homehome > response > suppression > sibel edmonds

Firing and gagging of Sibel Edmonds


Sibel Edmonds

Sibel Edmonds

Sibel Edmonds was hired by the FBI as a translator right after September 11. In this capacity she listened to hundreds of wiretaps full of exciting dirty business, implicating high-level US officials in the State Department, the Pentagon, and Congress in things like selling nuclear secrets, laundering drug money, illegal arms transfers, all with connections to terrorists, and also including foreknowledge and cover-up of 9/11. Oh, and traitorous spies on the translation team, undermining investigations. She can name names, cite dates and FBI file numbers, and get very specific in her allegations.

Edmonds reported all this to her superiors. Their reaction? First they told her to shut up. Then they showed up at her house and confiscated her personal computer. Then they made her submit to polygraph tests, where they mainly asked her whether she had contacted anyone in Congress about the matter. They did nothing about her complaints, and when she wrote to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to complain, because she felt it was a very serious matter of national security, the FBI fired her.

She ended up testifying behind closed doors for Congress, but when she was called to testify at a trial where the government was being sued, all her previous testimony, although it was already public, was declared confidential. John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used state secrets privilege, which not only prevents her from discussing details of what she knows, it prevents any mention of the general subject of what it's about, and even extends to her revealing personal information about herself including her own birthday.

It's right out of a ridiculous cheap knock-off wannabe Orwell story but it's all true. Here's a handy bullet list of the major 9/11-related items of Sibel's gagged testimony, courtesy of The Brad Blog:

  • Information omitted and covered-up regarding documented and confirmed case of a long-term FBI Informant & Asset who provided the FBI with specific information and warnings in April & June 2001 regarding 9/11 terrorist attacks.

  • Information omitted & covered up regarding documented information in the possession of the FBI in July 2001 regarding blue prints and building composite information of Sky Scrapers being sent to certain groups in the Middle East by certain Middle-Eastern suspects in the State of Nevada.

  • Information omitted & covered up regarding arrangements made between the State Department and certain countries to deport certain Middle-Eastern and Central Asian detainees from jails in New Jersey & New York off the record and without having them interrogated in November 2001. (Documents related to these suspects were forged at the FBI).

  • Information omitted & covered up regarding nuclear related information illegally obtained by certain foreign entities and US persons (government officials) from several US labs being sold to a certain Middle-Eastern group in the United States in 1998-2000. The operation involved individuals with Diplomatic cover, foreign Ph.D. students, and US employees.

  • Information omitted & covered up regarding money laundering & narcotics operations, some of which involved entities from the Middle East and the Balkans, in several US cities.

  • Information omitted & covered up regarding certain Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI)-related activities linked to the 9/11 attacks between August & October 2001.

  • Certain terrorist related Counterintelligence/FISA information & investigations were prevented from being transferred to counterterrorism & criminal division by the Department of State and the Pentagon; "preserving sensitive diplomatic relations" and "protecting certain US foreign business relations (mainly involving weapons procurement)" were cited as reasons.

  • Intentional mistranslation & blocking of foreign language intelligence of FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations.

Source: Griffin, p. 83-84, Marrs, p 96, and various Internet sources, especially a Vanity Fair article and a piece in American Conservative by former CIA agent Philip Girardi. The Brad Blog has loads of stuff. "There's also Ms. Edmond's own site: www.justacitizen.com.


I highly recommend googling Sibel Edmonds and finding some video of her speaking. She's a very effective speaker and it is hard to imagine a more important story. There was a good article in The Sunday Times of London that spelled out a lot of her allegations in stunning detail -- and it was completely ignored by the US media!

This is about as extremely suspicious as a story can possibly be. Her story tells of 9/11 foreknowledge, but not super-specific foreknowledge. Not "it's going to be the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11" but generally attacks with planes on US cities in that general timeframe sort of thing. By itself, only somewhat suspicious because of the plausible claim that maybe it got "lost in the noise" of millions of alarming intelligence reports and/or they just didn't have enough to go on.

She also tells of people being interrogated and then suddenly let go on orders from above because of fears they'd tell what they knew and it would be disastrous. Now we're getting rather fishy, but again, we don't know what these people knew, whether there might have been a legitimate national security stake in their release, and so forth.

But her story then also appears to involve a scheme of financing Al Qaeda through drug money with the participation of very high level US officials who are also involved in selling arms and secrets -- NUCLEAR secrets. If it was all nonsense, why the gag order? Why the state secrets privilege? Why not just demonstrate that her information is out of context and wrongly interpreted, or something along those lines? No, at this point, in my book, Sibel Edmonds' story is extremely significant and indicates extremely suspicous behaviors of the most extremely suspicious sort. A few subpoenas here and there and the entire official 9/11 story could start to unravel very seriously.

Bottom line, me, I give it:

extremely suspiciousextremely suspiciousextremely suspiciousextremely suspicious


There are currently no comments on this particular bit of evidence.

You must log in if you wish to add a comment. Register here if you need login information.