Sen. Leahy's Discusses A Truth and Reconciliation Commission SIGN ONLINE PETITION

Sen. Leahy's Discusses A Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Senator Leahy Starts Bush Truth Commission Petition - Will You Sign On?

I have proposed the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses during the Bush-Cheney Administration -- so they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.

Please sign this online petition:
urging Congress to consider establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's abuses.

Question for Leahy:

Senator Leahy. What if you found out that the anthrax that was sent to your office was sent there at the behest of members of the Cheney/Bush crime family?

I am for truth and justice, not reconciliation. These bastards are criminals. They knowingly committed criminal acts and war crimes. The rule of law is at stake. The evidence is there. There should be consequences for those involved. They should do their time if they did the crime. This is what the rule of law is about. Why would we even consider reconciliation rather than prosecution? I think it is because the criminals are still entrenched in the system and will do what they can to block efforts for justice. Get rid of the rotten thugs who still remain in power positions. Prosecute them all. I am for Truth and Justice, not reconciliation. The list of crimes is long and the tentacles of the criminal system slither through both sides of aisle and through all parts of the US government. Why should they be given a pass? We need whistleblowers who want to plea bargain their superiors. We need motivated investigators. If the thing is so messed up that they don't think they can get justice, then the system is too messed up to continue in operation.

Maybe we will have to count on the international community to do the right thing.

NO THANKS, Senator Leahy.

I am for truth and justice.

Show "I smell a rat" by Hsaive

Hey Harold.

That was uncalled for. It is newsworthy, as Leahy is one of the few Democrats asking for anything at all in the realm of Truth. Perhaps he's not sincere, perhaps "reconciliation" is the wrong way to go, perhaps it's the road to a cover-up.

Insinuating that I'm a "rat", and that by posting Joe's blog to the front page I am "giving myself away" is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

Your commenting abilities are in the moderation queue until further notice.

Is this a step in the right direction?

Will the news of Leahy's proposition get people talking, thinking, questioning?

Will discussion of the proposal get people to realize that they have not been told the TRUTH?

Would a REAL investigation end with forgiveness were the whole TRUTH come out?

Would this be a REAL investigation?

Is this a step in the right direction?

Good point Joe. It is a step in the right direction.

By putting people's attention on these issues, it gets people's attention focused in that direction. (An example: Our current economic situation has focused people's attention on the rotten political-corporate corruption that is going on, rather than drowning in an "American Idol TV stupor".)

Good points, Rob

First, I admit that I have been an advocate of the T & R approach for a while. But I must say, you make a strong case for pushing criminal prosecution. Our biggest concern with a T & R approach is that it could be a cover up camouflaged as a commission, and that is a VERY real possibility. So I say put the heat on Leahy and ask him to explain himself further, but don't disengage him. One thing that really bothered me about what he said was that the only thing possible for criminal prosecution would be perjury. That's ridiculous. Since when does treason (should it be uncovered), an offense against the safety of the entire country, take a back seat to perjury? My limited understanding of T & R is that the model is flexible and that criminal prosecutions are not necessarily excluded from the process. So I guess I am taking a middle path (something I do rarely) and saying I favor T & R as long as prosecution of high level crimes not be excluded from the process.

But it's all good. It's good if they are trying to circumvent real prosecution because it means we are truly cracking the wall and they are feeling the heat, which means we are breaking through with our humble efforts and that we have real power. It's also good if it ends up Leahy is sincere and really wants some honest measure of truth, because THAT is also part of our message. The best thing we can do here is keep the 9/11 conversation on the front burner with Leahy, and try as hard as we can to never let it leave the stage until it is dealt with.

At some point in all of this we DO need reconciliation. As Kevin Ryan once said, "We can't go around arresting everybody." Even if in the end we are able to pursue criminal persecution, we will still need to reconcile the past so we can move forward toward a better way of life -- and at some point that means letting go of a past that doesn't serve us anymore..

One of the questions I often ask myself is: If I could choose only one of the following, which would it be....?

1) The full truth be known to the whole world about what happened on 9/11, but no one gets prosecuted, or

2) Some people are prosecuted and convicted, but we would not know the complete story of what happened.

IMO either of these scenarios is equally likely and possible in the near future. Is there any real power in just "knowing" the truth?


Instead, send Leahy a demand for a criminal trial. We worked too hard to get the FBI to acknowledge Richard Gage's evidence as "backed by thorough research and analysis". This evidence is ready for a court trial...not a commission.

Why would we ask to be insulted by another commission?



Tell him what you really think...

Let the 9/11 Truth Movement be heard.

No More Sham Political Commissions!!!

I just sent this to Sen Leahy's office:

Hello Sen. Leahy,

Sir, with all due respect, we do not need a "Truth Commission" to investigate the crimes of the Bush Crime Family, we need prosecutors to prosecute them for all of the crimes that they have committed.

A "Truth Commission" would turn into another whitewash, political cover-up and a sham like the 9/11 and Warren Commissions were.

The Bush Crime family MUST be held to account for their crimes in a court of law. The future of this country depends on it!

Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could be prosecut

Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could be prosecuted

Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could be prosecuted
David Edwards and John Byrne
Published: Wednesday February 11, 2009

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said in an interview Tuesday evening that Bush Administration officials could be criminally prosecuted if they lied under oath as part of a proposed investigation into Bush-era abuses.

Leahy chose his words carefully, to be sure. But his words went slightly farther than that of other Congressional Democrats, who maintain that probing abuses of the Bush era is critical to preserving the integrity of law.

"You're going to have people, some people will say, let's go ahead and prosecute everybody," Leahy told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Tuesday. "That can take 10 or 15 years. Others want to ignore everything. I don't agree with that."

But, he said, the Senate could set up a "truth commission" like that established by Sen. Frank Church in the 1970s, which was aimed at bringing out abuses of the President Richard Nixon era. Church's commission resulted in an array of reforms that tightened civil liberties protections after Nixon's infamous wiretapping and Watergate scandals.

"What if a truth commission did a thorough investigation of the type you're describing and they found that in fact horrible crimes were committed?" Maddow asked. "If there wouldn't be prosecution, how would say -- how would we say now we know and they all legally got away with it, how would that stop these things from happening again?"

Leahy seemed to signal a slight shift -- previously his focus seemed more on uncovering misdeeds than in prosecuting officials. While not saying that he was planning for prosecutions, he indicated that they could certainly result.

"I think because of the fact it's very, very public and the way they find out about it, it makes it very clear to the next person, you try the same thing, you are going to be found out, you are going to be prosecuted," Leahy said. "You are also going to have some people that will refuse to -- perhaps refuse to testify, even though offered immunity. With the evidence from the others, they can be prosecuted. And, of course, anybody can be prosecuted for perjury."

David Carle, a spokesman for Sen. Leahy, noted that Leahy's commission concept was a proposal and no bill had yet been introduced.

"He wanted to begin a discussion," Carle said.

Asked about potential prosecutions, he reiterated that immunity would still "of course" require truthful replies.

Leahy subpoenaed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to testify on the firing of nine US Attorneys in 2007. Rove never appeared. He was subsequently called to testify twice by the House Judiciary Committee, and said recently that he would refuse to honor congressional subpoenas related to the case.

Leahy's commission concept received a cool response from President Barack Obama in his Tuesday night press conference, though Obama admitted he hadn't read it.

"It's not a perfect way of doing it, but it may be the only way to get the truth out," Leahy said. "And I think that the only way you're going to stop a future administration from being tempted to do some of the same things is if the truth comes out."

Immunity seems to be the keystone of Leahy's plan to extract the truth.

You "either grant enough immunity to get the truth out or you don't get it at all, because otherwise you are just going to have constant stonewalling."

Why would those who testified get immunity?

Permanent T&R commission

A variation with some possibilities might be a international commission with both both punishment and clemency power. Since many Nations citizens have been murdered on and as a result of 9/11, a intl. grand jury would be appropriate. No scope or time limits (in all likelihood false flag terror in general would quickly be detected, and a movement to outlaw by treaty might start). No funding limits. Perhaps a permanent investigative arm to look into what appear to be black ops false flag events (London, Madrid, Bali, Liberty, OKC, etc.) Naturally this crew of super Patriots would have the power to rendition the real terrorists to justice at say last years super bowl site. Nice dream, or maybe Hollywood reality. The road to Peace runs through the cities of Truth, Justice, Mercy, and Forgiveness, and so Peace to All.

I listened to Sam Stein from Huffngton Post

speak on this topic.

He said the truth commisions job, would be to present evidence & then it would be up to the judical
branch (Eric Holder's dep't)t to follow-up & prosecute.

Maybe 9.11 truth lawyers can verify if this is the optimal scenario.

Yup.. "Politics is the art of the possible"

So said Otto von Bismarck. But this quote is so succinct and true, it was fictionally placed in Ben Franklin's lips in the HBO mini-series on John Adams.

AFAIK, amongst current and former members of Congress since 2001, there's only two that have called for a complete reinvestigation of 911, viz., Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. (Gravel was out of Congress before 2001. Speaking of whom, I'd love to hear his opinion on this matter.) McKinney isn't even in Congress, anymore, so just what sort of political support is there for the sort of investigation that many 911 Truthers would prefer? Almost none - whether you like it or not.

We just saw how a Democratic president, had to fight and compromise with Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats, even though the House and Senate are controlled by Democrats. (See Robert Reich's blog for a viable explanation. It's politics moreso than ideology, even with the nation on an economic knife's edge.)

I have trouble even imagining how this particular President (who lied as a candidate when he said he would filibuster on FISA - damn the Constitution and rule of law) and a Congress which is not all that different from the Congresses of the last 15 years, is all of a sudden going to get interested in 911, so many years after the fact. However, Leahy's proposal may be just the thing that creates the conditions that allow more of 911 truth subjects to be explored, even if not intended to explore them, directly.

My main concerns are twofold. First, that Leahy's truth and reconciliation commission would still cover up many crimes, in general. Coverups are, after all, a specialty of Congress. These people are political animals, and they know damn well about how not to ask certain questions when they don't really want the truth exposed about certain areas. And secondly, we may get many or most crimes exposed, but 911 is still covered up.

Another concern is how are witnesses going to be protected? They need to be protected at least until they testify. E.g., there was at least 1 who was due to testify at the House Select Committee on Assassinations, who got assassinated himself before he could talk. (I don't remember his name.)

Despite the unknowns, IMO, 911 Truthers should enthusiastically support Leahy's proposal. This is actually some of the best news that I've heard in years. They can pursue their other 911 related activities, including calling for a anyy sort of investigation of 911 that they want. But going for broke, they will just end broke. Just ask Otto von Bismarck, or Ben Franklin. :-)

I also hope the Jersey girls weigh in on this, quickly.<.b>

Disclosure without punishment would defeat the coverup's purpose

Funny -- I thought I'd seen the 'art of the possible' quote attributed to Edmund Burke.

Anyway, Burke, Bismarck, both are identified with 'realpolitik' -- political realism.

As such, they had an appreciation--like other political theorists--of the role of legitimacy, and the perception thereof, in politics--the importance of a widespread perception among the public (the governed) that that those who occupy positions of power and exercise those powers do so legitimately.

Do we really think that the persistent coverup of the truth about 9/11is entirely the work of the actual perpetrators of those crimes? And that the sole motive is their desire to avoid prison or worse?

Within the political establishment of this country are people who had nothing to do with the plotting of those crimes, but who are steadfast in maintaining the coverup (as with JFK, etc.). Possibly, they are appreciating some of the benefits of war and empire and erosion of the constitution that the official version of 9/11 have in great part made possible. But even without those benefits, there is the FEAR of CONSEQUENCES of the turth coming out--which is the loss of the U.S. public's perception of legitimacy on the part of their ruling class.

To get the truth out without doling out punishments? Who is Leahy kidding? That would defeat the major purpose of the ongoing coverup -- to prevent the system's mask of legitimacy from dropping. No power can be less legitimate than that which enables perpetrators of crimes on the scale of 9/11to elude punishment.

Let's bear in mind, if we are going to refer to precedents: In South Africa, apartheid was a system that was legally established, with widespread support. 9/11, by contrast, has been a fraud perpetrated by a few upon the many, enabling crimes against many others.

OK, so the US government is not legitimate

This is not news to me. Even if it would be news to the majority of Americans, it's not my concern that I coddle the rest of my fellow citizens, because they have preferred to believe in a pack of lies. They need to grow up, the faster the better.

One 'happy' result of the disclosures of a T&R commission is that American citizens would be stripped of any excuse they have of not participating more personally in politics. The word "idiot" derives from the Greek word "idiotes", used by ancient Athenians to describe citizens who were only interested in their personal lives, as opposed to public life. Most Americans are idiotes, since their public life consists of just voting every couple of years, if that. Our system of government, imperfect as it may be, does allow for meaningful change. This is not North Korea - you can help effect real change without getting quickly "disappeared" by the military.

Frankly, my big fear is that even with full disclosure, the public will largely give a collective yawn, and go back to watching TV. In this regard, I hope that survivors of 911 victims assume some moral leadership, and prick the consciences of their fellow citizens. They are not going to yawn, even if everybody else does - initially. So, 911 survivors could help lead a rejuvenation of American democracy, by reminding a politically torpid public that leaving politics to slimy politicians is irresponsible, and allowed their government to become illegitimate in the first place, due to the immorality and/or cowardice of the political class.

OTOH, putting a handful of perps in jail (which is almost sure not to include the highest level of such - you sacrifice the patsy, not the handler; likewise, you would sacrifice the handler, not the top dog), would give Americans the excuse they need to believe that the country is now "on the right track". It'll be straight back to watching "American idol" on TV. And then, what's to prevent another 911 from happening the next day?

The result they are determined to avoid

'One 'happy' result of the disclosures of a T&R commission is that American citizens would be stripped of any excuse they have of not participating more personally in politics.'

Yes, exactly--which is I have no expectation that such disclosures will be allowed to occur through such a process. I don't buy it that promises of immunity will make it more likey that we will get these disclosures.

A truth commission will find

A truth commission will find anything but the truth, and it will not lead to prosecutions. This is garbage. War Crimes Tribunals are in order.

Great minds ... think for themselves.

and fix that /b , guy above

and fix that /b , metamars

Great minds ... think for themselves.

Maybe this fixed

Maybe this fixed it.

Great minds ... think for themselves.

Whether it's a Commission or

Whether it's a Commission or a criminal trial or both, the issue is mainly whether it will get watered down into a limited hangout, pointing to issues like careerism and lack of expertise, issues that people like Colleen Rowley believe was at work, rather than anything as nutty as the involvement of "insiders" or "moles" --

...During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.) Our best real guess, however, is that, in most cases avoidance of all "unnecessary" actions/decisions by FBIHQ managers (and maybe to some extent field managers as well) has, in recent years, been seen as the safest FBI career course. Numerous high-ranking FBI officials who have made decisions or have taken actions which, in hindsight, turned out to be mistaken or just turned out badly (i.e. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.) have seen their careers plummet and end. This has in turn resulted in a climate of fear which has chilled aggressive FBI law enforcement action/decisions. In a large hierarchal bureaucracy such as the FBI, with the requirement for numerous superiors approvals/oversight, the premium on career-enhancement, and interjecting a chilling factor brought on by recent extreme public and congressional criticism/oversight, and I think you will see at least the makings of the most likely explanation. Another factor not to be underestimated probably explains the SSA and other FBIHQ personnel's reluctance to act. And so far, I have heard no FBI official even allude to this problem-- which is that FBI Headquarters is staffed with a number of short term careerists* who, like the SSA in question, must only serve an 18 month-just-time-to-get-your-ticket-punched minimum. It's no wonder why very little expertise can be acquired by a Headquarters unit!

Or as described by Ron Paul --

BECK: Is there -- is there any evidence or is there any doubt in your mind that the United States government was not involved in the September 11th attacks? That we did not bring down World Trade Center number seven?
PAUL: Well, yes, I absolutely believe that is true. They did not. But the connection may be, and where some people get carried away, is if you dig through those $40 billion worth of intelligence-gathering apparatus that we had before 9/11, you know, we dig up information and there was some ineptness. And sometimes when you find ineptness in government, it`s easy to make this giant leap over into conspiracy, and they do it on purpose. But, you know, we had an FBI agent on 70 different occasions reported that these individuals were flying airplanes and not learning how to land them. And he was totally ignored.
BECK: Right.
PAUL: I consider this ineptness on government, not a conspiracy that, oh, yes, we know about it, we can`t wait until the towers come down. No, I don`t believe that at all. I think -- I don`t even think I should have to answer questions like that.

So will it be ineptitude, mistakes, careerists, agencies unable to communicate, blunders . . . or will it be the inevitable conclusion that 9/11/01 was made to happen for a purpose and that only insiders could have orchestrated it? Don't expect Colleen Rowley or Ron Paul or others like them to get us there. They will not.

The issue may not be the means to reach the conclusion, but the conclusion being sought, by whom.

Congresspeople are millionaires. They are usually not that interested in the real truth, so if they have the last word on anything about 9/11, it will be a massive battle to get to the truth of the events.