Posted on 08/08/2007 9:05:12 AM PDT by BGHater
Airline manufacturer Boeing Co. (BA), major airlines and several airport operators sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday in a bid to question current and former agency employees in connection with negligence litigation over the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks.
In separate lawsuits, the airlines and others are challenging decisions by the FBI and the CIA that prevent them from conducting depositions of those employees.
The airlines include AMR Corp.'s (AMR) American Airlines, UAL Corp.'s (UAUA) United Airlines, US Airways Group Inc. (LCC), Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL), Continental Airlines Inc. (CAL) and AirTran Holdings Inc. (AAI).
The Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates Logan International Airport in Boston, and the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, which operates Ronald Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., also are plaintiffs in the lawsuits.
The lawsuits, filed in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday, are related to ongoing negligence litigation over the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.
In the FBI lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking to conduct depositions of: Scott Billings, a FBI special agent formerly assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force; Erik T. Rigler, a former FBI special agent; Michael Rolince, a FBI section chief for International Terrorism Operations Section from 1998 to 2002; Coleen M. Rowley, a former FBI special agent and Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel; and Harry Samit, a FBI special agent assigned to the Minneapolis Field office and Joint Terrorism Task Force in August and September 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Wrong again, but its not a big deal.
AA should be sued into bankruptcy for their negligence.
L
The airlines sued for 9/11, based on ‘negligence’?
Good luck finding a judge granting standing on that one.
Why are there people who FAILED miserably, and possibly due to political skullduggery, to listen to the warnings not called to account?
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
Tar and feathers would be far more appropriate than a lawsuit IMO.
L
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Irrelevant.
I rest with my original claim:
I certainly hope AAs lawyers do the same.
If they do, they're screwed.
L
Didn’t Condi Rice testify that no one could have guessed that such a thing could happen?
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.
We have an airline if full CYA mode.
L
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.
Yes, I think she said something to that effect.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.