Archived Statements Of The 9/11 Family Steering Committee
The following is every statement issued by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during the 9/11 Commission, and after it. Aside from the unanswered questions, the Steering Committee's website is an invaluable resource if you truly want to understand the process in which 9/11 was/wasn't investigated. I hope that everyone takes the time to read through this. Earlier statements made by the Committee are available for download here.
Comment on the Third Public Hearing of the 9/11 Commission
Topic: Terrorism, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim World
http://www.911independentcommission.org/july092003.html
July 9, 2003
Washington, DC -- Experts in Al Qaeda and state sponsored terrorism testified at the third public hearing of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Although there was some disagreement about whether Al Qaeda is capable of launching another attack such as September 11th, all recommended that the United States work cooperatively with other nations to fight the global terror threat. Some felt that the war in Iraq will spawn further terrorism if the US cannot bring stability quickly to the country. There was agreement that rebuilding should be a multinational effort.
Family Steering Committee Press Conference Remarks
http://www.911independentcommission.org/sept102003.html
September 10, 2003
Three thousand lives were lost and three thousand families destroyed on September 11th. America was traumatized, and we are still reeling from the emotional and financial carnage. The families of the dead and all Americans deserve some accountability from our government for its failure to protect us on 9/11.
On August 27th the Family Steering Committee received an update on the Commission’s progress. We learned that there has been improved compliance from some government agencies and that minders continue to be present during interviews, even though the Chairman and Vice Chairman publicly protested.
We appreciate that the Commission staff is working very hard on this complex probe. However, no findings from the Commission’s investigation have been released. A lot of frustration stems from the fact that we have not heard anything of substance. The clock is ticking. Half the Commission’s allotted time has elapsed.
Two years have passed since the attacks. We know more about the terrorists and the breadth of intelligence failures from the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report but we still don’t know much about the other factors related to why our government failed to protect us.
Since no substantive information about the investigation has been released, we are being asked to take on faith that an in-depth investigation is taking place and that it will not be a whitewash. But trust began to die when President Bush opposed an independent investigation for more than a year. We should not have had to fight our government for an independent Commission. Each subsequent misrepresentation or manipulation of facts by government officials has caused further erosion of trust.
Lingering questions, and those that have been answered with half-truths or omissions, do not promote trust. Instead they lead to conjecture and discontent.
Only a full, unfettered accounting of September 11th can restore faith in our government’s integrity and aid the Commission in making appropriate recommendations for improved security.
To reassure America that the Commission’s investigation is pursuing the truth wherever it leads, the FSC recommends that
Some things about September 11th just don’t make sense in light of intelligence gathered and established protocol and procedures in place prior to 9/11, so the Family Steering Committee has submitted questions to the Commission on a wide range of topics. To date, none of our questions have been answered.
- witnesses be sworn in
- subpoenas be issued for recalcitrant witnesses and agencies
- interim reports contain some concrete indication of progress being made, such as the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry did
- hard hitting hearings be held in which government officials from the Bush and Clinton administrations are publicly questioned. Of the three public hearings so far, only that involving the FAA and NORAD asked any probing, investigative questions.
Why did our government fail its foremost obligation to protect its citizens on 9/11?
All other questions stem from that. There are questions about domestic and foreign intelligence, INS, NSC, NSA, FAA, NORAD, stock puts, and Promis software. There are also questions about the influence of non-government entities on our government’s foreign and domestic policies. No government official or agency should be exempt from questions about what they knew or did prior to or on September 11th.
The Commission is the only entity that is investigating all the factors that contributed to the mass murder of 3000 people. It is the only one looking at the whole picture.
We are counting on the Commission to examine evidence and explain how something so horrific could have happened here in America.
All Americans are stakeholders in the success of the Independent Commission. The security of our nation depends on it. Until we fully understand what went wrong on September 11th, we can't fix the problems.
Once the Commission makes recommendations for improved security, it will be up to Congress to rise above the influence of special interests and act on those recommendations. And then follow through to see that the laws are enforced.
Until then, we will continue to be nearly as vulnerable as we were on September 11th.
Family Steering Committee Report Card for the 9/11 Commission
http://www.911independentcommission.org/sept2003.html
September, 2003
Our purpose in providing this report card is to motivate the Independent Commission to better serve the public interest by informing them of their progress and work.
Our hope is that the Commission will view this mid-term Report Card and act upon areas of weakness. And, in doing so, better assure the American public that they are doing the job that needs to be done.
* We understand that much of the Commission's work is done behind closed doors. This mid-term report card reflects the limited information that we have gleaned from open-hearings, meetings and conversations with the 9/11 Commission staff director and 9/11 Commissioners. We are publishing this report card due to requests for information on the Commission's progress from victims' families and concerned citizens, alike.
Investigative, Informative Open Hearings: D
The topics and content of the prior three open hearings were disappointing. Both the selection of witnesses and the probing by Commissioners in public forum fell short of our expectations.
Preparedness and critical thinking/questioning is a keystone of a thorough and worthwhile hearing, and in turn, an effective commission. Because the Commissioners either lacked the information and education on certain issues (namely the FAA and NORAD protocols, the timeline of 9/11, the evacuation and emergency response protocols of the City of NY), or simply did not have the will, the Commissioners, individually and as a whole, did not carryout the necessary hard-hitting lines of questioning, cross-examination and crucial follow-up questioning all of which are critical in unearthing the truth.
The FSC feels that expert witnesses invited to testify before the Independent Commission should hold valuable and pertinent information that will yield fruitful insights into the systemic government failures that occurred on 9/11. As an example, in the most recent open hearing, we had an “expert” witness testifying on Iraq and no expert witness testifying about Saudi Arabia. The FSC would like to draw attention to the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and none were from Iraq. Additionally, the 900-page Joint Inquiry Report shows no Iraqi connection to 9/11.
The FSC did attempt to recommend both Open Hearing topics and Open Hearing expert witness lists. Our requests were left unanswered. When invited to do so, the FSC has also supplied information and questions to the Commissioners for each open hearing. We will continue to do so. However, whether the Commissioners choose to use our line of questioning remains in their sole discretion.
Frequency of Hearings: C-
This Commission has been established for over nine months. Yet, there have only been three open hearings. At its inception, the Commission promised the FSC that there would be one open hearing per month.
To date, the FSC has expressed concern about the infrequency of open hearings. We have also requested that certain months “double up” on hearings. These requests remain unanswered.
The purpose and power of open hearings was illustrated during the Joint Inquiry’s investigation. Open hearings inform the public. Open hearings provide the impetus for change by shedding sunlight onto problems and failures. Perhaps, most importantly, open hearings ensure that not all of a committee’s work remains classified.
Family Member Testimony: B-
The FSC had hoped to have more than one opportunity to testify before the Independent Commission. The purpose of family member testimony is to draw better attention to areas that the Independent Commission is unwilling to address.
To date, the FSC has requested the opportunity for family member testimony at each hearing. These requests have remained unanswered.
Staff Director Interim Reports: D
The legislation mandating the Independent Commission does not require Staff Director Interim Reports. The FSC has requested public interim reports be given by Philip Zelikow, much in the same way that Staff Director Eleanor Hill gave interim reports during the Joint Inquiry’s investigation. Mr. Zelikow has denied such request.
One of the FSC’s goals for this commission was to better inform the public. It is evident that public awareness saves lives. United Airlines Flight 93 and Richard Reid the “shoe-bomber” are excellent examples of the power and importance of public awareness.
Interim reports are critical in making the public more aware. Two years have passed since September 11th. Nine months have passed since this Commission has been established. And yet, the public still remains very much in the dark.
Structure and Conduct of Open Hearings: D
This commission was established as an “independent” body of individuals to conduct an independent, non-political, bi-partisan, and unbiased inquiry into the failures that occurred on 9/11.
The FSC is shocked with the use of “minders” in the interrogatory process. And, despite the Commissioner’s similar objection to “minders”, as stated at the last press conference, “minders” continue to be present during witness examination and questioning. The FSC does not want “minders” present during any witness examination and questioning; it is a form of intimidation and it does not yield the unfettered truth.
Also a concern of the FSC is the failure of this Commission to swear witnesses in prior to their testimony. Without sworn testimony, witnesses cannot be held accountable for what they testify about before the Commission. While given assurances by the Staff Director that prior witnesses would be brought to task for their inaccurate statements made during open hearings, the FSC has been given no evidence that has been done.
The FSC has additional concerns regarding the Commission’s reticence to subpoena witnesses. The FSC had wanted the Independent Commission to “subpoena early and often.”
The Commission’s failure to subpoena, while polite, prohibits the ultimate claim by the Commission that they, themselves, were the victims of “stonewalling” by the agencies, organizations and councils. Nine months into their investigation, the Commission must use every avenue possible to gain the information and access to witnesses needed to make their investigation a success.
Understanding of the Commission's Mandate: incomplete
Public Law 107-306, which established this commission states that "the function of this commission is to conduct an investigation that investigates relevant facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, including any relevant legislation, Executive Order, regulation, plan, policy, practice, or procedure; and may include relevant facts and circumstances relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, non-immigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of Congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas of the public and private sectors determined relevant to the Commission for its inquiry.
The Commission is to identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from the terrorist attacks from September 11th, 2001, regarding the structure, coordination, management policies, and procedures of the federal government, and, if appropriate, state and local governments and non-governmental entities relative to detecting, preventing, and responding to such terrorist attacks."
Our interpretation of the Independent Commission’s mandate is that the Commission would have investigated the Timeline of events that transpired on the morning of 9/11. There are a finite amount of facts that revolve around 9/11. These facts reveal a finite amount of glaring failures that occurred on behalf of our government and its agencies and institutions.
If the Independent Commission’s open hearings are evidence of the Commission’s understanding of their mandate, then the Independent Commission’s obligation as required under law will not have been met. This failure will not only be for the 9/11 victims’ families, it will be a failure for all of the American people.
FSC Requests Staff Director Zelikow's Recusal
http://www.911independentcommission.org/oct032003.html
October 3, 2003
The 9/11 Independent Commission's status report/press conference last Tuesday, September 23, 2003, has left the Family Steering Committee (FSC) deeply concerned about the ability of this Commission to access crucial documents. Without these, the Commission will be unable to fully assess the failures that led to the events of 9/11.
Specifically, we are concerned about document requests from the National Security Council (NSC), the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and any and all other communications made by Administration officials leading up to, and including, the morning of 9/11. The FSC has been assured that access to these documents is a part of a continuing series of "negotiations" between the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Staff Director of the Commission and the White House.
At the outset of the Independent Commission's work, the FSC was aware that Philip Zelikow was a co-author and close friend of Condoleezza Rice. We also knew that Mr. Zelikow was hired as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in early October, 2001. We had concerns about these possible conflicts of interest but we were assured that Staff Director Zelikow's relationship with the White House would facilitate the access to Administration documentation and information.
We accepted this because we were aware of Professor Zelikow's role in the release of certain Diplomatic Documentation for the National Archives and his testimony before the State Department's Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation that "the CIA's decision to withhold the entire PDB series from release (w)as pernicious." (U.S. Department of State, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, April 10-11, 2000, page 8). We were aware that he also testified that "a blanket denial of all PDB's would set a dangerous precedent."(Ibid, page 9). Thus, the FSC had an expectation that Mr. Zelikow's position on the release of PDB's would also apply to the situation facing the 9/11 Commission. Access to the Administration's documentation, transcripts, and decision-making procedures is crucial, especially the August 6, 2001, PDB, which contained information regarding attacks against the U.S. by Al Qaeda.
On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, the 9/11 Independent Commission will inform the FSC and the American people whether or not the White House has allowed access to all of the documents requested by the 9/11 Independent Commission. In order to be accepted as a full and truthful accounting of September 11th, all aspects of the Commission's investigation must be free of suspicion. Therefore, only Chairman Kean, Vice-Chair Hamilton or Deputy Executive Director Kojm should be negotiating with the Administration regarding the release of documents.
This naturally leads to our second area of concern, which arises from recent research indicating that Philip Zelikow served as a member of the Bush Administration's transition team. In fact, according to a Washington Post article from February 2001, “Last September, Condoleezza Rice asked Philip Zelikow, a fellow staffer on the Scowcroft NSC...to draft memos on organizing the NSC along Scowcroft's lines. Edited by Rice and others, the memos were further refined when Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley came on board, and Zelikow…became part of the transition...free to roam the halls of the Clinton NSC operation."
The investigation will naturally encompass the role of many individuals involved with the Bush Administration's NSC and PFIAB. Due to this conflict of interest, we believe Staff Director Zelikow should remove himself from any and all portions of the investigation addressing the NSC in keeping with established Commission protocols. For example, Commissioner Gorelick has removed herself from all Justice Department investigations, Commissioner Roemer and Vice Chair Hamilton have removed themselves from all Congressional oversight investigations, and Commissioners Gorton and Thompson have removed themselves from all airline investigations in response to previous vetted conflicts of interest. Should Staff Director Zelikow refuse to do so, the FSC respectfully requests his resignation as Staff Director from the 9/11 Independent Commission.
Response to the 9/11 Commission’s Second Interim Report
http://www.911independentcommission.org/oct42003.html
October 4, 2003
Access to documents and witnesses
The Second Interim Report includes contradictory statements about White House cooperation. The report indicates that the Commission has received all requested documents, but conversely says that the Commission is negotiating with the White House over “additional sensitive documents” it needs.
We are told that if the President provides the requested documents it will break a precedent of not releasing sensitive documents. When our government failed to prevent the mass murder of three thousand people on American soil on September 11th it also broke a precedent. Our government, including our President, is morally obligated to answer questions about how this attack could have happened.
- If the Commission is still negotiating, obviously it does not have all the requested documents.
- What evidentiary documents are still outstanding?
FBI
- For more than two years, the families of the dead and millions of other Americans have been waiting for accountability from our government officials.
- In order to fully understand our nation’s lack of preparedness and response to the attack and to understand other contributing factors, the Commission must have unconditional access to documents and witnesses throughout the government, particularly in the executive branch which makes national security decisions.
Missing documents
- The “unusual arrangements imposed for access to FBI documents” should be detailed for the American public.
Regarding particularly requested missing documents which the Commission expected various agencies to have:
Public Hearings
- With only eight months left to complete its investigation and write a report, it is past time for the Commission to use the subpoena power which Congress gave it to get full, unfettered access to all documents and witnesses.
- Subpoena the missing documents and question the head of each agency under oath about the requested documents. Minders When asked about minders by reporters, Chairman Kean admitted that in order to have access to the witnesses, the Commission had to accept the minders. He said the Commission staff believes no one has been intimidated by their presence. Chairman Hamilton, however, added the caveat that it is very difficult to tell when a witness is being intimidated by a minder.
- To preclude any hint of intimidation, no minders should be present during the interviews. This should not be negotiable.
The three public hearings scheduled for the remainder of this year are not investigative in nature. The issues of organization and leadership in our intelligence agencies, emergency preparedness, and FBI reforms and intelligence gathering procedures could be discussed in closed hearings.
Conclusion
- What our government knew, how it acted on that information and exactly what happened on September 11th are critical topics which should be publicly explored in the Commission’s investigation of our government’s failure to prevent the murder of 3000 people.
- It is unacceptable that no public hearings are planned to probe the Executive branch, Congressional oversight, or terrorist funding.
- The public hearing on the Day of September 11th should be held well before its scheduled April, 2004 date. An April hearing about the actions of our government on September 11th will not leave sufficient time to recall witnesses or to explore questions which may arise from that inquiry before the Commission’s May 27th deadline.
- The Commission should hold public hearings this year in which officials from the CIA, FBI, NSC, NSA, INS, DOD and the White House are interviewed under oath.
This investigation was supposed to be hard hitting and transparent. So far it has been neither. Instead it appears that the Commission has acquiesced to every condition imposed by recalcitrant government officials.
Without true interim reports which reveal substantive findings, the Commission’s investigation is opaque. With all findings withheld, no probing or embarrassing questions will be asked prior to the release of a final report.
It is well past time for accountability from the White House and all government agencies whose policies and actions had a bearing on September 11th. We call on the Commission to demonstrate now that it is following its mandate for a full accounting by releasing substantive interim reports and initiating investigative public hearings.
- Americans should be aware that before its release, the 9/11 Commission’s report will go to the White House for review. Based on what happened with the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report, it is entirely possible the 9/11 Commission’s report will be withheld for months and ultimately, significant portions will be redacted under the guise of executive privilege and top secret classification.
End Part I
Reply With Quote