Who should conduct a new investigation?

[HannibalCards]

A question for those calling for a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11/01;

What group or organization do you feel is qualified to conduct a full investigation? What powers should this group be given and how would it be funded? Be as candid as you like, but be realistic.

[SDuderstadt]

1. The problem is an "independent" group has no subpoena power of its own...

and subpoena power cannot be conferred or delegated by a governmental agency. I think the basic "truther" mantra that no government entity can be trusted to conduct a fair and complete investigation is total nonsense. It's really silly to believe that individuals somehow become "evil" merely by going to work for the federal government. I mean, does anyone really believe that NIST was not trustworthy under Bill Clinton? Why would that have changed because Bush was "selected"? Did the same NIST then somehow start acting honorably under Obama?

[Ohio Joe]

2. The real question is...

Who would truthers trust to do it that would have the ability to do it? I suspect the answer is nobody.

[BeFree]

3. Start

...by having a house committee go over the 9-11 Commission report to detail the lack of openness and missing facts, then have a Senate Select committee fill in the blanks. And go from there with the recs from both chambers.

[SDuderstadt]

4. You realize that 9 of the 10 members of the Commission were appointed by...

the House and Senate, right?

[lib2DaBone]

58. Exactly the reason everyone should question it..

[BeFree]

5. Here's a few facts......

OBL and bushco lying dogs of war and destruction:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6978769&mesg_id=6979145

[HannibalCards]

6. This has what to do with the question?

Are you saying Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should not be considered to head up an investigation?

[BeFree]

7. Yes, I am....duh

The post was that these are some facts needing a good airing.

That the whole involvement with al-cia, obl, and SA, and oil and whatever are what need to be fully investigated.

What are they hiding? Do you have a clue?

On edit: DU won't allow us to reply to Ignored

[HannibalCards]

8. The question remains

WHO should conduct this investigation? Since the original commission was largely appointed by the Congress - who do you recommend for a new one?

[BeFree]

9. Welcome to DU Hannibal

Start

...by having a house committee go over the 9-11 Commission report to detail the lack of openness and missing facts, then have a Senate Select committee fill in the blanks. And go from there with the recs from both chambers.

[HannibalCards]

27. This is really what you think will do it?

Ok - what have your representatives told you when you proposed this to them?

[BeFree]

31. Oh, I got you now

You are against an investigation and you are here just trolling for an argument.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Out of the ten members of the commission...

only Kean was not appointed by congress.

[rollingrock]

10. 'What powers should this group be given?'

how about the power to actually prosecute and punish crimes, and their perps? ....for starters, of which the Bush dog and pony show had absolutely none. so what was it good for then? what was the purpose of any investigation if there was no power to prosecute or punish anybody? there was no purpose, except to cover up a crime.

there should also be no arbitrary limits on the amount of resources devoted to the investigation, in terms of time, funding and personnel. of which the 9/11 commission was severely restricted and deprived of. how much unlimited time and money was spent on investigating Clinton's penis compared to the dismal amount of resources allocated to the investigation of the murder of 3,000 American citizens on US soil??




"Lee and I write in our book that we think that the commission was in many ways set up to fail, because we had...not enough money...we didn't have enough time...(the members of the commission) were appointed by the most partisan people in Washington, the leaders of the House and Senate."

--Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission
National Press Club comments

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

[KDLarsen]

11. Still pimping the "Set up to fail"-quote I see

Just a shame you neglected the follow-up:

What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce with and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our succes.

Kean & Hamilton: Without Precedent - The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, pg. 15.

ETA: Regarding the money quote:

Ultimately, the White House and Congress were not willing to let the commission derail before it got started. The commission had a public hearing scheduled for March 31 and April 1, in New York City, with family members and survivors of 9/11 scheduled to testify. To make thse people revisit painful memories of personal loss in front of a commission that was going broke would have been a travesty.

The White House agreed to provide an additional $9 million for the commission in the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The Congress stepped in and insisted it would provide the increase of $11 million. What had been a struggle to withhold money had become a virtuous competition over who could give it to us first. Ultimately, we recieved the funding from Congress, and it proved sufficient to cover the entire life of the commission - we even ended up giving $1.4 million back at the end of out work.

Kean & Hamilton: Without Precedent - The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, pg. 45-46.

[rollingrock]

12. Interesting

why did he tell the National Press Club they were set up to fail? that they lacked time and funding? but yet in your quote, he says the opposite? why does he contradict himself?

there is a wide gap between what is said in the official report and the unofficial statements of Kean and Hamilton off the record. both cannot be true. so if the official story had any credibility, there would be no such great disparity, would there?

[SDuderstadt]

13. "Truther Logic"....

"set up to fail" always means "actually failed".

[rollingrock]

15. and regardless of what Kean says,

the biggest problem with the 9/11 commission is it lacked any real power. it had no power to prosecute, and very limited subpoena power for example (something Kean would probably agree with). it was a poodle with no teeth. heck, Ken Star possessed more judicial and investigative powers than the chairs of the 9/11 commission did. more time, effort and money was expended on the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal than the mass murder of US citizens. those are gross problems that need to be addressed and corrected in a new investigation. because the official one is a joke!

[SDuderstadt]

16. Commissions aren't prosecutors to to begin with....

duh. I'm pretty sure they had the power to refer any matters they thought needed to be criminally investigated and, unless I'm mistaken, Zelikow and staff believed that members of the brass came close to obstruction or something like that. I'm certain that RollingRock has not bothered to read the public law that established the commission.

[lib2DaBone]

60. You left out the word "DUDE"... what up?

[BeFree]

17. Yep

Clinton was forced to testify in court. Bush got secret meetings.

I don't get how anyone can even begin to think the 9-11 commission
got to the bottom of anything about that day and the days leading up to it.
There has been more here than the commission had in that report.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Yet, you haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report...

and it's a little silly to compare a commission to a civil lawsuit.

[rollingrock]

24. Too bad for Clinton

he didn't get to investigate himself like Bush did.

[SDuderstadt]

25. "Truther Logic"....

a commission composed of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats all of whom, with the exception of Kean, were chosen by Congress, amounted to Bush "investigating himself". Jesus.

[BeFree]

26. Yeah

Bush had a big hand in just about every facet of his judgment.

It was as one-sided for bush as the Clinton investigation was against Bill.

Well, history has forgiven Bill, but when the history comes out on Bush he will be the most hated (p)resident ever. He already is but his name and family's name will be as low as can be. Just a while longer, now.

ETA: Anyone who tries to make it seem like the bush's hand-picked jury was fair and impartial deserves my undying opposition and disgust for their lack of knowledge or their corrupt agenda.

[SDuderstadt]

28. It's really funny to look at BeFree's edit....

then still believe his goofy claim that he has me on "ignore".


Even funnier is the claim that Bush had a "hand-picked jury", when I have repeatedly pointed out that the public law that established the 9/11 Commission provided that the Democrats on the Commission were picked by the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

It's pretty stupid to claim a body with half of the members picked by the opposition is, in any sense, a "handpicked jury". This is just more invincible ignorance from "truthers".

SEC. 603. <<NOTE: 6 USC 101 note.>> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the

<[Page 116 STAT. 2409>]

case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm

This is the fourth or fifth time I have pointed this out, yet the willful ignorance of the "truthers" persists.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Dude...

do you want to debate or just poison the well? Why don't you lay off smearing people's motivation?

[rollingrock]

35. And it was conducted entirely on Bush's terms

the investigation depended entirely on the Bush WH for its funding, the WH set the time limits and scheduling, the WH told them when it would start and when it would end, selected several of the key players, edited the final report, etc. The Bush WH micro-managed and exercised complete control over this pony show from beginning to end.

edit: just as chairman Kean says, the commission was 'set up to fail.'

[SDuderstadt]

36. Please provide some documentation of these rather stupid claims....

dude. I'd love to see it.

[KDLarsen]

37. Impressive

You claim that the Commission depended entirely on the Bush White House for funding, when I pointed out earlier in the subthread that they recieved the bulk of the funding from Congress.

[rollingrock]

38. If that is true

then why didn't congress provide the commission with the financial resources it needed to complete its job? because it had no say in the matter? or was the congress as interested in killing the investigation as much as the WH was?

The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff.<11> Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.<12><13>

The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that " aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,<13> and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.<14> On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.<15>

Government deception

John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."<17> Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."<18>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

How could anyone in their right mind buy the official story?

[KDLarsen]

40. It's no secret that neither party had much enthusiasm

However, the relatives of the 9/11 were pretty good at forcing it through - and by exploiting the public opinion, the commissioners were able to get the funding and extra time needed.

