Sue The Airlines For 9-11 ?

[Craig Read]

Now the geniuses in the US judiciary have inexplicably decided that because the CIA, FBI, FAA and INS all screwed up costing 3.000 lives, that citizens can now sue the airlines.

Good job boys. Let's understand this - 250.000 gov't workers, with billions in budgets fail in their job and the reaction of the US gov't? Sue the airlines and Boeing for not knowing that 19 deranged Islamofascists would break through the various acronyms protecting America and slaughter people on a September Tuesday morning as they worked.

This is insane.

Yesterday it was announced:

A federal judge ruled that Sept. 11 victims can sue for negligence. Here are some of the many claims:

American Airlines, United Airlines: Should have screened passengers to keep terrorists from boarding.

Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., Larry Silverstein's WTC Properties: Didn't design building safely or provide adequate evacuation plans.

Boeing: Should have built cockpit doors that could prevent terrorists from breaking in.

=====

How about suing the acronyms for negligence and stupidity ?

[Mr Farrius]

The families of the American citizens killed in 9-11 should have every right to sue the airlines. Looking over those claims, I find that those are actually valid reasons to sue. Why? Because if even one of those were implemented correctly, more lives would have been saved. You say it's insane, but you don't truly know the feelings of the families that are still grief-stricken even til the 2nd year anniversary of this tragic event, of their lost brother, sister, father, or mother. I doubt you had a relative who died in the event, and if you did, I fail to realize your motives. This is why I'm a liberal. I'm sensitive to the views of others and take as much as I can into account, whereas conservatives seem to disregard the views of the people in general.

[Hugo]

Suing the airlines is like imprisoning the murder weapon. The airlines may have allowed it to happen by their inaction, but by failing to give more generously to charity I am allowing people in Africa to starve by my inaction - am I a murderer? After all, I have money to spare - I could give more generously if I wanted to.

The airlines were not responsible. The FBI and the CIA were not responsible. They were all trying to prevent such a thing from happening, but to hold them responsible because it happened is like holding the police responsible for every crime that's successfully committed. Those aforementioned agencies are reactive, not proactive, and cannot anticipate everything.

If they did not do their jobs as well as they could or should have, that is lamentable. However, if they had been negligent and Al-Queda did not exist, 9/11 would not have happened, therefore, they still are not responsible.

Al-Queda was responsible, and President Bush made them pay, as Clinton promised and failed to do so a long time ago.

[evilpeachblossom]

I agree totally, Hugo. No one can be blamed for this except for the people who did it, and I believe they've already received the punishment we would have given them if they had been caught. We've already dealed with Al-Queda, and Iraq, but just to be sure we got everyone who's against us we should go take out Liberia and North Korea too.

By the way, Mr. Farrius, what are you talking about? Not that I don't like the way you're trying to compliment liberals, but lots of conservatives are sensitive to the views of others, however fascist they may be. Besides, I'm a liberal, and I am not sensitve to the views of others in the slightest, though I do try.

[Mr Farrius]

Hugo, are you excusing the negligence of the airlines?? Yes, it was terrorists who bombed the world trade center and the pentagon. But they could have been stopped, had the airlines taken adequate measures to prevent them. They didn't. Right now, the families of those dead people are out for blood. I say the airlines is a good place to start because of their carelessness in ensuring the safety of their planes. I'm not saying that the airlines directly caused the strategy. It is quite obvious who must pay in the end. But the airlines were totally apathetic about taking adequate safety measures and they should be prosecuted accordingly.

evilpeachblossom, you want the U.S. to take out Liberia? For what reason? Has Liberia done anything to the U.S.? The problem with Al-Queda and Iraq is far from over. Which is why Bush wants international cooperation involved. To make the job easier.

[Hugo]

But they could have been stopped, had the airlines taken adequate measures to prevent them. They didn't.

First off, airlines have always had security procedures. Quite frankly, before 9/11 not many people thought that terrorists armed with packing knives would take over aircraft and fly them into buildings. They focused on the threats they knew about: bombs in luggage, guns and narcotics. To hold airlines responsible for not anticipating every mode of attack possible is ludicrous, as I said, these agencies are reactive, not proactive, and you cannot assume that you've thought of everything your opponent can do. Never underestimate your opponent. To build a wall or have a security procedure merely invites circumvention by your enemies, and this is precisely what happened here. Knowing that guns or bombs could not be smuggled on board aircraft with any degree of success, the terrorists elected to bring knives on board and make it a suicide mission.

