Cases

We are taking new cases every day.  Unfortunately, there are far too many arguments to be made of our defenders coming under attack for doing the jobs we've commissioned them to do.  We are encountering more evidence every day of shocking compromises and outright treasonous collaboration with our enemies.

For instance, did you know that Eric Holder's law firm represents almost two dozen illegal combatants currently in Gitmo?  His firm employs some of the most radical terrorist advocates.  As Holder continues to push for prosecution of our intelligence operatives, while simultaneously maneuvering for the relocation of detainees to the U.S., consider that as soon as those terrorists set foot on American soil, they are endowed with all the legal rights and protections of our court system.  They wouldn't have to "break out" of a high-security prison, because they would more than likely walk right out the front doors, escorted by their lawyers!

Did you know that Gitmo attorneys are smuggling photos of CIA operatives into Gitmo to get the detainees to identify them so they can press charges against them?

Did you know that there was only one former member of Congress who lobbied his fellow Senators on behalf of an aggressive campaign by the Gitmo lawyers to accord Constitutional rights and protections to captured terrorists?  Three guesses and the first two don't count.

There's more and with your help, we're going to find every bit of it and publish it here.  There is no doubt that our intelligence agents and defense personnel are being hounded and threatened far more aggressively than any terrorist.  We must stop it!

Send us your tips, rants, and case entries and we will publish them here on the website.  This area will be updated soon with a new case against the real threats to our national security.

THE CRIME:

(The opening statement By former Attorney General John Ashcroft, under oath, to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, more popularly known as the  9/11 Commission regarding the issue of covert actions or the lack of them- directed at Osama bin Laden prior to 2001. John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice, Center Street- Hachette Book Group USA, 2006, pg. 258-9)

"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 need 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.”

Pg 244

In the aftermath of the “Millenium Plot”, the national Security Council and other agencies prepared After Action Reviews (AARs) similar to those done when military operations are conducted.  These reports focus on what went well what went wrong and what could have been done better.

The Millenium After Action Review, assembled and written by largely by Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s counterterrorism czar, recommended twenty-nine strategies, mostly directed toward rooting out, disrupting, and destroying terrorist threats within the United States…

When I sat before the 9/11 commission, I encouraged them to study carefully the classified Millenium After Action Review, which amounted to President Clinton’s National Security Council plan to disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately our government had failed to implement fully that plan, even though deterrents were spelled out clearly, a full seventeen months before the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001…Among the many vulnerable areas of homeland defenses identified in the review as needing improvement, Justice department surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized as “glaring weaknesses.”…

But despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new pre-9/11 disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the justice department’s five year counterterrorism strategy. From my perspective it was buried.

I did not see the highly classified report before September 11, 2001.  It was not among the thirty items on which I was briefed in the transition period in which I took office.  Nor was it advanced as a disruption strategy during the 2001 summer threat period by the NSC staff, the same agency that had written the review more than a year earlier.

Why the blueprint for security was not followed during the Clinton years, and particularly after the report raised warnings in the year 2000, we may never know...It is impossible to say that the Justice department was not aware of the report in 2000.  They knew the review warned of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated terrorist presence within the United States, and it was critical of the nation’s security measures taken prior to 2000.

Yet something about that report must have seemed either profoundly valuable or extremely embarrassing.  Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger apparently felt the classified report was telling enough that he would risk smuggling draft copies of it out of the National Archives, ostensibly to prepare testimony for the 9/11 commission.  Berger went even further, taking copies of the classified after action report to his office and destroying them.*

*Hope Yen, “Judge Orders Berger to Pay $50,000 Fine for Taking Classified Material,” Associated Press, September 8, 2005; reprinted online in the San Diego Union-Tribune

The national security advisor holds a position of great trust, advising the president on a multitude of issues and coordinates all items related to national security, bringing together the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the attorney general and dealing with the internal and external security of the country.

After the Clinton administration left office, Sandy Berger, even as a former national security advisor, would not normally have had access to classified materials in the National Archives.  But he was designated by the former Clinton administration as their official person to review documents on the administrations behalf in preparation for the 9/11 Commission hearings.  Berger was charged with the responsibility of going through thousands of pages of material relating to the Clinton years in office, and managing the document flow from the Clinton administration to the 9/11 commission.  He was not a casual person with access; he had access to the documents because of his official responsibility to the 9/11 Commission.

Nor was Sandy Berger a buffoon, clumsily grabbing classified documents that would put him at such risk. Apparently, he knew what he was after and why.  And when he was caught, he chose to plead guilty to his crimes.   In court, Berger characterized his brazen theft as a lapse of judgment, stating, “I let considerations of personal convenience override clear rules of handling classified material.”  Berger continued, “I believe that this lapse, serious as it is, does not reflect the character of myself.” **

**U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, September 8, 2005; www.dcd.uscourts.gov/.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson disagreed; she ordered Berger to pay a $50,000 fine, a substantial increase over the $10,000 recommended by government lawyers, but considered a slap on the wrists by many others.  The question of why Sandy Berger took documents about the Clinton administrations unimplemented plan to disrupt terrorism in the United States continues to rankle many…

John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice, Center Street- Hachette Book Group USA, 2006, pg. 257-261

More to come...

 

THE CRIME:

Jamie Gorelick had been at the heart of developing a policy that inhibited the discovery and pursuit of terrorists. Jamie Gorelick had been a prime player in helping to create some of those vulnerabilities.

(As stated by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, under oath, to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, more popularly known as the  9/11 Commission. John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice, Center Street- Hachette Book Group USA, 2006, pg. 245-6)

The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents.  Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall.

In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation of into Zacarias Moussaoui, Kalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi.  After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sough approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer.  The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for suspects. But because of the Wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote to Headqaurters, “Whatever has happened to this-someday someone will die- and wall or not-the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ Let’s hope National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us, UBL, is getting the most protection.

FBI headquarters responded, “We’re frustrated with this issue…These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up.”

But somebody did make these rules.  Somebody built this wall [former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, see below].

The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations.” The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, “We believe that 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.  These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack.  The largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11.  Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review.  Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author is a member of the 9/11 Commission.


THE BACKGROUND:

In the decades prior to 9/11, the U.S. Congress and Department off Justice officials had designed a system that actually made it more difficult for our nation to protect itself against terrorism.  Indeed, it was a tragedy waiting to happen, a system destined to fail.

As recently as 1995, the Justice Department had arduously augmented the separation of law enforcement and intelligence agents, strengthening and reinforcing the “wall” between the two groups charged with the responsibility of keeping our nation secure. For example, prosecutors- who had the power to take potential terrorists off the streets – were generally restricted in their ability to communicate with or receive information from intelligence officials who were keeping terrorists under surveillance. It wasn’t simply that the CIA could not share information with the FBI or the military; the FBI intelligence division could not even freely share information with the criminal arm of the Bureau. Ostensibly, this dividing “wall” was put in place in an effort to make sure that various agencies didn’t taint evidence that later be used in court to prosecute effectively cases involving foreign intelligence gathering. But Justice officials kept raising the invisible wall higher and higher.

John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice, Center Street- Hachette Book Group USA, 2006, pg. 144

THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT:

Jamie Gorelick had been at the heart of developing a policy that inhibited the discovery and pursuit of terrorists. Jamie Gorelick had been a prime player in helping to create some of those vulnerabilities.


THE EVIDENCE:

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general under Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration.  A Bright, articulate woman who left the Justice Department in 1997, Gorelick was working the private sector prior to being tapped by Democrats to serve on the 9/11 commission…Even most Republicans considered her a logical choice to be included on the commission.  But Jamie Gorelick knew something the other members of the commission either didn’t know or ad chosen to ignore.

In 1995, Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo in which the justice department reinforced and heightened “the wall” inhibiting communication between criminal investigators and intelligence officers investigating terrorists.   The idea of the “wall” originally followed the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence a Surveillance Act of 1978. The deputy attorney generals memo raised the wall higher than the law required.  The wall impeded our law enforcement and intelligence agents from sharing the vital information that might have led them to hijackers before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Knowing this, one might wonder how Jamie Gorelick could fairly serve on the commission. The answer was simple: her memo was classified.  Few people knew that Gorelick had actually caused information not to be shared between intelligence and law enforcement agents.

In the 1995 Memo, classified as SECRET and addressed to U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Richard Scruggs of the Council of Intelligence Policy and Review and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Jo Ann Harris, regarding the investigation and prosecution of terrorists involved in the 1993 World trade Center Bombing  cases and others, Gorelick wrote:

“During the course of those investigations, significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups, Although information and evidence relevant to possible future criminal prosecutions is still being sought, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that there is compelling need to further develop and expand that foreign counterintelligence information. Consequently, the FBI, has initiated a separate full filed counterintelligence investigation.”

Clearly, The deputy Attorney general understood that potential terrorist groups existed within the Untied States, maintaining connections with other terrorist groups abroad. Yet She felt compelled to raise the wall higher.

“Because the counterintelligence investigation will involve the use of surveillance techniques authorized under the FISA against targets that, in some instances had been subject to surveillance under Title 3, and because it will involves some of the same sources and targets as the criminal investigation, we believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions hat will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited but continued, criminal investigations.   These procedures which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating and unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

In theory, the memo’s enhancement of “the wall” was supposed to help avoid legal challenges to terror prosecutions. But with the simple phrase “which go beyond what is legally required,” the memo acknowledged that this enhancement of the wall was not necessary.

Mary Jo White (a fellow Clinton appointee and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York) knew what the risks were…White recognized that “the wall” made it more difficult to disrupt and stop terrorist attacks.  In a memo responding to Jamie Gorelick’s instructions, White pleaded with the deputy attorney general to tear down the wall between intelligence and prosecutors. “This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build un-necessary walls,” White cautioned, “or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities.”

In an almost prescient warning, Mary Joe White stated bluntly the reason for her concerns:

“The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house…Excessive conservatism…can have deadly results.”

She added:  “We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous.”

Enlisting the help of her team, U.S. Attorney White presented (to Attorney General Janet Reno) six pages of detailed reasons why it was a mistake to create too much of a wall between intelligence ad prosecutions. White forwarded that analysis to Gorelick and added her own notes.  “What troubles me even more than problems we have encountered,” Mary Joe White revealed, “are the undoubtedly countless instances of unshared and unacted upon information that reside in some file or other, or in some head or other, or in some unreviewed or not fully understood tape or other.” She concluded, “these can be disasters waiting to happen.”

Unfortunately, no one in the Clinton Justice Department acted on their career prosecutor’s warning.

John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice, Center Street- Hachette Book Group USA, 2006, pg. 236-240

THE KEY QUESTIONS:

1) WHERE WAS ERIC HOLDER WHILE THE WALL WAS BEING BUILT?

2) WHERE WAS THE MEDIA WHEN ASHCROFT’S BOOK CAME OUT?

3) WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE WHEN ASHCROFT TESTIFIED WITH THIS EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL?