Flaws in the Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign by Erik Larson

911Blogger.com supports efforts to establish truth and justice concerning 9/11, including through fact-based research and investigation, and non-violent, sound activism, both within the system and by direct action. However, we are not supporting the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign (its stated goal is to use state ballot initiatives to establish a commission to investigate 9/11 and the aftermath) and we are unlikely to post submissions promoting it, in its current form. People have asked why 911Blogger has not been posting submissions concerning the Campaign; we have not been, due to various concerns that have been expressed by team members and others, which we believe are legitimate. To acknowledge 911Blogger's position on this issue, and in the interest of facilitating discussion of the Campaign, we are posting this critical essay by team member Erik Larson. Our concerns include points made by Larson, but, like all submissions posted at 911Blogger, publication of this essay should not be construed as an endorsement of it by 911Blogger.

We also wish to note that individuals involved in the Citizen's 9/11 Commission Campaign have made important contributions to society by exposing historical truths, such as Campaign founder Mike Gravel and Advisory Board member Cynthia McKinney. As a US Senator in 1971, Gravel read and entered 4100 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. As a US Representative in 2002, McKinney questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers about the 9/11 war games during Congressional hearings. McKinney also chaired the 2004 “9/11 Omissions Hearings” following publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, and the 2005 follow up hearings, The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later – A Citizens Response: Did The Commission Get It Right?, both of which documented important evidence through the testimony of credible witnesses.

The comments section below is open for thoughtful and civil discussion. Any comments made by 911blogger team members should be viewed as reflecting their own opinions, and not as the position of 911blogger.com.

-- 911Blogger Editorial Board

A new investigation of 9/11 is needed, as all investigations so far have been superficial or corrupted, and have failed to meaningfully address significant issues. However, the Commission proposed by the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign will be unable to meaningfully address these issues, and there are significant problems with the Campaign itself; this essay will address three. First, state authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation due to the ‘sovereign immunity’ of the US federal government. Second, the Campaign and proposed Commission are not structured in a way that makes them accountable to the public; mechanisms are not built in to ensure the public has adequate oversight of the course of investigation, the use of funds and those entrusted with responsibility for these things -- short of passing another ballot initiative, or petitioning their state legislature to act. Finally, the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations: The proposed Campaign promotes itself as a way to circumvent the federal government's failure to adequately investigate 9/11, but state-level authority does not meaningfully provide a way to do this. And, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Campaign and the Commission do not truly represent direct democracy, as the Campaign Steering Committee and Board of Directors are self-selected and the commissioners would by chosen by them, not by the people. The first two points will be addressed in separate sections below, and the third point will be addressed in both sections.

I. State authority will be of little value in a 9/11 investigation, and the Campaign has made inaccurate and misleading representations concerning what is possible and feasible for the proposed Commission to accomplish.

The 9-11cc.org FAQ: Is the Citizens 911 Commission Campaign’s approach legally sound? states that, "Legislative Counsels of the states of California and Oregon ... drafted the legal language," and that in the case of Massachusetts (where the ballot initiative was certified) "Several attorneys review [a proposed initiative] for the Attorney General, who then certifies it as legal and constitutional." Furthermore, "It is [Mike Gravel's] guess that more than ten attorneys in three states, who do nothing but review initiatives and draft legislation for their respective legislatures, have thus acknowledged the legality of our proposed 9-11 initiative." It may be the case that the initiatives comply with state legal and constitutional requirements, but this says nothing about a more important question; whether or not a state-level investigation has meaningful authority over federal government witnesses and records.

According to the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign FAQ: Who Chooses the New Commission? How Will It Operate? web page:

Q. Will the Commission have the power to subpoena suppressed evidence, like the videos of the Pentagon that have been classified and withheld by the FBI? Can we subpoena the CIA? The NSA? The Bush presidential archives? Can we call Bush to testify, or is he immune?

A. Yes, all of the above can be exercised by the Commission.

This answer is misleading. The states belonging to the federal union known as the USA do not have the power or authority to oversee the federal government, except through the members elected to Congress by those states. Subpoenas can be issued by a commission authorized to do under state law, but federal agencies are not obligated to comply with state subpoenas for federal records, due to the sovereign immunity of the US federal government:

The complete immunity of a federal agency from state interference is well established. United States v. Owlett, 15 F. Supp. 736, 741 - Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 1936

It has been long settled that the United States cannot be sued, either in federal court or in any state forum, unless it has waived sovereign immunity. … States and comparable entities are treated no differently than any other litigant. Indeed, the lower courts have repeatedly held that, absent a waiver, the United States cannot be forced to obey a subpoena issued by a state court, state grand jury, or state legislative committee. [emphasis added] Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. US, 490 F. 3d 50, 71 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2007

Persons no longer employed by the US government or not subpoenaed in their official capacity would be in a different situation, if subpoenaed to appear before a state commission and submit to questioning under oath. However, as the “Who Chooses” FAQ acknowledges, the Commission will have little recourse should they fail to appear:

The more likely scenario, however, is that certain individuals and agencies that the Commission subpoenas (presumably those with something to hide) will refuse to respond. Little can be done about this unless any one of these officials enters the state whose powers are used by the Commission to issue the subpoenas.

