Four 9/11 Widows Demand Truth

August 25, 2003 12:33 PM

Four 9/11 Widows Demand Truth. "This is a stonewalling job of far greater importance than Watergate. This concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility: to protect its citizens against foreign attack. 'If we have an executive branch that holds sole discretion over what information is released to the public and what is hidden, the public will never get the full story of why there was an utter failure to protect them that day, and who should be held accountable.'"
posted by fold_and_mutilate (33 comments total)

"This week should mark my second anniversary, but my wife died in the Sept. 11 attacks. When will the Bush administration tell the truth about what happened?"
posted by homunculus at 1:28 PM on August 25, 2003

Speaking of Watergate, here's a piece by John Dean: The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House Statements On Intelligence.
posted by homunculus at 1:30 PM on August 25, 2003

No one would like to put it to the present administration more than I would.. except perhaps my ex.. and some of her friends. Oh yes, and Michael Moore. Come to think of it, most people would like to put it to Shrub's cronies more than me, but that's beside the point. Still, this reads as if one were putting the cart before the horse, or counting one's hatchery before the chickens, or asking liars to tell the truth, or giving a blind man twenty-twenty hindsight for all the good it'll do'm. Having investigations on people who might be doing something, and actually stopping said individuals before they actually do something are two completely different things. In fact there are some that would argue just 'observing' individuals, hanging one's reasoning for doing so on the tenuous 'might,' is threatening another's civil rights. I 'might' walk into a convenience store and shoplift. So 'might' anyone who walks in. Some people look like they 'might' shoplift more than other people, but it's not until an action is committed that one can be prosecuted for it. The FBI couldn't stop these men from getting on those planes because they 'might' have been up to something. Even if they were 'probably' up to something. It's not until they 'are' up to something that something can be done, which is precisely why they do the suicide thing. 100% guarantee of avoiding prosecution on this Earthly plane. Rather cowardly of the terrorists, but then those who promote fear are most victimized by it.

I wanna see Shrub get what's coming to him as much as the next guy (who didn't vote for him), but not like this. This won't get us anywhere.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:37 PM on August 25, 2003

Well said ZachsMind.
posted by Witty at 1:58 PM on August 25, 2003

That's interesting, Zachsmind, but most of "these men getting on those planes" could have been legally detained and probably convicted according to our OLD laws, not to mention the Patriot Act. If the FBI had been following your career as a shoplifter for five years, tracked you around the world, and then saw you going into a convenience store, they should at least be suspicious. If the twinkies you 'might' steal were thousands of people you 'might' kill, I'd want the government to step in beforehand, wouldn't you?

More to the point, I'd want the government to at least talk about their failed efforts after the fact, so that we could know that something was being done to prevent it in the future.
posted by zekinskia at 2:14 PM on August 25, 2003

I want to be innocent until proven guilty, and because I selfishly want that for myself, I selflessly expect it for all human beings. Not just all Americans, but all people. If any law enforcement agency tracks someone's illegal activity for five years without enforcing the law, I agree that means there's something wrong with how the law is being enforced. IF they had enough on these guys, yes they should have reeled them in. How can we know they ever had enough on these guys? 20/20 hindsight's convenient, but not wholly fair. If these guys had been reeled in before actually doing anything, the FBI would have been yelled at for incarcertating potentially innocent people, under suspicions of conspiracy. Actually either way you look at it, in this case the U.S. gov't couldn't win. Damned if we do damned if we don't.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:28 PM on August 25, 2003

Regardless of whether the FBI or the intelligence services could have stopped it, the information should be released to the public.

Stalling tactics just makes the administration look like they have something to hide. If they're so squeaky-clean why don't they show what they're holding.

As with the WMDs that are still missing: if they had as much proof of WMDs in Iraq as they claimed, why not show off the stacks and stacks of glossy satellite photos they must have lying around?
posted by bshort at 2:37 PM on August 25, 2003

Here's a link about the tracking before the incident. Several of the hijackers were known terrorists.

Zachsmind, again, I see your point but I disagree. The public image of the U.S. gov't may have been damned either way, but the 3000 victims could be alive. I have to question that line of thinking in general: is it the government's job to look good, or to do good? To push your logic a little further, should police officers stop giving speeding tickets because it makes them unpopular in the eyes of our citizens?
posted by zekinskia at 2:47 PM on August 25, 2003

Here's a link about the tracking before the incident. Several of the hijackers were known terrorists.

Exactly; there was at least enough reason to monitor them, if not reel them in. And as Coleen Rowley pointed out in her famous memo, the French Intelligence Service notified the FBI in late August of 2001 that Moussaoui was affiliated with al Qaeda, but she wasn't allowed pursue the lead. Again, there was at least enough reason to keep a very close eye on him and find out what he knew.

But as bshort says, regardless of what could or couldn't have done, the government has a duty to release the information to the public.
posted by homunculus at 3:02 PM on August 25, 2003

I was kinda with you, ZachsMind, up until this:

The FBI couldn't stop these men from getting on those planes because they 'might' have been up to something.

There's a convenient way to get around that: take advantage of expired visas. That way you can detain them for perfectly legal reasons. Plenty of suspicious people are walking around right now with what amounts to an open warrant; the government knows it and bides its time until it needs to use the "detain this guy on immigration charges for free" card.

The government played a bad game of Beat The Clock with these guys, hoping to get info on them before they did something horrible. Maybe they figured they could wait until the last minute and look like heroes coming to save the day. Or maybe they were just dumb and didn't care. Either way they took a major gamble and lost; worse, they gambled with our lives. For that, we are entitled to an explanation.
posted by stefanie at 3:44 PM on August 25, 2003

I just finished reading , its a pretty interesting read and explains alot
posted by WLW at 3:55 PM on August 25, 2003

Why do these widows hate America?
posted by keswick at 5:06 PM on August 25, 2003

It is an interesting read. It does, however, spook me when the conspiracists and the "normal" folk start converging on the same point.
posted by dejah420 at 5:39 PM on August 25, 2003

My bike got fucking stolen once. I demand the government protect me from such bullshit.
posted by angry modem at 6:19 PM on August 25, 2003

i'm dumbfounded. surprised. shocked even!

For months thereafter, finding it impossible to sleep, Kristen went back to the nightly ritual of her married life: She took out her husband’s toothbrush and slowly, lovingly squeezed the toothpaste onto it. Then she would sit down on the toilet and wait for him to come home.

And how, after he had been specifically told by his chief of staff that "We are under attack," could the Commander in Chief continue sitting with second graders and make a joke?

"I couldn’t stop watching the President sitting there, listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building," she said.

"At some point, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis," says Kristen. "Which is more important—one fried terrorist, or the safety of the nation?" Patty was even more blunt in their second meeting with the F.B.I. brass. "I don’t give a rat’s ass about Moussaoui," she said. "Why don’t you throw him into Guantánamo and squeeze him for all he’s worth, and get on with finding his cohorts?"
posted by poopy at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2003

That said, the president needs to come brush my teeth. How dare he spend all his time brushing his own and not mine!
posted by angry modem at 8:54 PM on August 25, 2003

These women are real heroes. Perfect role models for all Americans.

Not the "look nice for the cameras on a flight deck" cowboy type fake heroes.

My question is if these four women can acomplish this much with so few resources then why the hell can't Congress, the media, and our piece of garbage Executive branch do a little sleuthing and pressuring on their own to completely examine this tragedy?
Is it wrong to want the truth?
Is it wrong to ask questions and expect answers?
Why can't Duhbya trust the people like he said he does during the campaign?
What is the Executive branch hiding? Why all the secrecy?

Keswick got it right.

Many of the "Defenders Of All Things Duhbya" don't want the truth to come out lest their head explode from an overload of cognitive dissonance.
posted by nofundy at 6:05 AM on August 26, 2003

I love it when proto-people make lame jokes about other people's grief. It's nihilicious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 AM on August 26, 2003

There's a convenient way to get around that: take advantage of expired visas. That way you can detain them for perfectly legal reasons.

And then what?

Many of the "Defenders Of All Things Duhbya" don't want the truth to come out lest their head explode from an overload of cognitive dissonance.

Quite the opposite actually. I think it's more of a case of people like you want "the truth" to come out so you can use your wealth of investigative knowledge to rip the thing apart because you think you know better.

You want the truth? A bunch of cowardly Arabs hijacked some airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center, ultimately bring them to the ground. The U.S. government didn't LET it happen just for kicks. They didn't let it happen because they needed an excuse to go to war. It didn't happen because the government didn't stop the men from getting on the plane. It happened because a handful of cowardly Arabs wanted to do us harm. This isn't murder she wrote, with some big fancy "wrap it up" explanation at the end.

We got the Patriot Act now, to help us with exactly this purpose (although most of you would like to think otherwise). The government CAN stop assholes like those guys from getting on the plane. Now that they ARE stopping things like this from happening again, they still can't win with you.

I'm sure you will be talking about "the failures of the U.S. government" the next time there is some kind of terrorist activity in this country.... and it will happen. You'll be right there to bitch and moan.
posted by Witty at 7:11 AM on August 26, 2003

A bunch of cowardly Arabs x2

Actually, they were pretty damn brave, I'd say. What takes more bravery than dying for something you believe in?

They were purely evil, of course, and utterly wrong, and murderous scum and all of that, but I don't think you could call them cowards.

[/tangent]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:21 AM on August 26, 2003

Hey man, remember what happened to Bill Maher.
posted by gottabefunky at 8:00 AM on August 26, 2003

They were purely evil, of course, and utterly wrong, and murderous scum and all of that, but I don't think you could call them cowards.

A matter of opinion I suppose. Anything short of "stand up and fight like a man" is cowardly as far as I'm concerned.

Hey man, remember what happened to Bill Maher.

Nope?
posted by Witty at 8:24 AM on August 26, 2003

A matter of opinion I suppose. Anything short of "stand up and fight like a man" is cowardly as far as I'm concerned.

So I guess bombing from 15,000 feet wouldn't qualify.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:44 AM on August 26, 2003

So I guess bombing from 15,000 feet wouldn't qualify.

Nope.
posted by Witty at 11:43 AM on August 26, 2003

There's a convenient way to get around that: take advantage of expired visas. That way you can detain them for perfectly legal reasons.

And then what?

Deportation?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:48 AM on August 26, 2003

bshort: "If they're so squeaky-clean why don't they show what they're holding."

Who ever said the FBI's squeaky-clean? They hold info and play with secrets cuz they ain't squeaky-clean in general. This is nothing new, but they withhold information so there's never absolute proof that they're not squeaky-clean. Knowledge is power in this game, be it enemies foreign or domestic. You simply can't show your hand to everyone at the table.

zekinskia: "To push your logic a little further, should police officers stop giving speeding tickets because it makes them unpopular in the eyes of our citizens?"

Certainly not, but prior to Nine Eleven there was no - we couldn't concieve this possibility back then. Those who want blood and want someone in the U.S. gov't to pay for what happened are operating under 20/20 hindsight. Sure, in hindsight yes they should have detained those men but this goes to the next point.

Stephanie: "There's a convenient way to get around that: take advantage of expired visas. That way you can detain them for perfectly legal reasons. Plenty of suspicious people are walking around right now... "

And have you any idea just how many "suspicious people" there are? Not just of middle eastern countries but across the spectrum. We already incarcerate an insane amount of people based on evidence that they have committed crimes, and in most cases they're up for appeal because there's still room for argument as to whether or not they did it. Now you're talking about detaining people because their visas are expired, or because there's some other reason that indicates they might be potential trouble. We cannot detain every single person who scares us. We simply haven't the manpower, resources, and lack of ethics to treat everyone as if they were guilty without due process. And the due process takes resources out the wazoo too. Y'all are asking for way more than is feasible, and furthermore you're asking to sacrifice inalienable rights for safety and security.

I say we stop living in fear. Freedom is not a bartering tool for security. You can have both, but not if you live in fear. We're talking about people willing to die for what they believe in. We can't let them terrorize us into imprisoning ourselves.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:51 PM on August 26, 2003

but prior to Nine Eleven there was no - we couldn't concieve this possibility back then.

That is simply not true. in 1998 al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of people. Bin Laden subsequently made it clear through his fatwas that all Americans were targets and that it was al Qaeda's religious duty to kill them. After that, anyone who didn't believe that al Qaeda was likely to try something similar here was not paying attention. And that's fine for most people; it wasn't their job. But those whose job it was dropped the ball.
posted by homunculus at 2:52 PM on August 26, 2003

in 1998 al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of people.

That's nowhere near the same as something happen on U.S. soil.

After that, anyone who didn't believe that al Qaeda was likely to try something similar here was not paying attention.

I suppose. But without anything to compare it to, a precedent, you're just not going to get the reaction you're thinking we should have had.

But those whose job it was dropped the ball.

C'mon. Being a terrorist couldn't be that hard. I could blow up a Wendy's tomorrow (hypothetically speaking of course). Who's gonna stop me?
posted by Witty at 5:31 PM on August 26, 2003

Oh give me a break. The way those "victims" are acting is a discgrace. They are just trying to suck more money from their benevolent contrymen and from the govt.

They asked and recieved millions of dollars in "compensation" but they still want more and are retaining lawyers.

Excuse me, but millions of people die every year. None of their families get rich off of it or act like brats.

Witold
www.witold.org
posted by Witold at 7:27 PM on August 26, 2003

I can't believe you guys are supporting a guilty until proven innocent system of justice.

"At some point, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis," says Kristen. "Which is more important—one fried terrorist, or the safety of the nation?" Patty was even more blunt in their second meeting with the F.B.I. brass. "I don’t give a rat’s ass about Moussaoui," she said. "Why don’t you throw him into Guantánamo and squeeze him for all he’s worth, and get on with finding his cohorts?"

good thing you're not an arab male, huh?

If the FBI had been following your career as a shoplifter for five years, tracked you around the world, and then saw you going into a convenience store, they should at least be suspicious. If the twinkies you 'might' steal were thousands of people you 'might' kill, I'd want the government to step in beforehand, wouldn't you?

if you'd been stealing twinkies for five years, whatever those twinkies might be analogized to be, you could be prosecuted for those crimes. But what you did in the past is not and should not be considered equivalent to your present behavior: should we arrest all past shoplifters who walk into convenience stores, before they do anything? (You know, we could stop most crime if we tied everyone to beds and fed them intravenously...) Or what if we could never prove they shoplifted, but they seem like the type, and we feel pretty certain they did, and their denials only make us more sure...?
posted by mdn at 7:37 PM on August 26, 2003

Amen mdn.
posted by Dantien at 8:33 PM on August 26, 2003

I'm just going to assume Witold was being sarcastic. Please don't try to convince me otherwise.
posted by euphorb at 10:37 PM on August 26, 2003

mdn, we already have mandatory registration for sex offenders. Surely people that go to Al Quaeda summits could have some restrictions on them.

I don't advocate arresting everyone that's brown, like Ashcroft, but these guys weren't your average immigrant with an expired visa at all, however much Poindexter and Ashcroft try to push that point to further their agenda.
posted by zekinskia at 9:25 AM on August 27, 2003