Posted on 04/13/2004 12:27:15 PM PDT by wcdukenfield
Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
Dear Messrs. Kean and Hamilton:
Landmark Legal Foundation, a national public interest law firm that specializes in government accountability, formally requests that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("Commission") request that Ms. Jamie S. Gorelick step aside as a Commission member. Ms. Gorelick is hopelessly conflicted in her role as a Commission member, given the numerous issues about which she has knowledge resulting from her service as Deputy Attorney General of the United States from 1994 to 1997.
As Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Gorelick oversaw the management, budget and policy objectives of the United States Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The Department of Justice's and FBI's pre-9/11 activities and functions are a key focus of the Commission, for which Ms. Gorelick should be providing testimony as a material witness. Ms. Gorelick's recusal in questioning former FBI Director Louis Freeh is no substitute for her testimony. Moreover, as a Commission member, Ms. Gorelick will have input into the Commission's findings, including those related to areas involving her past role. If Ms. Gorelick does not immediately step aside, many in the public will undoubtedly conclude that the Commission's work has been compromised.
The Commission knows best what matters Ms. Gorelick was directly involved in as Deputy Attorney General. However, here are a few examples that warrant Ms. Gorelick stepping aside.
Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, among others. Writing in National Review Online, he states:
Commissioner Gorelick, as deputy attorney general - the number two official in the Department of Justice - for three years beginning in 1994, was an architect of the government's self-imposed procedural wall, intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts.
Additionally, Mr. McCarthy states:
But the Justice Department, with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick in the thick of important policy decisions, did not see it that way. Committed to the bitter end to the law enforcement mindset, and overwrought at the mere possibility of violating the ill-conceived 'primary purpose' test, DOJ made matters significantly worse. It imposed severe procedural barriers against competent intelligence gathering. As described by the FIFSA Court of Review in 2002:
[T]he 1995 Procedures limited contacts between the FBI and [DOJ's] Criminal Division in cases where FISA surveillance or searches were being conducted by the FBI for foreign intelligence (FI) or foreign counterintelligence (FCI) purposes.. ..The procedures state that "the FBI and Criminal Division should ensure that advice intended to preserve the option of a criminal prosecution does not inadvertently result in either the fact or the appearance of the Criminal Division's directing or controlling the FI or FCI investigation toward law enforcement objectives.' 1995 Procedures at 2, 6 (emphasis added). Although these procedures provided for significant information sharing and coordination between criminal and FI or FCI investigations, based at least in part on the 'directing or controlling language, they eventually came to be narrowly interpreted within the Department of Justice, and most particularly by [the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review (OIPR)], as requiring OIPR to act as a 'wall' to prevent the FBI intelligence officials from communicating with the Criminal Division regarding ongoing FI or FCI investigations? Thus, the focus became the nature of the underlying investigation, rather than the general purpose of the surveillance. Once prosecution of the target was being considered, the procedures, as interpreted by OIPR in light of the case law, prevented the Criminal Division from providing any meaningful advice to the FBI (Italics mine except where otherwise indicated.)
(Andrew C. McCarthy, "What About the Wall?" National Review Online, April 13, 2004, available at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mccarthy.)
Ethan Wallision, also writing in National Review Online, states:
[In questioning National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Commissioner Gorelick] pointed to a report from 2001 that indicated, in her own words, that 'we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.' In the ensuing dialogue, Rice seemed to implicate Gorelick in the allegation.
Gorelick: Now, you have said that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in [the policy review] about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention. Can you give me the answer to the question why?
Rice: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been a recognition for a number of years before - after the '93 bombing, and certainly after the [thwarted] millennium [attack in Los Angles] - that there were challenges? inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA. We were in office 233 days. It's absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform at the FBI. [Emphasis mine].
(Ethan Wallison, "Wrong Side of the Table," National Review Online, April 12, 2004, available at http://www.nationalreviewonline.com/comment/wallision.)
Curt Anderson, a writer for the Associated Press, reports further that the FBI was hamstrung in its efforts to combat terrorism. He quotes your Commission staff report:
'On Sept. 11, the FBI was limited in several areas,' the commission said in a staff report. It cited 'limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, an overly complex legal regime and inadequate resources.'
Moreover, Mr. Anderson reports that former acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard was surprised by Ms. Gorelick's presence on the Commission:
According to a commission document obtained by the Associated Press, Pickard also raised questions about the presence of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on the panel. The document said Pickard found her membership 'surprising' because she and Reno had developed the policy to counter international terrorism primarily through the use of law enforcement techniques.
(Curt Anderson, "FBI Weak on Terror Threat Response," Associated Press, April 13, 2004.)
Ms. Gorelick should step down from the Commission, and the Commission should seek her sworn public testimony on these and other matters related to her role as Deputy Attorney General pre-9/11.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Levin
President
Call them and ask what we as citizens can do to take a more active role in the commission. When I asked, the lady said why? I answered that congress answers to its citizens, not to political parties. I then asked what we as citizens can do to get someone recused from the committee. She referred me to jstull@911comission.gov. She asked why I was so interested again. I then said that the partisanship displayed by kerrey and rohmer rendered the commission moot. She said that was my opinion and hung up. Keep the pressure on!
Yea...I was speaking about Gorelick though. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.