Posted on 05/10/2004 5:47:19 PM PDT by Libloather
9/11 panel: Don’t settle for political hay
Sun-Gazette Editor
Compared to the media spotlight on National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the Sept. 11 Commission, the appearance of Attorney General John Ashcroft happened virtually under cover of darkness. There’s a curious relative quiet about the smoking gun Ashcroft dropped in the commission’s lap, in the form of a 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick — then the Clinton-appointed deputy attorney general and now a member of the Sept. 11 Commission — that reinforced the much-discussed “wall” between the FBI’s criminal investigations and counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism activities.
Gorelick instructed then-FBI-director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, whose office was investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to observe even stricter separation between intelligence gathering and criminal investigation than a Carter-era law required. Why? “Appearances,” more precisely appearances that reflected post-Vietnam left-wing hostility toward the FBI.
“We believe it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations,” Gorelick wrote. “These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”
Two years after terrorists tried to topple the World Trade Center, senior Clinton Justice Department officials were more worried about maintaining tidy appearances and the delicate sensibilities of the criminal defense bar than in encouraging criminal and intelligence investigators to work together to hunt down the bad guys.
Speaking of appearances, Sept. 11 Commissioner Gorelick now has a rather glaring case of what is often called “an appearance of a conflict of interest.” She is sitting on a commission that will pass judgment on policies she in fact had a heavy hand in creating. Commission Chairman Tom Kean, in a continuing demonstration of his ineptness, immediately dismissed Gorelick’s conflict of interest as a minor matter. But if the Sept. 11 Commission is to preserve credibility already badly shaken by the highly partisan nature of its public hearings, then Gorelick should be asked to resign.
The most important work of the panel is not to determine who was most worried about terrorism during the few years leading up to Sept. 11, but instead to identify policies and bureaucratic structures that impede national self-defense against terrorism. Instead of sitting in judgment of her own policies, Gorelick ought to be called as a witness.
Section: Editorial Date Posted: 5/10/2004
As appearing in Monday - May 10, 2004 edition of The Sun-Gazette
The Islamic 911 Attack Calendar which was distriibuted worldwide the year before
the terrorists murdered 3000 Americans per hour in the 911 Atrocities.
September 2001 is shown. How many were in the offices of Gorelick's clients and at the New York Times?
Bttt
Hahahah --the only swearing that democrats are believable doing is clintonesque --or a maybe kerryesque.
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.