whistleblower heroine Sibel Edmonds continues her campaign to wake this country up

"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril." Harry S. Truman






Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring of 2002 after reporting her concerns about sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence to superiors.

www.justacitizen.com...

From her website.... That link is to her site, everything she's had to endure from the gov't chiefly john ashcroft is disgusting and just goes to show they in fact are hiding the truth....

www.justacitizen.com...


Also another good site about 911 ....A really good site....
www.911truth.org...


This is some of the things she's endured from the gov't ...

In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport would be considered a ‘top secret’ document since it contains my place of birth, information considered state secrets. According to our government officials my Virginia driving license would be considered a ‘Top Secret’ document, since it contains my date of birth, information considered state secrets and classified. Well, heck, even my resume would be considered ‘Top Secret’ since it contains my linguistic credentials and my degrees. As of that day, I officially became a notoriously gagged whistleblower; but I continued on.

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

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

In July 2004, after two years of unexplained foot dragging, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, announced its long over due investigation of Sibel Edmonds’ case complete and issued its report. The further empowered and emboldened then Attorney General stepped in on that same day and gagged his own Inspector General’s findings and report by classifying the entire report as secret. The so called independent investigatory entity, the Inspector General, wrapped and duct taped its report, bowed, and left the scene now that it was formally and officially gagged on my case; but I continued on.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by TrueLies]

Maybe you could tell, what it is your trying to say.

I don't see what Sibel Edmonds is doing to wake the country up. I see it as her being fired from the FBI.

Its like what that scholar who now works at McDonalds HQ promoting nutrituos menu items say: "You can either work it out from the inside or you can complain from the outside."

Originally posted by websurfer
Maybe you could tell, what it is your trying to say.

I don't see what Sibel Edmonds is doing to wake the country up. I see it as her being fired from the FBI.

If you can't see what's wrong with people who are looking for the truth being gagged, then I don't know how we should explain this to you.
It should be fairly obvious, no ? It's not the first person that's being fired for really doing his/her job in relation to 9/11.

Call-Up Wake

Originally posted by Shroomery
If you can't see what's wrong with people who are looking for the truth being gagged, then I don't know how we should explain this to you.

It depends on the nature of the truth being gagged. If what Sibel Edmonds says is true, she has revealed some extremely sensitive information that is now known around the world.

The consequences of doing something like that are impossible to calculate, but they are invariably bad. That's the kind of thing that gets people killed.

If this is what actually happened, and I'm skeptical that anyone is being completely candid about what really happened, then those government lawyers must have had some very compelling reasons for securing that kind of cooperation from the courts.

That is a noteworthy thing to claim among many noteworthy claims.

Ms. Edmonds claims to be the subject of many historic firsts in American history, but I'm not seeing a lot of corroboration.

And of course why should I, since everything is being “suppressed”?

Fire Alarm

Originally posted by Shroomery
It should be fairly obvious, no ? It's not the first person that's being fired for really doing his/her job in relation to 9/11.

It's not clear to me that she shouldn't have been fired.

Classified information is always classified for a reason. While there have been abuses, most classified information is kept that way for very specific and very important reasons that are spelled out when it is legally classified.

Ms. Edmonds may have compromised a crucial investigation or perhaps even gotten someone killed by going public. How can we know?

Loose lips sink ships.

What little I know about this case leaves me with a very uneasy feeling. I'm not convinced that Ms. Edmonds did the right thing.

I will continue to keep tabs on this matter now and then, but without reliable context, including the other side of the story, there's no way in hell I can give any sort of definite opinion about what's going on here without my spider sense telling me I'm terribly wrong.

Too much just doesn't add up for me. I'm getting a feeling of being played.

Sibel Edmunds isn't the only whistleblower. There are literally hundreds out there, but in a controlled media they simply don't have a voice. And any claims that Sibel is a disgruntled incompetent or seeking attention stem from the people making those claims a) having no idea what this woman and other whistleblowers have been through in order to get this info out, and b) not bothering to take the time to actually check out in depth what she and others are saying

Here's some more 9-11 Whistleblowers.


[edit on 2005-8-23 by wecomeinpeace]

Didn't Bush come out in public to announce something indicating he would'nt tolerate reprisals against whistle blowers. I'm sure I seen him on the news make such an annoucement a few months ago.

Dallas

Telling Stories Out Of School

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
And any claims that Sibel is a disgruntled incompetent or seeking attention stem from the people making those claims a) having no idea what this woman and other whistleblowers have been through in order to get this info out, and b) not bothering to take the time to actually check out in depth what she and others are saying

If there is any credible evidence proving that Ms. Edmonds was right to publicly disclosed classified information, I'd be happy to have a look at it.

So far, I haven't seen anything like that.

The problem with leaking classified information is that it may be false.

The U.S., other governments and many non-governmental organizations use very sophisticated methods for tagging and tracing data, including, among many other things, the deliberate insertion of fabricated data into sensitive compartmented information.

The fabricated data is used to trace leaks when they occur, and usually consists of such things as different names for certain people mentioned, different places, spellings or other relatively innocuous details not directly pertinent to the primary purpose of the data.

In other words, what Ms. Edmonds disclosed may well be true. Or it may not. Or more likely, it's a combination of truth and fabrication.

A translator is not a position qualified to make counterintelligence decisions and is not qualified to decide what information should be publicly disclosed.

Other people do that, and there are some very damn good reasons why that's the case.

I remain both concerned and skeptical of this whole business.

I signed the petition and hope other patriotic members of these forums will also
join to demand the truth.

www.petitiononline.com...

Originally posted by Majic
If there is any credible evidence proving that Ms. Edmonds was right to publicly disclosed classified information, I'd be happy to have a look at it.

So far, I haven't seen anything like that.

And you won't either, because John "Patriot Act" Ashcroft and Co. have consistently gagged everybody and everything to do with the case at every step, even to the point of stifling and shutting down legal proceedings. I don't know, I'm not American, but I thought the separation of powers was fundamental to the United States' system of government. When the Executive Branch can stifle any and all attempts to expose its own wrongdoings by squashing the Legislative and Judicial Branches, what do you have? A fascist regime. Sounds alarmist, eh? Well...the truth hurts.

A translator is not a position qualified to make counterintelligence decisions and is not qualified to decide what information should be publicly disclosed.

Other people do that, and there are some very damn good reasons why that's the case.

I don't think you're giving Miss Edmunds and all the other whistleblowers enough credit here. Somehow I think they are a lot more qualified to decide when the whistle needs to be blown and when it doesn't than you assume.

But if you figure all the other FBI agents speaking out aren't qualified to decide what is and what isn't bogus intel, then who is?

Deputy Director of the FBI? Ok, here ya go:
www.hereinreality.com...

Chief Council to the United States House of Representatives, the guy charged with impeaching Clinton? Here ya go:
www.prisonplanet.com...

There's plenty more...but you won't see them on CNN.

[edit on 2005-8-23 by wecomeinpeace]

The Root Of The Problem

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
But if you figure all the other FBI agents speaking out aren't qualified to decide what is and what isn't bogus intel, then who is?

The people who generate the bogus intel are, and no one else.

A primary purpose of injecting bogus information into classified data is to track down leaks. Like this one.

Bogus data is also used to check the integrity of information security, and is used extensively in counterintelligence and disinformation operations, which may well be what was going on here.

The nature of this data is not disclosed to people who handle the data downstream, which is deliberate and necessary for the scheme to work.

That is one reason why people who are not counterintelligence officers or otherwise explicitly tasked with conducting information security operations are not qualified to make disclosures.

If you think there's a mole in your organization, you report it to your supervisor. You do not go public.

The Real Threat

What Ms. Edmonds describes is a serious national security trainwreck, which she apparently caused.