In addition to those with “something to hide,” other witnesses might decline to appear if they believe that doing so might have adverse consequences, such as on their career path within the Establishment, or otherwise.

A related issue concerns evidence currently classified under federal law; state authorities cannot declassify and release this information. A subpoena does not authorize a witness to disclose classified information to people not cleared to receive it. Doing so would put the witness in legal jeopardy, and, as we have seen from the US government’s response to the Wikileaks disclosures, the US government may consider information to be classified even when it’s publicly available.

A state-level investigative commission is not in a much better position than any other type of organization or even an individual, as far as securing access to records and testimony. Any member of the public (or an organization) can request Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of classified records, or request/sue for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An ever-growing number of 9/11-related government records obtained this way are available for free download at 911Datasets.org.

There are other problems limiting the already limited effectiveness that a state-level 9/11 investigation would have. Commissions are regularly authorized under federal and state laws to conduct investigations, and issue reports and recommendations. Sometimes a commission’s findings are influential and their recommendations are adopted, but in many cases they are challenged, or simply ignored, and ultimately have no substantive effect. This is frequently the case when the findings or recommendations are not favored by the economic, social and political elites that control the federal government, most state governments and most of the major media, as would be the case with any findings that undermine the official 9/11 narrative. As noted in the “Who Chooses” FAQ, “the report itself does not have binding legal power.” A state commission may find many experts and witnesses willing to give testimony under oath – many have spoken at many 9/11 conferences. However, it is questionable whether this would significantly increase the amount of consideration given to a commission’s findings. Referrals for indictments can be made, but state, federal or international prosecutors are under no obligation to pursue them, or to investigate.

On its About page, the Campaign implies the Commission would be "free of governmental interference." However, in most states, state legislatures can tamper with or overturn citizen initiatives. In Colorado, the primary state currently being targeted by the Campaign, an initiative can be overturned by a simple majority vote in the legislature. In North Dakota, a secondary target, a 2/3 majority is required. In Massachusetts, where the effort has been postponed until 2013/14, all that is needed is a simple majority. It might be argued that representatives in the legislature risk incurring the public's wrath by doing so, but a persuasive case could be made to the public that the initiative would be a waste of taxpayer resources, given states' lack of authority over the federal government. In Appendix A of the "Strategic Plan" the Campaign acknowledges some of this information, concerning some of the states addressed.

Most Establishment Democrats and Republicans and mainstream journalists are committed – either through ideology, corruption or moral/psychological weakness – to the official 9/11 myth and to Establishment rule/ideology in general. It is to be expected they will work to undermine voter support for a state-level 9/11 investigation prior to passage of a law, and, should a law be passed, to undermine the integrity of any new 9/11 investigation, as well as any findings produced that significantly contradict the official 9/11 myth – without regard to the facts or the public interest in truth and justice. Unless and until the People, in sufficient numbers, reject domination and control of government, economy and society by big business and elites, and replace the Establishment's federal representatives with true public servants, there is little possibility of an honest investigation of 9/11.

The “Who Chooses” FAQ acknowledges the limited potential effectiveness of the Commission with repeated references to the importance of “public opinion” and “public pressure.” However, the public can be mobilized to take action within or outside the system without a state-level commission, and there’s no evidence a largely ineffective commission would be conducive to educating, organizing or mobilizing the public concerning accountability for 9/11. Rather, a commission (and the campaign to create one), by requiring substantial time, energy, money and other resources from the public, will detract from potentially more effective efforts.

II. Contrary to representations that have been made, the Campaign and proposed Commission are not structured in a way that makes them publicly accountable, nor does the Commission truly represent direct democracy, as the commissioners would not be chosen by the people.

A short history of the Campaign's activities demonstrates why accountability and public oversight are needed: In October 2010, Mike Gravel began fund-raising for a 9/11 investigation by California state ballot initiative; at this time no draft initiative text or proposed outline for a commission/investigation had been publicly presented. By May 2011, according to draft minutes of a conference call, Mike Gravel was abandoning the California effort as it was "hard to do because persons being placed on a Commission required a constitutional change," and that Oregon and Alaska "were the focus efforts for the November 2012 election." In August 2011, the Campaign filed a petition for the 2012 election in Massachusetts, and during that time publicly stated it was seeking to raise $100,000 in conjunction with this effort. Recently, the Massachusetts effort was postponed to 2013/14, as there is neither time nor funds to gather the required number of signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Instead, the Campaign now seeks to raise $1.12 million to fund campaign signature gathering and promotion in Colorado and North Dakota. This apparent lack of foresight and preparation is disturbing -- and even more so as, currently, over $1 million is being solicited from the public.

The public that supports the Campaign and the proposed Commission has little to no oversight over either one, as they are currently organized. The Campaign Steering Committee and Board of Directors are currently composed of four self-selected members: Mike Gravel, Byron Belitsos, Ken Jenkins and George Ripley. According to the “Who Chooses” FAQ, these members will, at their discretion, “expand the Steering Committee to include the leaders of the initiative campaigns in the enacting states.” The “Who Chooses” FAQ also says the steering committee will choose the commissioners who will lead the 9/11 investigation. So does the petition filed in Massachusetts for 2012, which is a template for the Colorado and North Dakota initatives (see Appendix A, Strategic Plan), as well any other state the campaign targets -- including Massachusetts in 2013/14: “The Citizens 9/11 Investigation Commission Campaign Steering Committee, incorporated in the State of California, shall select 15 or more persons to serve as the initial members of the commission.” The Campaign has called this a “people’s investigatory Commission that is directly elected in a statewide election” (“Who Chooses” FAQ), but this characterization is inaccurate; the people are not electing the commission. Rather, the people would be passing, by popular vote, a law authorizing a self-selected group of people to select another group of people to lead the commission. As neither the Campaign nor the proposed Commission are directly elected by the public, the public has no way to hold them accountable -- such as by removing or replacing members -- for their conduct of the campaign, investigation, use of funds and representations made to the public.

According to its recently issued Strategic Plan, the Campaign is seeking to incorporate as a 501c4 non-profit organization, and will be posting its articles and by-laws at the website at some point. It has not disclosed whether it will be creating a membership process with the board of directors and steering committee subject to election; if it does, this would create a measure of accountability and public oversight for the Campaign. The Commission members, however, would still be accountable only to the Campaign. The Campaign has made some budgeting and accounting information available on its website, but it is not obligated to do so; if it succeeds in incorporating as a non-profit, it will be required to report certain kinds of financial and other information.

Another problem is that the initiative petitions, as drafted (see Strategic Plan, Appendix A and Massachusetts petition), do not require the proposed Commission’s administrative, financial and investigative records, or its meetings and hearings, to be open to the public; the text simply says the Commission is to issue a report, which is to include information in certain categories (see Section 2(4)). It may be that the respective states have disclosure and reporting requirements, but the interest of transparency and accountability, detailed disclosure and reporting requirements for a 9/11 investigative commission should be incorporated into any law authorizing one.

Even if the issues outlined in this Section II are adequately addressed, the effectiveness of a 9/11 investigation under state authority will be very limited, as established in Section I above. The main point of this section is to document that, despite the Campaign’s statements about direct democracy and people power, the organizers of the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign have not trusted the people with the power; instead, they have reserved it to themselves.

III. Conclusion

To summarize:

1) Regardless of what state an initiative is passed in, the commission proposed by the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign will be largely ineffective due to the US federal government’s sovereign immunity, and the discretion of state legislatures and attorneys general.

2) Even if a state investigation could be effective, the Campaign and proposed commission are not structured in a way that makes them publicly accountable. They do not truly represent direct democracy, or a circumvention of the Establishment and governmental processes.

3) The commission’s potential has been inaccurately represented by the Campaign. The law proposed would not well serve the cause of truth and justice for 9/11, and the Campaign and the Commission will consume a great deal of time, money and other resources, that would be better spent on educating, organizing and mobilizing the public to effect change through the system, and through non-violent direct action.

A new investigation of 9/11 is needed to establish truth and justice; to determine exactly what happened before, on and after the 9/11 attacks and who all the responsible parties are, and to hold them accountable. If the People take back control of the US government from the Establishment through the electoral process, this could be accomplished by a Congressional or criminal investigation. A truth and reconciliation commission is another option. At some point, if the balance of international power becomes more even, as a result of US economic decline and/or the development of other nations, an international coalition or court may be able compel disclosure and accountability concerning 9/11. This is an imperative for the international community as the false pretext of “9/11” has been used to justify the continuing ‘war on terror’, military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, and has led to the death of well over a million civilians, and the rendition, torture and indefinite detention of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people.

Various public opinion polls have shown there is broad dissatisfaction with the “two-party” monopoly, as well as broad skepticism regarding the official account of 9/11. A new investigation is not needed to understand that the official US government account of 9/11 is false, even fraudulent, and that the Establishment is unable or unwilling to confront this truth and establish justice. These websites provide plenty of evidence of this: The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by HistoryCommons.org; 911Research.WTC7.net; 911Review.com; STJ911.org; Journalof911Studies.com; AE911Truth.org. Simply acknowledging the inadequacy of the official account and calling for a new investigation undermines the Establishment’s mere appearance of legitimacy, and it reduces the power that “9/11” has over the human psyche. People can make decisions based on this knowledge, such as by boycotting Establishment politicians and media, and supporting alternatives through speaking, writing, voting, spending, organizing and other forms of activism.

See Each of our Individual Voices Is More Important Than We've Realized and The False Logic of Hopelessness (Why the Elephant Should Stand Up to the Mouse) by George Washington.

it sounds like...

you're going to take your ball and go home.

The Flaw with Blogger Team's "critique."

The fundamental flaw with this critique is that its sole intent appears to be to present opposition to the ballot initiative process for a proper investigation, rather than presenting alternatives on how to achieve a meaningful investigation. It would have been far more useful to everyone to point out where the initiative process is strong and where it is lacking regarding an investigation, so that we could learn more about what we need. Explaining only what we don't need has limited use.

The subpoena concerns are noteworthy and I think definitive response from the campaign is in order.

I think some definitions are in order if the Blogger Team is gonna be concluding what is, or is not, direct democracy, which even Gravel admits publicly that the initiative process only "approaches" direct participation in law making.

Since day one, the government has made it clear it has no intention to look into 9/11 wherever it may go. It's not gonna investigate itself. In the final analysis, the Blogger Team dismisses the whole process by concluding: "If the People take back control of the US government from the Establishment through the electoral process, this could be accomplished by a Congressional or criminal investigation,"

LOL

after telling us, "most establishment Democrats and Republicans ........ either through ideology, corruption or moral/psychological weakness....... will work to undermine ....any new 9/11 investigation." They sum up by saying "there is little possibility of an honest investigation of 9/11."

"NO investigation" is not an option for me and I'm supportive of anyone who commits the time and resources into bringing some sort of official investigation to fruition.

No one except Mike Gravel with his ballot initiative approach, and Michael Andregg with his call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, has suggested anything other than the same ole "Iran/contra-type" Hearings, which got us nowhere then and would get us nowhere, now.

I think we need more ideas and less criticism.

make your case

As was made clear in the editorial intro to this post, and by my name attached as author, this essay represents my views, not 911Blogger's views.

911Peacenik: "The subpoena concerns are noteworthy and I think definitive response from the campaign is in order."

Glad you think so; I agree.

As far as options for an honest investigation, I noted that a truth and reconciliation process is one, as well as replacing representatives of the Establishment w/ representatives of the people thru the electoral process. I also noted that non-violent direct action may be an option, though I'm unsure of what methods would be effective; the Occupy movement has definitely gotten the attention of the Establishment, the MSM and the public.

However, for many decades now, of those who turn out to vote in elections, the vast majority vote for the Establishment-approved Dems and Reps; not for the 3rd party candidates/indies who manage to clear the hurdles the Establishment has placed in the way, and get on the ballot in any particular state/district. In years when there's a presidential election, usually only about half of people eligible to vote turn out to do so; the rest are likely unconcerned about who gets to control the govt, or apathetic, given the futility of a fake choice between the two sides of the Corporate-War party. This, even though polling has shown about half of Americans are interested in a full 9/11 investigation.

Given this is the electorate's level of understanding/involvement, it seems the main task is still educating people, while continuing to do independent research.

911Peacenik; If you think this Campaign and the ballot initiative process are the thing to do, make a case for it, and answer the points made in my essay.

my case

I'm not at all optimistic that any time soon, congress, thru any electoral pressure, would even take up the matter, and even if they did, the definition and scope of a commission would be determined by "congress." The initiative process in the varying forms it's being proposed, retains all of that power in the hands of those who initiated process in the first place, should it ever become law in a given jurisdiction. This is important power to retain regarding forming a commission, even without full knowledge of how we might get the practical opportunity to exercise that power. We don't wanna be grappling for the right to that power once a "commission" is already established and handed to the public.

In weighing potential outcomes, I look at both the Garrison and Pepper trials and see the potential for a similar case coming out of this initiative process. One might argue that in the end, neither the Garrison nor Pepper outcomes "succeeded" in bringing justice to JFK and MLK, but would I forgo an opportunity to have a similar trial regarding 9/11? I asked Cynthia McKinney after the press conference, "given the lack of any real justice with regard to the Pepper trial, about which you are very intimate, why do you think we would have a potentially better outcome with 9/11?," to which she said, " They made too many mistakes with 9/11."

I want Cynthia occupying a top seat on my commission.

There are also public relations factors to consider. A successful ballot initiative in even just one state would show 9/11 truth to have both political savvy and financial clout. If you wanna get "mainstream" anything to pay attention, you need both.

Above all, I agree with the imperative nature of Gravel's thesis. In a nutshell, he's saying we have amassed an amazing body of analysis and advocates, but without anything actionable, we're just spinning our wheels. As a movement, we need to take the initiative for a new commission upon ourselves for it to happen. (I'd also add that the longer you spin your wheels, the deeper the rut gets). The Gravel model gives us the legal framework to do that at a lot of levels, as the Mass. AG's approval demonstrates.

Regarding "who" is gonna oversee and provide input into a new commission? I don't fret the details. In that regard I default to my impressions of the academics and researchers and other notable people who endorse this process and the experience Gravel brings from his work with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

You mentioned replacing candidates and other actions that can be done to change the political climate. Both that and the Gravel initiative each require big $$$. I am in the camp that believes if we're gonna spend $$ in the political arena, I'd rather see it spent for a 9/11-specific project. And as much as the political climate is in a turbulent state, I don't see the main power structures changing in the next few years.

So the question becomes what kind of pressure can we put on the power structures that exist today and what is the mechanism?

The Gravel initiative is the only thing on the table that addresses that concern and it's not that bad, and the more I ponder that concern, the more important and immediate it becomes.

There are a lot of people who are concerned about spending big $$$ since generally, 9/11 truth is not a big budget operation. I don't think there is any misconception among the people who are donating. They understand they are playing the game of politics and what the risks are.

I don't know what else to say.

(note: point taken on referencing Blogger Team, but, truthfully, I find this charade of having a team member write something to help explain 9/11 Blogger's position and then not endorsing the explanation to be evasive, at the very least)

my response

911Peacenik - you partially quoted parts of two places where I stated it - and I repeated this in my comment you've replied to - but I'm not suggesting that the current make up of Congress would honestly investigate 9/11. I'm saying the US Congress has the power to do so, and that for Congress to exercise this power/authority requires electing people to Congress who have integrity. Unfortunately, as I noted in my comment, the vast majority of people that vote, are voting for people who have no interest in investigating 9/11, or are interested in perpetuating the cover up. This is probably cuz they're misinformed about 9/11, or in the grand scheme of things they believe other things are more important.

You've avoided commenting on the fact that a state investigation would not have authority to compel the production of federal witnesses and documents, which would severely limit its ability to get at the truth. You've also avoided commenting on all the other problems I documented in the essay. It seems like you're satisfied to simply trust the people doing this, and try it and see what happens. Considering the history of bungling, disruption and mis/disinfo the 9/11 truth movement has experienced (in addition to the creative, credible and powerful efforts which have obviously disturbed the Establishment and educated many people, such as the campaign by the Jersey Girls which got the Establishment to put itself on record with the superficial and corrupt account known as the 9/11 Commission Report), it seems to me that trusting people and just trying stuff is unwise. Activism should be sound, reasonable, prudent, well-thought out and planned, with contingencies prepared for - especially when people are asked to donate time and money.

A great deal of damning evidence has already been accumulated, that undermines or disproves the official account, and points to the involvement of other parties, in some cases specific people; I provided links to websites and there are books, too, such as War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, Road to 9/11 by Peter Dale Scott and Disconnecting the Dots by Kevin Fenton.

As I pointed out in my essay, "A new investigation is not needed to understand that the official US government account of 9/11 is false, even fraudulent, and that the Establishment is unable or unwilling to confront this truth and establish justice." and "A new investigation of 9/11 is needed to establish truth and justice; to determine exactly what happened before, on and after the 9/11 attacks and who all the responsible parties are, and to hold them accountable."

It may be that a state law could be passed that does good, w/o an investigation at all. For instance, a law requiring certain 9/11 facts to be taught in public schools, and courses offered at public universities. Maybe a law barring the state from cooperating with the federal government based on certain bogus representations that have been made about 9/11, and requiring the state to demand the federal government prove certain claims. I don't know; this seems like something legal and political experts would be able to advise on, and it would be worth asking some.

Finally, your statement: "I find this charade of having a team member write something to help explain 9/11 Blogger's position and then not endorsing the explanation to be evasive, at the very least." There's two parts to this blog post: First, there's a 911Blogger editorial statement; this explains the position of 911Blogger on the Campaign/Commission and my essay, and was approved by team consensus. Second, there's my essay, which I decided to write on my own initiative and represents my views, though it was reviewed by team members prior to publication and I incorporated some helpful suggestions. Also, as was noted in the 911Blogger editorial comment, comments by team members represent our own views. If any other team member wishes to comment, they will. You're reading something into this that isn't there.

Thanks.

Loose Nuke, thanks for saying this, it's worth repeating:

Considering the history of bungling, disruption and mis/disinfo the 9/11 truth movement has experienced (in addition to the creative, credible and powerful efforts which have obviously disturbed the Establishment and educated many people, such as the campaign by the Jersey Girls which got the Establishment to put itself on record with the superficial and corrupt account known as the 9/11 Commission Report), it seems to me that trusting people and just trying stuff is unwise. Activism should be sound, reasonable, prudent, well-thought out and planned, with contingencies prepared for - especially when people are asked to donate time and money.

And I should also say I appreciate the blog post too. This is very informative and I hope that the many good people on the Citizens Commission team take it as constructive criticism.

re:

Working backward from your last comment, let me clarify. Yes, this is a special post with two parts., Why does this subject need this special treatment? You've admitted, in detail, that this post is a collaboration between you and the rest of the team. When is the "team" gonna stand up and defend its policy on this subject? Your essay did not come out of a vacuum. It's the love child of 911Bloggers policy on the Gravel initiative. Any comments I make are directed to you and what you and the team consulted on, wrote and published.

Yes, Congress has the power to conduct a comprehensive investigation. Likewise, so too do all of the departments and agencies have mechanisms to conduct internal investigations without congressional approval. So what? The fundamental question is: Do we want a new investigation and who do we want in-charge of that investigating body? If, as a movement, we don't want or need an investigation, then we should stop calling for one, and chide and redirect everyone who is.

No, I am not avoiding the issue of state limitations and federal immunity. I admitted earlier that the subpoena question is noteworthy and needs to be addressed. But, scientists from MIT and Worcester Poly Tech don't have that immunity. Officials and employees from Massport, which owns and operates Logan airport are not federally protected. Mass State police, which at the time of 9/11 were the primary security at Logan are State cops. That's just a small sample from one state, We haven't even begun to explore what's available with the powers we definitely would have with a number of states on board,

No, I am not going to address your points one by one because I don't consider this to be a comprehensive evaluation of the ballot initiative process, describing both its potentials and limitations and because most of what you have to say can be boiled down to 2 or 3 main points, which I've tried to address.

One of the problems with this rhetorical conversation is that there is an underlying miss-belief that all of the research and outreach activism we are doing now is mutually exclusive to the initiative process -- that we can't move forward with something like the ballot initiative without giving up what we are doing now. That's not true and not preferable. Both can happen at the same time. No one is talking about completely refocusing our activism, per se. I look at it more like a process where our activism feeds into an actionable plan that's IN MOTION. The reason it's so expensive is because the plan calls for professionals to collect the requisite signatures. Everyone I've talked to with ballot question experience agrees that that's the right approach....... pay to get the signatures. Similarly, the primary funding will have to come from large donors, which Gravel is committed to solicit personally. It's not like we're gonna have to dip into our DVD budget to donate to the initiative, though all donations would be welcome.

You're right, "A new investigation is not needed to understand that the official US government account of 9/11 is false." A new investigation is needed to find out what's true and properly address the injustice perpetuated by the lies and cover ups. I guess a lot of this depends on what your goals are.

my response 2

"No, I am not avoiding the issue of state limitations and federal immunity. I admitted earlier that the subpoena question is noteworthy and needs to be addressed."

My comment about "avoiding" was in reply to your previous comment, where you did not address this issue, despite having had time to look into it after acknowledging it was important in your comment before that. In my essay, I quoted a court case from 1936 that said, "The complete immunity of a federal agency from state interference is well established." You also have not addressed the fact of the misleading/inaccurate info that has been put out; for instance, the Campaign saying the FBI, CIA, NSA and Bush archives can be subpoenaed (they did acknowledge a state subpoena of Bush would be effectively moot unless he went to that state).

"But, scientists from MIT and Worcester Poly Tech don't have that immunity. Officials and employees from Massport, which owns and operates Logan airport are not federally protected. Mass State police, which at the time of 9/11 were the primary security at Logan are State cops."

This is an argument in favor of an initiative in MA; not CO or ND. And I'm not sure why you're suggesting subpoena MIT/WPT scientists; as expert witnesses, or do you think they're part of the conspiracy or what? And while some important new info might come out of Logan/MA State police records/witnesses, and a full investigation should pursue this angle, I'm not convinced it makes sense for a citizen investigation to spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on an investigation which will only be able to pursue this angle, plus get the testimony of willing expert witnesses, when the federal govt can't be touched.

