Comments on: We’ve Got A File On You

By: Sand

Sand — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:17:10 +0000

OT slightly: Something else I always thought interesting and needed further investigation:

Scott Horton from antiwar interview Sibel Edmonds in 2005:

SH: Sibel, let’s see if we can figure out why they [the government] are going to such lengths to keep you quiet. Can you tell me, what is the American Turkish Council – let me rephrase that, can you tell me what the American Turkish Council is?

SE: Well sure, it’s on the Web site. They are this lobbying organization for Turkish business and relationship between U.S. and Turkey. It’s exactly like AIPAC

SH: Oh good, exactly like AIPAC!

SE: Exactly. In fact, they have so many crossovers, if you look at their members you will see many that are members of both organizations. And if you look at the people who are in the management and are in charge of these lobbying groups, you come across the same names, which is very interesting.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ho.....cleid=7032

Who are these members?

By: Sand

Sand — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:28:56 +0000

From the NYTimes article:

“..The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said…”

I dunno but ‘could’ it have been part of what Sibel Edmonds was working on?

“…She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....216737.ece

A dunno… it’s not much, but there are some Congresscritters that come up on her gallery page?
http://letsibeledmondsspeak.bl.....tures.html

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:41:19 +0000

How many Congressional Ds would we lose, is the implied threat.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:15:10 +0000

So they “threaten” to reveal Bushies are blackmailers as well as spying on Americans? What’s not to like about that? Call their bluff and let them reveal all of the Bush admin wrong-doings!

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:11:25 +0000

Not her stupidity, the fact she had been on the Intelligence committee and they thought it somewhat likely they could get her on it again and use her.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:20:31 +0000

Maybe somebody at the NSA once told her that if she said “This conversation does not exist” on the phone, then the Hoovering machines would ignore that call. Y’know, just to mess with her head.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:18:20 +0000

The Harmon thing was basically OK’d for prosecution within DoJ back around 2006, so I think we can assume that the wiretap reports have been exposed outside of the NSA for a while now.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:16:20 +0000

Yes, I asked that yesterday and still think it’s a reasonable reason.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:14:15 +0000

Thank you, Norske — that’s exactly the kind of motivation check I’ve been reading for.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:12:15 +0000

But they don’t seem to be able to identify this “suspected Israeli agent”?
How’d they get his “number/phone” to apply for a warrant to wiretapif they couldn’t even identify him to the judge? How would any of this meet the specificity components to avoid an illegal blanket warrant?

It almost sounds as if they were monitoring all traffic out of Israel to the US? Or any phone calls to Congress? Then when they used the magic words “AlPACa” the surveillance was triggered.

Odd though, that they were looking at Congress…the whole AlPACa probe related to folks in the DoD.