Independence critical for the 9/11 commission

It's time to recall why the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was created. Relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, cowardly blood-letting on U.S. soil were dissatisfied with the partisan bickering in Congress and were suspicious of the White House's commitment to coming up with a straight answer to this important question: How could it have happened?
The relatives, in the midst of congressional hearings into the attack that was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida terrorist group, demanded the creation of an independent commission to delve into such issues as whether past and present administrations ignored intelligence warnings.
While Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill finally agreed to the creation of the commission, President Bush refused to go along until Congress agreed to several conditions. One gave the president the authority to appoint the chairman of the panel.
But even after the 10 members were named, it became clear that cooperation from the executive branch was going to be grudging, at best.
Indeed, the commission had to subpoena the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration for documents it requested months ago.
The Family Steering Committee, which pushed for the creation of the commission, has publicly voiced its displeasure at inability of the panel to do its work unimpeded.
But rather than learn from what has taken place thus far, the White House continues to erect roadblocks. Its refusal to permit the commission to review daily CIA presidential briefings brought the threat of a subpoena and a possible constitutional clash.
Restricted access
A compromise was reached last week that, according to the Associated Press, gives the commission restricted access to the daily written intelligence assessments. In fact, the review will be conducted by two committees, one consisting of two commissioners, and the other of four. And they will not be permitted to make copies of documents. Instead, the commission members will take notes.
But the restrictions don't end there. The notes will be reviewed by the White House before they are shared with the other members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
So much for independence.
Former Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat from Georgia, was on the mark when he called the compromise and the White House's control of the process "unconscionable."
Another member, former Rep. Tim Roemer, Democrat from Indiana, posed this question: "How can you get the context of how Al-Qaida or Afghanistan is being prioritized in 10 or 12 pages when you are only seeing two paragraphs?"
Although a majority of the commission agreed to the compromise to avert a prolonged court battle with the White House, the skepticism already borne by relatives of the 9/11 victims -- more than 3,000 people perished -- has grown.
The Family Screening Committee is demanding full public disclosure of the agreement between the White House and the commission. It's a reasonable demand.
Under the spotlight public scrutiny, commission members may well decide that they gave away too much of their independence and their authority.
We have long argued that the investigation into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks must not be partisan and must not be political. The American people deserve the full, unvarnished truth about why Sept. 11, 2001, occurred.
Although there is a May deadline for the commission to complete its work, we believe Congress should be flexible so the final report addresses every issue that has been raised since that fateful day.