9/11 Commission "stonewalled" by CIA

[Schneibster]

Seems that the chairman and vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission have written an op-ed piece in the New York Times (that famous left-wing bastion of communism) titled, "Stonewalled by the C.I.A."

Probably worth a read (registration required).

 

[Donal]

The Times went free online a few months ago.

Its my understanding (and this article seems to confirm this) that what the CIA refused to turn over is the tapes of interrogations of suspects captured in Afghanistan during Enduring Freedom. Apparently, they didn't want the public to know about their methods. Or maybe they didn't want us to know that they missed something they should have seen.

 

[Schneibster]

You still have to register. Providing my personal information so I can get spammed isn't "free."

Further research on the matter shows that members of the Commission had extended conversations with officials who were aware of the existence of the tapes, and aware of their relevance to the investigation, and they said nothing. They said nothing at times and in ways that constitute lies of omission if nothing more heinous.

But that's not all. Specific questions were asked regarding the interrogations, and an interview with the detainees requested; none of the questions were answered, and the detainees were not produced. And the reason for this is the exact policy of secrecy that led to 9/11 in the first place. But it's not even clear that that policy was at issue; it's possible that George Tenet himself was aware that waterboarding was being used, that it was and is illegal, and that because he was aware and was not reporting it, he was liable to prosecution as an accessory or conspirator, or for obstruction.

The entire purpose of the Commission was to determine what had gone wrong and how it could be fixed so that we would not get caught unawares again. It has been repeatedly claimed over the last six years, supposedly by woos, that the Commission's conclusions were unreliable because they did not have all the data; we have been repeatedly assured by the administration that this was not the case, that they had everything. On this very forum, people have been dismissed as woos because they didn't accept the conclusions of the Commission. There is, in fact, an ENTIRE FORUM called "Conspiracy Theories" where a good deal of the content is a fight between woos and skeptical members of this forum about precisely this subject.

And now we have, not just possibly dissident members of the Commission, but the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, one of whom is the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and the other of whom sits on the President's own Homeland Security advisory committee. And these people are saying, we weren't given all the data, and the conclusions of the Commission are unreliable. In the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country (IIRC). Certainly one of the most prestigious. They're not woos. They're not libruls. They're not enemies of the administration (at least they weren't before they decided that their loyalty to the truth and the security of our country was more important than the reputation of the current administration).

In this one incident, you can see everything that is wrong with this administration: hiding data, lying, and denial lead to incorrect conclusions as to what went wrong and what should be done to fix it. The taxpayers paid a lot of money for that to take place and the effort was sabotaged from the start by this administration. And the reasons for this sabotage are even questionable; we're not even in territory where it's absolutely clear that this was not an attempt to avoid legal liability for the commission of multiple felonies.

We simply can't afford this any more.

 

[Brainster]

In this one incident, you can see everything that is wrong with this administration: hiding data, lying, and denial lead to incorrect conclusions as to what went wrong and what should be done to fix it. The taxpayers paid a lot of money for that to take place and the effort was sabotaged from the start by this administration. And the reasons for this sabotage are even questionable; we're not even in territory where it's absolutely clear that this was not an attempt to avoid legal liability for the commission of multiple felonies.

We simply can't afford this any more.

The CIA withheld the information, not the White House. And even that part is a little nebulous. If you read the article, they dodge around the issue, but never quite say that they actually requested any audio or videotapes:

We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.

Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information....

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations.

During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests....

...videotapes were not mentioned.

Sounds to me like they never got specific enough, which is always a problem when requesting information from government functionaries.

As for the conspiracy theorists, yes, they love this. But it is ridiculous to think that the videotapes would have backed up their fevered fantasies that 9-11 was pulled off by the US government, and I am 100% positive that Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton would respond with derision to any such suggestion.

 

[Schneibster]

The CIA withheld the information, not the White House.

Now, that's a valid criticism. Problem is, the CIA takes its orders from the White House. It's part of the executive. The chain of command is President->DNI->DCI. It's a pretty short chain of command.

And even that part is a little nebulous. If you read the article, they dodge around the issue, but never quite say that they actually requested any audio or videotapes:

I'm sure. It's not the 9/11 Commission doing the dodging, though.

Sounds to me like they never got specific enough, which is always a problem when requesting information from government functionaries.

Sounds to me like someone was looking for an excuse not to tell the 9/11 Commission that the US was torturing people for information. It IS a felony, you know.

As for the conspiracy theorists, yes, they love this. But it is ridiculous to think that the videotapes would have backed up their fevered fantasies that 9-11 was pulled off by the US government, and I am 100% positive that Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton would respond with derision to any such suggestion.

As would I. But that's not the point. The point is, they weren't told how the interrogations were conducted- an essential point when attempting to determine the veracity of the person being interrogated. Since that information was coming from people who were presumably involved in the original plot, and being used to determine who might have dropped the ball, don't you think that might be a little bit important? And isn't it convenient that one of the agencies that the 9/11 Commission determined HAD dropped the ball left out this crucial piece of information?

I can make out obstruction of Congress, obstruction of Justice, spoliation of evidence, and conspiracy to commit all three. And that's not the elephant in the middle of the room, which is a felony, and might be multiple counts, with all involved chargeable as principals, direct accessories, or accessories before or after the fact. And finally, giving an illegal order to commit a felony is a felony, and is also accessory before the fact, as well as conspiracy to commit the felony. And we all know where that order has to have come from. If it didn't, then whoever gave it is in deep, deep ****.

What I'm watching for is to see what this supposed bulldog-from-hell prosecutor Mukasey has appointed does. If we see a lot of talk about the tapes, and none about the torture, I'm going to dismiss it as another whitewash. Because let's keep carefully in mind: there is one original crime here. That's what all the shouting's really about. And that's not six months in the country club. That's ten to twenty in a federal penitentiary.