New ACLU Video Features 9/11 Families Asking For True Justice

Source: aclu.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
CONTACT: (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org



NEW YORK – A new video released by the American Civil Liberties Union today features family members of 9/11 victims calling for federal trials of terrorism suspects. The Obama administration is expected to announce by November 16 whether certain Guantánamo detainees will be transferred to the U.S. for trial in federal courts or be tried in the illegitimate military commissions.

“

It is of utmost importance to me that those who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 face a court,” says Adele Welty in the ACLU video. Her son was a New York firefighter killed at the World Trade Center.

“It’s very important to me that we get the right people,” says John Leinung, whose stepson was killed while working in the Twin Towers. “That the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11.”



Pat Perry, whose son was a police offer killed on 9/11, says she would rather see the Guantánamo detainees who have been held without charge “appear in open court where we can all sift out what we feel is really the truth and the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”



These 9/11 family members all say they agree that holding detainees without charge in Guantánamo is a betrayal of American values and they look forward to true justice being served in federal court.  

“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers,” Welty says, “and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11.”

WOW, that was powerful!

It is easy to see that these family members know who the right people are.
John Leinung: “That the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11.”



The ACLU as an ally! This could become huge.

A few months ago I spoke with and gave DVDs ("Blueprint" and "In Their Own Words") to a couple of ACLU Reps in Dallas.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

A lot of the families...

We are familiar with have been working with the ACLU for some time with regards to the Military Commissions.

I used to wonder why Bill O'Reilly gave them so much shit. From what I've seen regarding their work with the families, I don't wonder anymore.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Contact these guys...

http://www.aclu.org/general-feedback

Be polite, but assertive. We would really benefit with these guys as an ally. Anyway. Do what you can do.

Powerful, inspiring statements. Thanks.

But "those responsible for 9/11 attacks" ?? ...That might be, under one view, a group of Saudi hijackers, who perished with the planes. .... And now we also know that they were, very likely unknowingly, patsies, blind participants in something bigger, something that - even if they might have wanted to start and carry out - they would have NEVER been able to carry out without the active and defining inside role.

Do esteemed victims families, so as ACLU.org, know this? Are they aware of the facts and irrefutable scientific evidence, that 9/11 is a controlled demolition operation, one that is yet to be fully officially investigated and explained ???

Thanks.
http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com

Personally, I'm shocked.

This is an absolutely horrible video. It's so bad that I really can't believe the ACLU even released it.

It's flat, boring, slow, hesitant, dull, and spoken in monotone. Everyone looks "pasty," no one displays any personality or emotion on screen, and the 911 victims - these folks loved ones - aren't even there.

What IS there are brief, white, block-letter font subtitles on a screen simply describing their relationships. Ok, so there is one dim black and white photo on an easel behind one of the woman being interviewed.

But there is nothing powerful, evocative, moving, or convincing about any of it. There's really nothing to draw anyone one in, especially not those whom this video is, conceivably, being directed to. If I was one of those people and saw this video, I'd turn it off after 45 seconds.

There has to be a clear, direct connection between the message and these people. What makes what THEY have to say different than a few people just pulled in off the street whose opinions are being taped? Right now, honestly, nothing.

What these people have to say is IMPORTANT. The meaning behind it is even MORE important and should be THE highlight of the video . Better that the tape simply show the whole time, running pics and videos of the loved ones while alive and vibrant, etc, with these folks interviews as a voiceover.

Something like this has to GRAB the people who are listening by the lapels from the first nano-second and not release them until the last one.

The ACLU should follow the lead of NYCCAN. The last video they put out before the judge's "Big Decision", was really good.

I know this is a rant but this kind of thing is SO important. How many chances do we get out there? Like, none. The ACLU has the money and know-how to have done this right. For whatever reason, they didn't. This completely misses the mark.

I'm just frustrated and really disappointed.

Mokeyboy, ...you can 'remake' the video to add 'tone'....

I am thrilled to see the ACLU put this out!! We have an fantastic ally!! We need to help support them. Also, for some audiences, this type of presentation (without the music / emotional chords) is very appropriate.
However, Mokeyboy, you have the right and responsibility to bring about the version which you feel would be most effective. Let's not slam the ACLU for bringing to light such a powerful issue.

Agreed, Bombastic is Not Always Best.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

Differing audiences need differing approaches...

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and all Truthers should consider becoming the same.

Anyway, this is yet another significant step ahead in reaching the "non-converted". Those who are members of the ACLU are very keen on specific words and the like and are very detailed or lawyer-like as they are in courts all the time. The "lawyer delay"...which is a process of double checking for the exact words before saying them, is in full evidence here. I would expect absolutely nothing different from any contact with the ACLU...those folks are careful!

The NYCAN video, which was great, is a cheerleading effort for Truthers, has the same beat and tone that we are used to, and is designed to get yet another audience if possible...but not likely to be the ACLU types.

Just having the ACLU calling for more investigations via trials is HUGE...much more meaningful than the average Truther might think. This is great!

Again, there are TENS OF MILLIONS of US citizens who doubt the OCT in one way or another...but they fear their government and are keeping it all inside. Slowly we are seeing these inner beliefs and concerns making it to their "outsides", so its gonna be a slow steady process for years and years to come.

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE...and CI...Civil Informationing is the best way to go...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

All I can say is that this kind of approch works for me.

The video might not appeal to everyone but it appeals to me. I don't go for glitz and the calm reasoning approach is what works for me. It is the same as with DGR, Richard Gage and David Chandler. Alex Jones may work for some but if everyone in the truth movement was like him I wouldn't be here.

This video is yet another step forward towards truth.

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
and a trial should help us know how , with whom and why it happended so that we can take mesures so that it never happens again !

This video is yet another step forward towards truth.

Yours

John

This video creates a teachable moment

The slow pace is key in presenting broad, simple concepts that (unfortunately) many people are hearing for the first time. The interviewees spoke of the rule of law and the (constitutional) requirement for a fair trial for "those responsible". The tone was sober, moralistic but not righteous, and with a strong emotional undercurrent (memory of the victims). To put this presentation on steroids by adding anger or frustration, or even audio/visual bell-and-whistles would diminish it. I would like to add two or three clear text statements referring to the volume of evidence that refute the OCT, and thereby harness the persuasive meme of a fair tradition of American jurisprudence in the service of 9/11 Truth. This video could serve as a gateway presentation into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Its "Let's-get-real" tone creates in the viewer a "teachable moment".

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Powerful for an appearance of justice, but . . .

Does anyone on here really think that the Guantanamo detainees had anything to do with the put options, with standing down the US military, with shooting down FL 93, with nanothermite . . . ???

>>

“It’s very important to me that we get the right people,” says John Leinung, whose stepson was killed while working in the Twin Towers. “That the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11.”



He likely believes that some amongst those in Guantanamo were behind 9/11. Claiming he thinks they are not -- without any citations or quotes to back it us -- is false unless you possess the powers to read minds.

Yes we all want a real system of justice, and Guantanamo should have been closed, never opened in the first place. But my expectation is that we will not get to the truths of 9/11 via the families who believe the murderers are at Guantanamo, and the ACLU, who will likely defend that position. The ACLU is a great organization but is likely no different than Democracy Now -- they have their limits.

The benefits are that they will expose the role of torture and potentially help defend innocent men. But I don't have a lot of expectations for real truths being exposed.

In a court of law...

Evidence must be presented. Evidence that will either prove or disprove their involvement. That is why our leaders do not want legitimate court trials for these people. They don't have evidence that will stand up in a court of law. Will exposing that truth be beneficial to us?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

>>They don't have evidence

>>They don't have evidence that will stand up in a court of law. Will exposing that truth be beneficial to us?

It will, assuming justice can happen. In many cases any reference to "detainees" is a way to hype "how the terrorists who did 9/11 are going to pay". So it often comes down to which media effort wins, not what reality is.

The huge focus on this will likely not be the evidence, but where and how they are tried. If there is meaningful evidence that isn't good for the government's case, it will be buried in the media and then we all have to work to expose it. There were outrageous things that have happened in the other trials that went completely untold in the media. The judges were pretty amazing in speaking out and exposing the false cases made by the government, but the average American never heard those words or knew of them.

