[Piranha]

Moderator -- I thought this should be Breaking News because it is published under Gorelick's own byline.

She seems to be saying that the Wall is based on a law that permits US-based surveillance against foreign pargets if the primary purpose is foreign intelligence and not criminal prosecution. In other words, for the prevention of future terrorist attacks. Amazingly, she writes that her memo directed agents to share information, not to restrict its use! She also says (I didn't include this portion in the excerpt) that her memo was superceded by Janet Reno's memo in July 1995 that put even tighter controls on uses of intelligence (she doesn't say whether she worked on that memorandum as well).

Finally, as much as I can understand her point, she seems to be admitting that the Patriot Act extended the usage of this intelligence in obtaining foreign intelligence.

This dispute about the meaning of the Wall, and its ramifications, forcefully points out why she should be testifying in front of the Commission about the government's efforts to fight terror (where she can give a spirited defense of what she meant by the memo), instead of sitting on the commission asking questions of the witnesses.

In addition, the Wall is only part of the problem. She is a litigation partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and I have read secondary reports that allege that her firm's litigation department is representing a Saudi leader who is defending himself against a lawsuit filed by 9/11 families. If this is so, then in my opinion this conflict alone ethically should force her off of the Commission.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I have said this on a few threads here already, but I'll do it again here as well.

1. Gorelick is hopelessly conflicted and must resign / be removed from the commission. Her invlovement in counterintelligence during the Clinton Admisnistration alone is sufficient grounds for this.

2. The "Wall" memo. I did not read the entire article, but I can more or less guess what she is saying. Having myself worked in the counterintellignce field from 1985 to 1991, I am quite familiar with the FISA and the various prohibitions against collecting intelligence on "US Persons". What Gorelick claims in the article is correct and, unless I see evidence that she actually wanted to hinder intelligence gathering, I will believe that she truly intended to create a system which could not be called into question by our judicial branch.

Some here seem to think that this all got started under Clinton. It didn't. The very FIRST guidlelines where from 1947. In 1974 came the privacy act. In 1978 (??) the FISA Act. In the early 80's, Ronald Reagan signed EO's which basically layed the framework for the "Wall". The Banking Scandals (BCCI & BNL) showed that there were problem areas with this and the "rules" needed refinement.

In a typical CI Investigation, the normals safeguards we inherently enjoy (privacy etc...) can be ignored. Eavesdropping and other invasive methods of information gathering are used. Any information thus recieved is NOT admissable in a court as it was not obtained "legally" - and any evidence *derived* directly from this information is also NOT admissible. It is therefore necessary to maintain a strict "wall" between CI and Criminal Investigations.

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.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where the protection of our rights conflicts with the needs of national security. Anytime this type of situation needs resolution, it is at best difficult, at times nearly impossible to resolve the needs "equitably". Personally, I would rather have persons knowledgeable of both CI & criminal investigations attempt to resolve this - not the courts!

I belive that Gorelick tried to do just that.

Before the "flames" begin, I want to make it VERY clear that I do not defend the "Wall". Rather, I understand the historical perspective of it's creation. It IS important to understand this before we "judge".

Her involvement in policy making concerning CI and the emerging information of her true involvment in many aspects of the Clinton Administration conflict with her current duty as a Commissioner. She should resign. Failing that, she should be removed from the commission.

[Just mythoughts]

"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."

---

I have not read the entire article, I refuse to "REGISTER" with the WP.

This paragraph is BS. What is not given is the "specific" reason for "a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute". This attempts to make it sound like there was no choice but to finally implement a 1978 statute.

Something specific caused this need for the "procedures" being implemented.

"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."

This is a cover blaming "courts" for her "MEMO".

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

[expatguy]

The "WALL" must be torn down this is an act of Israeli aggression against our peaceful Palestinian people...we are calling on Kofi Annan and the UN to help us defend ourselves from this policy of aggression by Sharon and Bush...

oooppps.... wrong thread sorry...

