A good question:
Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda’s participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.Paul Craig Roberts (an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration) says it is "likely that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot". But what if the tapes actually revealed some other truths, some things which Bush & Co did not want anyone to hear?
Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe that evidence of confession would not have been revealed--evidence that could have foreclosed what has become a massive industry of 9/11 truth seekers involving large numbers of highly credible persons?
What about the bin Laden video tape in which he takes credit for the 9/11 attack? Every indication is that the tape is a fake. The bin Laden in the Nov. 9, 2001, “confession video” looks nothing like the bin Laden in the last confirmed video of December, 2001.What if, for example, the detainees screamed out loud that they had been set up by the Mossad agents who were seen dancing on the rooftops of New York City on 9/11?
Recently,the Italian newspaper, Corriere Della Sera, reported that the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said that Italian intelligence had concluded that the bin Laden confession video was a fake.