[9/11] Sibel Edmonds - Kill The Messenger

[9/11] Sibel Edmonds – Kill The Messenger

Deze documentaire gaat over Sibel Edmonds en haar pogingen om als klokkenluider haar verhaal te kunnen doen. Sibel Edmonds werkte als vertaler bij de FBI in de periode na 11 september 2001 t/m maart 2002. Al snel ontdekte ze dat haar afdeling geïnfiltreerd was en dat haar superieurs haar pogingen om dit aan te tonen niet in dank afnamen. In maart 2002 werd ze ontslagen en haar pogingen om haar verhaal te kunnen vertellen worden geblokkeerd door o.a. Attorney General Ashcroft die haar meerdere gag orders geeft vanwege staatsgeheim en nationale veiligheid. Dit betekend dat ze bijna niets meer mag openbaren over wat ze te weten is gekomen. Alle documenten en briefwisselingen, eigenlijk alles met betrekking tot haar zaak is geclassificeerd. Sibel Edmonds blijft echter proberen om haar verhaal te kunnen vertellen.

Waar ze naar hint is spionnen en corruptie in de inlichtingendiensten en de overheid, en nauwe betrokkenheid met drugs- en wapensmokkel. Ook zouden er bewijzen zijn dat dit alles connecties zou hebben met terroristische organisaties en dat onderzoeken van inlichtingendiensten naar terrorisme opzettelijk gehinderd of zelfs geblokkeerd worden vanwege de connecties met landen, overheden en bedrijven.


De documentaire zelf is wel te vinden via verschillende p2p netwerken.

quote:

SBS: Cutting Edge – Kill The Messenger

A foreign spy ring with links to Al-Qaeda has been discovered working within the FBI. Two women have stumbled on the link and despite the attempted cover-up have vowed to speak out.

An American woman of Turkish descent, Sibel Edmonds, began work at the FBI translating wire taps in an investigation into a foreign spy ring operating in the US. She became suspicious of her colleagues after discovering some mistranslations and was then invited to join the spy ring which had evidently infiltrated the FBI itself. She went straight to her bosses and rather than being hailed as a hero she was promptly sacked. After going public on 60 Minutes she has been officially gagged.

Edmonds had discovered high-ranking government representatives heard discussing the sale of nuclear secrets in the wire taps. The foreign agents were apparently using money from Afghan heroin processed in turkey and laundered through the auspices of the American Turkish Council. It seems that the nuclear secrets could have been traded with international terrorists groups.

An undercover CIA agent whose identity was leaked by the White House, Valerie Plame, was involved in nuclear counter proliferation surveillance and was looking at the activities of the same people. They are both prepared to team up and blow the whistle. This could mean prison for Sibel but she is prepared to risk this in the interests of American national security.

Bron: http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=1421

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Jn4vTGb_8

Website van de documentaire:
http://www.justacitizen.com/KillTheMessenger.html


Quote van Sibel Edmonds van de introductie bij de screening van de documentaire in Washington DC.

“I'm a US citizen, I did not commit any crime, and they issued all these gag orders and they said I don't have my First Amendment right, I don't have my Fourth Amendment right, Fifth Amendment right. They had the Federal court here in DC going along with it... I went to Congress, they didn't do anything. I went to the Mainstream Media, they couldn't care less, really. Sure, it was a 'sensational' story - a whistleblower was fired and gagged, but nobody within the Mainstream Media ever asked 'Why the State Secrets Privilege? You know, she was a language specialist, it's not as if she was an undercover agent, or an informant... Why would they go to such an length to gag her?'”

“Not a single person within the US Mainstream Media ever asked this question. They didn't want to know. It was all about the firing aspect of it - and even that died down. So, we have a fantastic panel here to talk about that aspect of it...”


Achtergrondinformatie

Sibel Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” by Attorney General Ashcroft; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award for her "commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy". www.justacitizen.com

Bron: http://www.nswbc.org/nswbc_staff.htm


Goede samenvatting (video) op youtube over de Sibel Edmonds!

Youtube - Sibel Edmonds PEN Newman Award


Overzicht nieuwsberichten:

Complete 911 Timeline – Sibel Edmonds


Timeline

SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.

FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.

FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.

MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.

JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.

JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.

JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.

AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.

FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.

MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.

JUNE 2004: The Project On Government Oversight files suit against the Justice Department and Attorney General Ashcroft, saying the retroactive classification violates the organization's First Amendment rights.

JULY 2004: A Justice Department investigation into Edmonds' dismissal is completed but is entirely classified. The report finds that Edmonds' allegations of corruption within the FBI "were at least a contributing factor" in her dismissal.

JULY 2004: Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses Edmonds' lawsuit, relying on the government's states secrets privilege.

