Leahy announces hearing next week on Truth Commission
From http://washingtonindependent.com/31444/leahy-announces-hearing-next-week-on-truth-commission
Picking up on the controversial proposal he made during a Feb. 9 speech at Georgetown University, Sen.Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today reiterated his call for a “truth commission” on the Senate floor and said the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold a hearing next Wednesday to begin to consider the idea.
.
.
.
“I’ve seen what’s happened before with prosecutions,” added Leahy, clearly anticipating some objections from the left. “We don’t find the whole truth, but prosecute those on the way bottom of the chain of command.”
(emphasis mine)
Washington is such a snake pit, that even though there are some encouraging signs of change and reform, I have trouble even conceiving how a investigations could occur as long as large numbers of people feel that their best hope of escaping prosecution, themselves, and/or protect what they consider to be the legitimacy of the US government, is to stonewall and obscure. I agree with the bolded part of Leahy's quote, and furthermore believe he's being sincere (even though he's a politician. :-) )
- metamars's blog
- Login to post comments
I think we should strongly
I think we should strongly support Leahy on this one.
Punishment is overrated. The truth will damage reputations and be a kind of punishment.
Prosecutions are necessarily narrowly-focused. People take the fifth, don't remember, etc. In a truth commission they would be rewarded with immunity for telling everything.
A truth commission would have the tendency to expand its investigation as information was discovered. Is this why "Off the Table" Pelosi does NOT like Leahy's idea? Is this why she supports prosecutions? Because a truth commission, if it were half-way decent, might implicate her?
Furthermore, a truth commission would be far, far more likely to get into 9/11, Able Danger, the yellowcake forgeries, Sibe Edmonds, etc.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
I trust Leahy far, far more than I trust Pelosi
Alvin R asks
"A truth commission would have the tendency to expand its investigation as information was discovered. Is this why "Off the Table" Pelosi does NOT like Leahy's idea? Is this why she supports prosecutions? Because a truth commission, if it were half-way decent, might implicate her?"
I wouldn't doubt that Pelosi is covering up for her knowledge and acquiescence of torture. It's difficult for me to believe she knew much of anything about 911 ahead of time, if that's what you're thinking. As for covering up 911 after the fact, dishonest and cowardly politicians cover up all sorts of lies and scandals as 'naturally' as breathing.
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
Yes, I agree. We already
Yes, I agree. We already know that Pelosi OKed torture and probably lots of other stuff. I doubt she had foreknowledge of 9/11. She does not want Leahy to get his commission because it will almost certainly highlight if not completely expose her role in the torture and domestic spying fiascoes.
Leahy's commission is the best chance we have seen so far for a real inquiry into 9/11 (see my comment below for more on this). Even if it never gets to 9/11, there are many other matters than could be exposed and once more is exposed, the odds of getting to 9/11 will grow substantially.
Many on the left are now opposing Leahy's ideas because they want prosecutions for war crimes. This seems very wrong-headed to me. Prosecutions are narrowly-focused, people clam up, just a few people at the bottom of the ladder will ever be "brought to justice."
We have to think strategically and seize real opportunities as they arise. This is by far the best thing we have seen so far.
Will it get to 9/11? It might. Whether it does or not, it has a decent chance of getting us much closer. Furthermore, these will be Senate hearings which will be in the news daily. If they are half-way decent they will be riveting and many will watch and follow them.
Watergate blew open because of a single question asked of John Dean. I forget who asked it or verbatim exactly what the question was, but basically all he was asked was: "Is there anything else you think we should know about?"
His answer was: "Yes, Nixon made tapes of conversations in the Oval Office."
That's what brought the whole thing down. And that is where Leahy's commission MIGHT take us.
metmars, this comment is not all directed at you.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Doubtful Al Qaeda Myth Or 9/11 Attacks Will Be Questioned
I suspect that the Bush administration will be characterized as simply over-reacting during its effort to protect us from foreign terrorists.
I also suspect such a review will become partisan theater designed to to extinguish the fires that have been lit during the past 8 years and keep the country divided along mostly non-existent ideological lines.
Washington=Theater
Quite likely, but this is
Quite likely, but this is still the best thing to come along in a long time.
There will be subpoenas, testimony under oath, and open-ended questioning (one hopes).
It's what we have now, so I think we should go for it, use it, get what we can from it.
I pretty much agree with you if I am feeling like a gambler or a philosopher, but this is politics.
Also, Leahy can be viewed as an intriguing figure who may do a good job. He has many reasons to dislike Bush/Cheney and he was a recipient of an anthrax letter.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Push 9/11 Truth
Whether or not this Truth Commision takes place is of little importance. Our goal as 9/11 Truth advocates is to massively increase the number of people awake to the 9/11 fraud. A related goal is to remove barriers to free public discourse about the truth of 9/11. The key is 9/11. The facts speak for themselves. The enemy is fear. Go out there and speak publically. Congress won't do this for you.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Exactly
"The key is 9/11."
Exactly !
Predicting what will be revealed is difficult
We can't predict with absolute certainty what sort of secrets a Congressional Truth and Reconciliation effort would reveal. However, I can comfortably predict what sort of secrets Congress will reveal if things continue as they have: We will know no more, no more certainly, 4 years from now than we do today.
I have to admit that I don't know much about the level of success of South Africa's Truth and Reconcilation.* Hopefully, somebody will inform us. My belief is based upon common sense notions of human nature. Thus, to me, saying that "The key is 9/11" is akin to a religious proposition. What exactly has this "key" turned or opened? A reformed US government? One that would never, ever, allow another 9/11 to occur, say tomorrow?
It seems to me that there's far more that we don't know, than what we do know.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* OK, I just read the following on wikipedia:
(emphasis mine)
This suits me fine. I don't really need to "reconcile" with murderers, or people who helped cover up murder, after the fact. However, ongoing coverups make a sham of democracy, injure the psyche of the American public (via the disempowering effects of being continually lied to), and most importantly, provide a fertile environment in which more 911's can be seriously contemplated, even staged. We can't bring back the dead, so we should focus on doing our best to prevent more slaughter of innocents, both Americans and non-Americans.
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
The solution will be driven
The solution will be driven by grassroots action, not a Congressional inquiry.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Then what?
Under our system, the only way we are going to get the truth from any of those people is through subpoenas and testimony taken under oath. We may get something approaching this in a court case or through something like the NYC ballot initiative, but the NYC thing will not look much different from Leahy's idea (though it will have less scope) and any court cases will be even more narrowly focused.
What are "grassroots actions" supposed to do except pressure Congress or the courts or a locality into doing something?
Leahy is actually proposing something that MIGHT work. It is by far the best thing to come down the line in many years.
You may think you want a revolution, and if so, please look to the history of violent revolutions--they are violent, very nasty, and usually set up a system far worse than the one they replace.
Is Leahy trustworthy? He is definitely better than most and may actually be trustworthy. One very good sign is he is actually proposing this commission. Why is that a good sign? Because the scope of the commission's initial inquiry could easily expand into 9/11 and other issues that implicate sitting members of Congress (and this shows he has nothing to hide). Why might the scope of the inquiry expand? Because people who are subpoenaed will be encouraged to tell all. Why? Because they will be given immunity for whatever they tell.
On top of that, they will be prosecuted if they lie. It's a double whammy. An "offer" most will find it very difficult to refuse. Tell the truth and go free. Lie and go to jail.
This is how our system of government works. We could hardly ask for anything better than this right now.
If you see something different, please explain what it is.
PS: Notice that Nancy Pelosi is right out front opposing Leahy and going for prosecutions. Here's how that will work. First, there will be a long delay while the Justice Department "investigates." Then there will be (at best) a few low-level prosecutions for a few interrogators. And that will be it. If Pelosi supports it, you probably want to oppose it. She is a master of the bait-and-switch, bury the issue in committees, cover her own a**, etc.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
I agree that ultimately we
I agree that ultimately we should direct our elected representatives to do the work of the people, but without a massive public outcry for top-down justice any Congressional action will be symbolic at best, and a limited hangout at worst. I suggest that our energies are best directed toward waking up our friends, families, and co-workers. The rest will follow.
Perhaps Congressional hearings will touch on some relevant areas and awaken some people to the evil perpetrated by the military / industrial / international banking war machine; however, 9/11 is the kryptonite tip of the spear with a sharpness never before weilded by any grassroots activist movement. The potential of 9/11 Truth to slay the beast is breathtaking in its simplicity and depth of meaning . Challenge your community to grapple with 9/11. When this thing pops, the world will turn a corner.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Well Said JohnnyMo!
" Perhaps Congressional hearings will touch on some relevant areas and awaken some people to the evil perpetrated by the military / industrial / international banking war machine; however, 9/11 is the kryptonite tip of the spear with a sharpness never before weilded by any grassroots activist movement. The potential of 9/11 Truth to slay the beast is breathtaking in its simplicity and depth of meaning . Challenge your community to grapple with 9/11. When this thing pops, the world will turn a corner."
Why Not Multi-Task?
JohnnyMo writes
"I suggest that our energies are best directed toward waking up our friends, families, and co-workers. "
Why not walk and chew gum at the same time? The link below is for a petition supporting a TRC, It will only take 1 minute to fill out. Wouldn't it be wise to use just a little of our energy to fill it out, and send it in? It would only take about 2 minutes to send a group email about it to your friends and family (if you have an email list set up, already.)
Everybody please add your name to the petition for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission here
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/135-demand-a-truth-commission
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
I signed on the 12th
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19370
Good, thanks
All roads lead to Rome, but some are faster than others. Figuring out the fastest is partly guesswork.....
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
I signed this one, too.
I signed this one, too. Thanks for the link. If people have objections to the truth commission, I hope they will say what they are now so they can be discussed.
Here's another way to look at this--Leahy's commission is a fruit of years of grassroots work. Over 60% of Americans support something like this commission due in a large part to years of grassroots efforts for 9/11 truth.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Both can and should be done
Both can and should be done at the same time--that is continued grassroots AND full support for Leahy's commission.
Strategically, we should support Leahy at first without getting noisy about 9/11 with respect to the commission. Once the commission is formed and begins hearings, we can start pressuring him or other senators to ask some real questions.
The really strong thing about the Leahy commission is it will be open-ended and not circumscribed from the start (I hope) as was the ludicrous 9/11Commission.
Seriously, Leahy's proposal is the best thing I have seen in US politics in years. Watch for many politicians and others to use all sorts of arguments and artful means to quash the idea. The fact that Pelosi has already started using a bait-and-switch technique is proof that will happen. (She claims she wants prosecutions, the same person who took impeachment off the table. This is typical Pelosi, typical Washington, typical Congress--sound good, bury the issue.)
Others will claim that the commission "will tear up the country" or "destroy trust," etc. Don;t believe them. It's just more gamesmanship. Some on the left appear to me to be honestly deluded into thinking that prosecutions and jail time are the better way to go. Just think it through--that will lean only to a Pelosi-style burying of all the important issues.
Also, 9/11 is part of a larger issue, as we all know. If anyone anywhere wants to establish an open-ended commission with subpoena power and testimony under oath concerning any part of the larger issue, we should 100% support it. That's what Leahy is doing. My hope for him is that he is a real patriot, a real American, and that he will follow the truth. Remember also, that Leahy is a former prosecutor (and thus knows how to ask questions), was a recipient of an anthrax letter and a critic of the fake "investigation" into that, and also that Cheney told Leahy "Fuck yourself" some years ago.
He is the best we can hope for, his proposal has great potential, the proposal has been made, the basic idea is supported by over 60% of the American public. Honestly, we could hardly ask for more.
I hope everyone will give this commission 100% support. If it goes nowhere or ends up being just more bs, we can deal with that when the time comes.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Good points, and well said
Alvin R says:
It's a pleasure to read the words of somebody involved with 911 Truth who is also thinking strategically. Similarly, I've suggested that people running for office not discuss 911 until after they've been elected.
Do you have any thoughts on how to target Pelosi for her hypocrisy? Somewhat related, I'm glad to see that Cindy Sheehan is still active politically (see http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/ ), even though she lost recently to Pelosi in an election. Maybe she could be a leader on this front, though I don't know what her position is on TRC.
Assuming that she's for the TRC, maybe she'd consider camping out in front of Pelosi's house and asking her "For what noble reason are you against the TRC, and how does that not make you a hypocrite?"
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
Hearings and witnesses
The only good that would come out of official proceedings is that the two hundred plus witnesses who wanted to testify for the 9/11 commish and who were not allowed might be able to finally be put under oath and protected to speak this time.
I just signed the petition.
I just signed the petition. I like multi-tasking. I'm still a little worried about two things:
1. complacency, in which people think someone else will do the hard work of spreading the word.
2. Limited hangout, where the motivation of the populace to pursue change is neutralized by a system using its large stage to present a robust defensive narrative.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you do well to be concerned
Assuming a TRC takes off, you could also focus part of your efforts in trying to make sure that neither happen. E.g., you can join efforts to make sure that a TRC also interviews 911 related witnesses, when you approach strangers with 911 you can point out some US history on coverups, and thus explain why a TRC could be a double-edged sword, but that they can help guide it in the right direction, etc.
I only ask that people not negatively prejudge a TRC. If it turns out to be a complete bust, or only good for non-911 related matters, or whatever, there is no need not to judge it fairly after the fact.
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
Cindy Sheehan not for the TRC
I emailed her after I wrote the above. She replied that she is against it (as she believes that it will inhibit accountability), and directed me to her new radio show, in particular the interview with Vincent Bugliosi here:
http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/LISTEN.html.
I respectfully disagree, hope that Cindy runs against Pelosi again, and next time sends her on a 'well deserved vacation.' :-)
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
I agree with you and not
I agree with you and not with her. It's like the monkey who puts his hand in a jar and grabs so much he can't get it out again and so gets nothing.
My guess is people like Sheehan are mad and they want to see people punished. Furthermore, they believe that prosecution and punishment will make those things (mainly torture) less likely in the future. The flaw in this reasoning is the prosecutions, should they occur, will be narrow and deal mostly with low level types. Additionally, the investigative process will not be nearly so likely to turn up other crimes.
For 9/11, if the truth commission is not the best thing that has come our way in years, what is?
Let's support it and use it wisely. If it turns out to be just more Washington bull, so what? We can deal with that.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Too threatened by the truth
As I mentioned in another thread, the contrast with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa could hardly be more stark. No matter what similarities we may be encouraged to imagine by giving such a commission this name, the analogy is not apt. Apartheid was a legally sanctioned system for decades, and the fact that, under the apartheid regime, paramilitary groups were killing and 'disappearing' people was understood by all. What remained murky was the precise identifaction of the perpetrators
and the victims, and the particulars (time, place, method) of their killings/deaths.
9/11 by contrast was a fraud perpetrated by a few upon the many. A fraud from which certain interests benefited immensely--and the exposure of which would likewise do immense damage to those interests.
So whether this proposed commission be well-intentioned or a deliberate smokescreen, I fail to see how taking punishment off the table will make people any more likely to divulge what they know than they would otherwise. Powerful interests--those who want the US public to remain pliant with respect to US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia--have as much to lose by the exposure of 9/11 truth now as they did under Bush. Accordingly, I find the view that this course of action is necessarily more 'realistic' or 'pragmatic' than a real criminal investigation would be is highly debatable.