Authors: Sibel Edmonds
Classified Woman (19 page)
D
uring the six-month period from October 2003 to April 2004 my own case, the IG report and my primary court claim, took a backseat to the 9/11 Commission’s investigations and hearings and the whirlwind of a media campaign with 9/11 family members.
Release of the long-overdue IG report now seemed a far-fetched fantasy. Congress had stalled, and the report lacked oversight. No new date had been issued for its release, and we were given no status report.
In the meantime, I had found an attorney, Mark Zaid, who was on standby in case of any “unexpected developments” in my primary court claim. Until Walton ruled on the case—which he showed no signs of ever doing—there could be no appeal to the higher courts.
Then, during the first week in April, I received an e-mail from a well-known law firm, Motley-Rice, stating they were planning to subpoena my deposition. The firm represented over one thousand 9/11 victims’ family members in a class action lawsuit against individuals, powerful banks and charities behind the Al Qaeda terrorist financing network.
I forwarded the e-mail to my standby attorney and asked him to handle it. I made it clear that I would be more than willing to provide testimony and do anything I could to support the family members. According to my attorney, Motley-Rice had to submit a copy of the subpoena to the FBI and the Justice Department; he expected too that the government would try to interfere with my deposition in “some way.”
I thought it would be foolish for the government to interfere. Considering the family members’ visibility and the nation’s support of them, the media and public outrage would drown them! Again, I would be proved wrong.
Within days after the subpoena, attorneys from the FBI and Department of Justice filed an emergency request with the Walton Court to quash the deposition. Walton, true to form, immediately acted on the request and set up an emergency hearing for Monday, April 26, 2004. My attorney and the 9/11 family attorneys made sure to give the media a heads up.
In court, the government argued to quash my deposition based on the ultrasensitive nature of what I knew and the pending State Secrets Privilege invoked by the attorney general himself testifying to that. They brought up the fact that even my FOIA claim was ruled against by Judge Huvelle due to the top-secret and national security implications of what I knew and what my case involved.
Motley-Rice argued that they did not need to get into any secret or classified area for the purpose of this deposition, assuring the court that they would only ask for information that had already become public (such as letters by Senators Grassley and Leahy posted on Congress’s own website).
Judge Walton turned to the government attorneys and asked them what they thought of the opposing party’s point on “the Senate letters” being available and widely known public documents.
The government attorneys argued, paradoxically, that already being in public domain didn’t make this information and these documents any less sensitive or less classified—or less covered by state secrets. There it was. Kafka could have written the script.
Walton granted the government’s motion to quash the subpoena until June 14, to give him time to review both parties’ arguments. He also asked the family members’ attorneys to submit to him and to the government, in advance of the ruling on June 14, all the questions they planned to ask me during the deposition. Then, unexpectedly, he announced, “Since the pending Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege case has a direct bearing on this subpoena case, I will need this time to prepare for ruling on her case as well.”
So, the puppet judge would shoot for a two-for-one deal: he would rule on both cases at once, the 9/11 family members’ deposition and mine—and in less than two months.
The court session ended. The following day, the deposition case made it into papers all over the world, some of them front-page news. As expected, all the articles, radio shows, public forums and blogosphere were outraged by the government’s effort to interfere with the 9/11 family members’ lawsuit targeting the terrorists’ financial network and backing. The family members were fuming, and many issued statements slamming the government. This started another round of intense interviews in both print and radio on me and my case, which lasted two full, frenzied weeks.
Matthew and I decided to take a much-needed break, a weeklong vacation, the third week of May. My body had only just started to relax when the idyll was rudely interrupted with an e-mail marked
urgent
from my attorney.
Call me right away; an unbelievable new development: your case is going to be on the front page of the
New York Times
tomorrow morning.
What had happened now? Did it have to do with Walton? Was it about the Motley-Rice deposition? Had the government issued an arrest warrant for me, for talking to the media? I had to find out. I called.
“You won’t believe what these assholes did!” were the first words out of his mouth. “Nobody has ever seen anything like this! Holy shit, Sibel, now I’m afraid to even guess what it was you stumbled upon during your short tenure with the bureau! Oh,
man!”
“Stop the bullshit, you’re killing me. What happened?”
“The government issued a gag order to the entire Congress, girl—
that’s
what happened!”
“What?!”
“The Justice Department—Mr. Fascist Ashcroft—issued an order to
retroactively classify
anything that has been said, written, any letters or statements to the media and public, by any member of the House and the Senate!”
“What the hell,” I asked, “is retroactive classification?”
“When the government decides that something is classified, when that something has already become public,” he explained. “For over two years, the letters by Senators Grassley and Leahy have been on their websites; these senators have talked about your case on TV, have issued statements to the newspapers. Now, two years after thousands of people have downloaded these letters from the Senate website, two years after millions have watched your CBS segment—which has aired twice—two years after millions have read the
Post
article and others with quotes by these senators … the government is saying, ‘oops, we now consider all these letters and statements classified.’ That’s what.”
I thought,
How could this be? How could they even attempt gagging the United States Congress?
I didn’t think for even a second that Congress would let the executive branch get away with this. I assumed that Congress would fight back tooth and nail against this fascistic move; even schoolchildren knew about the separation of powers. Did the grown-ups?
“But they won’t get away with this, right? … The Congress wouldn’t allow them in a million years, right?”
“With this administration,” he groaned, “with everything they’ve been doing in the past three years, I don’t know what to expect, Sibel … will they fight this? I’m no longer so sure…. Senator Grassley has issued a strong statement that will appear in the
Times’
front-page article tomorrow. We’ll see what he’s got to say about this …”
I asked what I could or should do. He told me to expect a lot of requests for interviews.
“Go, sit down, and write your response, your formal statement. I’ll add to that my own and release it to the media tomorrow. Send me your draft by this evening.” He had to go, he said, to fend off reporters until he had something solid from me. There went my vacation.
I spent the entire day in front of the tiny screen of our notepad computer. I wanted to say so much, but I was dealing with court-ordered restrictions, privileges and classification. Thus bound and gagged, here was the best I could do.
Sibel Edmonds’ Statement Re: DOJ Gagging the United States Congress
05/21/2004
Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Department of Justice, and the FBI have been engaged in covering up my reports and investigations into my allegations for over two years now: They have blocked the release of all documents related to my case that were requested under FOIA for over two years. They have asserted the rarely invoked State Secrets Privilege in my court proceedings. They have blocked the release of the DOJ-IG report of its investigations into my reports and allegations. They have quashed a subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 911.
And now they are gagging the United States Congress.
They are not protecting the “national security” of the United States. On the contrary, they are endangering our national security by covering up facts and information related to criminal activities against this country and its citizens. To this date the American people have not heard the real facts of these criminal activities, nor of the involved semi-legit organizations, nor of the connected officials. The Department of Justice and this administration are fully aware that making this information public will bring about the question of accountability. And they do not want to be held accountable. It is for these reasons that I have been striving to get the Congress to hold its own public hearings regarding these issues. I no longer intend to go behind their secured-closed doors to testify. I intend to testify openly, publicly, and under oath.
I sent the statement to my attorney that night. The case did indeed make page one of the
New York Times
. Senator Grassley considered it “not a retroactive classification” but a “gag on Congress.” Another Senate aide is quoted as saying, “I have never heard of a retroactive classification two years back … People are puzzled and, frankly, worried, because the effect here is to quash Congressional oversight. We don’t even know what we can’t talk about.”
Instantly upon return, I started to organize an event around the June 14 hearing scheduled by Walton to rule on the subpoena. The least I could do was to not make it easy for the government. I was resolved to fight harder and scream louder; if the court wouldn’t do it, if Congress had abdicated its responsibility, I would take it on myself to wake up the public and get them involved in the fight against
our
rights. This time I would stand my ground and fight with all I had. I had seen this before. I know what can happen.
I set out to hold a press conference on the steps of the district courthouse. I had never before held a press conference and had no idea how to go about doing it. I called Dan Ellsberg in California and asked him whether he would join me, to which he replied, “most definitely.” With Ellsberg’s commitment to stand by my side before the courthouse on June 14, determined to make a statement even if no one showed up, I began to prepare.
The day before Walton’s hearing, I prepared the advisory and sent it to everyone I could. Then I met Ellsberg for lunch. (This was our first face-to-face meeting: we spent the entire day and into the night talking nonstop.) In the early afternoon, in the middle of our lunch, I saw that I had an urgent message from my attorney: just hours earlier, Walton decided to cancel the hearing.
I was overcome with rage. This was less than twenty hours’ notice—Walton’s fourth cancellation and fourth dirty trick. This had everything to do with my plans and preparations. It was well timed and well executed, and could only have been the result of knowing in advance what I was about to do. Of course they were reading my e-mails and listening to every phone conversation, so the idea here, clearly, was to teach me another lesson—this time in the art of humiliation. I would have to cancel my press conference on the steps of the court, notify everyone I had sent the advisory to, cause Ellsberg to waste a trip for nothing, humiliating and silencing him too (they knew he planned to make a statement as well); my hearing was canceled not only to ruin my plans but even more importantly, to circumvent media attention. This was red meat and they knew it. Walton’s intention was to shut me down.
