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: exodus
Gowannnnnnn.
Which private company?
You mean they've gone and sold off the U.S. Mints?
# 1247 by catpuppy
************************
"Federal" Express is a private company.
"Federal" is just a part of the name.
The "Federal" Reserve is a group of banks.
The "Federal" Reserve is privately owned.
The "Federal" Reserve is NOT a part of our government.
Don't mean to interrupt ... but what part of her saying PLEASE DON'T TALK TO ME .. did you not understand??
I am not, Bill. I share your view that government can be problematic. It needs watching. We all understand that, even those who serve in government. But when you and others find sinister "big government" tyranny hiding behind every bush (no pun intended), I can't help but think of the brick throwing anarchists who parade around in their "Save the Turtle Suits," with their "No More Logging" hats and their "Stop GMO" banners and their "End World Poverty" chants. They have no solutions, they have no focus, they just find problems--most of which are imaginary--and blame somebody else.
Constitutionalists tend to be conservative-libertarians and that's the group with whom my philosopy parallels most closely. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties. I don't care what Party a candidate is affiliated with. As an independent voter, all I care about is his philosophy, his principles, and his integrity to vote accordingly as well as to follow his oath to the Constitution. If he does that, he could come from the House Party or no Party for all I care.
You mean that you are going to stop with the name calling?
Forget your MOON PIE? I wouldn't dream of it, sweetie.
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
And this:
All jurors shall be informed that they have the option of jury nullification.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury. Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law
What is, is. Identify it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.
To: christine11
"...if you don't want to vote for another republican that is your right ..
but how exactly do you think you/we can get rid of voter fraud ..
# 1004 by Mo1
************************
The only way to stop voter fraud
is to give jail time to the violaters.
Florida had many instances of voter fraud,
including the creators of the surplus "chads."
Other states also had fraud problems.
There were no charges filed.
Just a lot of talk about the need for "reform."
It was his mothers fault .. lol
Sorry, but that is not correct. He is putting the interests of the nation above more Clinton chasing. We are at war. Nothing else takes priority. Just ask the families of the 9/11 victims.
Well somebody better tell them to get that fancy building out of Washington, D.C.
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.