Gorelick's Wall: The Commissioner belongs in the witness chair.

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | April 15, 2004 | Editorial

[quidnunc]

We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes, and that much of the press would oblige. But color us astonished that barely anyone appreciates the significance of the bombshell Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped on the hearings Tuesday. If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where's the outrage?

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators — a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

-snip-

[spodefly]

This committee is just a bunch of career politicians and life-long bureaucrats pretending to be doing the work of the people ... part partisan witch hunt, part theater, designed to provide cover to the true nature of the failures before 9/11.

No credibility. No integrity.

[Barlowmaker]

If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where's the outrage?

Outrage became highly selective when America's "Fourth Estate" became integral members of America's subversive "Fifth Column" on or around Richard Nixon's election in 1967.

[Brian Allen]

Gorelick's Wall
The Commissioner belongs in the witness chair.

Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes, and that much of the press would oblige. But color us astonished that barely anyone appreciates the significance of the bombshell Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped on the hearings Tuesday. If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where's the outrage?

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

What's more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: "Someone built this wall." That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history--into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner--instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.



Ms. White was then the lead prosecutor in cases related to the Trade Center bombing. Ms. Gorelick explicitly references United States v. Yousef and United States v. Rahman--cases that might have greatly expanded our pre-9/11 understanding of al Qaeda had investigators been given a freer hand. The memo is a clear indication that there was pressure then for more intelligence sharing. Ms. Gorelick's response is an unequivocal "no":

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" (emphases added).

In case anyone was in doubt, Janet Reno herself affirmed the policy several months later in a July 19, 1995, memo that we have unearthed. In it, the then-Attorney General instructs all U.S. Attorneys about avoiding "the appearance" of overlap between intelligence-related activities and law-enforcement operations.

Recall, too, that during the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie. Mr. Trie later told investigators that between 1994 and 1996 he raised some $1.2 million, much of it from foreign sources, whose identities were hidden by straw donors. Ms. Gorelick resigned as deputy attorney general in 1997 to become vice chairman of Fannie Mae.

From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung.

Ms. Gorelick--an aspirant to Attorney General under a President Kerry--now sits in judgment of the current Administration. This is what, if the principle has any meaning at all, people call a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger was hounded off the Commission for far less. It's such a big conflict of interest that the White House could hardly be blamed if it decided to cease cooperation with the 9/11 Commission pending Ms. Gorelick's resignation and her testimony under oath as a witness into the mind of the Reno Justice Department. What exactly was the purpose of the wall?

[Brian Allen]

IS GORELICKer A GONER?
PRAYERS CALLED FOR!

[BfloGuy]

Thank God (and I'm not even a believer) for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

I read Front Page Magazine, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and the Washington Times but they're all, unfortunately, preaching to the choir.

WSJ gets read and this is a good example of its bringing an issue, ignored in the mass media, to the entire country.

[devolve]

Ah the Clintonistas!

for the 56K dial-uppers this loads the audios fast:

http://www.angelfire.com/film/macny/Hummer.html

for the fast connection bunch:

(and those who will endure loading of larger audio files)

http://www.angelfire.com/film/macny/Hum.html

[Travis McGee]

What kind of alternate universe sci-fi channel world have we landed in?

There's a rotting putrid 'rat carcass floating in the punch bowl, and all our spineless RINO commissioners can do is grin like idiots.

[onyx]

There's a rotting putrid 'rat carcass floating in the punch bowl, and all our spineless RINO commissioners can do is grin like idiots.




Correct. THEY are the problem.
They're passive.
Why wasn't former OK Governor Frank Keating asked to chair the commission?
Look at the wimps on our side.
This is thee golden opportunity.
The GOP ought to be flooding every news show.
We are the stupid party.
They're the evil party.
Can stupid defeat evil?
Stay tuned.

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117579/posts
GORELICK GATE: Developing...
various FR links | 04-14-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

[Happy2BMe]

Who decided Gorelick (GORE-LICK) had the credientials and requirements to be on the commission anyway?

