911 for the truth

rcunning03

From what i can tell this website should be operational on 11/12/03

---

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CB84E581-838E-4EFE-B64B-09C04CC1F545.htm

9/11 widow wants Bush in court


By Lawrence Smallman

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


Mariani's case against Bush has recieved no attention in US media



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.

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

Philip Berg,
Mariani's attorney

“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.


Aljazeera

Wompa1

Why doesn't she sue Bill Clinton? It was his regime that should have dealt with the threat.It was written in the Times about a year ago that when he was in office he had intelligence of that pin pointed where Sadam Hussein was at a precise moment and he was asked whether or not to kill him...I believe he would have to if he wasn't playing a game of golf with past presidents!

Johnmb

Originally posted by Wompa1
Why doesn't she sue Bill Clinton? It was his regime that should have dealt with the threat.It was written in the Times about a year ago that when he was in office he had intelligence of that pin pointed where Sadam Hussein was at a precise moment and he was asked whether or not to kill him...I believe he would have to if he wasn't playing a game of golf with past presidents!

So you think she should sue Bill Clinton because he refused to break international law by ordering the murder of the President of an independent country, who would then go on to have absolutely nothing to do with the events that lead to her husbands death and ultimately this case? Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:

sceptre

Originally posted by Wompa1
Why doesn't she sue Bill Clinton? It was his regime that should have dealt with the threat.It was written in the Times about a year ago that when he was in office he had intelligence of that pin pointed where Sadam Hussein was at a precise moment and he was asked whether or not to kill him

Iraq and Hussein had nowt to do with the WTC attack in 2001. So why would she sue Clinton then?

rcunning03

im sure thats exactly what the defense are going to say, but did you mean bin laden or hussien

Johnmb

In fairness, even if he meant Bin Laden, from all the evidence that has come out, killing him wouldn't have changed anything. He doesn't seem to have been the mastermind behind the planning (at least not for the details). If he had been killed back then, the WTC attacks would have been put down to a revenge attack.

dahamsta

What are the odds this'll go anywhere though? It'd be great if the families of the thousands killed on September the 11th got behind this, even if only to search for the truth, but the misplaced patriotism Bush's administration has chided them into will preclude it.

adam

rcunning03

i dont think americans would ever be able to accept that a president would betray them so badly

sovtek

Originally posted by dahamsta
What are the odds this'll go anywhere though? It'd be great if the families of the thousands killed on September the 11th got behind this, even if only to search for the truth, but the misplaced patriotism Bush's administration has chided them into will preclude it.

adam

I think most probably would if they were aware of it. From what I've read it's actually the families that pressured the Bush regime into establishing the 911 commission (as flawed as it is) in the first place. They are also amongst it's strongest critics (might possibly be because the media are suspiciously unaware of it) of it as well.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Wompa1

As an American I can't believe Americas so called Allies would betray them so badly, I have a feeling it goes alot deeper then the French just being a Peace Loving nation... And Sadam Hussein was a terrorist plus I meant to also include in my first post that he had signifcant intelligence about Bin Laden and Al Queda and even after the original car bomb in The WTC he did nothing, or after the Embassy attack...sorry I wasn't concentrating fully as I was in a lecture

Wompa1

Clinton was a disgrace as president, if anything he spent too much time worrying about trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and The Middle East....and look how that turned out...no progress

Clinton didn't embody the American people, Bush doesn't either but he does to the extent that he endorses the common basic beleives most Americans have

Hussein had 12 years to change his ways he didn't
He was given an Ultimatium he chose to ignore it
There had to be consequences

disco_rob_funk

IMO anyone with broadband and 2 hours to spare should watch this:

9/11 - the road to tyranny (230MB)

Fascinating evidence - mindblowing conclusions! take it with a pinch of salt, but you can't deny the v. relevant 9/11 facts in there, stuff most aren't aware of.

Beats the **** out of Columbine any day.

RC

sceptre

Originally posted by Wompa1
plus I meant to also include in my first post that he had signifcant intelligence about Bin Laden and Al Queda and even after the original car bomb in The WTC he did nothing, or after the Embassy attack

So (playing Devils advocate to a certain extent) because Hussein didn't supply all relevant information that he had to the CIA (as far as you know at least) about the whereabouts of binLaden and who he was having tea with at any given time the attack was entirely justified? You do know that omission to act is rarely an offence even under the internal laws of most countries (including the ones you and I live in)*

Or is there another reason in particular?

(I just want you to pick one. Or two or three - but most posters would appreciate them all in advance rather than in dribs and drabs. Saying that Hussein wasn't a particularly nice chap has been done to death here - and it's not a point of debate as no-one liked the guy. Say why the war was justified, there's a good chap)


[SIZE]*except for one notable case where someone accidentally drove on to a cop's foot in the UK and deliberately refused to get off. Well-known to most noobs at criminal law[/SIZE]

bonkey

Originally posted by Wompa1
Clinton didn't embody the American people, Bush doesn't either but he does to the extent that he endorses the common basic beleives most Americans have

Which basic beliefs would these be that Bush endorses?

Here's a sample to choose from :

- If you can't be competitive, just act illegally (based on the WTO findings of the Bush-approved steel tarriffs.
- If you don't get your way, resort to violence (Iraq)
- If you can't convince the public, lie (lead-up to Iraq)
- If you've signed inconvenient agreements, back out of them, or just ignore them (NPT & UN respectively)

These embody basic American beliefs? Sheesh - people call me anti-American, and I'd never make an allegation like that.

Or do you just mean that he goes "HOO-Rah, America is the greatest nation on earth" (or words to that effect) at every opportunity???

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rcunning03

Clinton didn't embody the American people, Bush doesn't either but he does to the extent that he endorses the common basic beleives most Americans have

I read somewhere that most americans are liberal, or is this just in the parts of the usa europe recognises i.e. east coast, west coast and mid west.

I believe bush is wrong and i hate what the israelis do in the west bank, but then i
am european with liberal beliefs and i cant see too many people that would post on these boards disagreeing with the above statement.

But now is your chance to give the american conservative point of view, if you want people to take you post seriously dont use words like evil,terrorist etc just explain to us plainly what the common basic beliefs most americans have and how the israeli occuption of the west bank is justified ?

cheers

Wompa1

I knew that would stir the ****, Theres not a European alive that would agree with the desicion to go to war in Iraq...or with anything Bush did....If I could ask a question, a serious question, could anyone tell me what Quota America was offered in The Kioto agreement? I'm just curious..

Bush is the complete opposite to Clinton for one he doesn't use his interns for quick relief and two he understands that words aren't always effective,which most americans believe, but the U.N doesn't..thus the 12 years of b.s they took
I can't really see much of a difference between Hitler and Hussein

Hitler invaded other countries
Hussein invaded other countries
Hitler oppressed opposition
Hussein oppressed opposition

And if the documentary that was on a few months ago is true both Hitler and Hussein love the c0ck
Another simularity I fear could be The Kurds with The Jews...only not with Palestine.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PHB

I'd make this point to support the american view.

First off its not the conservative view, as you so put it, its the american view. Nearly all american governments have had very very similar foreign policies so lets not paint it as a black and white issue.

If you ignore the cynical view that the war was all about oil, and personal gain for Bush, and look at it from a different point of view.

The war has its good sides. I grant you that the americans lied to their people, to everyone, but that doesnt change the fact that the war was a good thing.

Just like post-WW2 germany and japan Iraq will develop into a democractic society, as has been shown throughout history. If the americans want a democracy in Iraq, which they clearly do, it'll happen, as it has happened.

I'm not supporting the war for the reasons that the majority of the conservatives give, I'm supporting it for my own reasons. I dont think its fair or just to sit back while innocent people are tortured and killed under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I think the americans, and by the americans I mean the people of america not the politicians, do either. Thats why there is such support for the war in America, whether we admit it or not.

Wompa's argument that Hussein is like Hitler is overly simplisticbut it makes a valid point. America has before gone in and protected the civil rights of people in other countries, while they may have different motives it doesn't change the fact that they are a cause for good in the world.

Johnmb

Originally posted by PHB
I'd make this point to support the american view.

First off its not the conservative view, as you so put it, its the american view. Nearly all american governments have had very very similar foreign policies so lets not paint it as a black and white issue.

If you ignore the cynical view that the war was all about oil, and personal gain for Bush, and look at it from a different point of view.

The war has its good sides. I grant you that the americans lied to their people, to everyone, but that doesnt change the fact that the war was a good thing.
That is a bit simplistic, it is way too early to say it was a good thing. If things work out, then such a statement may hold water.

Just like post-WW2 germany and japan Iraq will develop into a democractic society, as has been shown throughout history.
That is a very narrow field of history. Many, many more countries have been subject to invasion and puppet governments that have not developed into democratic societies. Even if they do, what makes you think democracy is a good thing for them? What makes you think it would work in their society? And, more to the point, what makes you think that a democracy that places US supporters in power, and is under the control of the US will be any improvement over th previous government?

