Glenn Greenwald: 9/11 Commission: our investigation was "obstructed"

[laststeamtrain]

9/11 Commission: our investigation was "obstructed"

<snip>

Thus, we have evidence that "top White House officials" vigorously argued that these videos should be destroyed. The number one aides to both the President and Vice President both participated in discussions as to whether they should be, almost certainly with the knowledge and at the direction of their bosses.

And now we have the 9/11 Commission Chairmen stating as explicitly as can be that the mere concealment (let alone destruction) of these videos constituted the knowing and deliberate obstruction of their investigation into the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history. Combined with the fact that the videos' destruction almost certainly constitutes "obstruction of justice" with regard to numerous judicial proceedings as well, we're talking here about extremely serious felonies at the highest levels of our government.

Both legally and politically, it's hard to imagine a more significant scandal than the President and Vice President deliberately obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission by concealing and then destroying vital evidence which the Commission was seeking. Yet that's exactly what the evidence at least suggests has occurred here.

What possible justification is there for the White House to refuse to say what the role of Addington, Gonzales, Bush and Cheney was in all of this? Having been ordered by Bush's new Attorney General not to investigate, are the Senate and House Intelligence Committees (led by the meek Silvestre Reyes and the even meeker Jay Rockefeller) going to compel answers to these questions? In light of this Op-Ed, do Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee think the White House should publicly disclose to the country the role Bush and Cheney played in the destruction of this evidence? If there are any reporters left who aren't traipsing around together in Iowa, it seems pretty clear that this story ought to be dominating the news.

<more>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/obstruction/index.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. "this story ought to be dominating the news."

That would only happen in a free society. America has passed that stage years ago. It's all Kabuki News all the time now.

[indepat]

3. A land of the free and home of the brave would have gotten to the bottom of this and everything

blatantly illegal, inhumane, or unconstitutional that has reared its ugly head since December 5, 2000. Problem is the tens of millions of the ignorant, uncaring, or brain-dead sheeple/lemming coupled with the tens of millions who salivate for a corporatist, fascist, theological totalitarian police state led by their fuhrer.

[Uncle Joe]

18. The corporate owned "News" don't give a damn, but

this morning they did have a subliminal commercial posing as news on which healthy foods to eat from vending machines.

[bullimiami]

2. the real question is WHY.

why would this executive branch blatantly break the law to obstruct an investigation into 9/11?

was it as simple as the videos being evidence of torture, or was it the contents of the videos that they considered so dangerous?

[spanone]

4. tape destruction goes all the way to the white house imho

the fucking arrogance of this mal-administration is appalling.

[HamdenRice]

7. Among other things, evidence of Saudi & Pakistani complicity in 9/11

As discussed here, one tape may have contained serious evidence that the Saudis and Pakistanis were complicit in 9/11:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2571484&mesg_id=2572052

[warren pease]

14. Why indeed?

What do you suppose they have to hide? If their "incompetence" theory is true, why has nobody been fired or even demoted for their alleged failures?

Why did they resist even this sham investigation for more than a year, then watch as the commission slogged through its paces until July 2004? Why did they assure the investigation's outcome by installing BushCo crony and Rice worshipper Philip Zelikow as executive director? Why did they simply ignore any physical evidence they couldn't explain? Why didn't they allow open testimony from NYPD, FDNY and other first responders?

Again, what do they have to hide? Why did Bush insist on testifying with his puppet master, not under oath, in private, no video or audio recordings allowed, no written notes allowed, questioners frisked before they were allowed to leave the room? And why did the commission agree to these outrageous terms?

Isn't it about time the crime of the century got an investigation at least commensurate with that of a major traffic accident? And shouldn't that investigation be independent, rather than directed by a white house surrogate? And where could you find unbiased investigators and commissioners these days? Would The Hague be such a place?

Personally, I think torture videos are the least of their worries.


wp

[Canuckistanian]

5. Wow. Just Wow.

I just read Greenwald's piece.

Addington and Gonzales should be charged with obstruction - immediately.

[JackRiddler]

6. Absolutely but they're not the only ones...

Do you believe these 9/11 Commissioneers just discovered that their "investigation" was obstructed? How come we knew that for almost five years already?

[noise]

8. CYA seems to have been their goal from day 1

REP. LEE HAMILTON: The whole mindset of the Commission is very different from the one your question suggests. Our mindset was focused on the future, not on the past. We did look back; we had to look back to try to understand how we could improve things, but we really took most seriously the responsibility to try to figure out how to prevent this from happening in the future.

We believe that if we had looked back and said, okay, this figure, that figure was responsible for 9/11, it would just have created a firestorm, and we would have had no chance of putting forward recommendations that would be acceptable to the Congress and to the president and to the American people. We would have destroyed any chance of a bipartisan result here.

Our principal task, as we saw it, was to try to help make the country more secure and looking back, and assigning blame to a person or even an agency wasn't the way to do it.

JIM LEHRER: And you made that decision, Congressman, right at the very beginning, you were not going to do that, the ten of you?

REP. LEE HAMILTON: We made the decision very early on that we were not going to play the blame game, that that was not what we wanted to do and that if we were going to make a constructive, positive contribution to the future, we had to approach this in a different way.

And as we looked into it, we more and more became persuaded that the failures here were not individual but systemic. And that was what we then began to focus on.

LINK

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Which is why they are continuing to call "obstruction" on the CIA

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

11. Yeah, they did SO much until now to expose CIA obstruction

After the tapes destruction comes out, the commissioners speak now to cover their own asses.

But what about while writing the report they self-hailed as exhaustive and authoritative? When they were denied interviews with the supposed 9/11 masterminds and were provided only with printed transcripts, they went ahead and used transported these documents uncritically as primary sources. They cited these "masterminds" as though they had any idea what the supposed prisoners really said during the supposed interrogations, of which there were supposedly no other records (except, apparently as we've now learned, those that were later supposedly destroyed).

[jberryhill]

13. Over the top much?

"self-hailed as exhaustive and authoritative"

"uncritically as primary sources"

Umm... hard to square your take with what the Report actually says:


"Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.

We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government."

Seems to me they expressly acknowledge they had no first-hand access to the detainees, and they expressly indicate where the report relies upon second-hand information.

[JackRiddler]

16. Very nice.

"In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative."

And they indicate that a great many times!

[jberryhill]

20. Which significantly differs from your characterization of it, Bryan /nt

[JackRiddler]

21. Next time this will be reported as harrassment.

I was at Bryan's house last week and logged on from his machine. When he posted today, it was still logged on as me. He corrected this immediately and told you what happened, otherwise you wouldn't have anything to mock.

Not only are we separate and easily distinguished (also as published writers) but we are both unashamed to stand up for 9/11 truth in public under our real names - he since 2004, and I since 2002 (Nicholas Levis, the name you can see on my profile). Unlike many people who prefer to troll anonymously, yourself excepted.

Don't waste my time or yours.

[JackRiddler]

19. Furthermore...

- no subpoenas issued

- no expression of skepticism about the CIA

- no history of same mentioned

The only truthful and honorable approach in this case would have been to refuse anything other than direct presence at interrogations, to subpoena rather than to request, to investigate the CIA's refusal rather than shovel what it provides, and to treat all materials provided with skepticism and line-by-line scrutiny.

If that means their report doesn't get to read like a novel and pretend to tell a complete story - tough. This is an investigation!

[noise]

23. Evidently they only play the blame game

when their precious reputations are on the line. I admit I don't buy their 'outrage.' Feel free to explain why I should.

[Canuckistanian]

12. But Lee Hamilton was chosen for his whitewashing abilities

And He STILL finding the smell objectionable - which should tell us a lot.

[JackRiddler]

17. Well, yes, now that it threatens to land on him. n/t

[Richard Steele]

10. K&R

[Supersedeas]

15. extremely serious felonies....no high crime or misdemeanor here...right Nancy?

[JackRiddler]

22. kick again

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. But impeachment is STILL OFF THE TABLE....

GRRR