NewsMine — 9-11 — forewarned — translator-sibel-edmonds — Viewing Item

Court doesnt explain closing case of fbi translator { April 21 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6220-2005Apr20.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6220-2005Apr20.html Whistle-Blower Argument Closed Court Gives No Reason for Move in Case of Fired FBI Translator By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A06 A federal court in Washington yesterday took the rare step of closing an entire oral argument to the public in the case of a former FBI translator who says she was fired for complaining about security breaches. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced that today's 30-minute argument in the case of Sibel Edmonds, a Middle Eastern language specialist fired in 2002, will be conducted behind closed doors. The court gave no reason for its decision. Arthur Spitzer, an attorney at the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Edmonds, said that he will file an emergency motion urging withdrawal of the three-judge panel's order, which he said is unconstitutional. Spitzer said the order is puzzling because it seems to permit participation by attorneys on Edmonds's legal team who do not have security clearances. At times, courts of appeals have ordered parts of arguments closed when they must address classified material, Spitzer said. Marilyn R. Sargent, chief deputy clerk of the D.C. Circuit, said that closures of entire oral arguments, while rare, "have occurred before." The Washington Post and 12 other media organizations also filed an emergency motion urging the court to open the arguments. The Justice Department declined to comment. It has urged dismissal of Edmonds's case and contends that the litigation could lead to disclosure of classified information. But the court decided to close today's hearing without a request from the government. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed Edmonds's suit in July, based in part on sealed affidavits from Justice Department officials. The appellate panel, made up of Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg and Judges David B. Sentelle and Karen LeCraft Henderson, may wish to discuss that material. Edmonds, who was not a full-time civil servant, has sued the government for violating her rights under the First Amendment and for violating her privacy rights by allegedly leaking information from her personnel file. Earlier this year, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI was lax in investigating Edmonds's allegations and that the bureau fired her as a contract employee in part because of her complaints. But Fine neither affirmed nor rejected the allegations of security breaches. © 2005 The Washington Post Company

Another FBI employee blows whistle on agency { August 2 2004 } Appeals court backs dismissal of fbi suit { May 7 2005 } Court doesnt explain closing case of fbi translator { April 21 2005 } Court turns down case of sibel edmonds { November 28 2005 } Fbi translator sues justice department Gag order on 911 fbi translator whistleblower { June 14 2004 } Panel to probe fbi informants tip { April 6 2004 } Senator Grassley says sibel edmonds is credible Supreme court rejects fbi whistleblower linguist appeal { November 28 2005 } Translator found pre911 warning docs { July 7 2004 } Translator in eye of storm on retroactive classification { July 5 2004 } Us knew alqaida would attack cities with aeroplanes Us knew of sept 11 plans leaked Whistle blower says us knew of alqaeda attack { September 11 2001 } Whistle blowing factor in firing fbi translator edmonds { July 29 2004 } Files Listed: 15

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.