The purpose of the OIG's investigation was to assess the FBI's response to Edmonds' allegations, not whether the allegations were true. Understand that in a retaliation case, the whistleblower does not, and should not, have to be correct. In order that whistleblowing not be chilled, an institution should respond by good faith investigation and not retaliating, regardless of the outcome of that investigation. The OIG also was concerned about the securirty implications of not taking Edmonds' allegations seriously. Thus, the response is very important, regardless of the ultimate outcome, both to protect employees' rights and as a matter of institutional health.

A finding that a person was retaliated against for allegations is separate from a finding that the allegations were true. Treating someone as "disruptive" for reasonable, good faith whistleblowing is an instututional problem that OIG wanted to address. I could be wrong, but the point is that this is a completely plausible and reasonable response and that can't be easily called a coverup.

Here's what OIG did:

"We closely examined nearly a dozen separate allegations by Edmonds against the co-worker which, when viewed together, amounted to accusations of possible espionage. We sought to determine, with respect to each individual allegation, whether the facts supported or refuted the allegation. However, the ultimate determination as to whether the co-worker engaged in espionage, as Edmonds’ allegations implied, was beyond the scope of the OIG’s investigation. We communicated to the FBI during our review that the OIG was not making such a determination, and that the potential espionage issue should be addressed by the FBI, not the OIG. Instead, our investigation focused on the FBI’s response to the complaints Edmonds raised about her co-worker and other language translation issues."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/index.htm

As seen above, it's true that the OIG made determinations as to whether the allegations were supported.
This had to be done to assess whether the response was proper--was there enough to warrant a serious response?

In some cases, OIG found her allegations were supported, in other cases, not.

"With regard to some of Edmonds’ allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds’ assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. While there are potentially innocuous explanations for the co-worker’s conduct, other explanations were not innocuous. Although the exact nature and extent of the co-worker’s security issues are disputed, it is clear from the OIG’s investigation that the facts giving rise to Edmonds’ concerns could have been uncovered had the FBI investigated Edmonds’ allegations further. We believe that the FBI should have investigated the allegations more thoroughly. We also believe the FBI’s handling of these allegations reflected an unwarranted reluctance to vigorously investigate these serious allegations or to conduct a thorough examination of Edmonds’ allegations. As will be discussed in the next section, the FBI did not, and still has not, conducted such an investigation."

It's impossible to know the ultimate outcome of Edmonds' allegations without seeing not only the classified OIG report, but also the actual investigation of the espionage allegations.

Sure, this might be a coverup, but we can't know that just from the OIG report, and we can't claim without knowing more that the classified report should not have been classified.

I will end with the OIG's statement of Edmonds' background.

"Edmonds, who was born abroad and speaks English fluently, moved to the United States in 1991 to attend college. She married an American citizen in 1992. Before joining the FBI, Edmonds worked as a volunteer at a local courthouse, as a court-appointed special advocate for children, and for the Rostropovich foundation, a non-profit organization that delivers medical supplies and food to a children’s hospital. In addition, Edmonds served as a corporate officer (Secretary) for her husband’s consulting business."

She was a part-time contract linguist for six months. I'm sorry, but I can't know that she was capable of assessing what she heard. Even if she was, the problem is that this is the easy and obvious response by someone who wants to dismiss her claims.

I also have doubts about her story of a room of 200 translators sharing information. I just don't believe that FBI has such lax operational security, which must require strict compartmentalization. Sure, over time, people might share information, but how much time did she have there? I've done translation and it is quiet, thought-intensive, and time-consuming work.

I'm asked to treat this story as important. I don't just see it here, but at Daily Kos and Chris Floyd's website. I even overheard somebody talking excitedly about Sibel Edmonds at my local coffee shop. Since this story has invaded my mind space and I'm asked to take it seriously, and because you have raised the OIG's report which I took the time to read, I feel justfied in expressing my doubts here.

I agree that jpass should not be calling people "shills." I am not doubting Sibel Edmonds' sincerity and think that whistleblowing is a very good thing that should be encouraged and protected. I'm aslo not doubting the sincerity of anyone who thinks this story is important in establishing facts about 9/11. I just don't see that.

And I will note that the OIG report did not substantiate a key allegation of Sibel Edmonds---that she was told to slow down translation so FBI could hire more translators. It doesn't make sense to begin with, since she says there were no Turkish translators before 9/.11 and a huge backlog. This doesn't mean she was not told that. The problem is that this would be the perfect story to feed someone if you're pushing the bureaucratic incompetence line.

Try staying on topic. The thread is about Sibel Edmonds, and her numerous revelations which the Bush junta justice (sic) department have made classified. As a "truth" movement, it would appear that we would want to know more about these matters -- or is that just crazy talk?

In a battle of credibility between Sibel Edmonds and JPass, I don't think that even the 'laugh test' adequately describes the comparison.

Do you have anything relevant to say at all?

"Jon says he was talking about other 'debunkers' who called Sibel bad names...funny...I would not consider THOSE tactics debunking....name calling discredits itself."

So, of course YOU know better what he meant than he himself. How could it be otherwise?

Jon is obviously lying. "Debunkers" meant "Jon Gold's skeptics"."

Which means YOU, of course. Everything he says, anywhere, must be a personal attack on you. This is time wasting bullshit.

Show factual evidence that contradicts Sibel Edmonds or shut the fuck up. Stop wasting our time.