News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMine9-11inquiry — Viewing Item


Ashcroft blames intelligence sharing wall { April 14 2004 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14LEGA.html

April 14, 2004
INTELLIGENCE SHARING
Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, April 13 On Tuesday, witnesses and commissioners pondered the role of "the wall" in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that "the wall," a legal barrier in the government preventing intelligence investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators, was the most important structural impediment to preventing the attacks.

The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public. It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being involved in espionage. The 1978 law that created the court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set a lower threshold for counterintelligence agents to obtain permission for secret surveillance of espionage suspects than was required for investigators in criminal cases.

To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as the wall.

Applications for criminal warrants must comply with the Fourth Amendment's proscriptions against intrusive searches and required an official declaration that there was "probable cause" to believe a crime had occurred. By contrast, the intelligence surveillance law required only a showing that there was probable cause that the subject was the agent of a foreign power.

Much of this little-known legal debate became public in November 2002 when a special federal appeals court ruled that the wall had been destroyed by the counterterrorism law called the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the court added a stunning observation, saying that even without the counterterrorism law, the wall had never been necessary and that courts and Justice Department officials had misinterpreted the law for more than 20 years.

"Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned, requires the wholehearted cooperation of all the government's personnel who can be brought to the task," the court wrote. "A standard which punishes such cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security."

In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.

"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11.

Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations. Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United States.

"Somebody built this wall," he said, citing Ms. Gorelick's 1995 secret memorandum.

"Although you understand the debilitating impacts of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum. So I have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission," a reference to Ms. Gorelick.

The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick.

The court also said that it was "quite puzzling that the Justice Department, at some point during the 1980's, began to read the statute as" requiring a separation of the two fields of counterintelligence and criminal search warrants.

In her questioning of Mr. Ashcroft, Ms. Gorelick did not refer to the issue of her 1995 memorandum. But Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995 guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


berger-incident
bush-interview
commission-failure
commission-recommendations
conflicts-of-interest
congress-report
dissent
hampering-probe
public-heaings
senator-graham-alleges-coverup
9 11 probe quit
911 attacks preventable panel head believes { December 19 2003 }
911 commission chairs son runs for new jersey senate { October 19 2006 }
911 inquiry fired
911 panel cites communication failures between nyfd nypd { May 18 2004 }
911 panel reaches deal on access to papers { November 13 2003 }
911 panel to get more access to memos
911 probe panel
911 victim families not taking bribe money
Air defense flaws detail in 911 panel { April 25 2004 }
Ashcroft blames clinton rules for 911 { April 14 2004 }
Ashcroft blames intelligence sharing wall { April 14 2004 }
Battle over 911 panels deadline intesifies { January 29 2004 }
Breaks on 9 11 truth commission
Bush disagrees with saddam 911 connection { June 17 2004 }
Bush grants commission extension { February 4 2004 }
Bush press conference during 911 hearings
Bushs 911 coverup { June 18 2003 }
Chair says attack was preventable
Chief assess blame but holds off on higher ups { December 19 2003 }
Cia report criticizes cia leaders actions { January 8 2005 }
Commission could subpoena oval office files { October 26 2003 }
Commission investigates FBI { April 13 2004 }
Commission tells of many warnings { July 25 2004 }
Commission votes to subpoena pentagon
Congressional investigation angers cia fbi
Conspiracy theories abound in 911 probe { December 29 2003 }
Deal 911 commision { November 15 2002 }
Failed put hijackers watch list { May 15 2003 }
Families seek curb probe officer
Grassley investigate 911
House 911 inquiry
Kean says 911 attacks could have been prevented { December 19 2003 }
Kean says 911 report will be surprising
Most families havent taken payoff fund { August 31 2003 }
News reporters ordered not to investigate 911
No iraq link to 911 says panel
Panel describes how attackers got money { September 11 2001 }
Panel grills alqaeda chiefs on 911 { May 12 2004 }
Panel has glimpse presidential briefings { November 16 2003 }
Panel has testy exchange with firefights police { May 18 2004 }
Panel may subpoena its summaries of bush briefings { January 31 2004 }
Panel plans hard questions for fbi doj { April 6 2004 }
Panel probes failures of air defenses
Panel requests documents { June 19 2003 }
Panel seeks declassification of 911 warning memo
Panel urged disciplinary { December 11 2002 }
Panel will sharply fault role of congress { July 22 2004 }
Report citing blame for 911 supressed till after election { October 19 2004 }
Secrets of 911
Tenet lies about not seeing bush in august 2001 { April 16 2004 }
Terrorism catchall too vague an enemy for war { July 23 2004 }
Top brass says no chance hijackers fly into pentagon { April 15 2004 }
Victims relatives press white house for sept 11 details { October 29 2003 }
Why does 911 inquiry scare bush { July 11 2003 }

Files Listed: 55



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple