Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WP editorial: Mr. Ashcroft's (Jamie Gorelick) Smear

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:33 AM
Original message
WP editorial: Mr. Ashcroft's (Jamie Gorelick) Smear
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 05:33 AM by DeepModem Mom
Mr. Ashcroft's Smear

Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A18


IN HIS TESTIMONY last week before the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft loosed a remarkable attack on Jamie S. Gorelick, a commission member who served as deputy attorney general during part of the Clinton administration. The "single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem," Ashcroft said, "was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," and the "basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum" from 1995 -- which Mr. Ashcroft had conveniently declassified for the hearing. "Full disclosure," he said, "compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission" -- that is, Ms. Gorelick. Mr. Ashcroft's allegations, which triggered criticism and demands for her resignation from prominent Republicans, are grossly unfair....

***

...the Bush administration explicitly maintained the 1995 procedures before the Sept. 11 attacks. The wall was no individual's fault but a product of years of department practice, judicial opinions and supervision of intelligence surveillance by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In fact, Ms. Gorelick was an advocate of increased collaboration between spies and cops, not greater separation. She pushed to give the court power to authorize physical searches as well as electronic monitoring, and surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act more than doubled during the Clinton administration. The department was criticized by civil libertarians and others on the left and right alike -- us included -- for the changes that she advanced.

Should she have done more? Neither the political climate nor the courts would have tolerated a dismantling of the wall, which was seen as an essential protection against the civil liberties abuses of the Watergate era. Even after Sept. 11 and the passage of the USA Patriot Act -- a central purpose of which was to facilitate the sharing of information -- the FISA court unanimously reaffirmed key restrictions. It took high-level action by all three branches of government, including an unprecedented appeal to a special review court that had never previously convened, to finally clarify that the wall was a kind of legal myth that never had quite the force that both the department and the lower FISA court had imagined. Pretending that such a deep-seated institutional problem was Ms. Gorelick's single-handed creation should have been beneath the attorney general.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25813-2004Apr19.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jivenwail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Just like the rest of this illegal administration
It's "blame somebody else". Don't take responsibility and never admit a mistake. Asscroft and the other ilk like him are disgusting and should be held accountable for their lies, deceit and deception. But as we all know too well, that will not happen. The bushies will never have to answer for the things that have done or will do - -just take a look at the so-called "polls" out this morning and the headline on all the sites (USA Today, CNN, MSNBC...) heralding the chimp's numbers rising and Kerry's falling.

I'm so disgusted this morning, sorry for the rant. But I just had to.

BTW...thanks so much for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Mandate Here. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, but the WaPo then 'balances' things for the Rethugs
when there is a letter to the editor headline below (at least online)

Ms. Gorelick's Conflicts

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25820-2004Apr19.html>

The two letters state that she is part of the problem and shouldn't have even been named to the Commission. Obviously the writers show the same very short memory that * wishes everyone to have. Wasn't his WH responsible for naming the Commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. ashcroft proves once again
he is simply unfit for the job.
in fact, bush seems to have used this as criteria #1 for naming ashcroft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. I heard on NPR
that Ms Gorelick's life has been threatened. And it seems that Rush and the other right wing oinkers are perpetuating Asscroft's lies. Wonder if those cretins would feel any remorse if one of their reich-wing tirades inspired one of their listeners to carry out what has, up to now, only been threatened? I hope to heavens it doesn't go that far, but I worry about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ablbodyed Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. If someone does do a vile deed....
it's more likely been 'hired' by than 'inspired' by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC