posted on February 17, 2004 03:46:32 PM new
And retaliates against federal prosecutor for cooperating with a Senate Committee. The prosecutor is suing.
"— A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington.
Justice officials said Tuesday they had not seen the suit and had no comment.
The suit is the latest twist in the Bush administration's first major post-Sept. 11 terrorism prosecution, which is now in danger of unraveling over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Convertino came under internal investigation last fall after providing information to a Senate committee about his concerns about the war on terror. His testimony came just months after he helped convict some members of an alleged terrorism cell in Detroit.
The government now admits it failed to turn over evidence during the trial that might have assisted the defense, including an allegation from an imprisoned drug gang leader who claimed the government's key witness made up his story.
Convertino is seeking damages under the First Amendment and Privacy Act, alleging he has been subjected to an internal investigation as retaliation for his cooperation with the Senate and that information from the internal probe was wrongly leaked to news media.
The lawsuit states Convertino first complained to his superiors more than a year ago about Justice's interference in the Detroit terrorism trial, saying Washington supervisors "had continuously placed perception over reality to the serious detriment of the war on terror."
The lawsuit includes excerpts of an e-mail from another prosecutor in the case that Convertino says "identified some of the gross mismanagement which was negatively impacting the ability of the United States to obtain convictions in a major terrorist case."
The e-mail from the other prosecutor shows he complained at the time that efforts by Justice's terrorism unit in Washington to "insinuate themselves into this trial are, nothing more than a self-serving effort to justify the existence" of the unit.
"They have rendered no assistance and, are in my judgment, adversely impacting on both trial prep and trial strategy," the e-mail cited in the lawsuit states.
Convertino also accused Justice officials of intentionally divulging the name of one of his confidential terrorism informants (CI) to retaliate against him.
The leak put the informant at grave risk, forced him to flee the United States and "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the CI about current and future terrorist activities," the suit alleges.
The prosecutor is being represented by the National Whistleblower Center, which has represented FBI agents and other whistleblowers in recent cases involving terrorism. Its chief lawyer successfully helped Linda Tripp win damages under the Privacy Act for the leak of information from her Pentagon personnel file after the Monica Lewinsky affair."
posted on February 17, 2004 04:04:16 PM new
Yeah, that's an interesting story, isn't it, Snowy?
Now why would our government deliberately foil a key terrorist prosecution? Hmmm...
posted on February 17, 2004 04:25:37 PM new
Without terrorists, how could we have a war on "terrorism".
Wow...just who is not being investigated...the white house plame investigation, the intelligence committee investigation and now Ashcroft and the Justice Department
posted on February 17, 2004 04:54:42 PM new
I wonder why, if these terrorists are so well organized (as the government leads us all to believe), that there isn't more going on. Even little bombs or trying to polute a river - terrorism on a smaller scale. I've heard people claim that these terrorists like to take their time and that 911 was 20 years in the making. So, if that's the case, what's the problem?
posted on February 17, 2004 05:54:32 PM newWow...just who is not being investigated...the white house plame investigation, the intelligence committee investigation and now Ashcroft and the Justice Department
We're no where near the number of cases investigated during the clinton years.
----------
KD - Because all the things that have been into place by this administration, ie Home Land Security, have made it much hard for them to do anything. And I've heard that it's a pride kind of thing with binladen. Like after what he did on 9-11....anything small might be an embarassment to him.
posted on February 17, 2004 06:11:52 PM new
KD - Way too many things to list. If you read the Home Land Security website you'll seem most of the changes there.
posted on February 17, 2004 08:38:51 PM new
I just finished banging my sticks together out on the porch...it's still working...no bears
___________________________________
All those billions Linda is so confident we're spending wisely have failed to protect a key terrorist target: our nuclear (that's 'nukuler' to you, Linda) weapons facilities. If you get the television program '60 Minutes' in your area, watch for reruns of last Sunday's program (if you missed it). One of its segments is devoted to this glaring flaw in our readiness to ward off a catastrophic act of terrorism...
Further edited to add: Depending how far down the sinister trail one is willing to go, it might not be mere coincidence that VP Cheney has been touring around warning of a "catastrophic" terrorist event in the offing and this nearly Keystone Kops approach to securing our nuclear weapons facilities...
posted on February 17, 2004 09:13:55 PM newHow vulnerable are U.S. nuclear weapons sites? Not very, most experts say.
Nuclear weapons production and storage sites are guarded by security forces supervised by the Department of Energy. John Gordon, the administrator of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, has called such sites "one of the last places a terrorist would think about attacking and having hopes of success; the security basically bristles."
But a watchdog organization, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), charged last year that security at U.S. nuclear weapons complexes was inadequate and that hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium could be stolen, sabotaged, or even detonated. The Department of Energy dismisses such criticism, adding that security has been stepped up since September 11.
Experts note that a terrorist looking to steal nuclear weapons or weapons-grade material would have a much easier time in Russia or Pakistan than in the United States.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:26:35 PM new"In a short time, we've strengthened airline security, increased vigilance at our borders and ports, forged unprecedented partnerships across the private sector and state and local governments, improved information sharing, launched robust efforts to engage citizens in preparedness efforts, and distributed funds and resources for our dedicated first responders."
Meaning??
The bolding is mine... I forgot about the duct tape and plastic.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:28:55 PM newDammit, are you just outright flucking BLIND, Linda???
These security 'lapses' weren't at our flucking storage depots! They were at Los Alamos, where the flucking bombs are made, and the Dept. of Energy's own Chris Steele, senior safety official at Los Alamos, gave an "F" grade to the laboratory there because of "systematic nuclear safety violations." Lawrence Livermore Lab -- in my backyard, oh boy -- allowed an untold number of security keys (that get one into the facility) to go missing and dragged its feet reporting their 'loss'.
Our nuclear 'materials' may be safe (although I doubt it, given how many of those storage facilities failed to repulse mock terrorist attacks during regularly scheduled drills, for crying out loud.
You go right ahead and think everything's just hunky-dory, Linda. Discovery Bay is just as vulnerable as the East Bay when it comes to how serious a terrorist attack on LLL might be. Thank God I won't be around afterwards to listen to you sing about it.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:54:55 PM new
Oh, Linda... deep, frustrated sigh...
Perhaps the particulars of my last exeunt have slid from your memory. Just as well; it makes me rather uncomfortable that you noticed my absence at all.
This board, as it is today, is full of mostly funny folks who can go toe-to-toe on 'issues' and intersperse their posts with humor and even nonsense.
I have a good time with those people; we don't always agree, but their participation on this board is not 'unhealthy', nor do I feel 'unhealthy' when we seamlessly shift gears from being at loggerheads about who's president (or who ought to be) to discussing the benefits of lichens in the bathtub.
You and I -- we've never seen eye-to-eye on anything. I don't know what you think of me (and I won't supply the words, heh) but I can tell you what I think of you: You're an ill-informed prig, in a self-righteous lockstep with Christian Conservativism and far-right Republicanism. And you never shift gears. You'll nod and wink with Bear and EAG, but there's never a moment when you head out of their protective cocoon and shown your humanity across the board.
So if I badger you incessantly in your prig role -- and I know I do -- it's because that's the only part of you I ever get to see, and I get tired of that 'Linda'.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:58:34 PM new
KD - If you click on the link I provided, in the upper right hand corner where the picture of Uncle Sam is, there are four bars....clicking on each ones tells how much funding is used for what.
posted on February 17, 2004 11:02:32 PM newYou and I -- we've never seen eye-to-eye on anything. That doesn't bother me. People are different. That's the way life is. Just don't expect me to change because 'you're tired of that Linda'. That's your issue....not mine.
I'll ask you again, to just ignore my posts and allow me to interact with those I've enjoyed debating the issues with for years, without all your insults and put-downs on every post I make.
posted on February 17, 2004 11:22:57 PM new
No, Linda, I won't agree to do that, because you're going to continue to post outright crap on this board as if it is fact, and I'm not going to sit on my hands while you do so.
But, hey, you've done a pretty good job this past week of ignoring my posts, so why don't you -- since you're the one who's uncomfortable -- just continue to skid right past my questions and remarks?
Really, I'm all out of cereal boxes at the moment...
And if you call high-fiving Bear and EAG 'debating the issues' I know of a frog species you might benefit from licking...
