Every professional analyst approaches a problem badly in need of a solution in usually the same way; step one would be to clearly define the problem. If it is an easily identified problem, such as the 9-11 terrorist act, then the description of the problem can be incorporated directly into step two in analyzing a problem or a failure: a clear definition of the investigation’s objective or objectives. With this in mind, let US hypothesize that We the People are conducting an in depth professional investigation of the events summarized merely as “9-11.”
Let US state our objective:
Objective: To determine why the US was attacked on September 11, 2001, and to find out how it was coordinated and by whom, how it was planned, how long the planning effort took, where it was planned, whether planned in one particular place or many, who the participants in both the planning and the attack were, the resources at the terrorists disposal, what breaches in our own security and intelligence networks occurred – especially if there were indications early on of the possibility of the events taking place – and of greatest interest, why no modicum of military response from our air defenses ever came into play in spite of the fact that these attacks spanned a time period of more than an hour.
Having clearly stated the objectives of an investigation by We the People, and realizing that a 9-11 Commission has been formed, specifically, the National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, hereafter referred to merely as the 9-11 Commission, or the Kean Commission for its Chair, former New Jersey Governor, Thomas Kean, we’ll assemble a list of what We the People would like to know about the events surrounding 9-11. Therefore, in that regard, we are constructing our own objectives, our method of approach, our questions, and how we intend to remedy discovered shortcomings, exposures and identified criminal negligence that could be indictable.
Once we have finished setting up the guidelines for a We the People investigation, it is answers to OUR questions that we are seeking, not those created, manufactured and processed by politicians and bureaucrats and their captive corporate media.
Returning to the objective of our investigation, the obvious first question is WHY?! How simple is that? Isn’t this the VERY FIRST basic question that should be asked? What has government told US? We the People were told that we were attacked because some terrorist group was “jealous of our freedoms,” and that they were “jealous of our wealth.” Do those answers make any sense at all? Do you know people who are richer than you, have nicer cars and nicer houses and that can travel and go places around the world, and take off more time from work that you can? Perhaps some people you know are so wealthy they don’t have to work at all! Do you plan on killing them, and in the process, giving up your own life doing so? What is the correct answer to this basic question?
Next, we were told that al-Qaeda was behind this. What evidence of this is there? Where is the “white paper” Secretary of State Colin Powell promised on this? Considering the lies told by Secretary of State Colin Powell and the President of the United States concerning “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, and the falsehoods involved in frightening the American people into believing that such weapons could reach our shores, plus the excuses concerning intelligence mistakes, I feel We the People must have a white paper prepared by the Bush administration proving that there is irrefutable evidence that al-Qaeda was behind 9-11. Are there any documents on file anywhere, or any actual statements in front of witnesses, that al-Qaeda representatives confessed as to their responsibility? What evidence exists proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they were ever guilty? And if they alone were guilty, why did we attack Iraq?
WTP require evidence not only that al-Qaeda committed these acts, but we want to know where these acts were planned, by whom, for how long, and assurances that all those implicated in both the planning and the execution are who they were charged as being. This shouldn’t be difficult at all, since our government is so certain about the activities, and came up with the identities and funding sources of the 9-11 terrorists so quickly.
Considering TWO distinct aspects of our intelligence problems that have recently been brought to light, one as regards the unreliability of all American intelligence as offered by CIA Director George Tenet, and second, those breaches as identified by the refusal of Supervisory Special Agent Michael Maltbie and his boss David Frasca to respond in a timely, responsible and professional manner to FBI agent Cathleen Crowley’s field reports that could have prevented 9-11 altogether, clearly the testimonies of all four are required at a special hearing. Those witnesses giving testimony should be sequestered such that they cannot collaborate to give similar answers.
But the most significant question of all: Why was there no military response or scramble of United States Air Force fighter planes to intercept the airliners for over an hour?
Along with the WTP objectives of an inquiry, and along with the basic preliminary questions, WTP would also require subpoena capabilities as well as the need of swearing in all witnesses called requiring testimony under oath. The reason for this is obvious: this whole sordid mess stinks to the heavens in terms of cover-ups, incompetence, lies and fraud. WTP should at least have at our disposal the penalty for perjury if a witness’ testimony is contradicted and proven to be false. And all key participants, most particularly, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, should be required to testify. Claims of “executive privilege” and “separation of powers” are non sequitur, as the WTP Commission would be convened only upon agreement of both the Executive Branch and the Congress.
Additionally, all hearings must be televised as was the case with the Army-McCarthy hearings. There is no place for “secret government” or excuses of “national security” for such heinous attacks on the people of the United States. Any such excuses should be viewed as BOTH an obstruction of justice and a cover-up, and should be grounds for impeachment of the President of the United States should he attempt such obstruction.
Obviously, a “commission” of impartial panel members should be assembled. The very first requirement is that those serving on the panel not be connected with the current government in any way, shape or form. Additionally, none of the panel members should be employed by any airline or related industry or business involved in 9-11. The commission should be given a building or premises to conduct business, and should be funded by public interest groups and private donations, again devoid of event, industry and social and/or family associations that can bias commission participation. The investigative WTP committee should not have to rely on funding from the most suspected source of incompetence, complicity or wrongdoing. This would be the ideal commission, and would require the assistance of such professionals as lawyers, accountants, interpreters, and such.
What has been proposed serves as what should be obvious as the bare minimum in terms of getting at the truth, listing exposures and shortcomings, and recommending corrections and improvements to existing intelligence, security and military procedures. The Kean 9-11 Commission has a website at http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm which can be reviewed against the above standards which have been prepared without first reading the 9-11 Commission’s website. Now that some basics have been established, let’s take a look and see how the 9-11 Commission stacks up.
Instead of an objective or set of objectives, the 9-11 Commission offers a mandate. Although the mandate seems specific, read it carefully. What does it say with respect to specific areas of inquiry? It cites a list of all-encompassing general areas without focusing on specifics. Where is the basic question “why” in their mandate, focusing on just one aspect of a professionally oriented objective? They provide a laundry list of generalities, such as their mandate to investigate “facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks….” What does that mean?
And as regards the indefiniteness of “facts and circumstances,” add to that the nebulous areas to be examined: “intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration, nonimmigrant visas, border control, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight, resource allocation, and other areas deemed relevant by the Commission.” Question: how are any of these things relevant to 9-11 except in a far distant connection? Consider these aspects of their mandate to the much narrower, more specific, more direct, and much more accomplishable aspects of the WTP objectives. The Commission has been deliberately programmed for failure!
They offer how they came into being, when they are supposed report, who the members are [all of whom are politically connected one way or another], some on-going history, and other typical website FAQs. Curiously missing is information regarding their enforcement power. If testimony is taken under oath, is there a follow-up or cross examination process as well as a punitive capability that can compare conflicting testimony?
The public lies offered by Secretary of State Colin Powel, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush, and the admission to intelligence failures by CIA Director George Tenet, along with the recent revelations by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke, scream for a real inquiry. It is obvious, that this is a $15 million waste of taxpayer money, the purpose of which is to whitewash the Bush administration’s complicity in many aspects of the 9-11 day of infamy, and to hide the truth from the American people.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”