As for the insert you felt compelled to add, I have no idea what it's supposed to add to the discussion about the funding of the 9/11 Commission.

[rollingrock]

50. You admit

the congress 'had no enthusiasm' to investigate the crime of the century? and that does not bother you in the least? why am I not surprised? the commissioners themselves thought it was a sham, including Max Cleland who resigned in protest. of course, you can just ignore all of that as well. and I do feel compelled to present the facts, just as much as you feel compelled to ignore them.

[KDLarsen]

51. Oh dear..

I know it's difficult to keep up with the fact, but Max Cleland did not resign in protest, he was appointed to the board of the Export-Import Bank. Granted, he was highly critical of the Commissions decision not to investigate the leadup to the war in Iraq, but that was simply not part of the Commissions mandate in the first place.

As for investigating the crime of the century, the FBI was already conducting a criminal investigation. The 9/11 Commission was created to look at what was and what could have been done to prevent the attacks, as well as what was done once the attacks were under way. Which was why neither of the two major parties were particularly entusiastic about it, since they both feared that the finger of blame would point squarely at either of 'their' presidents.

[rollingrock]

52. I wish you people would get your facts straight

'He (Cleland) was appointed to the Sept. 11 Commission but resigned after accusing the Bush administration of “Nixonian” efforts to conceal crucial evidence.'

-http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/max_cleland/index.html">Associated Press/NY Times

[KDLarsen]

53. Sigh...

Mr. Cleland's intention to resign from the 10-member commission has been known since last summer, when Senate Democrats announced that they had recommended him for a Democratic slot on the board of the Export-Import Bank. But the timing of his departure became clear only last week, when the White House formally sent the nomination to the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/us/ex-senator-will-soon-quit-9-11-panel-leaving-gap-for-victims-advocates.html

Max Cleland was recommended in the summer of 2002, the Commission was signed into law in November 2002.

[rollingrock]

54. The FBI

one of the commission's goals was to investigate the failures of intelligence agencies to prevent 9/11, so the FBI was one of the targets of their investigation. you can't expect the FBI to investigate their own failures in an unbiased manner. because they obviously failed in their duty which to keep the US safe from attack. the FBI's investigation would not be unbiased nor does not have the authority to subpoena government officials in the course of their investigation, hence the call for a 3rd party investigation by the family members.

[KDLarsen]

55. The FBI weren't investigating their own shortcomings

They were investigating who were behind the attacks, the investigation named PENTTBOM.

[rollingrock]

56. No, they were not

investigating their own shortcomings. that was the commission's job.

[KDLarsen]

57. Good, we agree then.

[KDLarsen]

19. Very limited subpoena power?

No they didn't. They relied on people being honest, used the public opinion when they encounted resistance (which caused the PDB's to be opened up) and only subpoenaed as a last resort, when it was clear that things were being withheld from the commission.

You really should give Kean & Hamiltons book a read. But then again, you might be enlightened :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

20. Dude...

you're trying to reason with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and the Executive Director.

[KDLarsen]

21. I know, I know

But now that I finally got started on Without Precedent, I might as well put it to good use ;)

[rollingrock]

22. Englightened?

do you read the National Enquirer too? frankly, I would not be surprised.

[SDuderstadt]

23. More sniping from the sidelines from...

RollingRock. Hardly surprising.

[jberryhill]

29. Orly Taitz

...just as soon as she is finished figuring out where President Obama was born.

[Neily]

30. Ideally...

The Panel would consist of independent professionals in the fields related to:
1) Forensics
2) Criminal Investigation
3) Physics
4) Chemistry
5) Construction
6) Demolition
7) History
8) Aerodynamics

etc...

They would be independent in the sense that they do not work for government, have never worked for government, or do not work/have worked in a position connected to politics or government and have never expressed an opinion about 9/11 in writing, in the media, or to anyone that can attest to it. In addition, they would not have any connection to the parties of interest in this matter, meaning any organization/business that profited from 9/11 or is under scrutiny for possibly being involved in 9/11. This may limit the selection pool, but isn't impossible.

They should have the powers of a grand jury including subpoena powers and require that all testimony (without exception) be taken under oath in the public realm.

As for funding, considering we spent more investigating Clinton's sexual affairs than 9/11, I would say that the funding should not have a cap as long as an independent panel for funding also be created with similar restrictions. We blow money every day on unnecessary things, given the importance of this investigation, we as American citizens should not be concerned if multi-millions are spent on this (and considering the staggering amount of money given to the private industries over the last year, we should not care about the total spent on this)

[KDLarsen]

32. Good luck finding anyone who fit that criteria..

At least for a fair handful of those, you'll be very hard-pressed to find anyone at all that haven't, at some stage, been involved with a government contract/grant of sorts.

[BeFree]

33. Utopian, in reality

Finding 10 professionals who have never sucked the gov.s teat would be damn near impossible. Eh?

But I am one. Would you like ol' Be Free to be paid to investigate what bush knew?

[SDuderstadt]

34. This is one of those questions that...

answers itself.

[DerBeppo]

39. Ridiculous

Looking for experts in fields directly related to 9/11 who never expressed an opinion about it? That's absurd.

[jberryhill]

41. LOL...

Professionals in Criminal Investigation and Forensics who have never worked for the government. Yeah... there's a whole lotta those.

I'm also guessing this pretty much excludes most folks with advanced degrees in Chemistry, Physics and Aeronautical Engineering.

[lib2DaBone]

62. K&R Logic and Facts... very hard to find on this forum

[whatchamacallit]

42. I'd start with somebody/anybody who would place Bush and Cheney under oath

as should have been done to begin with. You know like Clinton was for an infinitely less serious matter. I'd also like to avoid some insider bureaucrat embedding the mission statement with the preferred outcome before we know where the inquiry may lead, as Hamilton did: "The focus of the commission will be on the future. We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility." Why fucking not you fixer douchebag??? Instead of steering the whole shebang to safe harbors from the get, let's find out what fucking happened, who fucked up, lay it all out on the table, and THEN decide if we should or shouldn't assess blame! And hopefully after the time, money, and effort of a real commission, we'll get a little more than "oops it was a failure of imagination".

If you got a problem with this, you're the one with a fucking problem!

[HannibalCards]

43. Who

specifically do you have in mind? Follow up question; Do you really think having Bush and Cheney under oath will automatically compel them to change anything about their testimony?

[whatchamacallit]

44. Well, if they had nothing to fear from their own sworn testimony

why is it the only way they'd even show is if it was off the record, and they had to appear together like a ventriloquist and puppet? Yes, it would have made a difference. But it's obvious to all but the willfully blind, the commission wasn't interested in following the truth wherever it may lead, they were more interested in establishing a narrative. One where intelligence stovepipes were the only thing that could be blamed.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Except neither Clinton nor Gore testified under oath before the Commission....

there's a reason for that. Can you think of why that might be, dude?

[whatchamacallit]

46. Sure I can think of a reason

the people who wanted to keep bush and cheney safe, the people in control of the commission, couldn't give bush and cheney a pass while requiring former pres and vp to testify under oath.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Never mind, dude....

seriously.

[whatchamacallit]

48. whatever man. n/t

[lib2DaBone]

49. I was going to give the usual snarky answer..but I can't...

I was going to reply that we should let Henry Kissinger lead the investigation... or maybe Lord Blanfkein of Goldman Sacs... or maybe Dick Cheney..? But snark just isn't funny anymore. (Maybe never was)

There has been some progress. The italian government recently convicted 29 CIA agents for torture. (A Couple of the agents were the ones who delivered the forged yellow cake documents to Bush. However... barely a word on the convictions was heard in the MSM. (if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it..)

The Italian convictions may also lead directly to Condi Rice. Hopefully they will lock her up in a few months.

With the media controlled and owned by the MIC.. there is zero chance that even a new investigation will have any effect. David Gregory will bugaloo and drop to his knees to fellate Karl Rove... while Rupert Murdock marvels at the stupidity of the American people.

The PTB are doing everything they can to shut down these pesky BLOGS on the internet.. we can't have people exchange information outside of Pentagon Channels. "OBAMA Proposes A New Law to Shut Down Internet In Time of Emergency" (don't know if it is signed yet..too tired to check) http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cybersecurity_Act_seeks_broad_powers_0413.html


Anyways.. thanks Obama... please don't 'help' us any more. Please don't offer us anymore change. We are up to out necks in all the change you have handed to your buddies at Goldman Sacs.

[arthritisR_US]

64. poignant and depressing...n/t