The Truth about 'the Wall'

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

[Piranha]

The commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has a critical dual mission to fulfill -- to help our nation understand how the worst assault on our homeland since Pearl Harbor could have occurred and to outline reforms to prevent new acts of terrorism.

***************SNIP*****************

At last week's hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft, facing criticism, asserted that "the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents" and that I built that wall through a March 1995 memo. This is simply not true.

First, I did not invent the "wall," which is not a wall but a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) and federal court decisions interpreting it. In a nutshell, that law, as the courts read it, said intelligence investigators could conduct electronic surveillance in the United States against foreign targets under a more lenient standard than is required in ordinary criminal cases, but only if the "primary purpose" of the surveillance were foreign intelligence rather than a criminal prosecution.

**************SNIP****************

...the memo I wrote in March 1995 ... permits freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines or the 2001 Thompson memo. My memo directed agents on both sides to share information -- and, in particular, directed one agent to work on both the criminal and intelligence investigations -- to ensure the flow of information "over the wall."

***************SNIP***************

The Patriot Act...says that electronic surveillance can be conducted in the United States against foreign threats as long as a "significant purpose" -- rather than the "primary purpose" -- is to obtain foreign intelligence.

************SNIP*************

I intend -- with my brethren on the commission -- to finish the job.

[maestro]

Your# 39........

........The very FIRST guidlelines where from 1947.......

O.K.,.......and, exactly what were J.Edgar Hoover's 'footnotes' on them?

:-(

[ovrtaxt]

Yes, good home page! How are things in O-town? Eisner's getting ready for the g@yd@y festivities in June, I'm sure...

Anyway, I had a further question beyond the answers given on your home page.

If all this is true, and OKC was an act of Iraqi terrorism (Jayna Davis is on Glenn Beck tomorrow, btw) why hasn't the Bush admin. cited it as justification for the Iraqi invasion? Surely Ashcroft knew of this memo long before, and God only knows what other interesting crud was cooked up by the Clintons, which current officials know about, and which may still be in place.

Why the silence? Why the smiles, handshakes and suck-ups to Ted Kennedy? Is it just the 'new tone'? Does Bush really think the 'new tone' is worth jeopardizing the lives of Americans? I don't think so.

Perhaps it's the FBI files. Are the Clintons exercising a degree of control over the US Government to this very day with the political elite in their crosshairs? Is the Bush Admin compromised, perhaps with unsavory info on his father? Just theorizing out loud.

How deep does the muck flow? And how long are we going to live under the influence of these people?

[BARLF]

I would now like to see a rerun of AG AShcroft's opening statement and testimony. I only got to watch his opening and Ben-V's blabbering.

When AG Ashcroft talked about the memo and that a person on the commission was responsible for the memo I bout fell out of my chair. I bet Gorelic's heart missed a couple of beats.

I was surprised at AG Ashcroft's demeaner from the start as he seemed very angry. Now I wonder if that anger(if that's what I saw) was because Gorelic was on the commission.

Question: Why was Janet Reno a witness but Gorelic is a judge?

What else does AG Ashcroft know?

[TheEaglehasLanded]

bttt

[MNJohnnie]

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


I haven't seen any posts about Kerry on Meet the Depressed. Was it really that unremarkable? NO ONE made note of what he said?

[Rockitz]

It appears to me that she is skating on The Thin Ice by being a part of The Trial. But The Show must go on so she will undoubtedly continue to demonstrate the Empty Spaces In the Flesh of her brain. Hey You Gorelick, we're all hoping you Run like Hell or say Goodbye Cruel World real soon.

Is Roger Waters receiving royalties for this article?

[gogipper]

This is the key point. We should have had objective, sober-minded representatives looking at the big picture. Surely there are some people like that on both sides of the aisle? Instead we have a major player from the Clinton Department of Justice (with counter-terrorism responsibilities) who by the way also has ties to a law firm defending Saudi Arabian's? How could it have gone so wrong?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Spotsy]

Kerry on Meet Depressed: Remarkable for Timmy's tough questioning and Kerry's lame performance (as well as very orange pancake makeup).

Kerry's arrogance was on full display and he got a little snippy with Russert.

Russert played a little of the anti-Vietnam lies that Kerry spewed during an ancient MTP interview (regurgitation of Congressional testimony). Kerry's first response to the tape was, "Where did all of that dark hair go?" Russert looked incredulous.

The other notable moment came when Russert challenged Kerry on his military/medical records on the grounds that some are now questioning the legitimacy of Kerry's first purple heart.

Kerry lamely complained that he had a piece of shrapnel in his arm and therefore deserved the purple heart. Then, incredibly, he tried to assert that his records are already public, but he flip-flopped and said that he would be happy to show them to anyone who wants to see them. Very bizarre answer and great pickins for Rove.

Kerry's explanation of his economic plan was pretty funny too. He said that he has "creative" ways to finance the multitude of programs that he has promised AND still balance the budget.

