Who Is Sibel Edmonds? With Introduction By 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken

Thanks to www.cooperativeresearch.org, and many many thanks to Lorie Van Auken

Lorie Van Auken

Sibel Edmonds tried her best, to speak with the 9/11 Commissioners regarding the information that she had, which she felt was relevant to the 9/11 investigation. The Commissioners didn't respond to her, so having heard about us, the 9/11 widows from New Jersey, she contacted us.

Sibel asked to meet with us in order to discuss why she wanted to testify. She couldn't speak completely freely, having been gagged, but we were none the less appalled by what she told us, and were able to glean the importance of having her information put before the 9/11 Commission.

Sibel told us that she had worked for the FBI's translation department and had been given security clearance. Her job was to translate intercepted communications, finding threats to America's national security. She was to look for information which might relate to the threat of terrorism. She told us that in the course of her work, she found corruption and incompetence within the FBI's translation department and reported this to mid-level management of the FBI.

Then Sibel's computer was confiscated by the FBI. She told her story to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sibel said that the FBI fired her for being disruptive and for other reasons, which were unspecified. She was escorted from her workplace and was threatened by her superiors with jail time if she went to the press with her story.

Senators Grassley and Leahy looked into Sibel's allegations and wrote letters to the Justice Department regarding what Sibel had told them. The letters were made public and it was clear that the Senators considered Sibel's information to be credible.

Sibel told us that she had taken her story to 60 Minutes. They aired her story.

She said that she was told by the FBI to work slowly so that work would build up, in order that her unit would we eligible for more funding. She said that a co-worker was linked to an organization with suspicious ties.

Attorney General John Ashcroft asserted a "state secret's privilege" order on Sibel Edmonds. This order meant that Sibel was gagged, and couldn't speak publicly about what she was alleging. This also meant that the Senate Judiciary Committee couldn't hold public hearings on her case.

From what Sibel had told us, we knew that her information was pertinent to the investigation into 9/11, and we told this to the Commissioners.

We also told them that other whistleblowers had reached out to us, and were being ignored. We wanted them to set up a system by which whistleblowers would be able to get their information before the Commission so that it could be thoroughly investigated. (This never really happened, there was no formal system for whistleblowers to reach out to the Commission. The Commission's response to us on whether or not someone would be called to testify was if they felt that the person was credible enough - which was entirely subjective).

Our understanding of the Commission's job regarding 9/11 was that "no stone should be left unturned", and that everything involving September 11th should be investigated. Sibel tried over and over to meet with the Commission, to no avail.

It was so clear to us that Sibel's information was really important and should be included in any 9/11 investigation, that we ultimately walked her in to meet with the Commissioners because they were not setting up a meeting on their own, despite her many attempts.

We insisted that Sibel be brought to a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) in order that her classified information could be taken down by someone with the proper clearances.

Sibel finally met with the Commissioners and gave them lengthy testimony, but in the end the 9/11 Commission didn't include Sibel's important testimony in their final report. The final report contains just one footnote which references the problems in the translation unit of the FBI.


Late 1990s-Early 2001: FBI Investigation Discovers Turkish Nationals Attempting to Bribe Members of Congress
An FBI investigation finds that Turkish nationals are involved in efforts to bribe members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Targets of the FBI’s investigation include individuals at Chicago’s Turkish Consulate and the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. Wiretaps obtained by investigators also contain what appears to be references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. In 1999 some FBI investigators call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to continue the investigation. But after the Bush administration comes to office, higher-ups in the Department of State pressure the bureau to shift the attention of its investigation away from elected politicians and instead focus on appointed officials. [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

April 2001: FBI Translators Learn Al-Qaeda Suicide Pilots Plan to Hit Skyscrapers in US and Europe
FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar will later claim to know of an important warning given to the FBI at this time. In their accounts, a reliable informant on the FBI’s payroll for at least ten years tells two FBI agents that sources in Afghanistan have heard of an al-Qaeda plot to attack the US and Europe in a suicide mission involving airplanes. Al-Qaeda agents, already in place inside the US, are being trained as pilots. By some accounts, the names of prominent US cities are mentioned. A report on the matter is filed with squad supervisor Thomas Frields, but it’s unclear if this warning reaches FBI headquarters or beyond. The two translators will later privately testify to the 9/11 Commission. [WorldNetDaily, 3/24/2004; Salon, 3/26/2004; WorldNetDaily, 4/6/2004; Village Voice, 4/14/2004] Sarshar’s notes of the interview indicate that the informant claimed his information came from Iran, Afghanistan, and Hamburg, Germany (the location of the primary 9/11 al-Qaeda cell). However, anonymous FBI officials will claim the warning was very vague and doubtful. [Chicago Tribune, 7/21/2004] In reference to this warning and apparently others, Edmonds will say, “President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that’s accurate. However, there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand, and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we were facing.” [Salon, 3/26/2004] She will add, “There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers.” [Independent, 4/2/2004]

July-August 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds later will make some allegations of serious FBI misconduct, but the specifics of these allegations will be generally publicly unknown due to a gag order placed on her. However, in comments made in 2004 and 2005, she will allege that in July or August 2001, an unnamed FBI field agent discovers foreign documentation revealing “certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also reveal[s] certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.” The document is in a foreign language and apparently the agent isn’t given an adequate translation of it before 9/11. Approximately one month after 9/11, the agent will suspect the original translation is insufficient and will ask the FBI Washington Field Office to retranslate it. The significant information mentioned above will finally be revealed, but FBI translation unit supervisor Mike Feghali will decide not to send this information back to the field agent. Instead, Feghali will send a note stating that the translation was reviewed and the original translation was accurate. The field agent will never receive the accurate translation. This is all according to Edmonds’ letter. She will claim Feghali “has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and [engaged] in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department…” While the mainstream media will not yet report on this incident, in January 2005 an internal government report will determine that most of Edmonds’ allegations have been verified and none of them could be refuted. [Edmonds, 8/1/2004; Anti-War (.com), 8/22/2005]

September 20, 2001: FBI Hires Sibel Edmonds as Contract Translator
The FBI hires Turkish-American Sibel Edmonds as a contract translator for Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Farsi. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI is desperately seeking qualified individuals to translate backlogged wiretaps and help authorities interview detained suspects. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] Before 9/11, there was not a single Turkish-language specialist at the bureau. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] Fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, Edmonds works as a “linguist” in those languages. For Farsi, which Edmonds hasn’t spoken in 25 years, she is only a “monitor.” (An FBI translator is either a “linguist” or a “monitor” for any given language. Linguists are more qualified and consequently have broader roles. For example, while linguists can do verbatim translations, monitors may only produce summaries. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] ) As a contract translator, Edmonds is given a flexible schedule. On average she will work four evenings a week logging between 10 and 25 hours weekly. Almost 75 percent of her work will relate to pre-9/11 intelligence. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] The work of FBI translators is very important because the translator is often the bureau’s first filter that incoming intelligence must pass through. It is the responsibility of translators to decide what needs to be translated verbatim, what can simply be summarized, and what can be dismissed as not pertinent. In making these decisions, translators are not required to consult field agents or analysts. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] In fact, agents can’t even access the translation area unless they are escorted by a translator. [WorldNetDaily, 1/7/2004; United Press International, 3/31/2004] A translator’s decision to mark a wiretap as “not pertinent” is usually final. Though all documents and transcripts are supposed to be reviewed by at least two translators, this never actually happens, according to Edmonds, even after 9/11. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

September 20, 2001 and After: FBI Translator Sees Pattern of Deliberate Failure
Immediately after beginning her job as an FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds encounters a pattern of deliberate failure in her department. Her supervisor, Mike Feghali, allegedly says, “Let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.” She claims that if she was not slowing down enough, her supervisor would delete her work. Meanwhile, FBI agents working on the 9/11 investigation would call and ask for urgently needed translations. In January 2002, FBI officials will tell government auditors that translator shortages are resulting in “the accumulation of thousands of hours of audio tapes and pages” of material that has not been translated. [Washington Post, 6/19/2002] After she discloses this in an October 2002 interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes, Senator Charles Grassley (R) says of her charges, “She’s credible and the reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.” He points out that the speed of such translation might make the difference between an attack succeeding or failing. [CBS News, 10/25/2002; New York Post, 10/26/2002] An investigation by the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office (see (July 8, 2004)) will also find Edmonds credible.

(After September 14, 2001-October 2001): FBI Translation Supervisor Blocks Agent’s Request to Have Certain 9/11-Related Material Re-Translated
One of Sibel Edmond’s main assignments as a contract FBI translator is to expedite requested translations from field agents. Shortly after she is hired by the FBI, an Arizona field agent requests that certain material be re-translated. He is concerned that the original translation may not have been thorough enough. When she does the re-translation, she discovers that it contains information extremely relevant to the September 11 attacks, including references to “blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas” It also “reveals certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery” (see July-August 2001). [Edmonds, 8/1/2004] After re-translating the documents, she goes to supervisor Mike Feghali and says, “I need to talk to this agent over a secure line because what we came across in this retranslating is gigantic, it has specific information about certain specific activity related to 9/11.” But Feghali refuses to send the retranslation to the same agent, telling her, “How would you like it if another translator did this same thing to you? The original translator is going to be held responsible.” The agent never receives the re-translation he requested from Edmonds. Instead he is told by the Washington field office that the original translation is fine. [Boston Globe, 7/5/2004; Edmonds, 8/1/2004]

Early October 2001: FBI Translation Center Hires Turkish Man Who Is Not Proficient in English
The FBI hires Kevin Taskasen as a Turkish translator, despite him having failed language-proficiency tests for English. The FBI will later send Taskasen to Guantanamo to be the detention center’s only Turkish translator. Some time after his return, he is promoted to head of the Turkish department in the FBI translations center. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

(Late October 2001): FBI Hires Translator with Ties to Group under Federal Investigation
Melek Can Dickerson begins working for the FBI as a Turkish translator with top security clearance. She joins Sibel Edmonds and Kevin Taskasen (see September 20, 2001 and Early October 2001, respectively) as the FBI’s only Turkish translators. The FBI hired Dickerson without verifying that the information she provided on her application was correct. Had the bureau done this they would have learned that she spent two years working as an intern for the American-Turkish Council (ATC), a group that is being investigated by the FBI’s own counterintelligence unit and whose phone calls she will be listening in on as an FBI translator. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] On her application, Dickerson failed to disclose that she had worked for the organization. She also hid her tie to the group when she was interviewed as part of her background security check. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] According to Sibel Edmonds, it’s not clear that Dickerson’s background check was ever completed. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

Between November 2001 and January 14, 2002: FBI Special Agent Suspicious about FBI Translator Who Has Lost Info on Several Wiretaps
Dennis Saccher, the FBI’s special agent in charge of Turkish counter-intelligence, develops suspicions about Melek Can Dickerson, a translator in his department who has lost information on several wiretaps and who he believes has forged signatures on certain documents. He reports his concerns to the FBI headquarters and his boss, Supervisory Special Agent Tom Frields. [Anti-War (.com), 8/22/2005]

November 2001 or December 2001: FBI Translator to Have Exclusive Access to Wiretaps of Surveillance Targets with Whom She Has Links
FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson recommends in a proposal to supervisor Mike Feghali that the Bureau’s Turkish language department adopt a new system for assigning translation tasks. Instead of the current system that randomly distributes assignments to translators, she suggests that each translator be permanently responsible for certain targets. Included with her proposal is a list of recommended assignments for each of the department’s translators. Under the proposed arrangement, she would be assigned to the phone lines of the American-Turkish Council (ATC) along with three other “high-value” diplomatic targets. Dickerson formerly worked for the ATC as an intern and is currently a personal friend of at least one of those high-value targets. She discusses her proposal alone with Feghali in his office for most of the afternoon. The following day, Feghali sends an email announcing that he has decided to adopt the new system proposed by Dickerson. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] As a result of the new arrangement, Dickerson, a mere “monitor,” has exclusive access to her targets’ wiretapped communications. (An FBI translator is either a “linguist” or a “monitor” for any given language. Linguists are more qualified and consequently have broader roles. For example, while linguists can to do verbatim translations, monitors may only produce summaries. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004] ) From this point on, none of the recorded conversations for these targets will be reviewed by an official department linguist, or any other translator for that matter. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

(November 2001): FBI Translator Fails to Translate Wiretaps of Individuals with Whom She Has Connections
Recently hired FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson (see (Late October 2001)) begins marking as “not pertinent” wiretapped conversations that concern certain high-value surveillance targets working at the American-Turkish Council (ATC). As it later emerges, Dickerson previously worked as an intern for the ATC and maintains ongoing relationships with at least two individuals under investigation. [Washington Post, 6/19/2002; New York Observer, 1/22/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] She also manages to obtain, and prevent from being translated, assignments designated for co-worker Sibel Edmonds. These wiretaps, which she marks as being completed by Edmonds, concern the same targeted persons. [New York Observer, 1/22/2004]

Early December 2001: FBI Wiretaps Reveal that Turkish Groups Attempted to Bribe Congress Persons in Late 1990s
Chicago FBI special agent Joel Robertz contacts FBI contract linguist Sibel Edmonds and asks her to review more than 40 wiretaps, some of which are several years old. The wiretaps include what Sibel believes are references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. The targets of these recordings are individuals at Chicago’s Turkish Consulate and the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. She also finds evidence of attempts to bribe members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, during the late 1990s (see Late 1990s-Early 2001). [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

December 2, 2001: FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Invited by Co-Worker to Become Member of Group that Is Under Federal Investigation
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds receives a call from co-worker Melek Can Dickerson, whom she barely knows. Dickerson says she and her husband Douglas Dickerson are in the area and would like to stop by for a visit. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] Douglas is a US Air Force major who procures weapons from the US for various Central Asian and Middle Eastern governments. [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005] “I’m in the area with my husband and I’d love you to meet him. Is it OK if we come by?” Edmonds recalls Dickerson saying. When the couple arrives, Douglas Dickerson encourages Edmonds and her husband Matthew Edmonds to join the American-Turkish Council (ATC) and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA). Joining the organizations would get them tied in with a network of high-level people, including officials at the Turkish Embassy. When Sibel’s husband Michael suggests that there are probably strict eligibility requirements for becoming a member of this organization, Douglas says to Sibel, “All you have to do is tell them who you work for and what you do and you will get in very quickly.” Sibel attempts to steer the conversation toward another topic. As part of her job at the FBI, some of the wiretapped conversations she translates involve the very same people the Dickersons are describing as “high-level friends.” She is concerned that the ultimate goal of the Dickersons’ offer is to get Sibel involved in espionage and to help shield those groups from FBI surveillance. [Washington Post, 6/19/2002; CBS News, 10/25/2002; New York Observer, 1/22/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] “They wanted to sell me for the information I could provide,” she later explains in an interview. They promised her she would receive enough to “live a very comfortable life wherever we wanted. We would never have to work again.” [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

December 4, 2001: FBI Translator Informs Supervisor that Co-Worker Is Shielding Targets of Investigation from Surveillance
FBI contract linguist Sibel Edmonds informs supervisor Mike Feghali—first orally and later in writing—about her recent encounter with the Dickersons on September 2 (see December 2, 2001) and describes their self-acknowledged links to the American-Turkish Council (ATC), the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), and certain high-level Turkish Embassy officials, all of which are targets of FBI wiretaps. Edmonds also alleges, either on this day or some time afterwards, that Dickerson has also leaked information to people under investigation and that she has even tried to stop Edmonds and another translator from listening to their wiretapped conversations. [Petition for a writ of certiorari. Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice, et all., 8/4/2005, pp. 2 pdf file; Government Executive, 8/8/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] Feghali tells her not to worry and that he will immediately file a report with the security department. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] (The security department later tells Edmonds they received no such report [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004; Boston Globe, 7/5/2004] .) He then changes the subject. “Now, Sibel, I understand you’ve been taking on a lot of coursework at your university. Why not take advantage of our workplace opportunities?” he asks. When she asks what he means, he explains that she could come to the office on Saturday and Sunday to do her school work on the clock, adding another $700 or so to her weekly earnings. On another occasion, one of her supervisors (possibly Feghali) offers to make her next trip to Turkey “TDY” (paid travel). All she would have to do is “stop off in some liaison office in Ankara a couple times, make my little appearance, and suddenly all my flights, hotels and expenses would be paid for by the FBI,” she recalls in a 2004 interview. “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.” [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

January 14, 2002: FBI Special Agent Concerned That Translator Is Protecting Surveillance Targets and Involved in Espionage
Dennis Saccher, the FBI’s special agent in charge of Turkish counter-intelligence, invites FBI translator Sibel Edmonds into his office and shares with her his concern that Edmonds’ co-worker, Melek Can Dickerson, is protecting surveillance targets at the American-Turkish Council (ATC). He shows her several translations of wiretapped conversations that Dickerson either marked as “not pertinent,” or for which she provided only a brief summary indicating that the conversations were not important. When Edmonds tells Saccher that her department, at the request of Dickerson, no longer assigns translation tasks randomly and that certain targets, including the ATC, have been permanently attached to Dickerson, Saccher is shocked. “It sounds like espionage to me,” he suggests. At Saccher’s request, Edmonds and Kevin Taskasen, another translator, re-translate some of the conversations Dickerson had marked as “not pertinent.” They agree to schedule a meeting with supervisor Mike Feghali on February 1 (see February 1, 2002). [Washington Post, 6/19/2002; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

Between January 14, 2002 and February 1, 2002: FBI Translator Re-Translates Wiretaps Assigned to Colleague; Discovers Colleague Buried Critical Information
FBI contract linguist Sibel Edmonds re-translates 17 of the “hundreds” of wiretapped conversations that had been originally translated or reviewed by co-worker Melek Can Dickerson. [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005] She discovers that Dickerson marked as “not pertinent” every single file that included a reference to surveillance targets connected to the Turkish organizations with whom she had ties (see (November 2001)). One of those targets is a Turkish intelligence officer, who is a personal friend of Dickerson. Edmonds learns from the wiretaps that the officer had spies inside the US State Department and Pentagon seeking access to US military and intelligence secrets. [CBS, 10/27/2002] The wiretaps also reveal that the group is involved in arms and drug smuggling and is tied into a complex network of governmental and private figures in several countries. [United Press International, 11/15/2005] Additionally, Edmonds identifies hundreds of other instances where Dickerson’s work obstructed investigations. For example, she learns from one conversation that a US State Department staffer agreed to accept $7,000 in cash from certain individuals in the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in exchange for information. One wiretapped call discussed a payment to a Pentagon official, who seemed to be involved in weapons-procurement negotiations, while another suggested that Turkish doctoral students had been placed at US research institutions in order to obtain information about black market nuclear weapons. Edmonds also hears discussions about the laundering of drug smuggling profits, the selling of classified military technologies, and a scheme to secretly give Republican Congressman Dennis Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for political favors and information. She becomes convinced that the American-Turkish Council (ATC) is being used as a front for criminal activity. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004; Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

(Early 2002): FBI Whistleblower Threatened with Investigation
At some point during Sibel Edmonds’ effort to report her concerns about potentially major security breaches in the FBI’s translation department (see, e.g., December 2, 2001), she is told by a superior in the counterintelligence squad: “I’ll bet you’ve never worked in government before. We do things differently. We don’t name names, and we usually sweep the dirt under the carpet.” [New York Observer, 1/22/2004] On another occasion, an assistant special agent allegedly tells her: “Do you realize what you are saying here in your allegations? Are you telling me that our security people are not doing their jobs? Is that what you’re telling me? If you insist on this investigation, I’ll make sure in no time it will turn around and become an investigation about you.” [CBS News, 10/25/2002]

February 1, 2002: FBI Supervisors Cancels Meeting with Whistleblowers Concerned about Security Violations in Translation Center
Before their scheduled meeting with FBI supervisor Mike Feghali, translators Sibel Edmonds and Kevin Taskasen meet with FBI field agent Dennis Saccher to discuss how they will present their findings to Feghali on efforts by translator Melek Can Dickerson to protect certain surveillance targets. After the short pre-meeting, they take an elevator and run into Feghali who—unaware that the two translators had just met with Saccher—tells them that Saccher can’t make the meeting because “he’s been sent out somewhere in the field.” Saccher later tells Edmonds that he had been told the meeting was postponed. After the meeting, Saccher’s superiors order him off the case and, in an unprecedented move, prohibit him from obtaining copies of Edmond’s translations, even though he is the one in charge of Turkish counter-intelligence. He chooses not to resist, citing his concern that he might be assigned “to some fucked-up office in the land of tornadoes.” [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] In a 2005 interview, Edmonds will assert that the efforts to bury her allegations did not originate in the FBI, but rather “came directly from the Department of State.” According to Edmonds, the State Department was concerned that her findings might jeopardize high-level criminal operations involving certain US allies. [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005]

Between February 1, 2002 and February 11, 2002: FBI Whistleblower Reassigned to Windowless Office; Given Permission to Write Description of Allegations at Home
FBI contract translator Sibel Edmonds is reassigned to the windowless office of translation-department supervisor Stephanie Bryan. Bryan instructs Edmonds to write a confidential memo explaining her allegations and gives her permission to write it at home. She turns in the memo on February 11. [Associated Press, 1/14/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

Afternoon February 12, 2002: FBI Translator Submits Formal Memo Alleging Security Breaches by Co-Worker in Department
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds submits a confidential memo (see Between February 1, 2002 and February 11, 2002) alleging that co-translator Melek Can Dickerson shielded Turkish officials from an FBI investigation by failing to translate important wiretapped conversations. Edmonds’ supervisor, Stephanie Bryan, passes the memo onto supervisory special agent Tom Frields. But Frields says he will not look at the memo until after Dickerson and supervisor Mike Feghali have reviewed and commented on it. Shortly after submitting the memo, Edmonds is informed that she is being investigated by the bureau’s security department because she wrote the memo on a home computer, even though she had received explicit permission to do so (see Between February 1, 2002 and February 11, 2002). Before leaving the office, Dickerson allegedly comes over to her and says, “Why are you doing this, Sibel? Why don’t you just drop it? You know there could be serious consequences. Why put your family in Turkey in danger over this?” [New York Observer, 1/22/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] The following day, three FBI agents come to the home of Sibel and Matthew Edmonds and seize their computer. [Associated Press, 1/14/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

(February 13, 2002): FBI Translations Supervisor Dismisses Allegations by Whistleblower in Memo to Superiors
Mike Feghali, the supervisor of the FBI’s translations center, writes in a memo to his superiors that “there was no basis” for Sibel Edmonds’s allegations (see Afternoon February 12, 2002) that FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson had shielded Turkish officials from FBI investigation by failing to provide field agents with accurate transcripts of wiretapped conversations. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

February 22, 2002: FBI Supervisor Encourages Whistleblower to Drop Allegations
Sibel Edmonds takes her complaints and allegations to supervisory special agent Tom Frields, who encourages her to let the matter rest. When she indicates that she will do no such thing, Frields warns her that if she has disclosed any classified information to anyone she could be arrested. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

March 7, 2002: FBI Whistleblower under FBI Surveillance
Sibel Edmonds meets with James Caruso, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism and counter-intelligence, to discuss her allegations against co-worker Melek Can Dickerson (see Afternoon February 12, 2002). Caruso takes no notes and asks no questions as Edmonds tells him her story. After the meeting, she has lunch with her husband at the Capital Grille. As the Edmondses look over their menus, two men arrive in an FBI-issue SUV and sit down at an adjacent table. “They just sat and stared at Sibel,” Matthew Edmonds later recalls in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine. “They didn’t eat or drink—just sat, staring at Sibel, the whole time we were there.” [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

Afternoon March 7, 2002: After Being Rebuffed by Own Superiors, FBI Whistleblower Sends Letters to Senators and FBI Internal Investigation Departments
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds writes letters to the Justice Department’s internal affairs division, known as the Office of Professional Responsibility, and its Office of Inspector General, describing her allegations against co-worker Melek Can Dickerson (see Afternoon February 12, 2002). She also sends faxes alleging possible national-security breaches to the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senators Charles Grassley (R-Ia) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

March 21, 2002: FBI Translator Accused of National Security Breaches Polygraphed, but Questions Are Vague and Unspecific
FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson has been accused by co-worker Sibel Edmonds of shielding certain individuals from FBI surveillance. On this date Dickerson undergoes a polygraph test and passes. But the questions she is asked are reportedly vague and unspecific. “The polygraph unit chief admitted that questions directly on point could have been asked but were not,” one official is quoted in a report that is later released by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

March 22, 2002: FBI Whistleblower Fired after Alleging Security Breaches in Translations Department
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is called to the office of Stephanie Bryan, the supervisor of the Bureau’s translation department. While waiting she sees Mike Feghali, who, according to Edmonds, “tap[s] his watch and say[s], ‘In less than an hour you will be fired, you whore.’” A few minutes later, she meets with supervisory special agent Tom Frields who dismisses her on grounds that she violated security procedures. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005] An agent then escorts her out of the building and tells her: “We will be watching you and listening to you. If you dare to consult an attorney who is not approved by the FBI, or if you take this issue outside the FBI to the Senate, the next time I see you, it will be in jail.” [New York Observer, 1/22/2004]

Early April 2002: FBI Whistleblower’s Sister in Turkey Sought by Police
Early in April, two Istanbul policemen knock on the door of Sibel Edmonds’ sister’s neighbor inquiring about the sister’s whereabouts. They say it concerns an “intelligence matter” and they leave a note, which reads, “For an important issue your deposition/interrogation is required. If you do not report to the station within 5 days, between 09:00 and 17:00, as is required by Turkish law CMK.132, you will be taken/arrested by force.” [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

June 2002: Former FBI Translator Files Whistleblower Suit Against DOJ
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds files a lawsuit against the Department of Justice. She alleges that the government leaked confidential information about her to the media in violation of the Privacy Act, and that it also violated her free speech and due process rights when it fired her in retaliation for her having reported possible illegal activity by co-worker Melek Can Dickerson and other security and management problems in the FBI’s language department. She is suing for monetary damages and reinstatement of her contract with the Bureau. [CNN, 7/7/2004] Dickerson and her husband Douglas Dickerson are subpoenaed in the case and the Justice Department is ordered by the court not to allow the couple to leave the country. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004]

