networks to stay away from her.

_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

at The Agonist

For example, the names of the mysterious politicians? Wouldn't that be better than nothing? At least to get them out there. Perhaps after that the networks would become very curious and have that interview. Does not make sense...

Than NO audience at all... I may be missing something here.

a newly returned from the dead Elvis unedited time. This is what they do--a carefully edited group of four 15 minute segments with commercials. There is just no way the "editing" pre-condition will be met. If she is serious, then she has to go to some other venue--The New Yorker, Harper's will come a lot closer. Then she goes on multiple TV appearances and writes a book. Or she writes a book with all the gory details and then goes on TV.

No way any of the US networks will agree to her stipulations, but I'm sure she'd get BBC to cooperate. Why not get it out on the record and then let the networks ignore the story -- if they can?

Why announce that you are ready to tell all? This seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do. I hope she isn't disappeared or otherwise silenced.

Get Brian Williams to interview, and bring on Siebel Edmonds for a 15-minute segment. They could do it LIVE if they wanted to...

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

Here's a radical idea...

Lincoln passed a law a long time ago that gave average americans the ability to sue government agencies and contractors on the government's behalf... in the case of overcharging or fraud. Can't remember the name...

I wonder, if these congressmen, FBI agents, and other staffers are "treasonous," could an average American sue them for their salary?

You wouldn't need Waxman anymore...

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

"I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers," Daniel Ellsberg told us in regard to former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

"From what I understand, from what she has to tell, it has a major difference from the Pentagon Papers in that it deals directly with criminal activity and may involve impeachable offenses," Ellsberg explained. "And I don't necessarily mean the President or the Vice-President, though I wouldn't be surprised if the information reached up that high. But other members of the Executive Branch may be impeached as well. And she says similar about Congress."...

... "There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us...

Sibel:

"I have been receiving calls from the mainstream media all day," Edmonds recounted the day after we ran the story announcing that she was prepared to violate her gag-order to disclose all of the national security-related criminal allegations she has been kept from disclosing for the past five years.

"The media called from Japan and France and Belgium and Germany and Canada and from all over the world," she told The BRAD BLOG.

"But not from here?," we asked incredulously.

"I'm getting contact from all over the world, but not from here. Isn't that disgusting?," she shot back...

(...)

They Already Know

Edmonds revealed an additional tasty morsel while wrapping up one of our recent conversations. One that might help explain the American media's reluctance to jump at the chance for a scoop: apparently many of them already know the story.

"I will name the name of major publications who know the story, and have been sitting on it --- almost a year and a half."

"How do you know they have the story?," we asked.

"I know they have it because people from the FBI have come in and given it to them. They've given them the documents and specific case-numbers on my case."

"These are agents that have said to me, 'if you can get Congress to subpoena me I'll come in and tell it under oath.'"

Yet, despite promises she says she had received from staffers in Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) office to hold hearings once he became chairman of the House Oversight Committee, they no longer respond to her. "The only reason they couldn't hold hearings [previously]," they'd told her, "was because the Republicans were blocking it."

They're not blocking it anymore. Ever since the Democrats have taken control of the House. Nonetheless, there are still no plans for hearings. Even with more than 30,000 people having signed her petition, calling on Waxman to do so.

A spokesperson from his office finally replied to our repeated requests for comment on why they had not yet held hearings on Edmonds' case.

We were told only that there are no hearings currently scheduled on her case. Repeated attempts to gather a more specific explanation or confirmation that the office had previously promised hearings yielded the same answer, and nothing more. No hearing is presently scheduled on the matter.

"It's disgusting," Edmonds said about the broken promises. "They won't do it anymore. It's disgusting."

"This is criminal activity. That's why I went to Congress, to the Courts, to the [FBI] IG. I am obligated to do so. And that's what I've been doing since 2002."

"By not doing so, someone should charge me for not coming forward to say something about this," she continued...

..."It involves our allies in various places in the Middle East. It involves our allies in Turkey and in Afghanistan and involves people in our Congress and our State Department," [Ellsberg] says.

Yes, Israel and the extremely powerful AIPAC lobby which supports both parties, is said to be involved as well.

"There's no way that the President and Vice-President can escape culpability in this case," Ellsberg charges. "If they claim they don't know about it, then they are culpable in not knowing about it, and that's impeachable right there."...

( ... Link ... )