Discussion:
9/11 commission found the person responsible for the attacks!!!
(too old to reply)
Mark Fox
2004-04-16 00:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org

Last week, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the
policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine
airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary
questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than
two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are
searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could
then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security
expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an
attack.

In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across
the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show
has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit
searching more than two Arabs per flight.

Meanwhile, another 9/11 commissioner, the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste,
claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give
intelligence on 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to
the FBI. As we now know -- or rather, I alone know because I'm the
only person in America watching the 9/11 hearings -- Ben-Veniste
should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.

In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI
wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks
before the 9/11 attack -- because of Justice Department guidelines put
into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists
on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi because of Justice Department
guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a
warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer -- because of Justice
Department guidelines put into place in 1995.

The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum
written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for
Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.

What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a
serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI
investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die
because of these policies -- "since the biggest threat to us, OBL
(Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."

FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue.
These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make
them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."

The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo,
Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an
episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's
face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of
Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then
escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the
closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in
1995.

The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners. Maybe between
happy reminiscences about the good old days of Ruby Ridge, Waco and
the Elian Gonzales raid, Ben-Veniste could ask Gorelick about those
guidelines. Democrats think it's a conflict of interest for Justice
Scalia to have his name in the same phonebook as Dick Cheney. But
there is no conflict of interest having Gorelick sit on a commission
that should be investigating her.

Bill O'Reilly's entire summary of Ashcroft's testimony was to accuse
Ashcroft of throwing sheets over naked statues rather than fighting
terrorism. No mention of the damning Gorelick memo. No one knows about
the FAA's No-Searching-Arabs counterterrorism policy. Predictions that
conservatives have finally broken through the wall of sound coming
from the mainstream media may have been premature.

When Democrats make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper
headlines repeat the accusation as a fact: "U.S. Law Chief 'Failed to
Heed Terror Warnings,'" "Bush Was Told of Qaida Steps Pre-9/ 11;
Secret Memo Released," "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make
al-Qaida an Early Priority."

But when Republicans make accusations against Democrats -- even
accusations backed up by the hard fact of a declassified Jamie
Gorelick memo -- the headlines note only that Republicans are making
accusations: "Ashcroft Lays Blame at Clinton's Feet," "Ashcroft: Blame
Bubba for 9/11," "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9/11 Failures."

It's amazing how consistent it is. A classic of the genre was the
Chicago Tribune headline, which managed to use both constructs in a
single headline: "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney
General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton." Why not: "Reno Ignored
Terrorism, Panel Told; Former Deputy Attorney General Denies Charges,
Blames Bush"?

Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."

I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack
inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the
next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be
difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.
David Galehouse
2004-04-16 00:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
<most of yet another stupid Coulter rant snipped>
Post by Mark Fox
I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack
inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the
next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be
difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.
Hmmmm. In that case, might it have been a better idea to keep our resources
FOCUSED ON BIN LADEN instead of on Saddam? No, Ann, we can't tell you when
and where the next attack will be because we've wasted our time, money and,
most tragically, lives chasing ghosts in Iraq. When the next attack comes,
and it will, this one will be entirely on your beloved leader Bush's head.
<SmirkS>
2004-04-16 01:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Galehouse
No, Ann, we can't tell you when
and where the next attack will be because we've wasted our time, money
and, most tragically, lives chasing ghosts in Iraq.
i'm guessing california before november.

damn those marin county hottubbers.



wait, bohemian grove is pretty near marin county.
--
TheTruthHurts.
James Simpson
2004-04-16 04:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Galehouse
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
<most of yet another stupid Coulter rant snipped>
Post by Mark Fox
I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack
inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the
next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be
difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.
Hmmmm. In that case, might it have been a better idea to keep our resources
FOCUSED ON BIN LADEN instead of on Saddam? No, Ann, we can't tell you when
and where the next attack will be because we've wasted our time, money and,
most tragically, lives chasing ghosts in Iraq. When the next attack comes,
and it will, this one will be entirely on your beloved leader Bush's head.
Osama Bin Laden? Terrorism? Ashcroft has been far too busy to be concerned
with terrorism, busting Tommy Chong for selling bongs, working to overturn
California's referendum on medical marijuana for cancer patients, trying to
overturn the will of the voters in Oregon to allow approved doctor-assisted
suicide, covering bare-breasted statues (horrors!), avoiding calico cats (he
believes calico cats are signs of the devil), etc. I do feel safer knowing
that Tommy Chong, that villainous terrorist of bong sales, is behind bars,
don't you?
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not
matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the evidence.
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by
himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil,
all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer

"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
Mark Fox
2004-04-17 16:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Galehouse
Post by David Galehouse
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
<most of yet another stupid Coulter rant snipped>
Post by Mark Fox
I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack
inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the
next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be
difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.
Hmmmm. In that case, might it have been a better idea to keep our
resources
Post by David Galehouse
FOCUSED ON BIN LADEN instead of on Saddam? No, Ann, we can't tell you when
and where the next attack will be because we've wasted our time, money
and,
Post by David Galehouse
most tragically, lives chasing ghosts in Iraq. When the next attack comes,
and it will, this one will be entirely on your beloved leader Bush's head.
Have you not been paying attention? We aren't chasing ghosts anymore.
Saddam and his two sons have been taken out of action. That was the
objective and it was accomplished by President George W Bush with
fewer Americans killed in Iraq than were murdered in sunny peace
loving California during the same time period. Perhaps we should ask
the UN to take over the yearly quagmire of death in California??
LOL!!!
Post by David Galehouse
Osama Bin Laden? Terrorism? Ashcroft has been far too busy to be concerned
with terrorism, busting Tommy Chong for selling bongs, working to overturn
California's referendum on medical marijuana for cancer patients, trying to
overturn the will of the voters in Oregon to allow approved doctor-assisted
suicide, covering bare-breasted statues (horrors!), avoiding calico cats (he
believes calico cats are signs of the devil), etc. I do feel safer knowing
that Tommy Chong, that villainous terrorist of bong sales, is behind bars,
don't you?
Hey! On these issues we completely agree!!

