9-11 Commission Testimony Too Hot To Be Under
Oath
by Tom Flocco
(posted 7:00 AM.
ET) ![]()
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.
Jane Garvey, former head of
the Federal Aviation Administration, had a difficult time during her
testimony on Thursday afternoon, particularly with issues surrounding the
9/11 timeline. Moreover, she continually remarked that the FBI was
handling many issues thought to be within her own
realm.
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.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
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.
![]()
