Homeland Security

9/11 Commission mission failure; withheld key documents are owed to the American people

By January 14, 2009, only 35% of the 9/11 Commission’s staff documents had been processed by the National Archives. They are Congressional records not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. There are nearly 2,000 memorandums for record (MFRs) of the summaries and transcripts of interviews conducted by 9/11 Commissioners and staff, as well as the briefings they received.

117 MFRs are still pending declassification review. Key interviews among them illustrate the 9/11 Commissioners’ lip service last week to transparency. They briefly called for declassification on page 39 of their 49-page “update” to their original 2004 recommendations:

“The job of fully informing the American people is incomplete, however. The commission’s records, including summaries of our interviews and important intelligence and policy documents, are held by the National Archives. Some of those documents and records remain classified and are thus unavailable to the public. Authority to declassify those documents rests with the agencies that created them.”

On July 21, 2004, 9/11 Commissioners met to decide when to release this body of work. Richard Ben-Veniste asked: “Is the theory here the great cover-up of partisan differences?” The notes of the meeting do not show he received an answer. Regardless, the vote was 6 to 3 to kick the responsibility 4 1/2 years down the road. [1]

What motivated Samuel “Sandy” Berger in 2004 to steal classified documents from the National Archives while he acted as former President Bill Clinton’s designated representative to the 9/11 Commission? The answer may be within the 9/11 Commission interviews of Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and Sandy Berger held by the National Security Counsel. [See correction at Note 4].

Surely the Commission asked former CIA Director Tenet what efforts were made to alert the NSC and President Clinton on the movement of al Qaeda operatives immediately preceding and following the Millennium terrorist attacks plots.

On January 15, 2000, two known al Qaeda operatives, future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, arrived in Los Angeles. During December 1999, the CIA had tracked their movements in Southeast Asia, observed their meeting with Walid bin Attash (now at Guantanamo awaiting military commission trial alongside Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and covertly photocopied the open-ended U.S. visas within their passports. Beginning in March 2000 and before September 11, 2001, more than 50 people at the CIA knew they had entered the United States.

The 9/11 Commission staff also prepared a 78-page monograph of NSC counterterrorism efforts from 1998 to 9/11. Yet the 9/11 Commissioners have never publicly spoken of its existence which is not classified. I filed for declassification review of it in 2009.

In addition, there is the still classified (by the FBI) 9/11 Commission interview of former FBI Director Louis Freeh. Subsequent to my April 2009 request, a previously unheard of staff monograph was declassified in June 2009. [2] It was prepared by staffer (and former DOJ IG) Barbara Grewe on the intelligence sharing “Wall.” It concluded: “Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared.” Indeed. A MFR declassified and released on January 15, 2009 of 9/11 Commission staff interviews of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick states in part:

“Gorelick said she did not know anything about how the wall was structured within the FBI. She did not believe that the FBI was required to erect a wall between intelligence and criminal agents, particularly those on the same squad and working related intelligence and criminal cases. She said she was surprised that the FBI interpreted the provisions that way.”

Strangely, the 9/11 Commissioners reminded no one that Executive Director Philip Zelikow and Commissioner Jamie Gorelick had authored a 7,000-word summary [3] of presidential daily briefs (PDBs). It is in former President George W. Bush’s records. It has been subject to declassification review by the NSC since January 20, 2014 as federal statute mandates a 5-year delay after a President leaves office. And there is the still classified MFR summarizing the President Bush-Vice President Cheney interview conducted by all 10 Commissioners.

Massive finger pointing as the WTC Pile, Pentagon, and a field outside of Shanksville still smoldered would have distracted key government personnel then scrambling to rally our Nation’s defense, and it would not well serve us now. Yet the American people must know the rest of the story. 2,978 names and the face of a 9/11 firefighter on a funeral mass card that I’ve long carried in my wallet haunt me; we owe it to them and future generations.

The 9/11 Commissioners can finally raise their voices and fulfill their charter to provide a “complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness.” I pray they do.

Note 1: Also present were “PZ” Philip Zelikow and “GC” General Counsel Daniel Marcus.

Note 2:
Legal Barriers to Information Sharing: The Erection of a Wall Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Staff Monograph
Barbara A. Grewe
Senior Counsel for Special Projects
August 20, 2004

Note 3: Zelikow confirmed its existence in a 2011 Reuters report.

Note 4: Tenet’s interview remains pending declassification review by the CIA while Clarke’s and Berger’s interviews are being held back by the NSC.

Muslims yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ at breach of peace arrest of Christians at Dearborn Arab fest

Police Chief Ron Haddad has obviously imposed sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan. What else explains why Nabeel Qureshi was arrested for merely speaking with Muslims at an Arab festival there, along with three other Christians whose only “crime” was filming? As Qureshi puts it, he was arrested for, “preaching the Gospel to people who had approached me and asked me to share my message with them.” (Islam’s sharia law prohibits proselytizing to Muslims.) Festival attendees cheered and several yelled “Allahu Akbar” as the four were led away in handcuffs. Unsurprisingly, Chief Haddad has been appointed by President Barack Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s advisory board; there is no word of when Haddad and Obama will apologize to the ‘Muslim world’ for offending the faithful.

Freedom Radio spoke with one of the four arrested, David Wood of AnsweringMuslims.com, last night. He explained that “they were waiting for us” after he and his group were “roughed up” at last year’s festival. We also asked David about his earlier video commentary [Ed. — 1,740,000 views to date] on the planned Cordoba House mosque at Ground Zero:

The Thomas More Law Center has agreed to defend the four; their first court appearance is schedule for July 12. TMLC President Richard Thompson stated:

“These Christian missionaries were exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, but apparently the Constitution carries little weight in Dearborn, where the Muslim population seems to dominate the political apparatus. It’s apparent that these arrests were a retaliatory action over the embarrassing video of the strong arm tactics used last year by Festival Security Guards. This time, the first thing police officers did before making the arrests was to confiscate the video cameras in order to prevent a recording of what was actually happening. … Contrary to the comments made by Police Chief Ron Haddad, our Constitution does not allow police to ban the right of free speech just because there are some hecklers. Not all police officers approve of the way their department treated these Christians.”

You can learn more about the case or contribute to their legal defense by clicking here.

House Dems vote to bring Gitmo detainees into U.S. (63 Dems switched)

Yesterday, 223 House Democrats (and Ron Paul) voted down a motion to recommit H.R. 2892. In effect, they voted:

1) to bring Guantanamo al Qaeda detainees into the U.S. and 2) to delete this additional requirement: “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a threat assessment for each such individual who is proposed to be transferred to the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States Territories.”

President Barack Obama and his administration applauded the House vote:

The Obama White House hailed a House vote Thursday to defeat a GOP-led effort to block the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainee to US soil — even for prosecution. “This was the most important legislative vote out there and it gives us a sense of victory,” said a senior administration official close to White House deliberations on closing the detention facility.

(Victory? Hurray! President Obama finally knows how to define victory.)

“It give [sic] us the fundamental ability to close down Guantanamo,” the official said. “And on the political side of it at least we’ve stabilized and we’ re dealing with the hysteria we dealt with this spring.” But the White House was not so celebratory as to release a formal statement praising the House vote. Another top White House aide said it’s too early to draw attention to Guantanamo policy because variables dealing with security, detention and trial of suspected terrorists remain unsettled. “We don’t want to be spiking the football on the 20 yard line,” the aide said. “We still have a ways to go.”

The House voted 224-193 to allow detainees to moved to the US for trial. The vote came on a amendment to the $42.8 billion Homeland Security spending bill. That overall bill passed 307-114 and now moves to the Senate, where swift passage is expected. Obama could sign the bill as early as next week.

In fact, a non-binding vote to that effect on Oct. 1 temporarily scuttled the Homeland Security spending bill. In that vote, 88 Democrats broke ranks and sided with Republicans who pushed the measure to derail Obama’s attempt to close Guantanamo. Today, 63 Democrats switched sides, clearing the way for the Homeland Security spending bill. … [also read this]

Who exactly are the Democrats who likely used their previous vote to tout to their constituents that they are “tough on terror?”