It had to have been agreed on in a bipartisan meeting somewhere with Republicans giving her the nod at the outset of the hearings, now didn't it?

This will be another "test" to see if these hearings are bonafide legitimate or bonafide whitewash.

Unless Gorelick comes off the panel, we have another McCarthy Inquisition on our hands.

[The Raven]

At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

Who would'a thunk that overreaching liberalism was behind this. I used to have the mindset that we got sucker-punched on 9/11. Until I read this editorial.

And the whole mechinism returns in January when the temporary Patriot Act expires.

[The Raven]

Recall, too, that during the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie.

ping

[onyx]

Unless Gorelick comes off the panel, we have another McCarthy Inquisition on our hands.





Precisely.
Excellent thinking.

[Molly Pitcher]

Yes, and Gorelick should apologize! Oh yes indeed!!

[In_25_words_or_less]

Well, damn it! Why is the Republican Party sitting on its fat asses while Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal does its dirty work? Where's Bill Frist's outrage? Where's Dennis Hastert's outrage? Where's John McCain's outrage?

Where it (and that of most Republicans) always is. Cowering behind the door, trembling in fear over what the liberal press and Beltway insiders might think of it.

[hoosiermama]

"how can they justify Gorelick not testifying?"

Woke up thinking about this: If Gorelick and CO. have kept this important information from the commission, it certainly makes a person wonder what other relevant information they are trying to hide?!?!?

[OESY]

From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung.

Ms. Gorelick--an aspirant to Attorney General under a President Kerry--now sits in judgment of the current Administration. This is what, if the principle has any meaning at all, people call a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger was hounded off the Commission for far less. It's such a big conflict of interest that the White House could hardly be blamed if it decided to cease cooperation with the 9/11 Commission pending Ms. Gorelick's resignation and her testimony under oath as a witness into the mind of the Reno Justice Department. What exactly was the purpose of the wall?

Former governor Kean has proved to be an ineffective commission chairman when he fails to maintain discipline in the hearing room, when he announces final judgments have been made before all testimony is heard in public including testimony from the FBI and CIA, and when he continues to give members of the Clinton administration a free pass.

Why was Al Gore's testimony regarding airport security and immigrantion shortcuts not taken in public? Why has Jamie Gorelick not been called to testify as to why it was necessary to erect a "wall" to separate counterintelligence from other FBI activites and the FBI from the CIA? Why when she says she will recuse herself on matters she was involved in is she asking questions of FBI Chief Mueller, as she did yesterday? How can she participate in the judgments of the Commission when by all appearances she's is the single most culpable individual in the whole tragic 9/11 story? In allowing her participation yesterday, Kean broke trust with the American people seeking honest answers.

Why is Kean defending Gorelick without a formal inquiry? The NY Times likes to rail against Republicans for an "appearance" of a conflict of interest after they've circulated unfounded rumors, but Gorelick is the poster child for an ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

It now looks like Kean can no longer preserve any semblance of objectivity or competence on the 9/11 Panel. Kean says we the public should stay out of the Commission's business, but it was convened after an outcry from the public and it is the public they are supposed to be serving. In other words, it is very much our business.

Both Kean and Gorelick should resign. They have utterly lost the confidence of the public.

[Toespi]

Starting to look like we need a commission to investigate "the commission."

[Dante3]

Gorelick must be removed from the commission if it is to have even a little credibility.

As Dick Morris stated: Gorelick is the one person who is responsible for failure to prevent 9/11

Gorlick has a vested interest to put the blame on someone else since it is she who is the guilty party.

[maica]

One thought on the conundrum of Kean and Lehman appearing everywhere to defend Gorelick's placement on the commission.

They have panels of inquiry set for May, June and July. They say they will have a report out by July (to stay within the extension granted them.)

Perhaps they think that to focus now on Gorelick will delay the deadline, and extend the attention paid to the commission. Its actions and its report will drag on through the entire campaign months up to November.

I think this is a weak argument and wrong decision but it may be something that is being considered behind closed doors.