“So,” my attorney asked, “I guess now you have to cancel your plans, right? You have to let everyone know that it’s been canceled, right, Sibel?”
I felt tears welling up. I took a deep breath and tried to think straight, to collect my thoughts before answering. “F—them, I’m going to do it anyway. I’ll have my press conference without the hearing. In fact, it will show the public how filthy this Walton and his corrupt court have been. I’m moving forward, hearing or no hearing. These bastards want to make their point and teach me; well, I think I’m going to turn the tables and teach them. I’ll use their ammunition against them. Just wait and see. Make sure you’re there at ten o’clock tomorrow.”
Zaid sounded shocked. “Don’t be ridiculous, Sibel. First of all, no one will show up from the press. I’m sure they’ll check the docket and realize that it’s been canceled. Second, you’ll be humiliated standing there alone, with no media attention or public support, all by yourself reading from your statement like a fool. Just be a good girl and cancel this nonsense.”
“NO,” I sharply corrected him, “I’m going forward as planned. I need you there, by my side, tomorrow. You have to give them the legal implications and points as an attorney, as an expert, as my advisor.”
“No way; there is no way I’m going to share this humiliation. I won’t be there. Bye.” He hung up.
I realized I had left Ellsberg alone at the table for nearly fifteen minutes. I returned and told him of the cancellation and my plans to move forward regardless.
His first word was “Bravo.” Ellsberg wholeheartedly agreed. “What’s the big deal if no one shows up, huh? What have you lost? It won’t be humiliating; it will show your determination. I’ll be there, right by your side. We’ll read our statements to each other if no one else ends up showing up, okay?”
If I had any doubts, they were washed away in that instant. I fell in love with him all over again; his courage and activism inspired me.
The next day we arrived at the courthouse thirty minutes ahead of time. To our surprise, one by one, reporters started to show up. Others came too to lend their support—for solidarity. We ended up with a nice-sized crowd. Ellsberg delivered a very effective speech, eloquent and well argued. I read the following brief statement.
“For over two years the attorney general, John Ashcroft, has been relentlessly engaged in actions geared toward covering up my reports and investigations into my allegations. His actions against my case include
gagging
the United States Congress,
blocking
court proceedings on my case by invoking State Secrets Privilege,
quashing
a subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 9/11,
withholding
documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and
preventing
the release of the Inspector General’s report of its investigations into my reports and allegations.
“John Ashcroft’s actions are anti–freedom of speech and anti–due process. His actions are anti-transparency and anti-accountability. In short, John Ashcroft’s actions are anti-Constitution and anti-democracy.
“To become an American Citizen, I took the citizenship oath. In taking this oath I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and
domestic
. Therefore, not only do I have the right to challenge John Ashcroft’s anti-Constitution and Un-American actions, as an American citizen I am required to do so. So are you.”
The next day, our press conference received small coverage in the mainstream media but the entire event was discussed on activists’ blogs. Ellsberg and I were invited on several radio shows for joint interviews. All in all, the outcome of my first clumsily prepared press conference was a success.
Soon I started to receive offers of support and solidarity from various whistleblower, government watchdog and public interest nonprofit organizations, something I found bitterly amusing. Where were these groups when I most needed them? Strangely enough, I was helped, in a way, by seeing how they operate. In time, this understanding would become a catalyst for forming my own organization for whistleblowers.
On June 23, 2004, about ten days after our courthouse press conference, without any hearings or prior heads up, Judge Walton issued his ruling on the Motley-Rice subpoena. First, having receiving the law firm’s forty-something questions in advance, the court allowed the government, after review, to strike out almost all of the questions. The Justice Department then invoked State Secrets Privilege for the second time in my case. This was followed by the judge conducting private, in camera, ex parte sessions with the government attorneys—expressly forbidding the other party to be present. No wonder then Judge Reggie Walton ruled against Motley-Rice, upheld the government’s invocation of privilege and forbade the law firm from deposing me. Was anyone surprised?
From court documents we obtained the banned list of questions the law firm had prepared for my deposition: a list of straightforward questions with answers that can be obtained from public records. Almost all of them were stamped by the government as
covered by state secrets
and
classified
. Even more shocking was that a federal judge, however puppet, had agreed with these classifications and censorship—a gag order. Some examples:
When and where were you born?
Where did you go to school?
What did you focus your studies on in school?
What languages do you speak?
What is your proficiency in each of these languages?
In what capacity have you been employed by the United States government?