Here's what I posted to wikipedia on the Moussaoui case:

On November 20, 2007, Judge Brinkema publicly stated that the US government had provided incorrect information about evidence in the Moussaoui trial and that due to those actions, she was considering ordering a new trial in a related terrorism case, that of Ali al-Timimi, a Virginia Muslim cleric. Brinkema said that she could no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases after Moussaoui case prosecutors admitted that the CIA had assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees, but later, in a letter made public Nov. 13, two such videotapes and one audio tape were made known.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Trial_and_sentencing

Does anyone you know have any idea that a federal judge says she "she could no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies", to the point where she was considering ordering a new trial? If not, why not?

I, for one...

Would LOVE to see this go to trial.

The only real "evidence" I have seen regarding KSM's possible involvement is this.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained three letters from Usama Bin Laden.

A computer hard drive seized during the capture fo the Detainee contained spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known Al Qaeda members.

I looked through the 9/11 Report to see if any of that was cited, and it was not. Everything else is based on torture. I wonder if people like KSM or people like him would admit to certain things in a public setting. Who knows?

Regarding Judge Brinkema, here's a video of Philly 9/11 Truth.

I told someone yesterday, "I can't tell you how many times I've seen Fox News promote horrid things that you wouldn't believe... it's not news (neither is MSNBC, CNN, etc...) It's the promotion of an ideology that is supported by cherry picking and ignoring information. An ideology that benefits the "Robber Class" (as Cindy Sheehan calls them)."

Every time we have seen any form of legal discourse concerning the 9/11 attacks, we 1) learn new information we didn't know before 2) see more evidence of a cover-up. If this goes to trial, I can't imagine the families being quiet if things are corrupt. As we learned during Rudy's candidacy, they can become loud when they want to.

If I wasn't a 9/11 Truth Activist, I might be an advocate for media reform. I don't know what to tell you.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Great to see 9/11 connected to the legal system

It is a good thing to publicize 9/11 in relation to the legal system. It strongly suggests to the public that questions remain and that accountability is still unresolved.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

"He likely believes"......

I think the guy in the video (John) said that he's interested in finding "the people who were truly involved", rather than scapegoats "who you happen to be able to get a hold of" (Gitmo).
Sure seems like he wants to find out the truth, and that's why he wants to hear the evidence in court.
It's a good thing whenever family members publicly question any part of the official account. I hope it will lead to more of them speaking out.

Outcome

“That the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11.”



Yes, it's nice that he is stating what should be basic in all trials no matter what the crime, but he's not suggesting that the real criminals are probably out in the open and nowhere near Guantanamo.

If Lynndie England had killed the prisoner on her leash at Abu Ghraib, and that prisoner's family was shown only England -- and other troops at her level -- as those who could be punished for that crime, they would likely support a guilty sentence and the real criminals behind the Abu Ghraib torture would never actually get punished. Only England would get punished. So yes, a trial is conducted and there is closure, and it is false, but reported as real by the media.

Does the American public believe that the torturers at Abu Ghraib were punished? Most would because they had a trial and some went to prison. They saw them in the pictures. Those were the real criminals.

Lynndie England held the leash and got caught, but she wasn't the real criminal of the larger crime of torture by US officials. No officers have ever gone to trial for Abu Ghraib. England served 521 days and then went on parole.

But forever after, now, the media can report that those responsible went to trial and were punished. And as time goes by, no one will remember how wrong it all was.

Will these families not punish someone they can find who got money from someone to help house one of the hijackers? Of course they will, and any family would and it's entirely understandable. And so they will get their 9/11 criminals. The real ones were killed, of course, and OBL went missing, but they will take what they can get.

Will anyone stand up and say "these weren't the people who stood down the US military"?

I just don't think so.

Some have, and will, but the media will only cover the ones who are tearfully leaving the courtroom and are happy that anyone went to jail.

I don't think people are wrong for seeing good in this, I just don't think people should get their hopes up or think something key to justice is going to come out of this. It has the potential to just put a false cap on things all over again.

The reason the powers that be don't want trials for suspected

terrorists Is the same reason they don't want to really investigate 9/11. It's a dead end street that in all probability leads right back to the CIA and local criminals.

Looks like the 9/11 suspects will

be in NYC court.

Should be interesting.