Posted on 08/11/2005 10:57:02 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
On April 16, 2004, a Washington Times’ editorial questioned the presence of Jamie Gorelick on the Sept. 11 Commission investigating the worst terrorist attack against the United States in history. It was Gorelick who was “personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle [the so-called “wall of separation memo”] to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks” and the Times editorial held that her presence on the Commission “raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath.”
Now comes news that the U.S. military knew of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, at least a year prior to the 9/11 attacks. Worse, this cell included Mohammed Atta, the so-called “mastermind” behind the attacks, as well as three other of the hi-jackers.
The information was gathered, according to a Reuters’ news article (go here) by “a small classified military operation engaged in data-mining analysis of ‘open source’ information.” Called “Able Danger,” its members sought to pass this information along to the FBI (including photographs and dossiers detailing links to al-Queda) with a recommendation that the FBI shut the cell down. They were turned down—either by attorneys in the Department of Defense or at the White House—on the grounds that the members of the suspected cell were in the United States under valid visas and because Mohammed Atta himself possessed a “green card.” Given that “Able Danger” was in possession of this information a year prior to the 9/11 attacks, it should be noted that said attorneys would have been under the auspices of the Clinton, not the Bush, White House, and very likely heavily influenced by the atmosphere that produced the Gorelick directive.
Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), who vice-chairs both the Homeland Security and the House Armed Services committees, and who has been looking into this story for some time, has said the information was provided to staff members of the Sept. 11 Commission but that for some reason commissioners were not informed. Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the Sept. 11 Commission, is quoted by Reuters as saying “Neither in the documents nor in the conversations [with “Able Danger” members in Afghanistan in October 2003] was there any mention of Mohammed Atta or his cell.” But a former member of “Able Danger” said he “personally told Sept. 11 commission staff members about Atta in Afghanistan, and offered to supply them with documents upon his return to the United States, only to be rebuffed.”
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold. Why? Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’ that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
The information that “Able Danger” knew of the presence of an al-Queda cell in New York a year prior to the 9/11 attacks was given to the Sept. 11 Commission staff in October 2003, and now we find that Commission members themselves were not informed prior to their issuing their report. And, Jamie Gorelick, the former Clinton Justice Department official responsible for the very directive that prevented “Able Danger” from passing its information to the FBI, is a member of the Commission charged with finding out what we knew and when we knew it before the 9/11 attacks.
Here is what Richard A. Clark, former counter-terrorism advisor for both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, testified to in prepared remarks before the Sept. 11 Commission on March 24, 2004: “In retrospect, we know that there was information available to some in the FBI and CIA that al Qida [sic] operatives had entered the United States. That information was not shared with the senior FBI counter-terrorism official (Dale Watson) or with me, despite the heightened state of concern in the Counter-terrorism Security Group.”
As the Washington Times noted in April 2004: “Ms. Gorelick has been among the most partisan and aggressive Democratic panel members in questioning the anti-terror efforts of the Bush administration. The nation deserves a full accounting from Ms. Gorelick of why the Clinton administration felt it necessary to go the extra mile in order to hamper the capability of law enforcement and intelligence agents to talk to one another. If Ms. Gorelick fails to provide this, her actions would bring into serious doubt the credibility of the commission.”
Mr. Clarke’s own testimony in March of 2004 corroborates that information regarding the al-Queda presence in the United States prior to 9/11 was known and not acted upon. Whether the information to which Mr. Clark referred is the same as that possessed by “Able Danger” is open to question. In his concluding remarks, Clarke attempts to pin government non-action on the Bush Administration’s less than “urgent” regard for al-Queda, rather than upon the “wall of separation memo” penned by Ms. Gorelick.
But it is clearly Ms. Gorelick’s memo, and the Clinton Administration’s scrupulosity regarding information sharing and the “civil rights” of terror-suspects, that played the key role in preventing information from being passed to the appropriate agencies prior to the 9/11 attacks. Had “Able Danger” been allowed to pass along its information to the FBI—within the limits of the laws restricting communication between counter-terrorism agents and federal prosecutors—9/11 may well have been prevented.
Given that it has now come to light that “Able Danger” was prevented from passing its information to the FBI and that this information was provided to Sept. 11 Commission members who then did not inform the Commission prior to its publishing its final report, one wonders just who those staffers were and to whom they reported. Indeed, if Representative Weldon is serious about calling for a formal inquiry in Congress after the August recess, I would suggest that the top of the witness list include Ms. Gorelick and her Sept. 11 Commission staff members.
Specifically, one would like to know what Ms. Gorelick knew and when she knew it.
About the Writer: Gregory Borse holds a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University, and an MA and BA from the University of Dallas. Dr. Borse, a family man with "a beautiful wife and four beautiful children," enjoys writing, current events, media, politics, and disc golf. Gregory receives e-mail at gregorbo@sbcglobal.net.
Perhaps an Admiral was brought in because Naval forces were assisting in the recovery of the plane. But, at the time, there were rumors that the Iranian Government was behind the downing of the plane, and the Iranians were rejoicing. I still wonder if what had happened was a "shoe bomb."
Military resources are used many times assisting after disasters, both natural and man-made. I cannot think of any aviation disaster where the NTSB was not the lead investigator and in full control of all press briefings!
Yeah, the Clinton Administration's choices are a wonder. A normal Administration would have turned the Vince Foster matter over to the FBI, not the park police.
What if the papers that Sandy Berger shredded were handwritten notes by one of the Clintons that the investigation should be shut down? I don't mind engaging in speculation since the MSM did so much of it during the Plame alleged story.
Just curious. What do you think we should have done?
Arrested for what? What had he done at that point under the laws at that time that he could have been arrested for?
And do what to stop them?
PING
Hmmmmm?? I believe there were wanted posters for Atta - in other countries of the world .. and we didn't arrest him because "he was here on a legal visa". So the rationale was .. he was here legally and that meant they couldn't arrest him and turn him over to another country ..??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461683/posts
This should explain a lot of things. I couldn't understand why the dems kept insisting there was no connection between the terrorists and Iraq. Now .. John has exposed that this was a ploy to hide the fact that they HAD THE INFORMATION THERE WAS A CONNECTION AND THEY WERE HIDING IT.
And .. I further believe this goes back to the Senate Select Committee on Intel memos which stated that the democrats of that committee were going to use the intel information against Bush. This is exactly what they did - and they all need to be REMOVED FROM OFFICE - AS TRAITORS!!
I think johnny7 left off his </sarcasm tag. He knows that the commission was set up by Democrats to blame Bush. We all know that.
Are you assuming that if the FBI had, in the course of surveillance and wire-tapping (which I assume they could have gotten permission to do as it could be proven they were Al Queda members) found out that they planned to fly buildings into the WTC, that we couldn't legally stop them (or at least try?).
Perhaps, the Feds couldn't have gotten permission from the Clinton's Justice dept to do surveillance or whatever. But as a regular person, knowing what Al Queda had accomplished even before 911, it seems reasonable to assume that they were up to something. Given that they had green cards and were not citizens, I have no problem presuming them guilty.
Again, truly our hands might have been tied without The Wall, but I don't know that for sure.
I don't know - could they? Based on what law?
Given that they had green cards and were not citizens, I have no problem presuming them guilty.
Me either, but what you or I presume is irrelevant. What counts is whether they had enough information to arrest them and make it stick. I don't know the law well enough to know if they did.
If that is what the laws of our nation state, then that was the correct thing for them to do.
I think Ashcroft, when he testified before the commission, almost explicitly pointed to Gorelick, and in doing so dripping with disdain. He knew the truth then, but was constrained by the material being classified. Gorelick was acting Attorney General under Beelzebubba as a member of his friggin cabinet....and we are to believe this did not ever enter the Oval Office....;Please don't piss down my leg and tell me it is raining. Clinton and his charming bitch of a wife have known this since the first memorandum was delivered and when DOD notified Gorlicks' munchers. I think the reason they were paralyzed to act was because of Flight 800 and they knew there had already been an attack on the homeland of the USA and Clinton did exactly nothing. He sat and in violation of his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend" this country, allowed 3,000 Americans get murdered for his political ambitions. Hell, I go you one further. I think Gorelick erected this so called "Wall of Separation", as a backdoor excape if this information should ever get out. These Clintonites deserve the inner circle of Dantes' Hell for what they have done. This is top shelf in priority, and we are talking about Sheehan and Natale. God Bless Natale, but this effects nearly 300 million Americans. Tell me the truth Mr. Hamilton. Tell me the truth Mr. Keene. Tell me the truth Mr.Lahman. Tell me the truth Mr. Kerrey. Tell me the truth Ms.Gorelick. Tell us the truth 9/11 Commisssion. We can handle the truth. We can no longer handle the lies.
AttaGate is near to taking on critical mass. We need a Joint Congressional investigation and put the people involved in Able Danger and the DOD employees who tried to transmit information to the FBI, give them global immunity and let them tell the truth. If it looks like it went into the Oval office give use immunity to those so the truth can be told and the proper people be prosecuted.
But .. according to Weldon, they were told NOT TO TOUCH THEM and even put post-it notes over the faces to keep people from making any identification of them.
This is creeping closer and closer to TREASON - and somebody is going down over it.
I don't like immunity .. because I don't necessarily believe it causes people to tell the truth. If you're granted immunity .. then what's in it for you to expose yourself ..??
Just so you know I'm not cheating the areas to be covered would be Clinton, Reno, Gorelick, Gore, Berglar, Tenet, CIA/NSA/FBI cooperation and Interpol.
Another hint: You're the POTUS. Islamic terrorists have already bombed the WTC, you've got plans from them to blow up 10-12 airliners filled with Americans SIMULTANEOUSLY and further there are plans to attack the NY tunnels, the WTC, the Pentagon, the CIA and there's a book out there by Tom Clancy called Debt of Honor. Oh - and then in 1998 some whacko named UBL declares war on the US and then bombs our embassies in Africa - what to do?
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.