[Future Useless Eater]

From FoxNews Channel - Hannity and Colmes 4-14-2004

Dick Morris: This woman [Gorelick] is bad news. She RAN the Justice Department for three years. Reno was a FIGUREHEAD during that period. And it was her invention to setup this WALL separating investigators from intelligence gatherers. So when Zacharias Moussaui was arrested in Minneapolis for taking flight lessons, I write about this in "Off with Their Heads", the prosecutors were going after him on an immigration violation. And they couldn't let the intelligence types look at his computer, which had the NAMES and the FLIGHT SCHOOLS of the 9/11 hijackers, listed there.

And then the Supreme Court ruled that Gorelick's rule, was unnecessary. They overturned it. So THIS woman is MORE responsible than ANYBODY for 9/11 going undetected.

Alan Colmes: ...[but] she DID recuse herself from cross-examining some of the law enforcement and intelligence officials...

Morris: I want to repeat what I just said. Of ALL of the public officials in the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, the ONE who is MOST directly responsible, in my judgement, for 9/11 happening, is Jamie Gorelick.

Colmes: You like pointing fingers, huh.

Sean Hannity: We ought to put HER under oath. THAT'S what ought to happen!

Morris: That WALL of separation was SO DESTRUCTIVE.

April 18, 2004          

              George W. Bush for President         2,000.00

   Two thousand and 0/100s----------------



      911 commission witchhunt, etc.      John Q. Public

[Diogenesis]

Gorelick has ALWAYS been willing to lie, including to Judges in federal court.

[ovrtaxt]

Please let me know by freepmail if you want to be taken off this list. Thanks.

[Pietro]

I beleive the only way to get to the bottom of this is to put Ms. Gorelick in the docket where she can answer specific information. Her continued presence on the committee is no longer acceptable.

[TomGuy]

Gorelick was put on the Committee for one reason: To protect the Clintons.

That per a Clinton staffer quote that appeared in the American Standard (IIRC).

It is doubtful that she will be forced off the Committee. Even the Pubbie appointees and Orrin Hatch are on record defending her.

The Committee has lost any credibility and integrity, but so what. The Committee will issue its decision, BJ did his best, Bush could have done more, but the CIA and FBI are the major culprits. End of report.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Isn't it interesting that the Washington Post gives Gorelick this "prime spot" in its Sunday "Outlook" section to give her side of the story -- without any questioning, without any follow-up, without any challenges, without putting her under oath. Not exactly "fair and balanced" now, is it?

[thoughtomator]

The truth of the "wall" is that the Left is STILL complaining about the US PATRIOT Act taking it down.

[Gritty]

Gorelick shouldn't be writing windy and one-sided explanations in The Washington Post. She should be testifying these explanations under oath in front of the Committee in public hearings.

...and she should resign from the Commission.

[1rudeboy]

Anybody have a password and e-mail addy so I can read the whole thing?

[leprechaun9]

My e-mail to the commisars:

Stop the desecration of all those who who were murdered on 9/11. The broadcast of the "Kean Follies" is bringing hours of entertainment to the terrorists who are watching via satellite broadcast.

This panel of political pimps of the election industry shows as a filthy livid white scar on the United States.

By the way, Mr. Kean I don't see any racial diversity (since you are such a champion of it) on the commission and I don't hear any protests of this shortcoming from the Revs Jessie and Al and their queen from California, Maxine!

[Spunky]

"...the memo I wrote in March 1995 ..."

LOL! Didn't I read on a thread the other day where she denied writing the memo and that the signature wasn't hers?

What a bunch of liars.

[mabelkitty]

Which Freeper is going to rebut her lies using all the threads of investigation we have?

[RobbyS]

As a nonlawyer, I must say that lawyers always interpret statuteand case law in a way dictated by their personal experience and views. Consequently their inrepretations always favor the interests of her colleagues and clients. In a world where politics and law are inextricable, her clients include herself and the other members of the Clinton Admnistration. Maybe, just maybe the way the FBI functioned under her control--and she more than Reno was a player--made it impossible to find a mideast connection with Oklahoma City.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Welcome to the machine...

Oh, and Gorelicker? The Weather's here, wish you were beautiful!

[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?

[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.