[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: Sibel Edmonds: Gagged But Not Dead

[Paul Etxeberri]

>
>Dear 9/11 truth activists and concerned citizens,
>
>We just received the following essay from Sibel Edmonds discussing the
>recent dismissal of her appeal. It is definitely worth reading and
>forwarding around to your lists. Despite all the setbacks, she
>courageously asserts that her fight is not yet over. Here is an quote from
>her essay (the full version is below).
>
>"Those of you who still think this case, my case, is about covering up
>some administrative blunder or bureaucratic mismanagement, please think
>again. . . . What were [my] core allegations, and who did they involve?
>Not only some low-level terrorist . . . they would not go to this length
>to protect some nobody criminal or terrorist." - Sibel Edmonds
>
>Thank you Sibel! May you inspire potential whistle-blowers everywhere.
>
>Towards peace and truth,
>
>Emanuel sferios
>Webmaster, SeptemberEleventh.org
>-----
>
>Gagged, But Not Dead
>By Sibel Edmonds
>
>http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/May14-05-Gagged%20but%20not%20Dead.htm
>
>The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case
>Dismissed;’ no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision,
>issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another
>major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an
>unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and
>classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be
>gagged, but she’s not dead.
>
>On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the
>Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by
>my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and
>employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely
>invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft,
>everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state
>secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United
>States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions,
>hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to
>grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based
>on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew
>best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
>
>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.
>
>On April 21, 2005, for the first time in these three gagged years, my
>attorneys and I finally had, or thought we had, our day in court for our
>hearing before Appellate Court Judges. Just hours before our hearing,
>these judges issued an unexpected ruling, barring all reporters and the
>public from the courtroom for the Edmonds’ Case hearing. Numerous media
>related entities tried to flex their lately weakened muscles and filed
>their motion to oppose this ruling. The judges denied their motion, and
>cited no reason; when asked for a reason they responded that they didn’t
>have to provide any reason. Everyone was kicked out of the courtroom;
>except for me, my attorneys, and the large troop of attorneys from the
>Department of Justice. All the doors to the courtroom were locked and
>guards were placed in front of each door to watch out for eavesdroppers.
>Then came the next shock: after bypassing our brief, asking a couple of
>puzzling and irrelevant questions, and allowing my attorneys 10 minutes or
>so of response, the Appellate judges asked my attorneys and me (the
>plaintiff) to leave the courtroom, so that the government attorneys could
>secretly answer questions and make their argument. The guards escorted us,
>the plaintiff, out, locked the doors, and stood there in front of the
>courtroom and watched us for about fifteen minutes. So much for finally
>having my day in court; here I was, with my attorneys, standing outside
>the courtroom and being guarded, while in there, three judges were having
>a cozy mingling session with a large troop of government attorneys. Then,
>it was over; that was it; we were told to leave. In other words, my
>attorneys and I were barred from being present in our own court hearing,
>and my case remained covered up and gagged; but I continued on.
>
>On May 6, two weeks after the Kafkaesque court procedure, my attorneys and
>I were given the verdict: The lower court’s decision was upheld, meaning
>my entire case, whether or not we had an Inspector General’s Report that
>confirmed my allegations, whether or not we had several congressional
>letters confirming my case and my allegations, was prevented from
>proceeding in court due to some unspecified ‘State Secrets,’ and
>unexplained secrecy that applied to everything that had to do with me and
>my case; which were so secret that even the judges could not hear or see.
>In fact, the Appellate judges in my case did not cite any opinion or
>reason, because even the opinion itself would have been considered secret.
>Doesn’t this mean that the Appellate court and these three judges were in
>effect gagged? It appears so, but I will continue on.
>
>In the past three years, I have been threatened; I have been gagged
>several times; I have continuously been prevented from pursuing my due
>process; all reports and investigations looking into my case have been
>classified; and every governmental or investigative authority dealing with
>my case has been shut up. According to legal experts familiar with my
>case, the level of secrecy and classification in my court case and the
>attitudes and handling of the court system in dealing with my case is
>unprecedented in the entire U.S. court history. According to other experts
>I am one of the most, if not the most, gagged woman anybody knows of or
>has heard of. Why?
>
>Those of you who still think this case, my case, is about covering up some
>administrative blunder or bureaucratic mismanagement, please think again.
>
>Those of you who may think that my Kafkaesque case, the unprecedented
>secrecy, is due to some justified and official higher reasons, please
>think again.
>
>Those of you who may think that our government, our entrusted leaders, may
>have an ongoing investigation of criminals involved, please think again. 
>
>The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, in its
>‘unclassified report,’ has confirmed my core allegations. What were those
>core allegations, and who did they involve? Not only some low-level
>terrorist or terrorist organization; not only some ‘maybe’ critical
>foreign entities. No; trust me; they would not go to this length to
>protect some nobody criminal or terrorist.
>
>It is way past time for a little bit of critical thinking. The Attorney
>General cites two reasons to justify the unconstitutional and panic driven
>assault on me and my case. Reason one: To protect certain diplomatic
>relations - not named since obviously our officials are ashamed of
>admitting to these relations. Reason two: To protect certain U.S. foreign
>business relations. Let’s take each one and dissect it (I have given up on
>our mass media to do that for us!). For reason one, since when is the
>Department of Justice, the FBI, in the business of protecting ‘US
>sensitive diplomatic relations?’ They appear to be acting as a mouthpiece
>for the Department of State. Now, that’s one entity that has strong
>reasons to cover up, for its own self, what will end up being a blunder of
>mammoth scale. Not internationally; not really; it is the American people
>and their outrage they must be worried about; they wouldn’t want to have a
>few of their widely recognized officials being held criminally liable;
>would they?
>
>As for reason two, I can assure you that the U.S. foreign business
>relations they may be referring to are not among those that benefit the
>majority of the American people; a handful of MIC entities and their
>lobbying arms can by no means be considered that, can they? In fact, the
>American people, their national safety and security, and their best
>interests are being sacrificed for a handful of those with their foreign
>business interest. Also, since when are nuclear black market related
>underground activities considered official U.S. foreign business; one may
>wonder? If you want to have the answers to these questions, please
>approach your Congress and ask your representatives for hearings - not
>behind closed doors quasi hearings - but open, public hearings where these
>questions can be asked and answered.
>
>And lastly, for those of you who may think that since I have been gagged
>and stopped by almost all available official channels, I must be ready to
>vaporize into thin air, please think again. I am gagged, but not dead; not
>yet.
>__________________________________


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand