Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ACLU: Supremes must review Edmonds whistleblower case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 10:46 AM
Original message
ACLU: Supremes must review Edmonds whistleblower case
Raw Story just has published a story that indicates that the ACLU is coming publicly stating that the Supreme Court must hear Sibel Edmonds' case, which she filed paperwork for yesterday.

It notes that the "states secret" act was based on a case 50 years ago, that now subsequently looking at what was being protected, was in fact not a "states secret", but faulty maintenance of the B-29 bomber fleet that was of question, which calls into question on how valid this act is, and how it has been abused a lot by the government lately to shield themselves from scrutiny.

At:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_Supremes_must_review_Edmonds_whistleblower_0804.html

---------------------------------

ACLU: Supremes must review Edmonds whistleblower case

This morning, the American Civil Liberties Union responded to a piece in Vanity Fair on FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. Their reponse, issued to RAW STORY, follows.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 4, 2005

Contact: Paul Silva, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court's dismissal of the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets" privilege.

The Court created the so-called state secrets privilege more than 50 years ago but has not considered it since. The need for clarification of the doctrine is acute, the ACLU said, because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court.

"Edmonds' case is not an isolated incident," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety."

The states secrets privilege, Beeson said, "should be used a shield for sensitive evidence, not a sword the government can use at will to cut off argument in a case before the evidence can be presented. We are urging the Supreme Court, which has not directly addressed this issue in 50 years, to rein in the government's misuse of this privilege."

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. w/ 'the court we got
not the one we want', it will be another 80 years B4 anything is done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. The argument that they present....
is a pretty damn good one. I would imagine that the SC would have to take the case. That doesn't mean we will get a favorable ruling but it appears to me that they will have to look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. The release is on ACLU's web site now too...
Edited on Thu Aug-04-05 11:29 AM by calipendence
Here's a link to the same story above:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18880&c=206

On this page are links to a video of a speech she gave in April 2005,

A copy of Sibel Edmonds ACLU certified petition to the Supreme Court is here:

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18870&c=24

The appendix for this petition is listed here:

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18872&c=24

Haven't had time to read these lengthy documents, and probably won't with other stuff I've got to do, in addition to my regular job. If someone does have time, please feel free to note a summary here of important stuff in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes and a photo and video links too
Here you go.



Sibel Edmonds, a national security whistleblower, addressed the press in April 2005.

Please go to the link and click on the picture. It brings up a Java window with more video clips, but I have yet to figure out how to copy Java links: <http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18880&c=206>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Maybe, this weekend,...
,...I'll have time to take a gander. I've been really busy, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. Here's the full ACLU Press Release
(I don't think Press Releases fall under the 4 paragraph rule as long as you make sure that all the links work, in fact, organizations that issue Press Releases hope that News outlets will print the entire release, but most don't due to limited space. Sometimes, places like DU have become the only other place to read the full release on the internet.)

ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Review FBI Whistleblower Case



August 4, 2005

Vanity Fair Profile Reveals New Facts About FBI's Termination of Former Translator Sibel Edmonds

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court's dismissal of the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets" privilege.

The Court created the so-called state secrets privilege more than 50 years ago but has not considered it since. The need for clarification of the doctrine is acute, the ACLU said, because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court.

"Edmonds' case is not an isolated incident," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety."

The states secrets privilege, Beeson said, "should be used a shield for sensitive evidence, not a sword the government can use at will to cut off argument in a case before the evidence can be presented. We are urging the Supreme Court, which has not directly addressed this issue in 50 years, to rein in the government's misuse of this privilege."

The ACLU is also asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. appeals court's decision to exclude the press and public from the court hearing of Edmonds' case in April. The appeals court closed the hearing at the eleventh hour without any specific findings that secrecy was necessary. In fact, the government had agreed to argue the case in public. A media consortium that included The New York Times , The Washington Post , and CNN intervened in the case to object to the closure.

Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year challenging the retaliatory dismissal.

Her ordeal is highlighted in a 10-page article about whistleblowers in the September 2005 issue of Vanity Fair which links Edmonds' allegations and the subsequent retaliation to possible "illicit activity involving Turkish nationals" and a high-level member of Congress. The ACLU said the article, titled "An Inconvenient Patriot," further undercuts the government's claim that the case can't be litigated because certain information is secret.

In addition, a report by the Inspector General, made public in January 2005, contains a tremendous amount of detail about Edmonds' job, the structure of the FBI translation unit , and the substance of her allegations. The report concluded that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her.

The outcome in Edmonds' case could significantly impact the government's ability to rely on secrecy to avoid accountability in future cases, the ACLU said, including one pending case charging the government with "rendering" detainees to be tortured.

In the 1948 Supreme Court case that was the basis for today's state secrets privilege doctrine, Reynolds v. United States , the government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security. Nearly 50 years later, in 2004, the truth came out: the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet.

Fourteen 9/11 family member advocacy groups and public interest organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Edmonds ' case before the District Court, and many are expected to join an amicus brief next month supporting Supreme Court review of the case, including the National Security Archive.

Edmonds is represented by Beeson, Melissa Goodman, and Ben Wizner of the national ACLU; Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area; and Mark Zaid, of Krieger and Zaid, PLLC.

The ACLU's Supreme Court cert petition is online at: <http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18870&c=24>

The appendix for the Supreme Court cert petition is online at: <http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18872&c=24>

Further information on the case, including other legal documents and a backgrounder on the state secrets privilege, is online at : .

<http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18880&c=206>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. Excellent!!! Why would Ashcroft end an investigation into such serious,..
,...assertions of national security breaches and espionage by invoking that privilege? That fact is in and of itself incredibly suspicious. One would think that a USAG would be completely committed to getting the bottom of such things rather than determined to end any inquiry.

I hope the SCOTUS rules consistent with Beeson's assertion that the "state secrets" privilege MUST be utilized to shield sensitive evidence rather than a road block to cases involving breach of our national security and espionage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. here here n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Also demands an answer about who Ashcroft was protecting,...
,...'cause it should wasn't us (the American people).

Seriously, this government is scaring the buggars out of me. Not a good thing a'tall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jarnocan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-05 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Why???? Hopefully more folks will start thinking about the answer...
http://www.justacitizen.com/ Everyone should bookmark and follow this. She also has great contact info and a petition -which I'm sure most of us have signed - NOW maybe more will!
nominated- geez seems like next week could be interesting.
So much is going on- of course I keep saying that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick kick KICK!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-05 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. Recommened And Kicked !!!
This needs to break WIDE OPEN!!!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-05 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
13. Kicked and nominated
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-05 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Kicked and nominated!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC