Posted on Jul 20, 2021
As A Child, She Fled The Afghan War. As An Officer, She Returned — And Found Herself — NPR
2.4K
21
4
15
15
0
Afghanistan
Women in the Military
Intelligence
Officer
Sailors
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
As stated in the description, all ethnic groups of Afghanistan (with the exclusion of a few very minor groups with no photographs or much information availab...
Once a year I look at this video. It fascinates me. Many are not smiling, they have a steely resolve expression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1v2YYxacYk&t=40s
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Regarding the FBI’s Failure to comply with the mandate from Congress to assess all evidence regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the US Court of Appeals has refused to allow a law suit against the Department of Justice.
FBI deliberately prevented Congress from getting what Congress ordered — an independent assessment of all 9/11 evidence.
The Court of Appeals denied Robert McILvaine his right to be heard due to the wrong rationale that he lacks standing, notwithstanding having lost his son in the 9/11 attacks, is more than simply wrong. McIlvaine, and all 9/11 victims’ family members, deserve to have their voices heard in court on matters regarding the government’s alleged mishandling of investigations regarding the 9/11 attacks. Citizens and nonprofits should not be forced to do the FBI’s job, but when we are, their standing should certainly be recognized by the courts.”
The seven areas of evidence addressed the FBI failed to investigate and/or failed to disclose their findings to the public; 1) Explosives used in the World Trade Center destruction, 2) Individuals known publicly as the “High Fivers” or “Dancing Israelis” who were seen photographing and videotaping the World Trade Center attacks and celebrating, 3) FBI’s destruction of photograph evidence related to the “High Fivers,” 4) Saudi financing and support for some of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, 5) Pentagon and surrounding area 9/11 photos and videos not previously publicly released, 6) Records of plane parts and serial numbers of plane parts recovered at the 9/11 crash sites that could help identify the aircraft involved in the attacks, and 7) Records of phone communications from the air planes involved in the 9/11 attacks.
The FBI went to extreme lengths to avoid assessing and reporting numerous categories of significant 9/11 evidence. The FBI’s 2015 “9/11 Review Commission Report” was simply a whitewash. Citizens and nonprofits should not be forced to do the FBI’s job, but when they are, their standing should certainly be recognized by the courts.
“The fact that the Court of Appeals failed to respect the requirements of the federal judicial disqualification statute and allowed a candidate Merritt Garland for the Attorney General nomination to participate in even some of the decisions regarding this case where the Department of Justice is the Defendant, undermines public confidence in the judicial system. It is the mere appearance of a conflict that must be abided by, and in this case it was not.”
MY COMMENT: Even a AG who I am glade Biden appointed can make a mistake or be wrongly influenced by the vast majority of public opinion as to what really happened on 9/11.
The Court of Appeals’s erroneously ruling resultws in the case being decided without a public oral argument and in the decision being issued as an unpublished judgment. Both of these procedural consequences gave the case a lower profile, which may have been beneficial to and desired by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Department of Justice at the time was being sued in this case, in Washington D.C., and in another high-profile case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the DOJ’s failure to deliver the Lawyers’ Committee’s Grand Jury Petition to the Grand Jury as required by federal law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in denying the Lawyers’ Committee et al. “informational” standing to sue, failed to consider and respect the clearly stated intention of Congress that provided substantial funding for the FBI to conduct an independent assessment of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, not considered by the original 9/11 Commission. The Supreme Court’s precedent provides that legislative history regarding the intent of Congress should not be ignored. The Court of Appeals used their erroneous conclusion (that the FBI was not required to assess the 9/11 evidence or report their assessment to Congress).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedent in denying the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth “organizational” standing to sue. The Supreme Court’s precedent regarding standing to sue of organizations provides that an organization has standing if the defendant’s allegedly unlawful activities injured the plaintiff’s interest in promoting its mission, especially where the organization has had to engage in expenditures of time and money to counter the adverse effects on its mission of the defendants’ unlawful activities or suffered some other concrete harm.
Lawyers’ Committee Litigation Director, Attorney Mick Harrison stated, “The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case is more than disappointing, it is disturbing. It is disturbing because of the extent to which the Court of Appeals has disregarded both Supreme Court precedent and the clearly stated intentions of Congress.
FBI deliberately prevented Congress from getting what Congress ordered — an independent assessment of all 9/11 evidence.
The Court of Appeals denied Robert McILvaine his right to be heard due to the wrong rationale that he lacks standing, notwithstanding having lost his son in the 9/11 attacks, is more than simply wrong. McIlvaine, and all 9/11 victims’ family members, deserve to have their voices heard in court on matters regarding the government’s alleged mishandling of investigations regarding the 9/11 attacks. Citizens and nonprofits should not be forced to do the FBI’s job, but when we are, their standing should certainly be recognized by the courts.”
The seven areas of evidence addressed the FBI failed to investigate and/or failed to disclose their findings to the public; 1) Explosives used in the World Trade Center destruction, 2) Individuals known publicly as the “High Fivers” or “Dancing Israelis” who were seen photographing and videotaping the World Trade Center attacks and celebrating, 3) FBI’s destruction of photograph evidence related to the “High Fivers,” 4) Saudi financing and support for some of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, 5) Pentagon and surrounding area 9/11 photos and videos not previously publicly released, 6) Records of plane parts and serial numbers of plane parts recovered at the 9/11 crash sites that could help identify the aircraft involved in the attacks, and 7) Records of phone communications from the air planes involved in the 9/11 attacks.
The FBI went to extreme lengths to avoid assessing and reporting numerous categories of significant 9/11 evidence. The FBI’s 2015 “9/11 Review Commission Report” was simply a whitewash. Citizens and nonprofits should not be forced to do the FBI’s job, but when they are, their standing should certainly be recognized by the courts.
“The fact that the Court of Appeals failed to respect the requirements of the federal judicial disqualification statute and allowed a candidate Merritt Garland for the Attorney General nomination to participate in even some of the decisions regarding this case where the Department of Justice is the Defendant, undermines public confidence in the judicial system. It is the mere appearance of a conflict that must be abided by, and in this case it was not.”
MY COMMENT: Even a AG who I am glade Biden appointed can make a mistake or be wrongly influenced by the vast majority of public opinion as to what really happened on 9/11.
The Court of Appeals’s erroneously ruling resultws in the case being decided without a public oral argument and in the decision being issued as an unpublished judgment. Both of these procedural consequences gave the case a lower profile, which may have been beneficial to and desired by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Department of Justice at the time was being sued in this case, in Washington D.C., and in another high-profile case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the DOJ’s failure to deliver the Lawyers’ Committee’s Grand Jury Petition to the Grand Jury as required by federal law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in denying the Lawyers’ Committee et al. “informational” standing to sue, failed to consider and respect the clearly stated intention of Congress that provided substantial funding for the FBI to conduct an independent assessment of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, not considered by the original 9/11 Commission. The Supreme Court’s precedent provides that legislative history regarding the intent of Congress should not be ignored. The Court of Appeals used their erroneous conclusion (that the FBI was not required to assess the 9/11 evidence or report their assessment to Congress).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedent in denying the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth “organizational” standing to sue. The Supreme Court’s precedent regarding standing to sue of organizations provides that an organization has standing if the defendant’s allegedly unlawful activities injured the plaintiff’s interest in promoting its mission, especially where the organization has had to engage in expenditures of time and money to counter the adverse effects on its mission of the defendants’ unlawful activities or suffered some other concrete harm.
Lawyers’ Committee Litigation Director, Attorney Mick Harrison stated, “The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case is more than disappointing, it is disturbing. It is disturbing because of the extent to which the Court of Appeals has disregarded both Supreme Court precedent and the clearly stated intentions of Congress.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google