Translators for FBI SILENCED and THREATENED by Ashcroft

[sMiLeYz]

"Attorney General John Ashcroft told me 'he was invoking State Secret Privilege and National Security' when I told the FBI I wanted to go public with what I had translated from the pre 9-11 intercepts."


"I appeared once on CBS 60 Minutes but I have been silenced by Mr. Ashcroft, the FBI follows me, and I was threatened with jail in 2002 if I went public," Edmonds told tomflocco.com.[/b]

When we asked her if it was really true that she had been bribed by the FBI and DOJ, Edmonds said "You can interpret it as that."

This writer personally asked Edmonds where the term "State Secret Privilege" was derived. "The term came from an October 18, 2002 DOJ memo to me from DOJ spokesman Barbara Comstock," said Edmonds.

The former FBI translator said "My translations of the pre 9-11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date specific information enough to alert the American people, and other issues dating back to 1999 which I won't go into right now."

Incredibly, Edmonds said "The Senate Judiciary Committee and the 911 Commission have heard me testify for lengthy periods of time time (3 hours) about very specific plots, dates, airplanes used as weapons, and specific individuals and activities."

Tom Flocco

?We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,? says Edmonds. ?And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.?

Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she'd left work for the day.

?The next day I would come to work, turn on my computer and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,? she says. ?Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ?Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and don't mention it.??

The lesson was don?t work, and don?t do the translations.

Edmonds put her concerns about the FBI's language department in writing to her immediate superiors and to a top official at the FBI. For months, she said she received no response. Then, she turned for help to the Justice Department's Inspector General and to Sen. Charles Grassley, whose committee, the Judiciary Committee, has direct oversight of the FBI.

?She's credible,? says Sen. Grassley. ?And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.?

60 minutes


Incompetence, corruption, more 9/11 hints ignored and John Ashcroft bullying...

Jesus fvcking christ! Is anyone disturbed as me about this sh!t that goes down in our government?!

 

[Crimson]

Nope, I'd vote John Ashcroft for President before Kerry.

Sounds to me like someone who needs a crash course in saving their files properly..

 

[sMiLeYz]

Anyone else without the mentality of a sheep care to respond?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sounds like her supervisor from 1999 on needs to be shitcanned.

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

Refute this post. Its by someone else(not my own) but it really sums everything up

She has made headlines about every 6 months since 9/11. Her first allegations arose not out of the fact that she "blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department" but rather, according to the Washington Post which ran the story, she claimed that a co-worker was a spy for one of the Middle Eastern groups under surveillance. Edmonds and her husband went to a meeting at the home of the spy where she and her husband were allegedly recruited. Despite grave danger to themselves they claim to have bravely declined to join the mysterious Middle Easterners. She and her husband, who was in the Army, apparently decided several of their co-workers were spys and the government fired her for disrupting the workplace (I mean, wouldn't you be a little ticked off if you were an American citizen and the person in the next cubicle told your boss you were a Middle Eastern spy?).

None of her first few flirtations with fame are really all that important to this thread however. What's important is that she didn't even go to work at the FBI doing translations until AFTER 9/11. She also originally claimed that she was told to slow down translating recordings of suspects and that the evildoers in the next cubicle were mistranslating or not translating the important stuff. Kinda makes you wonder how two years later she's suddenly remembered things she used to say she couldn't have known. Then again I'm no conspiracy buff so things like remembering important information two years late about things that happened on a job you didn't work just seem kinda odd.

This article does however demonstrate a peculiar logical fallacy. It's the Appeal to Authority with a twist. Sen. Grassley ONCE called some of her claims about incompetent co-workers "very credible". Well, Grassley is a Senator and a Republican Senator and so in the context of the original article seems to be endorsing what she has to say TODAY. As you can by now guess, using the quote two years later about different accusations after she's been fired and her subsequent case thrown out is at best disingenous and at worst an attempt to mislead readers.

To sum it up she lacks credibility. Grassleys comments about her credibility were about the first round of allegations NOT these allegations. Journalisim at its finest. I also might add, the first round of allegations were never found to be factual.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

"Attorney General John Ashcroft told me 'he was invoking State Secret Privilege and National Security' when I told the FBI I wanted to go public with what I had translated from the pre 9-11 intercepts."


"I appeared once on CBS 60 Minutes but I have been silenced by Mr. Ashcroft, the FBI follows me, and I was threatened with jail in 2002 if I went public," Edmonds told tomflocco.com.[/b]

When we asked her if it was really true that she had been bribed by the FBI and DOJ, Edmonds said "You can interpret it as that."

This writer personally asked Edmonds where the term "State Secret Privilege" was derived. "The term came from an October 18, 2002 DOJ memo to me from DOJ spokesman Barbara Comstock," said Edmonds.

The former FBI translator said "My translations of the pre 9-11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date specific information enough to alert the American people, and other issues dating back to 1999 which I won't go into right now."

Incredibly, Edmonds said "The Senate Judiciary Committee and the 911 Commission have heard me testify for lengthy periods of time time (3 hours) about very specific plots, dates, airplanes used as weapons, and specific individuals and activities."

Tom Flocco

?We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,? says Edmonds. ?And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.?

Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she'd left work for the day.

?The next day I would come to work, turn on my computer and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,? she says. ?Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ?Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and don't mention it.??

The lesson was don?t work, and don?t do the translations.

Edmonds put her concerns about the FBI's language department in writing to her immediate superiors and to a top official at the FBI. For months, she said she received no response. Then, she turned for help to the Justice Department's Inspector General and to Sen. Charles Grassley, whose committee, the Judiciary Committee, has direct oversight of the FBI.

?She's credible,? says Sen. Grassley. ?And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.?

60 minutes


Incompetence, corruption, more 9/11 hints ignored and John Ashcroft bullying...

Jesus fvcking christ! Is anyone disturbed as me about this sh!t that goes down in our government?!

Im more disturbed at how many people talk.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Refute this post. Its by someone else(not my own) but it really sums everything up

She has made headlines about every 6 months since 9/11. Her first allegations arose not out of the fact that she "blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department" but rather, according to the Washington Post which ran the story, she claimed that a co-worker was a spy for one of the Middle Eastern groups under surveillance. Edmonds and her husband went to a meeting at the home of the spy where she and her husband were allegedly recruited. Despite grave danger to themselves they claim to have bravely declined to join the mysterious Middle Easterners. She and her husband, who was in the Army, apparently decided several of their co-workers were spys and the government fired her for disrupting the workplace (I mean, wouldn't you be a little ticked off if you were an American citizen and the person in the next cubicle told your boss you were a Middle Eastern spy?).

None of her first few flirtations with fame are really all that important to this thread however. What's important is that she didn't even go to work at the FBI doing translations until AFTER 9/11. She also originally claimed that she was told to slow down translating recordings of suspects and that the evildoers in the next cubicle were mistranslating or not translating the important stuff. Kinda makes you wonder how two years later she's suddenly remembered things she used to say she couldn't have known. Then again I'm no conspiracy buff so things like remembering important information two years late about things that happened on a job you didn't work just seem kinda odd.

This article does however demonstrate a peculiar logical fallacy. It's the Appeal to Authority with a twist. Sen. Grassley ONCE called some of her claims about incompetent co-workers "very credible". Well, Grassley is a Senator and a Republican Senator and so in the context of the original article seems to be endorsing what she has to say TODAY. As you can by now guess, using the quote two years later about different accusations after she's been fired and her subsequent case thrown out is at best disingenous and at worst an attempt to mislead readers.

She wasn't employed as a translater until after 9/11? Hmmm... If her story is true - her supervisor still needs to be shitcanned.

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Refute this post. Its by someone else(not my own) but it really sums everything up

She has made headlines about every 6 months since 9/11. Her first allegations arose not out of the fact that she "blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department" but rather, according to the Washington Post which ran the story, she claimed that a co-worker was a spy for one of the Middle Eastern groups under surveillance. Edmonds and her husband went to a meeting at the home of the spy where she and her husband were allegedly recruited. Despite grave danger to themselves they claim to have bravely declined to join the mysterious Middle Easterners. She and her husband, who was in the Army, apparently decided several of their co-workers were spys and the government fired her for disrupting the workplace (I mean, wouldn't you be a little ticked off if you were an American citizen and the person in the next cubicle told your boss you were a Middle Eastern spy?).

None of her first few flirtations with fame are really all that important to this thread however. What's important is that she didn't even go to work at the FBI doing translations until AFTER 9/11. She also originally claimed that she was told to slow down translating recordings of suspects and that the evildoers in the next cubicle were mistranslating or not translating the important stuff. Kinda makes you wonder how two years later she's suddenly remembered things she used to say she couldn't have known. Then again I'm no conspiracy buff so things like remembering important information two years late about things that happened on a job you didn't work just seem kinda odd.

This article does however demonstrate a peculiar logical fallacy. It's the Appeal to Authority with a twist. Sen. Grassley ONCE called some of her claims about incompetent co-workers "very credible". Well, Grassley is a Senator and a Republican Senator and so in the context of the original article seems to be endorsing what she has to say TODAY. As you can by now guess, using the quote two years later about different accusations after she's been fired and her subsequent case thrown out is at best disingenous and at worst an attempt to mislead readers.

She wasn't employed as a translater until after 9/11? Hmmm... If her story is true - her supervisor still needs to be shitcanned.

CkG

She was hired on Sept 20 2001. She doesnt have any evidence to back up her claims about her supervisor. What these journalists are doing, are mixing and matching comments by people about one issue, and tack them on to another issue, that they never made similar comments about.

The only evidence she has is passing a polygraph test. And thats not to shocking for someone working for the FBI.

And her record of past (false) allegations only furthers the case against her.

It is true there was a gag order placed on her about the tapes, but thats to prevent her from spreading false information.

 

[sMiLeYz]

If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

But it IS a FACT she accused almost everyone in the FBI translating dept as being spys for middle eastern states. She claims they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks when she arrived on Sept 20. None of this has ever been proven to be accurate, even though its still currently under investigation.

Now she has new sets of allegations.

And it her allegations are true, it means the US has been seriously compromised by Al Qaeda since the late '90s.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

Look, first of all 60 minutes is a highly respected news magazine. One of the first things they do is do a detailed background check on all interviewees, and what shes said has said has been collaborated with Sen. Grassley. This, on the contrary, backs up what she said more than anything you say.

You claim she is not credible, all i asked was that you provide real links and real evidence. Then you make excuses about how it is 2 am, and you have to get sleep.

So excuse me if I don't believe this as anything more than you trying to discredit her out of partisanship.

 

[dahunan]

This is the story of hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign language documents that the FBI neglected to translate before and after the Sept.11 attacks because of problems in its language department - documents that detailed what the FBI heard on wiretaps and learned during interrogations of suspected terrorists.

In its rush to hire more foreign language translators after Sept. 11, the FBI admits it has had difficulty performing background checks to detect translators who may have loyalties to other governments - which could pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator who worked with Edmonds. The FBI has admitted that when Dickerson was hired last November the bureau didn't know that she had worked for a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's own counter-intelligence unit.

They also didn't know she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation. According to Edmonds, Dickerson tried to recruit her into that organization, and insisted that Dickerson be the only one to translate the FBI's wiretaps of that Turkish official.

?She got very angry, and later she threatened me and my family's life,? says Edmonds, when she decided not to go along with the plan. ?She said ?Why would you want to place your life and your family's life in danger by translating these tapes???

Edmonds says that when she reviewed Dickerson's translations of those tapes, she found that Dickerson had left out information crucial to the FBI's investigation - information that Edmonds says would have revealed that the Turkish intelligence officer had spies working for him inside the U.S. State Department and at the Pentagon.

?We came across at least 17, 18 translations, communications that were extremely important for the ongoing investigations of these individuals,? says Edmonds. ?She had marked it as "not important to be translated."

What kind of information did she leave out of her translation?
?Activities to obtain the United States military and intelligence secrets,? says Edmonds.

Celebrating 9/11 at the FBI

When linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds showed up for her first day of work at the FBI, a week after the 9-11 attacks, she expected to find a somber atmosphere. Instead, she was offered cookies filled with dates from party bowls set out in the room where other Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance translate terror-related communications.

