1
   

IMPORTANT! Former FBI translator reveals 9/11 facts

 
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 01:12 pm
"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001"
A former FBI translator told the 9/11 commission that the bureau had detailed information well before Sept. 11, 2001, that terrorists were likely to attack the U.S. with airplanes.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Eric Boehlert, a senior writer at Salon.
March 26, 2004

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.

Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, is a 10-year U.S. citizen who has passed a polygraph examination conducted by FBI investigators. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish and worked part-time for the FBI, making $32 an hour for six months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001. She was assigned to the FBI's investigation into Sept. 11 attacks and other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, where she translated reams of documents seized by agents who, for the previous year, had been rounding up suspected terrorists.

She says those tapes, often connected to terrorism, money laundering or other criminal activity, provide evidence that should have made apparent that an al- Qaida plot was in the works. Edmonds cannot talk in detail about the tapes publicly because she's been under a Justice Department gag order since 2002.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But 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're facing."

Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

Edmonds first made headlines in 2002 when she blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department, which was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as investigators clamored for original terrorist-related information, often in Arabic. Edmonds made several reports of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the FBI translations unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9/11 period to ensure the agency would get more funds for its next annual budget. As a result of her reports, Edmonds says she was harassed at the FBI. She was fired in March 2002.

Litigation followed, and in October 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the Edmonds case, taking the extraordinary step of invoking the rarely used state secrets privilege in order "to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." Ashcroft's move was made at the request of Mueller.

During a 2002 segment on "60 Minutes" exploring Edmonds' initial charges of FBI internal abuses, Sen. Grassley was asked if Edmonds is credible. "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 said.

The Inspector General's office then launched an investigation into Edmonds' charges and told her to expect a finding in the fall of 2002. The report has yet to be released. Edmonds suspects if it is ever publicly released Ashcroft will demand that it be immediately classified. "They're pushing everything under the blanket of secrecy," she says.

That's why she felt it was so important to appear before the 9/11 commission: "It's the only hope I have left to get this issue added to the public domain."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 652 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 01:26 pm
She will easily be dismissed simply because of where she originally came from. I wouldn't be surprised if she is charged with being in cahoots with terrorism or something.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 02:43 pm
BBB
It will be interesting to see if the 9/11 commission asks George Tenet the questions the former agent hopes for.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 04:50 pm
A blast of the truth.
...some Republicans say that a Bush loss may be their last chance to take their party back.
Quote:


Last chance indeed. If you go by the Medicorp Bill vote that took place a little while ago, you come up with some very interesting percentages among the entire body of Congress. If I remember correctly, the breakdown of votes for and against this bill reveals much about ideology at work. The Medicorp Bill is government dependency carried out by corporations, which is far worse than just regular government dependency. It's monarchy, plain and simple. Peasant masses under the compassionate care of the corporations doing the government's bidding - OR - the government doing the biddings of the corporations. It hardly matters which way the power goes, the combination of it is as heinously federalistic and imperialistic an ideology as you are ever going to see. IT used to be called paternalism during the slave days, where the elite authority doles out what he sees fit while demanding as much as he wants...the proverbial sugar daddy who don't taste so sweet.

The vote went like this:

5 % republicans and 48 % democrats voted against the Medicorp Bill.
52 % of Congress, republicans and democrats together, voted FOR the Medicorp Bill.

Interesting voters too, since Kerry was for, and MacCain and Lott were against.

If we call these pro-Medicorp Bill democrats and republicans the federalists they really are, we have a 52 % majority of federalists running both houses of Congress.

Badaboom
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 06:53 pm
It's a Plutocracy..
Idea
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2004 07:06 pm
So, ignoring Umbagog's usual insane banter about something completely different from the subject, I have tried to follow this story from its first airing on 60 Minutes, and from what I have heard from acquaintences in FBI and NRO (formerly the Defence Mapping Agency), she is telling the truth. It is apparently possible to egt a "translator's" spot with a year of college Arabic and politically connected family and friends. I doubt anything will change.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:13 am
hobitbob

I think umbagog (people have unusual names here) just posted his message in the wrong thread by accident. I really don't see the need to be rude. In any case, what he said was informative.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 09:30 am
Umbagog
Umbagog appears to have a little problem getting his responses posted to the correct thread. I suggest Umbagog delete the text in his post and replace it will a statement showing which thread it has been reposted to. That will lead readers to the correct site and will remove his non-germane post.

How about it, Umgagog? Smile

BBB
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:22 am
That quoted material from Salon is crucially important. I do wonder why she chose Salon, and not say, the NYT or Washington Post. That knowledge, if true, has got to get out there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IMPORTANT! Former FBI translator reveals 9/11 facts
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 08:30:18