It has now been a year and nine months since Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy sent their letter to John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, and Glenn Fine, asking that retroactively-declared classified documents be made available to the public. Both of Bush's Attorneys General have used the little-known States Secrets law to keep former FBI translater Sibel Edmonds from revealing what she knows.

It has also been a year and ten months since Edmonds sent her letter to 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean, rightfully accusing the commission of bypassing one of the most important issues of the September 11 tragedy--the failure of the FBI to translate thousands of documents. Edmonds, you will recall, blew the whistle on the FBI failure, and was fired from the bureau. Her case has been wrapped in secrecy, with the government using "national security" as a way to silence her. The U.S. Department of Justice declared that the FBI failed to properly investigate Edmonds' allegations, but when Edmonds sued the FBI, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the White House's decision to keep all relevant documents secret, even though many of them were not previously listed as classified.

Edmonds' accusations go beyond the FBI's failure to translate documents that might have spared the country the attacks of September 11, 2001. She also says that drug money and money laundering were factors in the events leading to September 11, and that some lobbyists and elected officials may have been beneficiaries. Edmonds has also created the National Security Whistleblowers' Coaltion, whose goals include providing protection for whistleblowers, creation of better accountability, and the promotion of policy changes.

On November 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Edmonds' appeal, following the dismissal of her lawsuit against the FBI. Since then, the news media--which treated the story as a filler rather than one of the most important stories of the decade--has been totally quiet about her case. On March 24, Edmonds asked the judge assigned to her latest suit against the FBI to recuse himself because of his decision to keep his financial disclosure information private.

On April 18, Sibel Edmonds received the PEN Newman's Own Award from PEN. Edmonds' website, Just A Citizen, contains a petition for people to sign to get the FBI documents released, information about Edmonds, and a collection of documents and news items pertaining to national security whistleblowing.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

The recently released film United 93, which tells the story of the hijacked plane that didn't reach its target on 9/11, is being hyped as a "gripping, provocative drama" and an account of how Americans found courage on that day. But filmmaker Paul Greengrass can't seem to decide whether he wants the tale of "the flight that fought back" to be a blockbuster epic or a grittier, documentary-style work of historical fiction. And ultimately, he fails to deliver either.

Watching the trailer for United 93—which suggests an action-packed blockbuster—is a completely different experience from watching the movie itself. In the actual film, September 11, 2001 is portrayed as an ordinary day that unravels into confusion and panic. Neither the passengers of Flight 93 nor the hijackers are mythologized. During the confusion, the humanity of everyone involved is revealed: the stewardesses, the passengers, the military personnel, the hijackers. But as long as the passengers aren't portrayed as heroes, their struggle feels almost futile—embodied in their final, chaotic rush on the cockpit. In a moment, the violence is over and the plane crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside.

The simultaneous scenes of confusion in the film—in the FAA, in the military, in the flight itself—don't live up to standard-issue action films. Everything is presented chronologically, but not with enough clarity to answer the question, "Who knew what when?" A history-minded viewer is left to ask, "Is this real? Did this really happen in response to that and at that point in the sequence of events?" And then there's the scene of white Christians praying in the back of the plane and fanatical brown Muslims praying in the front of the plane—an image hard not to read as intending to portray "the clash of civilizations."

While Greengrass paints a picture of some of the people involved with the day's horrific events, viewers seeking entertainment will likely be disappointed and viewers seeking an informative, inspiring, historical narrative will likely be unsettled. Even the host at our screening seemed pressed to find the right words to introduce the movie, "Enjoy the—," she said, catching herself. "I don't know if enjoy is the right word."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

The Bush administration's hypocritical crackdown on intelligence leaks, if applied in the alternative reality of TV's thriller show, 24, could prevent courageous Counter-Terrorism Unit agent Jack Bauer from getting the truth out about the president's central role in a conspiracy. At first we all thought the president was just a bumbler, but it turns out he's actually a mastermind in an evil plot to drum up the fear of terrorism as a way to promote an overseas invasion aimed at seizing oil fields. Fortunately, that plot-line is so far-fetched it could never, ever happen in the real world, such as in the run-up to the Iraq war.

If Jack Bauer leaked the truth about the conspiracy orchestrated by the President, however, he'd probably be swift-boated by the likes of Anne Coulter and William Bennett.

On the TV show, Bauer obtains through various nerve-wracking feats of derring-do a tape recording of President Charles Logan talking with an aide about how he delivered nerve gas to terrorists and allowed the former president, David Palmer, to be assassinated. During a recent episode, Bauer seeks help from Defense Secretary Heller in making the tape public:

12:08 A.M.
Jack takes [colleague and former girl-friend] Audrey Raines and [Defense Secretary James] Heller inside an empty hangar and plays them the tape recording. Logan gave the terrorists the Sentox gas, but planned to deploy the gas before it reached Moscow. This would provide him with an excuse to exercise the military terms of his arms treaty with [Russian Premier ] Suvarov. Jack thinks it was a play to control the oil supply in central Asia and that [ former president] David Palmer found out about it. Heller is not surprised at Logan's actions. Jack asks Audrey to accompany her father to present this evidence to the Attorney General.

But in subsequent weeks, Bauer had turn over the tape to one of the bad guys, renegade CTU agent Christopher Henderson, to keep his love interest, Audrey, alive and then commandeer a jet with a Henderson accomplice at the helm to regain the tape. All the good guys are now working to obtain and use the the tape to expose the President's plot and his treasonous link to terrorists.

In last night's episode, an evil snitch in CTU, Miles, ingratiates himself himself with the President after Bauer returns to CTU with the tape in hand by seeking to destroy the digital recording with a high-tech device. Tune in next week to find out what happens to the recording. But, through all this maneuvering, why didn't Jack Bauer just arrange to play or upload the recording to tech wizard Chloe O'Brian so she could copy it – and then leak the recording to Sy Hersh, Lisa Meyers or other investigative reporters? If he could do so, he could expose the plot. We can image the possible conversation:

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

American officials are stumped as to how Iraq's new prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, is going to carry out his pledge to disarm the Shiite and Kurdish militias that are carrying out a de facto civil war in the country:

Administration officials said that in his meeting with Ms. Rice, Mr. Maliki spoke of "re-establishing trust" among Iraqis by acting quickly to restore electrical power and root out the influence of militias in Iraq's police forces, which number about 135,000 nationwide.

With an estimated thousands of these forces in Baghdad alone infiltrated by the Badr brigade, a Shiite militia whose members have been accused of kidnapping and killing Sunnis, American officials said they did not know what sort of muscle or conciliation Mr. Maliki would use to carry out this pledge. "It's clearly one of the high priorities for the government," Ms. Rice said. "How they go about that I think is something they will have to work through." Mr. Rumsfeld, asked how American armed forces could do the job, said: "The first thing I'd say is, we don't. The Iraqis do." The new Iraqi government "undoubtedly and unquestionably will be addressing the question," he added. "Other countries have dealt with these issues. It's possible that these things can be done."

A lot of hand-waving, in other words. But does anyone think it's realistic for the Shiite parties to disarm their militias? Back when the CPA was running things, their approach to the militias involved creating a "virtuous circle," as Spencer Ackerman reported last year: "If security increased around the country and Iraqis reconciled their deep religious and ethnic divisions, the parties would no longer require paramilitary 'insurance policies.'" Getting rid of those paramilitaries would, in turn, improve security further. It was a pretty good idea in theory.

Except that the CPA tried this approach for two years, and it didn't work. Security never improved, stuff never got built, political developments got worse, not better, and the main Shiite parties are all — somewhat understandably — built up their militias for protection against a growing Sunni insurgency. And that, in turn, is making the security situation even worse. It's a cycle that seems structurally impossible to reverse, even if Ayatollah al-Sistani is now ordering the militias to disarm. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that Rice and Rumsfeld are shrugging and saying, "Well, figure it out somehow." No one has any idea how to fix things.

One also can't help but suspect that Rice and Rumsfeld's overt backing for Maliki will only make the latter's job harder, not easier. Iraqis, as we've learned, aren't terribly keen on taking their marching orders from Washington: Only a year ago, Rumsfeld warned the Shiites not to purge the security forces of ex-Baathists, and yet they did just that. (UPDATE: See this story; some Shiites are already angry at the visit.)

Meanwhile, Spencer had a new piece up the other day noting that Iraq's new prime minister might not be the best person to reconcile the country after all — Maliki has been involved in nearly every move that's pissed off the Sunnis over the last few years. And in very related and very scary news, Shiite militiamen are moving into the oil-rich and Kurdish-dominated city of Kirkuk, ready to take the city back from the Kurds. One has to wonder whether even Rice and Rumsfeld believe that things are heading in a positive direction...

• Print
• Email
• Tweet