|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Loose Change Forum > Latest News Section > Check Out These Crazy Conspiracists|
|Posted by: Hierosis Jan 2 2008, 10:57 AM|
| So, according to these guys, the CIA wouldn't give them any direct access to detainees who may have been directly linked to 9/11. Instead the CIA offered to ask them the questions themselves, and bring the answers back tot he Commission.
I wonder if SLC will be consistent and go after these guy who are clearly saying that the Commission Report was incomplete. Link and text below:
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
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.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
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.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
|Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 2 2008, 11:25 AM|
| So what took them so long? Everyone getting caught with their pants down around their legs and now they're crying about it?
We knew from day one that the 9/11 Whitewash Commission was destined to be a load of a bull.
Why didn't they demand the answers to all of their questions then? When they might have been able to do something about it?
Anyone who protected Bush and Cheney is part of the treason.
|Posted by: Hierosis Jan 2 2008, 11:40 AM|
Careful. This doesn't invalidate the entire report or even make it a complete whitewash. What id does prove is that the report was incomplete and they ran into a lot of road blocks.
The idea that they weren't allowed to personally speak with the detainess speaks volumes, but the real question is, WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE GUYS WHEN THE REPORT WAS BEING PUT TOGETHER.
Only Senator Cleland acknowledged these issues, and subsequently quit.
|Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 2 2008, 03:58 PM|
Keep making excuses.
There's an excuse for every single fuck up for the last 6 years. After awhile it's a bit much.
It isn't like this wasn't the only problem they ran into. From day one, when the WH took control of the investigation and tried to install Uncle Henry Kissinger, the only thing that this group could possibly accomplish was a whitewash.
I'm sick and tired of no one being held accountable for anything. Especially people who make excuses for them.
|Posted by: Hierosis Jan 2 2008, 04:56 PM|
What excuses are you talking about?
|Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 2 2008, 05:01 PM|
That's not an excuse?
Sure, they documented some of the hand picked evidence. That's about it.
|Posted by: Headhunter Jan 2 2008, 05:38 PM|
| Yes, since the official narrative/story is anything but "self evident" then the burden, to get to the root of what really happened, does not rest with those who question the voracity of it, but on those who performed the so-called "investigation" or who set it up and/or controlled it in the first place, which means the burden is on the government ie: Bush/Cheney, and people like Kean, Hamilton, and in particular, what's his name, the chairman...Zelikov, the specialist in historical myth making..
I'm just glad that I'm not an apologist for the OCT. Could you imagine working to protect the lies and obfuscations, for something as historically impactful, and deadly, as 9/11..? Those who do, at some level, are like the children of the father of lies..
|Posted by: Hierosis Jan 2 2008, 06:58 PM|
(sigh) Sometimes I feel like I'm playing babysitter here. What I'm trying to avoid is people running around with this one op-ed and screaming, "9/11 was an inside job!"
This is a signficant editorial that shows only ONE of the many ways that the Commission was flawed. But the average person will not understand that when you start with the larger concept that the entire report was a cover-up (and it was). Can you follow that?
If you blow your entire load over this op-ed you'll simply scare people away. But this is just one item you can use to build a larger case.
Can you follow that? Not very complicated.
|Posted by: Arbor Jan 2 2008, 07:53 PM|
|To go from "the Bush administration did not fully cooperate with the 9-11 Commission" to "9-11 was an inside job" is quite a jump. Most Americans will laugh at such a jump.|
|Posted by: kissing blarney Jan 2 2008, 09:27 PM|
| Apparently the result is a criminal investgation. Of course, it is an inside job.
Mukasey: Criminal inquiry begins into CIA tapes
CIA said last month it had destroyed recordings of harsh interrogations
|Posted by: Hierosis Jan 2 2008, 09:34 PM|
|Posted by: Gasing Nu Jan 6 2008, 04:16 PM|
| If 9/11 was an inside job, and if the 9/11 Commission was in on the conspiracy/coverup, then why would this story matter?
Put another way, what possible information from the interrogation of al Queda operatives would have significantly changed the commission's conclusions?