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

Court turns down case of sibel edmonds { November 28 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28cnd-scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28cnd-scotus.html November 28, 2005 Court Turns Down Case of F.B.I. Translator By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The Supreme Court declined today to consider the case of a former F.B.I. translator who contends she was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude in the handling of intelligence related to terrorism. The justices refused without comment to take the case of Sibel Edmonds, who was a contract linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for about six months, translating material in Turkish, Persian and Azerbaijani, before she was dismissed on April 2, 2002. Ms. Edmonds had complained repeatedly that bureau linguists produced slipshod and incomplete translations of important intelligence before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. She also accused a Turkish linguist in the bureau's Washington field office of blocking the translation of material involving acquaintances who had come under F.B.I. suspicion. She said, too, that the bureau had allowed diplomatic sensitivities to impede the translation of some intelligence. The F.B.I. said Ms. Edmonds's allegations were incorrect and that she was disruptive. Ms. Edmonds's accusations had caused great discomfort within the bureau. Justice Department officials had complained that allowing the suit to proceed could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked a rarely used power and declared that the case fell under the "state secret" privilege. Mr. Ashcroft's declaration persuaded a federal district judge to dismiss Ms. Edmonds's suit in July 2004. The dismissal was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last May, and today's rejection by the Supreme Court is apparently the last legal word in the matter. But while it lasted, the episode was highly embarrassing to the bureau. A classified investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general's office concluded in 2004 that Ms. Edmonds's assertions "were at least a contributing factor" in her dismissal. In addition to raising questions about the F.B.I.'s treatment of whistle-blowers, the Edmonds episode focused yet more attention on the bureau's handling of terrorism-related intelligence. The bureau had already been under fire for its handling of intelligence before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. Copyright 2005 The New York Times 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.