If the americans want a democracy in Iraq, which they clearly do, it'll happen, as it has happened.
Where do you get the "clearly do" part from? The US has a track record of removing democratic governments that they do not agree with, and they have tried to delay the handover of power for as long as they could in Iraq. The only reason they have now set a date is because their hand was forced.

I'm not supporting the war for the reasons that the majority of the conservatives give, I'm supporting it for my own reasons. I dont think its fair or just to sit back while innocent people are tortured and killed under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I think the americans, and by the americans I mean the people of america not the politicians, do either. Thats why there is such support for the war in America, whether we admit it or not.
If that were the honest reason for the war, then it would be good. But the facts are that the US went to war for their own reasons. That make the war bad. Side effects that may prove beneficial at some future point do not count, the US has set a precedent whereby when they don't like a government they invade the country (assuming the country in question cannot defend itself), and when they do like a government they assist in the torture and killing of innocent people (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq).

Wompa's argument that Hussein is like Hitler is overly simplisticbut it makes a valid point. America has before gone in and protected the civil rights of people in other countries, while they may have different motives it doesn't change the fact that they are a cause for good in the world.
What about the times they oppress the civil rights of people in other countries? Such as the people of Iran in 1953, the people in camp X-Ray, the Kurds, the people of Chile, etc.?

PHB

That is a bit simplistic, it is way too early to say it was a good thing. If things work out, then such a statement may hold water.

Yep, but I have a lot of faith that they will


That is a very narrow field of history. Many, many more countries have been subject to invasion and puppet governments that have not developed into democratic societies.

Yes, the difference being that America went in with the intention of placing in power a dictatorial government which supported american interests. In this case, as in the same case as Germany and Japan, they have(are) set up a democratic country, which similarily supporst american interests.


Even if they do, what makes you think democracy is a good thing for them? What makes you think it would work in their society?

I think democracy is the only system of government which works to the effect that it benifits the majority of the people in society, while still accomodating the minority.


And, more to the point, what makes you think that a democracy that places US supporters in power, and is under the control of the US will be any improvement over th previous government?


Since the power is gradually passing to the people. In germany post WW2 americans initally held the power, and it slowly passed to the german people. It is the reason why Germany is a peaceful first world country now.


Where do you get the "clearly do" part from? The US has a track record of removing democratic governments that they do not agree with, and they have tried to delay the handover of power for as long as they could in Iraq. The only reason they have now set a date is because their hand was forced.


I'd argue that they were taking it slowly, as they did in Germany and Japan. You can't just click your fingers and make it happens, it takes time. I think the UN are pushing for it too fast which will lead to massive instability in the long run. Do you honastly believe america intended to leave their troops there for years to control the country?


If that were the honest reason for the war, then it would be good. But the facts are that the US went to war for their own reasons. That make the war bad. Side effects that may prove beneficial at some future point do not count, the US has set a precedent whereby when they don't like a government they invade the country (assuming the country in question cannot defend itself), and when they do like a government they assist in the torture and killing of innocent people (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq).


Well I'd say that that is kinda true aswell. However the phrase "assuming the country in question cannot defend itself" seems to me that you believe that america only attacks countries which are militarily weak, and that this is a bad thing.

I think that you have to do what you can when you can, even though it may be hypocritical. If there are human rights abuses in a country and you can change it, I think that you should change it, if you can't, unfortunately thats the way it goes.
But slowly and surly democracy and free speech are spreading around the world, and the only places in the world that are arguably peaceful, are the places with democracy.


What about the times they oppress the civil rights of people in other countries? Such as the people of Iran in 1953, the people in camp X-Ray, the Kurds, the people of Chile, etc.?


Yeah, I dont agree with them. I'm not supporting their position in that mannor at all. I just think that people should see the good side of the war so we can hopefully affects american policy in the future.

It does no good for us to be anti-american, or anti-bush if you want. We need to give our support now that its over.
We protested during the war, and thats great if its what you believe.
But the war has happened now, and we need to get back to a strong ally status so we can try to influence the american policy to the extent that they actually do go in purely for human rights, and we can't do that with this senseless pointless opposition.

America have total power in the world today, and to say thats not true is just silly, the best thing for us(europeans) to do, besides building up a military force to rival them, is to move on, and try to make the future better.

Johnmb

Originally posted by PHB
America have total power in the world today, and to say thats not true is just silly, the best thing for us(europeans) to do, besides building up a military force to rival them, is to move on, and try to make the future better.

Unfortunately, I believe that the best chance for peace would be if the EU did build up a very powerful military to rival the US. Our economic power can only control the US to a certain degree, and given their track record, they need to be under a military threat in order to be controlled. I would much rather that Europe be that threat than be relying on China, who have proven to be every bit as bad, and worse, than the US.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Wompa1
Hussein had 12 years to change his ways he didn't
He was given an Ultimatium he chose to ignore it
There had to be consequences

Don't forget that Israel still hasn't complied with loads of UN resolutions - and that's doesn't include the ones the US vetoed on their behalf...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1269564#post1269564
http://www.petitiononline.com/84766866/petition.html
Yet there are no signs of the US invading them or lots of other countires that it deems politically expident to support.

PHB

Johnmb:

The problem with that is threefold(a word?).
Firstly it'll be a l.ong long time before Europe can agree on a foreign policy
Secondly if that happened we would essentially become the United States of Europe, which I dont think would, at the moment, be supported by the majority.
Finally, and most importantly, do you really want there to be a military power to rival the US? I dont know if I do, cause frankly I dont trust our leaders, or the american leaders, to make stupid stupid stupid things escalate into a war.
China is absolutely no threat to american military power btw.


Capt'n Midnight:

Lets not get into the whole Israel debate cause we'll never get anywhere Sufficite to say the U.N. is essentially racist againist Israel, and those resolutions are not, repeat NOT, binding, only suggested guidelines. Also when you're children have a large chance of being bombed on the way to school, tell me how rational you are

The americans, and thank god that they do, obey the rule "do what you can where you can." Big old problems in china, the US should not go in and invade. Big old problems in a crappy little african country, the US should go in straight away. It's a little hypocritical yes, but its better than doing nothing.

Johnmb

Originally posted by PHB
Johnmb:

The problem with that is threefold(a word?).
Firstly it'll be a l.ong long time before Europe can agree on a foreign policy
Secondly if that happened we would essentially become the United States of Europe, which I dont think would, at the moment, be supported by the majority.
Finally, and most importantly, do you really want there to be a military power to rival the US? I dont know if I do, cause frankly I dont trust our leaders, or the american leaders, to make stupid stupid stupid things escalate into a war.
China is absolutely no threat to american military power btw.

It may be a long time before we all agree on foreign policy, however militaries can be built up prior to that, essentionally for peace-keeping purposes. A USE would not be necessary to have a strong military. And yes, I do feel a military rival to the US is needed for world peace. The more the US gets away with, the more it will do. There has to be a balance, and I would prefer the EU to be that balance. China might not be a serious threat to the US at the moment, but they are the closest to it, I think the EU would be better in that role than China.

Capt'n Midnight:

Lets not get into the whole Israel debate cause we'll never get anywhere Sufficite to say the U.N. is essentially racist againist Israel,
That is complete BS. It is not racist to point out the human rights abuses carried out daily by any country, not matter how much they want to claim otherwise.

and those resolutions are not, repeat NOT, binding, only suggested guidelines.
The security council resolutions are supposed to be binding. The only reason no action has been taken is because of the US veto.

Also when you're children have a large chance of being bombed on the way to school, tell me how rational you are
Excuses, excuses. When your children have a large chance of being bombed in their own home by tanks and war planes, how rational should you be?

The americans, and thank god that they do, obey the rule "do what you can where you can."
Yes, but its do what you can for your own ends when you can, not do what you can for human rights when you can. If the latter were the case, the Israeli problem would be long over by now.

Big old problems in china, the US should not go in and invade.
But if they were truely interested, they could do small things, like removing China from the "most favoured nation" status that the have for trade.

[Big old problems in a crappy little african country, the US should go in straight away. It's a little hypocritical yes, but its better than doing nothing. [/B]Big problems in big countries could be dealt with economically by the US. The fact that they ignore it proves they are only out for themselves, nothing else.

bonkey

Originally posted by PHB
Sufficite to say the U.N. is essentially racist againist Israel,

God....after starting off with a "lets not get into it", you post up this gem. If you didn't want to get into it, what did you go and start making anycomments about it for.....let alone this shining example of rational, well-argued thought?

If I didn't know better, I'd say it was a slow December and you're just looking to incite some tempers with ridiculous comments like that.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by PHB
The americans, and thank god that they do, obey the rule "do what you can where you can."

Thats why they decided not to go into Liberia - despite having a hand in creating the mess there.

And its why they continue to support oppressive regimes around the globe....

Its because they can't do anything about it...

"I'm sorry, we'd like to do something about the oppressive regime in Saudia Arabia, but you see we can't actually do anything there, because, ummmm, well, we're too cosy in bed with them"

Seriously PHB....you can do better than that.

jc

PHB

Yeah you're right, I'll just drop the Israel thing cause we will get nowhere.

I agree with you, they don't do it in when its in their interests not to. I'm not supporting the current US foreign policy, I'm just saying it has its good sides.