She knew the dessert is customarily served in the Middle East at weddings, births and other celebrations, and asked what the happy occasion was. To her shock, she was told the Arab linguists were celebrating the terrorist attacks on America, as if they were some joyous event. Right in front of her supervisor, one translator cheered:

"It's about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East."

She found out later that it was her supervisor's wife who helped organize the office party there at the bureau's Washington field office, just four blocks from the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

"This guy's wife brought the date-filled cookies for the celebration," Edmonds, 33, recalled.

At the time, the supervisor, Mike Feghali, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Beirut, was in charge of the FBI's Turkish and Farsi desks.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

Look, first of all 60 minutes is a highly respected news magazine. One of the first things they do is do a detailed background check on all interviewees, and what shes said has said has been collaborated with Sen. Grassley. This, on the contrary, backs up what she said more than anything you say.

You claim she is not credible, all i asked was that you provide real links and real evidence. Then you make excuses about how it is 2 am, and you have to get sleep.

One the 60 minutes thing was from TWO YEARS AGO. And like I said Grassley was commenting on those allegations she lodged back then about possible spies within the FBI. After 2 years, nothing has turned up about those those said spies, although the investigation continues.

Grassley has NEVER said her allegations about John Ashcroft, or her being told to retranslate and change translations were credible. He said that her allegations that there could be spies in the FBI translating dept were credible, but like Ive said those allegations have yet to be proven. Grassleys comments predate her most recent claims, by about a year and a half.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

Look, first of all 60 minutes is a highly respected news magazine. One of the first things they do is do a detailed background check on all interviewees, and what shes said has said has been collaborated with Sen. Grassley. This, on the contrary, backs up what she said more than anything you say.

You claim she is not credible, all i asked was that you provide real links and real evidence. Then you make excuses about how it is 2 am, and you have to get sleep.

So excuse me if I don't believe this as anything more than you trying to discredit her out of partisanship.

Its not partisanship. If her allegations are true its quite the indictment of the CIA and FBI, and frankly the legislative and executive branches. Not just from 2001 to now, but from the mid-late 90's to now. Many of these people she accuses to be spies have worked there for several years before 9/11, and many still currently do, while she doesnt.

Not to mention the ensuing witch hunt that it would create. She is basically saying Al Qaeda and other foreign groups infiltrated the FBI, CIA, State Dept and Pentagon during the mid to late 1990s.

It would also prove the intel failure dates back far longer and is far more serious than previously imagined. I know our govt isnt infallable but these claims take things to a whole new level. And again, not just the current govt, but past ones. And yes past ones are relevant in this case.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

Look, first of all 60 minutes is a highly respected news magazine. One of the first things they do is do a detailed background check on all interviewees, and what shes said has said has been collaborated with Sen. Grassley. This, on the contrary, backs up what she said more than anything you say.

You claim she is not credible, all i asked was that you provide real links and real evidence. Then you make excuses about how it is 2 am, and you have to get sleep.

So excuse me if I don't believe this as anything more than you trying to discredit her out of partisanship.

Amen to that. If Bush supporters want to continue getting their panties in a bundle labeling every dissenter as uncredible, we need some serious proof. While I don't agree with people profiting from books about the administration, I don't think ANYONE looks forward to getting on the admin's bad side or think its the "cool" thing to do.

 

[chess9]

Her story is credible to me, but I can't tell you why.

Simply put, no department head likes having his/her budget cut, particularly when they've been asked to do MORE work. The bureaucracy of government WILL have its way with Congress and this is just one of its ways.

Trust me, her story is the mere tip of the iceberg and is one of the reasons I often side with conservatives about government issues.

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tallest1

If Bush supporters want to continue getting their panties in a bundle labeling every dissenter as uncredible, we need some serious proof.

That's all they do, it's their MO since they can't defend their Parties actions. In cases like this there is no phony numbers for them to hide behind so all you'll get is attacking the "credibility" of the individuals and attacking their opposing posters in here personally instead of the issues.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

But it IS a FACT she accused almost everyone in the FBI translating dept as being spys for middle eastern states. She claims they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks when she arrived on Sept 20. None of this has ever been proven to be accurate, even though its still currently under investigation.

Now she has new sets of allegations.

And it her allegations are true, it means the US has been seriously compromised by Al Qaeda since the late '90s.

I do not just believe anyones claims. I do not believe yours for example. Provide evidence or I will assume this is another of your Bush Apologist of America (BAA) attacks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If you're going to discredit or character assassinate her, at least provide some evidence and links!

Im not going to go and bother digging up articles on her from the past 2 years. Simply because its 2am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

I guess you just believe anyones claims, she has NOTHING to back up her claims.

But it IS a FACT she accused almost everyone in the FBI translating dept as being spys for middle eastern states. She claims they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks when she arrived on Sept 20. None of this has ever been proven to be accurate, even though its still currently under investigation.

Now she has new sets of allegations.

And it her allegations are true, it means the US has been seriously compromised by Al Qaeda since the late '90s.

I do not just believe anyones claims. I do not believe yours for example. Provide evidence or I will assume this is another of your Bush Apologist of America (BAA) attacks.

Do you believe her claim?

CkG

 

[maluckey]

Let's assume that her claim is true for a moment.

First, she is bound by her oath of office NOT to disseminate information damaging to her country. Second, she is bound by law because of her security clearance to not release ANY information to persons not in the "need to know" category.
Third, she has NO Proof, other than her statements to back any of her claims. Fourth, she claims her supervisor to be part aof a larger conspiracy to discredit her work.

I have worked in the Federal sector in various Federal agencies since 1990, and the one thing that is constant is that there are few secrets within the Federal Government. If you tell one person, it's agency-wide. Secrecy of the kind she suggests is impossible, especially if the story is as good as she claims. Someone would have turned her, or her supervisor in.

My take is that she is a disgruntled employee who feels the need, for whatever reason, to seek attention. Either that, or she needs a tin-foil hat.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Let's assume that her claim is true for a moment.

First, she is bound by her oath of office NOT to disseminate information damaging to her country. Second, she is bound by law because of her security clearance to not release ANY information to persons not in the "need to know" category.
Third, she has NO Proof, other than her statements to back any of her claims. Fourth, she claims her supervisor to be part aof a larger conspiracy to discredit her work.

I have worked in the Federal sector in various Federal agencies since 1990, and the one thing that is constant is that there are few secrets within the Federal Government. If you tell one person, it's agency-wide. Secrecy of the kind she suggests is impossible, especially if the story is as good as she claims. Someone would have turned her, or her supervisor in.

My take is that she is a disgruntled employee who feels the need, for whatever reason, to seek attention. Either that, or she needs a tin-foil hat.

If you actually took time to read the story...

?She's credible,? says Sen. Grassley. ?And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.?

Second, whats she said isn't the least bit damaging to the country. Theres also thing called freedom of speech, from what I see she wants to help it. There are laws in place to protect whistleblowers.

 

[nutxo]

Text

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: maluckey
Let's assume that her claim is true for a moment.

First, she is bound by her oath of office NOT to disseminate information damaging to her country. Second, she is bound by law because of her security clearance to not release ANY information to persons not in the "need to know" category.
Third, she has NO Proof, other than her statements to back any of her claims. Fourth, she claims her supervisor to be part aof a larger conspiracy to discredit her work.

I have worked in the Federal sector in various Federal agencies since 1990, and the one thing that is constant is that there are few secrets within the Federal Government. If you tell one person, it's agency-wide. Secrecy of the kind she suggests is impossible, especially if the story is as good as she claims. Someone would have turned her, or her supervisor in.

My take is that she is a disgruntled employee who feels the need, for whatever reason, to seek attention. Either that, or she needs a tin-foil hat.

If you actually took time to read the story...

?She's credible,? says Sen. Grassley. ?And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.?

Second, whats she said isn't the least bit damaging to the country. Theres also thing called freedom of speech, from what I see she wants to help it. There are laws in place to protect whistleblowers.

And you still fail to realise Grassley's comments are about selected allegations. Allegations that there might have been security breachs at the FBI translating Dept. And like Ive also said, nothing has come of her allegations, even though there is still an ongoing investigation, coming upon two years now. Grassley has NOT called her allegations of the DOJ bribing her or shuting her up credible.