9/11 Commission Redux

/in , , /by

Spencer had a superb idea:

I don’t pretend that anything will produce an end to this new debate over torture. The fact that we’re debating torture diminishes our standing as a civilization. But moving beyond it: perhaps, after the actionable intelligence is drained from the bin Laden documents, it would be useful to reconvene the 9/11 Commission and have them review the ten-year hunt for bin Laden. It’s not helpful for something that looked like a failure on May 1 to be retconned into an inevitable, inexorable success. The tale of the bin Laden hunt — and the lessons to learn from it — is the logical final chapter of the  2004 report. And the gravitas of the 9/11 Commission, delivered through a public report, would create the closest thing possible to a narrative that can stand proudly before history.

And it would work not just for torture (though, given that the 9/11 Commission had doubts about the KSM interrogations they were reading in real time in 2003, I suspect we know what they’d conclude).

In addition to assessing whether torture, skilled interrogation by al Qaeda experts, or something else worked, the Commission could also review whether dragnet illegal wiretapping or targeted, legal wiretapping worked better; whether human missions or drones did; whether ground wars or smaller responses worked better (particularly when the ground war had nothing to do with terrorism). The Commission could develop a sense of where our counterterrorist investments paid off, and what served primarily to enrich contractors. Whether it makes sense to feel up cancer survivors at TSA gates, or whether the human screening already in place works better.

And, because we’re about due, the Commission can repeat all the non-nonsense recommendations it made 7 years ago (like scans of shipping containers) that the government refuses to put in place.

I’ve said we need a pause to figure out what has worked and what hasn’t. A 9/11 Commission 2.0 would work well for this.

image_print
  4. Public says:

    the gravitas of 9/11 Commission……..what a load of crap. If you want something added to that piece of fiction, just call Philip Zelikow and I am sure he will finish up your 9/11 Commission 2.0 report, at a very reasonable rate.

    You people here remind me of the type of kids on the playground, that would say something like…..I am not going to believe what you say…..no matter what you show me!…..while stomping a foot. There is so much evidence out there, I am surprised your not tripping over it.

    Dr. Steven R. Pieczenik

    Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an M.D. from Cornell University Medical College and a Ph.D. in International Relations from M.I.T. He was the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD. focusing on international relations. He served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker.

    During his career as a senior State Department official, Dr. Pieczenik utilized his unique abilities and expertise to develop strategies and tactics that were instrumental in resolving major conflicts in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and the United States.

    Dr. Pieczenik was the principal International Crisis Manager and Hostage Negotiator under Secretaries Kissinger and Vance. During this time he developed conflict resolution techniques that were instrumental in saving over five hundred hostages in different terrorist episodes, including the Hanafi Moslem Seizure in Washington, DC, the TWA Croatian Hijacking, the Aldo Moro Kidnapping, the JRA Hijacking, the PLO Hijacking, and many other incidents involving terrorists such as Idi Amin, Muammar Quaddafi, Carlos, FARC, Abu Nidal and Saddam Hussein.

    Dr. Pieczenik helped develop negotiation strategies for major U.S.- Soviet arms control summits under the Reagan administration. He was also involved in advising senior officials on important psycho-political dynamics and conflict mediation strategies for President Carter’s successful Camp David Peace Conference. In 1991, Dr. Pieczenik was a chief architect of the Cambodian Peace Conference in Paris. He is currently an advisor to the Department of Defense.

    Dr. Pieczenik has started several successful companies, employing his methodologies in various industries, including investment banking, publishing and television/film.

    Dr. Steve Pieczenik is a critically acclaimed author of psycho-political thrillers and the co-creator of the New York Times best-selling Tom Clancy’s Op-Center and Tom Clancy’s Net Force book series. He is also one of the world’s most experienced international crisis managers and hostage negotiators. His novels are based on his twenty years experience in resolving international crises for four U.S. administrations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d679JVfRcOM&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVu5HXjUKI&feature=player_embedded

    • emptywheel says:

      Not sure if you understand that the bolded stuff is a blockquote–not something I said. That’s key to you understanding what I say, and what someone else says.

      There’s a lot of reasons to question whether the 9/11 Commission was appropriate to its original purpose–and yes, that has been widely discussed.

      But as I also point out, in spite of all those reasons, the Commission pushed back on precisely the area of interrogations. So it’d be an interesting group precisely bc realist REpublicans invested them w/credibility, yet they were among the first institutional players pointing out the shortcomings of detainee interrogations. So for all their limits, from a realpolitik play, they would have certain advantages.

      • Public says:

        Stand corrected on format…..I understood those were not your words. I think we are beyond, relying on those realist republicans, who invested the 9/11 Commission w/credibility.

  5. mzchief says:

    Tangential– Nasty:

    Per Bloomberg: “Finland will back a bailout for Portugal provided the third euro member to require aid in 12 months agrees to conditions including state asset sales. In addition, Finland wants a guarantee that bailout donors will get their loans repaid before private investors, he said.” Which simply said, means that as PIIGS, already held hostage by a monetary union which threatens with world extinction should it be unwound, and by bankers who promise to never lend money should they be forced to take even once cent in senior debt impairments, will next be forced to literally sell themselves off at n blue light special auctions, where the liquidation sale biggest bidders will be none other than the very same financial institutions who have put these countries in their terminal predicament. Incidentally, all this is coming to municipalities and local governments in the US very, very soon.

    (excerpt from “Finland To Support Portugal Bail Out In Exchange For Collateralization, Asset Sales,” May 12, 2011)

  6. tjbs says:

    Yea, I could support a more open wide ranging commission with witnesses being questioned separability for more than 60 minutes if necessary.

    You people ???? who want to look back to find the truth so that can be applied to determining our forward direction. Also, study why the executive finds the law of the land optional.

  7. NMvoiceofreason says:

    I have a better idea than a commission. Let’s try the Torture 13 in open court for conspiracy to commit torture and torture to death of the 25 detainees who died that way. Let them each enjoy being on death row for a while.

    Put down a line so bright that not even malignant narcissists like Donald Trump will risk it, ever again.

  8. lysias says:

    At this point, for a new 9/11 Commission to have credibility, I think it would have to be an international body. The U.S. government and the two major U.S. parties discredited themselves too badly with the original 9/11 Commission.

    And, while examining the torture and the interrogations would have value, so would repeating everything the original 9/11 Commission did.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    A Torture Commission with subpoena power and the ability to impose criminal sanctions for non-compliance, whose remit was to investigate and document torture, with a view to documenting its prevalence, the harm it did to people, to criminal court cases, international relations and the rule of law, and to preventing its reoccurrence at the hands of or enabled by the US government, would be a good thing.

    That would be true if its intent was to provide restitution for those harmed, even if the price were legal immunity – and public notoriety – for those who authorized, enabled or engaged in it. The trick and the devil, however, are in the details.

    Forming a commission to document torture’s “effectiveness” would be an own goal. It would be like forming a commission to evaluate whether government assassinations of US and foreign citizens keeps them from spilling awkward secrets. In that case, at least, the commission would probably find, within the narrowest parameters of its authority to investigate, that yes, dead men tell no tales (though they might still leave behind embarrassing records).

    In the case of torture, the literature is already abundant that it does not “work” in the sense that it does not reveal accurate information in a form or within a time frame that can be used by military and police authorities to prevent or punish violent crimes. It doesn’t work in that it corrupts the torturer and her society as much as the victim.

    Torture is already illegal in every country that’s a party to the Convention Against Torture, even those who acceded to it with reservations. A blue ribbon panel would reopen that question.

    Conceding a lack of certainty about its “effectiveness” inherently concedes what the law now does not: that there are exigent circumstances that would allow it. Among other effects, that would allow those who authorized, enabled and committed torture the defense that they lacked criminal or reckless intent, absolving them from criminal liability and from the social notoriety that should bar them from government and high corporate office.

    I can see, though, its attraction for the quietly bureaucratic Mr. Obama. Empaneling a commission to “determine” whether torture “works” would allow its apologists and advocates a platform form which they could normalize and immunize their behavior without having to do that himself. It would be a panel of Liz Cheneys, Paul Wolfowitzes and Joe Liebermans. And it would be a bigger own goal than any Mr. Obama has scored before.

  10. Public says:

    Marcy,

    I used to have so much respect for you, but more and more over the years, I find your willful ignorance deplorable.

    I used think that there was no one better suited than you, to help America sort through this terrible mess.

    Sadly, you have shown yourself not to be the person that I thought you were.

    Mark Dotzler