FBI Whistleblower Demands First Amendment Rights

Sibel Edmonds legal battle intensifies

by Rodger Herbst

Because of her fluency in Middle Eastern languages, Sibel Dinez Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after the attacks of 9-11 to translate terrorism related intercepts, many of which were received long before 9-11.

In a May 7 interview with Jim Hogue, Edmonds said she came across "some very significant issues.... there are certain instances where the Bureau is being asked by the State Department not to pursue certain investigations or certain people or certain targets of an investigation--simply citing 'diplomatic relations.'... You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points... if and when this issue...[is]... investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial, and they will be prosecuted criminally."(Sibel Edmonds interview in the Baltimore Chronicle: baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml)

Edmonds began reporting her concerns to mid level FBI management in December 2001. Getting nowhere, she took the issue to higher levels, all the way up to Assistant Director Dale Watson and Director Robert Mueller. The response was, let it alone, or expect retaliation. She turned for help to the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), which has direct oversight of the FBI.

According to investigative journalist Tom Flocco, Edmonds was offered a substantial raise and a full time job to encourage her to not go public that she had been asked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to retranslate and adjust the referenced translations. (www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50)

She had better luck with the SJC, soon earning the confidence of Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), and Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Democratic Member from Vermont. Grassley said "... the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story." (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml)

At the SJC's request, the Inspector General of the DOJ started an expedited investigation of Edmond's issues, promising that their report would be out by fall of 2002. On October 18th 2002 however, Attorney General Ashcroft, at the request of FBI Director Mueller, publicly asserted the "state secret privilege" on everything that had to do with Edmonds' case.

Edmonds was fired by the FBI three weeks after going to the SJC. She retained Mark S. Zaid, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Krieger & Zaid, PLLC, which specializes in national security cases. In an unlawful dismissal suit Judge Reggie Walton's court consigned her to legal limbo by declining to make a final ruling on "state secret privilege" assertion. Ashcroft won by default, because Edmonds has been gagged by a provisional order while awaiting the judge's final ruling. (www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds.htm)

The UK Independent on April 2 reported that Edmonds said she spent more than three hours on February 11 in a closed session with the 9-11 commission providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. (independent.co.uk 02/04/04 archives) According to Flocco, 9-11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste mentioned Sibel Edmonds by name at the April 13-14 hearing during FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony; however, he did not question Mueller about Edmonds' astonishing charges, saying "it would be inappropriate to address Edmonds' allegations in public," adding that they were nevertheless serious. (www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=60)

On April 8, Senator Leahy wrote to Ashcroft, (GPO's PDF, Senate--April 8, 2004; pages s4012-4014) noting that a lot of issues had not been addressed, and described Ashcroft's inaction as a "flagrant avoidance of accountability." Leahy then called for a public hearing, a move which was blocked by Senator Orin Hatch according to the Baltimore Chronicle interview.

And of course the DOJ Inspector General report, promised by fall of 2002, has still not been made public.

Information Edmonds provided in early briefings to the SJC was referenced in letters from Leahy and Grassley to the DOJ , and were posted on their public websites in 2002. This information gradually migrated to numerous other websites. In May 2004, Ashcroft announced that the national interests of the United States "would be seriously impaired" if Edmonds' findings were to be made available to the public, so he decided to classify public information still available on the Internet. After being notified that the Edmonds information was now considered classified, Leahy and Grassley removed their letters from the internet. (www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=66)

"What the FBI is up to here is ludicrous," Senator Grassley recently told the New York Times. "To classify something that's already been out in the public domain, what do you accomplish? It does harm to transparency in government, and it looks like an attempt to cover up the FBI's problems in translating intelligence."(Mark Zaid June 24 2004 Press Release)

In June, the Motley Rice legal team, which represents over a thousand family members of 9/11 victims in a trillion dollar suit focused on various Saudi interests, subpoenaed Edmonds to provide a deposition, including information on government foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. DOJ attorneys intervened, claiming that were this information provided, our national security, state secret privilege, and foreign relations would be destroyed. Motley Rice told the judge they only wanted to ask for information that has already been made public. The DOJ maintained that even though the information was public, it was still classified. Judge Reggie Walton granted their request, and quashed the subpoena. In late June , 2004, Zaid filed a motion challenging Ashcroft's reclassification, noting it to be contrary to Executive Orders issued by the Clinton and Bush administrations. This prompted the nonprofit watchdog Project On Government Oversight (POGO) to independently file suit against Ashcroft and the DOJ on June 23, 2004, asserting a violation of the group's First Amendment Rights.

Michael Kirkpatrick, the Public Citizen attorney handling the case noted: "We have been doing national security litigation for more that 30 years, and in our view, this is the most egregious misuse of the classification authority we've seen." (www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=66)

Edmonds is preparing a petition demanding an investigation by the SJC, which will be delivered to Senators Leahy and Grassley.