Comments by 9/11 Commission headsJan 2nd, 2008 - 22:56:03

(Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.)

www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion

'The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.'

Report this comment

EklecticJan 2nd, 2008 - 23:51:34

Another pointless investigation by a Congress that should be taking care of much more serious problems. Terrorism, Leaky Borders, Medical Care come to mind.

Report this comment

RE: Eklectic needs a civics lessonJan 3rd, 2008 - 00:33:01

This is NOT a Congressional investigation - it's going to be conducted by a prosecutor selected by the DOJ, and the Attorney General will run it.

Why can't people READ???

There was action from both parties in Congress asking for this investigation, and Mukasey responded to the pressure. The White House will try to roadblock this every way that they can, with claims of 'national security' and 'executive privilege', and only a DOJ investigation (not 'Congress') can obtain results - not that they'll be easy to come by. If the 9/11 Commission, under Presidential orders, could not get the tapes (and who knows what OTHER evidence has been hidden?), Congress would be impotent as well.

It's a big stink that will take over a year to conclude, leaving the GOP candidates to explain it.

www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/washington/02cnd-intel.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Wednesday that the Justice Department had elevated its inquiry into the destruction of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation videotapes into a formal criminal investigation to be headed by an outside prosecutor.

The announcement is the first sign that investigators believe C.I.A. officers, possibly along with other government officials, may have committed criminal acts in their handling of the tapes, which depicted the interrogations in 2002 of two Al Qaeda operatives and were destroyed in 2005.

The tapes were never provided to the Sept. 11 commission or to the courts, and the question of whether to destroy them was for nearly three years the subject of deliberations at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Mr. Mukasey assigned an outside investigator, a federal prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the criminal inquiry in tandem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecutor, John H. Durham, is likely empanel a grand jury to hear testimony to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges, which could include obstruction of justice.

Report this comment

SP4: ???Jan 3rd, 2008 - 02:37:19

First of all, wht does Al Queda interrogations have to do with the 9/11 committee? They are not germaine to any issues the 9/11 commission was supposedly investigating, and had nothing to do with 9/11 since the interrogations happened in 2002(?)

Second, if the facts are not in contention and a law has been violated, why do they need tapes to prosecute?

That being the case, if it was not against the law to interrogate them, why would it be against the law to destroy them?

The only thing dumber is the fact that someone actually taped it...

Report this comment

KYJurisDoctorJan 3rd, 2008 - 03:12:06

Does anyone suppose Alberto Gonzales would have launched one? I doubt it!

osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-speaking-of-justice-u-s-attorney.ht ml#links

Report this comment

Cynical to the Nth degree.Jan 3rd, 2008 - 05:27:28

Round up the usual suspects. Hold hearings. Waste a couple of million dollars. Find nothing, except more shredded and burnt documents. Business as usual in the land of the free.

Report this comment

Goodby, SP4Jan 3rd, 2008 - 05:32:58

SP4 is such an idiot that this time I am not going to bother to answer his questions. The poor sod is in such need of an education that he should go back to primary school and start all over, rather than wasting time searching for answers on the web.

Report this comment

SP4 biggest idiot on these boardsJan 3rd, 2008 - 07:16:33

(Listen to this crap ... )

'First of all, wht does Al Queda interrogations have to do with the 9/11 committee? They are not germaine to any issues the 9/11 commission was supposedly investigating, and had nothing to do with 9/11 since the interrogations happened in 2002(?)'

===========

The 9/11 commission, created AGAINST Bush's original wishes:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

' ... CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11. Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees. ... '

... were chartered to look into ANYTHING to do with 9/11 itself, as well as guarding against future attacks. I think you'll find general agreement that al Qaeda qualifies. If members are interrogated after capture, what they would have revealed falls likewise under the purview of the 9/11 commission. Information gained under torture is more suspect than information gained by other means, so details of how the information was gained was relevant, as well as what the information itself was. This gets tossed under the 'national security' blanket, making it very difficult to know just what was said (or not), and even who said it.

www.9-11commission.gov/

'The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Commissioners_suspected_the_Penta gon_was_deceiving_the_Commission

In their book 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission' on their experience serving as co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton devoted the first chapter on how they believed the Commission was set up for failure. Hamilton listed a number of reasons why they thought this, including the late start of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed; the insufficient funds, 3 million dollars, initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested and received additional funds, but the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who did not want the Commission formed; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; and the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. 'So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.'

Report this comment

SP4: That's Nice...Jan 3rd, 2008 - 14:48:38

...but, again, what does the 9/11 commission have to do with bitch slapping a couple of suspected Al Queda wags?

Hey......Sherlock.....THEY DID IT! They caused the towers to fall! They even said so!

CIA....KICKED THE SH-T OUTA THEM! No one is denying anything!

None of the facts are in contention! Now, we are supposed to believe it takes more than 10 seconds for a lawyer to determine if they were obstructing justice?

Jesus.....have you ever read anything so moronic?

Wanna dig into the 9/11 commission? '...go see a mahn nama sahndy bergarah, with lahge pahnts!'

Report this comment

SP4 a fount of unending idiocyJan 3rd, 2008 - 17:31:21

I understand he writes in crayon, since they won't give him anything sharp.

Report this comment