[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.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

I think a letter sent by a former state representative from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan might shed some light on the Gorelick memo. And perhaps McVeigh's trial is somewhere in the room, as well. I posted this letter, along with parts of the "intelligence timeline" that is mentioned as an attachment at the end of the letter, before here on FR last week. On Sunday morning, Fox News' Rebecca Gomez reported on happenings that are included in the intelligence timeline. Here is the letter again. What is your take on it?

Forensic Intelligence International, LLC the Kauth house, 318 Cooper Avenue, Hancock, Michigan 49930; 906-370-9993 706-294-9993 (mobile), 603-452-8208 (fax & voice mail), sdresch@forensic-intelligence.org

Monday, April 5, 2004

Urgent & Confidential

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Re: Pre-September 2001 FBI and Dept. of Justice Intelligence on Terrorism (R. Yousef)

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:

Our monitoring of the Commission’s hearings indicates that significant intelligence concerning the terrorist threat to the United States obtained between 1996 and early 2001 by various components of the U.S. Department of Justice has not been provided to the Commission.

This intelligence was provided to agents of the New York office of the FBI and senior prosecutors with the offices of the U.S. Attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York by an informant, Gregory Scarpa, Jr., who developed a close personal relationship with Ramzi Ahmed Yousef while Yousef and Scarpa were incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York in 1996 and 1997, with supplemental information provided in 2000 by Scarpa to an official of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons after he was transferred to the Administrative Maximum Security (ADMAX) Penitentiary in Florence Colorado, to which Yousef had already been transferred and where both currently remain. In early 2001 another inmate of Florence ADMAX attempted to transmit much of the information developed by Scarpa to the director of the FBI, the President of the United States and the Attorney General.1

We first became aware of this intelligence when, for purposes entirely unrelated to terrorism, we met with Scarpa at Florence ADMAX in March 2003. In the course of these meetings Scarpa provided to us his contemporaneous (1996-97) handwritten notes of his conversations with Yousef and his terrorist codefendants2 and copies of FBI Forms 302 (informant reports) recounting the information which he had provided to agents of the FBI.3

1 We cannot, of course, confirm that these mailings, made by Gerard Van Hoorelbeke, in fact left the prison or reached their intended recipients. Van Hoorelbeke remains incarcerated at Florence ADMAX (Reg. No. 10376-029).

2 Scarpa reported conversations with Yousef and with Yousef’s codefendants, Wali Khan Amin Shah, Abdul Hakim Murad and Eyad Ismoil. Many of these conversations referenced a person identified by the terrorists as “Bojinga,” whom we believe to be Osama Bin Laden.

3 During his incarceration at the MCC, Scarpa was regularly debriefed by an agent of the FBI who, using the alias “Susan Schwartz,” posed as a paralegal employed by Scarpa’s attorney, Larry J. Silverman. In addition to these reports, Scarpa, utilizing a mini-camera provided by the warden of the MCC, provided the FBI with photographs of documents (“kites”) which Yousef shared with him. Also, with the assistance of Scarpa (acting on behalf of the FBI) Yousef was able to make telephone calls, monitored by the FBI, to active (unincarcerated) members of his terrorist networks via a “patch-through” phone accessed from MCC. FI2

- 2 -

The intelligence provided by Scarpa included specific threats to U.S. airlines, the identification of countries (e.g., England) through which terrorists were entering the United States and testing U.S. security procedures, instructions for smuggling explosive chemicals and detonators (including hiding these in the heels of shoes), and formulas for explosives and for the production of phosgene and mustard gases. Yousef revealed to Scarpa his strong interest in obtaining blank U.S. passports which “his people would only use for one trip to board the planes to be hijacked.” Further intelligence laid out a plan to videotape the killings of hijacking victims, with distribution of these tapes to the media.4

One very serious missed opportunity to disrupt a terrorist network here in the United States prior to September 11, 2001, involved Yousef’s agreement to meeting in New York between Scarpa’s associates (who would have been disguised FBI agents) and four active (unincarcerated) terrorists. This meeting never took place because the cognizant FBI agents and assistant U.S. attorneys refused to agree to Yousef’s demand that $3,000 be provided to the terrorists.

It should be noted that Scarpa provided this assistance to the FBI at considerable risk not only to himself but also to members of his family, whose address he was compelled to provide to Yousef to enhance his credibility.

