7/7/04: Sibel Edmond's lawsuit thrown out for "National Security" reasons.
Listen to the story on Free Speech Radio News:

go to http://www.kpfa.org/archives/ , then to the Free Speech Radio News page, click the 07-07-2004 link. The story is at minute 14:52.

The significant 9/11-related point in the story is that she has now been silenced insofar as she is now forbidden from testifying in court: "the dismissal of the case also impacts a lawsuit filed on behalf of 9/11 victims family members, who had subpoenaed Edmonds testimony. She has now been blocked from testifying in the case"

However, it is disappointingly a coverup story -- never even hinting at her most important statements, just some crap about people being spies and making bad translations. (The big story of course being what was, for example, in the UK Independent on April 2, 2004: "'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes': Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent" By Andrew Buncombe http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514 .)

Short text-links about the day's Sibel Edmonds news:
"Sibel Edmonds Denied Day in Court" http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1118_0_1_0_C
"Sibel Edmonds Responds to Suit Dismissal" http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1124_0_1_0_C

Democracy Now was the only link that day that mentioned anything about "evidence before 9/11 that indicated an attack using airplanes was imminent." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/07/1354225

Ashcroft was involved:
"WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LAWSUIT IS THROWN OUT A federal judge threw out a lawsuit by a whistle-blower who alleged security lapses in the F.B.I.'s translator program, ruling that her claims might expose government secrets that could damage national security. Judge Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court said he was satisfied with claims by Attorney General John Ashcroft that the civil lawsuit by the whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds, could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments. The judge said he could not explain further because his explanation itself would expose sensitive secrets. (AP)" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/national/07brfs.html?ex=1089777600&en=3bb0299daf56f31f&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE