SIBEL EDMONDS: Two Sides of the Same Coin... Heads-Heads

[BradBlog]

SIBEL EDMONDS: Two Sides of the Same Coin... Heads-Heads

-- Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds

During the campaign, amid their state of elation, many disregarded Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama's past record and took any criticism of these past actions as partisan attacks deserving equally partisan counterattacks. Some continued their reluctant support after candidate Obama became grand finalist and prayed for the best. And a few still continue their rationalizing and defense, with illogical excuses such as 'He's been in office for only 20 days, give the man a break!' and 'He's had only 50 days in office, give him a chance!' and currently, 'be reasonable - how much can a man do in 120 days?!' I am going to give this logic, or lack of, a slight spicing of reason, then, turn it around, and present it as: If 'the man' can do this much astounding damage, whether to our civil liberties, or to our notion of democracy, or to government integrity, in 'only' 120 days, may God help us with the next ((4 X 365) - 120) days...

FULL EDITORIAL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7172

[RoyGBiv]

1. Now this is an example of the problem ...

I don't know how involved I intend to get in this. There's far too much poo flinging, too much "with us or against us" thinking going on, but I am going to say this anyway.

The Obama administration is clearly open to criticism for its use of the States Secrets Privilege, so-called. We could look at the three times he has invoked it, and we could pick those apart, and, if we are as objective as possible about it, we could conceive of an argument against its use in any of those cases. We might even be able to go so far as to say he is teetering on being guilty of abusing the privilege, so-called, and that would provide the basis of a partial comparison to his predecessor.

However, this is not the way to do that. Ms. Edmonds begins with gross hyperbole, declaring Bush and Obama two sides of the same coin (which coin is that, Ms. Edmonds), and then goes of on what amounts to a tirade, demeaning anyone who dares defend the President's actions preemptively by sarcastically dismissing the lines often used when Obama is lambasted for not having fixed the economy or brought about equal rights for all men, women, children, gays, straights, blacks, whites, browns, chartreuses, and eggplants.

Then, she demolishes almost the entire basis of her reasoning with the following line:

"Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this 'privilege' during the now gone Administration; because long before it became 'a popular' topic among the 'progressive experts,' during the time when these same experts avoided writing or speaking about it; when many constitutional attorneys had no idea we even had this "law" - similar to and based on the British 'Official Secret Act; when many journalists did not dare to question this draconian abuse of Executive Power; I was out there, writing, speaking, making the rounds in Congress, and fighting this 'privilege' in the courts."

So, her problem with Obama is personal. She was involved in an abuse of Executive power that Obama hasn't somehow miraculously gone back in time to correct, and now he's just as bad as Bush.

I don't have a clue whether Ms. Edmonds was the "first recipient" of the privilege during the Bush administration. I'll take her word for it, even if I think that's an odd way to phrase it. But I do know that the so-called priviledge has been recognized by the courts since 1953 and was a de defacto part of the way the Executive did business for most of this country's history. Several administrations have abused it. The purist might claim they all have. Regardless, the level of abuse in which the Bush administration was involved was, as far as we know, far and away above anything his predecessors did and set a baseline for abuse of power of a variety that Nixon only dreamed about. According to our Constitution, as interpreted by several SCOTUS decisions, does allow for the privilege, and in that context, the its "use" does not naturally equate with "abuse."

Even if Obama has abused this power in the three instances in which he's used it, this is so far from being on the same coin as Bush that the mere hint of a direct comparison like the one she makes calls into question her observations in total. I respect Ms. Edmonds greatly, feel great remorse and even anger for what she has gone through, and am heartened by the fact she is still out there fighting the good fight. But she undermines her own case with such grand leaps of criticism not grounded in more solid foundations.

It is right and proper to hold Obama's feet to the fire on invoking this privilege and to call him out if we perceive him to be abusing it. I have no issue with that at all. But, were I Obama, I would be far more prone to hearing this call were it presented in something other than what I can only call an outlandish abuse of metaphor in its own right.

[mmonk]

2. I don't see your logic. Since she was denied justice through

abuse of the state secrets privilege, she has no standing in your mind because it's personal?

[RoyGBiv]

3. No, not at all ...

I expect her to be extremely vigilant on that point and am thankful for it, but there are ways to present your argument without the hyperbole.

I see something in this piece that suggests she has allowed her personal battles to cloud her judgment of how to deliver an appropriate criticism. As I said, hold his feet to the fire. Demand accountability. If he starts throwing around the privilege at the drop of a hat, shout it from the rooftops and demand answers.

Obama hasn't done that, but she implies that he has and without explaining why there was an abuse of power in any of those cases.

[mmonk]

5. Personally, I think denying people who were victims of an illegal act

a day in court to be heard by using the state secrets privilege is an abuse of power.

[RoyGBiv]

8. There's the rub ...

When the privilege is used in that manner, it very often is an abuse of power, and I will agree that it is all too often used for just that purpose. Indeed, the 1953 case was revealed not all that long ago to have been invoked to prevent disclosure of the fact the Air Force was not properly maintaining its bomber fleet, which very well could have led to damages being granted to the families of those who died in the B-29 crash that instigated it.

But, what is it about the three cases in which it has been invoked by the Obama administration that suggests he is abusing the privilege.

He stated during the campaign that the privilege was abused by the previous administration. He did not, however, declare that any use of it constituted abuse, despite what those who have claimed he has flip-flopped on the issue would have us believe.

For my part, I'm torn. I recognize a legitimate need for secrecy in certain circumstances, but I also see the potential for massive abuse, as in the Edmonds case and the original Reynolds case in the 50s.

[randyconspiracybuff]

34. There's Nothing to Be Torn About

If Obama were honest about SSP, they could declassify documents in the Edmonds case and other cases immediately. He's not being honest or true to the voters. Let's face it, Obama is arguably just as bad as Bush on government openness and foreign policy.

[ajeffersonian]

17. He is throwing around the privilege at the drop of a hat

Pardon me, but I don't see where stating the facts rates as "hyperbole".

Go check how many times the "privilege" has been used, and come back and let me know if you find any other president who used in 3 times in his first 120 days. Then yes, go shout it from the rooftops.

Just because she has direct knowledge of the extreme danger of the "privilege" doesn't mean it clouds her judgment - to the contrary I believe it gives her judgment much more validity than that of those of us who don't have her direct knowledge and experience.

[RoyGBiv]

21. I pointed that out myself ...

He's used it three times.

Now, ask yourself why that is.

One reason is that Obama's administration inherited cases that had either been effectively ignored by Bush's Justice Department or were not brought (as in the case of Jewel v NSA) until it was too late for Bush to deal with them. The EFF, et al actually held back on some of its cases under the notion that the new administration would be far more friendly to the claims than Bush's. They have a reason for expressing disappointment in this individual case, certainly, but they did have little choice given how clear it was how Bush's administration would have handled it.

So, yes, he's used the privilege a lot in the time passed so far, comparatively speaking, and he's doing so while dealing with the mess his predecessor left him. I'm not here claiming he is in all cases doing this correctly, but the raw number of times the privilege has been invoked, compared to the number of times it could have been or still could be, is relatively minor. Much remains to be seen, especially in how the detainee and other wiretapping cases move forward.

As to her judgment, that too is not my point. One more time, she has a legitimate complaint, but the way she is expressing that complaint is not effective in getting across a message to anyone who is not already inclined to hear it. The way she presents this particular section of her criticism leaves open the potential for inference that only Bush and Obama have ever used the State Secrets Privilege. As I said in my other response to you, a more effective tactic would have been to place Obama's actions within a much larger context than just the last 8 years, plus 120 days.

[G_j]

4. what coin?

you must be kidding!

I don't see it as personal at all. She is calling it as she sees it, from what I read. Sure she is angry.
You may not agree...

:shrug:

[RoyGBiv]

6. Not even a little bit ...

Do you think Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin? If so, describe the coin. What kind of coin is it? In other words, what specific imagery is the metaphor intended to convey?

[G_j]

7. try the banks, the military industrial complex

the prison industrial complex, the insurance and credit card companies... that's the coin

I don't think of it as heads/ heads

but two sides of the same coin, sure.

[RoyGBiv]

10. You're entitled to your belief ...

I do think you're wrong, but one can have different perspectives on this.

I think many of us are developing a typical case of historical myopia with this, which is a rather standard extension of our sense of temporal exceptionalness.

[mmonk]

9. Maybe you can explain the difference in the cases between

the two justice departments. Enlighten us.

[RoyGBiv]

11. I don't know ...

That's the point.

Ms. Edmonds doesn't explain it ... at all. She is implicitly equating any use of the State Secrets Privilege with abuse.

If she wants to make a case that Obama is abusing the privilege, it's on her (or anyone who wants to make that case) to explain why a legally recognized power of the Executive branch is being abused. She fails at that and simply asserts it, ergo, my original claim that this was part of the problem.

Go ahead and criticize Obama, please. No holder of office is above criticism. I believe firmly that one of the highest forms of patriotism is to issue forth a constant barrage of demanding questions of why those in power do what they do and to ask whether what they do is necessary or proper.

I do not believe an effective way of doing that is through mere assertion without carefully considered arguments.

[mmonk]

14. As the Obama administration started using it in the same exact way

as to deny victims justice in a court of law instead of redacting what might give away any secrets if any, it all became crystal clear.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Again, more of the same problem ...

We're using buzz phrases to evoke certain kinds of imagery rather than presenting a factually based argument. One-liners do not do this effectively.

Allow me to intervene to provide a bit of the argument Ms. Edmonds should have delivered.

Using Jewel v. NSA since that's the case I know the most about personally, the Justice Department motion to dismiss is based on two arguments.

The first is that dismissal of the case would "be appropriate on the ground that its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets." The important phrase in this argument is "subject matter." That is Bush era doctrine, a new and inventive way of using to the point of abuse the State Secrets Privilege to argue for dismissing a case without a hearing.

The second is that specific bits of evidence that are required for the plaintiff to establish standing would themselves disclose information that is covered under the privilege. This is the more traditional and arguably legitimate use of the privilege. It is a strong argument in and of itself based on the way courts have in the past interpreted use of the power, to wit that a government's claim of the privilege is legitimate if it can show that public disclosure of certain information must be excluded from any hearing in the case. The case itself may go forward without that information being used, but in this specific case that would not be possible due to the need to establish standing and the information being needed to do so.

Ms. Edmonds, then, may rightly have asked why Obama chose to continue using the first argument when it was not necessary.

Once again, my point is not that questioning Obama is wrong or somehow bad. My point is that the way she does it in this piece is not effective. There are random bloggers making a better case than either she or Salon's Greenwald, and I find that sad and even a bit suspicious.

[mmonk]

19. The problem is that the government is using the privilege

to deny justice, not keep other countries from learning our secrets. In fact, in the case of Binyam, the only people that don't know the case are American citizens.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Okay ...

I can see that no substantive dialog is actually going to take place.

Thank you at least for remaining civil.

[mmonk]

25. I would hope you could consider the following:

The cases involve illegal activity on the part of someone in government in which people were harmed. Someone is denied justice from that illegal activity on the basis it is a secret (the whole thing with no part including the injustice not being a secret as argued by the government). Under such a standard, any illegal activity the government chooses to engage in could be declared a secret and of national security import thus making government officials untouchable by rule of law by declaring anything revealed in part would put us in danger. That is a slippery slope and not really the original intent of the privilege when introduced. We have procedures to seperate out the classified from the unclassified and secure rooms to do so.

[RoyGBiv]

26. A tangential question ...

Is it really that unclear, despite my repetition, that I'm not arguing for the "correctness" of Obama's use of the privilege?

[mmonk]

32. You are arguing that Sibel's motives are not all that pure

and are suspicious of her article of comparing bush and Obama on the issue. I know her well enough and see her as pretty straight up.

[ajeffersonian]

23. Maybe she knows more of the argument?

She put a lot of information into this piece, and I suspect that for her to provide the depth of argument on States Secret Privilege that you seem to feel is needed perhaps belongs in a separate paper. Based on the material I've read on her case, it seems that the underlying problem with the privilege, and what makes it so dangerous, is that the only arbiter of whether the "government's claim of the privilege is legitimate" is the government itself - so any claim can be made, regardless of its validity (or truthfulness). It makes a mockery of our judicial system and should be abolished entirely.

[RoyGBiv]

24. Then why is she presenting less?

As I said, random bloggers are providing more insightful comments about these cases than Ms. Edmonds did, and they're doing so with fewer words than she used.

OnEdit: This is the point at which these discussions devolve into random slinging of poo, and I won't be a part of it. This is why I have for the most part avoided all of them. It's pointless and only serves to provide evidence to a certain segment of the population's contention that the so-called blogosphere is nothing but a sewer of invective and rambling nonsense. I don't happen to agree with that, but I unfortunately understand why some people think that way.

I did not opine directly on whether I thought the State Secrets Privilege was "needed." I said I was torn, provided a brief summary of the reasons why I was torn, and left it there. I did say it was legally recognized, which is simply a statement of fact. In any case, what I believe on that is irrelevant to whether Ms. Edmonds article is effective in its criticism of Obama's administration. The comments about my opinions are personal ones, and when these discussions get personal is when they go astray, as most do from the first commentary.

Thank you for your contributions, but, sadly, I believe we are talking past each other.

[mmonk]

33. Which bloggers are these you speak of?

[ajeffersonian]

18. Seems clear to me

I believe she is very clear - on the issues she brought up there is no significant difference between the actions President Obama has taken and the actions President Bush took. Seems to me the imagery conveys the message well. Just step back and look at actions - forget ideology for a few minutes & I think you'll get it.

[ajeffersonian]

16. You're still doing us against them

It seems to me that Ms. Edmonds is being more objective here than you. What would have been your comments if everywhere in the article that mentions "Obama", she had mentioned "Bush"? Would you have raised these objections then? What if Bush in his first 120 days in office had done what she states Obama has done (or not done)? Would you have given him the same pass? She is saying "look at actions, not words", and based on actions I think the comparison stands.

[RoyGBiv]

20. Well, that's nonsensical ...

If everywhere she mentions Obama she had mentioned Bush, she would have been comparing Bush to Bush. That direct comparison is part of the problem with the piece.

I suppose you mean something more insightful than that, but I don't want to guess what it is and put words in your mouth.

Expanding just a bit on robertpaulsen's comments above, if Ms. Edmonds had wanted to go that route, she could have taken a more expansive view and claimed Obama was a side of the same multi-facted coin on which the faces of pretty much all of our Presidents have been a part. The notion that our democracy is by its existence and function throughout its history, as opposed to its establishment on the pillars of high ideals that were never truly followed, a beacon of liberty worthy of export is one worthy of critique. In that context, Obama could very well be taken as a continuation of a larger tradition of presenting a great vision while providing for the continued and extended entrenchment of state power at the expense of the rule of law. Indeed such icons as Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy fit this mold in their own way with arguable abuses of power and back-door encroachments on the separation of powers.

As to your initial charge, please do explain how I am playing "us against them." I'll grant the potential I am playing such a game as a manner of comparing and contrasting those who seek the path of a shallow sound bite versus those who seek more reasoned discourse. The "poo flinging" comment was intended to highlight this in fact. But the larger point, and one I still maintain, is that his piece by Edmonds and to some extent the current popular vehicle of dispute in the form of Greenwald's Salon article, exaggerate facts and present them in a manner that establishes lines of "us versus them" without really inviting anyone outside the "us" to examine closely what is truly being said, or more accurately, warned against. Both Greenwald and Edmonds have a point, or even several of them, but the way they express those points is itself "more of the same" with regard to its effectiveness in inspiring dialog.

I present this conversation (and almost every conversation that has taken place today regarding Greenwald's article) as evidence. People are, at best, talking past each other and ending up having to defend their right to criticize (whatever they are criticizing) while most are simply yelling at each other, in part because the authors of these pieces do not provide them with a basis for doing anything else.

[ajeffersonian]

27. Not Really

But your reply is somewhat. My point was simply that I believe your complaint against this piece is not so much what is in it, but who it is directed toward - "Obama", and that I believe that had the same article been written during Bush's tenure you probably would not have raised these objections, thus my comment to set aside ideology long enough to read the article objectively. Incidently, I've read a number of Ms. Edmonds writings during the Bush years, and she didn't mince words then either. Seems to me she's as non-partisan as we are likely to find - refreshing.

Most of your reply is a masterpiece of obfuscation, but I'll attempt to reply to some of what I can garner from it. You state that this piece exaggerates facts - please list that facts from the piece that are exaggerations & back your assertions up with facts.

I do agree that people are talking past each other, and I believe that is simple their ideology at play. Ms. Edmonds piece presents some facts and asks some questions; legitimate questions which you and others may dance around because you just can't bring yourself to accept what is playing out in front of you - that old ideology again blocking your view.

[RoyGBiv]

28. Well, you're wrong ...

Had that been the case I would never have gone to the extent of providing the criticism of Obama that I believe Edmonds should have made. These discussions go nowhere precisely because people are hell bent on reading thoughts never expressed and in some instances never even implied. I have made an effort to provide criticism and the basis of it toward Obama's administration even though I do not believe that was even necessary to discuss the point I tried to raise. I did so because I've been around here awhile, and I know people have a tendency to jump on thoughts not expressed more than those that are and so have said more than I really needed to say in an attempt to prevent that.

But, your insistence on doing so and your sarcasm is noted. Given your continued failure to address any actual point I have been attempting to discuss in preference for trying to root out of me an admission that the only reason I offered a criticism of Ms. Edmonds was due to who her target was, I think my part in our individual discussion is ended.

Good day.

[cascadiance]

29. You imply that Obama basically is like all other presidents and not just Bush...

If you look back at the records, the Bush administration has used the State Secrets privilege 38 times, whereas ALL of the previous presidents combined have only used it roughly 55 times combined. And Obama has already used it 3 times and has been in office only how long? Can't you see that Obama IS distinctly more like Bush than any of the other past presidents in state secrets privilege usage? And one would think he'd be more careful using it at the beginning of his term. If he's going to change course, he'll need to give us an awfully good explanation why he was using it to dismiss cases (and not just evidence) earlier.

And if it is just a "technicality" that is forcing him to use this when he'd rather have some subsequent legislation help him not use it later (perhap Nadler's bill that is still buried?) then his other actions don't really make the state secrets and isolated set of facts. There are a pattern of other actions that also don't support a move to transparency. As Sibel pointed out, these other actions of his like maintaining secrecy over the torture photos, trying to pressure the British not to make public evidence in a civil case a former Guantanamo prisoner wants to enter, etc. show a pattern that makes things very similar to what Bush was doing, and doesn't show the actions of someone that's trying to follow through on commitments of making this government more transparent to its citizens.

Now if he's genuinely trying to protect our nation's' security, then we must be in some serious shit that's not being talked about now.

[RoyGBiv]

30. No, I can't ...

I see the potential of Obama abusing the privilege just as badly as Bush did for reasons I stated in another post, reasons that were not articulated by Ms. Edmonds.

As already stated, use of the privilege does not naturally equate to abuse, and lacking an argument as to why each individual case constitutes abuse, the charge of abuse is hollow. Further, as I've also already stated, the circumstances that have led to Obama's use of the privilege stem from unresolved issues during the Bush administration, cases that it avoided or did not have time to address, this in the context of literally hundreds of cases that could be (and are not being) resolved or dismissed under the umbrella of a States Secrets claim. The Bush Justice Department in the final months of his administration was grossly inefficient and incompetent in its handling of cases and case load, in some cases intentionally so I believe, and has left an incredible backlog. What we don't know is how Obama's Justice Department plans to conceive of the use of the privilege from this point forward, and that is indeed a matter that requires careful vigilance.

Having said that, allow me to address briefly what I believe is a larger issue, which you, thankfully, did address.

The comparison of Obama and Bush to a larger group of American Presidents is based on issues raised by Peter Dale Scott in his various commentaries on the nature of the power of the state with particular emphasis on the United States in the 20th century. This was an issue briefly raised by robertpaulson in a reply that is, imo, the best attempt to address the point I raised. Broadly stated, Scott examines how the power of the state is expansionist at the expense of individual liberty and self-reinforcing, noting that Presidents in particular have a tendency to accumulate power, inherit abuses of power from their predecessors and develop them as standard tools of power used for their own purposes. They then develop their own particular flavor of abuses or power grabs that are then perpetuated on down the line. The lot of the power structure in this country is deeply invested in maintaining itself and is, by itself, a threat to its own foundational concepts.

He creates distinctions of type, but the fundamental attribute governs.

Edmonds's critique does not rest solely on the States Secrets Privilege, and I suppose it is my fault for directing most of my initial comments toward that. I was attempting to focus on the small to avoid a divergence into minute detail of a large variety of contentious subjects. In any case, a larger view of her critique, had it been more effectively presented, could have been formulated within this type of context, in which case it may have had more validity. Again I thank robertpaulson for mentioning it. Now, I don't agree necessarily that this is how Ms. Edmonds sees things because her rhetoric has an exaggerated tone that, again by my reading, is more expressive of a fully justified outrage that the Bush administration used the States Secrets privilege, in particular, against her to cover up real abuses by the government. The rest flows from that, but not in an effective way, imo.

[cascadiance]

36. I think you're saying you'd like to continue to believe that ultimately we will find out...

... what is going on with these cases, and that we'll find out later that these actions were necessary as a part of "cleaning up" after the Bush administration. I was wondering at the time earlier whether that might have been the case, and wanted to wait for a bit to see if subsequent actions by Obama would clarify that these particular cases weren't a bad sign and would be resolved properly later.

However, the longer we wait, and the more we have other cases and other situations that would tend to corroborate more of a pattern of abuse (not pursuing investigations, not releasing torture photos, additional state secrets cases, extending enforcement actions beyond what even Bush did, attempts of silencing of British court proceedings, telecomm immunity, etc.) than corroborate a pattern of "settling" old problems, many of us here's threshold for waiting for a positive outcome is either running thin or has has been crossed. You might remain hopeful, and others as well. Perhaps you personally know Obama and have more of a reason to, I don't know. But for many of us here who've followed this, we all feel a lot of concern now, and therefore we share Sibel's frustration that is voiced here, and she knowing more than we what went on behind the scenes before, probably has more reasons to feel legitimately frustrated than we do.

This isn't about personal feelings towards Obama at all. Though I supported Edwards earlier in the campaign (and Gore before ti started), I ultimately supported Obama over Clinton. Now I'm wondering if Joseph Wilson's endorsement of Clinton might have been saying something too at the time as well, though I have even more concerns about Ms. Clinton, as does Sibel Edmonds, who actually had Ms. Clinton in her dirty dozen list along with Lieberman. So she's not a Clinton supporter that's harboring old wounds there like some might try to postulate as well.

It's about actions! And Obama has been pretty low in this area.

Another good thing to look at is Avi Lewis's and Al-Jazeera's Fault lines first episode that came out a few weeks ago.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/faultlines/2009/04/20094119053680208.html

Pay close attention to the interview with CIA official Michael Scheuer that designed Bill Clinton's rendition program that Scheuer says Clinton started before Bush did at around 6:34 into this clip... Could it be that Obama is trying to cover up for Ms. Clinton and her husband's involvement in the same thing that Bush's administration is being gone after? If so, is that national security, or is it facilitating a partisan cover-up perhaps like Bush's cover-ups? We don't really know. And as long as we continue to have this shroud of secrecy, it seems to me that the speculation out there, like I'm asking about here will do more harm than good, if there really isn't anything that Obama should have to fear about exposing what went on and stopping the continued secrecy.

You're entitled to remain hopeful, and perhaps not feel as concerned as we are. There's not enough evidence yet to draw a firm conclusion, though the balance of circumstantial evidence seems to support Sibel and others here more in our concerns now. Please don't dismiss our concerns as being invalid. If you just want to say you yourself feel that more facts need to be given to us that would persuade you to be as concerned as we are, I have no problem with that. That's your personal view and your entitled to it. But I think we are just as entitled to our view of concerns at this point too, as I really haven't seen a lot of evidence yet to see that Obama's working for the people to confront the elite hierarchy in Washington just yet. Yes we have some movement on issues that don't confront these elites directly, but even in other areas, like Clean coal, single payer health care, etc. Obama also shows a lack of courage or perhaps complicity in not confronting them on those issues either which adds fuel to our concerns.

[randyconspiracybuff]

35. Let's Face it...

You're supersensitive to any criticism of Obama. There is no way Edmonds or Greenwald could word their criticisms to make you happy. So be it- it's your right to say, 'My party, right or wrong'.

[robertpaulsen]

12. Within the context of the Deep State that Sibel Edmonds is fully aware of...

Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin. Obama represents the Traders and Bush represents the Prussians.

Google Peter Dale Scott to understand the full context.

Bookmarking this for future reference.

[RoyGBiv]

13. I know who that is ...

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the kind of conceptual vision that Scott describes within Ms. Edmonds's critique of the Obama administration. Certainly many of his actions could be placed within that framework, but I don't see her taking that direct leap.

Perhaps she is, and I am wrong. However, if so, the way she is expressing it needs some refinement.

Of course I should add that I don't entirely agree with Scott's analysis of things, but that's a somewhat different subject.

[robertpaulsen]

37. She's more eloquent about that framework in another interview.

Bipartisan Coverup: The US Deep State

GK: When was the last time that you had any contact with Waxman's office?

SE: That would be, having real conversation/contact was before the election in 2006, but in March 2007, I spoke with one of his staff people... and he said the congressman was very serious about having these hearings. But just as he was planning on scheduling a hearing for my case - this is the State Secrets Privilege and the whole FBI case - he was called into a hearing with Nancy Pelosi, they went into a meeting for about 30 minutes, Chairman Waxman came out and told his staff that they were not going to have these hearings, including my case.

And interestingly, this was during a time that they were putting together this junket, this trip, to several countries, the first one being Israel, and Chairman Waxman was not on that list. After this meeting, two or three days later, his name was added to the list. I don't know if that means anything or not, if it was a coincidence, I don’t know. That was the last time.

GK: Sibel, do you suppose that there are any currently serving members of congress who would be affected by an open hearing?

SE: Yes. Yes. This is the point that I wanted to bring up when you asked the question. When I went inside the SCIF, with Congressman Waxman's staff, all the people who attended had clearance, so I started going through the facts because I can disclose to the appropriate committee, people with clearance etc, and I can talk about details.

So, as I started talking about congressional members, or certain appointed officials under both administrations who were involved in certain activities that were targeted by the FBI at one point, the legal counsel with clearance for congressman Waxman stopped me and said "I need to stop you right here and ask you a question. How many Democrats are involved here in the House or the Senate?" and I answered the question, I said "Concretely to answer that, the ones that I know for sure would be three." And he looked at his watch, and said "OK I think we have enough, we don't want to hear any more. What we would like to do is we want to receive the classified version of the Inspector General's report, which we never got, and after that we will contact you and ask you to continue."

Basically they said they didn’t want to hear it because if they heard it they would be responsible. So the meeting ended there - this was the SCIF meeting, and again, this was witnessed because I got the report from the Capitol police that came and declared that the room was secured, the date... so the fact that I went inside the SCIF with them, who I met, everything has been recorded, but this is how it went.

GK: That's fascinating. Let me ask you a related question, Sibel. Do you think that there are any currently serving officials in the administration who would be affected by open hearings?

SE: Yes. Absolutely. Because a lot of these people are recycled as you know. I'm sure you're aware of it because, it's very easy, and this is one of the fallacies from the Left groups, and that is they like to boil down all the bad and evil into maybe three or four or five faces, whether it's Wolfowitz, ok, Cheney, ok, the big bad evil people, and limit it to these people and say 'OK. These are the evil-doers, and we want to see them gone.' Well, it's much deeper than that. You really need to look at those people who keep getting recycled.

GK: So what this begins to look like is the Deep State that Peter Dale Scott talks about...

SE: Absolutely

GK: ...having transferred from Turkey over here to the US.

SE: Correct, because they usually refer to that term in Turkey. It's a very known term - in fact, even if you go to Wikipedia if you look even a lot of even international perspective in Turkey, it is a Deep State, and that is, Deep State consists of the military and intelligence and their involvement in a lot of criminal activities - part of it is narcotics, the other ones have to do with certain money laundering activities.

But within the US we have a much bigger, much more important, much more influential Deep State. I mean, I'm just going to throw a name - look at people like Henry Kissinger. Name one administration that has not had Henry Kissinger as a White House advisor.

And another one, because this is public. Now, if you look at the Chairman of ATC, you will see Brent Scowcroft, OK. Well just recently, President Obama appointed him as a special - whatever - envoy and now he is actually working for the Obama administration. But he's still residing as chairman of ATC. I mean nobody is even talking about conflict of interest.(italics added)

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2009/04/sibel-edmonds-interviewed-by-electric.html

[KakistocracyHater]

31. this quote alone is the equivalent of an emotional granade

.........."Not only has the new administration continued the practice of invoking SSP to shield government wrongdoing, it has expanded its abuses much further. In the Al Haramain case, Obama's Justice Department has threatened to have the FBI or federal marshals break into a judge's office and remove evidence already turned over in the case, according to the plaintiff's attorney. Even Bush didn't go this far so brazenly."........

.........."This is the same President, the same well-spoken showman, who went on record in 2007, during the campaign shenanigans, and said the following:

"When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution." --Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, 2007

Yes, this is the same President who had frowned upon and criticized the abuses and misuse of the State Secrets Privilege.".......
from http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7172

Deeply disturbing, & I've watched the kinds of people he has appointed just like I watched Bush & his appointees of choice. I at first could sleep easy again but not lately, I hope he appointed them only to catch them dirty-handed. Is there anyone here who was alive during the Nuremberg Trials? Or a historian who specializes in that time-period? There are definately certain activities to watch as an indication of what direction we are going in...