how things pan out yield. If Ryland's analysis in his blog is correct then it looks like the bastards may well get away with it (again!).
Closer to home looks just as shady: The case of Atif Amin. This bloke is being persecuted for having done his job, he's not even a whistleblower in the same vein as Edmonds. A case is being brought against him because HM Gov is convinced that he is the source for a book about him and his official investigations for customs; this is despite the categorical denials of the books authors.
Also, it's worth noting a little reference in the article to this: "A US national intelligence estimate published earlier this month [December 2007] said Iran probably halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, but did not say how much progress Tehran had made towards building a bomb by that time." My perception from the MSM last month was that, if anything, it is supposed that Iran has/is continuing with this programme. No mention of the NIE.
Also, in digging around to see what I can find with regard to the UK end of this nasty fucking web - I found this very interesting article.:
(emphasis mine).
Anyone remember this story? It suddenly looks different in the context of the likes of Edmonds, Amin et al. (i.e. at the time I remember dismissing it as 'bad apples', now perhaps their protestations of innocence and claims of being framed urgently need a second look?)
Did a thread on that in December 2007. U.S. report says Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
Staggering innit. There was me thinking it was Russia!
No milk and biscuits for you!
Keeps the liberal romantics happy if we assume "complicity."
I'm sure the nomenclature will keep up.
It's all a game isn't it. Just a big game. Those people who find themselves in the corridors of power, or who find themselves in powerful positions, do whatever they can to exploit their power, gain money through corruption and fraud, status and glory through self-deception, and then spend the rest of their time trying to cover up their stinking illegal activities from the rest of us.
They employ various mechanisms that make up the all-powerful state to do this work for them. After all, they have the money, and are perceived to have the power.
Grab the money illegally, then spend the rest of their lives trying to stop us people from finding out what they're doing with our resources.
These days, by and large, the huge media companies are part of that power, rarely doing their job by looking out for our interests.
Just a game.
They employ various mechanisms that make up the all-powerful state to do this work for them. After all, they have the money, and are perceived to have the power.
Grab the money illegally, then spend the rest of their lives trying to stop us people from finding out what they're doing with our resources.
These days, by and large, the huge media companies are part of that power, rarely doing their job by looking out for our interests.
Just a game.
Indeed Fela.
And here we have an ex-insider who, it seems, is backed by a fairly extensive network of other insiders (ex and current). She's offering evidence that ties together so many of the issues that have perplexed me over the last few years, providing something of a rosetta stone as I've already said. Edmonds has indicated a substantial and deeply rooted network of individuals collaborating under the shady aegis of "intelligence operations" to advance a self-serving agenda of criminal complicity. (Do I get milk and biscuits now for not uttering the verboten word?).
This time it can't be written off as just a 'few bad apples', if Edmonds and her corroborating sources are right, it's a thoroughly embedded structure. Edmonds has, so far, only highlighted the U.S. patch of this network. It is extremely likely that other players in this farce of mind numbingly treason are as deeply rooted and extensive in the state and intelligence apparatus of other nations such as the U.K. and it puts a new, horrible light, on such low moments as the dodgy dossier (early draft hopefully to be revealed thanks to the Information Commissioner actually flexing his muscles for once), david kelly, the BBC & Hutton, Craig Murray's constructive dismissal and on and on.
The story couldn't be more important, especially given the continuing MSM complicity in keeping it relatively quiet. It threatens to unleash the most awful of nightmares - which is that the nightmares we thought we were supposed to be scared of were actually at least partially, and consciously, constructed by those who would claim to protect us from them. And all for their, and their cronies', benefit.
Aloof all-knowing cynics brush it aside by simply engaging in schadenfreude while "activists" simply plain ignore it and continue with their partisan bitching. This is despite the fact that this is the best chance we've had yet to push back against the government(s) with something so substantially damaging to their credibility. In fact it is possibly enough to force major changes in the nature of government itself in that it has allowed, and shielded, these people for so long. It's also a rallying point for all of those lobbies and groups, of whatever political stripe, who oppose the increase of government power and influence on our lives. And yet, for the most part, those people are MIA.
And it looks like we will be lied into another war, with Iran, not to mention have our civil liberties continuing to be crippled in the 'war on terra' all at our expense of course, and all for the profit and continued power of this, or a similar group. Without a sufficient number of people and pressure mounted as a result of Edmonds & co then all we're going to be able to do is bear witness.
I suppose in another 10 years I'll at least be able to enjoy some schadenfreude of my own.
And here we have an ex-insider who, it seems, is backed by a fairly extensive network of other insiders (ex and current). She's offering evidence that ties together so many of the issues that have perplexed me over the last few years, providing something of a rosetta stone as I've already said. Edmonds has indicated a substantial and deeply rooted network of individuals collaborating under the shady aegis of "intelligence operations" to advance a self-serving agenda of criminal complicity. (Do I get milk and biscuits now for not uttering the verboten word?).
This time it can't be written off as just a 'few bad apples', if Edmonds and her corroborating sources are right, it's a thoroughly embedded structure. Edmonds has, so far, only highlighted the U.S. patch of this network. It is extremely likely that other players in this farce of mind numbingly treason are as deeply rooted and extensive in the state and intelligence apparatus of other nations such as the U.K. and it puts a new, horrible light, on such low moments as the dodgy dossier (early draft hopefully to be revealed thanks to the Information Commissioner actually flexing his muscles for once), david kelly, the BBC & Hutton, Craig Murray's constructive dismissal and on and on.
The story couldn't be more important, especially given the continuing MSM complicity in keeping it relatively quiet. It threatens to unleash the most awful of nightmares - which is that the nightmares we thought we were supposed to be scared of were actually at least partially, and consciously, constructed by those who would claim to protect us from them. And all for their, and their cronies', benefit.
Aloof all-knowing cynics brush it aside by simply engaging in schadenfreude while "activists" simply plain ignore it and continue with their partisan bitching. This is despite the fact that this is the best chance we've had yet to push back against the government(s) with something so substantially damaging to their credibility. In fact it is possibly enough to force major changes in the nature of government itself in that it has allowed, and shielded, these people for so long. It's also a rallying point for all of those lobbies and groups, of whatever political stripe, who oppose the increase of government power and influence on our lives. And yet, for the most part, those people are MIA.
And it looks like we will be lied into another war, with Iran, not to mention have our civil liberties continuing to be crippled in the 'war on terra' all at our expense of course, and all for the profit and continued power of this, or a similar group. Without a sufficient number of people and pressure mounted as a result of Edmonds & co then all we're going to be able to do is bear witness.
I suppose in another 10 years I'll at least be able to enjoy some schadenfreude of my own.
Similar threads
