9/11 Commission Testimony Too Hot To Be Under Oath
by Tom Flocco
WASHINGTON, May 27, 2003 (TomFlocco.com) -- Just after former head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Jane Garvey concluded her controversial time-line of events testimony and responses to questions from Chairman Thomas Kean’s blue-ribbon 9/11 panel Thursday afternoon, whispers commenced among the reporters and some of the victim family members in attendance at the Hart Senate office building.
Kean, a popular former governor of New Jersey who was known for integrity, fairness, and good judgment will have some major decisions in coming weeks -- given that many of the witnesses he called to testify could not get their stories straight regarding key events on the 9/11 time-line sequence.
For those fully conversant with the published event chronologies and incredible story legs linked to the attacks, Garvey’s statement and answers to questions began a series of some of the most compelling declarations since the Watergate hearings. All this, with the next morning’s witness statements before the Commission -- and hallway press interviews -- continuing to surprise more and more as testimony progressed.
Curiously however, none of the testimony offered before the Commission was sworn under oath (either on Thursday or Friday); and the most critical statements concerning the 9/11 military response failures occurred on the morning prior to a long Memorial Day weekend when the public would not be paying attention.
Just prior to the start of Friday’s sparsely attended hearings, we asked Kean’s Deputy for Communications Alvin S. Felzenberg why none of the witnesses were being sworn in.
Felzenberg, a former Heritage Foundation fellow connected to the Bush 2000 presidential transition, who has also written for The Weekly Standard, told us “We will not be swearing in witnesses during any [public or private] 9/11 testimony.”
When we asked whether un-sworn testimony would be a wise decision -- considering both the importance of the hearings and Garvey’s conflicted testimony the previous day, spokesman Felzenberg replied: “Congress has indicted individuals for false statements not made under oath, and we don’t think it’s necessary -- so no one will be sworn in. Would you please sit down.”
All three aisle-accesses were guarded by secret service members and armed guards just prior to their entry, so it was impossible to ask either Chairman Kean or Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton before testimony commenced whether they -- or perhaps someone higher -- had authorized the ruling not to swear in witnesses. Thus, the origin of the decision is unknown at this juncture.
Kean had noted Thursday that “we are finders of fact, not triers of fact,” leaving some reporters and victim family members to wonder who would indict individuals responsible for 9/11 incompetence, negligence, or even criminal wrong-doing, should the Commission’s findings indicate as much.
Commissioner and Council of Foreign Relations member Jamie Gorelick told TomFlocco.com “I think we’ll be able to determine whether they’re [witnesses] telling the truth without swearing them in,” while adding “we’ll certainly do our best to find out.”
Gorelick is closely linked to the intelligence community, currently serving on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) National Security Advisory Panel, as well as President Bush’s Review of Intelligence -- affording the current Fannie Mae vice-chairman access to the inner-workings of the CIA while providing the Agency with an ally on the Commission.
We also happened to catch Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the Hart Senate elevator late Friday, asking him about his thoughts concerning the importance of swearing in witnesses. “We don’t swear in witnesses on Foreign Relations -- that is, unless we think they aren’t going to tell the truth,” smiled the cordial Indiana Republican.
A few minutes later in the same hallway, Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) stopped for a moment to offer us his thoughts about 9/11 after having testified the previous day: “The evidence is compelling; but the Administration is not very inclined to go after the answers. It [not swearing in witnesses] doesn‘t surprise me.”
Given the incredible, sometimes confusing testimony over the two days -- let alone revealing impromptu sessions outside the hearing room, the issue of sworn testimony may still be in question, as Commissioner Tim Roemer told us while heading down the sweeping spiral staircase in the Hart Building: “That’s a good point. We’re going to have to do something about that.”
Regarding future hearings, Alvin Felzenberg recently offered a revealing look into prospective Commission intentions: undisclosed private interviews to be held in coming weeks with individuals connected to 9/11 -- while also divulging that Americans would only be privy to a few more unrestricted hearings prior to a shutdown of open inquiry.
Thus, the Commission’s investigation is slated to take on precisely the same clandestine nature of the recent congressional hearings -- unless potential public outcry carries any weight. [At present, 75% of the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee’s taxpayer-funded 9/11 report has been classified to the public by the president’s lawyers.]
According to New York Lawyer (May 15, 2003), Felzenberg said Commission members were conscious of public dissent in previous federal investigations -- neither included a policy component, and both involved little public deliberation.
“With that in mind,” Felzenberg said to the legal periodical in a phone interview from Washington, D.C., "We'll have many, many interviews, most of which won't be in public session. But we want to have as many open hearings as we think would be useful for the public -- another half-dozen or so."
WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?
Jane Garvey, now-resigned from her FAA post, told the Commission that “I was not aware of any information about planes being used as weapons that was credible,” adding that “there may have been something in that pile [of daily FAA intelligence documents] that I didn’t see.”
Commissioner Tim Roemer was clearly unimpressed as he proceded to cite numerous examples of intelligence intercepts and warnings issued in the years prior to the attacks related to terrorists flying planes into buildings. But Garvey was unable to answer whether the White House and the intelligence community had in fact advised the FAA about these multiple warnings.
Moreover, Garvey was not able to handle Richard Ben Veniste's tough questions regarding why the FAA waited so long to contact NORAD about the commandeered flights.
The next morning, Secretary of Transportation (DOT) Norman Mineta’s un-sworn testimony basically reiterated Jane Garvey’s previous un-sworn testimony: “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile,” Mineta revealed, adding “we had no information of that nature at all.”
Again the Commissioners expressed concern about conflicted timeline and event sequence issues, "near frantic" terrorism reports in the months prior to the attacks, and delays in notifying NORAD for military support.
Even if the truth had been ascertained from Garvey and Mineta, critical questions were still never raised by Commission members regarding the contents of the July and August, 2001 presidential intelligence briefings and the FBI’s Phoenix memo -- especially since they had direct bearing upon the content of their testimony and whether the FAA and DOT were aware of the presidential intelligence briefings about terrorists using planes as weapons.
More curiously, it has to be assumed that NORAD was talking to the White House and CIA about terrorist intelligence -- especially the "frantic reports" just prior to 9/11 -- addressed by Commisioner Jamie Gorelick.
Obfuscated as it was, the testimony of Garvey and Mineta also raises strong concern as to why the Commission members listened for two days without ever asking why the White House and CIA never shared the reported intelligence about “hijacked planes crashing into buildings” and “Arab nationals taking flight lessons at U.S. flight schools." Bush May Invoke 9/11 Executive Privilege and Secrecy
After Mineta’s testimony, Families of September 11 spokesman Stephen Push told us “I think it’s disgraceful that no one will take responsibility for these events.” Having lost his wife Lisa when her plane crashed into the Pentagon, Push added “With all that evidence for years about planes being used as weapons, why didn’t they think of this? It’s really shameful.”
Mineta also revealed that “other government agencies were contacted in the initial minutes after the first unconfirmed report that the first plane had hit the tower.” However, no member of the commission required Mineta to confirm whether the White House was one of the other government agencies that had become part of the communications network after the first plane crashed -- further compounding the issue of Bush's pre and post- elementary school photo-op actions and behavior.
Questioned about the president’s order to shoot down airliners, Mineta revealed that about five minutes after he entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), he listened as an unidentified “young man” was warning Vice-President Cheney that an airliner was approaching Washington, DC airspace.
Whereupon the young aide asked Cheney “whether the order still stands.” Mineta said he heard the Vice-President heatedly say “of course the order still stands. Did you hear anything to the contrary?”
Mineta revealed that later in the morning, he discovered that Cheney’s ire referred to an order to shoot down the approaching aircraft, but also that multiple airliners had been ordered to be shot out of the sky on September 11.
At that point, Roemer began to address issues as to whether the military even failed in its ability to shoot down its own civilian aircraft during a terrorist attack.
Later on Friday morning, North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) commander on the day of the attacks, retired Major General Larry K. Arnold offered additional un-sworn testimony to the Kean Commission, confirming earlier testimony regarding lack of any knowledge about planes used as weapons flying into buildings.
Arnold said the "concept of terrorists using airplanes as weapons was unavailable to us.”
[It must be remembered that the person saying this is one of the highest ranking generals in the United States Air Force -- even the whole military.]
Moreover, critical questions are raised as to why Kean and Hamilton did not stop the questioning and testimony, then directly ask Major General Arnold whether the White House had ever shared with the NORAD commander the intelligence about “planes crashing into buildings” and “Arabs taking lessons at U.S. flight schools,“ all of which was mentioned in the July and August presidential intelligence briefings, but also somewhat addressed in the FBI’s Phoenix memo -- let alone why it may have been important to do so.
Commissioner Richard Ben Veniste then entered the questioning, smelling so many rats that he began to interrogate Arnold about a pre-9/11 “Amalgam Virgo-02 hijacking drill using two planes” and “why did you scramble jets from ‘out of the neighborhood,’ ” in direct reference to NORAD ignoring the closest airbases in favor of ones that were further away and would arrive too late to stop the commandeered airliners. However, he permitted Arnold to parry the issues aside without fully addressing them.
Commissioner John Leaman asked Arnold “why the FAA was late in notifying NORAD,” and “why the first plane crashed before any of our planes were airborne.” Arnold could not really explain it -- other than to say there was a delay.
Then Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton entered the fray, asking Arnold when President Bush gave the order to shoot down airliners assumed to be hijacked, and why that exact time of the shoot-down order was not entered into the official NORAD 9/11 timeline, presented and discussed in front of the Commission just minutes prior to Arnold's questioning -- one that NORAD admitted to having reconstructed well after the fact, using some estimated times.
Arnold advised that at one time during the morning of September 11, some “21 airliners were called ‘hijacked.’ ” But Vice-Chairman Hamilton pressed the General for an answer to his original question -- one which also has critical time-line implications.
Arnold answered Hamilton, offering more incredible, but un-sworn testimony: “I am sure that information is available,” Congressman Hamilton, adding “I appreciate your question.” Everyone in the hearing room seemed stunned at his answer.
At that point, Kean and Hamilton were becoming perturbed with Arnold, asking that he “provide for the record, the chain of command for the shoot-down order on September 11.”
At that moment, reporters, victim family members, and others began quietly looking at one another -- with soft, almost inaudible murmurs bouncing around the hearing room.
Mindy Kleinberg, who lost her husband Alan at the World Trade Center, but who also offered a meticulously brilliant 9/11 issues-oriented testimony at the Commission's New York hearings, told us "there is no accountability," adding "someone has to answer for the mind-boggling lapses. Whose job was it?"
To which Kristen Breitweiser, the co-chair of September 11 Advocates and witness last summer before the Joint Congressional Intelligence hearings, added "We have to find out what government officials knew and why there were so many failures."
It must be mentioned that at times, Commissioners Tim Roemer and Fred Fielding looked to be the hardest questioners, often taking a relatively tough line, while strangely never really honing in for the real entrapment necessary to induce responsibility in this public forum where so many Americans are looking for real accountability -- not just a factual account.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
We were shocked to observe how tough and somewhat persistent Richard Ben Veniste was during his opportunities for questioning. This is the same Richard Ben Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, who is a partner in the German international law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw which happens to be the lead firm representing United Airlines against 9/11 victim families in the New York City litigation in Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s District Court in Manhattan.
This famous lawyer even represented the most recognized American drug dealer in the history of the United States: Barry Seal of Mena, Arkansas fame. But interestingly, Ben Veniste won our award as the most tenacious interrogator on both days, even though the lines of questioning were not consistently intense or pressing on a continual basis.
Curiously, no one has questioned whether Mayer-Brown’s partners would have “water-cooler and whisper-access” to all the subpoenaed discovery requests and information flow regarding both the Kean Commission hearings and depositions -- public and private, but also Judge Hellerstein’s New York City litigation.
But that’s not the half of it. For the Mayer-Brown law firm has another partner named John P. Schmitz, who was the twelve-year deputy counsel to George H. W. Bush during his vice-presidency and presidency -- thus affording the White House a behind-the-scenes source for information flow, discovery, subpoenas, and evidence-access regarding both the Commission and the New York litigation.
Additionally, Mayer-Brown also has clients that include Bayer AG (German maker of the antibiotic Cipro which fights Anthrax, about which Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch (JW) will have keen interest.
JW has filed suit seeking the Administration’s anthrax documents to ascertain why the White House starting taking heavy doses of Cipro on the day of the attacks -- nearly a month before anthrax was even discovered on Capitol Hill, and while postal workers continued to sort mail in contaminated offices -- some dying in the process.
John Schmitz’s Mayer-Brown profile also reveals that he represented Enron, adding that “we were active in Germany [with Enron] until the end....It [bankruptcy] surprised me as well as anyone else,” according to Reuters (1-4-2002).
Moreover, Mayer-Brown also represents Deutsche Bank on a regular basis regarding its electronic commerce activities; and curiously, Schmitz’s law firm maintains an office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, along with Enron -- if only to make sure oil is well in the Caspian Sea basin.
And Deutsche Bank is knee-deep in pre-9/11 insider trading stock profits. Enough said.
Ben Veniste, for his part, was very cordial to us, even as we asked him about his recusing himself from participating in writing airline safety recommendations relative to his firm’s representation of United Airlines: “I have already addressed the conflict of interest issue.”
Real answers, however, about how serious Ben Veniste and other Commissioners are regarding their quest for 9/11 truth will come when it is learned which key administration players will testify and whether their subpoenas will be served “by consensus,” -- to which Senator John McCain had referred during his Thursday morning testimony -- or whether subpoenas will center along political party battle-lines. This, while also addressing issues of openness and public sunshine.
Regardless, given the botched, conflicted, even confusing (and lest we forget, un-sworn) testimony offered during the hearings, it would be impossible to even come close to approaching 9/11’s real answers without hearing public testimony under oath from the key players: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, Arnold, Mueller, Tenet and others -- but first commencing with their subordinates much further down the food-chain.
To do otherwise, given the type of almost laughably unsworn testimony heard on Thursday and Friday, would be a sham and a cover-up, even if Chairman Kean went out tomorrow and hired the very finest interrogators that America has to offer -- prosecutors commensurate with the nature and importance of an investigation which will affect the future safety of all Americans.
That achieved, coming invocations of presidential privilege will be addressed much more easily. And America can get on with finding out the truth.
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
