Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


8 former FBI agents "have offered the first substantive critique of the Ashcroft program."
November 27, 2001 10:52 PM   Subscribe

8 former FBI agents "have offered the first substantive critique of the Ashcroft program." A senior Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that none of the changes ordered by Ashcroft would have enabled the FBI to interrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. After the rebuke mentioned previously here, perhaps the worm is turning?
posted by aflakete (10 comments total)

 
I just saw mention of the anti-drug money sent to the Taliban to stop herion. It is good to see that now atleast people are hearing and reading about the questions surrounding this event. From the doubts of the FBI on these detainments to why money went to their orgaization just before the attacks?????
posted by otto at 11:37 PM on November 27, 2001


Before any of this prodigiousness occurred, remember what it was we were all fretting about, about Ashcroft? His staunch fundamentalist Christianity.

I ask now, with what we've known all this time about the Christian right, forgetting about Sept 11th: How is a pious Christian, one who believes there's not enough Jesus in America, to be trusted when dealing with a Muslim's or any religious/social minorities' rights?
posted by crasspastor at 12:20 AM on November 28, 2001


The Guardian has this parallel article today.
posted by crasspastor at 12:56 AM on November 28, 2001


But hey, Rush Limbaugh says its okay. So it must be cool, right? Riiiiight.
posted by owillis at 2:23 AM on November 28, 2001


I don't think that Ashcroft's Christian fundamentalism is at the root of the problem, popular a cause though it may be in blog circles. There's not much Christian fundamentalism going on in Israel's justice department, but Palestinians, oddly enough, still don't seem to like it all that much.

One of the thorny issues of democracy is that it causes a nation to get the government it wants and deserves. That's why in terms of real impact things change ever so little from one administration to another. Sure, John Ashcroft is one creepy, teetotaling totalitarian at heart, but he replaces Janet "you don't like it, kiss my *ss" Reno at the AG post. This administration has a big war on terrorism going on which is used to justify all sorts of civil rights abuses, and the Clinton administration took the so-called "War on Drugs" to unprecedented levels, which was used to justify all sorts of civil rights abuses. And yet somehow the billions forfeited from individuals suspected of having committed crimes are yesterday's news, like so much water under the bridge, because as all MeFi'ers know all the civil rights issues that matter must now be blamed on Ashcroft and Ashcroft alone.

Let's face it, America has a serious, nation-wide case of Attention Deficit Disorder. Every election America demands that politicians do the monkey dance for tougher law-and-order measures, and about a month into a new administration it starts complaining that the Constitution is being turned into a three-inch wide perforated instrument distributed pre-packed on handy cardboard rolls. But whose fault is that supposed to be, except that of the American voter (or non-voter, quite frankly). Yet every four years the cycle continues.
posted by clevershark at 6:58 AM on November 28, 2001


Any specific reason for linking to the printer-friendly version of this article?

I never print news articles, and I do like the additional navigational links that the web-friendly version has.
posted by ktheory at 7:10 AM on November 28, 2001


The NY Times' Frank Rich has a very compelling editorial piece on Ashcroft's handling of the investigation and how it has seeminly legitimized accusing "the Jews" of being involved. A very upsetting piece, I thought, actually.

(It's probably been linked to in a previous thread but I haven't seen it mentioned before.)
posted by mattpfeff at 7:40 AM on November 28, 2001


Yes, it's one of Rich's strongest columns -- a very forceful, very provocative argument.
posted by verdezza at 10:53 AM on November 28, 2001


There's not much Christian fundamentalism going on in Israel's justice department

But there is Religious Fundamentalism of a different religion. The point is that fundamentalism doesn't mix well with multi-ethnic, multi-party justice.

When all is said and done, however, I'm not entirely convinced that Ashcroft's religious fundamentalism has much to do with his actions. I could easily imagine other, non-religious apointees acting the same way when given the powers and popular mandate he's got.
posted by cell divide at 11:30 AM on November 28, 2001


ktheory: I linked the printer version because the Post's pages take awhile to download on my dial-up, and I figure there's other people like me who don't like to wait. Also, I find their pages hard to read due to the format and when I save articles, which I do often, I usually save the printer version. Maybe I'll offer links to both next time.
posted by aflakete at 5:58 PM on November 28, 2001


« Older "Movie Mask Player...  |  Bin Laden Family Business Seek... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments