march 2005

Some questions are haunting me more and more these days.

How many more of our civil liberties are Americans willing to lose as long as they're told it's to “prevent terrorism”? How many thousands of people (mostly Iraqi and Afghani people, but also Canadian and American citizens) can be put under “preventive detention” for “national security” before we become horrified? Call this by an accurate rather than Orwellian name: thousands are in prisons, without charges, without trials, without conviction for any crime. Few have access to lawyers or human rights monitors.

Feel safe yet?

How can the outrage about Abu Ghraib torture have faded from the public consciousness so quickly? The torture continues as our attention is elsewhere and when mentioned at all is only minimized or justified.

Feel safe yet?

Now, your right to a strong legal defense by a lawyer has taken a huge hit.

Last week, New York City civil liberties attorney and National Lawyers Guild member Lynne Stewart faced a guilty verdict on the vaguest of charges: conspiracy. It's a prosecutor’s favorite charge because so little actual evidence is required. What does Stewart now face up to 35 years in prison for? The charges read: “conspiracy to prepare to assist terrorists” and “conspiracy to give material aid to terrorists.”

What did Stewart actually do? Her job.

Stewart represented the imprisoned Omar Abdel-Ramen, also known as “the blind sheik,” convicted for the first WTC attack in 1993. Stewart believes he was convicted on fabricated evidence. Stewart broke a prison regulation -- but BROKE NO LAW -- that banned press communication from Abdel-Ramen. Ms. Stewart put out one press release three years ago, which has been termed “a call for terrorism.” No violence of any kind ever resulted. Such a call for censorship of prisoners is as much what is critical about this case as is the attack on everyone's right to a “vigorous defense” -- which seems to be Stewart's other “crime”.

As a long time activist, working on police brutality and death penalty abolition, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that access to the press is a crucial part of fighting such fights. People falsely charged must have the chance to tell their side of the story and have strong, fearless lawyers defending them if they are to have any hope of justice. The verdict against Lynne Stewart aims to make some people “unworthy” of defense and to censor them from public view in the media.

All these actions by Bush Administration are throwing us backwards to medieval practices that our Bill of Rights was created to protect us from.

It seems increasingly that many Americans -- especially white, middle-class Americans are willing to accept all this, from torture to censorship. I've concluded this because most white, middle-class Americans cannot imagine that THEY (or anyone they know) could be subjected to this new Inquisition. They're wrong.

Remember Sara Jane Olson? She's the St. Paul, Minnesota social justice activist and white “soccer mom” married to a doctor who was arrested, tried and convicted of “conspiracy to commit terrorism” almost 25 years ago. There was no evidence against Olson, only “guilt by association”: her best friend in college had joined the Symbolese Liberation Army (SLA) in the mid-1970s, and participated in the kidnapping of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst. In May 1975, a police shootout killed Olson's friend and four others. Sara Jane Olson's only “crime” was a speech she made at a rally expressing outraged grief over the killing of her friend. Over 25 years later, she was arrested on the conspiracy charge and faces another 4 or 5 years in a California prison cell. That's how the conspiracy charge works and it’s especially effective when linked to fears of terrorism.

Of course, the conspiracy charge has had a successful “trial run” in the ongoing, failed “war on drugs” where half of the 2 million incarcerated Americans (most of them African-American and Chicano/a) are there on drug charges. Many of those are “conspiracy to traffic in drugs” where no actual drugs were ever found. Since mostly poor, inner city people of color were caught in this net, most white people had no concern about the civil liberties implications.

Now, Green Party members and non-violent peace activist have discovered they're on “no fly” lists. Over a thousand protestors were swept up in a “pre-emptive” roundup and held for two days to keep them from protesting the Republican National Convention in NYC. The conviction against Lynne Stewart is a dire warning that those marked “terrorist” should not have any rights to defense, should not be heard in the press.  This means anyone who does not support government policies can be targeted as a “terrorist”. “Guilt by association” can mean just knowing Muslim or Arab people makes you vulnerable. The label “terrorist” (and those who “conspire to aid” them) is today's “witchcraft” charge. As during the Inquisition, the mere accusation is virtually proof of guilt.

If we don't support Lynne Stewart and win, all of us should be very very afraid. None of us will be able to feel safe from abuses by our own government.

Lydia Howell is a longtime activist, independent print journalist and producer/host of “Catalyst: Politics & Culture” which originally broadcast this commentary. The program airs Tuesdays at 11am on KFAI Radio. All shows archived for two weeks after broadcast (www.kfai.org).

strange encounters with usa conspiracy theory: sybil edmonds,whistleblower

 Whistleblowers ask federal workers to come forward with 9/11 evidence

US Newswire
GoveExec -June 14, 2004

Two government whistleblowers on Monday called on federal workers to come forward if they have information that could help investigations of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The request was made by Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who alleges that the government knew more details about the 9/11 plot than it has admitted, and Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War to the media in 1971.

"If there are people right now who know either the same information that Sibel had and believe that it's wrongfully being withheld, or comparable information, then I believe that they should go to Congress, but also to the press and put that out even at great risk to their careers," said Ellsberg, who gave the Pentagon Papers to Congress and the media. "Many, many lives are at stake here, and it's well worth telling the truth, even at personal sacrifice."...

Edmonds, a Turkish-American, worked in the FBI's Washington field office from Sept. 20, 2001, to March 2002 as a contract linguist. She was given top-secret security clearance and hired to retranslate material that was collected prior to Sept. 11 to determine if anything was missed in the translations relating to the plot. She concluded that documents clearly showed that the 9/11 hijackers were in the country and plotting to use airplanes as missiles to carry out an attack in a major city. She said documents also included information relating to terrorist financial activities.

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls:

Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate

by Jim Hogue

 http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar, beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to their superiors at the FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a corrupt power structure that has a stranglehold on the very institutions that are obligated to control it. On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved.

THE INTERVIEW

JH: Ms. Edmonds, what I'll do is invite you to tell us whatever you would like--your stint with the FBI--and what the brouhaha with Ashcroft and company is all about.

SE: I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11.

During my work there I came across some very significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone, because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic management I took it to higher levels all the way up to [assistant director] Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against me.

At that point, which would be around February 2002, they came and they confiscated my computer, because, they said, they were suspecting that I was communicating with certain Senate members and taking this issue outside the Bureau. And, at that point, I was not. They did not find anything in my computer after they confiscated it. And they asked me to take a polygraph as to the allegations and reports I'd made. I volunteered and I took the polygraph and passed it without a glitch. They have already confirmed this publicly.

In March 2002 I took this issue to the Senate Judiciary Committee and also I filed it with the Department of Justice Inspector General's office. And as per the Senate Judiciary Committee's request the IG started an expedited investigation on these serious issues; and they promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that their report for these investigations would be out by fall 2002 latest. And here we are in April 2004 and this report is not being made public, and they are citing "state privilege" and "national security" for not making this report public.

Three weeks after I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bureau terminated my contract, and they cited "government's convenience." I started working with the Senate Judiciary Committee that was investigating this case, and I appeared before the Inspector General's office for their investigation several times, and I also requested documents regarding these reports under the Freedom of Information Act; and they blocked this by citing again the "state secret privilege" and "national security" refusing to make these documents public.

On October 18th 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft came out personally, in public, asserted this rare "state secret privilege" on everything that had to do with my case. And they cited "diplomatic relations" and certain "foreign relations" that would be "at stake" if I were to take this issue and make it public. And, since then, this has been acting as a gag on my case.

I testified before the [9/11] commission on February 11th 2004. I have been waiting for this report that they [the Attorney General's office] have been blocking for a year and a half from becoming public. The information I requested under the Freedom of Information Act has been blocked for two years. And I have been campaigning for the past three months trying to get the Senate Judiciary Committee that has the oversight authority and responsibility to start its own public hearings. However, this request is again being blocked. Now they [AG] are citing this upcoming election as reason. And here I am.

JH: And it is the Attorney General who is blocking your testimony.

SE: Senator Leahy, on April 8, 2004, sent a very strong letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, citing my case stating that he, Senator Leahy, has been asking questions, and has a lot of issues that have not been addressed, and asking AG Ashcroft to come and provide answers. And AG Ashcroft for the past two years has refused. So he [Leahy] is calling for a public hearing. However, Senator Hatch, who is the Republican Chairman of the Senate, has been a road block. And Senator Grassley [a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee] went on the record with New York Observer's Gail Sheehy and said that Senator Hatch is blocking this investigation from taking place and for this public hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

JH: Do you think that Leahy and Grassley are going to try to plow ahead with this, or do you think that there is a back door deal with Hatch?

SE: Well....as far as I see, Senator Leahy has been trying, and it's a strong letter that he issued a few weeks ago. [Ms. Edmonds refers here to the GPO's PDF (Senate--April 8, 2004; pages s4012-4014) regarding Ashcroft's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003. Senator Leahy describes the inaction of Attorney General Ashcroft since their first meeting on September 19th 2001 as a "flagrant avoidance of accountability."]

However, I'm very disappointed with Senator Grassley's office and his staff members. They initially were very supportive. But what I am getting from their office every time I call is, "Well this issue is under the Inspector General," and that their hands are tied. And then I press further and ask, "Well, what do you mean, 'our hands are tied'? Who's tying your hands? Untie it. Let's get it untied." They don't have any response. They say, "Well, this issue is very complex, and as you know, it is being investigated." And I'm not seeing any issue being investigated. What I'm seeing is that this issue is being covered up, and relentlessly being covered up, in consideration of "state privilege," which people are calling "the neutron bomb of all privilege."

JH: I have a question having to do with "mid-level" management at the FBI. Why do you think that mid-level FBI management would care enough to stop you from doing your job?

SE: This was mainly for the reason of accountability. As you know, and as the chairman for the 9/11 Commission [Thomas Kean] answered during Tim Russert's show: to this day, not a single person has been held accountable. And certain issues, yes, they were due to a certain level of incompetence. But there were certain other issues--you know they keep talking about this "wall," and not having communication. I beg to differ on that, because 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." And what happens is, instead of targeting those people who are directly related to these illegal terrorist activities, they just let them walk free.

JH: And they interrogate people who are trying to make voting safe.

SE: And that is hypocritical. I see people detained for simple INS violations. On the other hand I have seen several, several top targets for these investigations of these terrorist activities that were allowed to leave the country--I'm not talking about weeks, I'm talking about months after 9/11.

JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours, that were squelched in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York.

SE: Correct.

JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that? Can all of them have been incompetent?

SE: No. Absolutely not.

JH: So they got the word down from Mueller, probably.

SE: I cannot confirm that for sure, but I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up. And I am appalled. I am really surprised. I'm taken back by seeing the mass media's reaction to this. They are the window to our government's operation and what are they doing?

JH: I have another question: when the gag order was written, it had to do with "diplomatic relations." Right?

SE: That is what Attorney General Ashcroft cited.

JH: Are you allowed to say that it's the Saudis?

SE: I cannot name any country. And I would emphasize that it's plural. I understand the Saudis have been named because fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. However, the names of people from other countries, and semi-legit organizations from other countries, to this day, have not been made public.

JH: And the information that you have been gagged on has to do with that specifically.

SE: Correct. And specifically with that and their ties to people here in this country today.

JH: I understand why you can't say anything about this, but there are several books out about the Bush ties to the Saudis and the bin Ladens in particular. And in David Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, there is a very good synopsis of the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. He shows the direct connections between the CIA, the ISI, and Mohamed Atta. He makes a very convincing case that the Pakistani ISI had been helping to plan 9/11 for a long time. I don't imagine that you are allowed to say much about that.

SE: You are correct. But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

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 and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally. I understand this administration and their anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes. But that aside, we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system. They should be counter-acting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen. Senators Leahy and Grassley and Hatch have the obligation to do that. This needs to be demanded of them. People need to pick up their phones. They need to write to these people and say, "You'd better fulfill your responsibilities."

JH: There is an article in the April sixth TRUTHOUT by Paul Sperry from WorldNet Daily about you and one of your colleagues...

SE: Mr. Sarshar?

JH: Behrooz Sarshar.

SE: He is another translator who worked in the same department as I did. Mr. Sarshar wanted to make this information public, however he just wanted to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee and receive their support and protection under the whistleblower protection act. And I facilitated this meeting, and several 9/11 family members and I took Mr. Sarshar to the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in Senator Grassley's office. Mr. Sarshar provided them with detailed information, however, to this day Senator Grassley has not acted upon that, and he passed the buck to the 9/11 Commission. Next we arranged for a briefing between the 9/11 Commission and Mr. Sarshar, and he went there on February 12th, 2004 and he provided the investigators for the 9/11 Commission, for almost three hours with all the details of the investigation that had to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack. He gave them the names of certain assets used by the Bureau for at least twelve years. He gave them contact information for certain agents who were aware of these issues. And they, themselves, wanted to come and talk about it, but they needed certain protection. Mr. Sarshar provided them with all this information and where to look for these documents etc. and, to this day, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 Commission have been passing this buck back and forth.

So, all this information has been sitting in front of them. They have not called any of those witnesses introduced by Mr. Sarshar to them. And during the 9/11 Commission hearing with [FBI] Director Mueller, none of these questions were asked. In fact they did not have any questions for Director Mueller, and they left it at that [except for the remark by Mr. Ben-Veniste that they should be addressing the translation issues behind closed doors.] And "behind closed doors" has become a black hole for me because I have been in these closed door sessions so many times within the Senate, within the Inspector General's office, within the 9/11 Commission. And whatever information you are providing them behind these closed doors, you know for sure that that information will stay there and will never get out.

That is why we are demanding to have public hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Senate floor and open to the public.

JH: Do you think the Ellen Mariani case will help any of this? [Ellen Mariani is a 9/11 widow whose attorney, Philip Berg, is suing the United States under the RICO statute for the death of Mr. Mariani at the WTC.]

SE: I have read about her case. But there is another lawsuit: the Motley Rice legal firm that is representing over a thousand family members. They sent me a subpoena to provide them with a deposition. And one day before that deposition took place, the government attorneys intervened and asked the court for a hearing and they quashed this subpoena request. They sent eight heavyweight attorneys from the Department of Justice, and Mr. Ashcroft's right hand. And basically put on this show in front of the judge, saying, "Sibel Edmonds, if you were to provide this information, our national security and our state secret privilege and our foreign relations will be destroyed. Therefore, Your Honor, we want you to quash this subpoena." Motley Rice told the judge that they wanted to ask for information that has already been made public. The government maintained that even though the information was public, it was still classified. And Judge Walton granted their request.

JH: There is some hope coming from statements made by former FBI counterintelligence agent I.C.Smith who thinks that 9/11 would have been stopped, had the FBI been allowed to do its job. He is strongly critical of FBI assistant director Dale Watson.

Do you believe that 9/11 could have been stopped if information like yours had been properly handled?

SE: At the very least, as early as May/June 2001, we could have issued a red code alert to the public, and we would have issued this very urgent warning system, which would, in return, have increased our Airport and INS security. Could we have prevented in 100% certainty? I don't think anything is that certain. However, we would have had a very, very good chance for preventing it. And agent Smith and I, we crossed the same person, because my case has to do with Dale Watson too.

JH: The trouble is: once you make this information public, you mess up the plan. And if one of the investigations from Phoenix, Chicago, New York, or Minneapolis had been followed through, let alone all four, it would have burst the bubble.

SE: Look, Jim, they had those four pieces you mentioned, and far more than that, believe me, far more than that. And that has not been made public. And for them to say that we did not have any specific information is just outrageous. Because what were they waiting for? An affidavit signed by bin Laden?

JH: "Hey Dumb Ass! Coming 9/11!" So their statement that they didn't have the information is outrageous.

SE: And they have been backing off from that. About two weeks before Condoleezza Rice appeared before the 9/11 Commission she made the statement, "We had no specific information." And I told the press that that was an outrageous lie. That was printed on the front page of The Independent [UK] and several other papers here. And what she did during the hearing was very interesting. She corrected herself saying, "Well, I made a mistake. I should not have said 'we.' I should say that I personally did not have specific information." And that is exactly what I stated. "We" includes the FBI, and therefore I can tell you with 100% certainty that that is an outrageous lie.

Yet the Commission didn't ask, "Well, who is the rest of this 'we'?"

JH: They don't want to know.

SE: No, they don't want to know. This is the heart of it. The attitude of the Senate members has been "See no evil. Hear no evil. Just let it go." And you can't let that happen. The only people I have seen who have been truly pushing for the truth are the family members. All they have asked for are three things. They want the truth, the facts, the real facts, the straightforward truth. They want accountability. And they want us to improve our security. That's it. They have no other agenda. And now they're smearing their names.

JH: Well, they have to figure out the angle.

JH: Ms. Edmonds, thanks for being our guest.

SE: Thank you very much. I'm honored to be on your show and I hope I'll be on again. And I hope you will able to get Senator Leahy. I'd like to be able to have a chat with him. [Laughter]

JH: Fat chance. He withers at the thought.

SE: We're going to still be pounding. I'm preparing this petition, and it's going to be signed by many, many people and I'm going to be wheeling it in personally to both Senators Leahy and Grassley. And it will have some level of coverage. And once they see the cameras and the people, suddenly their personalities change. It's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They become very sweet.

JH: If you see either one of those two [Leahy or Grassley], I'd be more than happy to have either one them on - with you. Let's see what we can do.

SE: Okay, let's hope. Thank you, Jim. Bye.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Jim Hogue provided the following conclusion to this interview: "The facts reported by Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar are incontrovertible. Result: Silence. And you must agree to be a part of this silence.The gag order permeates the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, all levels of the FBI, the CIA, the 9/11 Commission, the NSC, the Pentagon, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the mass media. The media and the White House will next assassinate Miss Edmond's character, as they have done to others who haven't rolled over and played dead. Never in the course of human events has so great a story been covered up by so many on the orders of so few.

The likes of Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodard and Judith Miller should put their tails between their legs and slink away, while the obscure academic, Dr. David Ray Griffin, citizen Eric Hufschmid, author Gore Vidal, independent journalists Michael Ruppert and Christopher Bollyn, and the 9/11 families are recognized among those who kept open the window to Democracy.

Miss Edmonds has challenged us to do our jobs as citizens. It isn't often that a phone call could change the course of history. Now is such a time."

Jim Hogue, a retired high school teacher and professional actor, has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over 10 years. Prior to 9/11, the show was literary in nature, but since then Hogue's coverage has greatly expanded.

Copyright © 2004 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

And here is a piece from our 25-page time line at www.WantToknow.info/9-11timeline25pg:

 March 22, 2002:Translator Sibel Edmonds is fired by the FBI after raising suspicions about a co-worker and her connections to an unnamed foreign official and organization. Both Edmonds and the co-worker, Dickerson, were hired as translators in late Sept. 2001. Edmonds claims that Dickerson failed to translate sensitive information concerning the foreign official and organization, which is under investigation. When Edmonds failed to agree to spy for this organization, Dickerson told her that her refusal could put her family in danger. After her boss and others in the FBI failed to respond to her complaints, she wrote to the inspector general's office in March: "Investigations are being compromised. Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field." She claims she was fired for her whistleblowing, and is suing. A second FBI whistleblower, John Cole, also claims to know of security lapses in the screening and hiring of FBI translators. [Washington Post, 6/19/02, CBS 10/25/02] In Oct. 2002, at the request of FBI Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft asks a judge to throw out Edmonds's lawsuit. He says he is protecting national security interests. [AP, 10/18/02]

Open Letter To Thomas Kean
Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission

From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

August 1, 2004

Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9/11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives.

Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations.

Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up (please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004).

This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental.

Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish Translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau's investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI's targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI's targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as 'Not Pertinent.' Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI's investigations and our fight against terrorism.

Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain 9/11 detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret clearance.

Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the Bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen's case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (Please refer to Senator Leahy and Grassley's letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley's statement on CBS-60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004).

This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (Please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to Director Mueller, the Inspector General criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments' security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI's Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence investigations.

Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important 'chit-chats' and 'chatters' are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing "302" forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11, the agents and the translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General.

The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004).

Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (Please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours testimony by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks, the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the 'use of airplanes', 'major US cities as targets', and 'Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.'

Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet, your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure.

Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned; despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing (Please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a 'time limit' excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, " Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over two years ago, and after two 'unclassified' sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary level English. He had failed English proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet, Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist related information, and he was sent to Guantánamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic language detainees (Turkish, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc.).

The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet, the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen's case (Please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004).

