A Constitutional Question: Someone Please Clarify

Since the major news broke Monday about Sibel Edmond's case (that, I mind you, is extremely explosive, but nevertheless it has been blacklisted my every major TV, Print, and Internet (with the exception of Raw Story, LOVE YA!), I have been thinking (and you don't understand, when I set my mind to think about an issue, I try to see it from every possible angle, which can be time consuming, and in the midst of my thinking (which can be dangerous sometimes :-D) a Constitutional question came up about Sibel Edmonds and similar Whistleblowers cases concerning Congress. It is my understanding that Congress (The House of Representatives as well as the Senate) is one of three EQUAL branches of Government. It is also my understanding that it is the Constitutional requirement, in which they all take a vow to protect and defend, to have oversight of the Executive Branch, the second Separate but Equal Branch of Government who, if I'm not mistaken, has a wide scope in the control of ALL Classified Information, and the third Separate but Equal Branch being the Judicial System, basically being an arbitrator and interpreting the laws, as well as the Constitution, and making sure justice is administered. In Edmonds case, it seems that there has been a total breakdown (but there is a light at the end of the tunnel still burning bright) of the system. The Executive Branch, through then Attorney General John Ashcroft, eventually placed three separate rarely used "State Secret Privilege" to issue a gag order and deny her the Justice she is entitled to, as an American Citizen who has valiantly served her country, under our Constitution. Before we go any further, I would like to divert your attention to the State Secret Privilege for a minute. This privilege, conferred onto the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch is not even a law, but an interpretation of a case, to be specific United States v. Reynolds. Since the Wikipedia article explains it much better than I ever could, and any Wikipedia article is copyright free, so here it is in full (its short, don't worry):

United States v. Reynolds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the creation of the State Secrets Privilege, an unofficial but judicially-recognized extension of presidential power.

The widows of 3 crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case.

Now, isn't it amazing how there were in fact no secrets in their, the government got this abusive privilege by covering up an embarrassing Air Force accident. Okay, back to my question: How can the Executive Branch of Government block Sibel Edmonds from speaking with any Member of Congress, especially the Intel Committee Members who would definitely have the clearance. Although she has talked some in classified sessions, that's the problem, Congress is being complicit in the cover up by not holding pubic hearings (yet!). And, if there is a Member of the House of Representatives who knows any of the gagged material that Sibel Edmonds cannot legally tell, he or she may reveal this information on the Floor of the House without fear of persecution, no matter what is said. So, I guess I'm asking am I right in all of my aspects of Constitutional analysis, since I am no Constitutional expert.

FBI Illegally Wiretaps Top US Officials, Sibel Edmonds Story is Confirmed

This is the news we have ALL been waiting for! It looks like the Sibel case is finally starting to roll at a faster and faster pace and we WILL NOT let it slow down. Below, I am THRILLED to bring you this Press Release sent to Off The Record from The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. I have a feeling there are many federal officials (probably quite a few in the FBI) that are trembling in their boots right now:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- March 5, 2007



Contact: Sibel Edmonds, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sedmonds@nswbc.org or William Weaver, wweaver@nswbc.org







Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA



State Secrets Privilege Was Used to Cover Up Corruption and Silence Whistleblowers



The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham’s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.” Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.



Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Graham’s Official Report.



The report filed by SA Graham bolsters another FBI whistleblower’s case that became public several months after Graham’s official filing with the Justice Department in 2002. Sibel Edmonds, former FBI Language Specialist, also worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), and her assignments included the translations of Turkish Counterintelligence documents and audiotapes, some of which were part of espionage investigations led by SA Graham. After she filed her complaint with the DOJ-OIG and Congress, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Court proceedings in Edmonds’ case were blocked by the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Congress gagged and prevented from investigating her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ. To read the timeline on Edmonds’ case Click here.



Edmonds’ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials in the Department of State, Pentagon, and the U.S. Congress in these activities. In its September 2005 issue, Vanity Fair ran a comprehensive piece on Edmonds’ case by reporter David Rose, in which several former and current congressional and Justice Department officials identified former House Speaker Dennis Hastert as being involved in illegal activities with the Turkish organizations and personnel targeted in FBI investigations. In addition, Rose reported: “…much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity. There was talk, she told investigators, of laundering the profits of large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder.” In January 2005, DOJ-OIG released an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds' termination. The report concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by convincing evidence.



Another Former Veteran FBI Counterintelligence and Espionage Specialist at FBI Headquarters in Washington DC also filed similar reports with DOJ-OIG and several congressional offices regarding violations of FISA implementation and the covering up of several espionage cases involving FBI Language Specialists and public corruption cases by the Bureau. The cases reported by this whistleblower corroborate those reported by SA Graham and Sibel Edmonds. In an interview with NSWBC investigators the former FBI Specialist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: “…you are looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds’ case.”



William Weaver, NSWBC Senior Advisor noted that,”These abuses of power are precisely why we must pay attention to whistleblowers. Preservation of the balance of powers between the branches of government increasingly relies on information provided by whistleblowers, especially in the face of aggressive and expanding executive power. Through illegal surveillance members of Congress and other officials may be controlled by the executive branch, thereby dissolving the matrix of our democracy. The abuse of two powers of secrecy, FISA and the state secrets privilege, are working hand in hand to subvert the Constitution. In an abominably perverse arrangement, the abuse of FISA is being covered up by abuse of the state secrets privilege. Only whistleblowers and the congressional and judicial oversight their revelations spawn can bring our system back into balance.”



Several civil liberties and whistleblowers organizations have joined Edmonds and NSWBC in urging congress to hold public hearing on Edmonds’ case, including the supporting cases of SA Graham and other FBI witnesses, and the erroneous use of state secrets privilege by the executive branch to cover up its own illegal conduct. The petition endorsed by these groups is expected to be released to public in the next few days.





About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org



© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Information in this release may be freely distributed and published provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

# # # #

Off The Record Commentary

(I apologize for the formatting issues on this post, Blogger is acting stupid and I cannot fix them at the moment.)

Off The Record is backing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the next Democratic Primary, thus effectively, as the next President of the United States. We wish her well, and now that Off The Record has announced who it is backing, we will start to cover both the Democratic and the Republican Primaries, all the way through to the Presidential Election. This does not however, mean that is the only thing that will be covered during the next two years, I will cover other pressing issues, such as the plight of Sibel Edmonds and the latest updates on her case, as well as every press release she sends me from the National Security Whistle Blowers Association(NSWBC)(find out more about Sibel at Luke's two excellent blogs here and here), and we will obviously cover the latest breaking news from around the world (I've been very ill this week, but I'm back and ready to roar). I hope you join me in backing the, in my view, best person for being our next President of the United States: Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

UPDATE: I knew this would be happening soon, that's why I got out front and endorsed her. The Republican (and I might add a good number of Democrats supporting other candidates) Machines are working in overdrive to dish out Hillary dirt. Some of it is good though:

• The Times Online (out of the UK) is reporting here that Hillary is set to be presented as America's Margret Thatcher, saying "that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady." They do point out, however (and rightly so), the two women's political beliefs are very different on a lot of issues, its good for me, a Hillary supporter, to see her compared to the Iron Lady. The article also comments on "intends to paint the Republican nominee as President George W Bush’s political heir, particularly over the war in Iraq" which is the obvious best political strategy, although when she wins SHE will be the heir to the war, albeit with MUCH different plans. Clinton herself has said: "how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and restore respect for America around the world," and that is an huge improvement to what we are currently having to put up with.
• Almost every comment mentions how nasty it is going to get, what they don't mention is they are often the ones that are helping the mudslinging out by promoting it (yeah, I WOULD fall into that category).
• The U.K. press seems to be giving her some kind of hell, the Daily Mail starts out here with a seemingly glowing review of her life, but then says this " Yet the only quality she cannot summon, however hard she works at it, is charm" right after talking about the always charming, no shirt posing Barack Obama (I had to through a little mud, Barack is an alright guy), but I think he may well be the ideal Vice Presidential candidate. I think his age (and, not to me, but to some, his race) will be a big disadvantage, as well as what they perceive as "lack of experience" although sometimes in politics, its better to have a fresh slate to try new things out.
• Dick Morris, who is a turncoat who used to advise the Clinton's, but had to resign in disgrace, is now determined to rip them to shreds (maybe he's bitter). He has now said he will make a movie about Hillary (wonder if he will call it Hillary's Fahrenheit 9/11). According to Robert Novak's column at Townhall.com, Morris wrote: "If you liked how the Swift Boat Veterans turned the tide against John Kerry, you understand how a top Clinton aide can turn the tables and stop a Clinton-style liberal from becoming the next president of the United States." What a sad political cheat shot and shows how desperate he is to find work (he knows this will be his last chance probably (except maybe in 2012) and he wants to try to make the HUGE money that will be paid to try to knock Hillary off her position as the shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, and therefore, in my opinion, the next President of the United States.
• Here, the AP does recognize the significance of JUST THE ANNOUNCEMENT as :"In an instant, Clinton became the most credible female candidate ever to seek the presidency and the first presidential spouse to attempt to return to the White House in her own right." The article also quotes Ellen Malcolm,President of EMILY's List, an organization that collects money for the Women (well, okay, only Democrat Women) who try getting elected to office, as saying "I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as president of the United States - and now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled," but I believe Ellen speaks for more than just women, I also believe she speaks for many of the younger people, as well as old people who swore they'd NEVER see a woman (or a Black) ever even run for President (or many other high offices, but ESPICALLY the Presidency), much less having a very good chance of achieving it.
• Hillary states on her website (you can also follow the previous link and see her announcement and check out the new Hillary for President logos): "I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. . After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them."
• This coming Presidential election cycle, Off The Record has learned, is now even more likely to make history (at least the Democrat side, so far, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Condi drops out a year, year and a half before the 2008 election, but that's just my guess, and I think she'll go for the Republican Nomination. Colin Powell would be an excellent choice for the Republicans, because he is liked by many Democrats, and his hands are wiped clean of Bush because he has publicly admitted (the only one, besides Dick Clarke apologizing to the 9/11 victims families "We failed you and I'm sorry," the only person to EVER say I'm sorry for 9/11) that a while after his presentation at the UN concerning all the different kinds of weapons Iraq was making and had (remember the little vile of white powder he picked up dramatically, shaking it, talking about this much Anthrax would kill this many people, or the drawings of Iraq's "Mobile Weapon Making Facility," which I am sure he is embarrassed of it, but he need not think most of Americans would hold it against him, although he probably would get a lot of mud (maybe as much as Hillary is in for)), he learned that the information (most, if not all of it) in his presentation was based on what the government termed "bad intelligence." He did the noble thing and admitted it and SINCERELY apologized (not to mention he told Bush before the Iraq War: "You break it [Iraq], you buy it." I can see me voting for a Powell if there was a Democrat who was less worthy and less knowledgeable (remember, Powell is VERY WELL liked by MANY World Governments and Diplomats).

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan has responded in a scathing piece on Senator Clinton, here it is in full:

"Hillary for President?
Cindy Sheehan

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

13 people killed in a helicopter crash today in Iraq . Two other soldiers and one marine also killed.

16 people dead in the last two days in a war that the Senator has supported since she first voted “yea” to give Bloody George carte-blanche to invade Iraq and her continuing support via her “yea” votes on giving the war-addict in the White House the key to the treasury.

Soon after Camp Casey in August, 05, I was meeting with some Hollywood people who pretended that they supported me, but really were big money donors and supporters of Hillary. I was told that the Senator was really against the war, but she was waiting for the politically correct time to come out against it. I was told that she was the best hope for the Democrats in 2008, and I should give her a break.

I don’t know who Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood and Mr. Hollywood Got Rocks thought that they were talking to. My son was used as a "soldier of Christ" in BushCo’s crusade against the world and a political pawn in such pro-war Democrat’s moves to the White House. I was disgusted and noted this in many blogs that I wrote at the time.

I supported the candidate for Senate in New York that ran a very courageous, anti-war race against Clinton : Jonathan Tasini.. CODEPINK New York did amazing work dogging the Senator and her supporters everywhere that she went and outing the fact that she is a Republican in Democratic clothing. Unfortunately, the people of New York spoke and Clinton , the pro-war candidate beat out Jonathan. The conservative area that she and President Clinton moved their carpet bags to after their presidency was over had a major impact on the last elections.

I, my sister, Dede, and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Sen. Clinton in DC in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson, of the Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain.... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal.... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw." She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George’s line and using our son’s sacrifice to justify her war-mongering.

On Thursday, January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq set at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as the non-binding resolution and a politically safe move, since almost ¾’s of the country oppose the war and oppose Bloody George. When she introduced her Senate bill last Thursday, over 1000 of our young people have come home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died while she was waiting for the best political time to be semi-against the war. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton would have taken a moral, instead of political stance?

This occupation of Iraq can’t be won by being smarter---it was lost before we went in. The US, again, were big losers in a capricious military expedition with the support of Senator Clinton. She is an amazingly brilliant person and she cannot say that she was fooled, or lied to by George. We, the American public can be brilliant to, and we can’t buy that baloney.

In 2005, I was dying to support Hillary for president: finally a bright woman with experience. However, she is a champion fence sitter and politically heartless.

I, again, affirm my commitment to peace. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman; Democrat or Republican; white or black; Christian, Jew or otherwise. I will only support a candidate who is courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace.

Hillary Clinton is not that person. She never will be. History speaks louder than words."