RSS Feed MenuOn June 16th and June 17th, family members who lost loved ones to terrorist acts were invited by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) to voice their concerns and opinions about justice for the victims. Unfortunately, the family members left the meetings feeling frustrated and helpless. FrumForum.com interviewed some of the families who stated that, although the DOJ meant well, their motives and methods were insensitive.
President Obama has spoken in the past about accountability and transparency; yet, those attending were not granted simple requests such as having the meeting recorded, receiving a list of those present, and being able to pass out a military commissions comparison chart. Bob Hemenway, who lost a son at the Pentagon, summarized the feelings of all interviewed by stating the meeting was “a set-up. It was a political ploy. We were pawns. What a waste. We were a show case. It was a farce.” The former Commander of the USS Cole, Kirk Lippold, pointed out that he requested a list of those who attended the two June meetings but has so far been refused.
The Attorney General, Eric Holder, attended only the June 16th meeting and stayed for only one out of four hours. Debra Burlingame, the sister of the pilot of American 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, explained that the families asked substantial questions which were either not answered or hardly answered. She stated that “Holder was sorry he walked into that room. For one hour they did not accept his platitudes. The questioning was aggressive, hard, and pointed. They got the message that these people were not going to be satisfied with the celebrity appearance and vague remarks. “
Family members were angered at being blind-sided, such as finding out after the fact that Jennifer Daskal was present at both meetings. Ms. Daskal is now a member of the DOJ detainee review task force. Previously she was the senior counter terrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, where she wrote that the military commissions were “illegitimate, dysfunctional, and a kangaroo court.” Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham died on Flight 93, remarked that she was appalled and that “Mr. Holder has a pre-disposition to listen and be swayed by the political opinions of these human rights groups. I felt violated and betrayed.” Debra Burlingame went further when she stated that “I would never have talked about the last moments of my brother’s life with a woman sitting there who has championed the rights of the people who killed him.”
Furthermore, all of those interviewed felt that it was offensive for Obama to choose Ms. Daskal as a member of the task force, especially since he did not see the need to have the family members represented. They noted that she has written extensively about the human rights of the terrorists but has never acknowledged the victims and their families. Shirley Hemenway pointed out that not even one family member was chosen to represent the families on any of the task forces. To her this shows that “Obama’s mind is already made up.” Gordon Haberman, whose daughter Andrea died at the World Trade Center, concurs and explained that five months ago, when the task forces were established, President Obama had the opportunity to confer with the family members but chose not to do it and “it is veryd isappointing to me; the lateness of this meeting.”
At the meetings the family members also voiced their outrage at the fact that Obama constantly talks about the human rights of the terrorists. Commander Lippold noted that what these families have gone through as a result of the terrorist’s actions is irrelevant to the Obama administration because “he is more concerned in pursuing his political agenda in the eyes of the world.” Maureen and Al Santora , whose son was a New York firefighter, felt that “our government has forgotten the 3000 families in favor of the foreign governments… the country is in chaos and his first order of business is to close Guantanamo Bay. You got to be kidding me. What is he doing it for, because the image has tainted the U.S? We are bending over backwards for these terrorists to get world support. Give me a break.”
The family members feel the Obama administration is forgetting about their rights and the rights of their lost loved ones. Jacquie Van Laere, who lost a brother at the World Trade Center, stated “we do not want revenge; we just want justice and no one seems to understand the pain we suffer.” At the meetings they voiced their dissatisfaction and commented that the terrorists are not American citizens and should not be granted American rights. Joe Holland, whose son died at the World Trade Center, noted that “the terrorist’s rights are well taken care of and we have no rights and we ARE American citizens.”
They felt that Obama is more concerned with making sure the terrorists have their due process than those 3000 plus people who lost their lives to terrorist attacks. Burlingame pointed out that at her meeting, Holder talked about treating our enemies well and quoted George Washington. Gordon Haberman sadly stated, “When they talk about rights, what about my daughter’s rights? She was stripped of her rights, she was detained, she was tortured, and she was murdered.”
What the family members want the American public to know is that they will not be used by the Obama Administration for public relations purposes. They want Americans to understand that they overwhelmingly support military tribunals and keeping Guantanamo Bay opened. (In the June 17th meeting 40/42 voted in favor of not closing Gitmo). Hoagland wanted the public to know that the conclusion she reached from the meeting is that there will be a “shift from military tribunals to the federal court.”
Maureen Santora felt that “it is time for Americans to understand these (the terrorists) are not poor individuals. They have been elevated to victims…The terrorists are getting the benefit hands down and the victims are getting nothing. We need to make it very clear who is the enemy.” Debra Burlingame summed up the feelings of those interviewed by stating that “the last thing that the Obama administration wants is to consider what the victims want. They are at the bottom of the totem pole when it come to weighing in on policy… We are only another stake holder that can cause problems for them regarding the public relations on what they decide.”
ottovbvs // Jul 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm
These are people like Burlingame whose names we’ve been reading for years arguing that we should invade Iraq, Hussein was behind it all, we need to go to war with Islamofascism, etc. etc. In short they’ve hijacked a national tragedy to promote a series of actions that have been enormously costly to the national interest and almost entirely counterproductive. Give it a rest. The adults are now in charge.
balconesfault // Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“I would never have talked about the last moments of my brother’s life with a woman sitting there who has championed the rights of the people who killed him.”
I am fairly sure that Ms. Burlingame’s brothers killers are dead. And the man most responsible for his death, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large a full 7 1/2 years after “dead or alive”. The people Human Rights Watch is concerned about? Look up Omar Khadr, Ms. Burlingame, and tell us whether he deserves due process.
sinz54 // Jul 9, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I feel sorry for all the 9-11 families.
But they need to remember that 9-11 was not an attack against their loved ones specifically.
It was an attack against America.
The Federal Government’s job is not to bring anyone to “justice” here. It’s to put the al-Qaeda organization out of business.
Kbwest // Jul 9, 2009 at 9:44 pm
No, it is a shame that the administration who wants to build bridges doesn’t seem to really want input. This administration hyped themselves as being interested and inclusive. This meeting proves once again that they are really only interested in steam rolling the American people. Unfortunately, the 9/11 families know first hand how the hatred of Americans cannot be ignored — and yet they were.
Catt // Jul 9, 2009 at 10:47 pm
If this were your family, could you ‘give it a rest’?? How insesitive can you be?!? I find it to be very sad that we treat criminals, who aren’t even citizens, with more dignity and kindness than we do the families of their victims. By the way, I am sure any of the family members reading this will be thankful to find out that their loved ones were not the ’specific’ target. PLEASE PLEASE Just take a moment to consider the families who will most assuredly be reading your comments as well.
We should really be treating this as though they were our own family members who died that day, because next time, it very well could be…
jreb // Jul 9, 2009 at 11:52 pm
It is amazing that so called Americans are so quick to rush to the defense of terrorists who killed in cold blood 3000 innocent men and women on 9-11. What about the victims of 9-11’s “Human Rights” , are they not worthy of being protected by Ms. Daskal’s organization? Are Daniel Pearl’s “Human Rights” subservient to his killer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
By the way this innocent child, Omar Kadr, was found with a video which shows Khadr toying with detonating cord as other men including Abu Laith al-Libi assemble explosives in the same house from which Special Forces were fired upon prior to Kadr’s capture. This same video also shows Kadr planting landmines while smiling and joking with the cameraman.
The present administration should be ashamed of using the families of the 9-11 and Cole victims as “window dressing” and giving these families only “lip service” to their appeal for justice for their loved ones. I only hope the American people will remember this parody in 2012.
billy_bob // Jul 10, 2009 at 12:25 am
Thanks to Elise for bringing this article to my/our attention. I never knew this meeting / consultation occurred. Thanks to the MSM, we never hear about these important issues, at least I don’t. I noted this one little tell-tale bit from the article which stands out:
[Joe Holland, whose son died at the World Trade Center, noted that “the terrorist’s rights are well taken care of and we have no rights and we ARE American citizens.]
I just wonder what has been done for these victims / families of the attacks of 9/11, if any?
As is customary with our military veterans, probably nothing. What a shame and a disgrace! If Obama is so intent on blaming the U.S. for worldwide hatred generated because of our nation’s conduct, he should also be sympathetic to our own people, at least as much as the foreign dictators and nations who produce the terrorists who attack us, right? Maybe his indifference and apathy is due to the fact he is not a bona fide U.S. citizen. This would make perfect sense. Otherwise, how can one fathom such decadence?
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” (I was not fooled anyway!)
“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.”
If there is anything to apologize to the world for in 2009, these displays of disrespect and apathy should be #1 on the list. The world has looked up to the U.S. for more than a century for leadership and until now, we have been that shining city on the hill. Now, our most popular hill has become a dung heap.
There are no words to express the disgrace and shame for this sort of abuse and disregard for your own citizens. As one comment I read suggested these victims and families were not directly the objects of the referenced terror attacks. Those who were killed and lost loved ones, e.g. the first responders who died saving lives, those who rode the plane into the ground to save who knows how many lives, did not consider themselves to be any more important than you or me, but their loved ones are now faced with 100% of the suffering from it all. Anyone who can just turn away with shrugged shoulders should really examine the condition of their own heart.
balconesfault // Jul 10, 2009 at 6:33 am
“Thanks to Elise for bringing this article to my/our attention. I never knew this meeting / consultation occurred.”
Doesn’t that suggest that the Obama administration actually did conduct these meetings in order to listen to the families – and not just to use them as a public relations stunt?
Anyone who is ever involved in large controversial projects understands the importance of various kinds of stakeholder involvement meetings. Now sometimes, you’re going to end up building that highway through a certain community no matter what the residents say, because you’re serving a greater public need than what may or may not be in the interests of the more narrow local population. But you conduct the meeting anyway, knowing there are going to be a lot of people who are dead-set opposed to the project, in order to educate an affected group on exactly what is going to be done, in order to hear specific concerns to see if you can mitigate some issues without canceling or significantly altering the project, and yes – in order to follow what you consider appropriate public process.
Public process dictates that you communicate directly with key stakeholders … and the DOJ was fulfilling that charge here. Public process does NOT dictate that you accept every stakeholders definition of what their “rights” are … that is actually a larger societal decision, and sometimes we all have to grow up and accept that the rule of law will sometimes trump our own personal perception, shaped by our own personal experiences, of what constitutes justice.
jreb // Jul 10, 2009 at 6:05 pm
You are equating this issue to a “law enforcement” issue, which I humbly beg to disagree with. In my opinion these were war crimes which fall under the jurisdiction of a military war crimes tribunal. When you suggest that it should be treated as a law enforcement issue, are you suggesting that when a terrorist is captured that he must be “mirandized” before questioning? That’s really going to work (fallacious remark)! To try and analogously equate this situation to a road building project is equally absurd.
In attempt to placate the victims of these war crimes and to carry out a campaign promise, this administration is walking a very “slippery” slope when they constitute a review panel with “Human Rights” advocates who could care less about the the rights of the victims.
Mark Levin Fan » Blog Archive » DOJ’s investigation of CIA shows Obama is ‘Chief Defense Counsel for the enemy’ // Aug 26, 2009 at 10:49 am
[...] just take our word for it about the ACLU; read and see for yourself: Carter (more), Daskal (more), and West. Share and [...]