Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Ashcroft accused Jamie Gorelick erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That because FBI feared to touch that wall, they hadn't applied a permission to search suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, so they lost chance to stop 911 attack in advance.
|
Information was available that was not passed on. In a 1995 memo concerning Ramzi Youssef and other terrorists from the first bombing of the WTC, Jamie Gorelick had this to report, to comfort everyone about the incredible, insurmountable "WALL" she empoyed to make sure that no information could be leaked to help ongoing investigations between the CIA and FBI.
Gorelick wrote:
[B]"This AUSA will also serve to ensure, in conjunction with the FBI and OIPR that information which reasonably indicates that a significant federal crime has beent in been, is being, or may be committed Is appropriately disseminated to criminal investigative personnel, the USAO and the Criminal Division pursuant to the procedures set forth above. That AUSA will Continue to be
"walled off" from participation in the on-going criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
This is a blackmail.
|
Getting the facts out there is not blackmail. You are factually incorrect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
There are two ways for FBI to apply a search warranty from Judge. One is by FISA court.(Foreign Intelligence Spy Act) In which a warranty is in a very low standard and is easy to get. The other way is by criminal law court which is in high standard because Americans are protected by 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest.
|
Then why did the Patriot Act pass with overwhelming support? To undo Gorelicks "WALL".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
When Ashcroft said there is a wall to block sharing information between foreign information and criminal investigation, he is demanding a big police power expanding which makes 4th amendment mean nothing. He then can search and arrest American citizen at his will, only out of suspicion(FISA standard is low) while we should be protected by criminal law from being unreasonable search and arrest. (must based on evidence)
|
I support ongoing efforts to round up terrorists. The Partiot Act protects citizens. Your Ashcroft attacks are unfounded.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Ashcroft use Moussaoui's case as a foundation, said because FBI feared to touch the wall of criminal law so they didn't investigate Moussaoui's computer. It's hypocrite and is a misleading. We don't have to be a professional like A.G. or FBI to know that Moussaoui is a foreigner and fits for FISA. Why FBI hadn't apply FISA(obviously an easy one) but considered domestic criminal law? And why they even didn't apply? It is incompetence, a mistake, or a deliberate negligence? Many informations revealed that government knew 911 attack in advance, it was allowed to happen. Because they are benefit from it.
|
No one has benefitted from the terror freak show in the air. Your point is moot and has no merit. The FBI and CIA did not cooridinate data so Moussaui slipped through as did his supplier of the Airliner Flight Simulator software who was one of the pilots in error on Wellstone's flight. There is a lot better job the FBI and CIA could have done against Islammist terror freaknoids.[QUOTE=kathaksung]What Ashcroft wants is to give FBI more police power to search and arrest people. He wants to low the standard of criminal law. That's a blackmail in the name of "war on terrorism". [QUOTE=kathaksung]Naw. That's not blackmail, it's national security in the War on Terror freaks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
BTW, there is a deep meaning of "erect the wall of sharing information" . In fact, intelligence share the information already. The real meaning is they can't use that information to apply a search warrent. The wall prevent they use FISA standard on domestic criminal case. Theoretically, FBI can't spy a citizen unless they have evidence the man has committed crime. When this "sharing information wall" is broken, now they can search a citizen covertly only on suspicion. Because FISA standard is low. This is the real purpose of Ashcroft. And he claimed "Patriot Act" gave him such priviledge. The fact is, under "Patriot Act", Bush and Ashcroft expand their fascist police power. American people are losing the protect from "unreasonable search and arrest" of 4th amendment.
|
I don't think that name calling our police as fascists supports the War on Terror. Perhaps you may which to alter your language of our officers who put themselves at great risk against the suicidal terror freaks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Government and media never tell people about this. You are losing your constitutional right.
|
We have lost nothing. We gained our independence from the fascist, sick terror freaks who attack everyone on the planet. The Patriot Act is a good thing. I disagree with your inaccurate assessment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Quote, "9/11 panelist denies accusation on CIA-FBI 'wall' Ashcroft had faulted official's 1995 memo
Washington -- Jamie Gorelick, the embattled Sept. 11 commission member who served as a deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, fired back at critics who said she erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
|
Not only did Jamie Gorelick (very Clintonesque name) construct a wall that could not be penetrated, she also implimented a non proactive effort to combat terror which the current administration has had to over come.
Gorelick wrote:
"No "pro-active" investigative efforts or technical coverages are presently contemplated in any of the ongoing criminal investigations, which primarily focus on past criminal conduct, with the exception of the obstuction investigation. If in the future, the criminal investigations develop information requiring "pro-active" efforts or technical coverages, the United States Attorneys Office USAO and the criminal agents will consult with the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (0IPR), and the FCI agents before undertaking such efforts, absent exigent circumstances, in order to determine the impact, if any, on the FCI investigation.
I personally support the Patriot Act to make it easier to round up Osama and Saddams band of merry terror freaks. I am also in opposition to Jamie Gorelick's "WALL" and "INACTIVE" approach to terror suspect pursuit.