Hmmm, maybe burkas aren't such a bad idea.
Posted on 08/21/2005 1:04:32 PM PDT by ovrtaxt
One of the arguments at places like Think Progress and other sites which have made themselves the defenders of former Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick consists of pointing out that Gorelick didn't work at the DoD when she erected the "wall" separating intelligence and law enforcement operations. Therefore, they argue, she had no effect on the DIA's decision not to share information with the FBI. As I pointed out earlier, that argument fails for two reasons. The first is Gorelick's earlier assignment at the DoD as general counsel for ten months, during which one supposes she promulgated Bill Clinton's policies as the top attorney at Defense just as she did later at Justice. The second, and most obvious, is that as the number-two person at Justice, she still set policy for the FBI. Since sharing and cooperation require two parties to work together, her wall would have made any attempt to engage the FBI pointless.
Now William Tate at What's In The News points out another reason why the "wall" constrained Defense. Gorelick addressed her 1995 memo to several different people:
* Mary Jo White, US District Attorney, prosecuting the 1993 WTC bombing terrorists
* Louis Freeh, FBI Director
* Jo Ann Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division (DoJ)
* Richard Scruggs, Chief Counsel, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
This last addressee makes the connection to the Department of Defense that the Gorelick defenders claim didn't exist. As Tate points out and as the OIPR website makes clear, the DoD looked to the OIPR for legal opinions on anything having to do with the legality of their operations, especially in regard to those involving domestic targets:
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is responsible for advising the Attorney General on all matters relating to the national security activities of the United States. The Office prepares and files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, assists Government agencies by providing legal advice on matters of national security law and policy, and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies' views regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters.
The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.
The inclusion of Richard Scruggs, the lead counsel at the OIPR, intended to send the message that any advice given to the DoD, CIA, and State regarding the sharing of files had better fall in line with her new stated policy of going "beyond the law" to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Given that Gorelick held a high-profile position within Justice as a political appointee of Bill Clinton, this policy would rightly get attention as an official directive of the President's wishes. The one office that all of these intelligence agencies would consult in terms of sharing and coordination between themselves and law-enforcement operations would therefore have advised all agencies to follow the Gorelick Wall as a standard and as White House policy.
Given that kind of connection, it doesn't take much imagination to understand why all of these agencies became shy about even attempting to stretch the limits of the Gorelick policy.
The notion that Gorelick's memo had no effect outside the DoJ does not stand up to scrutiny at all, once the fact and intent of including Scruggs and the OIPR become known. This shows why Mary Jo White objected so strenuously to this memo and its implementation, and why she went out of her way to antagonize her bosses at the DoJ with a second and more heated memo predicting, correctly, that such a policy would leave America unprotected against the very people she had just successfully prosecuted.
It's bad enough that Gorelick erected that wall in 1995. It's ludicrous that four years after 9/11, people waste their time defending her and her participation in the 9/11 Commission as a panel member instead of a witness.
Addendum: Relating this to Able Danger, one can easily see why the Wall kept the DoD from pursuing an FBI investigation of the program's findings. The AD team would have asked for permission from DoD attorneys, as Col. Tony Shaffer has said was done three times, and all three times the attorneys denied the request. Either they already had great familiarity with Clinton's policies -- which probably was the case -- or they consulted with the OIPR and got the Gorelick policy from Scruggs and his team.
Scruggs, by the way, was no mere bystander in this issue. He pressed for stricter constraints on information sharing in 1994, after the prosecution of Aldrich Ames for espionage. He complained about the supposedly loose interpretations of FISA at the FBI and in the intel communities, and on his own began imposing his own "wall" even without direction to do so from Reno or Gorelick. This action gets Scruggs his only mention in the Commission report (page 78).
"When Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) and then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D., Mo.) selected Gorelick for the committee in December 2002, Gephardt said, of her and the other Democrats chosen for the job, "I can think of no individuals better suited to work on this project than the people we have announced today.""
from:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200404231117.asp
And it is a very minuet chance that it will ever be a care or concern for them unless it affects their political power in the future.
Hitlery, Bubba, Waters, Kennedy, the ACLU, People For The American Way, NOW, Specter, McCain, Helen Thomas, Ben & Jerrys, The Ninth Curcuit, Al Franken...Shall I go on?
Perhaps I have somehow misinterpreted your post, however you are paralleling my mindset....
Perhaps I read your reply properly but misunderstood it's meaning.
It says it all in a nut shell.
Thanks for the kind words, my friend.
Okay- I thought you were attributing the flood of incriminating info to Rove, as if this was all planned out by some master plan.
On the contrary, if the WH was so in tune with the crimes of the former Admin, they would have nipped this in the bud early and cleaned house. Unfortunately, It seems as if they're more prone to cover for them.
Each new revelation brings us closer to the conclusion that the Clintons' actions while in office DELIBERATELY left our country exposed to attack. For most of us, this conclusion has been, up to now, incomprehensible.
Why would they do this?
It is now obvious that the Clintons never left the mindset of the sixties. For them capitalism still owed them nothing, and the "military industrial complex" was still the embodiment of the enemy, and had to be neutered.
Those who ascribe their actions while in office as "bumbling" or a series of inadvertent "snafus" fail to see the deliberate character of everything they did, and, in light of Hillary's possible ascension to the seat of power, casts an ominous shadow over our future as a people.
Partly it's true.
For the plan, IMO, is to function with a directive for the American way and to allow the Lib's to do the dirty work via political self destruction.
It's all they know from a political standpoint.
Yes, I request that the Clinton's, Janet Reno, Sandy Burger and William Cohen join me for this target practice.
Forgot Madam not so bright.
bump
KEEEEERIST man!!!
Strychnine was the first to come to mind for me!
Haven't you any pic's of Oh say, Laura Ingraham or Ann Coultier?
After all, "happy hour" is two minutes away for me!
I envy you in your lack of memory and look forward to the day that I can post the same. ; )
"And to top it all off, the nerve of Gorelick and Ben Veniste to be as accusatory as possible to Rice! Remember that? And these are the people that we want to try and build bridges with???"
There's somebody who wants to build bridges with these people? They can't be trusted.
" Haven't you any pic's of Oh say, Laura Ingraham or Ann Coultier?"
Not handy, but how about this....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466993/posts?page=4#4
Because they hate the ideals of a Free Republic?
Liberals hate silly things like the 2nd Amendment, but will go to great lengths to protect their 1st Amendment rights that grants them free speech to hurl hate at Bush.
So...they would rather have chaos than peace so they can look like heroes when *THEY* try to "fix the problems".
Sickening isn't it?
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.