Guest columnist Jim Gibbons: No new Sept. 11 probe needed

Jim Gibbons

Friday, May 31, 2002 | 4:56 a.m.

By Jim Gibbons

Jim Gibbons, a Republican and member of the House's Select Intelligence Committee, represents Nevada's 2nd Congressional District.

One of the current "inside the beltway" issues is the call for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. On the surface, this appears to be a reasonable idea -- until you understand the political basis and biases for such demands. Generally, however, I agree with those who believe that a review is warranted. But is an independent commission the proper avenue? I do not think so, and here is why.

First, establishing yet another Sept. 11 review (yes, there is already one under way) will unduly burden the intelligence, defense and law enforcement agencies that are currently stretched in fighting the war on terrorism and trying to prevent another attack.

Second, the establishment of an independent commission historically will require months of preparation and organization to appoint members, hire cleared staff and duplicate collection and coordination arrangements that already exist between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (through the already existing review) and the administration.

Third, there already have been numerous independent commissions on terrorism-related matters that have issued reports during the past decade. These include the Bremer Commission on Terrorism, the Gore Commission on Aviation Security, the Hart-Rudman Commission on 21st Century Security, and the Gilmore Commission. And their findings are largely the same, yet their findings and recommendations have been largely ignored. Thus, both Congress and the White House can ignore an independent commission's report, whereas a Congressional report can result in legislation and action.

Fourth, it is critical that a review of highly sensitive information be done in a responsible secure and non-politicized manner; this is important not only for the integrity of an inquiry, but also to ensure that terrorists do not take advantage of weaknesses in our security infrastructure should the information be mishandled.

Finally, and most importantly, it is Congress' job to do oversight! Especially in the area of intelligence, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (which have historically been nonpartisan) were established to understand and respond to the precise type of activities and questions that must be reviewed in this case.

And we are doing just that with a bicameral, bipartisan joint inquiry involving all members of both committees and utilizing a specially selected joint inquiry staff whose sole purpose is conducting this review. This joint inquiry was established in February with the full endorsement of House and Senate leadership of both parties.

It is examining the activities and knowledge of the intelligence and law enforcement communities to understand and explain to the executive branch, to Congress and to the American people what happened, how it happened, and what we need to do within government to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence of such terrible terrorists' actions.

The joint inquiry has already culled through hundreds of thousands of documents and has conducted hundreds of interviews. Hearings of the joint inquiry will begin next week and will be conducted over the summer, including hearings that will be open to the public.

In the hours after the terrible attacks of Sept. 11, everyone quickly declared that this was the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. Based on my experience as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee and, now, as a member of the joint inquiry, I believe that before we can fully understand what happened and what other security failures may reside in other elements of our government that allowed for the terrorist to take advantage of us, it is critical to understand how the intelligence and law enforcement communities operated and what they knew. We will know, as will the American people, at the end of the joint inquiry's process.

So, although at some future time there might be a need for additional examinations of the operations and performance of other parts of the government, let's wait until we fully understand what information was available and how it was handled. Let's also allow the oversight process to work as it was intended -- in fact, let's hold Congress accountable to fulfill its responsibilities. So, don't let Congress shirk its responsibilities by resorting to a commission, especially one whose origin is rooted in political rhetoric.