UQ Wire: Sibel Edmonds Denied Again, Plans Appeal
State Secrets Privilege Upheld In Whistleblower Case
Former government translator Sibel Edmonds cannot proceed with her whistleblower retaliation lawsuit because prosecuting it would reveal state secrets, a federal appellate court ruled last week.
© 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - News Media Update
Sibel Edmonds speaks at a press conference immediately after an appeals court conducted part of her appellate hearing in secret last month. News Media Update photo
May 9, 2005 · The need to protect state secrets justifies the refusal to hear a lawsuit brought by former government translator Sibel Edmonds who claims that she was dismissed in retaliation for criticizing her employer, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled Friday.
Edmonds filed the lawsuit after the FBI fired her in March 2002. She said the agency dismissed her for revealing sloppy work by fellow translators and lapses in security measures in its hiring. The Justice Department's inspector general later affirmed the substance of her complaints about the agency's work and that the FBI had retaliated against her.
Despite the apparent weight of evidence in her favor, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed Edmonds' case in July 2003 after the government invoked the so-called state secrets privilege. The case's continued prosecution would jeopardize national security, the government argued.
Walton considered some of the information at issue privately in his chambers, but refused to offer much explanation. "This Court is unable publicly to explain its conclusion in any more detail. It is one of the unfortunate features of this area of the law that open discussion of how the general principles apply to particular facts is impossible."
In affirming Walton's dismissal of the suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., issued a one-page order that also did not explain its ruling.
Edmonds's appeal has been marked by secrecy. Last month, the court closed oral arguments in the case to the public. A coalition of media organizations, including The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, filed a motion asking that the hearing be opened, but that petition was also denied with no explanation.
Edmonds said in an American Civil Liberties Union press release that "first the government claims that everything about me is a state secret, then the court hearing is closed to the public, and now the court issues a decision without any public explanation. The government is going to great lengths to cover up its mistakes. If the courts aren't going to protect us, then Congress must act."
During a rally last week, more than 40 whistleblowers urged Congress to beef up whistleblowing protections and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said that he would introduce such legislation.
(Edmonds v. FBI; Whistleblower Counsel: Ann Beeson, ACLU; Washington, D.C.) -- RL
Ex-FBI translator plans appeal to
By Chris Strohm - www.govexec.com
See full Story:
An FBI contract employee who was fired after alleging national security breaches within the bureau's translation service plans to appeal to the Supreme Court to lift a gag order that she has been under for almost three years.
Sibel Edmonds lost her latest court battle on Friday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court's ruling that dismissed her lawsuit against the Justice Department. Edmonds alleges there were security breaches, mismanagement and possible espionage within the FBI's translation service in late 2001 and early 2002. She says the information she knows would lead to criminal prosecutions if aggressively pursued.
"We are going to the Supreme Court, that's for sure," Edmonds said Monday.
Edmonds, who worked under contract in the FBI's Washington field office, sued the Justice Department after being fired in 2002. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed her lawsuit last summer after former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to withhold information to safeguard national security.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.