Full Version: Ashcroft's Lies
First, we have John Ashcroft directly contradicting the testimony of Thomas J. Pickard. The former acting director of the FBI claimed that Ashcroft rejected briefings on terrorist threats in the weeks before the September 11 attack and did not view combating al Qaeda as "a top item on his agenda". Ashcroft, of course, denied this and - follwing the suit lead by everyone else in this administration - joined the Blame Clinton First brigade (more on that anon).
The press is describing this as Pickard "criticizing" Ashcroft or the two men "contradicting" each other. But let's call spades spades: one of these two men is a liar. It could be either - but one has a clear motive for lying and the other doesn't. Thomas J. Pickard has nothing to gain by making up such allegations - John Ashcroft has everything to lose by failing to deny them.
But wait - there's more! Even more damning was Ashcroft's attempt to play follow-the-people-behind-the-leader by trying to lay his own failings at the feet of the previous administration. Buried at the end of the Washington Post's coverage of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States are these two paragraphs:
Again, this is not just a matter of "disagreement". This is the document in which Clinton ordered the death of Osama bin Laden. Not only did Ashcroft lie about there being "no covert action program to kill bin Laden", the proof of his lie was in one of the documents which the White House deliberately tried to keep the Commission from seeing altogether.
To debate, then:
Should we, the people of the United States, tolerate an Attorney General who is willing to perjure himself in order to conceal the incompetence of the administration which nominated him?
The press is describing this as Pickard "criticizing" Ashcroft or the two men "contradicting" each other. But let's call spades spades: one of these two men is a liar. It could be either - but one has a clear motive for lying and the other doesn't. Thomas J. Pickard has nothing to gain by making up such allegations - John Ashcroft has everything to lose by failing to deny them.
But wait - there's more! Even more damning was Ashcroft's attempt to play follow-the-people-behind-the-leader by trying to lay his own failings at the feet of the previous administration. Buried at the end of the Washington Post's coverage of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States are these two paragraphs:
QUOTE
Ashcroft also said that one of the first things he did after becoming attorney general was to conduct a "thorough review" of the authorities that the Clinton administration had given the CIA to take covert action against bin Laden. His review showed, he testified, that there was "no covert action program to kill bin Laden."
But several commissioners disagreed. They cited the 1998 "memorandum of notification" signed by Clinton, which was found among documents that the Bush White House originally refused to turn over to the commission.
But several commissioners disagreed. They cited the 1998 "memorandum of notification" signed by Clinton, which was found among documents that the Bush White House originally refused to turn over to the commission.
Again, this is not just a matter of "disagreement". This is the document in which Clinton ordered the death of Osama bin Laden. Not only did Ashcroft lie about there being "no covert action program to kill bin Laden", the proof of his lie was in one of the documents which the White House deliberately tried to keep the Commission from seeing altogether.
To debate, then:
Should we, the people of the United States, tolerate an Attorney General who is willing to perjure himself in order to conceal the incompetence of the administration which nominated him?
QUOTE
Should we, the people of the United States, tolerate an Attorney General who is willing to perjure himself in order to conceal the incompetence of the administration which nominated him?
I think you've made very strong points concerning Ashcroft testimony in front of the 9/11 commission. I honestly didn't pay attention to his testimony yesterday. But based on what I've read on his statements and the statements made by former goverment officials, I think its obviously someone (Ashcroft) is lying here.
In a perfect world where the government actually serves for the public good Ashcroft would have been tried for perjury. But our government is corrupt today and most of the American people still have their sunglasses in the dark.
So to answer your question, NO the people shouldn't tolerate an Attorney general who is willing perjure himself. But the American people need to decide :
1) Do we just support any action and information given by our government leaders today just because they are our leaders?
OR
2) Do we hold them accountable and responsible as "we the people" should living in a democracy such as the United states of America?
We'll find out on Nov 2.
Wertz, a link to the testimony would be helpful.
Well, let me oblige:
Ashcroft denies taking little interest in terrorism
It is not acceptable for any government official to lie. I don't see how either Pickard or Ashcroft has more motivation to lie in this case, however.
Pickard's take is that the FBI did not received the funding it requested (from Ashcroft). Ashcroft's take is that the FBI was
Now to me, Gorelick should be before the commission, rather than on the Commission.
The US DoJ has de-classified this document:
Gorelick Memo
Gorelick apparently wanted to "prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
But back to Ashcroft,
Full Ashcroft testimony
Here is the statement:
But let's look at the full statement:
My understanding of the Clinton stance was the bin Laden was to be captured, but if he resisted, then deadly force was authorized. There was never a standing "dead or alive" type warrant for bin Laden, no "shoot to kill" directive.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
Well, let me oblige:
Ashcroft denies taking little interest in terrorism
QUOTE
Pickard said that "in late June and through July, he met with Attorney General Ashcroft once a week," the report says. "He told us that though he initially briefed the attorney general regarding these threats, after two such briefings the attorney general told him he did not want to hear this information anymore."
Ashcroft disputed Pickard's account when he appeared before the commission, saying he met with him on more than two occasions.
"Secondly, I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism," Ashcroft said.
Ashcroft disputed Pickard's account when he appeared before the commission, saying he met with him on more than two occasions.
"Secondly, I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism," Ashcroft said.
It is not acceptable for any government official to lie. I don't see how either Pickard or Ashcroft has more motivation to lie in this case, however.
Pickard's take is that the FBI did not received the funding it requested (from Ashcroft). Ashcroft's take is that the FBI was
QUOTE
We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies," he said. "Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology.
Ashcroft criticized his predecessors at the Justice Department, saying a 1995 memorandum by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- now a member of the commission -- hamstrung the FBI beyond what the law required.
Ashcroft criticized his predecessors at the Justice Department, saying a 1995 memorandum by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- now a member of the commission -- hamstrung the FBI beyond what the law required.
Now to me, Gorelick should be before the commission, rather than on the Commission.
The US DoJ has de-classified this document:
Gorelick Memo
Gorelick apparently wanted to "prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
But back to Ashcroft,
Full Ashcroft testimony
Here is the statement:
QUOTE
My thorough review revealed no covert action program to kill Bin Laden.
But let's look at the full statement:
QUOTE
First, this Commission has debated the nature of the covert action authorities directed at Usama Bin Laden prior to 2001. In February 2001, shortly after becoming Attorney General, I reviewed these authorities.
Let me be clear: My thorough review revealed no covert action program to kill Bin Laden. There was a covert-action program to capture Bin Laden for criminal prosecution. But even this program was crippled by a snarled web of requirements, restrictions and regulations that prevented decisive action by our men and women in the field.
When they most needed clear, understandable guidance, our agents and operatives were given the language of lawyers. Even if they could have penetrated Bin Laden's training camps, they would have needed a battery of attorneys to approve the capture. With unclear guidance, our covert action team's risk of injury may have exceeded the risk to Usama Bin Laden.
On March 7, 2001, I met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. I recommended that the covert-action authorities be clarified and be expanded to allow for decisive, lethal action; we should end the failed "capture" policy. We should find and kill Bin Laden. I recall that Dr. Rice agreed and gave Director Tenet responsibility for drafting, clarifying, and expanding the new authorities.
Let me be clear: My thorough review revealed no covert action program to kill Bin Laden. There was a covert-action program to capture Bin Laden for criminal prosecution. But even this program was crippled by a snarled web of requirements, restrictions and regulations that prevented decisive action by our men and women in the field.
When they most needed clear, understandable guidance, our agents and operatives were given the language of lawyers. Even if they could have penetrated Bin Laden's training camps, they would have needed a battery of attorneys to approve the capture. With unclear guidance, our covert action team's risk of injury may have exceeded the risk to Usama Bin Laden.
