Carpe Diem

We need to take another look at why the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on the lawsuit by the former FBI linguist, Sibel Edmonds. It would seem that these events for which she was dismissed are directly related to misinformation provided by the Bush cabal. Shouldn’t we re-open this case by any means possible to inspect for lies hiding behind ‘national security’ labels? Is it not possible for these events to be investigated without compromising national security?

It is now coming to light just how much of our news has been tainted, censored, and controlled by the Bush people: isn’t it time to trace all this back to the source and charge these fascist criminals with treason against The United States of America? Isn’t it time to finally draw all these disparate news clippings into a cohesive outline delineating an on-going plot to destroy The United States of America from within? Are we still in a state of disbelief that this could have happened in our country?

Is Patrick Fitzgerald the only uncorrupted lawyer left in this country who still has a brain? C’mon, guys, get it together: we bloggers are doing all we can. It’s up to you, now. Carpe Diem.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court rejects appeal by fired FBI linguist

Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:57 AM ET
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former FBI linguist who said she had been fired in 2002 for speaking out about possible security breaches, misconduct and incompetent translation work.

Without any comment, the justices rejected an appeal by Sibel Edmonds, who worked as a contract linguist at the FBI's Washington field office from shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks until her dismissal the following March.

A Web site describing her fight with the FBI said that she had been hired "because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages."

Edmonds had reported to FBI management concerns about the quality of the translations, accusing fellow translators of willful misconduct and gross incompetence. She also accused a co-worker of possible espionage.

Edmonds said that numerous communications had been left untranslated or had been mistranslated.
The FBI has said that Edmonds was disruptive and that her allegations were not credible.
In July 2002, she sued the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department and various high-level officials in challenging her dismissal.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the case after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege."

He warned that further disclosure of the duties of Edmonds and other translators could cause "serious damage to the national security interests of the United States."

Walton ruled that secret declarations from Ashcroft and a top FBI official demonstrated that the lawsuit could reveal classified information about intelligence-gathering methods and could disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.

A U.S. appeals court, in a three-paragraph judgment, upheld the dismissal.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, attorneys for Edmonds described her as a whistle blower. They said the justices should clarify the proper scope and application of the state secrets privilege.

They also argued that the appeals court violated the First Amendment when it excluded the press and the public from the arguments in the case in April, without any specific findings that secrecy was necessary.

A number of news media companies and groups supported that part of the appeal and said the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal cases should also apply to civil cases, including appellate oral arguments.

Justice Department attorneys said the appeals court's decision upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit was correct and that further review of the case was unwarranted. They said Ashcroft properly invoked the state secrets privilege after personally considering the matter.

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved
____________________________________________________________________________________

The old bastard may have a point...

Comments made by Saddam during the trial

The Associated Press

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005


BAGHDAD Here are some comments made by Saddam Hussein during the second session of his trial. They were translated from Arabic by The Associated Press.

''The rights of a defendant when he is in a building — which is the Military Industrialization building that is a court now — he should be under the supervision of the court when it comes to administration.''

——————

''How can a defendant defend himself if his pen was taken. Saddam Hussein's pen and papers were taken. I don't mean a white paper. There are papers downstairs that include my remarks in which I express my opinion.''

——————

''I was brought here with handcuffs. ... At the same time the elevator was out of order. The Quran was in my hands and the clutches were in my hands.''

——————

''You are the chief judge. I don't want you to tell them. I want you to order them. They are in our country. You have the sovereignty. You are Iraqi and they are foreigners and occupiers. They are invaders. You should order them.''
___________________________________________________________________________________

November 28, 2005

Public Broadcasting's Enemy Within

As chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson proved to be a disastrous zealot. Internal investigators found he repeatedly broke federal law and ethics rules in overreaching his authority and packing the payroll with Republican ideologues.

His actual job - to maintain a "heat shield" between public broadcasting and politics - was turned on its head. The scathing investigation concluded that Mr. Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors and recruiting Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, to be the corporation's new president.

Mr. Tomlinson, who has now left the corporation, insisted he had "absolutely no contact" with White House partisans. But the inspector general's report found he did indeed consult with administration powers like Karl Rove, President Bush's political guru. He even hired someone still on the White House payroll for advice on creating a balance "ombudsman" for public broadcasting. And he was found to violate the law by promoting a $4 million deal for conservative writers from The Wall Street Journal to be featured as a "balancing program."

Mr. Tomlinson, a Reader's Digest editor appointed to the board by President Bill Clinton, threatened the independence at the heart of public broadcasting's popularity. His departure is no cure-all, however, for the board remains a haven for such political appointees as Cheryl Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser chosen by Mr. Tomlinson as the new corporation chairwoman.

The inspector general's report is a case study of how dangerous ideological cronyism is as a substitute for nonpartisan expertise. Defenders of public broadcasting now must guard against still another conservative putsch - a Congressional move to cut financing for the corporation's $400 million budget of vital aid for local stations. This time, the "balance" zealots may resort to irony by citing the very chaos wrought by Mr. Tomlinson.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company