Wrongdoing?
Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, wrote to Powerline to expand on the contention that the CIA interrogation tapes were, in effect, withheld from the Commission. He seems to make a good case:
we posed, in writing, two lengthy sets of questions in October 2003. The second of these, the one I sent directly to the CIA general counsel, requested any information that the CIA had that was responsive to numerous questions about the context of the interrogations, how they were conducted, the demeanor of the detainees, and so on. The report you have has clauses describing the topic headings in my memorandum, and there were various questions posed underneath each of these headings.
Our disappointment with the responses to those sets of questions then led us to the conclusion that we had no option, if we were to find answers to these questions, except to question the detainees ourselves, and the interrogators too, in at least the cases of the seven detainees most important to our investigation (which included Abu Zubaydah). The report to Kean and Hamilton describes what then occurred.
I have been careful not to accuse anyone of committing crimes. But it is important to understand that, under the applicable federal law, this is not a parlor game of “twenty questions.” Under the applicable federal criminal law, our written and very detailed requests established certain issues as being material to our investigation. Officials were obliged by law to provide any responsive information in their possession (or withhold with a claim of privilege) and they were obligated not to conceal, knowingly, any fact related to such material issues.
Zelikow adds: “Lee Hamilton pointedly reminded DCI Tenet and his chief aides of the breadth of their obligation at a meeting, one occasioned by these very issues, on December 23, 2003.” That Medal of Freedom just keeps looking more peculiar.