And other papal bears defecating in the Vatican questions.

From the London Times:

Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.

Also, Terry Gross at Fresh Air interviewed the authors of Deception, which chronicles American complicity in the proliferation of Pakistani nuclear technology. That was two months ago. Why has this been left out of the political discourse?

Props to Bill for the article link.

UPDATE: Actually, to answer my own question and to be fair, Edmonds' allegations implicate not only the BushAdmin but the ClintonAdmin and a few other Admins down the line. There is a lot of sensitive material involved, of course, but how much is "national security sensitive" as opposed to "protecting my political ass sensitive"?

Human Rights Watch on the so-called restoration by Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan's Constitution:

Since November 3, Musharraf has repeatedly and arbitrarily amended the constitution to enshrine the legality of various laws and provide himself and the military blanket immunity for all actions taken during emergency rule. The executive order to amend the constitution includes a number of amendments that would normally require a two-thirds majority in parliament to become law. Among them, Musharraf has withdrawn from Pakistan’s courts the power to review all governmental actions for which he, his government or the military may be responsible, since the imposition of emergency rule on November 3.  
 
Human Rights Watch noted that Musharraf has made arbitrary changes to Pakistani laws that impose serious restrictions on individual rights and will fuel human rights abuses. The changes are permanent, and will not be lifted when the constitution is restored.  
 
For example, under an amendment to the 1952 Army Act, the military can now try civilians for a wide range of offenses previously under the country’s judiciary, including charges as vague as causing “public mischief.” Hearings before special military courts to try civilians will not be public, investigations will be conducted by military officers, and the standard rules of evidence and procedures for criminal trials will not apply. The law takes effect retroactively from January 2003, in effect giving the army immunity for detaining and “disappearing” people and allowing the military to arrest opponents with impunity.  
 
“The military is Pakistan’s principal human rights abuser, yet Musharraf has changed the law so that it can play judge, jury, and executioner,” said Hasan.

And while he was at it, Musharraf also seized legal control of Pakistan's nukular arsenal.

Joan Walsh calls it his "Big Ouch," the moment in last night's Democratic debate when Governor Bill Richardson implied that as President he would value human rights over national security. Like a good media monkey, moderator Wolf Blitzer pounced on shiney-shiney and asked him to confirm that implication. Either caught up in the moment or not as in it as he should, Richardson simply confirmed it. It took a few more minutes before Senator Barak Obama finally (to my relief, sitting on my couch, head vibrating with the right answer, as if I was watching Jeopardy instead of a real debate - which, come to think of it...) put the whole human rights/national security false dichotomy in its proper perspective: "The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf. They are complementary."

Spoken like a true former professer of Constitutional law. The answer I was thinking of was much simpler: "You can't have one without the other." When your intelligence agency trains the Shah of Iran's regime in torture techniques, don't be surprised if the Iranian revolution holds your citizens and diplomats hostage in your embassy. There is no "silver bullet" (as it were) to solving Pakistan's problems, and Americans have already demonstrated typical superpower hubris in employing Musharraf as a such; but, as anywhere that there is a dictator suppressing political rivals and the popular will, there are factions, there are people to work with, there are groups to support and encourage - in sum, there are democratic alternatives that would serve national security interests for everyone in the long run. Right now I am skeptical that there is much anyone outside Pakistan can do to help resolve the current crisis; I keep picturing Musharraf going the way of Diem in Vietnam, a corpse in a ditch tossed there by military coup.

At any rate, I hate that Richardson's gaffe will be taken as indicative of his approach to the Presidency, to human rights or national security. The national debate on this subject is already warped by "24" fantasies, BushAdmin semantic games regarding torture, and the more-patriotic-than-thou bellowing of right wing blowhards. Walsh cringed because, as a frequent guest on Hardball, she knows that gaffe is ready fodder for cable political shouting matches and the right wing radio networks. Expect a general "Can you believe he said that?" approach, followed by a rounding condemnation of anyone to the left of Rudy Giuliani as enablers of terrorists. Which is sad. And retarded. More than anyone on the stage in Las Vegas, Richardson is perhaps best qualified to pursue diplomacy based on the complementary relationship between national security and human rights.

Click image to make bigger.

Unkle 800-lb Gorilla pays a visit to Pervez Musharraf.

And yes, I know, I misspelled "Ataturk."