June 17, 2002: FBI Acknowledges Some Allegations by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
In a lengthy unclassified hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI officials confirm translator Sibel Edmond’s allegations that co-worker Melek Can Dickerson had either mistranslated or incorrectly marked “not pertinent” hundreds of wiretapped telephone conversations involving certain surveillance targets with whom she had become friends (see (November 2001)). They also acknowledge that she had attempted to take control over all translation assignments involving those targets (see November 2001 or December 2001). The targets worked at the American-Turkish Council (ATC), where Dickerson was an intern before taking her job at the FBI. The FBI confirms also that Dickerson had failed to disclose this information on her application (see also (Late October 2001)), but nonetheless attributes her failure to translate these wiretaps to lack of training. [Leahy and Grassley, 6/19/2002; Washington Post, 6/19/2002; United Press International, 1/24/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] One of the participants of the hearing will later tell the New York Observer that the session was tense. “None of the FBI officials’ answers washed, and they could tell we didn’t believe them.” He remembers that one of the Congressional investigators told the officials, “You basically admitted almost all that Sibel alleged, yet you say there’s no problem here. What’s wrong with this picture?” [New York Observer, 1/22/2004]

August or September 2002: Air Forces Investigation Concludes that Major, Accused of Espionage and Obstruction, Has Not Done Anything Wrong
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations completes its investigation into Major Douglas Dickerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council. The inquiry had been launched in response to allegations by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds that Dickerson’s wife was using her position as an FBI translator to shield certain targets working for the ATC from surveillance (see December 2, 2001 and Afternoon February 12, 2002). On September 10, 2002, Colonel James N. Worth, the Air Force’s director of inquiries, writes in a letter to Edmonds’ attorneys: “We have determined the allegations contained in your letter of August 7, 2002, involving Major Douglas Dickerson do not show improprieties and therefore do not warrant a formal inquiry” by the Air Force’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). After conducting “a complete and thorough review,” he continued, the Office of Special Investigations could find “no evidence of any deviation from the scope of his duties. Absent new and relevant information we have closed this matter.” [Village Voice, 7/13/2004; United Press International, 1/24/2005] Edmonds, who was never interviewed as part of the investigation, will continue to press for an investigation. In a September 19 letter to Joseph E. Schmitz, the Air Force’s Inspector General, Edmonds’ attorney will request that the OIG reopen the case and thoroughly investigate her charges. [Colapinto, 9/19/2004]

August 2002: Former FBI Translator Sues Bureau for Documents Relating to Allegations against Co-Worker Accused of Breaching Security
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds hires attorney David Colapinto of the Washington firm Kohn, Kohn and Calapinto, who sues the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act for full disclosure of all documents related to her allegations against Melek Can Dickerson (see December 4, 2001 and Afternoon February 12, 2002) and her dismissal from the FBI (see March 22, 2002). [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

September 9, 2002: FBI Translator and Air Force Major, Both the Targets of Federal Investigations, Leave Country with Government Approval
FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson and her husband Douglas Dickerson leave the country. Douglas, a US Air Force major who procures weapons from the US for various Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries, has been reassigned to Belgium to work on a NATO-related assignment. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] The Dickersons had been recently subpoenaed in Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit against the FBI (see June 2002) and are the subject of three separate investigations: one by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, one by the Department of Justice, and the third by the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Anti-War (.com), 8/22/2005] The FBI, under court order not to allow the couple to leave the country, requires that Douglas Dickerson swear under oath that he will return if requested by the court. [Anti-War (.com), 7/1/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

October 18, 2002: Ashcroft Invokes ‘State-Secrets Privilege’ to Prevent FBI Whistleblower’s Suit from Being Heard in Court
At the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General John Ashcroft files a declaration invoking the rarely used “state-secrets privilege” to block FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit against the government from being heard in court. [New York Observer, 1/22/2004] The Justice Department insists that disclosing her evidence, even at a closed hearing in court, “could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.” The “state-secrets privilege,” derived from English common law, has never been the subject of any congressional vote or statute. Normally, the privilege is used to block the discovery of a specific piece of evidence that could put the nation’s security at risk. But Ashcroft’s declaration asserts that the very subject of her lawsuit constitutes a state secret, thus barring her from even presenting her case in court. The text of Ashcroft’s declaration is classified. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Promoted
FBI Director Mueller personally awards Marion (Spike) Bowman with a presidential citation and cash bonus of approximately 25 percent of his salary. [Salon, 3/3/2003] Bowman, head of the FBI’s National Security Law Unit and the person who refused to seek a special warrant for a search of Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings before the 9/11 attacks, is among nine recipients of bureau awards for “exceptional performance.” The award comes shortly after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report saying Bowman’s unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 12/22/2002] Bowman’s unit also blocked an urgent request by FBI agents to begin searching for Khalid Almihdhar after his name was put on a watch list. In early 2000, the FBI acknowledged serious blunders in surveillance Bowman’s unit conducted during sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations, including agents who illegally videotaped suspects, intercepted e-mails without court permission, and recorded the wrong phone conversations. [Associated Press, 1/10/2003] As Senator Charles Grassley (R) and others have pointed out, not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted:
[*]Pasquale D’Amuro, the FBI’s counterterrorism chief in New York City before 9/11, is promoted to the bureau’s top counterterrorism post. [Time, 12/30/2002]
[*]FBI Supervisory special agent Michael Maltbie, who removed information from the Minnesota FBI’s application to get the search warrant for Moussaoui, is promoted to field supervisor and goes on to head the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI’s Cleveland office. [Salon, 3/3/2003; Newsday, 3/21/2006]
[*]David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit, is “still at headquarters,” Grassley notes. [Salon, 3/3/2003] The Phoenix memo, which was addressed to Frasca, was received by his unit and warned that al-Qaeda terrorists could be using flight schools inside the US (see July 10, 2001 and July 27, 2001 and after). Two weeks later Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested while training to fly a 747, but Frasca’s unit was unhelpful when local FBI agents wanted to search his belongings—a step that could have prevented 9/11 (see August 16, 2001 and August 20-September 11, 2001). “The Phoenix memo was buried; the Moussaoui warrant request was denied.” [Time, 5/27/2002] Even after 9/11, Frasca continued to “[throw] up roadblocks” in the Moussaoui case. [New York Times, 5/27/2002]
[*]President Bush later names Barbara Bodine the director of Central Iraq shortly after the US conquest of Iraq. Many in government are upset about the appointment because of her blocking of the USS Cole investigation, which some say could have uncovered the 9/11 plot. She failed to admit she was wrong or apologize. [Washington Times, 4/10/2003] However, she is fired after about a month, apparently for doing a poor job.
[*]An FBI official who tolerates penetration of the translation department by Turkish spies and encourages slow translations just after 9/11 is promoted (see March 22, 2002). [CBS News, 10/25/2002] The CIA has promoted two unnamed top leaders of its unit responsible for tracking al-Qaeda in 2000 even though the unit mistakenly failed to put the two suspected terrorists on the watch list (see August 23, 2001). “The leaders were promoted even though some people in the intelligence community and in Congress say the counterterrorism unit they ran bore some responsibility for waiting until August 2001 to put the suspect pair on the interagency watch list.” CIA Director Tenet has failed to fulfill a promise given to Congress in late 2002 that he would name the CIA officials responsible for 9/11 failures. [New York Times, 5/15/2003]

February 11, 2004: FBI Whisteblower Tells 9/11 Commission that Wiretapped Conversionations Pertaining to the Attacks Were Not Translated
Sibel Edmonds testifies before the 9/11 Commission in a specially constructed “bug-proof” secure room for three and a half hours, describing in detail problems she witnessed while working as an FBI linguist (see, e.g., September 20, 2001 and After, (After September 14, 2001-October 2001), Early October 2001, (Late October 2001), (November 2001), and December 2, 2001). A month later, she tells the Independent: “I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily.… There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers (see April 2001).” [Independent, 4/2/2004] In its final report (see July 22, 2004), the 9/11 Commission will make no mention of the problems Edmonds witnessed with the FBI’s translation unit, save for a single footnote. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 222; Edmonds, 8/1/2004] One month earlier, a reporter had asked one of the Democratic commissioners about the Edmonds case, and he replied, “It sounds like it’s too deep in the weeds for us to consider, we’re looking at broader issues.” [New York Observer, 1/22/2004]

May 19, 2004: Previously Public Information about FBI Whistleblower Is Now Classified
Attorney General John Ashcroft again invokes the “State Secrets Privilege,” forbidding former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds from testifying in a case brought by hundreds of families of September 11 victims (see October 18, 2002). [New York Times, 5/20/2004] Four weeks earlier, on April 26, the Justice Department had obtained a temporary court order preventing her from testifying before the court. [Independent, 4/2/2004; Government Executive, 4/30/2004] The families, represented by the law firm Motley-Rice, alleges that a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family provided financial support to al-Qaeda. [New York Times, 5/20/2004] Ashcroft’s order retroactively classifies information it provided senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy (see June 17, 2002) concerning former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds and her allegations. Among the documents to be “reclassified” are the follow-up letters sent by Grassley and Leahy to the FBI which they posted on their website. Their staff members are now prohibited from discussing the information, even though it is now public knowledge. The order bars Edmonds from answering even simple questions like: “When and where were you born?,” “What languages do you speak?,” and “Where did you go to school?” [New York Times, 5/20/2004; Boston Globe, 7/5/2004; Asia Times, 8/6/2004; Vanity Fair, 9/2005] In response to the announcement, Grassley says: “I think it’s ludicrous, because I understand that almost all of this information is in the public domain and has been very widely available. This classification is very serious, because it seems like the FBI would be attempting to put a gag order on Congress.” [New Republic, 6/7/2004]

July 6, 2004: FBI Translator Whistleblower Lawsuit Dismissed
US District Judge Reggie B. Walton, appointed by George W. Bush, dismisses Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit (see June 2002) against the Justice Department, accepting the government’s argument that allowing the case to proceed would jeopardize national security [Associated Press, 7/6/2004; CNN, 7/7/2004] and infringe upon its October 2002 declaration (see October 18, 2002) that classified everything related to Edmonds’ case. Walton refuses to explain his ruling, insisting that to do so would expose sensitive secrets. “The Court finds that the plaintiff is unable to establish her First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Privacy Act claims without the disclosure of privileged information, nor would the defendants be able to defend against these claims without the same disclosures… the plaintiff’s case must be dismissed, albeit with great consternation, in the interests of national security,” Walton says in his ruling. [CNN, 7/7/2004] Walton never heard evidence from Edmonds’ lawyers. [Associated Press, 7/6/2004; Associated Press, 7/7/2004]

(July 8, 2004): DOJ Inspector General Report Supports FBI Translator’s Allegations
Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general, completes his report on Sibel Edmonds’ allegations (see Afternoon March 7, 2002). The 100-page report determines that “many of Edmonds’ core allegations relating to the co-worker [Melek Can Dickerson] were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses” and concludes that “the FBI did not, and still has not adequately investigated these allegations.” Additionally, Fine’s report concludes that Edmonds was fired because she was having a “disruptive effect,” which could be attributed to “Edmonds’ aggressive pursuit of her allegations of misconduct, which the FBI did not believe were supported and which it did not adequately investigate.” Fine adds, “[A]s we described throughout our report, many of her allegations had basis in fact. We believe… that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.” The report is immediately classified by the FBI. Not even Edmonds is allowed to see the contents. An unclassified 37-page summary of the report will be released in January 2005. [Washington Post, 7/9/2004; Associated Press, 7/30/2004; Associated Press, 1/14/2005; CNN, 1/14/2005; New York Times, 1/15/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

July 29, 2004: FBI Letter Vindicates Many of Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ Allegations
A letter by FBI Director Robert Mueller regarding FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is leaked to the media. Edmonds has made some very serious allegations about the FBI, including claims of important missed 9/11 warnings and the existence of a foreign spy ring inside US government agencies. Mueller’s letter reveals that a highly classified Justice Department report on Edmonds has concluded that her allegations “were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services.” This report also criticizes the FBI’s failure to adequately pursue her allegations of espionage. An anonymous official states that the report concludes that some of her allegations were shown to be true, others cannot be corroborated because of a lack of evidence, and none of her accusations were disproved. [New York Times, 7/29/2004]

August 1, 2004: FBI Whistleblower Sends Scathing Letter to Chairman of 9/11 Commission
Sibel Edmonds writes a blistering critique of the 9/11 Commission’s final report in a letter to the commission’s chairman Thomas Kean. She says the commission failed to investigate and report the information she provided in February (see February 11, 2004) regarding the problems she witnessed while working as a contract translator in the FBI’s translation unit. She also explains why she thinks the attacks were not stopped and why the government will not prevent future attacks. “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.… 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 US 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?” [Edmonds, 8/1/2004]

April 2005: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Use of ‘State Secrets Privilege’ to Block Suit Against DOJ Brought by Former Translator
The DC federal appeals court rules in favor of the attorney general’s use of the state-secrets privilege (see October 18, 2002 and May 19, 2004) to prevent the court from hearing Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit (see June 2002). Lawyers for the Justice Department had addressed the judge behind sealed doors. [Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

(July 31, 2005): Air Force Office of Special Investigation Re-Opens Investigation into Former Whistleblower’s Allegations
The Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation sends word to Sibel Edmonds’ attorney Mark Zaid that it is reopening the investigation into Edmonds’ former co-worker Melek Can Dickerson and her husband, Douglas Dickerson. Edmonds had warned her superiors in early 2002 that the couple was involved in espionage (see December 4, 2001). Journalist David Rose, who recently authored a lengthy piece on the Sibel Edmonds case for Vanity Fair magazine, believes the investigation may have been re-opened in part because of that article and because he submitted about 150 different questions about the case to the Air Force and other parts of the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and the FBI. [Democracy Now!, 8/10/2005]

August 4, 2005: Former FBI Translator Takes Whistleblower Case to Supreme Court
Lawyers for Sibel Edmonds file a petition with the Supreme Court asking it “to provide guidance to the lower courts about the proper scope and application of the state secrets privilege, and to prevent further misuse of the privilege to dismiss lawsuits at the pleading stage.” The petition also urges the court to affirm that the press and public may not be barred from court proceedings in civil cases without just cause. In May, the federal appeals court had closed the courtroom to the public and media. Edmonds’ lawyers include the American Civil Liberties Union and Mark Zaid of Krieger and Zaid, PLLC. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Edmonds, she will return to the lower courts and start her case again. [Petition for a writ of certiorari. Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice, et all., 8/4/2005, pp. 2 pdf file; Government Executive, 8/8/2005]

August 15, 2005: Former FBI Translator Says Government Ties to Drugs- and Weapons- Smuggling Undermines US Counterterrorism Efforts
In an interview with Christopher Deliso of Antiwar.com, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds says that the US government—the State Department in particular—consistently blocks counterterrorism investigations that come too close to certain top-level people. “We go for the Attas and Hamdis—but never touch the guys on the top.… [It] would upset ‘certain foreign relations.’ But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons- smuggling—and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.… [A]ll of these high-level criminal operations involve working with foreign people, foreign countries, the outside world—and to a certain extent these relations do depend on the continuation of criminal activities.” Edmonds says that the government’s investigation into the financing of al-Qaeda is a case in point. “You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda.… [But] a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?… But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course a lot of people from abroad are involved.” She says that her allegations against co-worker Melek Can Dickerson and her lawsuit against the FBI are just the tip of the iceberg. She expresses frustration that the media wants to only focus on the whistleblower aspect of her case instead of looking into the substance of her allegations. She says that it was completely by chance that she stumbled over an ongoing investigation into this international criminal network. “You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the [Valerie] Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group. And they are very dangerous for all of us.” [Anti-War (.com), 8/15/2005]

November 28, 2005: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Brought by Former FBI Translator against FBI
The Supreme Court declines, without comment, to hear the case (see August 4, 2005) brought by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. [New York Times, 11/28/2005; Reuters, 11/28/2005] The decision puts an end to Edmonds’ legal efforts to hold the bureau accountable for its failure to address several security issues raised by Edmonds in late 2001 and early 2002 (see December 2, 2001 and Afternoon February 12, 2002, respectively). On August 4, Edmonds had filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it “to provide guidance to the lower courts about the proper scope and application of the state secrets privilege, and to prevent further misuse of the privilege to dismiss lawsuits at the pleading stage.” The petition also urged the court to affirm that the press and public may not be barred from court proceedings in civil cases without just cause. (In May, the federal appeals court had closed the courtroom to the public and media.) If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Edmonds, she would have been able return to the lower courts and start her case again. [Petition for a writ of certiorari. Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice, et all., 8/4/2005, pp. 2 pdf file; Government Executive, 8/8/2005]


AWESOME post Jon!......

Thank you! And thank you Lorie!

All thanks...

Should go to Lorie, and to the people of www.cooperativeresearch.org. It's everything they've gathered. The only thing I did was remember how the families had to fight to get her in front of the Commission, and how compelling that is in and of itself, and so I asked the source to tell her side of it. Because she is who she is, we have just that. I hope people put it to good use.

My "Sibel Collection" is here...

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Dear Jon

i know you have put forth a great effort for the truth. Such dedication is impressive.Thank you.


I gave you a 10, great post.

Is there any way that the folks at Cooperative Research can make their links easier to copy? When I've tried copying the html code in their links, it shows wierd "mouseover" type messages.

It would be great if we could easily put in the actual links.


I don't know anything about the site unfortunately. Other than how to navigate it. Some days, I've spent hours doing the code to include all of the links. It's just too much work.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

I have just asked whether something can be done...

... but I wouldn't hold your breath. It may require a big, costly and time-consuming alteration that is not on the cards right now.

thats not entirely true -

thats not entirely true - someone could make a greasemonkey script to do exactly what you are talking about. investigating that possibility now
Edit: Just peeked at the code on most of the site, ugly! I did discover the "Printer Friendly" version of the page does not have the mouseover events in the anchor tags though. Perhaps using those pages as a reference for cutting and pasting would be worth the effort over the raw pages.

The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Great post!

Thank you Lorie.
Thank you Sibel.
Thank you Jon.

P.S. I just love Sibel! :)

"911 was an Inside Job"

Let Sibel speak.

End this nightmare.

I am a pretty active 911

I am a pretty active 911 Truth activist. Often a freind will say you do so much. I usually smile politely and squeez out a laugh. My effort is humble, nearly non-existent when compared to what Sibel Edmonds and family members like Laurie Van Auken have done and continue to do. It is thier heroic deeds and mutual our love of the USA and our countrymen that keeps the drive for Truth on a constant rise inside of me. Thanks. When we are finally done with these animals, these killers, these enemies of the Republic, my new cause will be to make sure the heroes of 9/11 Truth & Justice recieve full recognition. Bless you.


What I find disturbing about Sibel and the "Jersey girls" is that they keep on talking about hijackers and Al Qaeda and "warnings". Perhaps some people find this appealing because the negligence and obstruction bit looks embarrassing to the Bush administration but it is essentially the official story.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for controlled demolition at the WTC. It is clear that said demolitions were way above the capabilities of any foreign terrorist and could only have been perpetrated by people with tremendous resources, very specialized expertise and full access to the site and to local authorities; in short by top level insiders.

Now how does that scare in with hijackers? Where the CD prepared in advance to fit the hijackers plan and then wait until they were ready or does it make more sense that the whole 9/11 event was planed from A bis Z in order to suit a preplaned agenda?

If you were to pull such an operation involving airliners crashing into buildings live on TV, would you rely on some utterly incompetent pilots who could have ruined the entire plot at any stage or would you make sure that the planes hit exactly where and when you wanted them to? The fail-safe method to do the latter is called remote control and is a technology perfectly mastered by the military. Hence; No hijackers.

Why the hell these people continue to makes us believe that 9/11 was the work Arab terrorists and why is there still anybody in the "9/11 truth movement" to believe them?

some good points. i agree

some good points. i agree that the 9/11 perps would never rely on the "hijackers" to hit the targets. i think its fairly clear that the planes that hit the towers were controlled from the ground. maybe Jon will do a "Who is Dov Zakeim?" blog next? that sure as hell wouldnt reinforce that "muslims did 9/11" myth.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


Did you read Webster Tarpley's (one of the strongest pushers of "MIHOP" theory) synthetic terror?

Did you read the part where he talks about the significance of Sibel Edmond's testimony? Doesn't look like it...

No I didn't.

No I didn't.

I don't feel the need to resort to "authorities" . What is a "MIHOP-theory pusher" anyway?

(BTW is Webster Tarpley not the one whom you smeared just a few days ago?)

Fact remains that if the 3 WTC towers were proffessionaly brought down (and if a missile rather than a jetliner hit the Pentagon) the whole foreign terrorist plot is proven to be a hoax.

Therefore, IMO, anyone supposedly on the side of the truth still promoting the Muslim hijackers story is likely to be part of the cover up.


so, do we have to buy Tarpley's book now to find out?
sorry, but why you're bringing up Tarpley now to defend the Sibel story is just way beyond me. :S
zorglub makes some important points, imo.

Buy it...then...

You have to read the whole bloody thing.

Synthetic Terror? Almost 500 pages chub!

I agree with Zorglub. Anyone promoting the theory that muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11 either knowingly or not...covering up the true hature of the crime.

WTC 7 came down in an obvious controlled demolition. You can't get around that.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

It's in how we 'handle' the patsies

There have been valid criticisms of Tarpley for his over-the-top, harmful reaction to questions and accusations surrounding the Kennebunkport Warning.

Arabesque is one who was critical of the KW from pretty much the outset, and has also been on the receiving end of much of Tarpley's consequent bluster. In view of that, I am pleased to see that he is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater in that he still apparently finds value in parts of '9/11 Synthetic Terror'. That's not being inconsistent or hypocritical, it is simply...not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Yes, commentary re the alleged highjackers, even within the Truth movement, often tends to reinforce the official story's assumptioms regarding who were the ultimate perpetrators on 9/11. But it would be a mistake to presume that discussing these angles can only have these effects and so would be best to avoid. It all depends on how they are handled. As should be well known, Tarpley is a sharp critic of treating the culpability within the U.S. government for 9/11 as limited to 'letting-it-happen-on-purpose.' But he also makes clear how vital patsies are to the phenomenon of false-flag terror. Simply put, false-flag operations are not likely to be carried out unless patsies are well in place to play the scapegoat role. Exposing the patsies and their connections in advance could force cancellation of the false-flag operation. And exposing them after the fact could shed light on where culpability for the operation ultimately lies.

I agree that CD at the WTC = inside job. But let's push for exposure wherever we can get it. Sibel Edmonds is a whistleblower, and whistleblowers are of value to a movement to the extent that they stick to what they know first-hand. So I don't expect her to comment on demolitions at the World Trade Center (we have plently to do that already!). But neither, when she is addressing what she does know, should she speak in a way that presumes the official story has it right in terms of who ultimately was responsible for 9/11. If she has knowledge of evidence that people reputed to be involved in 9/11 (note: 'involved'--whether as patsies or as active plotters and perps should not be presumed either way in her testimony) have connections with influential people in Washington, as well as knowledge of a cover-up of this evidence (including, of course, the gag order they placed on her), then it seems to me the 9/11 Truth movement should be interested.

Buy it...then...

You have to read the whole bloody thing.

Synthetic Terror? Almost 500 pages chub!

I agree with Zorglub. Anyone promoting the theory that muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11 either knowingly or not...covering up the true hature of the crime.

WTC 7 came down in an obvious controlled demolition. You can't get around that.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Buy it...then...

You have to read the whole bloody thing.

Synthetic Terror? Almost 500 pages chub!

I agree with Zorglub. Anyone promoting the theory that muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11 either knowingly or not...covering up the true hature of the crime.

WTC 7 came down in an obvious controlled demolition. You can't get around that.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

DailyKos and Sibel

It might also be worth noting that Sibel has always been a permitted subject on DailyKos. Even the notorious Mia Dolan seemed not to object to the topic too much. (One should remember that on gatekeeper sites certain discussions are not allowed while others are encouraged.) This also raises my suspicions.

I'm copying an online post

I'm copying an online post from a couple of years ago which brings a different perspective to the table regarding Ms. Edmonds. This is not to start a flame war, just to jiggle the gray matter a bit:

If only it were true, that Edmonds explodes the 9/11 Report.

Remember that what the Commission "omitted" from its report is that 9/11 was an inside job, that the gov't MANUFACTURED these attacks and everyone else covered that up. Instead of showing that, the Report finds not that the gov't did 9/11, but pretends that governmental intelligence "failures" and bad coordination failed to protect us from them. Consequently, the fact that Edmonds is going public with what she says were "systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks" is NOT exploding the report. She's just trying to add more bullshit to it, additional problems and "errors" and "cover-ups of those errors" NONE OF WHICH LEAD TO THE TRUTH. 9/11 is not about "ERRORS." 9/11 was a governmental SUCCESS story. Why do people in the 9/11 truth movement still consider Edmonds, this so-called ex-FBI whistleblower, a hero when her stories just support the government's limited hangout of "failures" and "coverups of failures?" You'll hear more about Edmonds this Sunday on 60 minutes, I understand. People can read about these bullshit government limited hangouts from the mainstream media, get it? It shouldn't be the 9/11 truth movement and those aligned with it supporting and disseminating Edmond's crap. Will it never end?

There's an article that everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement should familiarize themselves with. It's called:
"Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie" by Michel Chossudovsky. The author is cautioning all of us in his very title, to be careful about what it is you are revealing/exposing. Some of the "lies" you are revealing only serve to perpetuate the "big lie."

One of the lies that the author talks about AS ONLY PERPETUATING THE "BIG 9/11 LIE" is the "forewarnings." Edmonds, the FBI translator is big on forewarnings, forewarnings of terrorist planning that they deliberately failed to translate, forewarnings that they erroneously translated, etc. From the article:

"The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act." This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and "Bush bashers" because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration. Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up. "Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy," which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. . ."

Remember, Al Qaeda is more aptly called Al CIA-da. Everyone in the 911 truth movement needs to ask themselves whether these "forewarnings" are truly credible. This is what the author says: "Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era. "

In other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a "true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an "Enemy of the Homeland". . .

" The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. . . Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings. Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question: What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an "intelligence asset. The CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks...In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?"
Think about that when you see Edmonds on 60 minutes or read all these Edmonds related articles being passed around by the 911 truth community as if they were helpful rather than harmful.

Let me ask you all a question?

If Sibel Edmonds got her wish and there was public open hearings....how confident are you that WTC 7 would even be mentioned?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Show "And if hearings on WTC7 took place..." by Jon Gold

You skipped the first question...

but I'll answer yours anyway.

A hell of a lot more probable that NORAD will be razed through the WTC7 hearings, than NORAD razed by the Sibel hearings.


Show "My point was Erin..." by Jon Gold

So Jon, is your position

So Jon, is your position that when someone posts stuff about Sibel Edmonds, who claims to have information about the true culprits of 911....that discussion of the controlled demolition (which...ironically is related to 9/11....therefore related to Sibel's claims)....is off limits?

You asked for information about controlled demolition...

I as assuming you've already SEEN the video of WTC 7.

Here you go...as per your request..

I think you are just jealous that your 9/11 information requires the lifting of state secrets privileg, high level hearings to even begin thinking about maybe possibly having hearings on Sibel Edmonds information....

The collapse of WTC 7 is a mere one viewing of a video of the collapse.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Nice grapefruit.

Why can't you stay on-topic, jpass?

Sibel's story has NOTHING whatsoever to do with bananas. But if we peel the banana, maybe we can have a look at an eggplant, which will then help us understand chickens. Because it WAS chickens that flew jets into WTC 1+2, which caused WTC7 to give it up its boldness.

Thank you Sibel.

The point is...

Sibel Edmonds narrative claims to expose (maybe...if we wait...) the true culprits of 9/11. The problem is the controlled demolition of WTC 7 creates a scenario where Edmonds has NOT found the true culprits of 911.

Another point about the Edmonds narrative....

She claims to have taken an oath to protect the constitution and country from all enemies...foreign and domestic.

So....if her information exposes enemies of the state...and the state is gagging her not for security but to cover asses....then why does she beleive this gag order has merit? If she, as she has said many times, thinks the gag order is meant to protect criminals and enemies of the state....wouldn't the immediate release of information expose these enemies...enemies she has sworn to protect against?

Sibel should take her own advice...disregard this gag order that she says is not for security...but for protection anyway.....

Spill the beans SIBEL, it's long over do. If you have information on enemies of the state then why are you complying with a gag order put in place by those who the enemies of the state?

It doesn't make sense.

Anyone see "Kill The Messenger"?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Quite simple as you say, jpass.

And btw: I saw it. Hell, I'm even in it. But every time I asked or simply inquired for advice about how this stuff could help understand the domestic coverup and destruction of evidence (something Bin Scarry or his fans could NEVER do), not only were my repeated quarries met with stone cold silence... the very next correspondence would invariably run as far afield as possible.

Kinda like, "Look at me, how cute I am, and sad for my loss of speech." And then she would talk and talk and talk and talk and talk.

In it huh?


Who was the person you were corresponding with? Sibel?
Why do you think they were avoiding your questions?
So do you know what Sibel thinks of WTC 7?
Sorry for all the questions.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever


do not say "sorry" for asking questions.

Stand by, or check back soon for more details. I do not want to answer you hastily on this subject.

"do not say "sorry" for

"do not say "sorry" for asking questions."

Awesome let's talk. http://911blogger.com/user/556/contact

"Stand by, or check back soon for more details."

Is that a Sibel joke?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Let's peel some grapes.

Jpass asks:

"Who was the person you were corresponding with? Sibel?
Why do you think they were avoiding your questions?
So do you know what Sibel thinks of WTC 7?"

I saw her name and dramatic story brought up more and more through my first several years of 911 study. What resonated most, was my sympathy for her the way she described inter-bureaucratic government shenanigans. My brief military carrier ended abruptly when my own stubbornness ran up against extensive waist, cronyism, and ineptitude. I thought I was there to uphold and defend the constitution bla bla bla.... but was dumb-struck by how dangerously ill-prepared I found our "defensive forces" to be. From not being able, and (or more accurately) arrogantly unwilling to peel it's own potatoes and clean its own latrines... to out-source maintaining it's own jeeps, helicopters and heavy-fire equipment. Ugh! And that was almost twenty years ago.

So she had ME from the word go, even with just her vague description of such a parallel existing in intelligence gathering, analysis, and the execution of justice. All that made perfect sense because it's all perfectly true.

I started by writing her. She was always quite 'reachable' in that sense. Not long after, I received the first of many invitations to attend press briefings and how to keep tabs on the development of "her" National Security Whistle-Blowers Coalition. I met many people. Ray MacGovern, Jane Turner, Colleen Rowely, Mike German, Bogden Docovitch, Daniel Elsberg, Russ Tice, James Xxxx... so on and so on... Waine Madsen, Mike T., J.M, MacClarin...

And, I met two french gentlemen. Without hesitation offered anything I could to assist them in making a documentary about Sibel's drama. A place to stay on-the-cheep, food and laundry, local transportation, carry the tripod, open packs of digital tape, good conversation... whatever I could. At the least, I felt I could EARN an inside track on how her story fit into the vastly larger picture of 911 and what came directly from it. (the 911 Wars, burning hebeas corpus and posse comatatus, and what if anything was left of American standing in the world).

One of the frenchmen I still trust deeply, the other... not so much.

The simple dynamic of dropping so many names and activities, caused a number of otherwise tightlipped locals in my own neighborhood to open up, and introduce more names and activities. I'll end that part of the story here, for now.

So I became a big fan and supporter of this line of inquiry. I at least became conversant in many blanket details of her story. Yet at some point, I grew cold for it because every new revelation and lead offered, simply went further and further afield from nagging questions I had about that weird day, September 11th.

Turkish gun runners could not have stood down American air defense. Silk road drugs and money laundering could not indefinitely prop a fiat U.S. Dollar. Aircraft don't become "lost" when they turn off their transponders, in fact such a stunt would only make the radar target standout like a sore thumb for doing so. Building 7 couldn't have fallen near perfectly symmetrical, from asymmetrical damage. Bin Laden With Blame, couldn't have destroyed and carted off the evidence of such a crime scene.

Only Americans and our many choice ass-hats could truly delay such an investigation.

On and on.

But I did not push these questions hard in front of Sibel and her admirers. 'Maybe this WILL SOMEDAY crack open a much wider investigation' I used to say... just as Mr. Gold remains holding out with his attested hopes.

But I now say different. Because first hand, I've seen too many close to her repeatedly dodge (for no good reasons that can be clearly stated) why such a circuitous route back to the far side of the earth, would be economical to answering questions best and most efficiently answered here at home.

Subpoenaed public testimonies under oath or affirmation to tell the cold hard truths.

What happened to the crowning jewel of national air defense forces? Fighter jocks living out a 20 year carrier just itching for the chance to dog fight with a bad guy in a heroic drama in the sky over a big American city!

The complete disregard for NTSB procedure, crime scene investigation, masterful forensic science, and court room deductions of means, motive and opportunity where such a story could never be born of fiction.

In the words of Joe Trento, "I'm sorry about Edmonds, but I could name hundreds of the same. The difference IS, the Bush crowd plays rougher than anyone". Get ready dear friends... the Bush Crowd is just the tip of the iceberg of cold hard truths, and the kind of people who don't want us to get there.

Erin S. Myers

Thank you for sharing this

I repeat that if Mia Dolan approves a line of inquiry into 9/11, it's unlikely to lead to anything substantial.

Yes thanks

Please shoot me an e-mail if you feel like discussing these issues. I'd like to have a conversation over skype or if you have a chat program you like.


Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

SIbel Edmonds on WTC7...


Peter: Luke, as you look at this, some of the information that Sibel would probably provide in a public hearing if Henry Waxman follows through on his commitment, would challenge the official stories about what occurred in the attacks of September 11, 2001. And this gets into a whole difficult area, it is truly a Pandora’s box, just last night over dinner, talking with some very well-informed friends, I was trying to make the case about the serious questions about Building 7 at the WTC - which of course, came down well after the other two, late in the afternoon of Sep11 and we know have this stunning video from the BBC of a real-time report, at the point when WTC7 did come down, approximately 5.25pm. The problem we have is the BBC report precedes the event that it's reporting on by about 23 minutes, and there's a stunning shot of a reporter who is doing a 'stand-up,' as they call it, appears to be several miles away from the WTC site, but WTC7 is still clearly visible over her shoulder, in the background of this framed picture, as she is describing in the past tense, that WTC7 has come down! And there are many Americans who simply cannot process this, because it leads to questions about government complicity, advanced knowledge, of what occurred on 911.

Skip Luke's answer...

Sibel: Well, actually Luke did a great job. But that's one of the things that I've been trying to convey, and that is that there are so many different pieces of 911 that have been either covered up or classified and not everyone has access to everything. And I know about certain events and certain issues and certain pieces, others have their own area - and what I tell people is 'just take a look at the picture in general' - I mean, we still have that CIA report on 911 completely classified, peter. Here we are more than 5 years after 911 and the IG, so-called 'independent' IG, after years of investigation and questioning people and reviewing documents, they issued this report on 911: what the CIA knew, what they did, and the entire report is classified, and then you have the Phoenix Memo, and Colleen Rowley's piece, and Robert Wright in Chicago that had to do with Yassin al-Qadi, and then you have what Luke Ryland just referred to which is this documented incident which was given by a credible informant, and there are these forms, 302 forms, that the agents have to file after they get information from their informants, from their undercover informants, and they filed these 302 forms, they were not destroyed, they are still there in the FBI, and these agents reported these issues, and they gave the 911 Commission these 302 forms, yet it did not make it into the report. And in another case it had to do with certain translations of information of blueprints of these skyscrapers being sent to a certain region on the border of Pakistan and Iran, and this occurred in July 2001. I don't have any information, any idea about the buildings, World Trade Centre and WTC7, because that was not my area, again, my information was limited to what I’m reading, and that is basically the same thing that you are reading, but the other information, and the other pieces that I have first hand direct knowledge of, I have already documented that, I have already given it in a public letter to the 911 Commission, after they issued their quasi-report, and before that report was issued I testified inside the SCIF, I provided them with file numbers, I provided them with the names of the agents who would corroborate this information. Not only that, I drove some of these translators and agents who are not whistleblowers, they are not known individuals, to the Commissioners - and this was with the help I received from the 911 family members, and they testified inside the SCIF, these are the veteran agents involved in the counter-terrorism division of the Washington Field Office, and the headquarters. SO the question is 'What happened to all this information? Why are they going out of their way to cover it?"

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Not precisely "my area" either

Sibel: "I don't have any information, any idea about the buildings, World Trade Centre and WTC7, because that was not my area"

I didn't have any information either -- until I started gathering some. Here are my conclusions:

(main article)

(summary and logical proof)

For my own purposes then (if I'm to be accused of "selfishness")

This is the simplified version of a 'litmus test' developed over the last several years which seems to work moderately well. However, just remember that here, there are no real absolutes and the results should be incorporated into a much larger intel gathering process and analysis which continually affords the best benefits of doubt to the subject BEFORE gravitating toward conclusions, and especially before any plans of action are chosen or executed.

Also, this is a test which can only be expected to produce a positive vs. inconclusive result. There is no such "negative" result that can ever be fully trusted in some "final decision making" process. So if one is searching for such, my advice would be to give up that quest as soon as possible... and set off on a new one.

The administrator of the test can employ a vast multitude of varying approaches, and multiplicity of combinations over time... while always considering the stated, implied, apparent or possible position of the subject. The greater the variety, combination, and time... the ever increasing reliability one may expect. In other words, this activity must be 'practiced', but there should never be an expectation of "Diploma".

The administrator of the test can choose to not, OR simultaneously, tip the hand of the administrator's own personal opinions, yet should be cautious and observant to hints that they may have injected their own biases or inaccuracies into the subject's returning opinion. This is a very natural dynamic as it can aid in the spread of good information, but also carries the risks (or intention, by the willfully manipulative) of spreading bad information.

The results of this ever continuing testing can be used in many different ways, yet my personal interest in its application here is for self-determinations of scheduling the best use of one's own precious time. Also, the more important the subject matter is to one's quest, the more time may be required toward reaching a tough but necessary "cut-off" or "break-away" decision. This sets up a difficult Catch22, so choices may very widely from one individual to the next.

At its core, this litmus testing seeks to understand if I'm working WITH someone, or effectively FOR someone.

x) Do I want to keep listening, talking with, or about this person? (Sibel Edmonds makes a great example, since this is a blog about her.)

x) Does she genuinely seek results that could better BOTH of our conditions? She says so, with carrots like "freedom of speech" and "accountability in government", yet herself gestures to an intractable condition while holding the very key to unlocking her own chains. Thus the absurdity of her "poor me drama". She points to her ball-gag, and tells us what a travesty it is. She invokes a vague fear of immoral penalty, should she break the immoral bonds imposed by immoral bondage. This has become outright silly.

x) Does she listen to others and incorporate differing perspectives, or simply just enough to hear and respond from/for her own condition and further her's back upon me? Responds by not responding. 9/11 study, truth or justice seeking need no help from a person who's been invited innumerable times to educate herself about the domestic components of the 911 crime scene, and reciprocate sympathies by EITHER incorporating the material, or critiquing it. Even if that is by simply gesturing "hot" or "cold" in some drawn-out scavenger hunt. She's done little I see as genuinely productive even/especially when asked point blank. When advised that this particular failure of action might force a hand "not in favor" of further support... the subject was simply changed. I hold the names of at least two others having directly assisted in this maneuver.

At this point, I reached my lowest opinion of this person, Sibel Edmonds.

Another option available to her, which she stunningly avoided as well... would have been to indicate by any means that she 'couldn't', 'wouldn't' or 'not at this time'... almost anything. However changing the subject, and not for the first time, became THE deal breaker. For as much as this girl could talk and talk and talk... it's particularly suspicious to me that she could not produce even a monosyllabic grunt per such a request.

x) Does she actively seek new and improved information by asking direct questions, as opposed to "asking questions to the air" which no one present could be expected privy to reliable answers? She invites sibelologists to search ENDLESSLY to hunt the labyrinth of dastardly deeds in far off lands, and sneer at the walking edifices to U.S. governmental corruption... yet kneels in prayer before its very enablers. This, I can not figure out.

x) Does she display a desire and inclination to incorporate NEW material into an ever evolving narrative, which improves its ability to describe the world around us through reducing complexity in elucidation formula? Does she PRODUCE solid and revelatory [introspective] points? No. I have not heard from her a believably humble introspection, let alone introspection as demonstrated leadership needed to actually solving the deeply strayed character of her adopted land.

She may be hold-harmless in this continuing tragedy (a "benefit of doubt" border-lining my personal embarrassment)... but if she can't even help herself at this point... how could I retain some hope that she could help me? Especially after offering my own hand so many times?

If, and I say again IF, sibelology was originally created or simply hijacked for on of the most time consuming versions of "MK-Cointelling-Bird" I've yet seen (a supposition I dare ANYONE to accuse me of tossing about indiscriminately)... Sibel herself has crossed a line very difficult to return from.

I told Sibel, with genuine sadness on my part, to permanently remove my details from her list of contacts.

Should you?

The 'stand-down' of constitutional defense, controlled demolition [apparent], and the destruction of forensic evidence only possible domestically... IS a keystone of understanding the full extent of the "September 11th" crime against humanity. At this time, I must also reluctantly inform you, Jon Gold... I'm personally placing you on notice too, should you fail to evolve your narrative.

Erin S. Myers

Show "So shut up about Sibel..." by Jon Gold


You could shut up, or you could just put Sibel and her information into a context (and make it EXPLICIT) that is not adversarial to things like 9/11 Truth. [Ooops -- major Freudian slip. I meant to change "things like" to "other aspects of".] One step in this direction would be to drop this idea that "if Sibel speaks, this will all be over and we can get on with our lives."

I just finished Peter Dale Scott's new book. Obviously, Professor Scott is not a member of the Church of Controlled Demolition (sic). However, he takes the same kind of information that you have a bias towards and shows that it points to profound problems with governance and empire of which 9/11 was just one spectacular instance. So the question is, what is going to galvanize some change in mass consciousness that can reform or revolutionize the way the world governs itself? I don't think it's going to be the same-old same-old of government corruption, which is where I expect Sibel's testimony to go.

What am I gonna do?

To you? Nothing.

For you? Nothing.

That's what a man like me intends by "putting you on notice".

But as for "shutting up about Sibel" you say, I'll put it this way: If I spent generous time working to ASSIST Sibel, yet she, like you, and your 'unmentionable up-close contact' consider me "a little/lot tiresome at this point. He wants all of us to jump up and down and agree with him about something or other..." (when in actuality, I've never expected for more than advice or guidance) to better mesh "truth, accountability, and justice FOR ALL ASPECTS OF 9/11"... "a focal point" I clearly DO NOT "have a problem with..."

than I just may spend more of my time as I see fit further researching those who stand in the way of "truth, accountability, and justice FOR ALL ASPECTS OF 9/11".

btb: Your antagonism and avoidance in leu of seeking common affinity and kindship is well noted. I understand much better now your championship of Sibel. Thanks anyway, for you unwitting assistance.

Have a nice day.