JANUARY 2005: ACLU files brief urging the D.C. Court of Appeals to reinstate the Edmonds' case, saying that the government is abusing the "state secrets privilege" to silence employees who expose national security blunders. Oral argument is scheduled for April 21, 2005.

JANUARY 2005: The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General releases an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds' termination. The report concludes that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported.

Een brief en artikel geschreven door Sibel Edmonds waarin ze stelt dat het 9/11 rapport niet compleet is en dat de commissie belangrijke getuigen en hun verklaringen genegeerd heeft.

quote:

Letter to Thomas Kean (chairman of the 9/11 Commission)

Brief van Sibel Edmunds aan de voorzitter van de 9/11 commissie. (2004)

“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.”

Volledige brief: http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Letter_to_Kean.pdf

quote:

The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts

The Commission was created and put in place due to the relentless pressure and outcry by the 9/11 family members and their public supporters who had three objectives in mind: 1) Getting all the facts; 2) Establishing Accountability for those who failed us due to their intentional or unintentional acts; 3) Provide recommendation for real fixes and meaningful remedies.

The Commission fulfilled none of those three objectives. In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information. Both these acts were selective and intentional. Contrary to their pledge to establish accountability: They refused to hold anyone accountable and lamely justified it by saying, “We don’t want to point a finger at anyone.”

[…]

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation.

http://www.nswbc.org/Repo(...)curity%20Experts.pdf

Zeer interessant interview!


Artikel van Sibel Edmonds over haar pogingen om haar zaak aan te vechten en de extreme maatregelen die genomen zijn om haar het zwijgen op te leggen.

quote:

Gagged, But Not Dead

On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, 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 based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.

In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John 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 employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, 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, information considered state secrets. According to our government officials my Virginia driving license would be considered a ‘Top Secret’ document, since it contains my date of birth, information considered state secrets and classified. Well, heck, even my resume would be considered ‘Top Secret’ since it contains my linguistic credentials and my degrees. As of that day, I officially became a notoriously gagged whistleblower; but I continued on.

In May 2004, two years after two ranking senators (bipartisan) had publicly, and in public records and documents, announced me credible and my case and allegations confirmed and supported, the emboldened then Attorney General, struck again. This time, he, John Ashcroft, decided to gag the entire Congress on anything that had to with Sibel Edmonds and her case. He ordered two ranking senators to take everything referring to me off their websites; he ordered them to consider all documents and letters related to my case ‘Top Secret,’ and he commanded that they, the Congress, shut their mouth on any issue that in any way referred or related to me. Our senators obliged, disregarding the principles of the separation of powers, not honoring the United States Constitution, and not respecting their own prestige and status. As of that day, the United States Congress became officially gagged on Sibel Edmonds; but I continued on.

In June 2004, the United States District Court bowed to his highness, representative of our Executive Branch, John Ashcroft, and announced its decision to no longer honor the Constitution as it relates to citizens’ right to due process: it dismissed the case and excused itself from providing any real explanation, due to any possible explanation, or lack of explanation, being classified as ‘Top Secret,’ and ‘State Secrets.’ Our court system too was not willing to stand up for its authority and its separation from the executive branch. In other words, the District Court willingly allowed itself to be gagged; but I continued on.

In July 2004, after two years of unexplained foot dragging, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, announced its long over due investigation of Sibel Edmonds’ case complete and issued its report. The further empowered and emboldened then Attorney General stepped in on that same day and gagged his own Inspector General’s findings and report by classifying the entire report as secret. The so called independent investigatory entity, the Inspector General, wrapped and duct taped its report, bowed, and left the scene now that it was formally and officially gagged on my case; 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 for our hearing before Appellate Court Judges. Just hours before our hearing, these judges issued an unexpected ruling, barring all reporters and the public from the courtroom for the Edmonds’ Case hearing. Numerous media related entities tried to flex their lately weakened muscles and filed their motion to oppose this ruling. The judges denied their motion, and cited no reason; when asked for a reason 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 troop 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, the plaintiff, out, locked the doors, and stood there in front of the courtroom and watched us for about fifteen minutes. So much for finally having my day in court; here I was, with my attorneys, standing outside the courtroom and being guarded, while in there, three judges were having a cozy mingling session with a large troop of government attorneys. Then, it was over; that was it; we were told to leave. In other words, my attorneys and I were barred from being present in our own court hearing, and my case remained covered up and gagged; but I continued on.

On May 6, two weeks after the Kafkaesque court procedure, 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 proceeding in court due to some unspecified ‘State Secrets,’ and unexplained secrecy that applied to everything that had to do with me and my case; which were so secret that even the judges could not hear or see. In fact, the Appellate judges in my case did not cite any opinion or reason, because even 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.

More...

Bron: http://www.justacitizen.c(...)but%20not%20Dead.htm