Boeing Teams With Five Airlines In 9/11 Lawsuit Against CIA, FBI

[greyleonard]

August 08, 2007

Five airlines and airline-maker Boeing have filed 9/11-related lawsuits in Manhattan Federal Court against the CIA and the FBI.

The airlines say they need the agents' testimony to defend themselves against lawsuits which say they were to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

Forty-one cases were filed on behalf of 42 victims, because some of them decided to sue the airlines rather than accept payouts from the September 11th Victim's Compensation Fund.

The first trials are scheduled to begin next month.

link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=72444)

So, this means the airlines are suing to have the CIA and FBI appear as witnesses, right?
This should be interesting. I think the US airlines do have some culpability along the lines of not taking reasonable precautions - especially compared with the security measures that were in place at airports in Israel, for example.

[T.A.M.]

and the countdown for truthers to go ape dooey in 5...4...3...2...1

TAM:)

[Viper Daimao]

I think the US airlines do have some culpability along the lines of not taking reasonable precautions - especially compared with the security measures that were in place at airports in Israel, for example.

I don't agree. These attacks were unprecedented in world history. There was even argument about whether to have armed US marshals on flights and to lock the pilot door after 9/11, do you think it could have been done before? I don't it. This is all hindsight.
And we're not israel, we're not surrounded by countries out to exterminate us. We're not analogous in these extremes.

[T.A.M.]

I agree Viper. If we honestly look at this with a PRE 9/11 mindset, the airlines did nothing negligent. To expect them to pay damages for something unprecedented, without any warning, and without any evidence that their companies did anything incompetent or negligent is invalid.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

With all due respect to their trauma, I really think the victim's families need to get over it. They're trying to accuse anyone for these attacks, they're desperate to find a scapegoat.

Here's a hint:

Al Qaeda is to blame. Period.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think the US airlines do have some culpability along the lines of not taking reasonable precautions - especially compared with the security measures that were in place at airports in Israel, for example.
were airlines directly responsible for airport security? or are you thinking the airlines shoul dhave had additional in-flight security?

something like this could set a far-reaching precedent, for example, if someone gets shot in a bank robbery, is the bank accountable?


BTW viper i like your avatar, makes me want to go read my gi joe vs transformers tpb again, lol, i used to have a cobra/freemason logo i used on this forum

[DavidJames]

I’m torn.

On the one hand I say, let the suit run it’s course and let the facts decide the results.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bush Admin. stonewall and prevent the CIA or FBI from testifying, which will play right into the CTists mindsets.

[T.A.M.]

and the countdown for truthers to go ape dooey in 5...4...3...2...1

TAM:)

I’m torn.

On the one hand I say, let the suit run it’s course and let the facts decide the results.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bush Admin. stonewall and prevent the CIA or FBI from testifying, which will play right into the CTists mindsets.

Exactly...

TAM:)

[greyleonard]

were airlines directly responsible for airport security? or are you thinking the airlines shoul dhave had additional in-flight security?

I'm thinking more along the lines of securing the cockpit against intrusion.

There's no way we can now discuss this without the benefit of hindsight, but
hijackings certainly weren't unprecedented in 2001.
We were also aware of domestic terrorists and just plain crazy people before 9/11, as well. I would bet that secure cockpits had been discussed and then dismissed due to cost considerations.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm thinking more along the lines of securing the cockpit against intrusion.

There's no way we can now discuss this without the benefit of hindsight, but
hijackings certainly weren't unprecedented in 2001.
We were also aware of domestic terrorists and just plain crazy people before 9/11, as well. I would bet that secure cockpits had been discussed and then dismissed due to cost considerations.
i think a big question regarding secured cockpits is would it have made a difference on 9/11?

sure the pilot and copilot can lock themselves in the cockpit, but what happens what the hijackers threaten the passengers and crew? do they kep the doors locked and let people get stabbed?

sure in hindsight we can say they were all going to die anyway, and this would save more lives on the ground, but i dont think anyone expected the hijackers were planning on crashing the planes, so overall i think more secure cockpits wouldnt have made any difference on 9/11, in fact it may have made things worse, as the f93 hijackers wouldnt have to had to worry about the passengers breaking back into the cockpit


of course either side of the argument would be reduced to speculation, but this is my 2 (or more) cents

[T.A.M.]

Some of the hijackers were described by passengers and crew to have what looked like explosives with them. I have no doubt, that one of the reasons they had this, beside as a deterent to being attacked by the passengers, was to use as a threat if the cockpit was not immediately accessable.

TAM:)

[greyleonard]

i think a big question regarding secured cockpits is would it have made a difference on 9/11?

sure the pilot and copilot can lock themselves in the cockpit, but what happens what the hijackers threaten the passengers and crew? do they kep the doors locked and let people get stabbed?

9/11 could have been a different kind of attack carried out on a different, softer target, and could have resulted in even more deaths, sure. Then, of course, the airlines wouldn't have any responsibility.

At any given time during a flight over populated, urban areas,(targets) what is the approximate time it would take a pilot to make a relatively safe emergency landing if he knew a passenger was threatening to kill the rest of the passengers?

There's no way we can be totally safe in our culture, so the argument is about what constitutes reasonable precautions. It's a toughy, I know.

I like what George Carlin had to say about it in 1999 (http://zinzang.com/du/Carlin.1999.YouAreAllDiseased.excerpt.mp3). (4mb mp3)

[parky76]

I really dont agree with this "it was pre-9/11 so we can't blaim them" attitude. We had the wtc bombing in 1993, we had OKC, we had the plot to blow up the subways in Brooklyn, we had the plot to blow up the Holland tunnel, we had the Millenium plot, we had the Al Qaeda plot to blow up all those airplanes over the Atlantic. It seems like the only thing that changed on 9-11 wasn't the level of threat or the amount of hatred against the USA...its just that on 9-11 they succeeded when before they mostly failed.

With this in mind, and knowing that the CIA and FBI was fully aware of the threat against us, why let them off the hook at all? There is clear evidence that they knew of atleast two hijackers in the USA and did nothing about it. Had they pursued these two individuals, the plot may have been uncovered and it would have ended up as just another failed attempt on the USA.

If the someone in the FBI or CIA screwed up, was negligent in a way that led to 3,000 Americans being killed, that person or persons needs to be held accountable for what they did.

The tragedy of 9-11 was indeed a conspiracy. A conspiracy between the initiative and ingenuity of Al Qaeda..and the pathetic failure of America's intelligence community.

[defaultdotxbe]

At any given time during a flight over populated, urban areas,(targets) what is the approximate time it would take a pilot to make a relatively safe emergency landing if he knew a passenger was threatening to kill the rest of the passengers?

well before 9/11 urban areas were not thought of as "targets" when someone hijacked a plane it was always in the hijackers best interest to keep people alive and unharmed (it was generally to hold them for ransom)

also, it would take about 10 minutes to safely descend from cruising altitude, plenty of time for 4-5 men to kill all the passengers (or, more likely, kill a few, then get killed by the rest)

either way, given that "everyones gonna die anyway" was almost certainly not going through the pilots heads at the time of the hijacking i still dont think more secure cockpits would make any difference

i think even now, post 9/11, it would be very difficult for a pilot to just leave the passengers and crew to their fates while hes locked in the cockpit

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't agree. These attacks were unprecedented in world history. There was even argument about whether to have armed US marshals on flights and to lock the pilot door after 9/11, do you think it could have been done before? I don't it. This is all hindsight.
And we're not israel, we're not surrounded by countries out to exterminate us. We're not analogous in these extremes.

Particularly when it was an act of war. Your president said so. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Take it to politics.

You want to talk about the facts in this case? Sure.

Why don't you start by telling us who the 42 folks have sued besides the airlines.

[PhantomWolf]

I'll bet most of those suing the airlines are democRATS or liberals in another guise.

The irony is that it was Al Gore who shelved the pre-9/11 report recommending airlines secure cockpits against intrusion.

I could be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that the FAA did issue a recommendation that cockpits should be locked just after the hijacking over in Africa that lead to the plane running out of fuel and crashing, but it was left up to the Airlines themselves to determine their policy and most I think left it to their pilots to make the decision.

[Reheat]

The tragedy of 9-11 was indeed a conspiracy. A conspiracy between the initiative and ingenuity of Al Qaeda..and the pathetic failure of America's intelligence community.

That's exactly it in a nutshell. This was prerequisite to everything else afterward.

[Reheat]

IIRC, Airlines were responsible for the SECURITY Checks prior to 911 (I'm searching for a reference). Pretty much everyone involved in the industry knew SECURITY was a sham. Like the failure of intelligence, there wasn't enough motivation to change or correct it. That's precisely why it was changed to the TSA after 911, I believe on the recommendation of the 911 Commission.

