|
911 panel reaches deal on access to papers { November 13 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33881-2003Nov12.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33881-2003Nov12.html
9/11 Panel Reaches Deal On Access To Papers
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 13, 2003; Page A01
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reached an agreement with the White House yesterday to gain restricted access to years of classified presidential briefings, which had been the focus of subpoena threats from the panel's chairman.
The compromise will allow the 10-member commission to create a four-person subcommittee that will have varying degrees of access to the documents known as Presidential Daily Briefs from the Bush and Clinton administrations, according to a commission statement and sources familiar with the agreement.
But the accord also includes restrictions limiting what parts of the briefings can be seen and what parts can later be shared with the rest of the bipartisan panel, and it includes White House review of much of that information, sources familiar with the agreement said. Those with direct access will take notes, and those notes are subject to review by the White House before being shared with others, sources said.
The limitations prompted angry condemnations yesterday from two Democratic commissioners -- former senator Max Cleland (Ga.) and former representative Timothy J. Roemer (Ind.) -- who have argued that the commission should be more aggressive in seeking sensitive materials from the Bush administration.
Cleland called the agreement "unconscionable" and said it "was deliberately compromised by the president of the United States" to limit the commission's work.
"If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access," Cleland said. "This investigation is now compromised. . . . This is 'The Gong Show'; this isn't protection of national security."
Roemer said: "To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all."
But Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor and another Democrat on the panel, said the deal was a "compromise that respects the integrity and independence of the commission."
"It is not perfect, but this will provide the commission with sufficient access," Ben-Veniste said.
The commission, which does not release vote counts and has conducted many of its deliberations behind closed doors, declined yesterday to publicly provide details about the agreement. "We believe this agreement will prove satisfactory and enable us to get our job done," a commission statement said.
White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee said that the administration "has been working closely with the commission to ensure they have the information they need to be successful" and that "we are pleased that we were able to reach an agreement."
The bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, created by Congress more than a year ago after months of resistance from the White House, has been seriously hobbled by ongoing battles with the Bush administration over access to documents. In the past month, the panel has issued subpoenas to the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration for materials related to air defense on the day of the attacks.
But the commission balked at a proposal by Roemer last week to subpoena the presidential documents, which include an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing outlining possible attacks by the al Qaeda network. The commission's chairman, former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), had warned two weeks earlier that the commission was considering subpoenas targeting the White House.
Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, was killed at the World Trade Center, assailed the commission yesterday for refusing to provide details of its deal with the White House.
"They should be clear on why this is better than subpoenaing and getting full and unfettered access," Breitweiser said. "That should be part of the public debate."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
|
