Our mandate expects that we will build on the Joint Inquiry's investigation and we will not be re-inventing the wheel. But we go to places which the Joint Inquiry was not permitted to explore.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We shall be forced to attempt planned and directed research employing hundreds of workers for many years, and this cannot be done without risking the loss of independence and originality. This is a serious and fundamental obstacle but it may be overcome in two ways.
Well, our statute provides us with authority to conduct a very broad inquiry basically to provide an investigation of 9/11 that's thorough, complete and will withstand the scrutiny of history.
We are stymied by regulations, limited choice and the threat of litigation. Neither consultants nor industry itself provide research which takes architecture forward.
The president really shouldn't be involved in terms of dictating what course the investigation should take.
We made certain that there were decent transitional arrangements to get us to where we wanted to go. The same principle will have to apply here or we won't get there.
I did not want to provide a blueprint or roadmap for the terrorists, saying 'Here are our new security procedures'.
My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations.
For much of my life there was no place where the things I wanted to investigate were of interest to anyone.
Sequestration is leverage that should not be given up easily.
It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.
No opposing quotes found.