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.


September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken


And write your own..

News at BuzzFlash Comments Open

From 9/11 Widows: An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 12:50pm. Alerts


Dear Senator Leahy,

Let's hear from the Informant

We taxpayers paid the landlord of the 9/11 hijackers who was an intelligence informant $100,000 not to cooperate with the Senate and congress joint Inquiry into 9/11.....let's hear from him, and find out why Bush commited treason and obstruction of Justice by sheilding him......

"A former landlord of two of the September 11 hijackers was an FBI informant at the time, knowledgeable sources confirm to CNN."

And how did the hijackers end up with this U.S. Intelligence asset that Bush is protecting? They were brought there by Omar al-Bayoumi. What does the Senate and Congress Joint Inquiry have to say about Al-Bayoumi?

"One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power." page 226/858

Bayoumi's replacement when he departed the U.S. in July 2001 was Osama Bassnan. What did the Senate and Congressional Inquiry think of Bassnan?

"Bassnan was a close associate of al-Bayoumi, <>
Bassnan also had close ties to a number of other persons connected to the hijackers, including <> "page 228/858

"After September 11, the FBI developed information clearly indicating that Bassnan is an extremist and a Bin Ladin supporter. <>"
page 229/858

And who was paying Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan?

"Sources close to the case told TIME that beginning in January 1999 monthly payments of $2,000 were made from Princess Haifa's checking account to Majida Dwaikat, wife of Osama Bassnan. A Saudi national, Bassnan was living in San Diego last year and has been linked to Omar al Bayoumi, a Saudi student who befriended two men who wound up helping crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The sources also say that the ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, gave $15,000 to Bassnan.",9171,1003790,00.html

And Bush's buddy Prince Bandar? He's laughing at you as he describes here in 2007 that his Saudi Arabian intelligence assets were tracking all of the hijackers with precision..........

"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."

"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said.

According to Bob Graham co chairman of the joint Inquiry into 9/11.......

"Later, the FBI congressional affairs officer sent a letter to [co-chairman] Porter Goss and me, saying, "The administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source, nor did the administration agree to allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on the source." What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate."

Bush needs to go to prison just for this alone......

"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying."

"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset."
footnote 197 page 38/141

Republicans siding with Pelosi's position - too funny

Politics is making strange bedfellows. Russ Feingold, who I consider very ethical, wants prosecutions. OTOH, Republicans are siding with Pelosi on prosecutions - an thus Feingold, too.

Leahy is interviewed by Rachel Maddow here:

Some interesting discussion is at dailykos:

I read about half of it. The strongest argument against any sort of immunity is that it would set a legal precedent:

Apparently, most of the criticism has to do with whether immunity is granted, not that there can't be a truth commission as well as prosecution by the Department of Justice. A sort of middling position is that granting immunity only to lower level participants is optimal in terms of getting to the highest level participants. Some of the posters claim that Leahy, in fact, only intends to give immunity to lower level participants.

I still firmly support Leahy, even if he ends up giving immunity to everybody (for admitted offences -we're not talking amnesty). Call me cynical, but I have no faith in the Department of Justice. Yes, even under a Democratic President. A completely honest Department of Justice would go after both Democrats and Republicans. That would mean that Obama would get significant pushback from Congressional Democrats (not least of which would be Pelosi and Reid), not just Congressional Republicans. Considering that the nation is teetering on the brink of a Depression, creating a civil war within the Democratic Party could easily spell doom for Obama's ability to bring about significant change and avoid financial armegeddon, and guarantee that he's only a 1 term president. Note, in Maddow's presentation, the timing of the release of Bush Administration memos, via the Obama Administration, two days before the start of Leahy's hearing on the subject of the Truth commission.

With some trepidation, I also note that Wayne Madsen (who doesn't give sources, and can be very wrong) has recently reported that Obama worked for Business International Corporation (BIC), a CIA front, for a year he graduated, where he was sent to Pakistan on undisclosed business:

For one year, Obama worked as a researcher in BIC's financial services division where he wrote for two BIC publications, Financing Foreign Operations and Business International Money Report, a weekly newsletter.

