Read it and weep? No. Read it and get angry, VERY
ANGRY, and then channel that ANGER into your own
personal voter registration, voter education and voter turnout drive. The "US mainstream news media" which made Linda Tripp famous cannot even bring it self to mention Karen Kwiatowski or Sibel Edmonds.
Here is another DISGRACE for the "US mainstream news media," which is almost wholly abdicated the sacred trust that the US Constitution and its Amendments deliver to it, and in defense of which so many have sacrficied their lives these two hundred + years...Amy Goodman, of course, is one of the FEW US journalists who have their names scrawled on the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes. Hopefully, before it is too late (and as Buzzflash has said, it is
"MIDNIGHT IN AMERICA" now) there will be a few more...
SIBEL EDMONDS interviewed by DEMOCRACY NOW! host AMY GOODMAN: We are talking with a former F.B.I. Wiretap Translator with top secret security clearance. She was hired just after September 11 to go back and retranslate, or sometimes translate for the first time, documents and conversations from before September 11. Republican Senator Charles Grassley
called her very credible, said that she recently testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, saying that the F.B.I.
had detailed information prior to September 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted. Now, Sibel Edmonds, to call Condoleezza
Rice's claim that the White House had no specific information on domestic threat or one involving planes an outrageous lie is very strong. Can you repeat again or fill out the information that you have to substantiate that? She's going to be going before the 9-11 Commission herself.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Right. Well, Amy, I really wish I could comment, I could have given you some specific information. I'm hoping that these authorities, being Director Mueller, during his testimony, or the report that was expected to be out by Inspector General's Office to come out, actually, instead of being sealed, and shoved under this blanket of secrecy so that you would see these specific informations, because I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but Attorney
General Ashcroft on October 18, 2002, personally asserted State Secret Privilege in my case. I would read two sentences here: “To prevent disclosure of certain classified and sensitive national security information, Attorney General Ashcroft today asserted the State Secret Privilege in Sibel Edmonds' case. This assertion was made at the request of the F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller,” in papers filed today, and they are citing the reason that because this case would create substantial risks of disclosing classified and sensitive national security information that could cause serious damage to our country's security. They are citing that this privilege is very rare and is asserted to prevent certain information getting -- becoming public or hurting diplomatic relations. I would underline this phrase, diplomatic relations several times.
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/31/1616221
Wednesday, March 31st, 2004
Fmr. FBI Translator: White House Had Intel On Possible Airplane Attack Pre-9/11
Listen to: Segment || Show
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read
Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a
friend Purchase Video/CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We speak with former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds,
who was hired shortly after Sept. 11 to translate
intelligence gathered over the previous year related
to the 9/11 attacks. She says the FBI had information
that an attack using airplanes was being planned
before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the
White House had no specific information on a domestic
threat or one involving planes "an outrageous lie."
[includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush yesterday finally agreed to allow
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice to testify
publicly and under oath before the independent
commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
President Bush, White House Press Briefing, March 30,
2004.
Bush did not take questions and left the room after
his statement.
For weeks, the White House has insisted for weeks that
Rice not testifying was a matter of constitutional
principle and would set a dangerous precedent.
On 60 Minutes this weekend Rice said, "It is a
longstanding principle that sitting national security
advisers do not testify before the Congress."
It is unclear what "longstanding principle" Rice was
referring to since President Clinton allowed his
national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to testify in
public before the House Governmental Affairs Committee
only 8 years ago and Zbigniew Brzezinski was allowed
under President Carter.
In return for Rice testifying, the commission agreed
to strict conditions that ruled out any further public
testimony from White House officials, including Rice
herself. So after Rice's appearance before the panel,
public testimony from various aides who might be in a
position to confirm or deny her claims is not an
option.
The commission also promised that Rice's testimony
won't set a precedent.
Bush also agreed to meet privately with all 10
commissioners for an undetermined time limit, backing
off his previous demand to meet only with the Chairman
and Vice Chairman for just one hour.
But again, the apparent retreat by the president came
with conditions. In return, the commission agreed that
Bush will not be under oath and can have Vice
President Dick Cheney appear with him by his side.
Rice has outright denied having specific information
of an imminent domestic threat involving hijacking
airplanes, but she might have a particularly hard time
convincing the 9/11 Commission of this fact.
A former FBI translator with top-secret clearance has
called Rice's claims "an outrageous lie." She says she
testified before the 9/11 Commission that the FBI had
information that an attack using airplanes was being
planned before September 11.
Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator who was hired
shortly after Sept. 11 to translate intelligence
gathered over the previous year related to the 9/11
attacks. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however
donations help us provide closed captioning for the
deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank
you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Sibel Edmonds. Welcome to
Democracy Now!
SIBEL EDMONDS: Thank you. Good morning, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, what
about this claim that both President Bush has made and
Condoleezza Rice has made saying that they had no
information about an imminent domestic threat
involving airplanes?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, Amy, for the past two years I
have testified several times before the Department of
Justice Inspector General, for the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and a few months ago I testified behind
closed doors for the 9-11 Commission, and as I stated
before, to just come out and say -- and state that we
had no specific information whatsoever, that would be
an outrageous lie. President Bush, I guess, he made a
smart move, because he also added that they did not
have any specific information stating that the attack
was going to occur on September 11. But Ms. Rice's
statement that we had no specific information is
inaccurate.
AMY GOODMAN: Looking specifically at the Op-Ed piece
that Condoleezza Rice wrote in the "Washington Post"
on March 22nd, she said, “Despite what some have
suggested we received no intelligence that terrorists
were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes
as missiles.” Though, some analysts speculated that
the terrorists might hijack airlines to try to free
U.S.-held terrorists. The F.A.A. even issued a warning
to airlines and aviation security personnel that,
quote, “The potential for a terrorist operation such
as an airline hijacking to free terrorists
incarcerated in the United States remains a concern.”
SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, I would say not only that we had
specific information, we had several specific
information as early as April, 2001. And many of this
information has been public already. I mean, you look
at what Agent Rowley provided, you look at the Phoenix
Memo, the investigations that I worked on after 9-11,
retranslating certain documents related to certain
investigations, that is the reason I'm saying this is
absolutely inaccurate. We had not one, but we had many
specific informations, and this information was not
maybe investigated under counter-terrorism because
it's very difficult to separate these issues when you
have criminal investigation, and money laundering
investigation, drug related investigations that
actually have major information regarding 9-11
incidents. To say that they would be mostly under
counter-terrorism would be a wrong assumption, too.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, can you explain exactly
why you have come to these conclusions? What exactly
was your job?
SIBEL EDMONDS: My job was translating documents and
various documents, audio and also interviews that had
to do with various investigations. Again, not only
counter-terrorism, but counter-intelligence and
criminal investigations. During this short tenure that
I had over there, I became aware of several
investigations that were ongoing investigation dating
back to a year or -- some of them actually years
before 9-11 that contained significant amount of
information about various activities. I would like to
emphasize again, we are talking about money laundering
activities directed toward these terrorist activities.
We are looking at counter-intelligence activities, so,
as I said it, is not categorized under
counter-terrorism. This information was pouring in
dating back as early as 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, can you explain what
exactly you did? I mean, you took a job on was it
September 20, 2001?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: And where did you work? SYBIL EDMONDS: I
worked for Washington Field Office, F.B.I.'s
Washington Field Office Translation Department, and
they had the largest translation department in the
country. So, because we were the largest, we received
information again in various formats from all over the
country.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, when you say you received
information, what is it that you were handed --
transcripts of wiretapped phone conversations, what?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, I cannot specifically answer this
question. As you're aware, I'm under a gag order,
however, as I said, in various forms -- and as I said,
again, it -- I did interviews, I did documents, I did
audios, and this is as specific as I'm allowed to get
in terms of the format with this information.
AMY GOODMAN: You translated them?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Into English.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Had some of them been translated before?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Yes. Many of them, actually.
AMY GOODMAN: By who?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Oh, by various translators previously,
and agents from different field offices felt like that
these information was either inaccurate or it was not
precise, so they felt that they needed to send these
documents or other formats back and have them get to
be retranslated because after 9-11, they were
suspicious that the information that they received was
not really accurate, and there was more. And in fact,
in some cases, there were more.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, let's say you had certain
investigations, and you sent certain either documents,
audio or whatever to be translated, and certain
translator translated it in let's say summary format,
and basically that this information is not that
pertinent. After 9-11, the agent is saying, you know
what, I want this thing to be retranslated again,
because considering 9-11 and considering this target
under this investigation, we believe there was more in
this, let’s say, document or audio. And after
translating this -- let's say, particular document,
verbatim, and sending back, then that is when you
would see the information and say -- shake your head
and say how could we have missed this information
before.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibil Edmonds, what do you think would
have happened if anything that you translated after
September 11 had been translated fully before? And
accurately?
SIBEL EDMONDS: I cannot confidently answer this
question because in fact there were information that
were translated very precisely and accurately before.
And somehow having that information did not achieve
anything, either. So, unfortunately, I cannot say if
these documents were translated more precisely
previously, something would have been done. My
question is how about the ones that we had before? How
about the information we had before that were pretty
specific and they were pretty accurate, and they came
from real reliable sources assets. What happened to
that information? That is my question, and I'm hoping
that through this investigation by the 9-11
Commission, we will get to hear these questions being
asked specifically and directly.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break, but when we come back,
Sibel Edmonds, I want to ask you why there is a gag
order on you.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Sibel Edmonds, a former
F.B.I. Wiretap Translator. Senator Charles Grassley,
the Republican from Iowa, has told “salon.com” she
recently testified before the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, and called
her very credible. We'll be back in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: We are talking with a former F.B.I.
Wiretap Translator with top secret security clearance.
She was hired just after September 11 to go back and
retranslate, or sometimes translate for the first
time, documents and conversations from before
September 11. Republican Senator Charles Grassley
called her very credible, said that she recently
testified before the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, saying that the F.B.I.
had detailed information prior to September 11, 2001,
that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being
plotted. Now, Sibel Edmonds, to call Condoleezza
Rice's claim that the White House had no specific
information on domestic threat or one involving planes
an outrageous lie is very strong. Can you repeat again
or fill out the information that you have to
substantiate that? She's going to be going before the
9-11 Commission herself.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Right. Well, Amy, I really wish I could
comment, I could have given you some specific
information. I'm hoping that these authorities, being
Director Mueller, during his testimony, or the report
that was expected to be out by Inspector General's
Office to come out, actually, instead of being sealed,
and shoved under this blanket of secrecy so that you
would see these specific informations, because I don't
know if you are aware of it or not, but Attorney
General Ashcroft on October 18, 2002, personally
asserted State Secret Privilege in my case. I would
read two sentences here: “To prevent disclosure of
certain classified and sensitive national security
information, Attorney General Ashcroft today asserted
the State Secret Privilege in Sibel Edmonds' case.
This assertion was made at the request of the F.B.I.
Director Robert Mueller,” in papers filed today, and
they are citing the reason that because this case
would create substantial risks of disclosing
classified and sensitive national security information
that could cause serious damage to our country's
security. They are citing that this privilege is very
rare and is asserted to prevent certain information
getting -- becoming public or hurting diplomatic
relations. I would underline this phrase, diplomatic
relations several times.
AMY GOODMAN: And what has been the response of the
federal authorities to you speaking out right now?
SIBEL EDMONDS: They have -- during their meetings with
Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's office, these
authorities have confirmed all of my reports and
allegations and have denied none. However, as I said,
Inspector General's Office’s report was supposed to be
out in October, 2002. Here we are sitting in March
2004, and my sources are telling me they are going to
seal this report, and it will be never made public.
Now, to protect certain diplomatic relations? -- that
is the question. What diplomatic relations? To this
date, I have been waiting to see this information to
be available, and become available and be out there,
but it's not getting there. And there's so much that
the public just simply doesn't know. About what went
wrong, what we had, and my last hope right now is this
Commission. 9-11 Commission is my last hope because I
have pursued all possible authority channels that I
could have pursued. I have gone to the Senate. I have
provided testimony to the Inspector General's Office
and the F.B.I. They have confirmed these allegations,
however, this information is being prevented from
becoming public. It needs to be public because first
we have to acknowledge the facts before we go about
fixing these problems. If they don't want to admit to
these facts and they want to -- they don't want to
acknowledge it, then we have no chance of really
addressing the serious issue of national security and
terrorism that they are citing.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Sibel Edmonds, a former
F.B.I. Wiretap Translator, hired just after September
11, ultimately was fired. I want to ask about Senator
Grassley on "60 Minutes" saying you're credible.
Quote, “She's credible, and the reason I feel she's
very credible is because people within the F.B.I. have
corroborated a lot of her story.” I want to ask you
about why you were fired, and the reports you have
made of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross
incompetence in the F.B.I. Translations Unit,
including supervisors who told translators to work
slowly during the crucial post-9-11 investigations to
get more funds as well as other issues of harassment
of you, as you started to make these charges.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Yes. Senator Grassley, I have a lot of
respect for Senator Grassley. After they investigated
this case, he said basically, publicly, on CBS "60
Minutes" that these departments need to be turned
upside-down. I took that very literally, and I have
been expecting for past two years for these
departments and the issues within these departments to
be addressed. You see, after September 11, these
people -- people from the F.B.I., came forward and
they blamed everything on shortage of budgets and
shortage of personnel. And they said, we failed, and
these were the major causes. These were the reasons.