"No, I am not going to address your points one by one because I don't consider this to be a comprehensive evaluation of the ballot initiative process, describing both its potentials and limitations and because most of what you have to say can be boiled down to 2 or 3 main points, which I've tried to address."

This is essentially a concession of the 3 main points and all the related subpoints in my essay.

"One of the problems with this rhetorical conversation is that there is an underlying miss-belief that all of the research and outreach activism we are doing now is mutually exclusive to the initiative process -- that we can't move forward with something like the ballot initiative without giving up what we are doing now."

I've never argued it's mutually exclusive. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to invest huge amounts of time, energy and money on projects that are unable to get meaningful results. Also, the fact that the Campaign has represented the Commission as being able to accomplish more than it can, that they are reserving control to themselves, and that they began raising money before having a sufficient understanding of state and budget requirements is disturbing.

"The reason it's so expensive is because the plan calls for professionals to collect the requisite signatures."

For CO, the Commission is budgeting $300K to get sigs. To successfully get voters to vote for it will require a promotional campaign; the Campaign is budgeting $25K/mo for 6 mo.; $150K. This is fine, but if they're going to making misrepresentations to voters about what the Commission can accomplish, it's not. It would be interesting to know how they arrived at the figure and what exactly it would be spent on, but that's a minor point compared with the fact that a CO investigation won't be able to accomplish much of anything meaningful.

That's $450K; the Campaign aims to raise $1.12 mil; what's the rest going to pay for? $100K for ND, $110K for a professional fundraiser, $92,600 for a campaign manager and assistant, $37,700 for meals/travel/car rental/accomdations, and $200K for "reserves", among other things. http://www.webcitation.org/62vzxZ9qU And, like 911Artists below, I'd be interested in knowing the names of the "consultant(s)" who got $9K in Sept (and $5K in Aug), and what services they provided in exchange for these fees.

"So what? The fundamental question is: Do we want a new investigation and who do we want in-charge of that investigating body?"

Again; the point is with the Campaign's investigation, they're in charge (you/we aren't), and the proposed investigative body will have no meaningful authority, so even if we were in charge, there's no point in doing the kind of investigation proposed, though, as I noted, it's possible a state law might be good for something.

NY State and NY City Investigation Can Yield Results

Although the ballot initiative process may not generate an investigation by NY authorities, continued public pressue could. NY authorities have the power to fully investigate who was doing what within the WTC pre-9/11.

As for details surrounding the accused and the suspect military response to the attacks, this evidence lies within the federal domain controlled by federal figures.

Public pressue aimed at moving NY authorities to investigate the evidence of WTC foul play seems like the option most likely to succeed short-term.

NY State and NY City Investigations

NY State has jurisdiction to investigate murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter and fraud. NY City crimes would include property destruction, pollution, creating a public nuisance, and perhaps some kinds of fraud.

NY State has no ballot initiative process, but NY City does; if a ballot initiative petition were narrowly focused on investigating crimes and other aspects that specifically concern the city, some new evidence might be uncovered and certain facts and evidence could be documented as official findings. If it can be documented that the official version of events is false, let alone documentation of facts/evidence pointing to parties other than those named so far, then the question becomes 'who's responsible?' This could be used to create pressure to investigate the aspects of 9/11 NY State and the federal govt have jurisdiction over.

One of the major flaws of the NYCCAN petition is that it proposed to investigate things NYC has no jurisdiction over. There were 4? other reasons the Clerk denied it, and I believe the judge ruled the Clerk was correct in all of these. The two lawyers involved, William Pepper and Carl Persons, really should have known better; especially Persons, as he had experience w/ NYC ballot initiatives.

However, as all these govts are controlled by people who've demonstrated disinterest/reluctance/resistance to investigating 9/11, it seems it would be necessary to replace most of the people in power before an honest investigation could occur.

After the 9/11 Commission Report was released, http://www.justicefor911.org commissioned the 2004 Zogby NY poll, circulated a petition, compiled a damning and credible report, submitted it as a complaint to then-AG Eliot Spitzer and lobbied him to open a criminal investigation, which he blew off. And Spitzer is someone who incurred the wrath of Wall Street and the Republican machine by investigating and prosecuting corporate crime, and some of their operatives apparently discovered his hooker habit after he became governor and used it to take him down. Spitzer also had conflicts of interest due to his association w/ Dietrich Snell.

I so agree !!! ... and disagree !!

I so agree.

There is no real likelihood of any in-the-system solutions working. The current establishment are simply not going to properly investigate themselves ... and their cronies in the media are not going to report anything contrary. And lets face it, after years of blatantly obvious evidence available and their inaction and worse, they all know they are guilty. The up and coming establishment are not going to shoot themselves in the foot either. They got where they are by playing ball and they see no reason to change now. They wanna ride this gravy train, not tear it down.

