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?
Like I said last night .. you just need faith .. we are not perfect ... we are just human
Lovely palo, if you're right about Bush's motives,
he's just as bad as Clinton.
From our Constitution--
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office,
he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
HELLO ... what planet do you come from .. You are truely amazing ..
Not a he, a female canary. Prove that you're smarter than she. Rather than giving your standard, "nonsense" one-word response, try using reasoned argument. You can start by agreeing with the first sentence below or give a reasoned argument against. Then move on the next concept you disagree with and give a reasoned argument to support your disagreement.
The highest moral, human an individual right is the right to self-defense and survival. The best way to ensure that individual rights are protected is to have a constitution or amendment to the constitution and courts based on the following:
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.
You wish to insult me .. GO FOR IT!!!
Is it not obvious that you may be trying to do too much at once? And if you become the butt of people's jokes it's likely because you're not paying attention. Gezz Louise. Don't get huffy with others because they don't cater to your lunatic desire to be superwoman. I suppose you insult your guest by not giving them our undivided attention.
To: exodus
By all accounts, they can and do "indict a ham sandwich."
How much more power do they need?
# 1310 by catpuppy
************************
The "indict a ham sandwich." remark was made by a prosecutor,
who was bragging about his ability
to influence the decisions of the Grand Jury.
The prosecutors aren't even supposed to talk to the Grand Jury,
unless called as a witness by the Grand Jury.
A Grand Jury is made up of ordinary citizens.
The prosecutor is not an "ordinary" citizen,
he is a member of the Executive Branch.
The power of the Grand Jury system has slowly been corrupted,
and instead of being controlled by the people,
it now is controlled by the Executive Branch.
Why? With all due respect, the "concepts" you list just don't seem very useful to me. I kinda like that old Constitution.
Why? With all due respect, the "concepts" you list just don't seem very useful to me. I kinda like that old Constitution.
You don't find it useful to know; do you disagree with this: The highest moral, human an individual right is the right to self-defense.
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.