CBS-60 Minutes showed Kevin's picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantánamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI (Please refer to CBS-60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice Inspector General had a detailed account of these problems (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen's case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS-60 Minutes broadcasted Taskesen's case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI's hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions.

Yet, your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI's hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas.

It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department.

The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI's largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations.

The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic language unit under his supervision.

Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security.

This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities.

This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences.

In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited 'direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases 'sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of 'protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims’ family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under 'safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.' Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag.

Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?

I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.

I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI's translation unit during the most crucial times after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the Bureau's language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by NO means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations.

 As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a Senior Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, and a Senior Democrat Senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on my allegations, 'none of my allegations were disproved.' As you are fully aware, even FBI officials 'confirmed all my allegations and denied none' during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission's hearings, nor your commission's five hundred sixty seven-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report's coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote #25). Yet, your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.

In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing 'visible', because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing 'visible' because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged.

During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.

    Respectfully,

    Sibel D. Edmonds

    CC: Senate Judiciary Committee
    CC: Senate Intelligence Committee
    CC: House Government Reform Committee
    CC: Family Steering Committee
    CC: Press

Inspector General Rebukes F.B.I. over
Espionage Case and Firing of Whistle-Blower

By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times

Saturday 15 January 2005

Washington - The F.B.I. has failed to aggressively investigate accusations of espionage against a translator at the bureau and fired the translator's co-worker in large part for bringing the accusations, the Justice Department's inspector general concluded on Friday.

In a long-awaited report that the Justice Department sought for months to keep classified, the inspector general issued a sharp rebuke to the F.B.I. over its handling of claims of espionage and ineptitude made by Sibel Edmonds, a bureau translator who was fired in 2002 after superiors deemed her conduct "disruptive."

Ms. Edmonds, who translated material in Turkish, Persian and Azerbaijani, had complained about slipshod translations and management problems in the bureau's translation section and raised accusations of possible espionage against a fellow linguist.

The report from the office of Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general, reached no conclusions about whether Ms. Edmonds's co-worker had actually engaged in espionage, and it did not give details about the espionage accusations because they remain classified. But officials have said Ms. Edmonds said the co-worker, a fellow Turkish linguist, had blocked the translation of material involving foreign acquaintances of hers who had come under suspicion.

In general, Mr. Fine's investigation found that many of Ms. Edmonds's accusations "were supported, that the F.B.I. did not take them seriously enough and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the F.B.I.'s decision to terminate her services."

Ms. Edmonds's case has become a cause célèbre for critics who accused the bureau of retaliating against her and other whistle-blowers who have sought to expose management problems related to the campaign against terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined her cause earlier this week, asking an appellate court to reinstate a whistle-blower lawsuit she brought against the government. The suit was dismissed last year after Attorney General John Ashcroft, invoking a rarely used power, declared her case to be a matter of "state secret" privilege, and the Justice Department retroactively classified a 2002 Congressional briefing about it.

Responding to the investigation's calls for improvements in the management of translation services, the F.B.I. said Friday that it had taken steps to reorganize the operation and instituted "competency models" for hiring and training translators. A broader review by the inspector general released in September had found systematic problems in the F.B.I.'s translation capabilities and large backlogs in its translation of terrorism-related material.

The F.B.I. also said Friday that it was continuing to investigate Ms. Edmonds's claims and restated its commitment to ensuring that whistle-blowers "who raise good faith concerns" do not face retaliation.

Ms. Edmonds, for her part, said she viewed the inspector general's report as "an absolute vindication."

After all the delays in getting this story out, I wasn't expecting a lot," she said in an interview. "This report is certainly more than I expected, and I'm actually pretty pleased."

Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat, and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, who have been two of the F.B.I.'s toughest critics, said the report underscored their broader concerns about the bureau's treatment of dissenters, particularly on critical matters involving terrorism and espionage.

"This report confirms that the F.B.I. failed to treat this case as seriously as the situation demanded," Mr. Leahy said. "It is unacceptable, and it deeply concerns us, that in the wake of the Robert Hanssen spy case, and in the months following Sept. 11, the F.B.I. failed to vigorously investigate these grave allegations."

wecare@wanttoknow.info