Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Gagged, but Still Going Strong - by Sibel Edmonds

> How our government now works. This is a very
> important story that is
> also being buried by the major media. Shouldn't
> this also be on Page
> One? Don't hold your breath for that to happen.
>
> ******************************
>
> Sibel Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator
> whose February 2004
> allegations to the commission investigating the
> Sept. 11, 2001, terror
> attacks directly challenge the credibility of the
> commission's star
> witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
> In an April 2, 2004
> interview with the
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
>
> Independent of London, Edmonds said she read
> intelligence reports from
> the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned
> to fly hijacked
> airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.
>
> "There was general information about the time-frame,
> about methods to be
> used but not specifically about how they would be
> used and about people
> being in place and who was ordering these sorts of
> terror attacks," she
> said. She added that specific cities with
> skyscrapers were mentioned.
>
> Edmonds said that she had provided the commission's
> staff with "specific
> dates, specific target information, specific
> managers in charge of the
> investigation. I gave them everything so that they
> could go back and
> follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things
> that are documented.
> These things can be established very easily."
>
>
> Where is this story now? Read this EXCERPT from the
> following new
> article by Sibel Edmonds: On Oct. 18, 2002, three
> months after I filed
> my suit against the Department of Justice for the
> unlawful termination
> of my employment caused by my reporting criminal
> activities committed by
> government officials and employees, John Ashcroft,
> then attorney
> general, claimed the rarely invoked state secrets
> privilege. According
> to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my
> allegations was
> considered a state secret, and whether or not I was
> right in my
> allegations, the United States District Court had to
> dismiss my entire
> case without any questions, hearings, or oral
> argument, period.
> According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his
> order and dismiss the
> entire case with no hearings solely because he said
> so. After all, our
> government knew best. That day, my case was gagged,
> but I continued on.
>
> Those of you who still think my case is about
> covering up some
> administrative blunder or bureaucratic
> mismanagement, please think again.
>
> Those of you who still think that the unprecedented
> secrecy is
> justified, please think again.
>
> Those of you who still think that our leaders may be
> investigating the
> criminals involved in my complaints, please think
> again.
>
> The inspector general's report confirms my core
> allegations. What were
> those core allegations, and whos did they involve?
> Not just some
> low-level terrorist or terrorist organization; not
> just some possibly
> critical foreign entities. No, trust me: they would
> not go to this
> length to protect some nobody.
>
> And lastly, for those of you who think that since I
> have been gagged and
> stopped by almost all available official channels, I
> must be ready to
> vaporize into thin air, please think again. I am
> gagged, but I am not
> dead. Not yet. (Comment by Eileen: I fear for this
> woman's life. If
> she keeps pursuing her truth against the lies of
> Condosleezza, she just
> may end up as dead as Paul Wellstone. It will be
> classified as an
> "accident," of course.)
>
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5954
>
---------------------------------
Gagged, but Still Going Strong - by Sibel Edmonds



Highlights

Uzbekistan's Nightmare:
Justin Raimondo Gagged, but
Still Going Strong: Sibel Edmonds
Speed Bumps on Democracy Blvd: Pat Buchanan
Newsweek Got Gitmo Right: Calgacus
Bolton Means Bombs Away: Jude
Wanniski




Quotable
For what can
war, but endless war, still breed?

#150; John Milton



Original Letters Blog Casualties of War Contact Donate

Home
Who We Are

Search
Regional News Select a country
Afghanistan Iran Iraq Israel
/ Palestine North / South Korea
Syria United Kingdom United
States Albania Algeria
Angola Argentina Armenia
Australia Austria Azerbaijan
Bahrain Balkans Bangladesh
Belarus Belgium Bolivia
Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Brazil
Bulgaria Burkina Faso
Burma/Myanmar Burundi Cambodia
Cameroon Canada Central African
Rep Chad Chechnya Chile
China Colombia Congo Costa
Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus
Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti
Dominican Republic Dubai
Ecuador Egypt El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea Eritrea
Estonia Ethiopia EU Finland
France French Guiana Gabon
Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana
Greece Grenada Guatemala
Guinea Guyana Haiti Herzegovina
Honduras Hungary India
Indonesia Ireland Italy Ivory
Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan
Kashmir Kazakhstan Kenya
Kosovo Kurdistan Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Lesotho
Liberia Libya Lithuania
Macedonia Madagascar Malawi
Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania
Mauritius Mexico Middle
East Morocco Mozambique Namibia
NATO Nepal Netherlands New
Zealand Nicaragua Niger
Nigeria Northern Ireland Norway
Oman Pakistan Palestine
Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines
Poland Portugal Qatar
Romania Russia Rwanda Saudi
Arabia Senegal Serbia
Seychelles Sierra Leone
Singapore Slovakia Slovenia
Somalia South Africa Spain
Sri Lanka Sudan Swaziland
Sweden Switzerland Taiwan
Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo
Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan
Uganda Ukraine United Arab
Emirates United Nations Uruguay
Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam
Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Free Newsletter
Shop Antiwar.com
Reprint Policy
Submission Guidelines
Syndication