We have identified the following officials as having been directly involved with Scarpa in his role as an informant, as summarized in the attached “Scarpa-Yousef Intelligence Timeline”:5

New York Office of the FBI
Susan Schwartz (alias)
Pat White
James Kallstrom

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
AUSA Michael Garcia (EDNY)
AUSA Patrick Fitzgerald (EDNY)
AUSA Valerie Caproni (EDNY)<> U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White (SDNY)

Metropolitan Correctional Center (New York)
Warden R.M. Reish

Administrative Maximum Secuity Penitentiary, Florence, Colorado
Mr. Manly (SIS)

4 Scarpa’s intelligence anticipates “shoe bomber” Richard Reed, the authorization for the 9/11 attacks given by Yousef's uncle, Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta’s and Al Qaeda’s English connections, the single-use passports employed to board the airplanes hijacked on 9/11, and the videotaped death in Pakistan of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

5 The office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York was initially informed of Scarpa’s contacts with Yousef at the MCC and his willingness to serve as an informant by his attorney, Larry J. Silverman (46 Trinity Place, New York 10006; 212-425-1616), who remained informed of Scarpa’s activities on behalf of the government.

- 3 -

Although the information provided by Scarpa appears to have been fully documented, especially in Forms 302 prepared by the New York office of the FBI, we do not know if this information was disseminated to other agencies with responsibility for the prevention of terrorist attacks on the United States.

We understand that AUSA Patrick Fitzgerald (EDNY), in a later (sealed) court filing, attested to the credibility, accuracy and value of the terrorism intelligence provided by Scarpa. However, at the time of Scarpa’s sentencing AUSA Valerie Caproni denigrated Scarpa’s credibility as an informant. Apparently, Scarpa’s credibility was perceived to pose a threat in the context of serious questions which had been raised concerning the informant relationship of Scarpa’s father, Gregory Scarpa, Sr., with FBI Supervisory Special Agent R. Lindley DeVecchio, the revelation of which might place in jeopardy a number of convictions secured by the office of the U.S. Attorney (EDNY). This latter matter, entirely unrelated to terrorism, remains a subject of continuing, independent investigation.

We strongly advise that the Commission fully examine the terrorism intelligence secured by the government through the informant services of Gregory Scarpa, Jr., and assess the extent to which it was appropriately utilized to reduce the terrorist threat to the United States.

Respectfully submitted,

Angela Clemente

Stephen P. Dresch, Ph.D. Santrea_143.2@juno.com 706-294-9993

Principal witness: Gregory Scarpa, Jr. Reg. No. 10099-050 ADX Florence P.O. Box 8500 5880 State Highway 67 South Florence, Colorado 81226 719-784-9464

Attachment: Scarpa-Yousef Intelligence Timeline

I posted a part of the information that Gerard Van Hoorelbeke sent early in 2001, months before 9-11, that included words of Yousef's that said, in effect, that in our airplanes, terrorists have bombs anytime they want them.

If you look back over my comments since the 9th or so, there are links provided to the above--the intell timeline is 7 pages long--there are FBI 302s available there, though some are unavailable--dating from immediately after the terrorist downing of Flight 800. There is also information contained therein that says there have been at least two other airplane crashes that have not been classified as terrorist-related.

And I am nothing more than a murmur in the pit with the rest of the American people watching the stage of the 9-11 commission while those in the better seats are pleased, so far, with the production. It makes me sick.

[ScaniaBoy]

Thanks for some insightful comments.

My problems with Ms Gorelick's memo (apart from her less than honest approach to the commission) is the fact that she may have tried to rectify a problem, but it does seem she never checked how this actually turned out.

According to Ashcroft's testimony it seems that the regulations in force certainly hindered and not helped the investigators.

Unfortunately most regulators and legislators act this way, but all the more reason for the 911 Commission to look very closely at the questions you brought up in your post.

And of course one cannot be judge and witness at the same time... Time for Ms Gorelick to resign or to be removed.

[Just mythoughts]

Re: post 39.


You maybe correct.

However, considering that one of the first moves of Clintons was to remove all US Attorneys and install their people. There was a reason why this was done, as the Clintons never did anything that was not self-serving.

There was no "LAW" this bunch did not use for their own self-serving purpose. I believe there was a specific reason why they made darn sure the "wall" as existed prior to their arrival was cemented and reinforced.

[KeyWest]

The issue is not who started it but her insistence that it be changed and that the current administration is at fault for not doing so. In essence she is operating from hindsight - that it should have been changed- while defending her right to not have changed the system but made it more difficult to exchange info when she worked for Clinton.

Sort of like a police officer/judge telling someone that they must turn left since that is what the law says and when the accident occurs telling them they could have avoided it if they turned right. So the driver is at fault for listening to the police officer/judge and not changing the law.

[ovrtaxt]

Very good historical perspective in your post. I agree with the context of history in which you set your comments, until you get to 1993.

The problem occurs when Gorlick sits up there and tries to capitalize on the whole perceived 911/ Iraq disconnect, with an attempt to score political points by blaming Bush Admin officials for the whole thing, when in reality she personally had plenty to do with the situation, even after a series of ME terrorist attacks, including WTC'92, OKC, TWA800, and finally, 911.

The Wall, and in fact the whole foreign vs. domestic info gathering procedure, which was legitimately enacted to protect us from a police state, shoould have been reworked long ago, before 911. But the Dems and the media continually downplayed it, and in fact blamed conservatives in the case of OKC.

And there's a history of the FBI manipulating 302 statements and physical evidence in these previous attacks. So, yes, Gorlick was somewhat justified in her approach, preoviding that all these other incidents didn't happen. But they did. And in fact, it seems that the DOJ actively worked against the people of the US in pursuit of their goals.

[CGVet58]

Thank you, sir, for providing the historical perspective on this and other intelligence issues affecting this commission. It is important that we accept the possibility we are "not seeing the forest for the trees".

The commission has already slipped far below that horizon... to the point where Kean goes so far as to "kerry-ize" any questions We the People have about Gorelick's conflict of interest, but that is something which frankly surprises no-one who knew this commission held at this time (in an election year) would likely succumb to the temptation offered by partisan sniping and the continuous "Blame Bush" agenda the left hang their collective hat on. All the more reason we on the Right must take care to keep a leavened eye on the goings-on. Your comments assist in that perspective.

Your description of the legal ramifications in both the creation of the wall and the reasons why are exactly on the money! More to the point, your comments offer a clear answer to any who would counter Dr. Rice's initial comments in her commission appearance from last week ("...the terrorists were at war with us; we were not at war with them..."). One could reasonably ask, "why were we not at war with them?" and receive a variety of responses, most of them general in nature, and inherently unsatisfactory.

If I may put your points in my own words, I would say that because we are a free society, it was according to our system that we first sought to ensure that the aegis of "terrorist threat" could not then be used in a criminal investigation (where the litmus of evidence and rights of the accused are stricter) and processed as such. To do so prior to 9-11 would have been politically unstabilizing.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that in our efforts to serve "Justice and the American Way", we had a system that could only be changed by a change in our world-view. We had to realize that we were at war. We could not undertake this changes before we understood we were at war. 9-11 has done this.

We now know that our enemies not only will strike us, but can do so... especially if we remain in our past mindset and try to "fit" the terrorist paradigm into the rules of a criminal proceeding. This is what Clinton did, what the UN & Annan want to do, what Spain was cowered into returning to, and what Kerry would re-establish if elected.

Gorelick must not only resign from the commission, she should quit, walk around the table, turn left and proceed another 15 steps to take a seat at the testimony booth. Because she doesn't, only serves to underline the partisanship that has infected elements of this commission, and further erodes the integrity of any conclusions this commission might come to, or suggestions for change.

The 9-11 commission is - if not already rapidly becoming - a white elephant... and the irony of it: this very erosion serves as the strongest testimony to the truth of the words, "they were at war with us; we were not at war with them". It is not looking forward to see how better we can fight this war, instead searching to place the blame (not all the members; for example Lehman has conducted himself with integrity... but the entire commission suffers from Gorelick's conflict of interest, Ben Veniste's partisanship, and the ineffectual counters of most of the rest of them). I believe you give Gorelick a bit too much credit, though (in defending her actions in pre-911 context) - and the surest action she could take to prove to me that she is trying to be (and capable of being...) objective would be to resign and offer herself as a witness before the commission.

CGVet58

[Piranha]

I, at least, am not going to flame you for your analysis. I agree with everything that you wrote, even your point that without evidence you will not jump to the conclusion that she wrote the Wall memorandum for obfuscatory purposes.

[Piranha]

That does not mean, however, that we should ignore the POSSIBILITY that she was responding to a Clinton mandate to avoid looking into foreign involvement with OKC in order to resuscitate his Presidency by blaming the Right Wing in this country for the bombing.

[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?

[maestro]

Your# 39........

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

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

:-(

[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.