By John Bresnahan
January 2, 2008
(The Politico) Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s decision earlier today to appoint a veteran federal prosecutor to oversee a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA videotapes has not mollifed Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who still wants a special counsel appointed to oversee the case.
Mukasey has chosen John Durham, an assistant U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to run the investigation. Durham will “serve as acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes of this matter.” Mukasey said. “Mr. Durham is a widely respected and experienced career prosecutor who has supervised a wide range of complex investigations in the past, and I am grateful to him for his willingness to serve in this capacity. As the acting United States attorney for purposes of this investigation, Mr. Durham will report to the deputy attorney general, as do all United States attorneys in the ordinary course. I have also directed the FBI to conduct the investigation under Mr. Durham’s supervision.”
Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Va., has recused himself from the CIA probe. Rosenberg worked in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office during the period when the fate of the CIA tapes, which included records of 2002 interrogations of top Al Qaeda operatives, were reportedly discussed with the CIA and White House. The tapes were destroyed in 2005 by CIA officials despite legal objections. A preliminary probe by DOJ and the CIA’s inspector general determined that a criminal probe was warranted, which… Continue reading
Op-Ed Contributors Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Washington: 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… Continue reading
by Donna Marsh O’Connor
Kean and Hamilton issued a statement today, January 2, 2008 (only six-plus years since 9/11/2001) that was “just-inned” on CNN. They published an editorial in the New York Times today. Their position: Their work was blocked, the investigation tainted. They repeatedly asked for tapes from the CIA that were never provided. They came just short of calling for a real investigation. They (as they have done since the beginning) left that work to the victims’ families.
Will you now cover 9/11 truth, not as a series of destructive conspiracy theories, but as a movement inhabited by sane citizens from all walks of life (scientists, CIA whistleblowers, theologians, professors, researchers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and more) as well as family members of the victims who deserve as patriotic Americans the answers to the lingering questions of that day? Will you now take up the call first put together in mainstream media by the four heroic widows from New Jersey?
My daughter, Vanessa Lang Langer was pregnant and pulled from the pile whole and intact on 9/24/2001. She was found ten feet from an alley. Five minutes after the first plane hit Tower I, she was on the phone to the uptown office of Regus Business International, telling a colleague that those in Tower II were told they were safe. That five minutes and the seventeen minutes between those planes (yes, I do believe there were planes) were two lifetimes in my own world. She must have been… Continue reading
December 21, 2007
Judge Refuses to Order Hearing on C.I.A. Tapes
By DAVID STOUT and DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday declined to rule immediately on
a request to compel the government to explain in detail the destruction of C.I.A.
videotapes showing the harsh interrogation of two suspected Al Qaeda operatives.
District Judge Henry H. Kennedy said he would rule later on a request by lawyers
for a dozen Yemeni prisoners being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that
he order such a hearing.
But Judge Kennedy, who heard a motion from the prisoners’ lawyers, appeared
at one point to be at least partly swayed by Bush administration lawyers that
he should not get more deeply involved while Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey
is undertaking one of the inquiries into the tapes’ destruction.
“Why should the court not permit the Department of Justice to do just
that?” Judge Kennedy asked David H. Remes, a lawyer for the detainees.
For Mr. Remes, the answer was simple. “Plainly, the government wants
only foxes guarding the henhouse,” he asserted in his motion. Considering
the government’s behavior so far, Mr. Remes argued, the Justice Department
is not entitled to a presumption that it will do the right thing.
The destruction in 2005 of the videotapes, disclosed earlier this month, has
caused a furor in the capital. Critics of the administration have seized on
the episode as further evidence that it may have a lot to hide in its treatment
of detainees. In… Continue reading
To the Editor:
Re “9/11 Panel Study Finds That C.I.A. Withheld Tapes” (front page, Dec. 22):
Our government’s official story regarding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, tells us that 19 Arab hijackers successfully defeated the United States military by hijacking four commercial airliners within two hours on a budget of approximately $400,000. These men, armed only with small knives, box cutters and Mace, were able to knock down the World Trade Center towers in New York City and strike the Pentagon.
Because our loved ones were murdered on 9/11, we felt that the details of how the hijackers succeeded should be thoroughly investigated, so we fought for an independent 9/11 Commission. It seemed logical that our government would want to know what happened so as to prevent another attack.
When the legislation for the 9/11 Commission was passed, it gave the commissioners full subpoena power. Unfortunately, that subpoena power was rarely used.
You report that “the panel made repeated and detailed requests to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda.” But while the panel did make “document requests” to the C.I.A., it did not subpoena the C.I.A. for the documents and tapes.
A subpoena would have meant that the C.I.A. would have had to answer the commission as to whether the documents and tapes existed, and the agency would have had to explain its reasons for not turning these documents and tapes over to the… Continue reading
Sat Dec 22, 2007
The CIA obstructed an official US investigation into the September 11 attacks
by withholding tapes of interrogations of Al-Qaeda operatives, according to
former investigators quoted in a report on Saturday.
A review of documents by former members of the 9/11 commission revealed the
panel made repeated, detailed requests to the spy agency in 2003 and 2004 for
information about the interrogation of members of the extremist network, but
were never notified of the tapes, the New York Times reported.
The review of the commission’s correspondence with the Central Intelligence
Agency came after the agency earlier this month revealed it had destroyed videotapes
in 2005 that showed harsh interrogations of two Al-Qaeda members.
The review, written up in a December 13 memo prepared by Philip Zelikow, the
former executive director of the 9/11 commission, said that “further investigation
is needed” to resolve whether the CIA’s failure to hand over the tapes
violated federal law.
The memorandum does not assert that withholding the tapes was illegal but states
that federal law penalizes anyone who “knowingly and wilfully” withholds
or “covers up” a “material fact” from a federal inquiry,
the newspaper said.
The revelation adds to pressure on President George W. Bush’s administration,
already under fire over the affair by human rights groups and lawmakers who
allege that destroying the tapes covered up proof of torture.
Responding to the New York Times report, the CIA said the commission never
specifically asked for interrogation videos.
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield told… Continue reading
Thursday, December 13, 2007
posted at Georgewashington.blogspot.com
Co-Chair of Congressional 9/11 Inquiry and Former Head of Senate Intelligence
Committee Confirms White House Cover Up
The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, revealed
that the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview one of the most
important witnesses imaginable:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering
up evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
* * *
The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal
to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept.
11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been
the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
In his book “Intelligence Matters,” Mr. Graham, the co-chairman
of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican
of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002
and said “the administration would not sanction a staff interview with
the source.” On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter “a
smoking gun” and said, “The reason for this cover-up goes right
to the White House.”
This isn’t some fresh-face kid talking. This is a consummate insider: the former
head of senate intelligence and co-chair of the congressional 9/11 inquiry.
If the White House refused to allow an interview of a government informant
who was landlord… Continue reading
“9/11 – The Failure to Defend the Skies”
[Posted originally by Jon Gold at www.911blogger.com
“In Their Own Words” is available for purchase from http://911pft.com
A couple useful comments from 911blogger:
Has anyone not seen the list of the widows’ 300 questions, and the ratings showing they got just 27 answers? http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Sign the Petition of Solidarity! http://www.justicefor911.org/
Then get busy!
On August 2nd, 2006, the Washington Post reported that “the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public” and that “the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”
Now, whether you think it was because of confusion from “the fog of events” on that day, or whether you think it was the result of “inadequate forensic capabilities”, and “poor record-keeping”, or whether you think it was blatant criminality (which I do)…
NO ONE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED, OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
William P. Goehring, a spokesman for the Inspector General’s office, said that “the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.”
Where’s that report? Does it exist? If so, please show it to me. Why didn’t the media make a HUGE stink about the… Continue reading
by Joseph Cannon, Monday, December 10, 2007*
When the CIA tells you that a piece of evidence has been destroyed, you should react as skeptically as you would to the death of a Marvel supervillain.
As you know, CIA Deputy Director of Operations Jose Rodriguez reportedly made the decision to destroy tapes of prisoner interrogation, allegedly to protect the identities of the interrogators. This action, we are told, ran contrary to the wishes of Porter Goss, who then ran the Agency.
Joseph Cannon in his blog of Dec. 10 recalls how past CIA claims of lost evidence later turned out to be untrue: “When the CIA tells you that a piece of evidence has been destroyed, you should react as skeptically as you would to the death of a Marvel supervillain.”
One certainty is that the CIA lied, either when it told the 9/11 Commission that tapes of certain interrogations were never made, or else in its current claim that such tapes did exist but have been destroyed. This serves to underline the absurdity of accepting any CIA statements, any at all, especially about 9/11. By extension, the 9/11 Commission is yet again tainted for using the CIA’s prisoner “transcripts” uncritically as a main source in its report; whether out of cynicism or unforgivable naivete is irrelevant.
It’s near impossible to tell on how many levels the CIA can be (and probably is) lying about the torture tapes. They may be lying about having certain… Continue reading
CORRECTED & UPDATED
CIA claims it destroyed videotapes of interrogations central to the official story of September 11th. Writing in TIME magazine, former CIA agent and occasional “conspiracy theory” debunker, Robert Baer concedes that 9/11 skeptics seem all the more credible in the aftermath. Full-time debunker Gerald Posner also sees a cover-up.
The most important document in the official mythology of September 11th, The 9/11 Commission Report, is based largely on the reported statements of three prisoners: Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah. The Report describes these men as high-ranking members of Al Qaeda. U.S. authorities announced the captures of the three in the course of separate raids in 2002 and 2003. According to the CIA and U.S. military, they have been held ever since at “undisclosed locations,” and have had contacts only with a handful of interrogators. No U.S. agency has ever produced any of them in a public proceeding, or even provided photographs of them in captivity.
Khalid Shaikh Mohamed (see entries in the “Complete 9/11 Timeline”) was originally reported as killed during an attempt to capture him in Pakistan on September 10, 2002. He apparently survived, for he was reported as captured alive in March 2003. Until 2004, it was considered a security breach for a U.S. government source even to mention his name, although he was publicly identified as the “9/11 mastermind” in 2002.
The 9/11 Commission asked to see Mohamed and other prisoners, and was denied. The CIA… Continue reading
“Those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous
official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough and impartial
investigation be undertaken.” ~ Dr. Lynn Margulis (Distinguished
University of Massachusetts professor, National Medal of Science recipient,
National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology
and Chemical Evolution, former chairperson.
“I think in simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a
joke… Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason
they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions.”
~ Ray McGovern 27-year CIA veteran in charge of President’s Daily Brief.
Founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The 234th Anniversary of the Boston
Tea Party: 9/11 Truth Comes to the “Hub”
In 1858, Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the phrase, “The Hub of the Solar
System,” when referring to the Massachusetts State House in an Atlantic
Monthly article, “The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table,” in which he
boastfully implied that Boston at that time was the center of everything intellectual.
One hundred and forty nine years after Holmes penned the affectionate metaphor
and two hundred and thirty four years after the infamous Boston Tea Party, Bostonians
are again attempting to appeal to the “Hub’s” intellectual prowess,
this time with regard to the academic and scientific challenges taking place
around the world concerning the government’s official explanations of the September
11, 2001 attacks.
“Those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official
account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough and impartial investigation
be undertaken” -LYNN MARGULIS (Distinguished University of Massachusetts
professor, member of the National Academy of Sciences, National Medal of Science
December 6, 2007
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.
The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes.
The existence and subsequent destruction of the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over the use of severe interrogation techniques on terror suspects, and their destruction raises questions about whether C.I.A. officials withheld information about aspects of the program from the courts and from the Sept. 11 commission appointed by President Bush and Congress. It was not clear who within the C.I.A. authorized the destruction of the tapes, but current and former government officials… Continue reading
November 16, 2007
These explosive and revealing comments about 9/11 have been completely ignored by the Mainstream Media. While talking about the 9/11 commission, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza reveals that FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had incriminating insider information about the 9/11 attacks:
The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come … And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.
And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.
The lack of Mainstream news coverage of these views is very apparent. Fox News in a secret memo implicitly admits that there is a problem with the ‘official story’ of 9/11:
“The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not ‘ what did he know and when did he know it’ stuff. Don’t turn this into Watergate.“
In fact, a similar… Continue reading
By JACOB LAMMERS
Thursday November 08 2007
Janes, a Port Clinton native, painted “With Liberty and Justice for All.”
He describes the painting as an expression of America’s unwillingness to question
the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Nathan Janes’ painting could create some controversy, but all he wants to do
is get to the truth.
Janes, a Port Clinton native, recently completed a painting of a dog wearing
a blindfold with “911” and “truth” above and below the dog.
Janes said the painting represents America’s inability to question the events
surrounding the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
“It’s kind of hard for people to question whether the government lied
or had a part in it,” he said. “I’m not say anything’s a hoax. I’m
saying there’s information that’s not been released or told.”
Janes started researching conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 last summer
and said he felt he was just getting more questions and not enough answers.
*”I just felt kind of compelled to because the issue needs to be out there,”
Janes said. “People might find themselves asking the same questions I’m
Janes, a 1997 graduate of Port Clinton High School, said the “all-seeing
eye” and the silhouettes of three B-2 stealth bombers represent the government’s
power over the people in modern times.
Jeannie Radloff, a retired art teacher at Port Clinton High School, said Janes
has always had artistic talent.
“He was an art machine,” Radloff said. “He’s high energy. He
has a… Continue reading
October 11, 2007. Ralph Nader, activist, author and lecturer, shared his views in the matter of the “Next Steps for the Peace Movement,” at a panel discussion on Oct. 11, 2007. The event was held at Bus Boys and Poets, in Washington, D.C. It was a fundraiser for DemocracyRising.US. For more information, please go to: www.democracyrising.us. Mr. Nader’s latest book is entitled “The Seventeen Traditions.”
by Ralph Nader
Friday, October 12. 2007
The meeting at the Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts on July 5, 2007 was anything but routine. Seated before Cong. John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills.
The subject–impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.
The request–that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress.
More than just opinion was being conveyed to Cong. Olver, a then 70 year old Massachusetts liberal with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These Americans voted overwhelmingly during formal annual town meetings in 14 towns and two cities in the First District endorsing resolutions to impeach the President and Vice President.
Presented in the form of petitions to be sent to the Congress, the approving citizenry cited at least four “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
They included the initiation of the Iraq war based on defrauding the public and intentionally misleading the Congress, spying on Americans without judicial authorization, committing the torture of prisoners in violation of both federal law and the U.N.…Continue reading
You wouldn’t know it if you just watch TV news or read the corporate press,
but this past Tuesday, something remarkable happened. Despite the pig-headed
opposition of the Democratic Party’s top congressional leadership, a majority
of the House, including three Republicans, voted to send Dennis Kucinich’s long
sidelined Cheney impeachment bill (H Res 333) to the Judiciary Committee for
The vote was 218 to 194.
Now the behind-the-scenes partisan maneuvering that preceded that vote was
arcane indeed, with Kucinich first exercising a member’s privilege motion to
present his stymied impeachment bill to the full House, only to have Speaker
Nancy Pelosi arrange for a colleague (Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD) to
offer a motion to table it. The Republicans, anxious to embarrass the Speaker,
threw a wrench into that plan, though, by voting as a bloc to oppose tabling.
Since Kucinich already has 22 co-sponsors for his bill, it was clear that the
tabling gambit would fail. As soon as that became apparent, rank-and-file Democrats,
unwilling to be seen by their constituents as defending Cheney, rushed to change
their votes to opposing the tabling motion. In the end, tabling failed by 242
to 170 with 77 Democrats supporting a pleasantly surprised Kucinich.
To avoid a floor debate on the merits of impeaching the eminently impeachable
Vice President Cheney, Pelosi and her allies then moved to send Kucinich’s bill
directly to the Judiciary Committee. They were joined by three Republicans,
including maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX).
Now… Continue reading
9/11 family member and “Jersey Girl” Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that — before 9/11 — the government knew the day, the type of attack, and the targets.
Why is this important? Because, previously, whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds had given more vague information on the government’s foreknowledge. For example, Ms. Edmonds had hinted that the government only knew of a general timeframe for the attacks, and that they had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was just one of many potential targets.
Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.
Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Casaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11… Continue reading
by Brian Foley
September 11, 2007
JURIST Guest Columnist Brian J. Foley of Drexel University College of Law says that on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we should remember that the US government has steadfastly refused to allow investigations that might locate individual blame for this massive security failure…
After major tragedies there are two investigative roads to take in trying to prevent a repeat: determining whether people or policies are to blame. Blaming people entails asking whether the disaster resulted from people failing to design or execute a proper preventive policy (“human error”). Blaming policy entails asking whether the policy failed either because the risk was not foreseeable, or because the harm simply cannot be prevented (“act of God”). Both roads should be taken.
After 9/11, however, the nation raced headlong into blaming policy alone. The prevailing view was stated by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in May, 2002: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would … try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” But such danger had been imagined, years earlier. For example, in 1994, terrorists hijacked a French airliner seeking to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. Tom Clancy’s best-selling novel Debt of Honor (1994) ends with a Japanese airline pilot crashing his 747 into the U.S. Capitol (pp. 985-86). President Clinton and his staff also understood that an airplane could be used as a missile after a suicidal man piloted a Cessna into the White House lawn, just below the president’s bedroom, in the early hours of September 12, 1994.…Continue reading