The Truth about 'the Wall'

The Washington Post ^ | April 18, 2004 | Jamie S. Gorelick

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

It is important to remember that terrorism was considered a criminal problem. Only since 9/11 do we as a people view this differently. So, in order to obtain a conviction against terrorists in the US, it was imperative to have a procedure in place which was above reproach by the courts.

BTW - ALL executive agencies have been / are effected by this - the military, the CIA, the NSA etc... **AND** each one had / have thier own rules for implementing the law.

So much for History.

Pre 9/11, many of us here on FR would probably applauded ANY government official who, at least nominally, went "beyond what the law requires" in protecting our rights.

I understand what you're saying about the context for the "Wall," but the problem is that when the unintended consequence (a freer hand for terrorists due to federal agencies tying their own hands while investigating subsersive activities) resulted in the terror attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, the blame game started. No one wants to be blamed for 9/11, even if the cause was innocuous (which it may not be, according to some declassified memos I read about Janet Reno trying to surreptitiously obtain FBI files about Chinagate before she was stopped by Louis Freeh).

Bottom line is, the Wall was a leftover mentality from the 70's Watergate era, where left-wing subversives were being watched by the FBI and CIA. Counter-culture subversives' goal was to destroy intelligence agencies or hamper investigations, and the left-leaning Clinton White House was all for that. Never forget that Hillary! was one of the people involved in the Watergate Commission that toppled Richard Nixon. The Wall and all its consequences follow from the fallout of the Watergate era.

Am I picking up on what you're trying to say?

[Piranha]

I think he is referring to Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of Hitler and comparing it to Kerry's ambivalence (at best) about American efforts in the War on Terror. He's being ironic.

[MamaLucci]

Hillary is running - Gorelick will be gone before the end of the week.

Hillary! IS running, which is why Gorelick will refuse to resign. She is there, first and foremost, to protect BJ and Hillary!'s ample rear-ends. If Gorelick is to go, (which she must if this commission is to be anything other than a partisan joke) she will have to forced out, IMHO.

[Spotsy]

I think he is referring to Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of Hitler and comparing it to Kerry's ambivalence (at best) about American efforts in the War on Terror. He's being ironic.

Thanks for snapping me out my humor-less state.

[Doogle]

Look my fellow freepers..

..just like monica was spoon fed to the American people to deflect any interest in what should of been under the microscope of the interested folks....

..this commission is another "conflict" to busy us all with who's who and what's what and who did this and who did that...why it's soooo scandalous!!!..(good headline feeder)

..in the end, they'll make recommendations as to how to fix this and how to fix that, and the sad fact is that our enemies will use whatever the commission will give them to use...legally....
..you see, we are an "open society"..(how many times have you heard that phrase used since 9/11 ?? )..
and until WE make hard choices as to what will be allowed and not allowed we will always be vulnerable.

so the next time you hear about "privacy" and what is said about it, and who it involves...it's much more than.."I don't want anyone looking into "MY" business".

the nice nice attitude of our intelligence gathering..
( FBI agents were NOT allowed to use public libraries for info gathering...and even if they were....the info passed along would have had to be passed through more screens for the legalities)
...so what it came down to..in plain simple language is..
the hijackers had more rights about their privacy, then the government had in order to protect all that suffered on 9/11

[KSApplePie_two]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 26, 2004

Senate Intelligence Committee Votes to Give 9/11 Panel More Time

WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today voted to give The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) two additional months to complete its final report on the account of circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks. (S. 2136)

“It’s critical that we understand the complete set of events that led to 9-11,” said Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “Giving the commission two more months is a reasonable request and has bipartisan support.

“The extension will allow the commission to produce solid recommendations that will better protect our homeland,” Roberts said.

“Congress has a responsibility to provide this commission with the time and resources it needs to complete its job,” Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said. “This should be a simple and straightforward decision – give the commission the time it needs to provide the American people with honest answers about the tragedy of 9/11.”

http://roberts.senate.gov/02-26-2004.htm
_______________________________________________

hmmmmm...
"honest answers" yeah right!
Didn't the Republican co-chair tell us to "but out" when it came to this issue?

[Doogle]

...thats butt in this case

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Ping---a mention of the death of Barbara Wise, who I am ashamed to say I never heard of (happened the year I was divorced... I suppose I was a bit distracted).

[An.American.Expatriate]

Here is the full quote for conetxt.

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

[An.American.Expatriate]

Am I picking up on what you're trying to say?

Yes. I am also aware of the possible ulterior reasons that may have been behind this memo. I'm just not willing (yet) to accept them as there are other "non-malicious" reasons - I do have my suspicions though - and - Gorelick must not be allowed to remain on the Commission! This if nothing else is clear.

[Matchett-PI]

"If she wrote the wall it was at the behest of the Clintons. The question is why did the Clintons want this?"

Click on my screen name and see the answer.

[Spotsy]

Thanks for enlightening me.

My sense of humor was still logged out when I logged in.

[An.American.Expatriate]

No problem, have the same humor lag every day (at least until my second cup of coffee!)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"Peace in our Time?"

That is a play on the pre WWII statement of a British Foreign minister returning from a meeting with Hitler waving a piece of paper bearing Hitler's signature saying this represents "Peace in our Time"

Of course shortly after that Hitler invades a neighboring country.

The Analogy would be that Kerry signs a piece of paper with the Mullahs of Iran and returns to the USA , stating the signed paper represents ""Peace in our Time" and pulls our troops out of IRAQ: The Mullahs hope so, see this:

WHAT IRAN WANTS

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Thanks for the reply. I love this site!!

[Spotsy]

That is a play on the pre WWII statement of a British Foreign minister returning from a meeting with Hitler waving a piece of paper bearing Hitler's signature saying this represents "Peace in our Time"

Thanks Ernest. I was entranced by Mr. Kerry on Meet the Press today and had a stupid moment.

[Happy2BMe]

BUMPING THE WALL

[Matchett-PI]

"If she wrote the wall it was at the behest of the Clintons. The question is why did the Clintons want this?"

In light of your replies, I meant to ping you to this post. You may find some merit in it also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1119734/posts?page=131#131

[auboy]

Excellent letter, Rob!

Ms. Gorelick never belonged on this Commission and does not belong on this commission now.

ANYONE previously working for WJC or GWB should have never been allowed on the 9-11 panel. Two have: Gorelick and Ben Veniste.

Their presence TAINTS the commission beyond repair, much as a fly landing in the cole slaw, after a direct flight from a cow pattie. The whole "bowl" is contaminated!

[My2Cents]

I noticed today in the segment of "Weekend Live" on Fox News, in a discussion about the 9-11 Omission, that they had a face-off between a Republican political consultant and....a reporter from News Day!...not a Democrat consultant, not a Democrat politician, but a member of the news media, taking the side of the Democrats in this discussion!

We've always known the news media was biased, but never in my 30+ years of observing politics has the media been so baldfaced about taking the side of the Democrats in an election. They've consciously dropped all pretense of "objectivity."