Should Sibel Edmonds spill the beans and take the consequences?

[HamdenRice]

Poll question: Should Sibel Edmonds spill the beans and take the consequences?

Let me start by saying I think Sibel Edmonds is a hero for being a whistleblower. On the other hand, it seems that the information she is not allowed to discuss because of her various gag orders are absolutely crucial to our saving our democracy.

I know that this is not something we can answer for her; the consequences for her life could be catastrophic.

But my question is: If you were in her shoes, at some point would you just disclose all the information and accept whatever punishment was given as a form of civil disobedience and hope that after regime change you would be pardoned?

[Kikosexy2]

1. There comes...

a point in time that you can no longer stay silent and need to finally expose corruption all around you.

[HamdenRice]

3. I confess it's kind of frustrating ...

because she suggests that she has the info to unravel the 9/11 anomalies, as well as high level drug trafficking and money laundering.

If this is true, she wouldn't be in jail for very long, and her jailors would soon be behind bars.

[Kikosexy2]

10. She knows too..

much? I'm surprised she hasn't had "an accident" of some sort...know what I mean...knowing what she knows and all.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I think she may be waiting for Plamegate to explode first.

[Mikimouse]

4. WWNS...

What would Niemoller say?

[moodforaday]

5. Missing option: Withold judgement

I think the third option is missing. I do not know what *I* would do, because it would depend on too many variables. I as Sibel Edmonds today? Or I with my family (or lack of one)? "I" with a lot of money in the bank or "I" on the dole?

Sure, we all want to hear the whole story and we wish Sibel Edmonds went the whole nine yeards already. But I think making demands will only be counterproductive. My personal understanding is that she is first trying all the possible legal avenues (of which not many are left). If they don't work, I don't suppose she will just give up and shut up.

[HamdenRice]

7. No one is "making demands"

I think if you read the first paragraphs of the OP, it's clear I accept this is a question only she can answer for herself.

I'm asking DUers what they would do.

[cascadiance]

12. I'm with you here... I'm holding off demanding she do anything yet...

I for one don't know the details of what she is facing. From what I do see though, she's not one that's just giving up, "packing it in", and slipping quietly away. She's probably beyond that point of that being an option for her now anyway, as she has noted in some of her recent interviews, as that might even be more dangerous than trying to do something about it.

I do feel that she has to be careful and not do something too rashly that will get them to come after her and put her in jail. Once she's in jail, it is probably mostly game over for her, unless others come through and get rid of this cabal and bring this government down through other means.

I would say she's going to be playing "cat and mouse" at least until the middle of October when the Supreme Court will make up their mind on whether to hear her case (or at least discuss whether the gag order on her is constitutional or not). If they don't hear her case, she mentioned that congress might still force a special investigator to be hired and hear her testimony, etc., but if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't move to Canada or the like at that point and do something as you describe here.

Likewise, I'd be very concerned for her safety at that point too, as the gloves will be off on both sides then. I would think that as someone notes, she would have some sort of backup plan where there are different locations that would hold documents that would get released to the press if she were to be "suicided" or the like as a sort of insurance policy.

The other insurance policy we can help her with is to make sure that as many people as possible know her story over the next month or so, to help put pressure on the Supreme Court to hear her, or at least put pressure on others to not take draconian measures to shut her up at some point either.

Margie Schoedinger "quietly" alleged Bush raped her at one point (it's in court records in Texas). That may or may not have been true, but one thing's for sure. She now's in a grave someplace after a "suicide" bullet shot into her head one night... Had we all heard about that as much as we heard about Juanita Broderick's similar allegations against Clinton, she might still be alive today, but one really can't know for sure.

[Occulus]

6. yes, with one reservation

I would not talk about items of interest which are parts of ongoing operations. However, due to the deep black nature of such operations, I doubt I would have enough information to determine which is which among the items of information I want to talk about. Thus, continued silence.

She's afraid of doing even more damage in the process of talking about what she knows, and in the end I can't really blame her. Ultimately, only she and the people on the other side of her information know what's contained in all of it. I think she should go public with what she's certain she can go public with and not do more damage, but beyond that, I don't see how anyone truly concerned about what happened and what it implies would deem it "their call" to go public.

[newscott]

8. If she doesn't spill she will come to an untimely end.

[HamdenRice]

9. You and kgfnally raise a difficult question ...

which is why she isn't talking.

Is it because she is law abiding and won't violate a gag order?

Is it because she is afraid of the penalty?

Is it because she believes the process will eventually work, and that she could jeopardize ongoing investigatoins?

Is she concerned that the RW MSM won't actually pick up her story no matter how explosive and well documented?

Is it because she would violate the order and accept penalties but is afraid of more severe, non legal penalties like being found "suicided"?

Is she in greater danger by not talking?

All of the above?

On the process idea, it just seems to me the very essence of a whistle blower is someone who has tried the official channels and decided to go outside existing processes directly to the people through the press.

[H2O Man]

11. I think she should

talk now. I do not think that she can be considered a "whistle-blower" at this time. She has the potential to join those ranks, but is not there yet.

[yurbud]

13. the argument for the other side: can't catch lawbreakers

by breaking law.

Kerry in particular seems to be doing everything through legal channels.

I would prefer to see civil disobedience too, not just from her, but those in the Pentagon who know about 9/11, Iraq lies, and especially the coming war in Iran.

Maybe someone is being a good chess player and thinking three moves ahead--if we start breaking laws, the result could be a civil war.