Is there something I'm totally missing about the utter lack of coverage in the U.S. of the big article in The Times of London ten days ago detailing former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' explosive charges, "For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets."
If check Google News, you see a fair amount of coverage in India, Turkey, Iran, Israel, and other places, but not much at all in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Is there some kind of law against mentioning this case? (That's a serious question.)
Blogger Steve Clemons writes:
I have received a few dozen emails asking my thoughts on the Sibel Edmonds case. My response won't please many of the readers advocating on her behalf or asking if there are ways in which I can help her get more mainstream press attention.
I am not going to parse the details of her first story or her latest revelations. I will say that if she was doing what she was doing -- and I don't contest that -- she worked in a highly compartmentalized operation. She could have had access to what her colleagues were doing and the quality or alleged crimes in their translated work product. But the other materials she was dealing with were "raw intel", unprocessed, or coordinated, or fit into the equation with other material or American objectives.
I am not in a place to judge the veracity of her claims, but I do find it odd that the Senators and investigators involved were vigorously seeking to know the back story to her narrative until a certain point. And then, it's like someone pushed an off button, cease and desist.
Again, I won't argue details of the case with her or others about this -- but the thought has occurred to me that she may have been unaware of a larger operation in which she was in a compartmentalized piece of the game. I think that much of the effort to get A.Q. Khan involved aggressive, comprehensive, globally deployed intelligence efforts to penetrate networks and to quickly animate action through the attempted sale of bogus nuclear equipment and blueprints.
Well, that's definitely a possibility -- that the high official who appeared to be on the take in the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation case might have just been pretending. Or maybe he was just pretending to be pretending. Or maybe he was pretending to be pretending to be pretending. As James Jesus Angleton used to say, it all turns into a wilderness of mirrors pretty quickly.
But isn't this at least potentially interesting to some American readers?