Testifying April 13 before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 commission), Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft cited the Clinton Administration's anti-terror policy as a factor leading to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"For nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to our enemies," Ashcroft said, referring to a strict wall of separation between intelligence and criminal investigations that was strengthened during the Clinton years.
To support his claim, Ashcroft produced a declassified 1995 memo by a senior Justice Department official that raised the wall higher - with specific reference to the investigation of al Qaeda's bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
"Although the counter-intelligence investigation may result in the incidental collection of information relevant to possible future criminal prosecutions," said the 1995 memo, "the primary purpose of the counter-intelligence investigation will be to collect foreign counter-intelligence information. Because the counterintelligence investigation will involve the use of surveillance techniques authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) against targets that, in some instances, had been subject to surveillance under Title III [criminal warrants], and because it will involve some of the same sources and targets as the criminal investigation, we believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that 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 an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
Then Ashcroft dropped the bombshell: "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission."
The commissioner in question is Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general under Janet Reno.
HUMAN EVENTS has repeatedly brought attention to this "wall of separation", which originated in the 1970s. But Gorelick's enhancement of it, as outlined in her memo, was a new revelation. It helps explains, for example, why Zacarias Moussaoui's computer was never searched.
As the author of this memo and a major player in Clinton Administration counter-terrorism policy, Gorelick has an obvious conflict of interest serving on the 9/11 commission. After Ashcroft released the memo, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.), called for her to step down. Last week, HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked Republican senators whether they shared that view.
Given that 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11, should she step down from the commission?
SEN. JIM BUNNING (R.-KY.): Who appointed her?
Do you think it was a mistake? It was Daschle.
BUNNING: Daschle? That was his choice? I think the 9/11 commission shouldn't have happened. Period. I've been of that opinion from the beginning.
Is there a better way of figuring out what went wrong?
BUNNING: Yeah. That's what our intelligence committees are all about. That's what the job of the intelligence committee is. So I don't have any reason to support the 9/11 commission. I think they are proving to be a lot of 'very important people.'
Do you think, at this point, they could salvage -
BUNNING: I don't think they can salvage anything. It's pretty obvious to me that it's going to be ineffective, and the report will be pretty tainted. It's become very political. That's what the intel committees are not. . . . So the 9/11 commission, the appointment of which I was against to start with, you want me to say something that I didn't believe in to begin with. So all the members I have nothing to say about, and will not believe anything they write at the end. . . . It's all hindsight. Everybody's got 20/20 vision in hindsight. So after something happens, you go back and question what happened, you'd never get the whole story because it's in bits and parts. And what I see, and my interpretation about Clarke - his interpretation would be different from someone else's. They're doing the same exact job. So whatever he writes and whatever he says is a little tainted. It might be to sell a book or to cover his back.
Given that 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the Clinton Administration's pre-9/11 anti-terrorism activity, should she step down from the commission?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R.-S.C.): You know, I - should she step down?.
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R.-GA.): No sense in prolonging this thing now. It's obviously such a partisan atmosphere on there, that the report that comes out is going to be tainted, because of the partisan aspects of it, and that just adds to the partisanship of it. She should have recused herself early on, but to do it now, I just don't know if it makes a difference.
GRAHAM: Ditto. I think a lot of Americans have mentally changed the channel because they were disgusted with what they saw. I thought it was turning into, uh, divorce court.
Given that 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the Clinton Administration's pre-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts, should she step down from the commission?
SEN. LARRY CRAIG (R.-IDAHO): Absolutely. She has a well known and I think clearly dedicated political bias.
Well, at least regarding her involvement, do you think they could have found another Democrat who was not so involved in what's under investigation?
CRAIG: Sure they could. Absolutely. I worked with her during the Clinton years. I know her to be the political operative that she is, and that alone should have disqualified her. I don't argue her talents or abilities - she's a very talented person - she's also very political. . . .If it's not careful, [the commission] will neuter itself, and that would be a tragedy. The American people have a right to know and have all the answers, and I think they would appreciate it from a non-biased, non-political, objective commission.
Given that Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts during the Clinton Administration, should she step down from the 9/11 Commission?
SEN. JUDD GREGG (R.-N.H.): Well, I'm not really focused on the issue. I do know that she had a large role in the Justice Department on the issue of terrorism when she was there, which I would think would bring into conflict how she would deal with that. I mean, she's obviously going to want to defend her role as a member of the prior administration. But it's really her call, I guess. Let's see what their report is.
Given that Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts during the Clinton Administration, should she step down from the commission?
SEN. JIM INHOFE (R.-OKLA.): Yes, she should step down. That thing's turned into a circus over there. It's partisan. They're trying to use that to destroy our President. I think it's shameful, and she should step down.
If she stays on, does that taint the commission's final report?
INHOFE: I think it does. I think frankly, over all, she should get off. By not getting off, when the final report comes, it will be easier to discredit the final report if she's on there.
Should she testify in front of the commission?
INHOFE: I don't think so.
Given that 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick was deeply involved in the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts during the Clinton Administration, should she step down from the commission?
SEN. CRAIG THOMAS (R.-WYO.): I think it's a mistake for her to be on there after having been involved there, and now that - yeah, I think it would make sense for her to step aside.
Do you think that given her involvement, it would be appropriate for her to testify rather than sit on the commission?
THOMAS: I suppose she could testify. But it's become such a political thing, and it's kind of too bad that it has. But she ought to give some thought to stepping down.
