Why People Tell Lawyer Jokes: September 11 and Judicial Terrorism

BreakPoint ^ | 18 Sept 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

As much sympathy/empathy as I have for the friends & families of the victims, some of them need to really examine their priorities, and consider carefully the ramifications of their actions. In other words, they need to think for themselves instead of letting a money-grubbing lawyer lead them around by the nose.

Concur absolutely.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack. Improve the cockpit door.

Good point. However, let's imagine this. Let's say that the terrorists had blown up those four planes in midair with smuggled bombs, a la Pan Am 103. In today's litigious environment, I'm sure somebody would still be suing Boeing, because they have big pockets.

[Sloth]

Arguably, the US is responsible for not taking reasonable precautions against terrorism (i.e., minimal response to the first WTC attack, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.). After all, national defense is pretty much what small-government conservatives think IS the proper function of the federal gov't. Sort of like, you could sue your local police department if they were basically ignoring a string of home-invasion robberies, and then you became a victim.

[Sloth]

Improve the cockpit door.

OK, but you still have operational issues. In the Sept 10th world, the cockpit door could be titanium but does no good if the airline doesn't have a strict policy on when it's to be closed & locked. Has there been any serious allegation that the hijackings were successful due to physical cockpit door weaknesses?

[King Prout]

a haze of Hippies, a curdle of Communists, a lobotomy of liberals?

[newgeezer]

Sure, that's possible but not relevant to your question. Now more than ever before, an ounce of after-the-fact prevention is worth a pound of "A-HA! So, you ADMIT you're partially to blame!" The real question is, is it reasonable to think Boeing should have had the foresight to build their planes with fortified cockpit doors, as they are doing now? It could be an ambulance-chaser's dream come true.

This is why few or no judges would dismiss a lawsuit against Boeing as "frivilous."

[newgeezer]

OK, but you still have operational issues.

Agreed. The question was, "What in the bleedin' world could Boeing have done to prevent this attack?" Now, you've moved into the airlines' sphere of control.

Has there been any serious allegation that the hijackings were successful due to physical cockpit door weaknesses?

Obviously I'm not an attorney but, I could see where one could make the case that, by taking the very action of redesigning and retrofitting airplanes with fortified cockpit doors, with the expectation that the measures will aid in preventing future unauthorized entry, the airlines and/or Boeing virtually admitted that the pre-9/11 cockpit doors constituted a glaring weakness in the security process.

After all, they found O.J. not guilty, didn't they? ;O)

[bigeasy_70118]

Arguably, the US is responsible for not taking reasonable precautions against terrorism (i.e., minimal response to the first WTC attack, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.)

The government is immune from suit for its policy decisions. No victim will be able to pursue a civil suit based on this theory.

My problem is that these are the richest disaster victims in history. They have received millions in worker's comp and life insurance. There's no basis to comepensate them b on need; nor is there a legal theory that permits the government to compensate these people. Too many folks on this board believe tort suit is automatically bad but I think in this instance, it is the perfect remedy for the victims.

Any jury will find majority of the responsibility for these actions with the terrorists. The liability of the domestic parties is minimal. As such, I believe a civil suit is the perfect vehicle for vetting these claims.

[Mr. Silverback]

if I hear the US referred to as a "democracy" one more time this week I am going to freak out!

Sorry that my wrath will fall upon you, but jeez-o-bleeding pete, if I hear one more Freeper whining about the use of the word "democracy," I'm going to freak out! This isn't an article by some brain-dead liberal who thought we should keep a felon in the White House because 60% of the people liked him, this is Chuck freakin' Colson! For pete's sake, he was the White House Counsel, do you think that maybe he knows we're a republic? Heck, he refers to us having representative government in the sentence right before he refers to the democratic process! He's defending the Republic against judicial oligarchy, and you think he doesn't even know we're a Republic!

YEEESH!!!

[Mr. K]

...it's funny because it's true.

[Mr. Silverback]

Yeah, but you've blown of my point. My point was not that the Trade Centers were not government-built, it was that they were finance and business centers with the vast, vast majority of their 50,000 workers engaged in private sector, capitalistic enterprises. Just because they were built by the Port Authority doesn't mean that they weren't centers of free enterprise.

In my town we have a community policing substation that used to be a private home before the city renovated it. Now, since it was built as a private home, is it not really a police station, even if police work in the thing for the next thirty years?

[Mr. Silverback]

There's no basis to comepensate them b on need; nor is there a legal theory that permits the government to compensate these people.

I have laid out the legal theory; these people were grievously harmed by a war action and war is the primary purview of the federal government. It's not like the government put them on the welfare rolls; this relates to one of the four things Madison said the feds should be doing.

Any jury will find majority of the responsibility for these actions with the terrorists.

If so, where do the plaintiffs go for their reparations? Osama's cave?

[PeterPrinciple]

Not that I'm advocating that!


Uprising, rebellions, revolutions and other words that start with r.

[bc2]

The point is that the average joe is not as well informed as you, or I, or Chuck freakin' Colson. So when Chuck Colson, the White House Counsel, referrs to us as a democracy and not a republic, I have to wonder why?

George Bush and Al Gore are both smart guys (ahem) and they BOTH referred to us as a democracy several times in the 2000 debates. One guy here, someone else there, and people accept it. Americans are fat, dumb, and lazy, as my economics teacher used to say.

Conspiracy? Well, probably not. But it isn't a good thing that our country is being dumbed down, and not smartened up, at every oppertunity.

Didn't mean to yell at ya! :]

regards...

[Vinnie]

What galls me about the compensation fund is this.

Most of the people killed were execs, financial workers etc.
I'll bet most had large ins. policies or at least should have.
How is being killed in the WTC different for the family than an auto accident or heart attack ? Financially speaking.

While I have sympathy for the victims and families, where does it stop? What about OKC families?
I've seen some of the family members on TV complaining that their 2.8 million dollar compensation wasn't enough. GREED

[Vinnie]

addendum:

If anyone deserves government compensation the families of Waco do.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack. Improve the cockpit door.

They could have made a door that you would have needed a blowtorch to get through and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The best door in the world will not help if it is opened from the inside.

The moment that the hijackers threaten to kill someone or did kill someone the door opened because what came next was unimaginable.

Now it is not. Now they could threaten to kill every passenger on the plane and the door would remain closed. Because now we know. Now the improved door is useful.

[newgeezer]

The moment that the hijackers threaten to kill someone or did kill someone the door opened because what came next was unimaginable.

Well, of course. That's precisely the reasoning one would expect Boeing to pursue in their defense.

The plaintiffs will have to convince the jury otherwise.

The point remains, the court decided the suit is not so patently frivilous that it should be thrown out.

[newgeezer]

Also, with regard to how unimaginable it was, I vaguely recall hearing about a (popular?) novel written well before 9/11 which had a similar scenario, airplanes used as guided missiles in an attack of some sort.

I'm not at all sure; perhaps it was just one of those Internet urban legends that circulated in the aftermath. But, a cursory search at snopes.com turned up nothing.