An informed source has told WMR that Obama's tuition debt at Columbia was paid off by BIC. In addition, WMR has learned that when Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the 20-year-old Obama, who was known as "Barry Soetoro," traveled to Pakistan in 1981 and was hosted by the family of Muhammadmian Soomro, a Pakistani Sindh who became acting President of Pakistan after the resignation of General Pervez Musharraf on August 18, 2008. WMR was told that the Obama/Soetoro trip to Pakistan, ostensibly to go "partridge hunting" with the Soomros, related to unknown CIA business. The covert CIA program to assist the Afghan mujaheddin was already well underway at the time and Pakistan was the major base of operations for the CIA's support. Obama also reportedly traveled to India, again, on unknown business for U.S. intelligence. WMR has been told by knowledgeable sources that Obama has, in the past, traveled on at least three passports: U.S., Indonesian, and British.

BIC also maintained a European subsidiary, Business International S.A., in Geneva.

BIC had long been associated with CIA activities since being founded by Eldridge Haynes, a self-professed liberal Democrat.
At the very least, Obama helped in providing economic intelligence to the CIA as a contract employee. At most, Obama was, like previous BIC employees who operated abroad for the CIA, a full-fledged non-official cover (NOC) agent. Since President Obama has backpedaled on CIA renditions and torture, as well as warrantless electronic surveillance by U.S. intelligence, he owes the American people a full explanation of the circumstances behind his being hired by BIC, what his job actually entailed, and whether he continued to have a relationship with BIC or any other CIA operation while attending Harvard Law School and thereafter.

If Obama is soft on the CIA, is he really going to allow his Justice Department to go after CIA torturers? IMO, Obama is interested in neither a civil war with powerful Congressional Democrats, nor the CIA. In fact, I think the notion of Obama's Justice Department prosecuting Nancy Pelosi is absurd, not because it's not deserved, but because it's politically impossible. Politics "is the art of the possible", not the practice of principle. If it were the practice of principle, every living former US president would be brought up on war crime charges. That's because every living former US president likely is a war criminal - so says Noam Chomsky, and I agree with him.

If you want a principled government, well, you can't have one with the caliber of people in Washington, D.C. Ultimately, you have to wake the public up as to how bad things really are, while also prodding them to do more than vote every couple years, whine, and watch TV. If the public doesn't get sufficiently involved in politics to make sure ethical people get into office, then we deserve the creeps and crooks we get. Such is my philosophy, anyway. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't believe in the US Justice Department's dedication to justice, either. If you do, please listen to Katherine Austin Fitts explain her experiences with the Justice Department.

petitioning the people

i sure hope the families of those we lost on 9/11 will help win a YES referendum vote this November 3, 2009 in NYC, too. Leahy often says the right things, but when it comes down to doing anything of substance, he plays the game of politics. This is why as head of the Senate Judicial Committee, the imprisonment of Leonard Peltier continues, torture happened under his chair, and 9/11 continues to enable a criminal elements to continue pulling so-called 'representative government' strings.


Fit to transmit in the post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>

Leahy, Conyers - all of them

Leahy, Conyers - all of them - they are just playing their pre-arranged parts. The whole thing is rotten from within. It has to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch I'm afraid. This truth commission is just for show. It has nor will it have any teeth. It is in place to maintain the illusion that some sort of democracy exists.

"playing pre-arranged parts"?

There may be systemic rot, but this doesn't mean that "all of them" are "just playing their pre-arranged parts". I don't have problems believing in conspiracy theories, even when comprehensive, bulletproof facts are not available, and so I am making a probabilistic inference from the facts that are available. But monolithic conspiracy theories are a horse of another color.

Monolithic conspiracy theories are not just dis-empowering, they are at odds with known facts. You'd have to believe that the lives of public figures are an elaborate theatrical production, to make us think that there is factional infighting amongst elites, real efforts (however imperfect) to bring about reform, etc.

Found a 911Blogger Friendly (German) Site

Which runs a whole slew of blogger article including this one.