May 16, 2005

Gagged, but Still Going Strong
by Sibel Edmonds


The appeal court's decision on the Sibel Edmonds
case is out: case dismissed, no opinion cited, no
reason provided. The court's decision of Friday, May
6, has generated a string of obituaries; "another
major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a
woman who has faced an unprecedented level of
government secrecy, gag orders, and classification."
Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may
be gagged, but she's not dead.

On Oct. 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit
against the Department of Justice for the unlawful
termination of my employment caused by my reporting
criminal activities committed by government officials
and employees, John Ashcroft, then attorney general,
claimed the rarely invoked state secrets privilege.
According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case
and my allegations was considered a state secret,
and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the
United States District Court had to dismiss my
entire case without any questions, hearings, or oral
argument, period. According to Ashcroft, the court had
to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with
no hearings solely because he said so. After all,
our government knew best. That day, my case was
gagged, but I continued on.

In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of
9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition,
Ashcroft made his next move: He invoked the state
secrets privilege for the second time, and this
time, he designated my place of birth, date of
birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my
university background, and my previous employment
all state secrets, classified, and matters of
highest-level national security. Based on this new
ruling and designation by our ironically named
Justice Department, my passport would be considered a
top secret document since it contains my place of
birth. My Virginia driving license would be considered
a top secret document, since it contains my date of
birth. Heck, even my resume would be considered top
secret since it contains my linguistic credentials and
my degrees. That day, I officially became a gagged
whistleblower, but I continued on.

In May 2004, two years after two ranking senators
(bipartisan) had, in public records and documents,
announced me credible and my case and allegations
confirmed and supported, an emboldened Ashcroft
struck again. This time, he decided to gag the
entire Congress on anything that had to with my case.
He ordered two ranking senators to take everything
referring to me off their Web sites; he ordered them
to consider all documents and letters related to my
case top secret; and he commanded that members of
Congress shut their mouths on any issue that in any
way referred or related to me. Our senators obliged,
disregarding the principles of the separation of
powers, dishonoring the United States Constitution,
and disrespecting their own prestige and status. That
day, the United States Congress was gagged about my
case, but I continued on.

In June 2004, the United States District Court bowed
to His Highness John Ashcroft and announced its
decision to no longer honor the Constitution's
guarantee of due process: it dismissed the case and
excused itself from providing any real explanation,
on the grounds that any possible explanation, or lack
thereof, might be classified state secrets. Our
court system, too, was unwilling to stand up for its
authority and its separation from the executive
branch. In other words, the District Court allowed
itself to be gagged, but I continued on.

In July 2004, after two years of unexplained
foot-dragging, the Department of Justice's Office of
Inspector General announced that its long overdue
investigation of my case complete and issued its
report. The further empowered and emboldened
attorney general stepped in on that same day and
gagged his own inspector general's findings and
report by classifying it. The supposedly independent
inspector general's office wrapped and duct-taped
its report, bowed, and left the scene, but I
continued on.

On April 21, 2005, for the first time in these three
gagged years, my attorneys and I finally had, or
thought we had, our day in court. Just hours before
our hearing, the appellate court judges issued an
unexpected ruling barring all reporters and the
public from the courtroom. Numerous media entities
tried to flex their weakened muscles by filing a
motion to oppose this ruling. The judges denied
their motion without citing a reason; when asked, they
responded that they didn't have to provide any
reason. Everyone was kicked out of the courtroom
except for me, my attorneys, and the large corps of
attorneys from the Department of Justice. All the
doors to the courtroom were locked, and guards were
placed in front of each door to watch out for
eavesdroppers. Then came the next shock: after
bypassing our brief, asking a couple of puzzling and
irrelevant questions, and allowing my attorneys 10
minutes or so of response, the appellate judges
asked my attorneys and me, the plaintiff, to leave the
courtroom so that the government attorneys could
secretly answer questions and make their argument.
The guards escorted us out, locked the doors, and
stood there in front of the courtroom and watched us
for about 15 minutes. So much for finally having my
day in court: here I was standing outside the
courtroom, guarded, while in there, three judges
were having a mingling cozily with government
attorneys. Then, it was over; that was it; we were
told to leave. My attorneys and I were barred from
being present at our own hearing, but I continued on.

On May 6, two weeks after this Kafkaesque proceeding,
my attorneys and I were given the verdict: The lower
court's decision was upheld, meaning my entire case,
whether or not we had an inspector general's report
that confirmed my allegations, whether or not we had
several congressional letters confirming my case and
my allegations, was prevented from going forward
because of some unspecified state secrets that were
so secret even the judges could not hear or see
them. In fact, the appellate judges in my case did not
cite any opinion because the opinion itself would
have been considered secret. Doesn't this mean that
the appellate court and these three judges were in
effect gagged? It appears so, but I will continue
on.

In the past three years, I have been threatened, I
have been gagged several times, I have been
prevented from pursuing my due process, all reports
and investigations looking into my case have been
classified, and every investigative authority
dealing with my case has been shut up. According to
legal experts familiar with my case, the level of
secrecy and classification is unprecedented in the
entire history of U.S. courts. According to other
experts, I am one of the most, if not the most,
gagged woman they have ever heard of. Why?

Those of you who still think my case is about covering
up some administrative blunder or bureaucratic
mismanagement, please think again.

Those of you who still think that the unprecedented
secrecy is justified, please think again.

Those of you who still think that our leaders may be
investigating the criminals involved in my
complaints, please think again.

The inspector general's report confirms my core
allegations. What were those core allegations, and
whos did they involve? Not just some low-level
terrorist or terrorist organization; not just some
possibly critical foreign entities. No, trust me:
they would not go to this length to protect some
nobody.

It is way past time for a little bit of critical
thinking. The attorney general cites two reasons to
justify the unconstitutional, panic-driven assault on
me. Reason one: to protect certain diplomatic
relations � not named since our officials are
obviously ashamed to admit to these relations. Reason
two: to protect certain U.S. business interests.
Let's take each one and dissect it (I have given up
on our mass media to do that for us!). Since when is
the Department of Justice in the business of
protecting U.S. diplomatic relations? They appear to
be acting as a mouthpiece for the State Department.
Now that's one entity that has strong reasons to
cover up what will end up being considered a mammoth
blunder. It is the American people and their outrage
they must be worried about; they wouldn't want to
have a few of their top officials held criminally
liable; would they?

As for reason two, I can assure you that the U.S.
foreign business relations they may be referring to
are not among those that benefit the majority of the
American people. But the American people's security
and best interests are being sacrificed for a
handful of military-industrial entities and their
lobbying arms. And since when are nuclear black
market activities considered legitimate business,
one may wonder? If you want the answers to these
questions, please ask your representatives for
hearings � not behind closed doors, but open, public
hearings where these questions can be asked and
answered.

And lastly, for those of you who think that since I
have been gagged and stopped by almost all available
official channels, I must be ready to vaporize into
thin air, please think again. I am gagged, but I am
not dead. Not yet.







comments on this article?

send them to backtalk!
[visit backtalk!]

Back to the Antiwar.com Home
Page



var clickURL =
"http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/index.php";
var clickTitle = "Gagged, but Still Going Strong";

Archives

Gagged, but Still Going Strong
5/16/2005

FBI Whistleblower Edmonds Files New Lawsuit
3/17/2005

Statement of Sibel Edmonds
3/3/2005

FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds to Testify Before
Congress for First Time Wednesday
3/2/2005

Demand Accountability
1/27/2005

FBI Audit Leaves Vital Questions Unanswered
10/7/2004

Whistleblower Sues for Release of 9/11 Info
9/22/2004

National Security Experts Demand to Be Heard
9/14/2004

An Open Letter to the 9/11 Panel
8/2/2004

The Puzzling 9/11 Report
7/24/2004

Our Broken System
7/9/2004

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds
7/1/2004

Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI
shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Until
the spring of 2002 she worked in the FBI's Washington
field office translating top-secret
documents pertaining to suspected terrorists.
She first gained wide public attention in October
of that year when she appeared on '60
Minutes' on CBS and charged that the FBI, State
Department, and Pentagon had been infiltrated
by agents of a Turkish intelligence
officer suspected of ties to terrorism. She also
accused members of the FBI's translation
services of sabotage, intimidation,
corruption and incompetence. On October 18, 2002, at
the request of FBI Director Robert
Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed
a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage
to diplomatic relations or national
security.



Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com
pages
without written permission is strictly
prohibited.
Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Share:

0 comments: