Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (72655)	2/23/2005 9:25:00 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 89467

FBI abandons whistleblower secrets claim By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Washington, DC, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- The Department of Justice has abandoned its claim that allegations made by a fired FBI translator are secret, paving the way for a court case that will air embarrassing allegations about incompetence, poor security and possible espionage in the translation unit of the Bureau's Washington Field Office. At issue are the claims of Sibel Edmonds, a contract translator for the FBI hired in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Edmonds reported that many of those hired to work in the unit could barely speak English; that they left secure laptop computers lying around while they went to lunch; that they took classified material home with them; and -- even more disturbing -- that one co-worker had undeclared contacts with a foreign organization that was under FBI surveillance. She said bureau operations -- including counter-terror ones -- were compromised as a result. Edmonds is suing the FBI, claiming she was fired for bringing to light these problems -- which have been identified by several inquiries as significant contributing factors to the success of the Sept. 11 plot. The Bureau has repeatedly tried to have the case thrown out, claiming that it cannot be heard without jeopardizing national security. In two unclassified briefings for congressional staff in June and July 2002 senior FBI officials acknowledged the truth of a number of Edmonds' allegations, including those against a co-worker, Melek Can Dickerson, who had worked for an organization that was the target of surveillance in a counter-intelligence probe until she joined the bureau in October 2001 -- and did not disclose the work on her application. According to congressional staffers, bureau officials also said that Dickerson had a continuing relationship with at least two individuals who were surveillance targets in the probe. They acknowledged that Dickerson had either mistranslated or incorrectly marked "not pertinent" hundreds of telephone conversations recorded as part of the investigation and had tried to ensure that she was given responsibility for translating all the "take" from surveillance of that group of targets. They said the FBI saw these as training issues. Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote letters laying out Edmonds' allegations to the Department of Justice inspector general. The letters were released to the press and put on the senators' Web sites. Then in April 2004, in response to a court request to produce the documents on which those briefings were based, the FBI said it now regarded much of the material discussed there as classified, and asserted the rarely used "state secrets privilege" to claim that Edmonds' case could not be heard. "The timing of this strongly suggests that it was a litigation strategy," said Michael Kirkpatrick, an attorney with the watchdog group Public Citizen, which sued the FBI to obtain the release of the documents. "There was never any indication that this information was secret until the court ordered it handed over. This was done to gain a litigation advantage (for the department) and to shield them from embarrassment and congressional scrutiny." Last week the Bureau withdrew its claim about the congressional briefings. "We have stated that the information in those (letters from Sens. Leahy and Grassley) is ... not classified," Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller told United Press International Tuesday evening. He declined to say what effect this might have on the department's assertion of the "state secrets privilege" but added that the department's lawyers would be filing papers in the case on Thursday that might make its position clearer. But the ACLU, which has since joined Edmonds' case, said that the collapse of the claim that the briefings were secret was a huge blow to the Justice Department's efforts to keep the case out of court. "I do not see how they can continue to claim with a straight face that this case cannot go forward now that so much information about her allegations is in the public domain," ACLU attorney Ann Beeson told UPI. Kirkpatrick said it would have been hard to maintain that Edmonds' allegations were secret, in part because of the release last month of an executive summary of a report by the department's inspector general. The inspector general found that the FBI had failed to "adequately investigate" Edmonds' allegations, many of which "had bases in fact." Most seriously, the report found, the bureau conducted only a "superficial" investigation of Edwards' most disturbing allegations -- those against Dickerson. Beeson said that the report -- which found that retaliation was "in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate (Edmonds') services" -- "basically proves her case." "They will immediately have to concede some of the central issues," she said of the Justice Department lawyers. -- washtimes.com

To: Suma who wrote (72655)	2/23/2005 10:12:07 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Ahh, gotta love the irony - a leftist preacher invoking God to attack the right for, allegedly, invoking God. Suma, this guy blatantly misrepresents the views of "the right" in an attempt to paint those who don't share his views on the issues as, somehow, Godless (or perhaps blasphemous?). Jerry Falwell doesn't speak for the Republican Party or for the president, in spite of Wallis's implied assertions. Furthermore, mainstream republican ideas of social justice do not "favor the rich over the poor", but rather equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, and in no way disregard the welfare of the less fortunate, as he would have you believe. Lastly, that Bush's foreign policy "sees war as a first resort and not a last resort", however popular a belief among the left, is nothing more than an unsupported assertion made to demonize. A "beautiful message"? Hardly. More like the ultimate "appeal to authority" argument, combined with a few inductive fallacies, appeals to popularity and a whole lot of prejudicial language. If he wants to disagree with the president or the GOP on issues of social justice or foreign policy, that's fine, but he's not doing that. He's misrepresenting his opponents' positions in order to demonize "the right" and win support for his own - proclaiming, ironically, that God is on HIS side.