Mar 04

The September Eleventh Advocates Write An Open Letter To Senator Patrick Leahy

March 3, 2009

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a “Truth Commission”. According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:


  • the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
  • the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
  • the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
  • the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a “Truth Commission” will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth.

The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to /fact find, not fault find/.

This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?

At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.

With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission’s final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation.

The end result of the 9/11 Commission’s work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best.

There was clearly no desire on the part of Congress to force the Commission to meet its legislative mandate. Accordingly, there were no repercussions for the fact that the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete. It could be surmised that holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth. This could compromise the future safety of American citizens.

Why then would you want to model another Commission after it? Why would you want another Commission at all?

Senator Leahy, in light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined.

America’s founding fathers, prescient in their fears of unrestrained power, created three separate but equal branches of government. They had hoped to maintain and enforce the limits of the Executive Branch.

The Bush Administration was allowed to circumvent too many Constitutional restrictions effectively undermining America’s system of justice, our nation’s integrity and commitment to the rule of law. The Bush Administration’s seizing of power proves the adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The days of no fault government must end; and where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. The law must be upheld without exception before we can be assured of the safety of the nation.

These duties cannot be ignored for the sake of expediency.

Senator Leahy, our nation needs you to investigate and, if warranted, refer the cases for criminal prosecution in transparent trials. We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers’ expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised.

Sincerely,

September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Mar 01

A Suggestion For Senator Patrick Leahy

Jon Gold
3/1/2009

I don’t know whether or not I agree with a “Truth & Reconciliation Commission.” I don’t like Nancy Pelosi, but I agree with her when she says that if there are “criminal ramifications,” people should be charged, and should not be given immunity. Jonathan Turley said that it is a “shameful” way to avoid prosecuting war crimes.

Senator Leahy’s “Truth Commission” seems to focus primarily on torture, but there is a possibility that more may be looked into. The basic premise seems to be though, that if it is a crime to be investigated, it will be a crime that took place Post-9/11.

Senator Leahy is against re-investigating 9/11. The enabling event for all of the crimes that took place afterwards. Even though he has questions like “why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?” he has made it quite clear that he is not willing to re-investigate it. If Jonathan Turley wants to talk about things that are “shameful,” I think I could give him a run for his money.

That being said, I wonder if Patrick Leahy would at least be willing to investigate 9/11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. He did, after all, support her along with Chuck Grassley in the past. Maybe he would be willing to do so again. After all, her issue has NOT been resolved.

It’s the LEAST he could do (a look at the anthrax attacks couldn’t hurt either).

Nov 18

A Simple Question For Senator Patrick Leahy


Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont)

By Jon Gold
11/18/2007

“The two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago.”

That was said on 9/29/2006 by Senator Patrick Leahy on the Amy Goodman show.

The 2006 Elections came and went, and the Democrats won the majority in both the House and Senate.

In January of 2007, vt911.org “working through the fall and early winter gathered more than 1,350 signatures — 5 percent of the city’s registered voters — to put an advisory question about 9/11 on the city’s Town Meeting Day ballot.” The question on the ballot would have asked for “a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001.”

Before the vote was even decided on, Senator Patrick Leahy decided that he wouldn’t support it regardless of the outcome saying that he “respects the work and the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Their report was highly critical of the failures and miscues they discovered, and they recommended a wide range of reforms. Since then, some have come up with their own theories, and that’s always the case after major events like this. The 9/11 Commission’s report remains the most credible, the most thorough and the most constructive investigation that has been undertaken about those attacks.”

I’m sorry to say that the vote was lost. Nice effort though.

On November 3, 2007, at the “9/11: Families, First Responders, & Experts Speak Out Symposium”, Patty Casazza revealed that “whistle-blowers” approached the “Jersey Girls” during the 9/11 Commission Hearings in the hopes that they would get the 9/11 Commission to subpoena them. Reason being, they saw what was happening to Sibel Edmonds, and were afraid to come forward. She claims that the information these people possess show that this Government knew the day, the type of attack, and the targets. She also claims the 9/11 Commission promised that each “whistle-blower” would be mentioned in the 9/11 Report. They were not. So much for “the most thorough and the most constructive investigation that has been undertaken about those attacks.”

As was mentioned, the Democrats won the majority in both the House and the Senate. On 9/29/2006, Senator Patrick Leahy’s excuse as to why no questions about 9/11 would be tolerated was “because republicans wont allow it.”

My question to Senator Patrick Leahy is…

Who won’t allow it now?