Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet By Sen. John Ashcroft

[MaggieL]

Ya can't make this stuff up.

<blockquote>
In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton administration is trying to do just that.
</blockquote>

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itg.../ijge/gj-7.htm

[elSicomoro]

Well, you are incredibly Un-American Maggie...don't you realize that things have changed? This is Amerika now...not America!

*looks to the heavens* Why God why?! Why did you let this idiot come from Pofuckingdunk, Missouri?

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
Well, you are incredibly Un-American Maggie...don't you realize that things have changed? This is Amerika now...not America!

*looks to the heavens* Why God why?! Why did you let this idiot come from Pofuckingdunk, Missouri?

(God speaks from the heavens) Because he lost his US senate seat to a dead man. What, you wanted him to find honest work? He had to go somewhere or he'd be wandering around aimlessly like Al Gore!

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang



(God speaks from the heavens) Because he lost his US senate seat to a dead man. What, you wanted him to find honest work? He had to go somewhere or he'd be wandering around aimlessly like Al Gore!

Unfortunately, God was apparently dealing with other stuff this November and Lautenberg got elected in NJ. Of course, I think God forsook NJ sometime in the 1960's.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by slang
(God speaks from the heavens) Because he lost his US senate seat to a dead man. What, you wanted him to find honest work? He had to go somewhere or he'd be wandering around aimlessly like Al Gore!

My hope was that he'd go back to southwestern Missouri and sing and pray and leave the rest of the world alone.

Wishful thinking...

[slang]

When I heard JA was going to be the AG, I was really happy because I thought Reno was totally useless in this position. That's not to say she's totally useless, just in this position.

Now we see 2 years of basically no improvement, and in many cases, the DOJ getting worse.

I remember seeing a photo of Ashcroft giving Freeh the hairy eyeball as if to say "there's a new sheriff in town, and I'm going to clean this mess up". What a joke.

I have given him a lot of slack as well as most of the Republican party. Being responsible for the DOJ must be a tough job. Now I just wish he'd go back to MO, like you said.

[elSicomoro]

The funny thing is...I don't remember him being such a firebrand when he was our governor. That didn't seem to seep out until he ran for Senate in '94. Maybe I just didn't pay that much attention prior to that...*shrugs*

[elSicomoro]

Did I mention that me and John Boy wrote to each other on occasion?

My last e-mail to him was about the Clinton mess, and that he should not support an impeachment. This was his reply, from January 1999:

Thank you for contacting my office about the serious crisis in the White House. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

As you know, on August 17, 1998, President Clinton admitted that he lied to the American people, his family, and his colleagues about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The perpetuation of that lie for months is disgraceful. While I do not question the sincerity of the President's apology, I also have no question about the grave and long-lasting negative effects his actions are having on the nation and on our culture. As a result, I believe that the best course for our country and our culture is for the President to resign.

In light of the President's actions and his continued unwillingness to admit that his actions were unlawful, on December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives took the extraordinary step of approving two articles of impeachment against President Clinton. The solemn duty of conducting an impeachment trial now falls upon the Senate. When this matter comes to trial before the Senate, I will honor my oath to judge the matter impartially based on the evidence presented and on no other basis.

The Constitution imposes a solemn duty on the Senate to conduct a fair, speedy and impartial trial. However, this important constitutional obligation cannot distract us from pursuing our legislative agenda. Protecting Social Security, cutting taxes, educating our children, and keeping them safe from the scourge of drugs cannot await the end of this trial. The President's admitted misconduct has hampered his ability to provide leadership, both at home and abroad. We cannot allow our constitutional obligation of evaluating that misconduct to prevent the Senate from supplying the missing leadership and making progress on this agenda.

Americans expect their President to provide moral leadership. They expect someone who will call them to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. They count on the President to uphold the law, not undermine it. They want him or her to provide a model for their children to emulate, not serve as an embarrassing example that causes children to question the moral lessons instilled by their parents.

The President's actions are indicative of a values deficit in Washington. The culture of Washington exudes a spirit of arrogance that is not reflective of the people's values. From his first days in office, this President has presided over a cascade of investigations, scandals, and ethical controversies. He has borrowed against the people's trust over and over, and he has no moral capital left.

What is more, the President's values deficit illustrates that ours is a culture in crisis. Its symptoms include family breakdown, teen pregnancy, violence, and drug abuse. Now, more than ever, America needs a president who offers moral leadership. But the bully pulpit is empty. The President, who should be able to lead by example and who should be a model, is unable to provide that leadership. His self-inflicted wounds disable him from providing the leadership the culture so desperately needs.

From the outset, I have consistently stated that if the allegations against the President were true, then he has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Presidency, and he should resign. Now that the President has admitted the allegations are true, the honorable act is to resign so that the nation can properly heal from the wounds he has inflicted and the culture can be put on the path to recovery.

Although I can call on the President to resign, I have no power to make him do so. The choice is in his hands. Therefore I appeal to him, to his sense of patriotism, and his sense of honor, to make the right decision. If he refuses to resign, the nation will continue to be dragged through an ordeal to determine whether the President has forfeited the legal authority to govern. However, statements by members of Congress of both political parties make it increasingly clear that this President already has lost his moral authority to govern. Under these circumstances, he owes it to a culture in need of moral leadership to resign.

Again, thank you for contacting me about the Clinton crisis. It is a privilege to serve you in the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

John Ashcroft

[tw]

The DOJ has serious management problems at its highest levels. Problem is that employees are expected to protect top management at the expensive of FBI charter. Smoking guns keep pointing to top DOJ management - without effective changes.

FBI lab fakes or corrupts lab reports. Failure of FBI lab reports was suspected widely - except in top DOJ.

FBI agents are acutally spies for the KGB because FBI management would often promote those with 'people skills' over those who could actually accomplish tasks. A recent TV movie demonstrates the problem.

FBI management orders translators to not work too fast - to justify a budget increase. Translations that were needed that day instead were withheld for two and three weeks. An agents previous day's work was deleted from a computer because she worked too fast. Another translator was the girlfriend of the spy whose wiretaps she was translating. When reported, the whistleblower instead was repremanded. Girlfriend left the country long before DOJ management understood what they had been told.

FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota both had enough information to have uncovered the WTC attack - but were stifled by management who, it appears, never worked in the field.

FBI agents had to take work home because even home computers did more and were probably more secure than FBI equipment. Furthermore, top FBI management knew of this problem for years and refused to confront the problem - fear of innovation.

These are all problems directly traceable to top DOJ management. Where is the top level management shakeup? Those with 'people skills' will say the right things. Management with extreme bias is easily told the right things - facts be damned. There is no massive shakeup because there is no effective leadership in the DOJ and has not been for some time.

[slang]

Originally posted by tw

FBI lab fakes or corrupts lab reports. Failure of FBI lab reports was suspected widely - except in top DOJ.

I saw a TV show on this a few years back. I would seriously be interested in any links or books, reports, etc you recommend on this subject.

[wolf]

You saw it on a recent TV movie and so it must be so, tw?

You don't mind if I ask for more reliable sourcing, do you?

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang
When I heard JA was going to be the AG, I was really happy because I thought Reno was totally useless in this position. That's not to say she's totally useless, just in this position.

Now we see 2 years of basically no improvement, and in many cases, the DOJ getting worse.

Not that I'm advocating a total housecleaning (although it probably wouldn't hurt) that's what happens when you change the head of an organization and leave the rest of the organization pretty much intact. The corporate culture does not change, even if the new boss has a different business philosophy.

[tw]

Originally posted by wolf
You saw it on a recent TV movie and so it must be so, tw?

Clearly you jest - or did not read the post with care. The TV movie only exampled (it never claimed to prove) what has been reported repeatedly about the FBI.

A recent TV movie demonstrates the problem.

Not proves... demonstrates.

For many, FBI lab was the only game in town. But look carefully at many major trials right after FBI lab procedures were exposed. Including, if I recall, credentials of top administrators. Trial evidence was also being sent to one or two additional private labs because FBI credibility had become so questionable.

You did listen to 60 minutes explain intentional stalling in the translation departments. Accusations ignored until 60 Minutes took on the story which suddenly got Congressional oversight committee attention.

Did you listen to another 60 Minutes report where an FBI agent had permission to report on serious management problems in the FBI - and then was harrassed for doing what he had permission to do. He now has protection from one senator on the oversight committee. These separate incidents along are strong symptoms of a organization with serious problems at the highest levels.

Need we return to the MN and AZ agents who not only could not investigate what was apparrently the WTC attack plot, but went on to testify how most every office in America has better office equipment that the FBI. How they were impeded constantly by FBI procedures and requests for information. They had to use there own home computers to communicate with Washington because DOJ at the highest levels chose to avoid things like computer for security reasons. Does the word 'incompetent' or 'fear of technology' or 'naive' sound familiar? Have you ever worked with people so anti-American (anti-innovative) and yet would get promoted because they had 'good people skills"?

You do remember some years back when DOJ wanted use of encryption and integrated communication methods limited so that wire tapping would not be so complex. The details of that are rather interesting. If phone wires required more than connecting to two wires and listening, then the FBI often did not have the people and technical abilities to make that tap. Heaven forbid if they had to tap a T1 line or xDSL. That was too complex - a symptom of management living in the dark ages? Clearly management that fears change - anti-innovators. No wonder they could not provide field offices with computers.

That is classic symptoms of a system top heavy in management AND with too many people who don't come from where the work gets done.

These stories are well published. Other lesser stories tell of similar problems. At the highest levels, top DOJ personal even covered up and then impeded the investigation of Ruby Ridge. We know that now. So who went to prision? Who was demoted or fired? That empty list is but another example of an organization of incompetents in top management. Top management too busy protecting itself as to now even harass honest whistleblowers - one even given permission to blow the whistle on 60 Minutes.

What has changed between Reno and Ashcroft. Ashcroft's staff also endorses 'shooting the messenger'.

I don't have all day to search hyperlinks for these stories. I expect, and now realize that too many waste their time on talk radio rather than listening to read news. These stories were widely reported and should be common knowledge. Best I can do for you is provide the stories and leave you to find the details.

A classic example from friends who are agents. Who to send undercover to an IRA fund raiser? According to top management rules, a black man was next on the list and therefore had to be sent to an IRA fund raiser. Classic example of management out of control. That is a story from the FBI as told by Federal agents. What good is sending a black FBI agent undercover to an IRA fund raiser?

[tw]

In a continuing example of changes in the FBI:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/politics/02TERR.html

Two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ... had serious concerns about the F.B.I.'s ability to lead the fight against terrorism and about its treatment of some agents who have voiced criticisms internally. The senators questioned whether the F.B.I. had been truthful about its progress in recasting its counterterrorism operation.

And two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee ... expressed concern today about the agency's ability to recast its mission from traditional law enforcement duties to intelligence functions.

This is the part that would never end up in tabloids and yet tells us much about what is happening in the FBI:

... a study by Syracuse University last spring suggesting that the F.B.I. was devoting as much attention to nonterrorism cases after the Sept. 11 attacks as before. They said internal frustrations at the F.B.I. appeared to echo the study's findings.

In addition, the senators disclosed that the Justice Department decided last month to cut the amount of information on F.B.I. cases that it would make available to researchers at Syracuse as part of their continuing study.

Top management again fears facts? DOJ therefore has top management problems because Syracuse is not telling them what they want to hear.

More damning evidence typical of an organization with corrupt or incompetent top managment:

Mr. Roberts said ... that there was a perceived double standard at the F.B.I. in its disciplining of senior officials versus rank-and-file agents, and Congressional officials say that soon after, supervisors upbraided him in front of other employees because of his comments. Supervisors also eliminated a position in the F.B.I.'s ethics units last month after two employees spoke with Congressional investigators about whether the agency had retaliated against Mr. Roberts, the senators said.

Do we fix unethical top management or fire more little people? More symptoms of defective top management. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Still want to defend the DOJ? It looks like the coverup at Ruby Ridge is just the tip of an iceberg. Now about that shootout out west on the Indian reservation? Forgot the name. But I see enough here and consistently into the past to even question FBI reports of that incident that got so little journalistic evaluation.

[tw]

Originally posted by wolf
Not that I'm advocating a total housecleaning (although it probably wouldn't hurt) that's what happens when you change the head of an organization and leave the rest of the organization pretty much intact. The corporate culture does not change, even if the new boss has a different business philosophy.

Establishing or changing as required the corporate culture: job of top management. When Bill Gates realized that Microsoft had completely missed the internet, he changed the corporate culture completely in two years. Why? Gate is a competent manager. For one thing, he comes from where the work gets done.

Cited elsewhere is an article from the NYTimes. Rather than learn corporate culture is not changing and rather than learn that management has serious ethics problems, instead top management cuts off further data to the study AND closes down the ethic office. What kind of management is that? Incompetent? Naive? Ineffective? Lying? Choose one. They and others could possibly apply. Bottom line is that DOJ still has a serious top managment problem. Too many facts just in that one article say so. But then my conclusion is based upon many other cited problems also directly traceable to who? Top management.

What is the job of top management? Attitude and knowledge. They establish the corporate culture (attitude) AND they verify that everyone has sufficient knowledge to perform their jobs (knowledge). To learn whether they are doing both was a study from Syracuse. Only a myopic top management would shoot the messenger - quash future studies - not want to hear what is really happening. Oh yeah. This is the same guy that also fears naked statues. No wonder he fears the naked truth. Which are more important - FBI ethics or John Askcroft's ethics.

Its all about top management.