Judge: Airlines can't question FBI in 9/11 suits

artwork by CasaZaza

by Harry R. Weber - Jul. 16, 2009 04:11 PM
Associated Press

ATLANTA - A federal judge ruled Thursday that airlines and other companies in the industry that are being sued by families of terrorism victims can't question FBI agents about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The defendants wanted to depose the agents and sought access to other evidence related to the investigation of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in order to show at trial that the government's failure to catch the terrorists and prevent the attacks mitigates and excuses any alleged fault on the aviation companies' part.

The government objected.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the defendants have also argued that the terrorists likely would have succeeded even if the defendants had exercised due care.

"The issues to be tried relate to the acts and omissions of the aviation defendants, not the government," Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. "The government's failures to detect and abort the terrorists' plots would not affect the aviation defendants' potential liability."

There was no immediate comment from the defendants or their lawyers. Spokespersons for UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. declined to comment. Lawyers for several airlines did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Other defendants include Delta Air Lines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., AirTran Airways, Boeing Co. and several airport authorities and security companies.

The judge said he plans to set a trial date for the lawsuits involving three wrongful death cases and 19 property damage cases on July 28.

Many relatives of victims of the attacks received money from a special national fund established to compensate victims' families, though some relatives chose to sue instead.

The lawsuits claim negligence on the part of the defendants and seek to recover damages for injuries and fatalities, property damage and business loss that occurred as a result of the attacks. According to court papers, the plaintiffs have alleged or have indicated they are likely to allege that the aviation companies should have anticipated that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings in coordinated suicide attacks, and that the defendants should have put in place security procedures to effectively defend against such attacks.

The government urged the judge to block the aviation companies from interviewing six current and former FBI employees who the companies say would be able to testify as to what intelligence the FBI, CIA, Federal Aviation Administration and airlines had before the attacks regarding the terrorists' plans and capabilities, as well as how the entities shared and exploited the intelligence.

The government argued that it would be impossible to interview the employees without disclosing classified or privileged material that could cause serious damage to national security and interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings.

read the full article at:  azcentral.com

____________________________

Once again, we can't pursue the truth about 9/11 because of the threat to "national security".  Exactly how is "National Security" compromised by interviewing the FBI employees? Here's the answer - we will all find out they are lying and the government is complicit in the mass murder on 9/11.  It is their security that is in jeopardy here, not that of the nation.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the defendants have also argued that the terrorists likely would have succeeded even if the defendants had exercised due care

The tendency to blame our protectors for security failures which allows terrorism to thrive is in itself a ruse - if you demonize the government for ineptitude you still buy into their myth and central premise as to the existence of Al Qaeda.  We still have no evidence that 19 terrorists were even present on that day - but through misdirection and obfuscation we are left to argue about whether the terrorists would or would not have succeeded if X, Y, and Z did or did not happen - when the real question should be whether or not there actually were any terrorists involved, outside of those in power.