Hopefully, the other civil liberties organisations will come on board.

Mr. Ratner says:

"at the very least, they should have added caveats to all those references.”

The fact is, they did add a caveat, as stated by Zelikow in an article that appeared the day before and quoted Michael Ratner.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

Ultimately, we chose to publicly release our understanding of what took place, based on everything we had access to," said Zelikow, adding that the Commission did explain its feelings in a largely ignored explanatory box in the report on the value of the interrogations.

According to the note: "Our access to them (the operatives) has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked."

Here is the full caveat:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Detainee Interrogation Reports

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.

Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.

We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.2

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm

2.Those detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Riduan Isamuddin (also known as Ham-bali), Abd al Rahim al Nashiri,Tawfiq bin Attash (also known as Khallad), Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al Kah-tani,Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani,Ali Abd al Rahman al Faqasi al Ghamdi (also known as Abu Bakr al Azdi), and Hassan Ghul.

So the obvious response to this press release is: "We did issue a caveat. Has Mr. Ratner read our report?"

So CCR could have issued this press release in 2004, and said that the caveat is not enough and only shows that the 9/11 Commission report is not sufficient, and that we cannot base foreign and domestic policy on such flimsy evidence. People have been imprisoned based on this report, and many, many more have died, been maimed, or had their livelihoods destroyed and/or human rights violated because of it.

9/11 is in the background of all the issues that CCR identifies at their website:

Illegal Detentions and Guantanamo
Surveillance and Attacks on Dissent
Criminal Justice and Mass Incarceration
Corporate Human Rights Abuse
Government Abuse of Power
Racial, Gender and Economic Justice
International Law and Accountability

The only reference to the 9/11 commission I could find at their website cited it as authority:

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-files-freedom-info...

"Thousands of others have suffered at the hands of the Special Registration program, a program that has been highly criticized by the public and members of the congress (the 9/11 commission in particular) for being ineffective and based on racial, ethnic, and religious profiling."

I would be happy to be proven wrong, but it would appear that for over 6 years, and perhaps even now, the Center for Constitutional Rights has accepted the completely unproven official story of 9/11 and its branding of Muslims as the villains, while decrying the inevitable effects of that branding.

As a radical group, in the true and best sense of radical, getting to the root of a problem, I expect more from CCR than I do from the ACLU.

For that reason, I say weak, very weak.

To clarify, I am not condoning human rights abuses by saying they are the inevitable result of branding Muslims as villains, nor am I disregarding CCR's excellent work. Of course what they fight is not justified by the official story of 9/11, but if we are going to balance liberty and security, should we not have a realistic view of that security? Assessing the evidentiary foundation of the 9/11 official story, and the legal implications of that story, are legal issues that CCR is well-suited to do but has not done. Japanese legislator Fujita said it as well as anyone: 9/11 was a crime and is also the premise for the "war on terror," and as such, a proper investigation is essential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOF_pXW84io

from the correct questions