The Curatorial Gaze of Accountability
The pattern hiding in plain sight: FIRST INSTANCE: The Church Committee's 'Limited Hangout' (1975) Back in the mid-1970s, facing outrage over revelations of CIA assassinations and domestic spying (Project MKUltra, anyone?), Senator Frank Church's committee was formed. While lauded for some disclosures, critics quickly pointed out its limitations. Key figures and full extents of operations remained
shielded, leading to the coining of the term 'limited hangout' – a technique where some damaging information is released to prevent the release of more damaging information. The public felt engaged, but the deepest, most uncomfortable truths often stayed buried. REPETITIONS: The Iran-Contra 'Investigation' (1987) & The 9/11 Commission's 'Inconvenient Gaps' (2004) Fast forward to the Iran-Contra
affair. Congressional committees, again, were tasked with uncovering the truth. Yet, despite volumes of testimony, the full scope of high-level involvement and pre-knowledge remained elusive. Key documents vanished, memories conveniently failed, and accountability was largely diffused among lower-level operatives (Source: National Security Archive, 1995). Similarly, the 9/11 Commission, convened
after immense public pressure, was celebrated for its report. However, ongoing academic critique, like that from David Ray Griffin, pointed out significant discrepancies and areas seemingly left unexamined, particularly concerning intelligence failures and insider trading activity (Source: David Ray Griffin, 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,' 2005). The public was given a