This is a classic “weakest link” scenario, and I can only speculate about what sort of mayhem she wreaked on our intelligence efforts, because we aren't supposed to know.

Ms. Edmonds failed to maintain information security. She claims to have her reasons, yet I find them not only unconvincing, but disturbing.

How does she know her coworker wasn't part of a counterintelligence operation? How could she know?

Ongoing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence operations are not a matter for trial in the court of international public opinion, Ms. Edmonds' apparent belief to the contrary notwithstanding.

The fact that we're discussing this on an international website is a problem in itself. You're reading this in China for Pete's sake. How comfortable is that supposed to make me feel?

Based on what I see here, I wouldn't trust Ms. Edmonds with my home phone number, let alone national security information, and she is probably overdue for a prison cell.

The argument that U.S. national security information should not be classified is utterly false, a non-starter with me, and an attempt to justify criminal treachery which I will not support.

It wasn't right when the Rosenbergs did it, either, and I expect better than this from people who are entrusted with the security of my country.

We are not getting the whole story, only one side of it, and even if I take everything Ms. Edmonds has said at face value, I am not impressed.

In fact, I'm very disappointed. :shk:

I guess we're all better off not knowing anything that just might possibly cause the American people to scream for the mass impeachment of The ENTIRE Bush Administration.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

I signed the petition and hope other patriotic members of these forums will also join to demand the truth.

www.petitiononline.com...

Thank you for the link. Interesting read, especially the part about her blowing the whistle on mistranslations, and the fact that she was fired for going to her superiors with that and other charges.

Majic's apologia notwithstanding, most of the information originally was detailed in a non-classified Senate hearing, as the petition states. Equally of concern, claims regarding national security now are being used to justify all manner of criminality.

As someone pointed out earlier, the US operates on a system of checks and balances - and the Senate and Congress are part of the loop. To defend activities that neutralize the US governmental system, and the nation's Constitution is ...questionable.

The Whistleblower's Gospel

Originally posted by soficrow
Interesting read, especially the part about her blowing the whistle on mistranslations, and the fact that she was fired for going to her superiors with that and other charges.

Or so she claims, which is the basic problem with this case.

Unsurprisingly, if we are to believe her accounts, Ms. Edmonds is not guilty of any misconduct in this case,.

Either she is free of guilt or she is not, and no one I know of is free of guilt (no, not even Jesus).

Hence my skepticism. We're not being told everything we need to know about this case, which is why I advise against jumping to conclusions.

The Unapologetic Skeptic

Originally posted by soficrow
Majic's apologia notwithstanding, most of the information originally was detailed in a non-classified Senate hearing, as the petition states.

My skepticism exists for good reason, and I am apologizing for no one.

Those who question my opinions are more than free to do so, but those who deride my skepticism are forfeiting any chance of gaining my agreement on a topic.

Schrödinger's Senate

Originally posted by soficrow
As someone pointed out earlier, the US operates on a system of checks and balances - and the Senate and Congress are part of the loop. To defend activities that neutralize the US governmental system, and the nation's Constitution is ...questionable.

You can make any assumptions you want about what my motives or interests may be with respect to my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's not what this is about.

I'm confused about your point on checks and balances, in light of the fact that Ms. Edmonds claims Senate involvement in her case. Complicity, in fact.

In the quote above, you refer to a Senate hearing detailing Ms. Edmonds' information.

So which is it? Is the Senate involved, like Ms. Edmonds claims? Or is your charge that the Senate is not involved correct?

Only one of these things can be true, which means one of them is not.

Originally posted by Majic

It depends on the nature of the truth being gagged. If what Sibel Edmonds says is true, she has revealed some extremely sensitive information that is now known around the world.

The consequences of doing something like that are impossible to calculate, but they are invariably bad. That's the kind of thing that gets people killed.

That's where you're wrong, people NOT blowing the whistle like she does is what actually gets people killed.

You think that she spewed some sensitive information into the public while that's obviously not the case. First of all, she told her supervisors.
You want us to believe that this is somehow a danger ? Regular investigators now have such sensitive information that telling their supervisor is a threat to certain people now?

I can only see it as a threat to those that are actually involved with what she's brought up, don't you think that's the most logical version of the story ?

Source Of Authority

Originally posted by Shroomery
You want us to believe that this is somehow a danger ? Regular investigators now have such sensitive information that telling their supervisor is a threat to certain people now?

Again, I'm confused.

Ms. Edmonds claims that all sorts of things, including her personal data, have been classified, and that this was used as a harassment tool, with the complicity of all sorts of people.

Was the information she disclosed classified or not? There seems to be some dispute over that.

The answer is that whatever information was classified was, in fact, classified, and what was not was not.

Since the government is charged with making that decision, they are the authority on what is classified in cases of dispute. Claims to the contrary are inherently groundless.

So which is it? Did Ms. Edmonds disclose classified information or didn't she? Her version of things leads me to believe that she did.

Am I wrong about that? Should I re-read her material again?

Am I concerned for nothing?

I'll simplify it.

Weightlifter tells his coach that teammates are using steroids, now, that weightlifter is booted off the team because he spoke up.
Most obviously because the coach was in on the whole deal.

Perhaps this letter will help to shed light on what the allegations are about.


September 2002 Letter to DOD-IG

September 19, 2002

Via Fax: (703) 604-8567

Joseph E. Schmitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.

Dear Inspector General Schmitz:

We represent Ms. Sibel Edmonds, who filed allegations regarding violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program by letter dated August 7, 2002. An inquiry into Ms. Edmonds' allegations was opened under Hotline case number 85069.

By letter dated September 10, 2002, Colonel James N. Worth, Director, Inquiries Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Air Force, informed Ms. Edmonds that the matter was being closed as a result of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) having conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns. I am writing to bring to your direct attention our concern that this matter was not thoroughly or completely investigated and that this matter was not properly handled. In addition, we ask that your office look into this matter further and investigate these very serious matters.

Ms. Edmonds alleged in her letter of August 7th that both Major Douglas Dickerson and his wife, Melek Can Dickerson,1/ have committed numerous violations of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Personnel Security Program. Improper contacts with foreign governments, officials or organizations by spouses of military personnel also constitute violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. In addition, a security risk may exist when an individual's family members may be subject to duress or other potential influence by a foreign country.

Notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI's investigation focused on "Major Dickerson's relationship with the American-Turkish Council." This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter. Second, Ms. Edmonds' concerns are not limited to whatever contacts Major Dickerson might have with the American-Turkish Council. Third, this statement by Col. Worth is evidence that the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not properly review Ms. Edmonds' concerns in this matter. Fourth, Col. Worth's letter characterized Ms. Edmonds' concerns in the narrowest and most limited way which demonstrates that both the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not appreciate the gravity and seriousness of Ms. Edmonds' allegations in this matter.

There is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG has investigated the Dickersons' relationships with other organizations and individuals which would be necessary in order to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of this matter. In addition, neither Ms. Edmonds nor her counsel was requested by AFOSI or the Air Force IG to provide additional information. Without obtaining additional information from Ms. Edmonds it would be impossible for the AFOSI or the Air Force IG to obtain the detailed information regarding the identities of the organization(s)/individual(s) and the scope of their relationships to the Dickersons. In addition, there are a number of other allegations of wrongdoing that have been made (a number of which have already been substantiated) against Mrs. Dickerson, which would constitute additional violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. Once again, there is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG is even aware of these matters involving Mrs. Dickerson which impact her husband's clearance, let alone that a complete and thorough review of such allegations has taken place.

We are hereby providing you with additional information so that you may commence an investigation immediately. These allegations involve extremely serious matters, including but not limited to several leaks of sensitive information by Mrs. Dickerson to a foreign country and direct threats that were made by Mrs. Dickerson against Ms. Edmonds and her family. These allegations are also considered serious by the Senate Judiciary Committee. See, Letter from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy and Sen. Charles E. Grassley to Hon. John Ashcroft (August 13, 2002), attached hereto.2/ We also incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the attached August 13th letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to Attorney General Ashcroft.