On March 7, 2001, I met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. I recommended that the covert-action authorities be clarified and be expanded to allow for decisive, lethal action; we should end the failed "capture" policy. We should find and kill Bin Laden. I recall that Dr. Rice agreed and gave Director Tenet responsibility for drafting, clarifying, and expanding the new authorities.
My understanding of the Clinton stance was the bin Laden was to be captured, but if he resisted, then deadly force was authorized. There was never a standing "dead or alive" type warrant for bin Laden, no "shoot to kill" directive.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
Should we, the people of the United States, tolerate an Attorney General who is willing to perjure himself in order to conceal the incompetence of the administration which nominated him?
Is there such a thing as a politician who doesn't lie? It seems to me that given the very nature of our media driven democracys then we will always see and hear politicians telling us anything they think we want to hear rather than the truth.
Given the very nature of the debate raging in America, I'd go so far as to speculate as to whether or not Ashcroft even knows what the truth is. It seems Orwells vision of double speak has come to pass and in this climate of antagonism and confrontation what we're seeing, more and more, is a cadre of politicians (all over the planet) who never take responsibility for what happens due to their policies and decisions all the while pointing the finger at any and every one else. We seem to be cursed with a political class incapable of objective analysis.
In a perfect world, Ashcroft would not have to lie, but then again, in such a world Ashcroft wouldn't stand a chance of ever holding office any way.
No I don't think the people of the USA should tolerate an AG who perjures himself... for any reason. Its obvious that Ashcrofts testimony is flawed, the mere fact that he claims the Clinton government was responsible for blinding the intelligence services is enough to cast doubt on his testimony. Only this morning I read that he himself denied added funds to the FBI..
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350060724
..so quite how he can claim it was the Clinton governments responsibility is beyond me.
Indeed, it seems to me that the people in place (Ashcroft, Rice &tc) on 11 September are the ones who bear the responsibility for what happened, but I don't see any of them taking responsibility for that. In fact I don't have any recollections of any member of the Bush administration being sacked for what must rank as the most appalling intelligence failure since the second world war.
Based on that I have to wonder how exactly any one can expect the politicians to hold themselves responsible when no one else does...
Is there such a thing as a politician who doesn't lie? It seems to me that given the very nature of our media driven democracys then we will always see and hear politicians telling us anything they think we want to hear rather than the truth.
Given the very nature of the debate raging in America, I'd go so far as to speculate as to whether or not Ashcroft even knows what the truth is. It seems Orwells vision of double speak has come to pass and in this climate of antagonism and confrontation what we're seeing, more and more, is a cadre of politicians (all over the planet) who never take responsibility for what happens due to their policies and decisions all the while pointing the finger at any and every one else. We seem to be cursed with a political class incapable of objective analysis.
In a perfect world, Ashcroft would not have to lie, but then again, in such a world Ashcroft wouldn't stand a chance of ever holding office any way.
No I don't think the people of the USA should tolerate an AG who perjures himself... for any reason. Its obvious that Ashcrofts testimony is flawed, the mere fact that he claims the Clinton government was responsible for blinding the intelligence services is enough to cast doubt on his testimony. Only this morning I read that he himself denied added funds to the FBI..
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350060724
..so quite how he can claim it was the Clinton governments responsibility is beyond me.
Indeed, it seems to me that the people in place (Ashcroft, Rice &tc) on 11 September are the ones who bear the responsibility for what happened, but I don't see any of them taking responsibility for that. In fact I don't have any recollections of any member of the Bush administration being sacked for what must rank as the most appalling intelligence failure since the second world war.
Based on that I have to wonder how exactly any one can expect the politicians to hold themselves responsible when no one else does...
The kill bin Laden versus capture bin Laden issue is murky, but I think the proof is in the pudding...
George Tenet testified that the CIA had no kill order, although this was disputed by Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor:
9/11 Panel
If the CIA director is "down the ranks" it's because Clinton never met with the guy.
When the chance finally came to kill bin Laden in 1999, Clinton passed:
NBC: Clinton Ordered bin Laden Spared
George Tenet testified that the CIA had no kill order, although this was disputed by Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor:
9/11 Panel
QUOTE
Disputing testimony from CIA Director George Tenet, President Bill Clinton's national security adviser told the 9/11 commission Wednesday that Clinton gave the agency "every inch of authorization it asked for" to carry out plans to kill Osama bin Laden.
Samuel Berger, the national security adviser for Clinton, directly disputed earlier testimony from Tenet that indicated CIA officers believed they had permission only to capture bin Laden in the late 1990s -- not kill him.
"If there was any confusion down the ranks, it was never communicated to me nor to the president. And if any additional authority had been requested, I am convinced it would have been given immediately," Berger told the panel.
Samuel Berger, the national security adviser for Clinton, directly disputed earlier testimony from Tenet that indicated CIA officers believed they had permission only to capture bin Laden in the late 1990s -- not kill him.
"If there was any confusion down the ranks, it was never communicated to me nor to the president. And if any additional authority had been requested, I am convinced it would have been given immediately," Berger told the panel.
If the CIA director is "down the ranks" it's because Clinton never met with the guy.
When the chance finally came to kill bin Laden in 1999, Clinton passed:
NBC: Clinton Ordered bin Laden Spared
QUOTE
Though President Clinton has boasted repeatedly that he issued orders to kill bin Laden, no action was taken when the White House finally got its chance.
Why not?
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, told NBC that the White House had in fact ordered the CIA to do just the opposite - take bin Laden alive or not at all.
Why not?
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, told NBC that the White House had in fact ordered the CIA to do just the opposite - take bin Laden alive or not at all.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 14 2004, 12:07 PM)
I don't see how either Pickard or Ashcroft has more motivation to lie in this case, however.
Are you really that naïve to believe Ashcroft has no motivation to lie?
I think the stage needs to be set a bit. Remember that Ashcroft was busy with other, more pressing issues before 9/11, like covering the bare breast of Lady Justice. I’m just glad he used his time so wisely.
This makes what now, 3 people who were privy to the information flow on the inside who are pointing fingers at the White House, 2 ex staffers and now the acting director of the FBI. That’s ok though, Mr. Ashcroft was busy taking personal business flights on privately chartered jets at the cost of $1800 per hour, so I ‘m sure he missed out on some briefings. And why did he stop flying commercial in July of 2001 and start taking these private flights? He must have been told something.
To answer the question, the citizens of this country deserve to be told the truth by any elected official. I know there are issues that can’t be discussed in public due to national security, but this is now history and if we want to correct the mistakes, like any mistake, you need to get honest answers or the fix will be nothing but a band aid.
From Jay Leno last night (4/13/04): “You know those FBI warnings you see when renting a movie, you can just ignore those now, they’re Historical Documents”
Should we, the people of the United States, tolerate an Attorney General who is willing to perjure himself in order to conceal the incompetence of the administration which nominated him?
Who on the panel declared Attorney General Ashcroft was lying? There is no proof that Attorney General Ashcroft lied during his 9.11 testimony! Again, so many are ready to call people liars based on misinformation, pure speculation, assumptions...or just wishful thinking rather than facts.
1. Ashcroft testified previously before a Senate Hearing Committee that he knew of no covert action to kill Osama and again yesterday in front of the 9.11 Committee during his testimony.
COMMISSIONER RICHARD BEN-VENISTE/9.11 panel member (after Ashcroft's testimony) told Ashcroft that the Bush White House had the day before released a classified directive of President Clinton's that was contrary to his statement. Ben-Veniste asked Ashcroft if he was aware of the Clinton directive and had seen the document to which Ashcroft replied NO to both questions. Evidently, the Committee is not declassifying the directive by President Clinton, so Veniste strongly suggested to Ashcroft that he view the classified document with the Committee.
So...Ashcroft's testimony is not based on a lie, but rather for some reason, and like several others who testified, he did not see the classified document and had no knowledge the document existed in which Clinton issued an order to kill Osama. But guess what? There was testimony from other witnesses as well that they were not aware of Clinton's "orders to kill Osama."
Then we have Mr. Pickard, who had his own set of challenges from the 9.11 Committee panel in regards of him personally issuing a "heads up" regarding a briefing memo to all the field offices. He said in his testimony that he personally called every field office and yet the Committee has testimony from numerous employees in the field that they were never notified by Pickard or anyone else regarding the information in the briefing memo.
And then, we have a difference between Pickard's and Ashcroft's testimony regarding whether Ashcroft in fact made the comment to Pickard he was "not interested in hearing about more terrorist information."
One of the Committee's duties is to sort out discrepancies by reviewing documents, witnesses testimonies, and if need be re-calling witnesses for clarification. Trust me....if anyone is lying, it will be found out and if proven, (or even unresolved discrepancies in testimony) will go into the Committee's record, and those persons could face federal criminal charges of lying under oath.
In your wildest dreams....do you honestly believe that an Attorney General and a former FBI Director do not realize the consequences if they choose to intentionally disregard the truth? I will gladly let the 9.11 Committee determine who, if anyone, is lying before I call them liars.
Who on the panel declared Attorney General Ashcroft was lying? There is no proof that Attorney General Ashcroft lied during his 9.11 testimony! Again, so many are ready to call people liars based on misinformation, pure speculation, assumptions...or just wishful thinking rather than facts.
1. Ashcroft testified previously before a Senate Hearing Committee that he knew of no covert action to kill Osama and again yesterday in front of the 9.11 Committee during his testimony.
COMMISSIONER RICHARD BEN-VENISTE/9.11 panel member (after Ashcroft's testimony) told Ashcroft that the Bush White House had the day before released a classified directive of President Clinton's that was contrary to his statement. Ben-Veniste asked Ashcroft if he was aware of the Clinton directive and had seen the document to which Ashcroft replied NO to both questions. Evidently, the Committee is not declassifying the directive by President Clinton, so Veniste strongly suggested to Ashcroft that he view the classified document with the Committee.
So...Ashcroft's testimony is not based on a lie, but rather for some reason, and like several others who testified, he did not see the classified document and had no knowledge the document existed in which Clinton issued an order to kill Osama. But guess what? There was testimony from other witnesses as well that they were not aware of Clinton's "orders to kill Osama."
Then we have Mr. Pickard, who had his own set of challenges from the 9.11 Committee panel in regards of him personally issuing a "heads up" regarding a briefing memo to all the field offices. He said in his testimony that he personally called every field office and yet the Committee has testimony from numerous employees in the field that they were never notified by Pickard or anyone else regarding the information in the briefing memo.
And then, we have a difference between Pickard's and Ashcroft's testimony regarding whether Ashcroft in fact made the comment to Pickard he was "not interested in hearing about more terrorist information."
One of the Committee's duties is to sort out discrepancies by reviewing documents, witnesses testimonies, and if need be re-calling witnesses for clarification. Trust me....if anyone is lying, it will be found out and if proven, (or even unresolved discrepancies in testimony) will go into the Committee's record, and those persons could face federal criminal charges of lying under oath.
In your wildest dreams....do you honestly believe that an Attorney General and a former FBI Director do not realize the consequences if they choose to intentionally disregard the truth? I will gladly let the 9.11 Committee determine who, if anyone, is lying before I call them liars.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 14 2004, 05:36 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 14 2004, 12:07 PM)
I don't see how either Pickard or Ashcroft has more motivation to lie in this case, however.
Are you really that naïve to believe Ashcroft has no motivation to lie?
I never said Ashcroft did not have motivation to lie. I said that neither Ashcroft nor Pickard had any more or less motivation to lie. Both are in CYA mode. Pickard, as director of the FBI, was responsible for the people under him. He was closest to the ground. Ashcroft was his boss, closer to the President.
Ashcroft's job includes more than just the FBI, while Pickard's is ONLY the FBI. If the FBI dropped the ball, both are partially responsible, i.e. both have motivation to CYA and perhaps skew the testimony to show them in a more favorable light.
The original question for debate is vague...what exactly is Ashcroft's lie. Is it the disagreement over whether or not Ashcroft wanted to hear about terrorism?
Because from Pickard's testimony:
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PICKARD
QUOTE
I HAD REGULAR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND
HIS DEPUTY, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HIS DEPUTY, ABOUT THE
THREATS WE WERE RECEIVING AND TO LEARN IF THERE WAS ANYTHING
MORE THAT WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THE FRAGMENTARY
INFORMATION WE HAD. THE ONLY NEWS THAT I RECEIVED WAS THAT THE
LEVEL OF “CHATTER” SUBSIDED IN EARLY AUGUST, 2001.
HIS DEPUTY, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HIS DEPUTY, ABOUT THE
THREATS WE WERE RECEIVING AND TO LEARN IF THERE WAS ANYTHING
MORE THAT WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THE FRAGMENTARY
INFORMATION WE HAD. THE ONLY NEWS THAT I RECEIVED WAS THAT THE
LEVEL OF “CHATTER” SUBSIDED IN EARLY AUGUST, 2001.
I think we need some clarification of just what the "lie" is...
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 15 2004, 03:43 PM)
Both are in CYA mode. Pickard, as director of the FBI, was responsible for the people under him. He was closest to the ground. Ashcroft was his boss, closer to the President.
Ashcroft's job includes more than just the FBI, while Pickard's is ONLY the FBI. If the FBI dropped the ball, both are partially responsible, i.e. both have motivation to CYA and perhaps skew the testimony to show them in a more favorable light.
Ashcroft's job includes more than just the FBI, while Pickard's is ONLY the FBI. If the FBI dropped the ball, both are partially responsible, i.e. both have motivation to CYA and perhaps skew the testimony to show them in a more favorable light.
Would agree with you 100%.
As new information surfaces on a daily basis, which to me indicates there just might be some good come out of the 9/11 Commission, I start to wonder why, if the Bush administration was aware of the short comings of the ‘wall’ between information sources, they didn’t do more to remove the barrier. Especially in the face of what both parties do agree on: the rise of terrorist threats.
Surely with a Republican congress and a Republican held executive office (and Supreme Court Justices in their pocket), they could have pushed through what ever was needed to connect the dots in our intelligence gathering operations.
We may never know all the dynamics of what was happening behind the scenes. Maybe that’s why Ashcroft’s testimony so far has been fairly vanilla, maybe he did try to correct the situation but can’t say because it might make his boss look bad and if there ever was a party loyalist, it’s John Ashcroft.
QUOTE
As new information surfaces on a daily basis, which to me indicates there just might be some good come out of the 9/11 Commission, I start to wonder why, if the Bush administration was aware of the short comings of the ‘wall’ between information sources, they didn’t do more to remove the barrier. Especially in the face of what both parties do agree on: the rise of terrorist threats. Fife and Drum
Although some government representatives are sceptical as to whether the recommendations of the 9.11 Committee will be implemented (judging from past investigations' recommendations that were never enacted) I think the 9.11 Committee has gathered some very disturbing evidence that repeatedly verifies numerous agencies-department heads/staff were not on the same page. So often the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing and vice-versa. Also, why I think the Homeland Security Department and the Patriot Act are two changes that will aid in connecting the dots and giving the authorities the tools necessary in fighting terrorism.
It is sad but true, so often it takes a tragedy to bring about awareness of weaknesses, mistakes, and failures in order to bring about radical changes. Knocking down the walls is not accomplished by quick fixes...it requires radical change, regulation, mega bucks, and time as Tenet indicated yesterday...another five years in addition to the more than two years since 9.11 in 2001.
I like Condi Rice's reminder: "Let’s remember, those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day."
I am from Oregon. Who in the hell is John Ashcroft?
Oregon will succeed if this current administration is re-elected.
We have the right to die. (by popular vote)
We have medical marijuana. (by popular vote)
We don't round up Islamic people for questioning. (it is against our consitution)
John Ashcroft has threatened the people of our state, (our doctors and legislators), with prosecution. John Ashcroft gives no credence to the voice of the people of this state. He is the biggest threat to democracy alive today due to the position that he is in.
Oregon will succeed if this current administration is re-elected.
We have the right to die. (by popular vote)
We have medical marijuana. (by popular vote)
We don't round up Islamic people for questioning. (it is against our consitution)
John Ashcroft has threatened the people of our state, (our doctors and legislators), with prosecution. John Ashcroft gives no credence to the voice of the people of this state. He is the biggest threat to democracy alive today due to the position that he is in.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 15 2004, 12:29 PM)
As new information surfaces on a daily basis, which to me indicates there just might be some good come out of the 9/11 Commission, I start to wonder why, if the Bush administration was aware of the short comings of the ‘wall’ between information sources, they didn’t do more to remove the barrier. Especially in the face of what both parties do agree on: the rise of terrorist threats.
Surely with a Republican congress and a Republican held executive office (and Supreme Court Justices in their pocket), they could have pushed through what ever was needed to connect the dots in our intelligence gathering operations.
Why wasn't something done to correct this, prior to 9/11? The answer: we thought we had a good system, one that balanced foreign intelligence gathering with protecting the rights of US citizens and residents.
The type of information sharing necessary to really do the job of protecting this country only emerged after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which still does not include these agencies) and the Patriot Act, which loosened the law enforcement restrictions to a level already in place in drug and organized crime investigations.
Surely with a Republican congress and a Republican held executive office (and Supreme Court Justices in their pocket), they could have pushed through what ever was needed to connect the dots in our intelligence gathering operations.
Why wasn't something done to correct this, prior to 9/11? The answer: we thought we had a good system, one that balanced foreign intelligence gathering with protecting the rights of US citizens and residents.
The type of information sharing necessary to really do the job of protecting this country only emerged after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which still does not include these agencies) and the Patriot Act, which loosened the law enforcement restrictions to a level already in place in drug and organized crime investigations.
The problem really stemmed from the fact that the CIA was in the Dept of State and the FBI was in the Justice Department. Traditionally, there was (and is, as a matter of fact) the fear that the CIA should not be able to spy on Americans. The CIA's jurisdiction is outside of the US.
The FBI is not a spy agency, it is the enforcement arm of the Department of Justice--the police as it were. The police are also not allowed to spy on American citizens. The police are quite limited as to what tactics it can employ. The police, in all reality, is a reactive arm, charged with investigating after the fact. Sure, some proactive "sting" type operations are carried out, but that is generally not the case.
The real problem is when investigations cross from being outside the US (the jurisdiction of the CIA) and come inside the US (the jurisdiction of the FBI). There is where the "wall" is. That is where the hand off must occur.
The problem boils down to the fact that intelligence information is generally obtained in ways that prevent them from being used in a criminal investigation and trial. Further, courts throw out "poisoned fruit" evidence which is obtained because of illegal methods, even when the subsequent evidence is obtained legally. The FBI must work within the court system and the justice system, the CIA uses tactics which are not designed to prosecute people, but rather methods to obtain accurate and timely information. The two agencies methods and goals are almost at odds with one another.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed to both solve the information sharing and to keep the actual agencies separate. United States Department of Homeland Security To some it solves the problem, to some it goes too far, to others it does not go far enough. I guess we won't know until the next Intelligence failure
.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.