Widow of 9-11 victim sues Bush

[Donutboy 0]

9/11 widow wants Bush in court

By Lawrence Smallman

Tuesday 09 December 2003, 23:45 Makka Time, 20:45 GMT

A September 11 widow has filed a Federal Court complaint against US President George Bush and his cabinet members for concealing the truth about the World Trade Centre attacks.

Ellen Mariani alleges leading members of the US administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks but failed to warn anyone of the terrible danger and made no effort to prevent thousands of deaths.

Her late husband, Louis Neil Mariani, died in the south tower of the World Trade Centre.

Speaking to Aljazeera.net on Tuesday, attorney Philip Berg said the complaint was being filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).

Case details

Berg claims he is able to prove not only the well-documented relationship between the Bush and Bin Ladin families in the 70s and early 80s, but also during the current presidency.

“We are going to show that members of the Bin Ladin family were flown out of the US shortly after the 9/11 attacks with presidential permission.”

Lodging the case at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the attorney also spoke of persuasive evidence.

“Just today, a former FBI agent handed in a sworn affidavit that there was intelligence of the attacks as early as March 2001.”

In a letter to the US president, Mariani alleges that Bush continued to listen to a children’s “goat story” for 18 minutes, blatantly ignoring his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces and refusing to scramble fighter planes to protect New York and the Pentagon.

Sensitive timing

A former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, Berg said he was confident of success and denied the current “War on Terror” environment might lead to the case being squashed before it even gets to court.

“In actual fact, this is a very good time to have a case like this. The war in Iraq is escalating, our troops are being put in harms way yet there are no weapons of mass destruction there.

“Now is the time to fight, to push back the Patriot Act and bring back our freedoms as they stood under the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Independence.”

When asked if Mariani feared being labelled unpatriotic, Berg said local and national media had refused to touch the case.

US reaction

“If it weren’t for the internet, I doubt this case would become news. But we plan to open a 911forthetruth website by Thursday. It’s quite possible to get the president in court, Paula Jones showed that. But this case is far more serious.”

The attorney acting for the White House, Viveca Parker, refused to comment on the case when contacted by Aljazeera.net, apparently unaware that 14 January had already been earmarked by the defence team for the Mariani case to be dismissed.

But Mariani is confident of being able to prove that Bush failed to act or prevent the worst attacks on the US since Pearl Harbour and maintained links with the Bin Ladin family through the Carlyle Group family business.

9/11 widow wants Bush in court

Unlike the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski scandals of the Clinton administration, this story has gotten zero ink from the "liberal media".

[TitanTiger 20,519]

Maybe because it's a bunch of malarky that they don't believe is credible?

And by the way, the Lewinski thing was true.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

what, exactly, is it alledged that bush knew prior to 9/11?

ct

[Donutboy 0]

Maybe because it's a bunch of malarky that they don't believe is credible?

And by the way, the Lewinski thing was true.

I never said the Lewinski thing wasn't true. It's just funny that a real scandal, such as what Bush knew before thousands of Americans were murdered, doesn't get any press coverage, while Clinton getting a "Lewinski" was plastered on the news daily. It merely points out that the news had rather report on the risque than the substantive.

BTW, as with his military record and his arrest records, all Bush has to do to clear it up is release the info that he's been hiding.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

DB:

what exactly is it alledged that bush knew prior to 9/11 concerning the attacks?

ct

[Donutboy 0]

DB:

what exactly is it alledged that bush knew prior to 9/11 concerning the attacks?

ct

It's alleged that Bush knew an attack was planned as early as March 2001, that he knew airplanes would be used as missles and that upon hearing of the hijackings, kept reading to those school children for 18 minutes before getting on Air Force One and hiding in the skies, while we were left to fend for ourselves. He never gave an order for our Air Force to intercept and escort the hijacked planes or to take action against the second plane if it did as the first and try to crash into a skyscraper. Whether he didn't know WHAT to do (very possible considering the confused look on his face at hearing the news) or KNEW who was responsible and couldn't believe the Bin Laden's, his friends, would follow through with the threat.

[TitanTiger 20,519]

I never said the Lewinski thing wasn't true.

I realize that you didn't say this explicitly. But by comparing it to some cockamamie idea that no credible news organization has seen fit to jump on (and believe me, if they thought they could back it up, they'd be all over it), you were making a false comparison. One was proven true. The other is just fodder for conspiracy chatter by rabid lefties like Cynthia McKinney.

It's just funny that a real scandal, such as what Bush knew before thousands of Americans were murdered, doesn't get any press coverage, while Clinton getting a "Lewinski" was plastered on the news daily. It merely points out that the news had rather report on the risque than the substantive.

*in my best Reagan voice* "There you go again." <clue>It isn't a "real" scandal just because you and some other wild-eyed libbies thing it is.</clue>

And all this proves about the news media is that they would rather report on things that are credible than things that aren't. Just because people perceive them as biased one way (NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NPR) or the other (Fox) doesn't mean they are willing to throw out all credibility on something unproven just to fit their paradigm. If real (not Donutboy Real, but actual "real") proof comes forward, they'll be all over it, Fox included, I assure you.

BTW, as with his military record and his arrest records, all Bush has to do to clear it up is release the info that he's been hiding.

Well, given the responsibilities he has and the knowledge he has versus, say, you...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and let him do his job.

Just because a bunch of McKinney Disciples want to go on a fishing expedition for campaign fodder for Dems doesn't mean he should supply you with a rod, reel, hooks, a boat, and a pond.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

DB:

what exactly is it alledged that bush knew prior to 9/11 concerning the attacks?

ct

It's alleged that Bush knew an attack was planned as early as March 2001, that he knew airplanes would be used as missles and that upon hearing of the hijackings, kept reading to those school children for 18 minutes before getting on Air Force One and hiding in the skies, while we were left to fend for ourselves. He never gave an order for our Air Force to intercept and escort the hijacked planes or to take action against the second plane if it did as the first and try to crash into a skyscraper. Whether he didn't know WHAT to do (very possible considering the confused look on his face at hearing the news) or KNEW who was responsible and couldn't believe the Bin Laden's, his friends, would follow through with the threat.

ok...let's just pretend he did know that an attack was planned and that airplanes would be used as missles.

back in march, what should bush have done?

[Donutboy 0]

DB:

what exactly is it alledged that bush knew prior to 9/11 concerning the attacks?

ct

It's alleged that Bush knew an attack was planned as early as March 2001, that he knew airplanes would be used as missles and that upon hearing of the hijackings, kept reading to those school children for 18 minutes before getting on Air Force One and hiding in the skies, while we were left to fend for ourselves. He never gave an order for our Air Force to intercept and escort the hijacked planes or to take action against the second plane if it did as the first and try to crash into a skyscraper. Whether he didn't know WHAT to do (very possible considering the confused look on his face at hearing the news) or KNEW who was responsible and couldn't believe the Bin Laden's, his friends, would follow through with the threat.

ok...let's just pretend he did know that an attack was planned and that airplanes would be used as missles.

back in march, what should bush have done?

The first thing I would have done is make sure airline security was adequate. Al Gore had already done a study showing the shortcomings of the airline security but his proposals were defeated in the Congress because they didn't want the added expense to be a burden on the airlines.

The next thing I would have done is ask the CIA and FBI what information they had on any terrorist threats and I would weigh the reports against each other. If there were foreigners on our soil wanting to learn to fly planes but not wanting to know how to take off or land them, I'd have the FBI or CIA one rounding them up and finding out WHY. Especially when intelligence suggested that airplanes could be used as missles.

The third thing that I would have done is have our military and intelligence communities on heightened alert to a possible terrorist attack. If four airlines were hijacked simultaneously, I'd think something was up other than four people simultaneously wanting to defect to Cuba at the same time.

I'd also have been rooting out WHO was planning the attack and taking action proactively instead of reactively.

Given the time of six months between the first warning and the actual attack, I believe I could also have come up with a number of other ideas, but the first one would have been the most urgent.

[AURainman 6]

As Yogi Berra said, "Hindsight is 50/50."

We can talk ALL DAY about what Bush should have done. The truth is, before 9-11 America believed itself to be invincible. Do you think the 9-11 terrorist threat was the only one he recieved in those six months? I have no facts to support this, but I have always been under the impression that the SS, FBI, etc. probably handle 5-10 threats a day. Who's to say that THIS threat was the real one, and the others weren't. Well, in hindsight......

[Donutboy 0]

As Yogi Berra said, "Hindsight is 50/50."

We can talk ALL DAY about what Bush should have done. The truth is, before 9-11 America believed itself to be invincible. Do you think the 9-11 terrorist threat was the only one he recieved in those six months? I have no facts to support this, but I have always been under the impression that the SS, FBI, etc. probably handle 5-10 threats a day. Who's to say that THIS threat was the real one, and the others weren't. Well, in hindsight......

I would asume that a threat of this magnitude, you'd HAVE to take seriously. Of course, Bush's priorities were elsewhere. Lost in the debate is the fact that before 9-11, Bush and the Republicans in Congress were prepping to push the Star Wars SDI system, while Democrats were arguing that terrorism was the biggest threat to our nation. It wouldn't have helped Bush to actually give credence to a terrorist threat when he wanted defense spending dedicated to implementing the Star Wars system. It would have given the Democrats in Congress ammunition to use proving that terrorism was the REAL threat.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

wow...db.

you can certainly do some spinning.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Bush's priorities were elsewhere. Lost in the debate is the fact that before 9-11, Bush and the Republicans in Congress were prepping to push the Star Wars SDI system, while Democrats were arguing that terrorism was the biggest threat to our nation.

If Clinton had payed as much attention to Al Qaeda as he did to getting Lewinskies in the Oval Office or defending himself from the numerous other sexual misconduct allegations, then Bin Laden's terror network would never have gotten as strong as it was. The democrats in office then could've cared less about national defense, given the scope of military force reduction during that time period combined with severe military budget reductions.

If the democrats were so concerned with national defense, why wasn't Al Qaeda attacked back in the early 90's after the 1993 WTC attack? Why wasn't Al Qaeda attacked after the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 that killed 19 US airmen? Why wasn't Al Qaeda attacked after the USS Cole was bombed in 2000 killing 17 US sailors?

[Tiger Al 0]

If Clinton had payed as much attention to Al Qaeda as he did to getting Lewinskies in the Oval Office or defending himself from the numerous other sexual misconduct allegations, then Bin Laden's terror network would never have gotten as strong as it was. The democrats in office then could've cared less about national defense, given the scope of military force reduction during that time period combined with severe military budget reductions.

Are saying that monitoring terrorists is a military function? I thought it was a function of the intelligence community.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

And ONCE AGAIN - how long had Bush been in office in March 2001? TWO MONTHS.

How long had Bill Clinton been in office? EIGHT YEARS.

Did Osama Bin Laden make his first appearance on the terror radar screen in March 2001? NO HE DID NOT. REMEMBER THE USS COLE? REMEMBER THE AFRICAN EMBASSIES? REMEMBER THE KOHBAR TOWERS?

Had the US been given the opportunity to take out Bin Laden prior to March 2001? YES - THREE SEPARATE TIMES.

Did we do it, thereby taking out the head of the snake once and for all? NO WE DID NOT.

Why didn't we? CLINTON DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT HIS GOLF GAME.

Bush is supposed to do in six months what Clinton never did in EIGHT YEARS and this is all Bush's fault? You are seriously delusional if you put your faith in conspiracy theories like this one. Obviously the media sees through it for the pack of lies that it is. You would have to believe that GWB would prefer to see 3000 people die rather than take action against some family friend - if that is what you believe, then you are just sick. If you honestly believe GWB is that evil, then you need serious help.

[Tigermike 3,058]

Gore had already done a study showing the shortcomings of the airline security but his proposals were defeated in the Congress because they didn't want the added expense to be a burden on the airlines.

Was this about the same time that Algore invented the internet? When was this study done? Why didn't the Clinton/Gore administration do anything?

The next thing I would have done is ask the CIA and FBI what information they had on any terrorist threats and I would weigh the reports against each other

Is this something that every president does not do now?

If there were foreigners on our soil wanting to learn to fly planes but not wanting to know how to take off or land them, I'd have the FBI or CIA one rounding them up and finding out WHY.

If this administration had started rounding up foreign nationals within the first several months of being in office, the ACLU & Demons & you would have been screaming from the highest buildings about all the civil rights that were being steped on.

I'd also have been rooting out WHO was planning the attack and taking action proactively instead of reactively.

Again, pray tell, why did Clinton/Gore NOT do anything? But that is easy to understand. Clinton was too busy with Monica and Gore was wandering around with his head in the clouds wondering what his next invention would be.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Are saying that monitoring terrorists is a military function? I thought it was a function of the intelligence community.

After the Clinton administration dismantled our intelligence agencies, there was no community left!!

Here's some info for you libs to chew on.

Source

Clinton's policy choice forced the sensitive ways and means used by both agencies, including informants and clandestine surveillance equipment (such as high-definition satellite imaging) in the pursuit of deadly terrorists, to be subject to disclosure and compromise.

....because Bill Clinton chose to have an "Investigation on Terrorism" instead of using a military response to the many bombings and killings ....... the intelligence agencies were hobbled from conducting aggressive probes which might have uncovered Osama bin Laden's plans to attack our soil.

The direct advantage to Bill Clinton and his administration in having an investigation instead of an outright war, is that he could appear to be doing something while avoiding the real risk of sending U.S. soldiers out to do the job that needed to be done.TIS says. "sounds like a coward to me"

But the eight years of damage done to the F.B.I., C.I.A. and the N.S.A. was not unknown, nor was it ignored - except by the oversight committees that could have blown a whistle to stop it. First of all, the many ethical dissenters within these three agencies knew the impact of each of Clinton's policies and were ready, willing and able to give testimony to any House or Senate intelligence committees interested in hearing about it.

In fact, I know that many senior investigators did exactly that - they came to the Hill at great risk to their careers to warn just how the Clinton policies were putting this country at great risk. If senators and congressmen were concerned after hearing from the many whistleblowers who made this dangerous journey, they apparently were too timid to take action. They should have listened to the whistleblowers.

Instead of taking responsibility for a collapse of agency oversight responsibility, they will prefer to place the blame on the intelligence community. After I took up my new position as an F.B.I. agent assigned to Capitol Hill, I learned quickly that one unwritten function of the F.B.I. was to fall on the sword when required to do so by the White House. Presumably, the House and Senate - in charge of the agencies' budget requests - would also favor intelligence agency management that took their medicine with silence and a smile.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike, is it that you really don't remember when the Clinton administration got the Clarke report or are you just being obstinate? I know I've posted that info at least twice before.

The report wasn't available to Clinton until December, 20th I think, of 2000. It basically said that removal of bin Laden by military force was necessary. The same thing that Bush did in Afghanistan.

Clinton had to make the decision to act then and give Bush a war on his first day at work or pass the info on to him and let them do it in the manner they saw fit.

Here's a link.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Horse crap!! The Clinton administration knew Bin Laden was a threat prior to the 1993 WTC attack. Bin Laden, while in a Sudanese jail, was offered for release to the US no less than 3 times. Each time Clinton, pre occupied with other legal matters, turned down the offer. Bin Laden himself has said he was shocked that the US didn't extradite him.

The embarrassing retreat from Mogadishu after the Blackhawk down incident basically gave Bin Laden and Al Qaeda the green light to begin preparations to hit the US on it's own soil.

[Tiger Al 0]

But, TIS, weren't the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing apprehended, tried and convicted?

The 'offer' from Sudan wasn't a legitimate one.

[Tigermike 3,058]

Clinton had to make the decision to act then and give Bush a war on his first day at work or pass the info on to him and let them do it in the manner they saw fit.

Good Lord, yet another reason to love revere and admire Clinton.

:unsure:

When you guys have the statue cast of Slick Willie, will his zipper be down?

[TrueTiger 0]

I don't know if he knew or not. I think its wrong if he did and didnt do anything about it.

WARR EAGLE

[rexbo 104]

back in march, what should bush have done?

He could have invaded Afghanistan in a preemptive strike! I am sure the democrats, Dean, the UN and Germany and France, everyone would have been right behind Bush on this one!!!!

Do they (DonutBoy and TigerAl) have any idea how ludicrous their hypocrisy looks? Beating Bush to death FOR eliminating Saddam before he killed tens of thousands of more people and turning around and Beating Bush to death for NOT eliminating Osama and the Taliban before they killed thousands. And don't say the threat of Osama before 9/11 was worse or higher than Saddam's. Saddam had already killed hundreds of thousands before he was taken out, Osama was then only dreaming of killing thousands.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

But, TIS, weren't the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing apprehended, tried and convicted?

The 'offer' from Sudan wasn't a legitimate one.

Yes Ramzi Yousef was, but the one calling the shots was none other than OBL.

As for your claim about the Sudanese offer, I'd like to know your source. Here is a audio link to Clinton verifying he had the offer from Sudan yet turned it down.

Clinton admits it

Here's the article.

Clinton Reveals: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

[Tiger Al 0]

Wow, TIS, that's very compelling. Is anything he said untrue?