The Federal government needs to stop wasting time and tax money
chasing pot smokers and throwing sheets over naked statues. Those
resources should be used to track down terrorists.
Post by David Galehouse
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11.
No! It is another step to make sure that attacks similar to September
11 never happen again. President Bush has said in many many speeches
that he is not going to wait around for it to happen again. He is
going to take action BEFORE THE THREAT BECOMES EMMENENT.
Post by David Galehouse
It does not matter that Iraq is not the culprit.
No one thinks that Iraq was related to 9/11. That was a straw man
argument invented by the Leadership of the Democratic Party and its a
lie. This is why I'm not going to vote Democratic this year even
though I'm a Democrat. The Leadership of my Party is lying to the
American people.
Post by David Galehouse
Bush needs only to ignore the evidence.
Ignoring the evidence by Bill Clinton is what got us into this
quagmire in the first place. President Bush has promised to act upon
the evidence before the terrorists get another chance to kill 3,000
Americans.
Post by David Galehouse
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by
himself.
What? Do you mean "embarrassed" like getting caught having sex with
Monica in the oval office? That kind of embarrassment??
Post by David Galehouse
Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil,
True. true. and true.
Post by David Galehouse
all evil is connected.
False. He never said that. He said that all evil must be fought.
You are twisting his words to push a hidden political agenda.
Post by David Galehouse
Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer
Norman Mailer?? Was he that movie producer who was having sex with
young boys and had to flee the country to avoid prosecution??
Post by David Galehouse
"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
You ought to support the president unless you want more innocent
Americans killed in their beds and at their desks by terrorists.
g***@internet.charitydays.co.uk
2004-04-16 01:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Six of the alleged 9/11 terrorists received training at US military bases during the 1990s
__________________________________________________________________________________



[1]
Mohamed Atta had attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.

[2]
Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas.

[3]
Saeed Alghamdi had attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California.


[4] [5] [6]
Three other alleged 9/11 terrorists had attended the Pensacola Naval Station in Florida


__________________________________________________________________________________
Roger
2004-04-16 02:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Coulter did it! I knew it!
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
Last week, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the
policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine
airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary
questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than
two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are
searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could
then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security
expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an
attack.
<snip>
Ninure Saunders
2004-04-16 13:09:49 UTC
Permalink
umm...

Who was in office on 0/11?

Wjose admistration was in Vagrhe of the FBI, THE CIA, and the NSA on 9/11?

It has been over 2 years since 9/11..where is Bin Laden?

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My latest Poll
Was Jesus Serious?
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Votelet/34317


My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Mark Fox
2004-04-17 15:32:35 UTC
Permalink
***@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure Saunders)
wrote>...
Post by Ninure Saunders
umm...
Who was in office on 0/11?
George W Bus was the President of the United States on September 11th
2001.
Post by Ninure Saunders
Wjose admistration was in Vagrhe of the FBI, THE CIA, and the NSA on 9/11?
President Bush took office in late January 2001. That's 7 months
before 9/11. That's barely enough time to learn what the Bill Clinton
administration did during Clinton's previous 8 years in office. The
best you can hope for is to complain that Bush (in seven short months)
should have reversed Clinton's failed national security policy which
forbid the FBI from working with the CIA to track terrorists.
Post by Ninure Saunders
It has been over 2 years since 9/11..where is Bin Laden?
Hiding in a cave in the mountains of eastern Pakistan. Are you
suggesting that we invade Pakistan to get him??? After we have
already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq don't you think that suggesting
we invade Pakistan would make you look a bit like a war monger????

It amazes me that people like you complain if President Bush takes
immediate action toppling Afghanistan and Iraq and then you also
complain if he chooses the much slower and more difficult route of
international cooperation with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Is it
perhaps that what you really hate George Bush and not Bin Laden?
Considering all the hate against homosexuals, I would think that you
of all people would be the most sensitive to and the most rejecting of
all forms of hate. It seems to me that you are no better than a
common homophobe.
Post by Ninure Saunders
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
Mark Fox
2004-04-17 16:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Here is the link to the justice department's copy of the secret memo
by Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, forbidding the
FBI from working with the CIA to track down terrorists. The smoking
gun has been found. Jamie Gorelick is responsible for the 9/11
attacks.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
Meanwhile, ... the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste,
claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give
intelligence on 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to
the FBI. As we now know ... Ben-Veniste
should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.
In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI
wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks
before the 9/11 attack -- because of Justice Department guidelines put
into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists
on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi because of Justice Department
guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a
warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer -- because of Justice
Department guidelines put into place in 1995.
The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum
written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for
Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a
serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI
investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die
because of these policies -- "since the biggest threat to us, OBL
(Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."
FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue.
These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make
them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."
The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo,
Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an
episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's
face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of
Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then
escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the
closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in
1995.
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
James Simpson
2004-04-17 18:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
Here is the link to the justice department's copy of the secret memo
by Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, forbidding the
FBI from working with the CIA to track down terrorists. The smoking
gun has been found. Jamie Gorelick is responsible for the 9/11
attacks.
Wrong. Gorelick was simply stating what was the law at that time. She
didn't make the law, but of course she had to follow the law! I thought
Republicans believed in 'the rule of law'. I Guess they only believe in 'the
rule of law' when it suits their purposes. Pure hypocrisy, as usual.
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not
matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the evidence.
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by
himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil,
all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer

"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
Meanwhile, ... the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste,
claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give
intelligence on 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to
the FBI. As we now know ... Ben-Veniste
should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.
In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI
wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks
before the 9/11 attack -- because of Justice Department guidelines put
into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists
on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi because of Justice Department
guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a
warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer -- because of Justice
Department guidelines put into place in 1995.
The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum
written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for
Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a
serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI
investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die
because of these policies -- "since the biggest threat to us, OBL
(Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."
FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue.
These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make
them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."
The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo,
Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an
episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's
face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of
Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then
escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the
closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in
1995.
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Mark Fox
2004-04-18 15:48:24 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Here is the link to the justice department's copy of the secret memo
by Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, forbidding the
FBI from working with the CIA to track down terrorists. The smoking
gun has been found. Jamie Gorelick is responsible for the 9/11
attacks.
Gorelick was simply stating what was the law at that time.
No she wasn't. She went MUCH FARTHER than the law required. A
federal appeals court said so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Post by James Simpson
She didn't make the law,
Duh!
Post by James Simpson
but of course she had to follow the law!
That's the point, Jamie Gorelick was going way beyond the law
according to the federal appeals court.
Post by James Simpson
I thought
Republicans believed in 'the rule of law'. I Guess they only believe in 'the
rule of law' when it suits their purposes. Pure hypocrisy, as usual.
I thought that federal courts interpreted the law, not you and not
Jamie Gorelick. So this makes me question your hypocrisy and Jamie
Gorelick being a on a commission which should be investigating her.

The New York Times says that Jamie Gorelick went beyond the law in
restricting the FBI's ability to investigate terrorism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html

"...To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act
to seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule
keeping the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the
government as the wall...."


"Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
... the court added a stunning observation, saying that even without
the counterterrorism law, the wall had never been necessary and that
courts and Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for
more than 20 years."
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
Meanwhile, ... the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste,
claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give
intelligence on 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to
the FBI. As we now know ... Ben-Veniste
should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.
In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI
wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks
before the 9/11 attack -- because of Justice Department guidelines put
into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists
on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi because of Justice Department
guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a
warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer -- because of Justice
Department guidelines put into place in 1995.
The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum
written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for
Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a
serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI
investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die
because of these policies -- "since the biggest threat to us, OBL
(Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."
FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue.
These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make
them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."
The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo,
Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an
episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's
face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of
Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then
escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the
closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in
1995.
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Mark Fox
2004-04-18 16:06:20 UTC
Permalink
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html

Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.

The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.

To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.

Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.

"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."

In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.

"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.

Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.

"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."

"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.

See memo at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
qwerty
2004-04-18 17:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
You leff off this part from that cite:
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."
David Galehouse
2004-04-18 18:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by qwerty
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."
In other words, Mark Fox just revealed his dishonesty and deserves to be
ignored.
Mark Fox
2004-04-20 00:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Galehouse
Post by qwerty
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had
been
Post by qwerty
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."
In other words, Mark Fox just revealed his dishonesty and deserves to be
ignored.
I clearly posted the part where the federal appeals court said the
government had been misinterpreting the law for the last twenty years,
silly boy.

Do the math. You can do simple addition and subtraction? Can't you?
What is 2004 minus twenty years? This is a homework assignment for
you.
Post by David Galehouse
and deserves to be ignored.
Yes, and I'm sure you wish all facts that contradict your
neo-communist idiology are ignored.
David Galehouse
2004-04-20 02:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
Post by David Galehouse
Post by qwerty
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had
been
Post by qwerty
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."
In other words, Mark Fox just revealed his dishonesty and deserves to be
ignored.
I clearly posted the part where the federal appeals court said the
government had been misinterpreting the law for the last twenty years,
silly boy.
No, you left out the part that mentioned that the minimal effect Gorelick
had on the issue. Because you are dishonest. Why did you leave that part
out? Oversight? Cut and paste error? Stupidity? Dishonesty? You pick.
James Simpson
2004-04-18 20:29:46 UTC
Permalink
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not
matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the evidence.
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by
himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil,
all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer

"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why is
it that you left out the following?:

"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick ...Slade Gorton, a
former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting
that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995
guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those
guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the
1995 procedures remain in effect today."

So, Ashcroft "ratified" the same guidelines on "the wall" that Gorelick
wrote of in her memo! And Ashcroft continued operating under "the wall"
during the extremely heightened terror threat during the summer prior to
911. Ashcroft did nothing to "tear down the wall" and is therefore a
hypocrite. Obviously, you are so determined to defend Ashcroft and Bush
that you are willing to distort the issue by leaving out important details
like these.

The obvious conclusion is what I said at first, that in her memo Gorelick
was merely saying that the law must be obeyed. She did not make the law. She
did nothing wrong whatsoever. Period. Also, she wrote the memo long before
911 and the resulting heightened state of alert to terrorism. If any
commissioners should step down from the 911 commission, it's Republicans Jim
Thompson and Fred Fielding who met officials at the White House to get their
attack plan down just prior to Richard Clark testimony before the
commission.
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush
administration
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
David Galehouse
2004-04-18 19:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Simpson
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not
matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the evidence.
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by
himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil,
all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer
"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why is
<snip>

Because Mark Fox, like all neocons, will twist the truth in an attempt to be
"right". Mark Fox has no credibility.
Mark Fox
2004-04-20 00:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Simpson
Post by James Simpson
--
"A war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not
matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the
evidence.
Post by James Simpson
Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed
by
Post by James Simpson
himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11,
but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is
evil,
Post by James Simpson
all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq ... If I were George W. Bush's karmic
defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction
as
Post by James Simpson
a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the
afterworld." - Norman Mailer
"Patriotism is support for the country, not support for the
president"--Theodore Roosevelt
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why is
<snip>
Because Mark Fox, like all neocons, will twist the truth in an attempt to be
"right". Mark Fox has no credibility.
Don't take my word for anything, Silly Boy!

Read it for yourself. Thats why I posted the link.
Mark Fox
2004-04-20 00:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why is
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick ...
Post by Mark Fox
...a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the
law for more than 20 years.
Do the math silly boy!
Post by James Simpson
Slade Gorton, a
former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting
that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995
guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those
guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the
1995 procedures remain in effect today."
But did you notice that Bush's people are under oath and being grilled
by the Commission? Why is Jamie Gorelick not a witness under oath but
a member of the commission? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of
interest??
Post by James Simpson
So, Ashcroft "ratified" the same guidelines on "the wall" that Gorelick
wrote of in her memo!
Yes and Ashcroft testified before the commission and Jamie Gorelick
has not.
Post by James Simpson
And Ashcroft continued operating under "the wall"
during the extremely heightened terror threat during the summer prior to
911. Ashcroft did nothing to "tear down the wall" and is therefore a
hypocrite.
You are the hypocrite to complain that Ashcroft didn't tear down a
wall in seven months what Bill Clinton had in place for 8 years.

It would be great if hypocrites like you would apply the same rules to
everyone.
Post by James Simpson
Obviously, you are so determined to defend Ashcroft and Bush
that you are willing to distort the issue by leaving out important details
like these.
Conveniently, Jamie Gorelick doesn't even have to testify before the
commission. Thus she conveniently avoids having to say anything under
oath that needs defending. You neo-communists are such a joke with
your lying, twisting and corruption all the while accusing the
opposition of corruption and lying.
Post by James Simpson
The obvious conclusion is what I said at first, that in her memo Gorelick
was merely saying that the law must be obeyed.
and the appeals court clearly said that she went far beyond the law.
Post by James Simpson
She did not make the law. She
did nothing wrong whatsoever. Period.
She crippled the FBI's ability to track down terrorists and there WAS
NO LAW requiring her to do that. She is at fault. She is responsible
for the 9/11 attacks and your arguement that there might be others
equally responsible is no excuse for her failures.
Post by James Simpson
Also, she wrote the memo long before
911 and the resulting heightened state of alert to terrorism. If any
commissioners should step down from the 911 commission, it's Republicans Jim
Thompson and Fred Fielding who met officials at the White House to get their
attack plan down just prior to Richard Clark testimony before the
commission.
We have a memo proving Jamie Gorelicks's failures. What's your proof
of the above claim?? Or is this yet another example of you not having
to play by the same rules you levy on everyone else?
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush
administration
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on
a
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
VindalooJones
2004-04-20 00:54:16 UTC
Permalink
This was a NEWS article, and offered NO judgment on Gorelick.

It offered a factual account of what an appellate court and Ashcroft said
about the wall, and not much more. Sure, both the court and Ashcroft said that
the FISA statute had been misinterpreted, but the Times itself did not say that
Gorelick went beyound the law...

Which is the problem: to this day the Times has not even acknowledged the
controversy regarding Gorelick's role on the committee, given her key
policy-maKING
role in the Clinton DOJ.

She should be a witness before the committee to defend her interpretation.
********************
Some curry favor; my father favored curry.
James Simpson
2004-04-20 08:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why is
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick ...
No, it was not clear. What was clear was that you copied and pasted the
entire article up to, but not including the sentence "The appeals court that
demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was
only codified by Ms. Gorelick." Looked suspiciously like selective copy and
paste.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
...a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the
law for more than 20 years.
Do the math silly boy!
Yes, this proves that Gorelick was one of many others who for 20 years have
"misinterpreted the law" (I haven't researched this to know if it's even
true that the law was 'misinterpreted', or if this was just a subjective
intepretation of 'the law'). And this makes her "for the 9/11 attacks"
exactly how? If she "misinterpreted the law" (though we know 'the law' is
often based on subjective interpretation), then that would mean she made a
mistake, not that she willfully neglected her duty or deliberately
'misinterpreted' the law, so to call her 'responsible' for the 9/11 attacks'
is hyperbole at best, and a willful distortion at worst.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Slade Gorton, a
former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting
that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995
guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those
guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the
1995 procedures remain in effect today."
But did you notice that Bush's people are under oath and being grilled
by the Commission? Why is Jamie Gorelick not a witness under oath but
a member of the commission? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of
interest??
Post by James Simpson
So, Ashcroft "ratified" the same guidelines on "the wall" that Gorelick
wrote of in her memo!
Yes and Ashcroft testified before the commission and Jamie Gorelick
has not.
Post by James Simpson
And Ashcroft continued operating under "the wall"
during the extremely heightened terror threat during the summer prior to
911. Ashcroft did nothing to "tear down the wall" and is therefore a
hypocrite.
You are the hypocrite to complain that Ashcroft didn't tear down a
wall in seven months what Bill Clinton had in place for 8 years.
Ashcroft could have torn down the wall with the stroke of a pen. He didn't.
If anyone is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks", it's Ashcroft. He was far
too busy going after Tommy Chong for selling bongs, working to overturn
California's referendum on medical marijuana for cancer patients, going to
court to overturn the will of the voters in Oregon to allow approved
doctor-assisted suicide, and covering bare-breasted statues (horrors!),
while gutting the rule requiring that gun records be retained for more than
one day, putting the U.S. at risk of terrorist's being able to acquire
weapons in our own country. But Ashcroft had to show his religious
allegiance to the NRA, at the expense of our security and safety. Ashcroft
is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks" more than many, including Jamie
Gorelick.
Post by Mark Fox
It would be great if hypocrites like you would apply the same rules to
everyone.
Post by James Simpson
Obviously, you are so determined to defend Ashcroft and Bush
that you are willing to distort the issue by leaving out important details
like these.
Conveniently, Jamie Gorelick doesn't even have to testify before the
commission. Thus she conveniently avoids having to say anything under
oath that needs defending. You neo-communists are such a joke with
your lying, twisting and corruption all the while accusing the
opposition of corruption and lying.
Post by James Simpson
The obvious conclusion is what I said at first, that in her memo Gorelick
was merely saying that the law must be obeyed.
and the appeals court clearly said that she went far beyond the law.
Post by James Simpson
She did not make the law. She
did nothing wrong whatsoever. Period.
She crippled the FBI's ability to track down terrorists and there WAS
NO LAW requiring her to do that. She is at fault. She is responsible
for the 9/11 attacks and your arguement that there might be others
equally responsible is no excuse for her failures.
Lay off the caffeine. "Failures"?? It's been universally acknowledged that
many in government "failed" us in some way leading up to 911, and that could
include several other commissioners, many of whom had past careers in
government prior to 911 and could conceivably be guilty of some failing that
made us more vulnerable to terror attacks. If Gorelick "misinterpreted the
law" (though we know 'the law' is often based on subjective interpretation),
then that would mean she made a mistake, not that she willfully neglected
her duty or deliberately 'misinterpreted' the law. She presented what she
and many others thought to be the law, in fact it sounds like all her
predecessors for 20 years and others had the same 'misinterpretation'. So,
to call her 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' is hyperbole at best, or
willful slander at worst. She explains it all clearly here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20786-2004Apr17.html

Gorelick did nothing unethical or different from any of her predecessors, so
to single her out as 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' only makes it all
the more obvious that republican attacks on Gorelick are politically
motivated by Bush partisans to detract or try to delegitimize the final 911
Commission report, which is expected to be harsh on the Bush administration.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Also, she wrote the memo long before
911 and the resulting heightened state of alert to terrorism. If any
commissioners should step down from the 911 commission, it's Republicans Jim
Thompson and Fred Fielding who met officials at the White House to get their
attack plan down just prior to Richard Clark testimony before the
commission.
We have a memo proving Jamie Gorelicks's failures. What's your proof
of the above claim?? Or is this yet another example of you not having
to play by the same rules you levy on everyone else?
It was all over the news about 2 weeks ago. I don't have a link handy, but
there were news stories at the Wash Post, NY Times and others, and Thompson
didn't deny going to the White House, he had 'no comment'. I'll find the
link when I have time, but you can find news pieces on this on the net quite
easily.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush
administration
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on
a
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Mark Fox
2004-04-21 01:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why
is
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had
been
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick ...
No, it was not clear. What was clear was that you copied and pasted the
entire article up to, but not including the sentence "The appeals court that
demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was
only codified by Ms. Gorelick." Looked suspiciously like selective copy and
paste.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
...a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the
law for more than 20 years.
Do the math silly boy!
Yes, this proves that Gorelick was one of many others who for 20 years have
"misinterpreted the law" (I haven't researched this to know if it's even
true that the law was 'misinterpreted', or if this was just a subjective
intepretation of 'the law'). And this makes her "for the 9/11 attacks"
exactly how? If she "misinterpreted the law" (though we know 'the law' is
often based on subjective interpretation), then that would mean she made a
mistake, not that she willfully neglected her duty or deliberately
'misinterpreted' the law, so to call her 'responsible' for the 9/11 attacks'
is hyperbole at best, and a willful distortion at worst.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Slade Gorton, a
former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft,
noting
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995
guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those
guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that
"the
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
1995 procedures remain in effect today."
But did you notice that Bush's people are under oath and being grilled
by the Commission? Why is Jamie Gorelick not a witness under oath but
a member of the commission? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of
interest??
Post by James Simpson
So, Ashcroft "ratified" the same guidelines on "the wall" that Gorelick
wrote of in her memo!
Yes and Ashcroft testified before the commission and Jamie Gorelick
has not.
Post by James Simpson
And Ashcroft continued operating under "the wall"
during the extremely heightened terror threat during the summer prior to
911. Ashcroft did nothing to "tear down the wall" and is therefore a
hypocrite.
You are the hypocrite to complain that Ashcroft didn't tear down a
wall in seven months what Bill Clinton had in place for 8 years.
Ashcroft could have torn down the wall with the stroke of a pen. He didn't.
If anyone is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks", it's Ashcroft.
He was far
too busy going after Tommy Chong for selling bongs, working to overturn
California's referendum on medical marijuana for cancer patients, going to
court to overturn the will of the voters in Oregon to allow approved
doctor-assisted suicide, and covering bare-breasted statues (horrors!),
while gutting the rule requiring that gun records be retained for more than
one day, putting the U.S. at risk of terrorist's being able to acquire
weapons in our own country. But Ashcroft had to show his religious
allegiance to the NRA, at the expense of our security and safety. Ashcroft
is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks" more than many, including Jamie
Gorelick.
Hey, this is the one point over which we completely agree!!!
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Obviously, you are so determined to defend Ashcroft and Bush
that you are willing to distort the issue by leaving out important
details
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
like these.
In your hatred for all things republican, you failed to notice that
I'm not defending Ashcroft. But Jamie Gorelick is equally guilty. So
the big question is WHY IS JAMIE GORELICK NOT UNDER OATH TESTIFYING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION???
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Conveniently, Jamie Gorelick doesn't even have to testify before the
commission. Thus she conveniently avoids having to say anything under
oath that needs defending. You neo-communists are such a joke with
your lying, twisting and corruption all the while accusing the
opposition of corruption and lying.
Post by James Simpson
The obvious conclusion is what I said at first, that in her memo
Gorelick
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
was merely saying that the law must be obeyed.
She was the deputy chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
her JOB is to catch terrorists. She failed miserably. She not only
failed to do her job she sat on her fanny behind a desk in her office
and published memos making it hard for anyone else to do their job
too.
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
and the appeals court clearly said that she went far beyond the law.
Post by James Simpson
She did not make the law. She
did nothing wrong whatsoever. Period.
She failed to do her job and catch terrorists. She is responsible.
It was very wrong.
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
She crippled the FBI's ability to track down terrorists and there WAS
NO LAW requiring her to do that. She is at fault. She is responsible
for the 9/11 attacks and your argument that there might be others
equally responsible is no excuse for her failures.
Lay off the caffeine. "Failures"?? It's been universally acknowledged that
many in government "failed" us in some way leading up to 911,
Take a class in logic. the fact that other's may have also failed
doesn't erase the fact that Jamie Gorelick failed to do her job.
Post by James Simpson
and that could
include several other commissioners, many of whom had past careers in
government prior to 911
How many of them had executive positions in the Justice Department,
the FBI or the CIA??? These agencies are responsible for catching
terrorists. She failed to do her job.
Post by James Simpson
and could conceivably be guilty of some failing that
made us more vulnerable to terror attacks.
Jamie Gorelick screwed up. She failed to do her job and there was no
law stopping her.
Post by James Simpson
If Gorelick "misinterpreted the
law" (though we know 'the law' is often based on subjective interpretation),
then that would mean she made a mistake, not that she willfully neglected
her duty or deliberately 'misinterpreted' the law.
I never said she was a criminal, just a failure and the cause of 9/11.
Post by James Simpson
She presented what she
and many others thought to be the law, in fact it sounds like all her
predecessors for 20 years and others had the same 'misinterpretation'. So,
to call her 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' is hyperbole at best, or
willful slander at worst.
We have the memo she wrote. We have the decision of the federal
appeals court. This is all fact not hyperbole or slander. Its fact.
Raw simple fact. Jamie Gorelick failed to do her job.
Post by James Simpson
She explains it all clearly here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20786-2004Apr17.html
Gorelick did nothing unethical or different from any of her predecessors,
Failure to do one's job is incompetent not necessarily unethical.
Post by James Simpson
so
to single her out as 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' only makes it all
the more obvious that republican attacks on Gorelick are politically
motivated by Bush partisans to detract or try to delegitimize the final 911
Commission report, which is expected to be harsh on the Bush administration.
Single her out??? LOL! Thats a laugh. You didn't see the democrat
demands to single out Condoleezza Rice for roasting and grilling? It
would be great if you lived by the same rules you dole out to others.
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial
"smoking
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to
hamstring
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush
administration
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot
based on
a
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
James Simpson
2004-04-22 02:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal
investigators,
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall
specifically
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Wait a minute. You left out the most important part of the article. Why
is
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
"The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had
been
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick ...
No, it was not clear. What was clear was that you copied and pasted the
entire article up to, but not including the sentence "The appeals court that
demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was
only codified by Ms. Gorelick." Looked suspiciously like selective copy and
paste.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
...a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the
law for more than 20 years.
Do the math silly boy!
Yes, this proves that Gorelick was one of many others who for 20 years have
"misinterpreted the law" (I haven't researched this to know if it's even
true that the law was 'misinterpreted', or if this was just a subjective
intepretation of 'the law'). And this makes her "for the 9/11 attacks"
exactly how? If she "misinterpreted the law" (though we know 'the law' is
often based on subjective interpretation), then that would mean she made a
mistake, not that she willfully neglected her duty or deliberately
'misinterpreted' the law, so to call her 'responsible' for the 9/11 attacks'
is hyperbole at best, and a willful distortion at worst.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Slade Gorton, a
former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft,
noting
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995
guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those
guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that
"the
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
1995 procedures remain in effect today."
But did you notice that Bush's people are under oath and being grilled
by the Commission? Why is Jamie Gorelick not a witness under oath but
a member of the commission? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of
interest??
Post by James Simpson
So, Ashcroft "ratified" the same guidelines on "the wall" that Gorelick
wrote of in her memo!
Yes and Ashcroft testified before the commission and Jamie Gorelick
has not.
Post by James Simpson
And Ashcroft continued operating under "the wall"
during the extremely heightened terror threat during the summer prior to
911. Ashcroft did nothing to "tear down the wall" and is therefore a
hypocrite.
You are the hypocrite to complain that Ashcroft didn't tear down a
wall in seven months what Bill Clinton had in place for 8 years.
Ashcroft could have torn down the wall with the stroke of a pen. He didn't.
If anyone is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks", it's Ashcroft. He
was far
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
too busy going after Tommy Chong for selling bongs, working to overturn
California's referendum on medical marijuana for cancer patients, going to
court to overturn the will of the voters in Oregon to allow approved
doctor-assisted suicide, and covering bare-breasted statues (horrors!),
while gutting the rule requiring that gun records be retained for more than
one day, putting the U.S. at risk of terrorist's being able to acquire
weapons in our own country. But Ashcroft had to show his religious
allegiance to the NRA, at the expense of our security and safety.
Ashcroft
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
is ''responsible for the 9/11 attacks" more than many, including Jamie
Gorelick.
Hey, this is the one point over which we completely agree!!!
Wow, there's hope for you yet! Ashcroft should have been concentrating on
the big issues, especially terrorism, but instead he wasted precious time
and taxpayer dollars pursuing his own religious agenda. BTW, believe it or
not, I'm not a stereotypical "liberal" who believe in "big government". I
believe in limited government that respects the will of the people, and if
the people of Oregon approve of doctor assisted suicide or the people of
California believe marijuana should be made available to cancer patients,
that should be respected. Ashcroft is not a true conservative and does not
believe in limited government.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Obviously, you are so determined to defend Ashcroft and Bush
that you are willing to distort the issue by leaving out important
details like these.
In your hatred for all things republican, you failed to notice that
I'm not defending Ashcroft. But Jamie Gorelick is equally guilty. So
the big question is WHY IS JAMIE GORELICK NOT UNDER OATH TESTIFYING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION???
I have no "hatred for all things republican", but I do disagree with the
direction the republican party has taken over the past several years,
especially with regard to their extreme pro-corporate view that has led to
'outsourcing' of jobs in the U.S., the huge tax cuts which really only
benefit the super rich, etc. It was recently reported that Bush, after
deductions, paid a tax rate of 20% and his income was about 700k. Last
year, I made a little over 30k, and I paid 25% tax. That is not fair. As to
Jamie Gorelick, I don't believe one memo she wrote nearly 10 years ago,
which did not change anything in regards to terrorism,
requires her to testify.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Conveniently, Jamie Gorelick doesn't even have to testify before the
commission. Thus she conveniently avoids having to say anything under
oath that needs defending. You neo-communists are such a joke with
your lying, twisting and corruption all the while accusing the
opposition of corruption and lying.
Post by James Simpson
The obvious conclusion is what I said at first, that in her memo
Gorelick
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
was merely saying that the law must be obeyed.
She was the deputy chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
her JOB is to catch terrorists. She failed miserably. She not only
failed to do her job she sat on her fanny behind a desk in her office
and published memos making it hard for anyone else to do their job
too.
I don't know a lot about Gorelick's performance in the DOJ in the 1990's,
but I think she did a lot more than sit "behind a desk" and publish memos.
Commissioner Kean, a republican, obviously has great respect for her.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
and the appeals court clearly said that she went far beyond the law.
Post by James Simpson
She did not make the law. She
did nothing wrong whatsoever. Period.
She failed to do her job and catch terrorists. She is responsible.
It was very wrong.
You keep saying she is "responsible" as though she is solely responsible for
911, when it's clear our government failed us on many levels.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
She crippled the FBI's ability to track down terrorists and there WAS
NO LAW requiring her to do that. She is at fault. She is responsible
for the 9/11 attacks and your argument that there might be others
equally responsible is no excuse for her failures.
Lay off the caffeine. "Failures"?? It's been universally acknowledged that
many in government "failed" us in some way leading up to 911,
Take a class in logic. the fact that other's may have also failed
doesn't erase the fact that Jamie Gorelick failed to do her job.
Maybe, but it's a subjective judgment to say she "failed to do her job"
based on a single memo written 6 years before 911, a memo in which she
merely repeated the legal view held for 20 years, 5 years before even the
Cole attack, and way before terrorism had become the big problem it's since
become, is unfair and inaccurate, in my view.
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
and that could
include several other commissioners, many of whom had past careers in
government prior to 911
How many of them had executive positions in the Justice Department,
the FBI or the CIA??? These agencies are responsible for catching
terrorists. She failed to do her job.
Post by James Simpson
and could conceivably be guilty of some failing that
made us more vulnerable to terror attacks.
Jamie Gorelick screwed up. She failed to do her job and there was no
law stopping her.
Post by James Simpson
If Gorelick "misinterpreted the
law" (though we know 'the law' is often based on subjective
interpretation),
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
then that would mean she made a mistake, not that she willfully neglected
her duty or deliberately 'misinterpreted' the law.
I never said she was a criminal, just a failure and the cause of 9/11.
Post by James Simpson
She presented what she
and many others thought to be the law, in fact it sounds like all her
predecessors for 20 years and others had the same 'misinterpretation'.
So,
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
to call her 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' is hyperbole at best, or
willful slander at worst.
We have the memo she wrote. We have the decision of the federal
appeals court. This is all fact not hyperbole or slander. Its fact.
Raw simple fact. Jamie Gorelick failed to do her job.
Post by James Simpson
She explains it all clearly here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20786-2004Apr17.html
Gorelick did nothing unethical or different from any of her
predecessors,
Post by Mark Fox
Failure to do one's job is incompetent not necessarily unethical.
Post by James Simpson
so
to single her out as 'responsible for the 9/11 attacks' only makes it all
the more obvious that republican attacks on Gorelick are politically
motivated by Bush partisans to detract or try to delegitimize the final 911
Commission report, which is expected to be harsh on the Bush
administration.
Post by Mark Fox
Single her out??? LOL! Thats a laugh. You didn't see the democrat
demands to single out Condoleezza Rice for roasting and grilling? It
would be great if you lived by the same rules you dole out to others.
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Post by Mark Fox
-------------------
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden
April 14, 2004
By Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial
"smoking
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners....
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to
hamstring
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush
administration
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot
based on
a
Post by Mark Fox
Post by James Simpson
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
Post by Mark Fox
memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
Agathena
2004-04-18 19:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fox
[Jamie Gorelick's] Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the
wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence
investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators,
was the most important structural impediment to preventing the
attacks.
The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court
ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public.
It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court
that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install
wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being
involved in espionage.
To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to
seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping
the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as
the wall.
Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002
when a special federal appeals court ... added a stunning observation,
saying that ... the wall had never been necessary and that courts and
Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than
20 years.
"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the
wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be
brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such
cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."
In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the
commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms.
Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration
who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning,
imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the
law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically
impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked
aircraft on Sept. 11.
Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute
of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to
seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias
Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations.
Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing
that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United
States.
"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret
memorandum."
"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I
cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I
have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum
is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.
Jamie Gorelick explains the memo in the Washington Post


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20786-2004Apr17.html
Mark Fox
2004-04-18 14:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Personally, I belong to the percentage of Americans who think that we
are there for the oil. Just taking it, of course, would be a little
too bold... so, we are putting together a government in Iraq that will
sell us the oil. Plain and simple. Of course, that is just my
opinion, but you can (and will) think what you want.
You getting near the right idea but still off the mark. The USA wants
stable oil prices. That is achieved by having many independent oil
producing countries competing on the world market to sell their oil.
This is why Saddam was not allowed to stay in Kuwait. It would have
been one less independent oil producing country. Its not about
stealing anyone's oil. The people of Iraq want to sell their oil to
get money just like everyone else. Keeping it in the ground does them
no good. The world market sets the price not the United States. If
you ask anyone in the oil industry they will tell you the price of oil
doesn't matter nearly as much as it not changing too fast. This is a
great plan, unless of course you would like to park your car and stay
home for months at a time while Saddam waged economic war across the
middle east against western nations. Were you alive in 1974 and
1979?? Do you remember??
Iraq has no oil to speak of,
bull f-cking sh!t.
that's why they were invading Kuwait in
the first place, Kuwait _does_ have a lot of oil.
Also, Kuwait was just like Poland for Hitler. It was a weak neighbor
that had no significant defenses so it would fall easily and quickly
making Saddam look more powerful and successful. Hitlers tactics
exactly. Saddam's ambition was to wait till the world got used to him
taking Kuwait and then he would invade Saudi Arabia, then build a
nuclear weapon and take Iran, then take Syria, then Jordan, then
Israel then......
It was Hitler's strategy exactly. Saddam even gassed civilians like
hitler die. The sad thing is that just like in Hitler's day, well
meaning but shallow and foolish people want to appease Saddam just
like the Europeans tried to appease Hitler while he was invading
country after country. Waiting too long to respond to Hitler was a
huge mistake costing the lives of over 20 million people. The truly
outrageous thing is that a mere 60 years later France, Germany and
most of Europe have completely forgotten the lessons of Hitler.
Kuwait was originally part of Iraq. The British drew a line on a map and
circumcised Kuwait from Iraq, thus making the latter a landlocked country.
all the borders in the middle east were artificially drawn. Iraq had
no claim to Kuwait. Saddam didn't even have a historical claim to
authority over the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq or the Kurds in
Northern Iraq much less a claim over Kuwait.
Kuwait should be restored to Iraq. It belongs to Iraq.
No it wasn't.
The British stole it from them.
No they didn't.
the irony is that the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was completely
legitimate.
Kuwait was recognized as a sovereign nation by the Arab League and the
United Nations. How can you possibly claim that one country invading
its sovereign neighbor is "legitimate"?? LOL! You have fallen over
the edge of insanity. By your logic, the USA rightfully belongs to
the Queen on England and Mexico belongs to Spain. LOL! You are a
hoot!
America and the West are the evil Great Satan.
This is the greatest laugh of all. The pure and holy ones are
killing, bombing and gassing civilians to grab wealth and power.
Muslim clerics are assassinating their rival clerics and no one seems
to object and these murderous, ruthless, cutthroats are calling
America "the great Satan". LOL!!! Thats funny.
The fact is that anyone out of power has only his voice. So you will
see every group that has no power trying to get all the TV time they
can to rant, scream and call other people names. This phenomena is
universal with people. That's why you see groups of petty thugs in
the middle east doing it and thats also why you see the Democratic
Party Leadership doing it in the Congress. LOL!
It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
It would certainly be easier to just kill them all. Your homework
assignment for today is to answer the question: Why don't we do that?
Your homework assignment is to learn how to sort out who is saying what
in a thread.
LOL! I was assuming that the context of the whole post would make it
clear that I was speaking to Mel. I can see how you could assume I was
speaking to you though. I included some of your words only for
continuity. Perhaps I should have said: "Your homework assignment,
Mel, is to answer the question...."? That would have made it much
more clear. My Bad!! LOL!


Oh and by the way.... Mel, you need to get a better map. Iraq is
not a land locked country as you claimed above.

Try looking at this CIA map:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

It is agreed that Iraq is militarily vulnerable with only a small
amount of shoreline along the Persian Gulf but Iraq is not land
locked.
Johnny "HitMan" Alto
2004-04-18 15:08:22 UTC
Permalink
If Sadam didnt want to play the oil game on the open market that was his
perogative. That was no reason to use WMD as an excuse to get him out to get
at his oil. Just because his oil may benefit big oil is a lousy excuse. Gas
in the US is already approaching $2 per gallon so it certainly has not
appeared to help us. Although I like fast gas powered cars I say its time to
say fuck the oil companies and lets go hybrid or electric.
Post by Mark Fox
Personally, I belong to the percentage of Americans who think that we
are there for the oil. Just taking it, of course, would be a little
too bold... so, we are putting together a government in Iraq that will
sell us the oil. Plain and simple. Of course, that is just my
opinion, but you can (and will) think what you want.
You getting near the right idea but still off the mark. The USA wants
stable oil prices. That is achieved by having many independent oil
producing countries competing on the world market to sell their oil.
This is why Saddam was not allowed to stay in Kuwait. It would have
been one less independent oil producing country. Its not about
stealing anyone's oil. The people of Iraq want to sell their oil to
get money just like everyone else. Keeping it in the ground does them
no good. The world market sets the price not the United States. If
you ask anyone in the oil industry they will tell you the price of oil
doesn't matter nearly as much as it not changing too fast. This is a
great plan, unless of course you would like to park your car and stay
home for months at a time while Saddam waged economic war across the
middle east against western nations. Were you alive in 1974 and
1979?? Do you remember??
Iraq has no oil to speak of,
bull f-cking sh!t.
that's why they were invading Kuwait in
the first place, Kuwait _does_ have a lot of oil.
Also, Kuwait was just like Poland for Hitler. It was a weak neighbor
that had no significant defenses so it would fall easily and quickly
making Saddam look more powerful and successful. Hitlers tactics
exactly. Saddam's ambition was to wait till the world got used to him
taking Kuwait and then he would invade Saudi Arabia, then build a
nuclear weapon and take Iran, then take Syria, then Jordan, then
Israel then......
It was Hitler's strategy exactly. Saddam even gassed civilians like
hitler die. The sad thing is that just like in Hitler's day, well
meaning but shallow and foolish people want to appease Saddam just
like the Europeans tried to appease Hitler while he was invading
country after country. Waiting too long to respond to Hitler was a
huge mistake costing the lives of over 20 million people. The truly
outrageous thing is that a mere 60 years later France, Germany and
most of Europe have completely forgotten the lessons of Hitler.
Kuwait was originally part of Iraq. The British drew a line on a map and
circumcised Kuwait from Iraq, thus making the latter a landlocked country.
all the borders in the middle east were artificially drawn. Iraq had
no claim to Kuwait. Saddam didn't even have a historical claim to
authority over the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq or the Kurds in
Northern Iraq much less a claim over Kuwait.
Kuwait should be restored to Iraq. It belongs to Iraq.
No it wasn't.
The British stole it from them.
No they didn't.
the irony is that the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was completely
legitimate.
Kuwait was recognized as a sovereign nation by the Arab League and the
United Nations. How can you possibly claim that one country invading
its sovereign neighbor is "legitimate"?? LOL! You have fallen over
the edge of insanity. By your logic, the USA rightfully belongs to
the Queen on England and Mexico belongs to Spain. LOL! You are a
hoot!
America and the West are the evil Great Satan.
This is the greatest laugh of all. The pure and holy ones are
killing, bombing and gassing civilians to grab wealth and power.
Muslim clerics are assassinating their rival clerics and no one seems
to object and these murderous, ruthless, cutthroats are calling
America "the great Satan". LOL!!! Thats funny.
The fact is that anyone out of power has only his voice. So you will
see every group that has no power trying to get all the TV time they
can to rant, scream and call other people names. This phenomena is
universal with people. That's why you see groups of petty thugs in
the middle east doing it and thats also why you see the Democratic
Party Leadership doing it in the Congress. LOL!
It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
It would certainly be easier to just kill them all. Your homework
assignment for today is to answer the question: Why don't we do that?
Your homework assignment is to learn how to sort out who is saying what
in a thread.
LOL! I was assuming that the context of the whole post would make it
clear that I was speaking to Mel. I can see how you could assume I was
speaking to you though. I included some of your words only for
continuity. Perhaps I should have said: "Your homework assignment,
Mel, is to answer the question...."? That would have made it much
more clear. My Bad!! LOL!
Oh and by the way.... Mel, you need to get a better map. Iraq is
not a land locked country as you claimed above.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
It is agreed that Iraq is militarily vulnerable with only a small
amount of shoreline along the Persian Gulf but Iraq is not land
locked.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...