That is not accurate. We were told during the time
that these people were going on TV and they were
begging for people to apply for translation positions
because we had this shortage, what was going on behind
the scenes was exactly opposite. We were being asked
not to do these translations, and let the documents
pile up, because within a month or so, they were
scheduled to go in front of the Senate and Congress
and ask for increased budgets. In doing so, they
needed to give numbers of pages, numbers of documents
and audios that they were not translated due to the
shortage, and needed to be translated, and that they
were urgent, and in order to do so, we had to increase
that number, the number of pages and the number of
audio.
AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting, Sibel Edmonds, I
remember doing a piece on the translators who were gay
and lesbian, who were fired at a time when there was a
serious lack of translators.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Again, this contradicts what they have
been stating. I performed translations for three
languages, and they had so many active cases under
those languages. They are not even admitting that they
had fired me. This is how they are putting it: “She
was terminated purely for the convenience of the
government.” Now, you can translate that in any way
you want, but it is the vague statement -- that she
was not fired, she was terminated purely for the
government's convenience. Now, what is that? What is
that?
AMY GOODMAN: Now, you have sued?
SIBEL EDMONDS: Yes. And first of all, I applied for --
information that I could, under Freedom of Information
Act, receive, and I wanted to get some of these
documents. I know what those documents are, and -- but
I wanted to get them out and make it public. They did
not comply, as they are required under the Freedom of
Information Act, so we had to pursue the court option.
And again, for this court case, we never even had a
chance to go in front of this particular judge because
they went in camera, and they told the judge, due to
national security and the State Secret Privilege,
these documents, all 1,500 of them, are top secret,
classified documents, therefore, none of them can be
released to the public, and again, without any
hearings, we never went in front of any judge, the
judge ruled in favor of the F.B.I. And she said,
“Well, who am I to argue with the government? If they
are saying it's going to compromise our national
security I have to take their word for that,” and
therefore, they ruled against us, and now we are
appealing that case.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, you testified before the
9-11 Commission. You also held a news conference right
outside the hearings, right before Richard Clarke
testified. What has been the media response?
SIBEL EDMONDS: First of all this issue has been out
there for almost two years. Every few months, there
has been an article here or an article there, and
first of all, if -- major news sources don't perceive
it as a news item because it's not news, it's an
issue. It cannot be news because specifics are
withheld and by this real, real strong State Secret
Privilege. So how many specifics and evidence can be
given to the media, and how much of this information
can be provided? It is very limited. News sources such
as yourself are the ones who actually have been paying
attention to these issues and have been pursuing it
and calling the Senate and calling the Inspector
General's Office and following up on that, but I have
not seen major activities within the larger mass media
sources. I don't know why. I don't know why, really,
to be honest with you, I don't know.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you expect of this 9-11
Commission hearing?
SIBEL EDMONDS: I am still holding onto my optimism.
I'm expecting on this April 13 and April 14 during the
hearings with Director Mueller, I'm expecting them to
ask the real questions. Now, I am expecting that their
report will be different than the report that was
issued by this Joint Intelligence Inquiry that they
had which was basically nothing. And so far, I have
been very disappointed, because the real issues, the
specifics get to the address behind closed doors under
this blanket of security and secrecy. Most likely from
their reports, the real issues are going to be
redacted because they're going to be citing
classifications, and then what good is that report
going to do, or what use is this hearing going to
have? That's the question. I'm hoping that from these
attentions that we have been receiving from the press
in terms of the issues that have been raised by,
again, Agent Rowley, Clarke, Mr. Clarke's testimony,
people would raise their expectations and expect to
hear the real questions being asked from Director
Mueller during this hearing. This is what I expect,
and this is what I'm hoping. Another issue is to
actually see the Senate exercising their oversight
authority that has been given to them by the public.
Because to this date, what I have been hearing
repeatedly is that, in quotes, “Our hands are tied.
You see the climate. Our hands are tied.” Well, in a
way, that is not acceptable. Because they have been
given the responsibility and authority to execute this
oversight, and so far to this date, it hasn't been
exercised. I'm hoping that at least through these
issues becoming more public and the 9-11 Commission
will be followed by some real Senate activities in
terms of addressing these issues. Because American
public, you know, they have the right to know. They
need to know these facts.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, I want to thank you very
much for being with us.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, who was an F.B.I. Wiretap
Translator, and we will continue to follow up on your
story. I want to thank you for being here.
SIBEL EDMONDS: Thank you, Amy.