I'd say there's better than a 50/50 change they might have to pay in a wrongful death civil suit.

ADD: This reference is only to confirm who paid for Security prior to 911.

http://teamliberty.net/id22.html

[LashL]

Has anyone posted links to the actual court documents yet to ascertain the specifics of the claim, the specifics of the defence, the status of the matter, etc.?

If not, I will look them up on PACER when I have some time, which will not likely be until the weekend. (I've just gone back to work after slightly more than two weeks on vacation so I'm a bit swamped).

[gumboot]

With this in mind, and knowing that the CIA and FBI was fully aware of the threat against us, why let them off the hook at all?


We're talking about people sueing the airlines for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks.





There is clear evidence that they knew of atleast two hijackers in the USA and did nothing about it. Had they pursued these two individuals, the plot may have been uncovered and it would have ended up as just another failed attempt on the USA.


Prior to 9/11, the CIA and FBI could not share information. Some silly notion Americans had about not wanting their government to spy on them. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were "fresh" terrorists. They were not known to belong to a terrorist organisation of any kind. They were simply foreign visitors, living in the USA for a time. There was no legitimate reason for the FBI or CIA to spy on them.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow your government to spy on people without justification, or you accept that attacks like 9/11 will happen. there is no alternative.

-Gumboot

[fezzic]

I looked up the Manhattan District Court, Southern District blah blah, and also took a look at another article on the lawsuit. From the article, I think the idea that Boeing et al. "sued" the FBI and CIA is a bit over the top. It appears that Boeing et al. want to be able to interview various people at the FBI and CIA who were involved in counter-terrorism and such.

So maybe it was a motion requesting the court to require that the agencies allow the interviews. Probably the intent is to get testimony that if the government didn't have any particular idea of the particular threat then how could the airlines do any better? Or something like that.

The case appears, I didn't get into the court documents, to be 21 MC 97 or something.

[Alareth]

I looked up the Manhattan District Court, Southern District blah blah, and also took a look at another article on the lawsuit. From the article, I think the idea that Boeing et al. "sued" the FBI and CIA is a bit over the top. It appears that Boeing et al. want to be able to interview various people at the FBI and CIA who were involved in counter-terrorism and such.

So maybe it was a motion requesting the court to require that the agencies allow the interviews. Probably the intent is to get testimony that if the government didn't have any particular idea of the particular threat then how could the airlines do any better? Or something like that.

The case appears, I didn't get into the court documents, to be 21 MC 97 or something.


Essentially a subpeona for expert witnesses then?

[chillzero]

I have split off the political conversation to the politics forum.

[T.A.M.]

I think we have to look at it from a "pre 9/11" perspective, because in determining what would have been considered "adequate" security for planes in that era is MUCH, MUCH different than what is considered "adequate" now. Likewise, what the public would have tolerated in terms of inconveniences and monetary sacrifice back then, would have been different than now.

pre-9/11, there had been no hijackings in a long time. There had been no serious terror threats involving planes. There had been no terrorist attack on home soil in a number of years. There had never been a "Planes as weapons" attack.

So to think that passengers, prior to 9/11 would have accepted the increase in airfare, and the slow downs that would have been experienced to implement "reasonable" precautions that would have substantially increased the prevention of 9/11, is a stretch. We find it hard to say so now, because as hard as we try, we cannot look at it, without some degree of post 9/11 bias.

TAM:)

to address the "cockpit intrusion" precautions some have mentioned, pre-9/11 the approach with hijackings was to comply completely with the hijackers, so as to not make them upset and start killing the kidnapped. What incentive/motive/catalyst was there in a pre 9/11 world to implement such precautions?

[fezzic]

Essentially a subpeona for expert witnesses then?

That's what I think (though I am no lawyer and may not have found the "lawsuit").

21 MC 97 seem to be listed as wrongful death and such. I take that to be the underlying case, perhaps consolidated, between the plainstiffs and the airlines (and manufacturer). I found nothing at that point that looked like a suit between said airlines and manufacturer and the CIA/FBI.

A news story described what seemed like an effort of the defendants to get at possible exculpatory testimony from CIA and FBI agents, if it existed. So I think the "law suit" may be more of a motion to have the CIA and FBI allow the testimony, since it is unlikely that the CIA and FBI want to be dragged into the underlying civil suit to testify about anything.

[fezzic]

double post.