Radio New Zealand National: A Memorable, Sobering & Humbling Interview

Last Thursday I was interviewed by one of the (if not ‘the’) most respected and award-winning radio hosts in New Zealand – Kim Hill. Please take a few minutes and read her bio here. Thanks to Ms. Hill’s producer Mark Cubey we were able to overcome the Time-Zone Difference obstacle. They were kind enough to allocate over an hour to this interview, and I must say, this was one of the most memorable interviews I have had (as you know I’ve had hundreds- and several good ones ;-) .

What made this interview memorable to me-in addition to having a host who was intelligent-articulate-informed and tough (yes, tough!), was the last few questions during the second half of the show- particularly, a tough but humbling question I was asked towards the end of the show. This was the first time anyone has ever asked me ‘that’ question- and the very first time I’ve ever had to pause, think hard, reflect, and answer it with an answer sobering to myself …

Here is the link to the show (you may want to skip the first 20 minutes or so-the usual background/whistleblowing journey related topics, if you are familiar with my case or book): Click Here

Direct Link:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2558757/sibel-edmonds-whistle-blowing


This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. avatar Richard says:

    She was tough but that made it a very good interview. :) Though I feel you might have been a little hard on yourself on the ‘what if’ question, still new perspectives lead to new possibilities and that is always a good thing.

  2. Good interview to share and a leading hypothetical at the end, as you pointed out. Couple comments:

    1) What are the crimes Snowden is exposing?

    The gathering of all of our digital communications, regardless of individual justification, as you mentioned. But the host mentioned a few private companies, which was semi-misleading. Everything is being recorded and analyzed, not just everything from a few private companies.

    2) Would [a person] support Snowden, without prior knowledge/education about government wrong-doing/corruption?

    Again, the emphasis on everything being recorded, stored, and analyzed, I think, brings anyone who is able to realize this fact, to support such an exposure.

    So, to me, this points to a question about whether or not the average, Dancing with the Stars, suburban happy, beautiful person actually realizes what is happening. I imagine that this realization, especially if brought about in the context of the Fourth Amendment, would bring about disagreement/distaste with the NSA’s activities.

    What you mentioned, about listening to NPR or other MSM and receiving the information with their slanted context (i.e. talking about using contract employees, as I heard them driveling on about on PBS, or other hum drum details, instead of the context of the Fourth Amendment) is the only reason that the majority would not offer support to Snowden. It’s because they have no realization of the truth in the proper context.

    So, while I understand your honest answer, I would like to qualify my understanding of it by asking you: Is it more the case that you would have been more susceptible to mind-numbing propaganda, that was intentionally clouding your ability to realize what was actually happening, before your whole ordeal?

    I feel like you are too smart not to have supported Snowden in the hypothetical situation, as long as the information was presented to you accurately and rationally ;)

    (Maybe I’m just unable to take this test myself, after being suspicious of government since I was maybe twelve years old. But I do think it’s more about rational logic than was discussed.)

    Thanks, Sibel, and thanks to the host for a great interview. I know I will pass this one around. And, as Richard mentioned above, the last question does help us consider how better to reach out to more of the propagandized – to help them realize what is actually happening.

  3. This interview helped me to understand the legal aspect of Sibel’s experience much better. While listening to it, the question on my mind was: what was it that made Ashcroft to invoke the state secrets privilege rule which prior to that was used only 3 or 4 times? Interestingly, in 2000 the first ever application of this rule was found to be made on a fraudulent basis (see wiki: United States v. Reynolds, 1953). Ashcroft and his bosses must have had some very serious reasons to invoke this rule risking to attract even more public interest in Sibel’s case. I tend to think these reasons were even more serious than the danger of exposing highest level corruption and treasonous activities. More likely, in the wake of 9/11 it could be some kind of evidence, even a circumstantial evidence, that the US government was involved in a conspiracy to murder American citizens. In fact, such an evidence was presented in this interview. I have in mind those several meetings between Ayman Zawahiri, officials and operatives of US government, and high-ranking representatives of Saudi intelligence, “some of who had princely titles.” And these meetings took place some time between 1996 and February 2002!! And these meetings apparently had some relation to the activities of the CIA and State Department in the Caucasus and Central Asia!! Wow!!!

    I was not surprised that Kim Hill of Radio New Zealand National didn’t show any interest in this information. We should be grateful to her and this mainstream outlet for just having this interview with Sibel.

  4. If anyone was going to pose blunt questions it would be NZ. Lack of context is what we all complain about from the media. Kim Hill gave Sibel the chance to put it bluntly – to underline, to underscore what is going on.

    I love Sibel’s analytical skills, Pepe’s way with a phrase, but someone has to put this mess into simple blunt terms – a small group of paranoid, avaricious personalities are exploiting the Majority’s inherent passivity via governments, military and corporations.

    This insidious web is too tangled to play ‘here are the dots, let’s see if you can connect them’. Someone has to give context to all this – and say it plain. The questioning may have been blunt, but it also opened the door wide open for Sibel to be equally as blunt.

    That’s how things get done in NZ – I wish the rest of us were more like them.

    Thank you, Sibel, for giving voice to the irate minority.

  5. avatar metrobusman says:

    Great interview.

    Don’t know why Sibel sent us to Hill’s bio as it wasn’t interesting at all: She grew up in England, vacationed in Ireland, yadda yadda yadda

  6. avatar thymesup says:


    susan lindauer was imprisoned during the bush administration for whistleblowing:

    http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_whistleblower_susan_lindauer‎
    9-11 Whistleblower Susan Lindauer: Key media excerpts, videos, more on 9-11 … Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton …. She had been jailed for about a year but released from custody in 2006 after another judge …The unusual experiences of courageous 9/11 whistleblower Susan Lindauer are reported in numerous revealing articles by the major media. The below excerpts of these reports from the New York Times, Washington Post, and more show that Lindauer was arrested, imprisoned without trial, declared mentally incompetent when she demanded to stand trial, and eventually released. After five years under indictment without a trial, all charges against her were quietly dropped just days before President Obama’s inauguration.

    Lindauer is now courageously speaking out about the incredible experiences she claims landed her in prison. She presents powerful evidence that the real reason she was arrested, imprisoned, and declared incompetent was because she knew the U.S. government had clear foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and much more.

    and from http://dickatlee.com/issues/911/lindauer_extreme_prejudice.html

    “Extreme Prejudice” … ‘as a military/intelligence term refers to a person marked for destruction, a usage not inappropriate here.

    Susan Lindauer, the second cousin — and eventual victim — of George W. Bush’s chief-of-staff Andrew Card (and others), is an anti-war and anti-Iraq-sanctions activist. Bur she was also the “backdoor” intelligence Asset for the U.S. government, under handlers from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, for communication with the Libyan government regarding the Lockerbie plane bombing (they didn’t do it), and with the Iraqi government in the year prior to 9/11 and in the lead-up to the Iraq War. She had come to the intelligence community’s attention for having earlier passed on a warning — unheeded — about the 1993 WTC bombing.

    Throughout 2001 she personally communicated to the Bush administration a series of increasingly specific and frantic intelligence warnings about an impending attack in NYC involving hijacked airplanes and the World Trade Center. She was also the backdoor negotiator with the Iraqi regime over “WMDs,” and had managed to obtain Iraq agreement with all U.S. demands, only to have that agreement ignored and suppressed by an administration intent on war. Angered by the administration’s and Republican leadership’s subsequent attempts to blame 9/11 and the eventual Iraq quagmire on the failure of the intelligence community to provide adequate intelligence, she went to Congress to lay out what she knew, and was promptly arrested, accused of being an Iraqi spy, and eventually sent to prison for “psychiatric evaluation” and an attempt at stereotypically Stalinist forced drugging.

    Extreme Prejudice is the story of the events involved in the role she played prior to her arrest, and the ghastly Kafka-esque story of the years of torment that followed, orchestrated by the Patriot Act and the judicial system corruption and fraud it has facilitated. The book is a wakeup warning call to Americans about that Act and the destruction of our basic freedoms it represents.’

  7. Hi thymesup,

    Please see this interview by Charlie McGrath with Susan Lindauer, from April 15, 2013:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruHnwHqFevQ

    They discuss the Boston Bombings and I found her analysis to be either misleading or severely lacking. (Maybe I’m spoiled here.) She offered the following alternatives about what the event could be:

    A – a genuine terrorist attack, done by experienced terrorists. When elaborating on this option, she put it in the context of blowback. Her “strategy of tension” comments were completely separated from this option.

    B – an orchestrated attack, pointing at the FBI as a likely culprit. As you probably understand, from the analysis here at BFP, this kind of activity would land squarely with the CIA, not the FBI.

    While both of the options could be better explained within the context of possible/probable CIA involvement (i.e. Gladio B or similar considerations), I found it disappointing that this was ironically nowhere close to the analysis of this former intelligence agent, with such vast, on the ground experience.

    Mix this with her ability to freely explain, with some amount of speculation (not the focus of this particular interview, but of others), the destruction of the towers and the video of the workers who planted the bombs [paraphrasing], and you can imagine why I look at Ms. Lindauer with a grain of salt and a very skeptical eye. While her story certainly brings emotional and empathetic thoughts and feelings, it is unfortunate that we need to, IMO, be wary of the information and analysis she presents.

