Posted on 04/13/2004 11:38:37 PM PDT by joinedafterattack
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
April 14, 2004 -- Attorney General John Ashcroft turned the tables on the 9/11 commission yesterday, blaming legal restrictions, including a memo written by one of commission's own members, for barring investigators from sharing information that might have stopped the terror attacks. Ashcroft blasted the "legal wall" put into effect in 1995 which stopped information flowing between intelligence agents and criminal probers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
From CNN: Ashcroft denies taking little interest in terrorism
___________________________________________________________
Ashcroft criticized his predecessors at the Justice Department, saying a 1995 memorandum by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- now a member of the commission -- hamstrung the FBI beyond what the law required.
That is certainly what SHOULD happen and what WOULD happen in a nation where there was an honest news media. Unfortunately, you know as well as I that this story will be downplayed and spun by liberal newsrooms across the country. Heck, they'll probably find a way to make Ashcroft look mean and vindictive and..... partisan.
Because it will never go public.
The "wall" stems from the different approaches of criminal investigators, who must follow strict rules of due process and other concerns, and anti-terrorism investigators, who have more freedom in seizing evidence and taking other measures.
Bull.
The "wall" is not that we must follow strict rules about due process. The "wall" is about the re-interpretationists who play scrabble with the language and bend words in our laws way beyond the authors' original intent. The "wall" is such leftist lawyering legaleze designed to affect social engineering by actually making due process fail, sometimes by working it to death, but generally by portraying it for public consumption as something that it is not.
Among the blessings of due process, are that the burden of following the rule of law is placed upon government officials, to observe their duties within the limits set down by law. Officials must follow the steps and are not to shortchange you of these steps.
The "wall" is not that the steps intended in the law are too much; the "wall" is that the insidious judge-made extra-Cosntitution steps --- the many more than originally intended by the authors of the law --- are pulled from outer space by "the left" which desires a government by such judiciary.
Such that, instead of there being a due process of exacting steps made by law as we are to fashion law under our Constitution --- by the democratic-republican process --- no, instead, "the left" desires that they make laws by stripping the words in our laws, of their fixed nature, of their original intent, by literally playing scrabble with the words, making them so bendable or elastic as to then be rendered other than the authors' original intent.
That, is the "wall;" a minefield of bureaucratic excess.
Well then, to try and get something done, comes the argument that --- in over-generalization --- "due process is in the way" when that is not the case at all.
Due process is not in the way.
Meaningless-ness as a trade, that is the "product" of socialist thought police, who are at war against western values, and so they are busy defining what is good, to be in the way, setting a stage for public consumption of Hillary Clinton's fiction, by strewing in the path of due process, a maze that is intended by them, to get you/us to quit due process, to give up the fight for maintaining due process.
By wearing you/us down with what they want you/us to believe that due process is somehow ... "scary" and between you/us and government protecting you/us.
All the while, these socialists chatter about how they are champions of due process.
Depends upon what their meaning of "due process," "is." If a body cares to ask.
When you/we don't ask, their "due process" is revealed after the damage that it has done, as being nothing like what our laws' authors' orignally intended.
Instead, it is just plain gobbledygook. See the leftists' much beloved, "living" tax code, for a "good example."
Then I ruined my mood last night by listening to O'Reilly who spews about Ashcroft denying responsibility and spending his time cover "nekkid statues" with blankets during the first months of his service. He berated them all for not taking "responsibility" for 9/11.
O'Reilly needs to get a clue. If Ashcroft was flying the darn planes I'd probably be of a different mindset. The fatal flaw with O'Reilly's statement is that he advocates Ashcroft pursuing Terrorists via the same failed policies as the Clinton fiasco, the same policy that eventually lead to 9/11.
The problem is that we were never at a state of war at any given time with the new administration. Bush had to deal with the rats stonewalling every aspect of Bush's ability to even establish a new governing body. How long did it take for the GAO to hand over "the keys" at the goading of the rats? How long before they even had a key board that was capable of typing more than " ar on Terror"?
Bush had many obstacle to overcome just to get settled in the White House. The rats obstructed him at every possible point.
One could even state that the rats themselves are responsible for critical delays that may have been responsible for Bush to be able to do anything about 9/11.
Not that he could have. Yet we didn't need people in our own country working against this country at such a time. We don't need to look beyond the border to find the real enemies of this nation. They are the rats.
We wouldn't be having this conversation because we'd still be under martial law.
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.