On Feb. 6, 2009 Beverly Eckert and other family members of 9-11 victims met with President at the Executive Office building in Washington DC.  Present were victims of both the USS Cole bombing and the 9-11 mass-murder with crashbombings and planted explosives.  Obama assured her --  see picture -- that he would prosecute anything that she could present.   Eckert, the founder of Voices for September 11th  maintained that there had been criminal negligence (but not criminal conspiracy) which enabled the attack to succeed.   Remember that victims were payed a million dollars to keep their mouths shut and not sue anybody.  (The money that people all over the world  spontaneously sent for victims not allowed to get to them.  They had to sign before they received a penny of help.)  I also remember that Barbara Olsen, a well-known critic of Hillary Clinton was on of the passengers of Flight 77.  I also remember that all of my letters and phone calls to the 9-11 commission were ignored.  The Jewish official with the responsibility of controlling all  communications with the committee --  replied that he new exactly which agency to direct letters from me.   

If Mr. Obama wants multiple lines of proof that 9-11 was a false-flag attack he need only send investigators to me  - but he will have to create them first, because no one in the FBI or any other agency is investigating  this kind of crime.

In the death of Eckert we have a clear message from the Obama administration:  "Get nosy about the details of 9-11 and the attack on the USS Cole and see what happens to you."

As I have said since March 2002  -- if anyone wants proof, I am right here.  (Offer good until some plane crashes on a house in Yakima.)

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington

SAN FRANCISCO -- For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush -in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate.

In papers filed Wednesday night, the new Justice Department asked a federal judge to suspend action on a suit challenging the wiretapping program, arguing that proceedings would jeopardize national security. Government lawyers also said the administration, not the courts, controls access to classified material at the heart of the case.

In combative tones, the lawyers told Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that they would ask a federal appeals court to put the case on hold unless he acts by 3 p.m. Friday.

The dispute involves Walker's Jan. 5 order to allow plaintiffs who say the government illegally wiretapped their phones to read a classified surveillance document that could confirm the assertion and avoid dismissal of their suit. Lawyers for the Obama administration say the judge's decision "presents a clear-cut conflict between the court and the executive branch."

"They have drawn a line in the sand between the executive and the judiciary, saying, 'You do not control these documents, we do,' " said Jon Eisenberg, lawyer for Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which filed the suit.

The government inadvertently sent the classified document to Al-Haramain in 2005. It reportedly showed that the now-defunct Islamic charity had been wiretapped before the government designated it a terrorist organization.

Al-Haramain returned the document at the request of the government, which then argued in court that without the document, the group could not prove it had been wiretapped.

Numerous groups brought similar cases after Bush acknowledged that he had ordered the National Security Agency in late 2001 to intercept phone calls and e-mails between U.S. Citizens and suspected foreign terrorists without congressional or court approval. But only Al-Haramain's case survives.

Obama attacked the surveillance program as a presidential candidate, promising "no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens" in an August 2007 speech. His future attorney general, Eric Holder, said in June 2008 that Bush had defied federal law by authorizing the program.

The new Justice Department filing, which elaborated on arguments by the same lawyers under the Bush administration, addressed only the need to freeze the lawsuit and keep information secret and did not discuss the legality of the surveillance program. But if the department's position is upheld, Al-Haramain's suit will be dismissed.

Department spokesman Charles Miller confirmed that the brief represented the views of the new administration and its attorney general.

On Monday, a Justice Department lawyer told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the Obama administration

endorsed a Bush argument that a suit over the CIA's rendition program endangers state secrets and should be dismissed. The five plaintiffs in that suit say a San Jose subsidiary of Jeppesen Dataplan, a flight-planning company, helped the CIA transport them to foreign nations for torture.

In Al-Haramain's case, the appeals court ruled last year that the organization could not use any information it had seen in the classified document to prove it had been wiretapped. But Walker, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, said in his Jan. 5 ruling that the Islamic organization had presented enough evidence from public statements to show that it had probably been a target of the surveillance program.

The judge said he would examine the document in private, then make it available to Al-Haramain lawyers with security clearances so they could oppose dismissal of the suit.

The Justice Department contends Walker was wrong on two counts: that the material can be safely disclosed, even in private, and that an alleged surveillance victim can sue without government acknowledgement that wiretapping occurred. The department asked Walker to put the case on hold while it asks the Ninth Circuit to consider those issues.

Failing to do so could cause "grave harm to national security," government lawyers wrote.

Eisenberg, Al-Haramain's lawyer, said the filing was "disappointing to a great many people who have had much hope for change."

(2)

Beverly Eckert wrote an article which appeared on a page of USA today, reproduced here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1220-04.htm

My Silence Cannot Be Bought

by Beverly Eckert

I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I've forfeited the "$1.8 million average award" for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, is the founder of Voices of September 11th, a victims advocacy group.