I think that even Russert was saying to himself, "This man is an idiot."

[Shery]

Exactly!! It was her whole attitude that brought on this closer look at who she really is. Some people have the capacity to be bipartisan and do the right thing. She, from the get-go, has not! She invited the criticism. But, just like all career dems, she thinks that all you have to do is lie, stonewall, refuse, etc. and everyone SHOULD just leave you alone to do your thing! How dare the public (in her mind) challenge her! You have to give them credit for their stubbornness to change or do the right thing. They are exceptionally good at it. Also, they are so good at throwing invectives at the Republicans and getting the press to echo it that it makes it downright impossible for a Republican to challenge a democrat on anything without the press making them look like they are raving lunatics and/or hateful! What a great system for the dems. They get their cake and eat it too!

[WhiteyAppleseed]

a .455 Webley cartridge of green and pink striped taffy

We really need to return to the days when Ethan Allen Cockett was director of the Central Enquiries Agency and the feared Henry Lux was at the helm of the Federal Board of Regulators, the days when Nan (aka Joan Delaney) uttered the prophetic words to Dr. Schaefer, "I wish you were a plumber."

Field manual C, page 112, paragraph heading license to kill, sub-paragraph 3 needs to be rewritten in light of the insider trading prior to 9-11.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

March 28, 2003: An article highlights conflicts of interest amongst the commissioners on the 9/11 Independent Commission. It had been previously reported that many of the commissioners had ties to the airline industry (see December 16, 2002 (B)), but a number have other ties. "At least three of the 10 commissioners serve as directors of international financial or consulting firms, five work for law firms that represent airlines and three have ties to the US military or defense contractors, according to personal financial disclosures they were required to submit." Bryan Doyle, project manager for the watchdog group Aviation Integrity Project says, "It is simply a failure on the part of the people making the selections to consider the talented pool of non-conflicted individuals." Commission chairman Thomas Kean says that members are expected to steer clear of discussions that might present even the appearance of a conflict. [AP, 3/28/03] It remains to see what will happen in practice.
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/main/AAincompetence.html

[detch]

Actually, it's just as well she has not been asked to resign. It confirms the true partisanship of the commission, with the result of NO CREDIBILITY, which is what has been demonstrated since day one by the grandstanding commission members as well as self-grandizing appearnce by Richard Clarke.

[prognostigaator]

bttt

[mcg1969]

Very interesting stuff, Appleseed, but honestly I don't put these in nearly the same category as Gorelick's conflict of interest. Heck I don't even care about her law firm's activities. What matters to me is that this commission is charged with investigating the government, and specifically the executive branch, during the very time she possessed a key role in that branch's terrorism-related activities.

[finnigan2]

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

In answer to the above, I have seen speculation in the past few days at various web sites that the wall was built in 1995 by Reno and GoreLick because the Clintons feared that evidence of their illegal foreign campaign fund raising overseas (especially from communist China) might be chanced upon by the CIA and turned over to the FBI for domestic investigation.
I don't remember the circumstances of 1995 to know if this might make sense or not, ie: was that the time period that BJ was in a heavy campaign collection mode? Was it about the time that the Chinese were turning up at the White House with their contributions in hand? If the memo could be linked in time to these activities it might shed more light on the matter.

[elbucko]

By that bio, she certainly is no lightweight, but then Alger Hiss had an impressive bio as well. After she testifies, hang her.

[elbucko]

- IT'S THE FACT SHE DECEIVED THE COMMISSION ABOUT IT -

Exactly. And as we all know, Washington D.C. rules are that the cover up is not only worse than the crime, but is a crime in itself. Hang her.

[elbucko]

The very FIRST guidelines where from 1947.

The beginning of the Cold War and of extensive Soviet espionage by U.S. citizens in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union. The beginning of this "wall" in '47, was intended to protect spies, not civil rights.

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.

This is true, and I would be one of them. However I would exclude protection of the "Wall" for those engaged in espionage on behalf of a foreign power - even an ally - which, by definition would include Islamic terrorism.

I understand the historical perspective of it's creation. It IS important to understand this before we "judge".

I agree with you in regards to historical perspective. Since the Red Scare of the 20's, the Left has sought to protect its activities and, in the case of Stalinist espionage, protect US citizens dedicated to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It's time for the left to end the Cold War, which is what prompted Gorelick to write the memo in the first place. Civil rights my butt!

BTW, good post. I enjoyed your knowledgeable perspective. Thanks.

[elbucko]

What was the specific "criminal prosecution" that this bunch did not want it to be known "foreigners" were involved with?

The "foreigners" would be Soviet agents legally or otherwise in this country or in a country where a U.S. citizen might make contact with them. The "criminal prosecution" would have been a charge of espionage against a US citizen. This puts US domestic security in a Catch-22. The very "wall" that U.S citizens of the Left needed to operate on behalf of the Soviet Union in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 90's.

It protected such spies as Armand Hammer. Gorelick and the Democratic Party, are still operating as if they are still in danger of being caught as spies.