I was appalled at the legal maneuvers that defied our laws and rendered the Constitution irrelevant. Take question one for example: If
when
I was born—my birthday—is considered state secrets and classified, then how can I use my driver’s license? If
where
I was born—my birthplace—is considered state secrets and classified, then how can I use my passport? Does it mean I can no longer leave this country, because showing my passport to officials constitutes a breach of security?
Take the two questions about school: If the colleges and universities I attended—all in the States—are considered state secrets and classified, then must I black them out from my resume? How am I to answer in a job interview? Must these schools now black me out of their yearbooks and records to preserve our national security?
Take the question about employment: If my job title and the nature of the work I performed are considered state secrets and classified, will the FBI have to throw all their full-time translators in jail if any of them ever printed and handed out business cards that describe them as FBI language specialists? If my languages are considered state secrets and classified, does it mean I can’t even talk to my friends and family? What if somebody overheard? Would it constitute a breach?
How in the world could a judge allow this kind of nonsense? According to this ruling, my language, education background, family and birth history all were classified. In a way, they had classified
me
. I was now a Classified Woman.
This classification of
me
received scant coverage in the mainstream media, which appeared to be distancing itself from the case. One had to wonder. What were they being told? It made a terrible kind of sense, though, that a government willing to go to such lengths to gag, classify and invoke privileges would surely go the extra mile to make sure that the public never finds out.
On Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton issued his ruling on my case. After sitting on it for two years, after four cancellations and postponements, his court had finally ruled on the first State Secrets Privilege case in the past five decades. As I had suspected he would, the judge dismissed my case, ruled against me, and as he had done with the 9/11 family members’ subpoena, upheld the arcane State Secrets Privilege. He said he was satisfied with claims by Attorney General John Ashcroft and a senior FBI official that my civil lawsuit could disrupt diplomatic and business relations with certain foreign governments; however, Walton added, he couldn’t “explain further” because any explanation would itself expose sensitive secrets!
In his decision, Judge Walton shamelessly acknowledged that dismissing a lawsuit before the facts of the case can be heard is “Draconian” and said he was throwing out the lawsuit “with great consternation.”
This Bush-appointed puppet had ruled without a single hearing on my case. He had dismissed my case without giving me the right to discovery as mandated by law. He had obeyed and served the executive branch despite all the evidence and congressional verification. He had at once upheld state secrets and excluded my attorney and me, the plaintiff, from being present during ex parte, in camera sessions with the government attorneys by citing “necessary secrecy.”
What happened to the rights guaranteed me under our Constitution?
Did Walton’s ruling come as a shock? Absolutely not; but I was hit hard by the severity of this blow and its repercussions for the nation, the place I chose to make my home. Here was a precedent. A ruling had been handed down, not from the court but from the executive branch. There would be others to follow. And the media, so far, was quiet.
Matthew had taken this decision extremely hard. Uncharacteristically, he began to speak up—in public, and with me, surrounded by the press. Here is the statement he delivered on the day following the Walton court’s ruling:
“John Ashcroft is attempting to silence Sibel, using every means at the government’s disposal, and he has been ably assisted by Judge Walton, with the passive approval of the Congress; and with the specter of September 11 in the background allowing Ashcroft and the government to cry ‘security’ and frighten us all with the threat of new terrorist attacks. Judge Walton used this ploy in his somewhat less than legal statement in his ruling, that the court ‘must be mindful, especially at a time when our nation’s security is threatened by acts of terrorism.’ The clear implication is that we must sacrifice our freedom for the sake of security. For those, including Judge Walton, who would accept that, I offer a quote from one of our nation’s founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who so perceptively stated, ‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’
“As Americans, it is all our duty to resist the forces that would take away our cherished freedom. It is our time to fight the battle; it is our time to join with those patriots who came before us in the defense of liberty. And we have in Sibel today one who is fighting the fight, who is an inspiration to us all; listen to what she has to say, and take heed.”
Then—lo and behold—two days after the court’s ruling, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General publicly announced that it had completed and issued its report on my case. Yet, according to the same announcement, the entire report, based on the Justice Department’s order, was classified and would not be released to the public. John Ashcroft and the DOJ had blacked out the entire investigation and its findings—the report on my case!
I had been anticipating this report for exactly two years and four months. I had been told that I needed this so-called independent report’s findings to vindicate me and expose criminal conduct and other wrongdoings by the FBI. I needed it for my case, but they told me I couldn’t have it, that it was classified. The purpose of the IG report—any IG report—is for the public’s right to know. Yet the Inspector General, having spent more than two years investigating, interviewing and reviewing my case, was not permitted to say why it was classified. That too was classified. I was living in
Catch-22
.