A Suggestion For Senator Patrick Leahy

Jon Gold

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).

Its just another con job

Leahy is no more interested in the truth than any other politician (with few exceptions). You would think, since his office was a target of the anthrax attacks, he would want to get to bottom of that. He can't though, if he investigates the anthrax attacks and it finds that the military was behind it. It will only be a short leap to 9-11. I figure he is doing it to placate a fiercely liberal and independent base in VT. Hence, he will stick with edge issues that ire the public far less like torture. I think they press the torture issue so much because it gives the appearance of "protecting rights" when they know full well that it has a defense (war time necessity) and that many people just don't care that some arab terrorist gets waterboarded. Note that waterboarding is the main method bandied about by the MSM, cause it gives another, i hate to use this term but.. , watered down layer to the issue.

I am not counting on any truth coming out of any politician any time soon. I am hoping we will see some action when the publication of Kevin Ryan's, et al, findings on the dust particles in a mainstream scientific journal. Depending on the journal, credibility of the author, reliability of documentation, and repeatability of the findings we could have our best hope yet.


Peace All


i'm not so sure about that

he was the recipient of a memo after all... one might say that he has good reason to look a little deeper than might be expected by the other apathetic, corrupt, and otherwise asleep at the wheel politicians.

I didn't write this...

Because I think he would take it seriously. Just to point out the hypocrisy in his "truth commission." More like "half truth/no accountability commission."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Truth, punishment, and 9/11

One thing is certain--prosecutions will get, at best, a few small-fry on torture, and that's it.

I don't trust any of them either, but a truth commission has a much better chance of getting into some other subjects or at higher-ups on the torture issue.

I think a good deal of this comes down to two things--1) what your beliefs about punishment are and 2) how much information you want to have exposed publicly.

I believe that punishment is overrated and that it is very unlikely except for low level people in the torture cases. And thus it's not much of a deterrent either.

As for how much information you want to have exposed publicly: prosecution will expose the least, a truth commission will expose much more.

A truth commission actually has a pretty good chance of exposing a lot more because testimony under those conditions will be hard to control. For example, someone who knows about torture may also know about the yellowcake forgeries and want to speak about both to avoid any problems in the future. Same for many other subjects--Able Danger, domestic spying, Sibel Edmonds, even 9/11.

What Leahy has said about not supporting a new 9/11 investigation is par for the course in Washington. The pertinent facts up-front are neither a truth commission nor torture prosecutions will be aimed at 9/11, but only a truth commission has a chance of expanding beyond torture to other subjects, including 9/11.

Turley is pretty good on many issues but he has never called for a new 9/11 investigation either. His statements are convincing only if you are concerned only with the torture issue and only want to make a dramatic statement about that. And even that position is dubious because it is very unlikely higher-ups will be implicated.

In contrast, a truth commission will almost certainly make far more information public, be much more likely to implicate higher-ups, be much more likely to expand to other issues, and due to this a truth commission will also be far more likely to serve as a real deterrent in the future.

Another two points about Leahy--he did receive an anthrax letter (someone really did try to kill him) and Cheney did tell him to "fuck himself." I believe it quite possible that he would be interested in going there with his truth commission, if he gets it.

The 9/11 truth community is not likely to benefit at all from prosecutions. We might benefit a little to a huge amount with a truth commission. If your main interest is 9/11, the truth commission is by far the better choice.

It seems to me, also, for reasons given above, if your main interest is torture or future deterrence, the truth commission is also the better way to go, though the argument in favor of prosecutions is slightly stronger here.


JFK on secrecy and the press

"Should" and "likely" are two different things.

So, Pelosi "says that if there are "criminal ramifications," people should be charged. Does that include Pelosi, herself? Not as a torturer, but as somebody who knew details, and acquiesced? Does it include President Bush? Sec Def Rumsfeld? I really don't think so. Do you?

I'd forgotten about Leahy's stupid statement on the 911 commission. You do well to remind us. But think of this another way. If Leahy is in La La land on 911, what are the odds that he will pursue criminal prosecutions of 911 conspirators? Just what exactly is the choice, here?

The way I see it is that the choice is between the possibility of a huge floodgate of sunshine on governmental wrongdoing opening, or some small fish sacrificed, with damage control the order of the day. The former option at least has the possibility of throwing light on 911. The latter has none.

BTW, what I remember of Leahy's statements re 911 is that "there's no political support" for a reinvestigation. That is probably the case now, also (political support inside Congress being the relevant domain, not that of the public), but revelations from a TRC could change that.


According to Leahy...

No one would be immune to the investigation. However, the crimes that are to be investigated seem to be the crimes where the excuse of "we were trying to protect us against another 9/11" will be often heard. Don't expect much from the "9/11 type commission." I certainly don't.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Last Best Hope? Truth Movement or Prosecution Movement?

It would appear that our experiences in the Truth Movement have turned many of us into cynics, where we cannot imagine anyone in politics or the media having any integrity or good motivation: Everything is politics. Here's a thought; let us imagine that a good many of the people who entered politics and journalism decades ago might have jumped into it with high ideals, high hopes, and only the best of intentions. Now fast forward to the present: How would such idealism have been able to hold up under the realities of pernicious secrecy, mass deception, and sanctioned lawlessness that we now know exists, and has existed for quite some time? Imagine how the various members in our movement might morph in the coming 20 or 30 years: making change a reality is always about compromise and strategy, and is inherently political.
It is very easy to say that Patrick Leahy is just another politician who sold his soul long ago to remain in office. But such cynicism overlooks another likely reality, that many of those idealists who ultimately swallowed the bitter pill of reality may have done so with the intent of maintaining (or expanding) their influence with the intent of some day being able to clean up this wretched, stinking system. There is no more reason to distrust Leahy's professed sincerity to uncover the truth than to trust him at his word. But in the truth movement, our knee-jerk reaction is to look back at our great political successes (starting with the 9-11 Commission, and leading up to our hairpulling with change.org and change.gov., and Obama's apparent desire to keep the truth buried somewhere in an unmarked grave) and to say there is no way we're going to misplace our hopes with politicians and get fooled again.
But please, cool off for a moment, set down your cynic's hat, and give this Truth Commission proposal a fair trial. First, consider why would Leahy propose amnesty from prosecution if he were not interested in getting at the truth? Face it, it might just be that Leahy knows full well that there is ZERO chance of the truth ever seeing daylight as long as testimony might result in self-incrimination. And this is routinely what the government does with truth-tellers: it makes them the fall-guys or frames them for various crimes and puts them away or suicides them. Freedom from prosecution (and government protection) could lead folks silently holding pieces of the truth to come forward and purge themselves of their past involvement.
Conversely, "prosecution" is all about politics, and not about truth. People like Pelosi KNOW that prosecution will kill any effort to expose the truth, the deeper truth, and so she is all in favor of putting prosecution on the table. Her goal has been to prevent a meaningful investigation of the Bush administration crimes, and it still is. Her new tool is to tout "prosecution."
So, is our movement really about TRUTH, as our name suggests, or did we only plan to use truth as a politically savvy maneuver to move the agenda forward to our real goal of justice? Have we been using truth as political ploy to serve some higher good? Are we therefore simply being "pragmatic," just as the politicians who accuse of having abandoned their ideals?
Our goal can be truth, or justice, but probably not both. In fact, the realities behind the "deep state" seem to indicate that if we pursue justice as being the higher ideal, we will end up getting neither. I would prefer that we continue to focus upon exposing the truth, as I see it as our only viable choice --and a fairly good one in the big picture. Let me be clear about this. If we seek to punish those responsible for 9-11, we are ultimately looking to convict the massive, underground system that was behind it: global bankers, drug cartels, global intelligencia, the military industrial complex, and ythe es PNACers and Bushies that actually pulled off the job. Don't fool yourself into thinking that having Bush and/or Cheney behind bars would ever happen in this world, or would even signify a significant triumph for justice.
If we punish a handful of patsies, but leave the underlying criminal enterprise intact (with them feeling even more liberated by having deflected blame), have we really achieved our goals? It has been a cornerstone of our movement that to expose the TRUTH about 9-11 will ultimately lead to a social process of uncovering more and more layers of truth, ultimately leading to a more just, equitable and free society. I still believe that, and I see the talk of "prosecution" as being the politically popular response, but one that is a zero possibility, and that would ultimately kill our best opportunity to begin peeling away the lies in a process of discovering the truth.

I hope this was sent to...


numerous times at least.

What has Congress done in

What has Congress done in the last 30 years that gives you hope?

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Another whitewash

"First, consider why would Leahy propose amnesty from prosecution if he were not interested in getting at the truth?"

Sorry for being so cynical but Leahy would propose amnesty to protect his political cronies, including members of his own party. I think there is no chance that the so-called truth commission would dig into 9-11, anthrax, Sibel Edmonds, etc. Like the 911 Commission, it would conduct a superficial investigation that will serve to obfuscate the truth and hold no one accountable.

If I were betting on the

If I were betting on the outcome, I would agree with you. If I were philosophizing about the most likely outcome, I would also agree with you.

This, however, is politics and the Leahy commission does have a chance of going somewhere. Why? Because testimony is taken under oath and people receive immunity for what they say. This kind of format has a chance of leading somewhere significant.

Also, Leahy did receive an anthrax letter and is not pals with Bush/Cheney.

I agree completely with your cynicism, but we should consider the historical and political context.

JFK on secrecy and the press


Anyone watch the opening hearing? When Arlen Specter started showing off that article about Patrick Leahy, bs-ing about his picture, I turned it off. They don't care. It was a mockery of the justice that most Americans want and deserve.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?