I disagree.

Since no one supports using force, the only thing these corrupt people respect, then we ought to try anything reasonable. Yes, this plan needs tweaked a bit, but it is something that helps the movement build credibility and excitement. No, I'm not going to blow a big portion of my truthing time & money resources on it ... but some.

Dark comment

Loose nuke, you say, "A truth and reconciliation commission is another option. At some point, if the balance of international power becomes more even, as a result of US economic decline and/or the development of other nations, an international coalition or court may be able compel disclosure and accountability concerning 9/11."

Anyone willing to look at the evidence will be forced to surmise that our main intelligence agencies had a major hand in this -- in apparent collusion with the intelligence agencies of other nations such as, evidently, the Saudi and Pakistani if not also the Israeli.

That being an evident fact, it does strike me that no investigation can happen at all which might threaten the hegemony of the intelligence establishment -- so long as it has hegemony, which it surely does now.

If this is so, then we would have to look for a way to dis-establish the intelligence establishment.

Good luck. JFK hoped for the same, I gather.

Didn't someone say one cannot have a democracy and also have a secret organization like that? It may have been JFK. An organization with secret funding, fabulous powers, and no meaningful or democratic oversight?

Who can pretend to oversee those folks? No one can try it who wants to continue living. Logic tells me that no president has a shred of hope to oversee the intelligence agencies. Certainly no congressional committee can do it or even hope to do it. I doubt the various appointees supposedly in charge are in fact in charge.

Pardon me for the dark comment. I hope others see a way out of this since I do not. If the topic represents a new thread, or is not quite related to this thread, please pardon that too.

we are too few to neglect even questionnable efforts

considered from Europe, France, even if we must pay attention to it, this opinion seems to harm the International Movement more than provide a useful tool to step forwards. I can only consider the "unhappy few" we are around the world, to feel a bit more unhappy when I read this. Wouldn't it be more suitable to write with a more constructive state of mind ?

I subscribe to the author's legitimate concern, but I can't subscribe to 911blogger decision. We are only a few, and every effort has to focus on the cause itself, not on internal concerns.

Besides, such an initiative constitutes the only one way to directly involve a much broader public, than what truthers usually do, ie the usual "happy few" who, most of the time, talk together and gather consciensiously or passionately in ritual screenings or conferences instead of spreading the cause among the general public ( a much harder task, i fully agree ).

And finally, Would this initiative fail, that the attraction it will potentially create towards the international truth movement is already a sign of success. M. Gravel is a respectable former Senator, whose expertise at public administration and law issues just can't be neglected , should it just scratch the surface of Justice, the only one aspect of 911 that is more relevant than educating, but much harder to deal with I agree too.

cheers everybody,

BR, reopen911.info member

What is it?

I heard Mike Gravel say that he was working with David Ray Griffin on the Citizen’s 9-11 Commission Campaign in person when he spoke in Los Angeles last year. Also, it seems clear at http://davidraygriffin.org/ that Ken Jenkins and David Ray Griffin are in the 9-11 Truth business together. I don’t think that http://9-11cc.org/ mentions David Ray Griffin’s involvement. What is it?

Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/

http://9-11cc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/statementofactivities093011.html
[QUOTING 9-11CC.ORG]

Professional Fee - Consulting 9,169.15

[END QUOTE]

That’s donation money. That's one of the most absurd, infuriating, and telling things I’ve ever seen. I’m so disgusted that’s all I want to do on this right now. Someone please find out who that money went to and for what. Also, Peter Phillips is on the endorsement page. It’s my guess and my hope that he doesn’t know what’s going on. Someone please inform him.

∎∎

Open Letter to Peter Phillips Regarding the Citizen’s 9-11 Commission Campaign

Mr. Phillips, where did that $9,169.15 go?

http://9-11cc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/statementofactivities093011.html

Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/

9-11cc.org down; Gravel took funds, split w/ board

Jan 21 email from the remaining members of the 9-11cc.org board:
http://en-gb.facebook.com/world911truth/posts/418782234990

Feb 2-3 email response by Gravel:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48166#48166

Gravel,

Thanks for sharing the response from Mike.

I heard about this from Ken the other day, I had not seen or heard of Gravels response.

Another lesson for the movement. Stop promoting circuses.

Liar and Thief

What the Hell, Mike Gravel? Former Senator Leaves 9/11 Group, Takes Donations With Him.

http://norcaltruth.org/2012/02/26/what-the-hell-mike-gravel/

MG

Serious threat to the establishment
He could engineer a new investigation
His reply to charges clears issue up for me
unleash the trolls!