Today's Article
The CIA is the only
counterterrorism
agency which
refuses to release
any version of its
internal 9/11 review.
counterterrorism
agency which
refuses to release
any version of its
internal 9/11 review.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Senators Demand Release Of CIA's 9/11 Report
By Cliff Montgomery - May 18th, 2007
A bipartisan cadre of senators is spearheading legislation which would demand a public release of the CIA
inspector general's (IG) report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.
The agency has spent over a year and a half denying requests for its release under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), and has yet to release a single portion of the IG report.
The CIA is the only federal agency involved in counterterrorism operations which has not made public at least a
redacted version of its internal 9/11 investigation.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), along two other intelligence committee leaders--chairman Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV), and the senior Republican, Missouri's Kit Bond--are backing legislation which would force the CIA to
declassify the executive summary of the IG report within one month, and would also compel the agency to
submit an explanation to Congress stating why any material was redacted.
The Senate twice approved the provision, but the bill never made it all the way through the legislative process
into law.
Wyden said in an interview with Associated Press (AP) that he is also mulling whether to link the release of the
executive summary to his acceptance of George W. Bush's nominations for national security positions.
"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going [though] to stonewall this," Wyden told AP.
"The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical
months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it," he added.
It's good to see some Democrats and Republicans who aren't crazy show political guts for a change...
One reason this report is important: The CIA's IG report was completed in June 2005, and discussed the
personal responsibility of individuals at the agency before and after the attacks. And while we don't yet know
what's in this report, reviews at other agencies dealt with structural problems within their organizations.
Another reason for recognizing a great importance here: being a member of the Senate intelligence
committee, Wyden has read the classified review several times. And though he naturally refuses to discuss its
findings at the moment, he should know if there is a thing or two in the review that every American needs to
know. That other senators have joined this call--creating a bipartisan call in fact--only adds certainty to this
realization.
The excuses the Bush Administration gives for not informing Americans about their own democratic
government are the usual puffs of false rhetoric, and only seem to validate that the CIA report must really be
something.
Senator Bond told AP that some intelligence officials have tried to dismiss the inspector general's report as
"ancient history", which he rightly doesn't accept. For if it's "ancient history", that is all the more reason to
believe it can be released without fear of inadvertently revealing any damaging facts.
Bond added that the report in fact possesses information which would indeed be useful to the public.
"We have no desire to embarrass or throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the great men and women of the
CIA, but let's just take a clear and open look at what the IG found and see if we have all of those problems
corrected," said Bond.
Wyden told AP that a wish to protect individuals from embarrassment is not a valid reason for keeping the
study's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has more to do with political
spin than with national security.
CIA Director Michael Hayden declined a requested AP interview on the report. In a statement released
Thursday, his spokesman Mark Mansfield said:
"Given the formidable national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General Hayden
believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward," claimed Mansfield. "That's where our emphasis needs
to be."
No, Mr. Mansfield, a democratic nation can't move forward until the people who actually run this country know
where they've been--or where they need to be. Demanding our blind submission and equally blind trust is no
answer at all.
Former CIA Director Porter Goss rejected a request from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson for the
agency to create accountability review boards to discover any personal culpability. Bond replied that Goss'
refusal was regrettable.
Republicans love to say that government should be run like a business. So let's ask ourselves a simple
question: could a business be properly run if its managers never hold anyone responsible for big-time
screw-ups?
Using strict Republican logic, if you couldn't competently run such an operation with mere dollars on the line,
then you can't claim to competently run a government organization this way with American lives on the line, Mr.
Goss. The stakes are just too high.
By Cliff Montgomery - May 18th, 2007
A bipartisan cadre of senators is spearheading legislation which would demand a public release of the CIA
inspector general's (IG) report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.
The agency has spent over a year and a half denying requests for its release under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), and has yet to release a single portion of the IG report.
The CIA is the only federal agency involved in counterterrorism operations which has not made public at least a
redacted version of its internal 9/11 investigation.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), along two other intelligence committee leaders--chairman Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV), and the senior Republican, Missouri's Kit Bond--are backing legislation which would force the CIA to
declassify the executive summary of the IG report within one month, and would also compel the agency to
submit an explanation to Congress stating why any material was redacted.
The Senate twice approved the provision, but the bill never made it all the way through the legislative process
into law.
Wyden said in an interview with Associated Press (AP) that he is also mulling whether to link the release of the
executive summary to his acceptance of George W. Bush's nominations for national security positions.
"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going [though] to stonewall this," Wyden told AP.
"The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical
months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it," he added.
It's good to see some Democrats and Republicans who aren't crazy show political guts for a change...
One reason this report is important: The CIA's IG report was completed in June 2005, and discussed the
personal responsibility of individuals at the agency before and after the attacks. And while we don't yet know
what's in this report, reviews at other agencies dealt with structural problems within their organizations.
Another reason for recognizing a great importance here: being a member of the Senate intelligence
committee, Wyden has read the classified review several times. And though he naturally refuses to discuss its
findings at the moment, he should know if there is a thing or two in the review that every American needs to
know. That other senators have joined this call--creating a bipartisan call in fact--only adds certainty to this
realization.
The excuses the Bush Administration gives for not informing Americans about their own democratic
government are the usual puffs of false rhetoric, and only seem to validate that the CIA report must really be
something.
Senator Bond told AP that some intelligence officials have tried to dismiss the inspector general's report as
"ancient history", which he rightly doesn't accept. For if it's "ancient history", that is all the more reason to
believe it can be released without fear of inadvertently revealing any damaging facts.
Bond added that the report in fact possesses information which would indeed be useful to the public.
"We have no desire to embarrass or throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the great men and women of the
CIA, but let's just take a clear and open look at what the IG found and see if we have all of those problems
corrected," said Bond.
Wyden told AP that a wish to protect individuals from embarrassment is not a valid reason for keeping the
study's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has more to do with political
spin than with national security.
CIA Director Michael Hayden declined a requested AP interview on the report. In a statement released
Thursday, his spokesman Mark Mansfield said:
"Given the formidable national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General Hayden
believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward," claimed Mansfield. "That's where our emphasis needs
to be."
No, Mr. Mansfield, a democratic nation can't move forward until the people who actually run this country know
where they've been--or where they need to be. Demanding our blind submission and equally blind trust is no
answer at all.
Former CIA Director Porter Goss rejected a request from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson for the
agency to create accountability review boards to discover any personal culpability. Bond replied that Goss'
refusal was regrettable.
Republicans love to say that government should be run like a business. So let's ask ourselves a simple
question: could a business be properly run if its managers never hold anyone responsible for big-time
screw-ups?
Using strict Republican logic, if you couldn't competently run such an operation with mere dollars on the line,
then you can't claim to competently run a government organization this way with American lives on the line, Mr.
Goss. The stakes are just too high.