Threats to Gorelick

[Allison]

Idiots.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/17/gorelick.threats/index.html

[Swifty_Johnson]

Yup, some people just have way too much time on her hands.

The fact that she won't step down in the face of a very appearent conflict of intrest is just as bad.

Swifty

[Allison]

Lol, I knew you were going to say that, Swifty. :)

First, the conflict of interest you refer to only involves a single memo she wrote in 1995, based on existing laws, regarding two cases in New York. Second, every person on the commision has had something to do with security issues over the course of their careers. Should they all recuse themselves? Or should they do what they've been doing, recuse themselves from reviewing those materials with which they've had some affiliation.

Here's her perspective: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20786-2004Apr17.html

[Swifty_Johnson]

There is a differance between being involved in security issues, and being DIRECTLY involved in setting the policy that is being blamed for the U.S.A. not being able to do it's job.

Should we have apointed Lee Harvery Oswald to invesigate the Kennedy assisination?

Swifty

[Hammer]

Stupid people.

She should step down though. It really undercuts what little credibility remains for the commision. If she had been doing her job the 'Memo' wouldn't have been an issue because she would have fully disclosed her involvement as a policy maker. As it is, she should step down and make herself available as a witness.

[Grundy]

She should step down just for having the last name: Gore Lick.

[Hammer]

Now that's perspective;)

[Jammer]

I like Grundy. I, however, will now hold him responsible for the mental image foisted upon me. :ack:

Jammer

[]LoL[Harm]

Well I guess the VP should step down as well, he's in conflict of interest on two fronts. Being payed by Halliburton while in public office, and the whole chumming it up with a judge that will be responsible for making decisions on the whole energy task force, Freedom of Information act deal that is going down.

I don't have a problem with compensation packages, just pay them in full the day he was elected, remove him from the payroll. I don't mind people being friends, but friends are not impartial. Both actions are not illegal, but they are conflicts of interest.

[Eiru]

Should we have apointed Lee Harvery Oswald to invesigate the Kennedy assisination?

Swifty

Don't be silly, Swifty. Oswald was dead long before he could have sat on the investigation. ;)

[Allison]

There is a differance between being involved in security issues, and being DIRECTLY involved in setting the policy that is being blamed for the U.S.A. not being able to do it's job.

Should we have apointed Lee Harvery Oswald to invesigate the Kennedy assisination?

SwiftyOK, you're just talkin' crazy now.

A simple analagy of that memo would be a District Attorney informing a police department of the proper use of Miranda. The D.A. wouldn't be setting policy other than to try and guarantee that all the evidence collected could be used.

What her memo basically said is this: Hey, there are some existing laws about how evidence is gathered; and depending on whether the primary purpose of that evidence-gathering is for counterintelligence or for criminal prosecution, these laws can prohibit the use of the evidence gathered. So, here are some guidelines so that both the counterintelligence and the criminal investigations can share information with each other without screwing the pooch. (Again, talking about 2 investigations in NY, not a national policy.)

Even if we agreed that this rose to the level that she should recuse herself, who would take her place at this late date? And should we apply the same standard to everyone on the commission? How about we remove Hamilton too?

Lee H. Hamilton
served as chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (now the Committee on International Relations), chaired the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East from the early 1970s until 1993, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran. He has served as a commissioner on the influential United States Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission). He is currently a member of the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council.


Again, everyone on that commission has had something to do with security issues at one time or another. They wouldn't be qualified to serve if they hadn't.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Again, everyone on that commission has had something to do with security issues at one time or another. They wouldn't be qualified to serve if they hadn't.

Again, not everyone on the commission had a hand in making the POLICY that is now currently under attack as one of the reasons 9/11 was missed.

What her memo basically said is this:

What her memo said was there is this wall, you know what, we'll take that wall even higher.

She got caught with her fingers in the pie, now if she remains on the commission any good from it will be gone, as it's report will be reguarded as tainted.

Swifty

[Allison]

Swifty, I haven't heard anyone claim that Gorelick created a policy that is responsible for 9/11. That's absurd.

Her memo created guidelines to work around "the wall" that already existed, not make it higher. After reading it, and doing some reading about the context in which it was written (existing laws, current cases), I'm convinced this was her intent. I'm also convinced that the very few Republicans who are attacking her are doing so for strictly partisan reasons, further undermining the work of the commision in the process.

Here's a copy of the memo, if you're interested in what it actually says:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

Here's a document that describes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is critical to understanding why the memo had to be written in the first place:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, I haven't heard anyone claim that Gorelick created a policy that is responsible for 9/11. That's absurd.

No, she didn't create the inital policy, but she had a hand in making it stronger.

Her memo created guidelines to work around "the wall" that already existed, not make it higher.

The responce to her memo in the field was it made the wall higher, and will get people killed. (actually it might have gotten thousands of people killed.)

So yes, there is a question as to her intent, so yes she should step down, and testify in public, under oath, as to what she really intended with that memo.

I'm also convinced that the very few Republicans who are attacking her are doing so for strictly partisan reasons, further undermining the work of the commision in the process.

Oh, so when there is an appearent conflict of intrest, it's now all of a sudden a "partisan" attack.

There is only one way to clear the air, Gorelick should testify, in public, under oath.

Swifty

[Allison]

No, she didn't create the inital policy, but she had a hand in making it stronger. The responce to her memo in the field was it made the wall higher, and will get people killed. (actually it might have gotten thousands of people killed.)
It's obvious you haven't yet read the memo or any of the other links I posted. And I'd really like to see a link to some of these "people in the field" who you say share your view. Maybe you're better informed than I, but I haven't seen anything of the sort, other than Ashcroft's original comments, which are pretty funny in light of the fact that his own office reaffirmed the procedures set forth in that 1995 memo just one month before 9/11. (And as a sidenote, I also think it's pretty funny that Ashcroft would declassify Gorelick's memo in an attempt to either cover his own ass, or to discredit the commision, or both ... when his own office had reaffirmed it.)

Two separate FBI investigations had been launched into the WTC boming: a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. The laws were much more lenient in the area of electronic survellience if an invesitgation's primary purpose was intelligence. Therefore, they had to be very careful to separate certain aspects of the investigations so that the FBI could use every tool at its disposal for surveiling the suspects without jeapordizing the criminal cases. The memo specifically sets out a method by which intelligence could be shared in the two cases by both investigations.

I'm not saying that this "wall" wasn't a bad thing, or that it didn't need to at least be lessened, as it was with the Patriot Act. But she did not create it nor did she build it higher. Yes, the memo clarified it. I might be persuaded to go as far as using the words, "strengthened it." But, that was, after all, her job ... a job everyone was fully aware of long before she was ever appointed to the commision.

Oh, so when there is an appearent conflict of intrest, it's now all of a sudden a "partisan" attack.
Swifty
"Apparant" is your word. If there is a conflict of interest, it is a minor one that I believe is being resolved within the commision with recusals in the pertinent areas. I say it's a partisan attack because only Republicans are attacking her, and because I've read enough about the issue to believe that that memo doesn't even come close to the level of asking for her resignation. It's an overblown non-issue evidenced by the fact that, in an election year when partisanship usually runs extremely high, her attackers are relatively few, and her defenders include a number of Republicans.

[Swifty_Johnson]

It's obvious you haven't yet read the memo or any of the other links I posted. And I'd really like to see a link to some of these "people in the field" who you say share your view.

Yes I have read the memo, and her intent isn't as clear as you make it, to many she is making the wall higher with that memo.

There was another memo that was passed around that was written by an FBI agents that clearstated this was going to get people killed, I am not shure if it was about the wall in general, or if it was in responce to Gorelick's memo.

I say it's a partisan attack because only Republicans are attacking her,

Only Republican's are attacking her becasue the Democrats have shown they don't give a damn about the county, only their own image.

Swifty

[Allison]

Only Republican's are attacking her becasue the Democrats have shown they don't give a damn about the county, only their own image.

Swifty
Lol, not exactly an objective position, is it? I envy the simplicity of your decision-making process.

I'm out.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Lol, not exactly an objective position, is it?

Neither are you.

I envy the simplicity of your decision-making process.

Simple?

I'll put it this way, if Gorelick was a Republican, I'd be calling for her to step down and testify. Party doens't matter, it's what the person did that does. To bad you can't see that.

Swifty

[Hammer]

Actually I would agree with that statement Alli. No one on that commision should have been in a position to affect national policy or law during the period in question. So strike all of those who held administration positions and any former congressmen. If the point is to investigate then why not use professional investigators instead of former polititicians?

