'Sibel Speaks...'

" ... Let me help the Times here. The person against whom these allegations are being made is Marc Grossman. The Times could have published the name and also provided the denial from Grossman's camp. I find it incredibly disturbing that they would not name the official.

 

[ ... ]

 

Those senior DOD officials who are not mentioned in the Times article, all but one are no longer in government. They are alleged to be Doug Feith, Richard Perle, among others. There is also one person who is part of these allegations, still serving in a high level position at the DOD. His last name begins with an E.

I have tried getting someone in broadcast and print media to run this story. My sources did not include Edmonds, but because of the sensitive nature of the information, I was concerned that she would go to jail anyway, unless I proved she was not a source - which would require me to reveal my sources.

I thought if I approached a big enough news outlet, the pressure generated by the public response would spare Edmonds jail time and I would not be pressured to reveal sources - something I would not have done anyway.  Even a former high ranking CIA officer offered to byline the article with me if that would help sell a broadcaster/publication on running the story. No one was interested.

That the Times ran these allegations (she is under a state secrets gag folks, so it is not like she is gagged for lying) is encouraging. But that they omitted all names from the allegations is unethical.  The point of a free press is not to protect the powerful against the weak, but to protect the public from the powerful. The Times was willing to stick a toe in, but was not willing to risk upsetting a foreign government (This is, after all, a British paper).

There are more names, including members of Congress and people serving in the FBI. This is what happens when basic government services as well as the most sensitive government functions are outsourced to the global marketplace.

Or did anyone think that a company like Northrop Grumman takes an oath to protect states secrets from other, higher paying, clients? What about Lockheed Martin? How about Halliburton? If these companies are only concerned about the bottom line, then what stops them from doing business and selling secrets if these activities would benefit their bottom line? By the way, I am not alleging that Lockheed Martin or Halliburton have engaged in such things. I am simply using those two companies as an example.

Now consider this corporate-government model and the revolving door between corporations and Government. Consider too that companies (small and large) make donations to a particular candidate's election coffers. Can you now start to understand the scope of the damage possible, and likely, done? ... "

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/01/sibel-speaks.html