Airlines, Others Sue FBI, CIA To Depose Agents In 9-11 Cases

CNN Money ^ | 07 Aug 2007 | Chad Bray

[Badeye]

Wrong again, but its not a big deal.

[Lurker]

And just for the record I advocate suing AA and the security companies, not the aircraft manufacturer.

AA should be sued into bankruptcy for their negligence.

L

[P-40]

It's really quite simple.

One, you don't detain men because they are Muslim. That is called profiling. Want a lawsuit, give that a shot. Two, of the terrorists detained for problems with their paperwork, they were allowed to board *after* their luggage had been loaded. Those were the rules at the time. Three, small knives were perfectly legal to have on aircraft at the time. And yes, I can go on. If you want to make a case for negligence, you are going to have to sue the government.

[Badeye]

The airlines sued for 9/11, based on ‘negligence’?

Good luck finding a judge granting standing on that one.

[Dead Corpse]

Able Danger. Gorelick. Tenent.

Why are there people who FAILED miserably, and possibly due to political skullduggery, to listen to the warnings not called to account?

[Lurker]

Good luck finding a judge granting standing on that one.

Apparently that's already occured. Some of the victims families 'opted out' of that screwy government 'settlement'. Where the Constitutional authorization for that one came from, I'll never know. But since the Constitution is largely a dead letter these days I suppose that's irrelevant.

However AA hired the security firm and they were negligent in allowing what was an obvious plot to board commercial aircraft with weapons to proceed right under their idiot noses.

"Legal" is no defense to stupidity after all.

So here's hoping for a major bankruptcy in the airline industry really soon.

L

[Lurker]

you are going to have to sue the government.

Tar and feathers would be far more appropriate than a lawsuit IMO.

L

[FourtySeven]

There was no negligence involved. At the time, no one thought that:

1. Muslim males would hijack a plane AND use it as a missle.
2. The boxcutters they used (not “knives”, although yes they were used in that fashion) weren’t obvious weapons at the time

To have negligence, one must fail to act when a reasonable reason exists to act. You’re analyzing the situation with a post-9/11 mentality. Before 9/11 no one ever thought anything like this would ever happen.

[Badeye]

So here’s hoping for a major bankruptcy in the airline industry really soon.

I have no problem with this. The rest....but not this statement.

[Lurker]

At the time, no one thought that: 1. Muslim males would hijack a plane

Lord knows muzzies have never, ever engaged in hijacking....

The boxcutters they used (not “knives”,

If it's got a blade, it's a knife. (Geez do I really need to point that out?)

To have negligence, one must fail to act when a reasonable reason exists to act.

Let's see; multiple muslim males attempt to enter commercial aircraft carrying weapons.

Nope, no reason to get worked up there!

L

[P-40]

Tar and feathers would be far more appropriate than a lawsuit IMO.

It would be nice...but the ones in government most responsible will never be held accountable. I am sure by now they have convinced themselves that they did all they could have done to prevent such a thing as 9/11.

Just a bit of irony from the 9/11 Commission Report...

There was substantial disagreement between Minneapolis agents and FBI headquarters as to what Moussaoui was planning to do. In one conversation between a Minneapolis supervisor and a headquarters agent, the latter com= plained that Minneapolis’s FISA request was couched in a manner intended to get people “spun up.”The supervisor replied that was precisely his intent. He said he was “trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.” The headquarters agent replied that this was not going to happen and that they did not know if Moussaoui was a terrorist.101

[FourtySeven]

Did you really read my post and absorb the correct context? The quotes you took from it completely distort the meaning.

1. At the time, no one thought that Muslim males would hijack a plane AND use it as a missle.

2. The boxcutters they used (not "knives" although yes they were used in that fashion) weren’t obvious weapons at the time

I rest with my original claim: To have negligence, one must fail to act when a reasonable reason exists to act.

Prove to me that before 9/11, it was reasonable to expect hijackers would crash a plane into a building.

Prove to me that before 9/11, boxcutters were considered weapons on a plane.

If you can't, then you are doing just as I said in my original post: you are analyzing the situation with a post-9/11 mentality.

[longtermmemmory]

it is “proximate cause” litigation.

These are suits by anti-capitalists who seek to extend the proximate cause of any tort to the absurd extension. This is what real tort reform is about. Should civil libility exist when criminals act? When did EVERYTHING get submitted into attractive nuisance to create liability?

[Lurker]

AND use it as a missle.

Irrelevant.

I rest with my original claim:

I certainly hope AAs lawyers do the same.

If they do, they're screwed.

L

[From many - one.]

Didn’t Condi Rice testify that no one could have guessed that such a thing could happen?

[longtermmemmory]

pre-9/11 MANY people carried pocket knives through security.

Security was watching for the hijack to Cuba, not the kamikazee pilot.

We have an intervening supravening criminal act.

[Lurker]

We have an intervening supravening criminal act.

We have an airline if full CYA mode.

L

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Didn’t Condi Rice testify that no one could have guessed that such a thing could happen?

Which is total CYA BS IMHO.

If you really believe that NO ONE in the FBI/CIA/intelligence community could have guessed that such a thing could happen...then I have beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

[P-40]

Yes, I think she said something to that effect.

[SW6906]

You're spot on and I don't know why Lurker can't seem to understand pre-p/11 vs. post-9/11 thinking.

Pre-9/11 you were allowed to take small pocket knives onto airplanes. Pre-9/11, seeing a couple Muslim males per flight who happened to have box cutters (at that time considered less dangerous than a knife) wouldn't have raised any flags. Pre-9/11, the standard thought was that if someone hijacked an airplane, they were going to demand it be flown somewhere, land and make monetary or "free my terrorist friends from jail" demands. The thought that they would slaughter the crew, take over the airplane and committ suicide by flying it into a building, was not even a thought. Maybe for some in government who knew about such a possibility, but not Boeing, American Airlines, Delta, et al.

This is a sheister lawyer (read: John Edwards) lawsuit trying to extract money from some deep pockets and should be thrown out of court.