Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
There is something very wrong inside the Justice Department of the United States and there has been for some time.
Various newspapers are now reporting that under President Clinton, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was ordered to stand down on various terrorist investigations.
One of the most egregious examples is the failure of the bureau to investigate fundraising organizations like "The Holy Land Fund," based in Arizona, which allegedly funneled millions of dollars in donations to Middle Eastern terrorists.
Although the Bush administration has now frozen the assets of the fund, it was apparently allowed to operate for 8 years despite the FBI intelligence that was presented to Mr. Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno. One bureau source told the press that Ms. Reno felt any investigation of "The Holy Land Fund" would lead to anti-Arab sentiment and therefore was opposed to such an investigation.
As always, Ms. Reno will not comment on any aspect of her tenure as attorney general that is at all controversial.
There is no question now that under Ms. Reno and then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, Americans were put at great risk. The Wen Ho Lee-Chinese espionage case still has not been explained, and the fact that the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists weren't even on the FBI's radar screen is about as frightening as Janet Reno's passion for political correctness.
The current attorney general, John Ashcroft, has made no attempt to examine Ms. Reno's bizarre behavior or update the public about the Marc Rich investigation or anything else. Mr. Ashcroft specializes in looking dour and stonewalling. While Congress is attempting to get documents about President Clinton's dubious foreign fundraising and FBI abuses in Boston, Ashcroft is refusing to cooperate at all.
And this isn't a political issue. Conservative Congressman Dan Burton and liberal Congressman Barney Frank have actually joined forces to try and pry this information from Ashcroft's hands. If that's not amazing, then nothing is.
The truth is that for nearly 8 years, the Justice Department has been corrupt and inefficient. Janet Reno botched nearly every important decision she had to make including Waco and Elian Gonzalez. Time after time, Ms. Reno refused to approve investigative initiatives sought by the FBI. And time after time, Mr. Freeh sat in his plush government office refusing to let the American people know what was happening.
Now Mr. Ashcroft is doing the same thing. There is no reason on this earth why the public should not know the status of the Rich pardon probe. Or the anthrax investigation. And what about Enron, Mr. Attorney General – are you going to look into that? Millions of Americans were hosed while some Enron executives made millions.
How about a comment on that, Mr. Ashcroft?
To: malador
Now there is a truly "good government" concept.
Let's all get together and play legislative and judicial branch.
We don't neeed those pesky elected and appointed officials.
Who wants to wear the robe?
# 1198 by catpuppy
************************
You're right,
serving on a jury that is fully informed
of their duty is the closest we will ever come
to "good" government.
It took me about 14 seconds to look up (granted, I can't read quite that fast), but that's not what we are debating. :-)
To: malador; Dakmar
Well, golly gee. Wonder who enacted the legislation?
Aliens?
# 1214 by catpuppy
************************
Maybe the people who enacted the legislation
were the same people who neglected to draft
a Constitutional Amendment that
would have made it acceptable to delegate
the power to create money to a private business.
I have heard of him. No, I don't think the Senate or the House would help him. No matter, I believe Paul would veto anything unconstitutional and make them override it.
Is this the counterfeiting thread? What are you talking about?
To: exodus
That is absurd hyperbole to state that Ashcroft
is wallowing in Reno's corruption and enjoying it..."
# 1225 by habs4ever
************************
He IS happy, habs4ever.
I saw him on TV today, and he was smiling.
It is "legal tender" -- NOT money and the ramifications of that distinction are far-reaching and mind-boggling! Don't have time to explain it, but if you're ever interested I'll refer you to a source.
OK .. I know I'm a bit behind on the posts so bear with me ..
Bill .. what party do you have any confidence in??
To: exodus
Is this the counterfeiting thread?
What are you talking about?
# 1232 by catpuppy
************************
I'm talking about corruption.
That's what this thread is about.
I'm using the example of a violation of our Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 gives Congress the power to coin money.
The Federal Reserve Act gave that power to a private company.
An "Act" is not the same as an "Amendment."
Congress cannot delegate the power to coin money
to someone else without an Amendment
that allows the transfer of the power to coin money.
The Federal Reserve Act was, and is, un-Constitutional.
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.