7 votes

The Real Sibel Edmonds: Whistleblower or Gatekeeper?

A question has been swirling for months now regarding former FBI translator Sibel Edmond's attacks on former CIA/NSA contractor Edward Snowden and former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald. The question has been very simple: why?

For those who have followed Sibel Edmond's public career (post FBI) in the truth community there is a lingering sense of bewilderment at her vociferous attacks against those in the same struggle. To fully understand this seeming discord we must look back at what her original claim to fame was.

Here is an excerpt:

Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI's language division, says [that hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign language intelligence documents] weren't translated because the division was riddled with incompetence and corruption. Edmonds was fired after reporting her concerns to FBI officials. Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages, Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after Sept. 11 and given top-secret security clearance to translate some of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who have been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad. In its rush to hire more foreign language translators after Sept. 11, the FBI admits it has had difficulty performing background checks to detect translators who may have loyalties to other governments, which could pose a threat to U.S. national security. Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator who worked with Edmonds. The FBI has admitted that when Dickerson was hired, the bureau didn't know that she had worked for a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's own counter-intelligence unit. They also didn't know she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation.

Courtesy of: http://www.wanttoknow.info/sibeledmondsnewsarticles

Wanttoknow.info has quite a few archived articles relating to her as well as others, rather handy.

So Edmonds was a middle-eastern translator working for U.S. intelligence (more specifically Turkish translator). For credibility sake I am going to mention here that I was as well (Hebrew translator). Knowing this you can now see that Sibel Edmonds' type of "whistle blowing" is completely different from Edward Snowden's.

Edmonds complaint was not about the erosion of American civil rights under the intelligence apparatus, quite to the contrary. Her concern was that the FBI wasn't following protocol enough!

Here is an analogy describing this type of whistle blower.

One day there were 2 mercenaries being told to go to a nearby village to kill all the inhabitants and burn it to the ground. When they arrive one of the mercenaries (Edmonds) looks at her partner (other agents) and says, "Hey, your holding your M-16 at waist level, regulations say we have to SEE who we are killing so it has to be at eye level!". The other mercenary looks at her, and justifiably scoffs at this rediculous hinderance and tells her to be quite or there cover will be blown. The "whistle blowing" mercenary Edmonds says that she will not, and that rules are rules and she will start yelling if he doesn't put his gun up to eye level. The frustrated mercenary calls back to the command center and they tell Edmond to just get on with her job. Mercenary Edmond still refuses and they are forced to order her fellow mercenary to relieve her of her firearm and send her back to Headquarters for discipline. This does not bode well for mercenary Edmond and she begins to write to others in charge saying that she was willing to do her job, but that the "letter of the law" must be followed. Now mercenary Edmonds is no longer employed by central command and pines for the day when they follow their own rules when conducting genocide. Mercenary Edmonds now spends her days looking back at her days defending the job and criticizing those that don't follow any and all laws.

When looking at the specific criticisms leveled by Edmonds toward Snowden about him being "controlled" they are logically impossible. If Snowden was as "controlled" as Ms. Edmonds would have us believe then how did he cause such a public debate at a time when it couldn't be worse for those in power?

For those that believe that government is God and all powerful then they use a faith based argument that "well the government wouldn't allow someone that was truly good to harm it." That premise presupposes that government is all powerful and that no good can prevail. Since most of us don't accept that worldview it is fair that say that Snowden is not only possibly, but probably exactly what he appears to be; a selfless patriot who has sacrificed more than most armchair generals will ever comprehend.

Now for the Greenwald vs. Edmonds saga. Does Edmonds raise some valid concerns regards Greenwald's new business associates? Yes.

These concerns however need to be tempered with looking for Greenwald's response, to which he himself has stated that he "understands these valid concerns" regarding his new business ventures.

Does Greenwald stand to profit greatly for all the risk, sacrifice, redicule he has received? Yes, and I hope greatly.

Sibel Edmonds herself has "profited" from her "act of civil disobedience", yet you will not read about people decrying her monetary gains, and they shouldn't.

If we want the action of shining light on government activity to continue to grow, and be atractive, then free market incentives should not only be allowed, they should be encouraged. When's the last time you heard someone put a bounty on incriminating evidence regarding any federal agency? With the amount that Greenwald and associates stand to gain, it could very be a blueprint for that happening. I can see it now, government information bounty hunters. They will probably make an internet show about it.

One last point. Edmonds mentions Senator Chuck Grassley (IA R) several times due to his placement on various committees she has either written to or testified before. Senator Grassley is actually the senator of my state and I've met him several times (including at the National Convention in Tampa 2014). He strikes most of us here as a kind gentleman who does take judicial reform seriously. Could he pay more attention to her concerns? Possibly. Does he really care to when her concerns are replacing the executioner's iron axe with a golden one? I'm not defending Senator Grassley per se (or most of them at this point) but hoping that people will start to see the difference in whistle blower types.

To me Sibel Edmond's attacks are a sad way to try and obtain the limelight once again, as she has nothing to "whistle blow" about since she's been out for quite some time. We can only pray that she refocuses her attacks toward the message, and not the messengers. If she spent as much time attacking the very foundation of her former employers (security vs liberty) we could spend our time educating others, instead of in-fighting (assuming she's on the same side that is).

Below I have linked some of the recent writings I've done on this issue:


Kevink if you plan to comment on this remember to "quote" in context.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What is your explanation

For Snowden not mentioning 9/11?

Excellent, well written.

Excellent, well written.

Ventura 2012

I think jealousy could indeed

I think jealousy could indeed be a factor. Not that I would dismiss her assertions entirely. Even if motivated by jealousy, it's possible she might have noticed something others didn't.

My main beef with her however is that she claims certainty where no certainty can be possible. There is a limit to what any one person can know. The most intelligent people from my experience tend to think in a probabilistic manner. They will say what they think and outline certain possibilities, but they will never claim certainty. Needless to say, I tend to gravitate towards opinions coming from these type of people.

Bottomline, I won't dismiss what she says entirely. I will certainly file it away in my memory, until further evidence comes along. But anything she says should be taken with a generous dosage of salt.

Interesting post

Interesting post. I think you're right about her having nothing else to "expose" so she has fixated on these few potential issues and declared them evidence of whatever she wants to believe. Sad situation.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

The jury is still out for me but your case (facts) make sense.

I noticed she did not raise her quota in donations this quarter.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell