The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Apr-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

For thoughtful child sponsors
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9-11 Commission, is composed of five Democratss and five Republicanss. Its mandate is "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the" September 11, 2001 attacks including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks, as well as allegations of any variation of a 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. The commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. Some have compared its role to that of the Warren Commission of 1963-1964.

It was scheduled to issue its final report on May 27, 2004, but a compromise agreed to by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert allowed sixty days of extension, until July 26. The commission is tasked with interviewing over 1,000 current and former officials and reviewing over two million pages of documents, including some closely-guarded classified national security documents. Before it is released by the commission, the final public report will be screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.

Table of contents
1 Members
2 Criticisms
3 External links

Members

The members of the Commission are:

The Commission's Executive Director is Philip D. Zelikow, and the Deputy Executive Director is Christopher Kojm.

Past and present government officials who were called to testify include:

President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore will all give private testimony. President Bush and Vice President Cheney will be testifying jointly, while Clinton and Gore will meet with the panel individually.

Criticisms

Because the investigation is controversial and politically sensitive, many participants have been criticised during the process. Most of the complaints fit into the following categories.

Claims of bias within the commission

Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, has called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice.

In addition, many members have ties that could be seen as conflicts of interest.

The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission can be expected to maintain its neutrality.

Claims of lack of cooperation from the White House

Although the commission has yet to make a report, the White House has already come under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families [1]. White House leaders have been accused of blocking the commission for nearly a year before announcing its creation. The White House insisted that they be able to appoint the commission's chair, leading some to question the commission's independence. The initial person appointed to head the commission, Henry Kissinger, has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile).

Even after Kissinger resigned, the White House was often cited as having attempted to block the release of information to the commission [1] and for refusing to give interviews without tight conditions attached (leading to threats to subpoena [1]). They have further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million [1]), and by giving the commission a very short deadline. The White House insists that they have given the commission "unprecedented cooperation".

Claims that the commission is being used for partisan purposes

Some conservatives believe that the Democratic Party is planning to use the commission for partisan advantage during the 2004 election campaign. Rather than focusing equally on all factors, critics predict that Congressional Democrats will ignore any policy errors made by Bill Clinton while emphasizing the mistakes of President Bush.[1] Much of this suspicion comes from memos taken from the computers of Democrats in Congress. There is an ongoing investigation of this alleged computer theft.

External links