Staffers, 9/11 Commission raised concern about intimidation

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Staffers, 9/11 Commission raised concern about intimidation

Postby Uncle $cam » Sat May 02, 2009 3:49 am

Newly Released Memo: Government 'Minders' at 9/11 Commission Interviews 'Intimidated' Witnesses
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Newl ... 8-407.html

Staffers on 9/11 Commission raised concern about intimidation of witnesses by govt "minders," who accompanied witnesses to interviews and sometimes answered questions for the witnesses. A recently-released memo.

... minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements” ... “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.”


Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”


Information was also controlled by the Commission's Exec Director Phillip Zellikow, later Rice's aide at State, who forbade direct staff contact with commissioners, insisting that all contact be funnelled through his office.

A recently released 9/11 Commission memo highlights the role of government “minders” who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives’ files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.

The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” complains that:
Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and
Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”

The memo was drafted by three staffers on the commission’s Team 2, which reviewed the overall structure of the US intelligence community. One of the drafters was Kevin Scheid, a senior staffer who led the team. His co-writers were Lorry Fenner, an air force intelligence officer, and lawyer Gordon Lederman. The complaint was sent to the commission’s counsels, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne, in October 2003, about halfway through the commission’s 19-month life.

The memo makes clear that the problems were not occurring only with witnesses talking to Team 2, but also in “other teams’ interviews.” A hand-written note on a draft of the memo says, “not one agency or minder – also where we’ve sat in on other Teams’ interviews.”



According to the memo, some minders merely policed prior agreements between the commission and their parent agency about what the commission could ask witnesses, and others were simply there to make a list of documents the commission might want based on a witness’ testimony. However, some minders saw their role differently.

Intimidation through Physical Positioning

The three staffers argued minders should not answer questions for witnesses because they needed to understand not how the intelligence community was supposed to function, but “how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality.” However: “When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”

The memo also describes the minders’ conduct in detail: “… [M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”

The staffers also worried about minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements,” as they thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.” They believed that “the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”

Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”

Proposals

In response to this, the three staffers proposed not that minders be banned from interviews, but a set of rules governing minders’ conduct. For example, minders were to keep a “low profile,” sit out of witnesses’ sight, not take verbatim notes and not answer any questions directed at the witnesses.

Perhaps the most remarkable proposal is that the number of minders be limited to one per witness. The memo indicates that where an interviewee had served in multiple agencies, more than one minder would accompany the witness. The memo therefore requests, “Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies,” meaning a witness would at least not be outnumbered by his minders.

False Statement by Chairman Kean

Commission Chairman Tom Kean, a Republican, first raised the issue of minders in a press briefing in early July 2003 . He said, “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency. You might get less testimony than you would.”

He was asked about the minders again on September 23 at another press briefing. Instead of saying the minders represented “intimidation,” he commented: “Talking to staff, what they have told me is that as they’ve done these interviews, that the interviewees are encouragingly frank; that they by and large have not seemed to be intimidated in any way in their answers. … I’m glad to hear that it’s — from the staff that they don’t feel it’s inhibiting the process of the interviews.”

P2

The commission’s Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, commented, “it is our feeling that thus far, the minders have not been an impediment, in almost all cases.” He added that there were “one or two instances where the question has arisen,” but, “neither are we aware at this point that the presence of a minder has substantially impeded our inquiry. And nor have we run into a situation where we think a witness has refrained from speaking their minds.”

However, the Team 2 memo, sent a mere nine days after Kean and Hamilton’s remarks, shows Kean’s statements to have been untrue. The memo even referenced “Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses” in the title, contained unusually strong language and was co-drafted by a leader of one of the commission’s teams.

Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Kean and Hamilton made the false statements knowingly. One of the criticisms at the commission was that the ten commissioners were cut off from the body of the staff, and all information that flowed from the staff to the commissioners went through the commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow.

Author Philip Shenon, who wrote a history of the commission, found that at the start of the commission’s work Zelikow drafted a welcome memo containing ground rules for staffers, such as not talking to journalists. One of the rules was that the staff should not talk freely to the commissioners. If a staffer were contacted by a commissioner, he should not deal with the commissioner himself, but contact Zelikow or his deputy, who would then “be sure that the appropriate members of the commission’s staff are responsive.”



This rule was rescinded after complaints from some of the commissioners, including former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Nevertheless, Zelikow’s control of information continued. When the commission’s counterterrorism team found a draft of the final report to be overly deferential to the FBI, they did not launch a formal objection to the draft’s language though the commission’s bureaucracy, but a female staffer cornered Gorelick “where Zelikow would not see it”–in the ladies room.



---
here's the memo:

Mail:: Sent Items: Memo concerning Exec. Br. "minders"

Page 1 of 1

95.96MB /476.84MB (20.12%) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:23:52 -0400 From: "" <glederman@9-11commission.gov>^ To: "" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov><P,"" <sdunne@9-11commission.gov>4| Cc: "" <kscheid@9-11commission.gov>^,"" <lfenner@9-11commission.gov># Subject: Memo concerning Exec. Br. "minders"
Part(s):

[ip] 2 Memo on Minders' conduct 10-02-2003.doc application/msword 23.27 KB | U

Dan and Steve,

Per your request, attached is a memorandum concerning the effect of minders' presence at our interviews. The memorandum also contains suggested principles to govern minders in the future. Best regards, Gordon

http://kmesis.swishmail.com./webmail/im ... =INBOX.S... 10/2/03

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

TO: FROM: DATE: RE:

Dan Marcus and Steve Dunne Kevin Scheid, Col. Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman October 2, 2003 Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses

During the course of Team 2's and other teams' interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch's representatives ("minders") at those interviews. First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders' purpose in our interviews. Agencies' perspectives include: (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission's inquiry; (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses' verbatim responses; (4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as recorders of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders' presence at interviews. Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses' responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community's actual functioning and witnesses' view of their roles and responsibilities. Third, minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses' statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders' conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders' verbatim notetaking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission's lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly. We request that you raise the subject of minders' conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from comporting themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders' roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

Principles Governing Executive Branch Representatives Attending Interviews Conducted By The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States (1) The purpose of having Executive Branch representatives ('minders') attend interviews is to ensure that Commission staffs' questions are within areas of inquiry negotiated between the Administration and the Commission. If a minder believes that a question violates that agreement, then that minder should object immediately. (2) Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies. Commission staff may question such a witness during one interview about his or her service at any of those agencies. The Executive Branch shall ascertain prior to each interview whether the witness has served in more than one agency and shall decide which agency shall send a minder to attend the interview. (3) The Ambassador or the Deputy Chief of Mission shall designate the minder for consultations between Commission staff and foreign governments representatives outside of the United States. The Department of State shall designate the minder for such consultations within the United States. Commission staff may invite other Executive Branch representatives to attend such consultations. (4) Former employees of the Executive Branch may elect to have a minder from the Executive Branch attend their interview. (5) Commission staff shall begin the interview at the scheduled time and need not wait for a tardy minder. (6) Minders may not answer questions directed at the witnesses. A minder wishing to convey information to Commission staff shall do so in writing after the interview. (7) Minders shall keep a 'low profile' during the interview, such as by positioning themselves behind the witnesses so that the witnesses cannot see them. In any event, minders shall sit where directed by Commission staff. (8) Minders may not take verbatim notes of interviews, and Commission staff will so inform the witnesses. (9) If a witness wishes to consult with the minder, then the witness may request a momentary pause of the interview. (10) If a minder violates any of these provisions, then Commission staff may suspend and reschedule the interview and bar that minder from any future interviews.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

TO: FROM: DATE: RE:

Dan Marcus and Steve Dunne Kevin Scheid, Col. Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman October 2, 2003 Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses

During the course of Team 2's interviews and interviews led by other teams, we have observed three trends with respect to the Executive Branch's 'minders.' First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders' purpose. Agencies' perspectives include: (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission's inquiry; (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses' verbatim responses; (4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as recorders of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. Confusion surrounding the minders' purpose leads to ambiguity regarding the rules governing minders' conduct and, as we detail below, has permitted minders to intimidate witnesses and to obstruct the Commission's inquiry; ujlu.<:{6-^ f<*&t^j£f"<m'~/£~7 <?-<- ^/ . Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses' responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community's actual functioning and witnesses' view of their roles and responsibilities. Third, minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses' statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders' conduct is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with our ability to elicit witnesses' full and candid responses. Moreover, we believe that the minders' verbatim note-taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission's lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare^witnesses either explicitly or implicitly. We request that you raise the subject of minders' conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from comporting themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might govern minders' conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you. ) ^

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

Principles Governing Executive Branch Representatives Attending Interviews Conducted By The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States (1) The purpose of having Executive Branch representatives ('minders') attend interviews is to ensure that Commission staffs' questions are within areas of inquiry negotiated between the Administration and the Commission. If a minder believes that a question violates that agreement, then that minder should object immediately. (2) Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies. Commission staff may question such a witness during one interview about his or her service at any of those agencies. The Executive Branch shall ascertain prior to each interview whether the witness has served in more than one agency and shall decide which agency shall send a minder to attend the interview. (3) The Ambassador or the Deputy Chief of Mission shall designatethe minder for consultations between Commission staff and foreign govem|nents4epf esentatives«, ontiidp of the United Stntoo: Thc-Depdilmeiil of State shall designate Hie mindci1 for such conoultatiuns wilhin the Uniied States. Commission staff may invite other Executive Branch representatives to attend such consultations^ <$&t^ & (4) Former employees of the Executive Branch may elect to have a minder from the Executive Branch attend their interview. (5) Commission staff shall begin the interview at the scheduled time and need not wait for a tardy minder. (6) Minders may not answer questions directed at the witnesses. A minder wishing to convey information to Commission staff shall do so in writing after the interview. (7) Minders shall keep a 'low profile' during the interview, such as by positioning themselves behind the witnesses so that the witnesses cannot see them. In any event, minders shall sit where directed by Commission staff. (8) Minders may not take verbatim notes of interviews, and Commission staff will so inform the witnesses. (9) If a witness wishes to consult with the minder, then the witness may request a momentary pause of the interview. (10) If a minder violates any of these provisions, then Commission staff may suspend and reschedule the interview and bar that minder from any future interviews.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE Dan and Steve As we discussed with you, during the course of our interviews Team 2 has observed two trends with respect to the Executive Branch's 'minders.' First, the minders have on occasion answered questions directed to the witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted the witnesses' responses by referencing formal policies and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding n^ the Intelligence Community's actual functioning^ c*&^ c»>**<uuOleto£<?<&' -Kn**x*LvA€«3 *^ Second, the minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to the witnesses that the minders are participants in the interviews and are of equal status to the witnesses. Moreover, the minders take verbatim notes of witnesses' statements, which we believe conveys to the witnesses that their statements will be reviewed by their superiors and may result in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders' conduct is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with our ability to elicit witnesses' full and candid responses. Moreover, we believe that the minders' verbatim note-taking*facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission's lines of inquiry^permits agencies to prepare witnesses either explicitly or implicitlyXand will give agencies the opportunity to prepare responses to what they foresee are the Commission's likely conclusions and recommendationsT We request that you raise the subject of minders' conduct with the Administration in order to prevent minders from comporting themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the following statement of principles for minders' conduct might be useful to you in this regard: (1) Minders are present at interviews in order to ensure that Commission staffs questions are within areas of inquiry negotiated between the Administration and the Commission. If minders believe that a question strays into an area outside of that agreement, then the minder should raise an objection with the Commission staff. The staff and the minders will then discuss the objection, and the staff may suspend and reschedule the interview if the matter is not resolved immediately. (2) Minders may not answer any questions directed at witnesses. If a minder answers a question directed at a witness, then (a) the staff will suspend and reschedule the interview, and (b) that minder will be barred from attending any interviews. If the minder has information that he or she wishes to convey to the staff that may help the staff, the minder shall do so in writing after the interview^fe-. (3) Minders should keep a 'low profile' during the interview, such as by positioning themselves behind the witnesses so that they are not seen by the witnesses. The

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE minder shall sit where directed by Commission staff and shall move if the Commission staff objects to a minder's placement. (4) Minders may not take verbatim notes of interviews, and Commission staff will so inform witnesses at the beginning of each interview. If the minder does take verbatim notes, then (a) the staff will suspend and reschedule the interview, and (b) that minder will be barred from attending any interviews. (5) If a witnesses wishes to consult with the minder, the witness may request that the interview be paused momentarily. We look forward to your assistance on this matter. Thank you.

^SS^jZjfJ

, ^^T-^^ <irt,ridie

,£W* *-"•*fp<&r?

^(L^l^^~-

. <te£c-&r" **~ , ^ ^ ^f^^^«&^^).

(7

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

TO: FROM: DATE: RE:

Dan Marcus and Steve Dunne Kevin Scheid, Col. Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman October 2, 2003 Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses

During the course of Team 2's and other teams' interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch's representatives ("minders") at those interviews.
/-t*^ 0^*^l uUA.J-O^CM

First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders' purpose^ Agencies' perspectives include: (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission's inquiry; (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses' verbatim responses; (4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as recorders of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff, obstrucL"the y or not.^ u)u ju-*m**4 4
-H»j a.svA** e^L*. a

Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses' responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community's actual functioning and witnesses' view of their roles and responsibilities. Third, minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses' statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders' conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders' verbatim notetaking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission's lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly. We request that you raise the subject of minders' conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from comporting themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders' roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

»/ j ... . *

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

Principles Governing Executive Branch Representatives Attending Interviews Conducted By The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States (1) The purpose of having Executive Branch representatives ('minders') attend interviews is to ensure that Commission staffs' questions are within areas of inquiry negotiated between the Administration and the Commission. If a minder believes that a question violates that agreement, then that minder should object immediately. (2) Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies. Commission staff may question such a witness during one interview about his or her service at any of those agencies. The Executive Branch shall ascertain prior to each interview whether the witness has served in more than one agency and shall decide which agency shall send a minder to attend the interview. (3) The Ambassador or the Deputy Chief of Mission shall designate the minder for consultations between Commission staff and foreign governments representatives outside of the United States. The Department of State shall designate the minder for such consultations within the United States. Commission staff may invite other Executive Branch representatives to attend such consultations. (4) Former employees of the Executive Branch may elect to have a minder from the Executive Branch attend their interview. (5) Commission staff shall begin the interview at the scheduled time and need not wait for a tardy minder. (6) Minders may not answer questions directed at the witnesses. A minder wishing to convey information to Commission staff shall do so in writing after the interview. (7) Minders shall keep a 'low profile' during the interview, such as by positioning themselves behind the witnesses so that the witnesses cannot see them. In any event, minders shall sit where directed by Commission staff. (8) Minders may not take verbatim notes of interviews, and Commission staff will so inform the witnesses. (9) If a witness wishes to consult with the minder, then the witness may request a momentary pause of the interview. (10) If a minder violates any of these provisions, then Commission staff may suspend and reschedule the interview and bar that minder from any future interviews.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE






White hot White house White wash?
Suffering raises up those souls that are truly great; it is only small souls that are made mean-spirited by it.
- Alexandra David-Neel
User avatar
Uncle $cam
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Uncle $cam » Mon May 04, 2009 12:27 am

Bump...

since no one seems to care to reply I thought I'd add...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence

The spiral of silence begins with fear of reprisal or isolation, and escalates from there. Individuals use what is described as "an innate ability" or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion.[2] Mass media plays a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since our direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the population. Mass media has an enormous impact on how public opinion is portrayed, and can dramatically impact an individual's perception about where public opinion lies, whether or not that portrayal is factual.[3] Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out.[4] The theory, however, only applies to moral or opinion issues, not issues that can be proven right or wrong using facts.



We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect. The judgement of the intellect is only part of the truth. -Carl Jung
Suffering raises up those souls that are truly great; it is only small souls that are made mean-spirited by it.
- Alexandra David-Neel
User avatar
Uncle $cam
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon May 04, 2009 3:16 am

I'll bump that too. Want to be able to find it later. This is a good find.

The same Zelikow who is now trying to weasel out of any connection to the torture policy, claiming he wrote a memo that everybody destroyed.

Yeah right.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon May 04, 2009 3:54 am

User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Postby 8bitagent » Mon May 04, 2009 4:13 am

I wonder why the 9/11 commission didnt mention this?

Image

Image

Im sure Israeli spies living literally next door/down the street/similar vacinity as the 19 hijacker's every whereabouts in late 2000 through the summer of 2001 is just a wacky coincidence.

As is Saudi's top elites and intel officers sending two of the 9/11 hijackers (living with an FBI informant) large sums of money through a Bush owned bank.

And of course, US govenment neo-PROMIS tag team partner "Ptech"
being at the epicenter of al Qaeda's evolution, terror funding and housing the 9/11 hijackers.

Honestly, I am willing to bet there are a LOT of pissed off FBI agents, law enforcement, etc who ALL had their investigations cut from higher ups.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue May 05, 2009 8:42 pm

Still with the "highjackers" label. ugh.

8bit, they are ALLEGED. Lots of possibilities.

But you keep basing your summary on CIA media, ok? heh.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Staffers, 9/11 Commission raised concern about intimidat

Postby MinM » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:49 am

@jeffersonmorley: Ending a journalistic taboo: Former New York Times reporter takes on #JFK http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/exper ... es-on-jfk/ … @jfklibrary @jfkforum @mmoore

Image
Phillip Shenon, a former New York Times reporter and author of The Commission, an acclaimed and critical look at the 9/11 Commission Report, has promised us a new book that claims that“powerful” people had influenced the Warren Commission’s investigation and final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing John F. Kennedy.”

In short, Shenon is doing individually what the Times never did institutionally: accountability reporting on JFK’s assassination.

The media release from respected published Henry Holt doesn’t say much more than that so, for now, Shenon’s background is the story. From Atlantic Wire:

“At The New York Times Shenon covered topics like the FBI, domestic terrorism, and the goings-on at the Justice Department. Most notably, he wrote The Commission in 2008, a scathing look into the 9/11 Commission Report. If that book can give us any clues into his JFK dissection, it’s that it won’t be a blaring conspiracy theory, but rather a more clinical and subtle dissection of the Warren Commission.”

Which is just what we need. Not another conspiracy theory (yawn) but rather a serious investigation. The failure of major news organizations like the Times and the Washington Post to investigate the JFK story is rooted in their symbiotic relationship in 1963. At the time JFK’s murder, the country’s leading news organizations had a relationship of trusting ignorance with U.S> national security agencies. The senior editors of these papers emerged from the same social and political milieu of senior officials in the secretive agencies and implicitly or explicitly trusted them. They were often friends. Ben Bradlee, executive editor of the Washington Post, was social friends with James Angleton, chief of the CIA’s counterintelligence staff...

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/exper ... es-on-jfk/

Uncle $cam » Sat May 02, 2009 2:49 am wrote:Author Philip Shenon, who wrote a history of the commission, found that at the start of the commission’s work Zelikow drafted a welcome memo containing ground rules for staffers, such as not talking to journalists. One of the rules was that the staff should not talk freely to the commissioners. If a staffer were contacted by a commissioner, he should not deal with the commissioner himself, but contact Zelikow or his deputy, who would then “be sure that the appropriate members of the commission’s staff are responsive.” ...

White hot White house White wash?
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Staffers, 9/11 Commission raised concern about intimidat

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:15 am

Some great damn finds here. Thank you.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10397
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Marionumber1 and 17 guests