I don't get the use of, "Apparent conflict of interest", either. I've seen that used a lot(not alli). It is a conflict of interest. Does't mean she's some kind of criminal, just that she is being asked to investigate herself. Conflict of interest, plain and simple.

[Rooster]

And that's why I can never do anything that would would warrant banning myself on these forums :p

[Allison]

I guess I'm not out. Somebody stop me! :)

Actually I would agree with that statement Alli. No one on that commision should have been in a position to affect national policy or law during the period in question. So strike all of those who held administration positions and any former congressmen. If the point is to investigate then why not use professional investigators instead of former polititicians?


I admit I'm a little torn on that issue, Hammer. On the one hand, I want people in there who know what they're talking about, people who have an intimate understanding of the internal workings of government. But, that would necessitate some conflicts of interest, which is what we have now. The alternative would be that we have no conflicts of interest, but at the cost of possibly having a commision that isn't fully competent to judge all the facts. I honestly don't know which is the better option. But, as far as the 9/11 commision is concerned, it's a moot point.


Neither are you [objective].
I have always admitted the fact that it's impossible for anyone to be fully objective, that includes me. But I do strive to be. And I don't think I've demonstrated a lack of objectivity in regards to this topic. I've only stated my opinions based on my understanding of the facts.

I questioned your objectivity because of your wildy generalized assertion of a Republican moral superiority over Democrats who have shown they don't give a damn about the country, only their own image, which, if I take you at your word, shows a general negative bias toward Democrats. Am I not to take you at your word?

[spyder913]

Should we have apointed Lee Harvery Oswald to invesigate the Kennedy assisination?
Bad analogy - Lee Harvey would be more akin to appointing Osama (or the hijackers) to investigate 9-11.

No matter how bad Gorelick's policy was, it didn't do the killing. What about the person who made the policy that allowed riding in public through Dallas in a convertible without securing all possible sniper nests. Maybe they didn't realize how 'obviously bad' it was.

[Rooster]

"I want people in there who know what they're talking about, people who have an intimate understanding of the internal workings of government."

That completely flies in the face of our jury system, whom we depend on to make all sorts of decisions, but they're not lawyers. (I'm not saying this should be done in front of a jury, but I'm contrasting your point of having the "detectives" be judge & jury).

"I questioned your objectivity because of your wildy generalized assertion of a Republican moral superiority over Democrats who have shown they don't give a damn about the country, only their own image, which, if I take you at your word, shows a general negative bias toward Democrats. Am I not to take you at your word?"

Because it's a negative image of a certain group means it's biased? What if it's true? Just askin'. :)

[Allison]

That completely flies in the face of our jury system, whom we depend on to make all sorts of decisions, but they're not lawyers.And we all know what great decisions juries make. ;)

But, point taken.


Because it's a negative image of a certain group means it's biased? What if it's true? Just askin'. :)Lol. Well, first, I think most general behavorial attributes applied to large groups of people are rarely, if ever, true of every person in that group, even if true of the majority.

But, let's assume for the sake of argument that Person X makes Negative Statement Y about Group Z, and that that negative statement is 100% true when it's made. Person X has a negative bias toward Group Z. It may be a reasonable bias, but a bias it still is. Further, if Person X pre-judges claims from Group Z based on that bias alone, with a disregard for the facts of the claim, then, logically speaking, that person is not being objective. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

I admit I'm a little torn on that issue, Hammer. On the one hand, I want people in there who know what they're talking about, people who have an intimate understanding of the internal workings of government.

There are plenty of people from the Nixon,Carter and Ford administrations and plenty of governers with extensive legal ability that could be there, none of them would have been policy makers during the time in question.

I questioned your objectivity because of your wildy generalized assertion of a Republican moral superiority over Democrats who have shown they don't give a damn about the country, only their own image, which, if I take you at your word, shows a general negative bias toward Democrats. Am I not to take you at your word?

I'll have to correct that, Liberal Democrats and any who aquitted Clinton during the impeachment hearings. :) There is a few democrats that have morals. :)

Swifty

[Rooster]

But, without our opinions, and the right to bias, we're morons.

[Allison]

Lol, Swifty.

Rooster, opinions are great and wonderful things. Bias is inherent and sometimes even beneficial. But morons ... morons are forever. :)