Secondly, El Al runs a very tight ship and I don't believe any El Al flights have been hijacked or bombed for a long time. But a lot of the procedures El Al uses would be unconstitutional in the US, and in order for US airlines to perform the same procedures the constitution would have to be rewritten to sacrifice more personal freedom for security - and it is said that he who sacrifices freedom for security will find himself with neither.

[evilpeachblossom]

Farrius, in retropsect, I see that I did not make myself clear. I don't want to take out Liberia. Or North Korea for that matter. I was against war in Iraq. I was making fun of paranoid conservatives with good imaginations.

[Cameron]

Boeing: Should have built cockpit doors that could prevent terrorists from breaking in.

I did a project on air rage awhile back. This topic came up when I interviewed a pilot and asked him about fitting a door that is more secure. He told me that this idea was floated awhile back in the airline industry but was eventually dropped because with the secure door you would run into other problems. If there was an emergency in the cockpit and needed to get in you couldn't. So there is pros and cons to this suggestion. The events that happened on 9/11 won't be solved by suing people or companies, it will take a unified effort my many countries to solve this problem. People get mad for a reason...

[Craig Read]

Amen brother to that. I smell Tort Lawyers and opportunists behind suing the airlines for 9-11. After all national security is a national government concern. It would be as if I could sue a gun manufacturer for the murder of someone in my family while in a public place. The Acronyms are deflecting blame from where it belongs - the breakdown in information coordination, and the inability to take proper steps to mitigate threats to national assets. Just imagine if Flight 93 had been allowed to crash into the White House. What a monumental disaster that would be. Todd Beamer and the 'Let's Roll' boys did the right thing. I don't understand the passengers on the other 3 flights - doing diddly squat while they watch themselves die.

In any event suing struggling firms to gain compensation from a national security breakdown is odious.

The gov't should stop this process.

[Nuclear]

This is like suing the maker of the car for a car accident that was the fault of the driver.

The planes had nothing to do with it. It was the people who hyjacked them. It's like the gun issue. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Although almost as crazy, it would make more sense to go after the Saudi Government or the families of the hyjackers in SAudi Arabia financially.

I found out a week after 9-11 that bin laden's nephew was on the same college campus as me when it happened. He was gone before the sun set.

[KrustyKidd]

Let's see. Mahmood brother. Here is five thousand dollars. Purchase tickets for yourself, Omar, Salleem, Mohamed, Pasi, Yasser, Ali, Uday and Quasy. Make sure you seat yourselves as instructed. Using the strong nylon cords as garrotes and the socks full of change as clubs wait until the stewardess opens the cockpit door for the meal. Then if there is a troublesome passenger fend him off with this lighter and can of ether mislabelled as shaving cream.

Nine guys working together blocking the cockpit. The only difference here was choice of weapons. Heck, another scenario would be simply enough guys to overpower people period.

[Cameron]

I don't understand the passengers on the other 3 flights - doing diddly squat while they watch themselves die.

I agree with you on some of your topics, but I don't know what I would do in a situation like that. I would hope that I could stand up and try to fend off the attackers...Todd Beamer did try and to the right thing, he did avert a major catastrophe and made the ultimate sacrifice. All those other people are dead, we should not slander them for doing nothing, we should take the events that did happen and learn from that and try to make the skies safer. We were dealing with (and still) are, a very organized group of people, we need to proceed with swift caution...

[Craig Read]

I agree that the memories of the fallen are sacred. I would rather die in a fight than watch myself be erased flying into a skyscraper. Better to die fighting and take as many bastards with me as possible.

But the logic behind allowing the acronyms to get off scot free while the airlines are forced to pay is rancid.

No one at the FAA was fired. The Secretary - Democrat Mineta is a joker. He rapes old ladies and searches cheerleaders as part of the security procedures but denies there is racial profiling and ethnic monitoring.

Why the hell shouldn't there be ? Last time i checked Grandma from Winnipeg is not a threat. Mahmoud from Egypt could be.

The CIA and FBI and now Homeland Security are massive org's in need of some serious reform.

No one in the CIA or FBI at a high level lost their heads for 9-11.

Reminds me of going after Martha Stewart while they doddle in arraigning the boys and girls of EnCon and World Scam.

Bloody acronyms.

[Mr Farrius]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/964618.asp#BODY

If you read this article, you'll find that America isn't really a safe place after all. America has prided itself on its security, but it may not be the case after all. The American government seems to lie to its citizens about the safety of our nation and the measures taken to ensure it.

[Malone1234]

Mr Farrius, I think we all know that America is not safe from every possible mode of attack by terrorists or anyone else who doesn't like us. I think that is the point most of these people are trying to make you see.

It's impossible to anticipate every attack. The airlines anticipated suitcase bombs, gun-wielding terrorists, and other forms of attempted violence. Unfortunately they did not anticipate exactly the events that happened on 9/11.

Does this mean they ought to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims? I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem logical to me.

[Craig Read]

I agree. The Acronyms at the Fed level anyways usually get things wrong.

6 months after 9-11 - Atta the leader of the hi-jackings was mailed a Visa extension. I joke not. The Press uncovered this idiocy and I hope some people were fired. How can gov't be so incompetent as to issue Visa's to dead terrorists who's faces were planted on every media outlet in the world ???

Security is paid by the taxpayer to the Federal government and the 'Hobbesian' contract implicitly and explicitly demands that citizens are protected from force, threats and external coercion.

The US gov't failed, but no one at a high level lost her/his job. This is reprehensible.

[Demosthenes]

Letting the victims of 9-11 sue the airlines is ludicrous. It is like saying "oh it’s the guns fault that the person is dead." You really have no way to check to see what religion a person is or what they think they should do for there leader. I will say that I do think that the airlines should have had a better method to check for weapons, but it is not there fault for what happened. This is just people trying to get more money and they are looking for any way that they can get it.

[nova_satori]

for once I agree with Mr. Read. Airlines have so much crap they have to deal with, referencing every passenger with electronic databases is the last thing they can afford. Airlines are out to make money and fly planes, not run spy agencies.

[Whistler]

They need to sue the lawyers for misrepresentation.

Now that’s self perpetuation.

[Craig Read]

Tort lawyers again. They collect 2 % of GDP in the US - all 1000 of them.

Then they take the funds and support the Clintons and other Gollum like creatures of the political left.

The legal industry is one aspect of the US I detest.

They need to clean that up or lose their way in a morass of apartheid, post modern thinking.

[FastNed]

Hello Malone, Hi Demosthenes - welcome to the Forum.

Malone, you said:

Does this mean they ought to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims? I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem logical to me.

Congress spoke when it established a Federal Payment Program for the Families of the victims. While they could not, constitutionally, bar suits against the Airlines, they did make it impossible to take the Federal money and also sue the Airlines. They wanted to exclude exactly what is happening now. It will be devisive, fruitless and expensive to no point. The Airlines are not insurance companies, they do not offer "All Risk" coverage for travel. Bluntly, this could not only bankrupt every airline involved, it will break the ReInsurance Market and then, ground every airline in America. Who, even Lloyds, will write insurance on Air Travel in America after the first verdict of these lawsuits?

Destruction of an essential part of the infrastructure of America is nor an appropriate response to terrorist acts - it just assists them.

[Mr Farrius]

It's impossible to anticipate every attack. The airlines anticipated suitcase bombs, gun-wielding terrorists, and other forms of attempted violence. Unfortunately they did not anticipate exactly the events that happened on 9/11.

Does this mean they ought to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims? I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem logical to me.

As I have not been on this forum in a while, I apologize for the delay of my response. First of all, I agree that it's impossible to anticipate every attack. My point was that if all possible measures like the ones in the article aren't being taken, that's negligence, and negligence should pay. Maybe the airlines shouldn't be sued for causing the deaths of these people, but certainly for not taking all possible measures to protect these people. Read the article. Total apathy for the safety of passengers.

[Achilles]

I believe that 9-11 was a tragic accident and no amount of money could ever compensate for the staggering losses. Sueing the airlines would be the worst thing you could do. It would mean a significant drop in American patriotism, because, at a time of crises, all they think about is money? I don't think so. Americans would be outraged if anyone sued the airlines on which the hijackings took place, even in this age where you could sue M&M's for choking on one.

[FastNed]

Hello Achilles - welcome to the Forum.

Mr. Farrius, you stated:

Looking over those claims, I find that those are actually valid reasons to sue. Why? Because if even one of those were implemented correctly, more lives would have been saved.

Without meaning to be personal, nothing you have said establishes a legal reason for liability of the airline(s) or of the World Trade Center. Hindsight is 20/20 perfect and that is the standard being applied here.

[nova_satori]

Mr. Farrius:

Airlines are there to make money and fly planes, not run spy agencies. They cannot to watch everything. They cannot afford to keep track on all baggage, including carry ons. Sooner or later this was going to happen regardless of our best technology.

Two years America has learned that technology will not save our souls.