Mrs. Dickerson was a contract monitor at the FBI Washington Field Office translations department and was granted a security clearance by the FBI to work as contract monitor to perform translation services for the FBI commencing in October or November, 2001. However, Mrs. Dickerson had past and ongoing associations with one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an ongoing FBI investigation and failed to disclose those associations to the FBI. In June, 2002, the FBI confirmed in an unclassified briefing to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that Mrs. Dickerson did, in fact, have undisclosed contacts with a foreign official who was the subject or target of an FBI investigation.3/

Ms. Edmonds believes there is credible evidence that both Mrs. Dickerson and her husband, Major Dickerson, had ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with one or more foreign officials. Such improper contacts are not limited to whatever contacts the Dickersons may have with the American-Turkish Council. Notably, the public record already reflects that the Dickersons maintained frequent associations with foreign nationals (aside from whatever relationship with the American-Turkish Council they may have). We believe that those associations and the frequency of such associations were not reported by the Dickersons as required by FBI/DOJ and DOD requirements, and that these associations are such that the Dickersons would be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from a foreign government.

Moreover, the Dickersons made statements to Ms. Edmonds and others that reflect that the Dickersons have a substantial financial interest in a foreign country that makes both of them vulnerable to foreign influence.

In addition, Mrs. Dickerson was assigned to translate information obtained from FBI wire-taps concerning one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an investigation, but she had past and ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with the subject(s) or target(s). Mrs. Dickerson is suspected of leaking information to one or more targets of an FBI investigation to which she was assigned to perform translation services.

Mrs. Dickerson also improperly instructed Ms. Edmonds and another employee at the FBI not to listen and translate certain FBI wire-taps because Mrs. Dickerson claimed that she knew the subject(s) and was confident that there would be nothing important to translate concerning those subject(s) or their conversations.

When Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. Dickerson's instruction and, after Ms. Edmonds reported Mrs. Dickerson's conduct to FBI management, Mrs. Dickerson threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, a foreign country. Ms. Edmonds alleges that Mrs. Dickerson made such threats because Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. Dickerson's scheme to obstruct justice and because Ms. Edmonds reported her concerns about Mrs. Dickerson's wrongdoing to FBI management.

As a result of misconduct by Mrs. Dickerson, numerous translations were not properly conducted, and/or intentionally not conducted, which threatened intelligence and law enforcement investigations related to September 11th and other ongoing counter-terrorist, counter-intelligence and law enforcement investigations. As a result of Mrs. Dickerson's misconduct, extremely sensitive and material information was deliberately withheld from FBI translations.

In addition, FBI work order documents concerning translations related to September 11th investigations were falsified and contained forgeries of Ms. Edmonds' name and/or initials.

By letter dated May 8, 2002, Ms. Edmonds, through counsel, notified Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a direct result of the FBI's failure to address or correct the serious misconduct and security breaches that were reported by Ms. Edmonds, the safety and security of Ms. Edmonds and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Ms. Edmonds' sister to be interrogated "and taken/arrested by force." Ms. Edmonds' counsel's letter of May 8, 2002 to the Attorney General and FBI Director also provided them with a copy of the arrest warrant served by the foreign country at the residence of Ms. Edmonds' sister in the foreign country together with a copy of the English translation of the arrest warrant.4/

We believe that the warrant that was issued to Ms. Edmonds' sister in the foreign country is the direct result of improper contacts between the Dickersons and a foreign country, and was a result of the threats that were made by Mrs. Dickerson when she threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, that same foreign country. In addition, we believe that the threats made by Mrs. Dickerson, and the issuance of the arrest warrant, were the result of improper and undisclosed contacts by Mrs. Dickerson and Major Dickerson with a foreign official. Such acts taken by Mrs. Dickerson (and other statements made and conduct by both Dickersons) would indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States which would also make Major Dickerson prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States, and such acts reflect a level of personal conduct and outside activities that raise a security concern that may be disqualifying. Our concern in this regard is heightened by the fact that it is alleged that Mrs. Dickerson has maintained dual citizenship with a foreign country and has continued to possess a foreign passport from that same country as well as by the statements to others by both Major and Mrs. Dickerson that they have financial or business interests in that foreign country.

It is inconceivable how the Department of Defense could tolerate permitting one of its military officers to have access to classified information under such circumstances, especially when that officer's spouse is alleged to have: (1) threatened another person employed as a translator for the FBI on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence cases; (2) committed other misconduct and serious security violations while employed by the FBI (such as having unreported contacts with one or more foreign officials while performing translation services for the FBI regarding conversations involving the same foreign officials); and (3) to make matters worse, carried out those threats by leaking information about the FBI translator to a foreign country (or agents thereof) so retaliation could be carried out against members of the FBI translator's family who resided in that foreign country. Moreover, as outlined above, there is more than sufficient information to require a security investigation of Major Dickerson based on foreign influence, foreign preference, personal conduct, security violations, and outside activities. See, e.g., Adjudicative Desk Reference (ADR), Adjudicative Guidelines, Version 2.2, pp. 3-13 (July, 2001) (Guidelines B, C, E, K, and L).5/

Additionally, we do not believe that Major Dickerson could be considered an "innocent spouse" and there is ample evidence that he was involved in (and/or had knowledge of and failed to report) many of the activities of his wife that comprise her acts of misconduct. Moreover, in light of the serious allegations raised against Mrs. Dickerson, and the alleged involvement of Major Dickerson in his wife's nefarious activities with, or on behalf of, foreign interests, Major Dickerson is vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from foreign interests.

We do not believe that these matters could have been thoroughly or completely reviewed in the short time that AFOSI and the Air Force IG devoted to reviewing Ms. Edmonds' letter of August 7th. After reviewing this matter further we believe that you will agree that Ms. Edmonds' allegations of Personnel Security violations are very serious and that they warrant further investigation by your office. For all of the above reasons we hereby request that you re-open this matter and that the DOD OIG thoroughly investigate these matters.

Please direct all correspondence or communications about these matters to this office. If you, or anyone at the Department of Defense or Inspector General's offices, has any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


David K. Colapinto
Attorney for Ms. Edmonds

Enclosure

cc: Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Senator Charles E. Grassley
Senator John Warner

The Rest Of The Story

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Perhaps this letter will help to shed light on what the allegations are about.

Thanks for the information, although a link would have been sufficient.

Quite a lot going in that complaint, as well as other material I have read from Ms. Edmonds.

My point, which remains unchallenged and unchanged, is that we are not being given all sides of the story. We know only that they differ dramatically.

Fans of Paul Harvey are well aware of the importance of knowing “the rest of the story”, and I would hope ATSers know, too. Conclusions drawn from incomplete details are rarely correct.

We can assume that Ms. Edmonds is telling the truth, but that would be an assumption, which is a weak foundation for anything.

The main problem I have with this case is that it doesn't make sense to me. I'm trying to see how Ms. Edmonds' accounts can be reconciled with the motives alleged, but the dots aren't connecting.

I'll leave the burden of convincing me in her hands.

The trouble I have with all this is that Ashcroft gag ordered the entire case which is really pushing the limits
of the separation of powers.

Ms. Edmonds seems quite sincere in her effort and this is just one more case of the administration stonewalling any serious investigations that might reveal important details that they obviously
do not want to be disclosed regarding 911.

I hope The ACLU is successful with their appeal in this matter.

Appeal For Reason

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I hope The ACLU is successful with their appeal in this matter.

If the appeal has merit, I hope so, too.

I'm far more interested in seeing how this fares in the courts of law than in the court of public opinion.