The Truth about 'the Wall'

The Washington Post ^ | April 18, 2004 | Jamie S. Gorelick

[Piranha]

Moderator -- I thought this should be Breaking News because it is published under Gorelick's own byline.

She seems to be saying that the Wall is based on a law that permits US-based surveillance against foreign pargets if the primary purpose is foreign intelligence and not criminal prosecution. In other words, for the prevention of future terrorist attacks. Amazingly, she writes that her memo directed agents to share information, not to restrict its use! She also says (I didn't include this portion in the excerpt) that her memo was superceded by Janet Reno's memo in July 1995 that put even tighter controls on uses of intelligence (she doesn't say whether she worked on that memorandum as well).

Finally, as much as I can understand her point, she seems to be admitting that the Patriot Act extended the usage of this intelligence in obtaining foreign intelligence.

This dispute about the meaning of the Wall, and its ramifications, forcefully points out why she should be testifying in front of the Commission about the government's efforts to fight terror (where she can give a spirited defense of what she meant by the memo), instead of sitting on the commission asking questions of the witnesses.

In addition, the Wall is only part of the problem. She is a litigation partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and I have read secondary reports that allege that her firm's litigation department is representing a Saudi leader who is defending himself against a lawsuit filed by 9/11 families. If this is so, then in my opinion this conflict alone ethically should force her off of the Commission.

[Piranha]

pargets=targets

[My2Cents]

Washington Post allowing Gore-Lick to lie in her own defense.

[Glenn]

She's on the run if she has resorted to op-ed her plight.

She'll be resigning soon.

[MNJohnnie]

Send an email to the Commission. Jamie Gorelick MUST resign. The fact that she felt compelled to write an OP-ED for the Washington Post shows she is feeling the heat. Keep pouring it on!

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: (202) 331-4060
Fax: (202) 296-5545 info@9-11Commission.gov

New York Office
Tel: (212) 264-1505
Fax: (212) 264-1595
info@9-11Commission.gov

[Betaille]

Even if everything she said was true... these are things that should be said by a WITNESS... not a Judge. She should not be in a judgement role on the commission. She must resign.

[Alberta's Child]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was about Pink Floyd.

[JLS]

This does smack of someone who will soon be resigning, but remember she is a Clintonista. She may well hang in there and destory the commision rather than level the Clintons vulnerable.

[Alberta's Child]

Dear Ms. Gorelick:

In the immortal words of Pink Floyd . . . All in all, you're just another brick in the wall. Now do the right thing and get your @ss off that 9/11 commission.

Sincerely,

Alberta's Child

[Piranha]

She's on the run if she has resorted to op-ed her plight. She'll be resigning soon.

I didn't see anything in the article that is going to change anyone's mind in her favor.

[Mr. Mojo]

This whole commission business is leaving me uncomfortably numb by now.

[gonzo]

I dunno, Glenn. When 'Gore' and 'Lick' appear in the same sentence, I get all wierd inside................FRegards

[Numbers Guy]

She's on the offense. She was featured in a suck-up report on one of the nightly news shows this evening.

The problem isn't as much her lack of action--there are plenty who didn't do enough. The problem is that she's up there on the panel asking snide partisan questions of Bush Administration officials. If she was acting like someone trying to understand the underlying problems instead of acting like James Carville, then maybe people wouldn't be tearing into her right now. She has only herself to blame.

[Blue Highway]

It's not too late to get this woman off the commission and into the hot seat! Let's flood the officials with emails and phone calls demanding she resign or be forcibly removed.

Jamie Gorelick is impeding and obstructing justice much like "the wall" seemed to do. For the 9-11 victims and family she needs to be char-grilled. Then and only then can we find out the real reason behind her agenda.

[JoeSixPack1]

Total Spin!

This contradicts Ashcroft across the board. He really must have got to her.


Pop the popcorn. History is being written.

[SkyPilot]

Everthing about this woman oozes "FOH (Friend of Hillary) Incompetent Hack" right down to the stupid pantsuit and ridiculous pins on the lapel.

[fooman]

Me doth thinks the lady protest too much

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Washington Post allowing Gore-Lick to lie in her own defense.

Another example of the "right-wing corporate media" that haunts the pot induced dreams of our leftist counterparts! ;)

[ScaniaBoy]

# 1: Ok, so there are at least two conflicting views on this memorandum. The Commission needs to hear both views.

It is not possible for Ms Gorelick to both be a witness and and a member of the Commission.

After this op-ed piece she must resign to be able to tell the Commission her side of the story.

Hung by her own petard!

#2 From her 4th March 1995 memorandum: ".....,we believe that it is prudent to establish an act of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence from the more limited, but continued criminal investigations. These procedures, which goes beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating unwarranted appearances that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Lawyers are excellent at parsing words, but the meaning of this appears quite clear. Also, it would have been her duty to make sure that this memo, if she really wanted to facilitate investigations (/gullibility) was not interpreted in a way not intended by law enforcement agencies.