    That’s my take. If you, Sibel, or anyone else has more to add, maybe we could start a Forum thread, using the link in the menu above. One other question I’m curious about is whether or not she applied to be in Sibel’s NSWBC.

  8. ..And I missed your main point – thanks for pointing out her imprisonment, in contrast to Sibel’s statement in this interview about Bush not prosecuting whistleblowers!

  9. avatar ProudPrimate says:

    I have shared this interview with my probably most intelligent correspondent, and her reaction was the same as mine — Sibel’s arc is on the ascendent, and on a path to increasing brightness, clarity and focus with each new mp3 I collect of hers. I don’t know — it could be I’m just now starting to get the impact of what she’s been saying all along. It’s rather obscure, of course, by its very nature. The series on Gladio part B was a huge trove of new info. A couple of years ago the Susurluk discussions with Mizrin and others were a cluster of new leverage against the deadheads out there.

    On the subject of being a typical NPR Liberal, that’s what I was until July 2003, but a (rare) program on NPR broke me out of that. Terri Gross interviewed Stephen Kinzer on his then new book “All The Shah’s Men”, about the CIA coup against Mossadegh. My jaw hit the floor at that point, and I have never come back out of the rabbit hole. That was all it took, and soon after, I read former Blair Enviro Minister Michael Meacher’s OpEd in the Guardian, “This war on terrorism is bogus”, where I learned about PNAC, and the “new Pearl Harbor” — I used to read the Guardian daily back then, and they’re still pretty much the best as to mainstream — and that was enough to make me a confirmed Truther. Now I find no lack of evidence for SCADs — State Crimes Against Democracy — everywhere I look.

    As to the case of Ed Snowden, the pages the Guardian is showing now, albeit redacted in part, of London’s vast spying on its G8 and G20 guest ministers is going to be QUITE interesting when Putin and Obama get together almost immediately, because the CIA is a full partner in what London was doing and apparently the Canadians, and Australia and New Zealand were kept apprised up to the minute as well. Shades of Cecil Rhodes’ Secret Society of English Speakers.

    But if Wikileaks exposé of the CIA’s setup of Syria that Peter read out to Pepe Escobar in BF_81 is not real, why is Bradley Manning in jail?

  10. avatar ProudPrimate says:

    54% say Snowden did a good thing but only 28% say he should not be prosecuted! Huh? Hello?

    This from The Hill:

    <>

  11. avatar ProudPrimate says:

    OOps — can’t use those LT and GT characters.

    This from the Hill:

    The Time magazine poll released Thursday found that 54 percent of those surveyed said it was a “good thing” that Snowden leaked information about top secret data collection programs.

    But there is also strong support for Snowden to be prosecuted for leaking the information, the poll found. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said Snowden should be prosecuted while 28 percent said he should not. Broken down by party affiliation, 59 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents said that Snowden should be prosecuted. That finding echoes the feelings of a number of lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who, on Tuesday, said that Snowden should be “prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.”

  12. avatar ProudPrimate says:

    if I might suggest, it would be advantageous to posters in these threads if the Sysop would include the Edit Button option that WordPress provides. So many times a second post could be eliminated and better clearer posts included if one had the option to repair one’s mistakes.

  13. The very thought that eleven years ago Sibel would have sat on the other side of the wall had she not been dragged into Fenghali’s Orwellian rats cage we now know as ‘reality’-karl ROVE’s reality, is indeed sobering. This was a very clear interview, every word made sense and was allowed to make sense. Thank you. First time EVER on NZ radio were heard the words ‘ 911 pre-strike intelligence COVERED UP by White House and state as a CONSPIRACY’ . Oops. professors of modern history in university of Victoria campuses just up the hill – TAKE NOTE.This is no small matter. we could hear embassy staffers dropped spoons on the street. But also, On national radio, to hear of decades long operations run by CIA involved assets OBL and al Zahwahiri as ‘part of the program’ has eyes and ears opening up and down the country. To have lived in this war-of-terror construct since 911 with its AlQaeda propagandist’s (Bilderburg press) forever proclaiming AQ the deviant enemy of civilisation actually an ALLY of covert services – on public radio, blew a gale of fresh air through the cobweb of lies and manipulation now aiming its dreadful eye on Syria. It backed Wikileaks NATO/Mujahaden/Kosovo interaction as a collaboration, and opens the door another crack.
    On second listen, a very reasoned response toward the Architects and Engineers from view that until Sibel E has it from her sources, she would rather not say, though certainly prepared to listen…but certainly not disrespectful toward the massive and Professional efforts of AE to expose this deception.

Speak Your Mind