9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey: It Might Take "A Permanent 9/11 Commission" to End the Remaining Mysteries of September 11 → Washingtons Blog
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey: It Might Take "A Permanent 9/11 Commission" to End the Remaining Mysteries of September 11 - Washingtons Blog

Monday, March 16, 2009

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey: It Might Take "A Permanent 9/11 Commission" to End the Remaining Mysteries of September 11

Some of us have been writing for years (see this and this) that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees. As I wrote in March 2007:

In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

I have also previously written that Senator Leahy's desire to base a torture investigation on the 9/11 Commission was problematic.

Now, Newsweek is running an essay by Philip Shenon saying the same thing:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission....

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel's report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.

Footnotes in the panel's report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report's footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel's behalf.

The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking. ...

Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11. Those now calling for more 9/11-style panels would be wise to heed his words.

Thank you to Newsweek for addressing this important issue.


  1. I would love to see Leahy's truth commission, or better yet a Special Investigator start digging around in the Bush-Cheney years and discover the smoking-gun evidence that proves 9-11 to have been an inside job.

    That should put a permanent end to the Republican Party, the neocons, and their dirtbag hangers-on.

  2. I know two men who claim to have read the 9/11 Report, cover to cover, and insisted that the government's and medias' version of events was the true version. They were stumped when I asked them about Building 7; they didn't even know about its existence. Amazing. These two unthinking men were both FoxRepublicanBushbots, of course.

  3. good that Newsweek and Shillnon are pointing out this single aspect of the 9/11 Commission's lack of credibility- and a full investigation is needed, as there hasn't been one yet.

    Commissioner Kerrey replaced Cleland; hes' a Vietnam war criminal but also a Dem who was critical of Clinton and the 9/11 Commission- why would he say we need "a permanent 9/11 commission"?

    What does that mean? One, he must know the Commission was a cover up on some level, having noted conflicts of interest, omissions and having a different opinion about its conclusions (see interview w/ Zahn linked below). Two, why "permanent"? Why not do a complete criminal investigation or truth and reconciliation commission, lock up the criminals and be done with it? Of course, safeguards against false-flag terrorists and treasonous moles in the govt. need to be instituted, but a "permanent" commission? This coming from the guy who, after the 2004 election, called Bush out for being aware of the al qaeda operation and not shutting down, and said the Commissioners "took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign" (smells like treason; swore an OATH; as a Senator, he swore an OATH to defend the Constitution)

    Bob Kerrey Timeline


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.