"What words and promises of Obama can you trust?" A widow of husband killed on 9/11 speaks out

[Better Believe It]

The Sad Defeat of Our Constitution
by Kristen Breitweiser
The 9/11 terrorist attack claimed the life of her husband and more than 3000 others.

April 5, 2011

For the past two years, it's been President Obama in the Oval Office. Quite early on in his presidency, Obama invited the 9/11 families to the White House to discuss 9/11-related issues. During this meeting in Feb '09 the topic of closing Guantanamo and the use of Article 3 courts to prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators was discussed. Many of us were incredibly relieved to learn that as a matter of course President Obama was going to shut down Guantanamo and support the open prosecution of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. He gave us -- the various widows and children at the meeting -- his golden word. He shook our hands. He smiled broadly. He posed for pictures.

It's been almost ten years now since my husband was killed. My daughter has gone from a 2-year-old to a 12-year-old. Our country has started two -- and now maybe three -- pointless, misguided, costly wars. And if it wasn't already difficult enough to accept that Osama Bin Laden will probably never be caught or held accountable, now I have to swallow the fact that I will never see constitutional justice for the handful of individuals we actually hold in custody. In short, justice in a court of law for the murder of my husband and 3,000 others will never come.

I suppose in life timing is everything. To me, as a lawyer and a 9/11 widow, DOJ's announcement today acknowledges the sad defeat of our U.S. Constitution when it comes to 9/11. How truly tragic in my eyes. And you would think that a man who was once a constitutional law professor might feel the same way. Yet, not so much for President Barack Obama who has chosen this great day to announce his billion-dollar campaign for re-election. His slogan asking us to "join in" by writing him a check.

But perhaps most pointedly, if you can't trust what a man says to a group of widows and children, then what words and promises of his can you trust?

Please read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/military-commission-9-11-_b_844661.html

[tblue]

delete dupe

[tblue]

1. Good question. nt

[Kolesar]

2. Four paragraphs are an incomplete thesis

Some big leaps in there

[Better Believe It]

5. I'd like to post the entire article but can't under DU rules.

Perhaps you can post some other excerpt that you feel should also be highlighted.

I trust most will read the complete article but I wouldn't describe it as a thesis paper.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[90-percent]

3. Enjoy it while you can

This will soon be transported to the September 11 dungeon.

-90% jimmy

[disillusioned73]

4. Ouch....

under the bus with ya!!!

[Javaman]

6. This year will be the 10 year anniversary of 9/11...

And I'm sure there will be some sort of "remembrance" which will be nothing more than some sort of kabuki theater political event.

And with that, I'm sure the White House and the repukes are trying their best to round up widows and survivors for them to glad hand on that day.

Wouldn't it be really interesting if the windows and survivors told them to all go fuck themselves in a very public way?

I can dream.

[xchrom]

7. the phony iraq war rendered 9-11 kabuki.

i don't believe it can ever be redeemed.

and that's very sad.

[Javaman]

8. Good point. nt

[Missy Vixen]

22. The Jersey Girls might

I can only hope.

Kristin Breitweiser is one of my heroes. She will not stand by silently.

>And with that, I'm sure the White House and the repukes are trying their best to round up widows and survivors for them to glad hand on that day.<

I hope to spend that day doing something that will recognize the 3,000 we lost, instead of watching a pointless photo op.

[gimama]

9. thank You for this post.

I agree,but get jumped on when I post my disappointments on DU..
Surely this amazing Woman, this 9/11 widow will be HEARD, without being denigrated..
I remain HOPE-FULL.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Shattering.

She is an amazing person.

[gratuitous]

11. But, but, but . . .

Neither the president nor the attorney general run the Department of Justice! How can you hold them accountable for those decisions? That's up to the House Republicans, who won't give them no money to carry out their constitutional mandate. And since there's no money anywhere that could be used for federal court prosecutions, and we're running a totally balanced budget nowadays, nobody would dare to spend money irresponsibly and in opposition to the Tea Baggers, who are calling the shots. We just serve at their pleasure.

[piggy2000]

57. President Obama is not a King...

Thanks for bringing the common sense to this misleading article. Does she remember the big flap and the opposition to the trials that occurred every day on cable and other corporate outlets when AG Holder made the announcement to have a trial?

I wish people would learn about how Government works and stop taking our democracy for granted. President Obama is not a King, and we all have to participate in our democracy. Politics is a game of who gets what! No participation, no GET!

[gratuitous]

61. No, he's not a king

But if he and his Attorney General really believed in the Constitution (you remember that oath thingie he and Chief Justice Roberts did a couple of times?), they would have gone ahead with not only their promise, but their oath-bound obligation to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in open federal court.

If Mr. Mohammed was tortured, then we don't get to convict him. And I can't think of a better testimonial to the world than a criminal trial under our rules of procedure and evidence. As it is, the world looks at those we call terrorists and our own behavior, and they don't see much of a difference: They torture, we torture; they hold kangaroo courts, we hold kangaroo courts; they kill nonc-combatant men, women and children, we kill non-combatant men, women and children.

The United States has decided that it can't risk using our system to try Mr. Mohammed. That's alarming and disturbing. Will they decide that you or I are not entitled to a regular proceeding tomorrow? This is a craven collapse, and shame on the administration, shame on the president, and shame on the attorney general for kowtowing to the demagogues. It's easy to stick by principles when nobody's questioning them. If you abandon those principles just to play a "game" or to avoid a "big flap," then you don't really hold those principles.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Actually, we could convict KSM in court despite torturing him.

All we would have to do is present real evidence that was not gathered by torture.

It worked just fine for the Blind Sheik.

If there is no evidence, there is no conviction, torture or no.

[dennis4868]

12. Why do people...

expect Obama to pay from his own pocket to close Gittmo and hold regular trials for the detainees there....this is something that has to be funded....usually federal programs and activities are funded from the US treasury, not out of the president's personal bank account. Do people here and the 911 widower actually think Obama can pay for this out of his own funds? Obama signed an executive order to close Gittmo and tried to find places to hold the trials in the USA but congress would not fund the closure of Gittmo and would not allow the detainees anywhere near the Homeland. So what is Obama to do? He is really not that wealthy of a man and by the way, he is not a king....he has to rely on congress to do their job. But time after time he gets blamed for Congress not doing their job. I have never seen a president get blamed so much for refusing to act as a king and not being extremely wealthy.....

[Better Believe It]

13. Could President Obama ask his corporate and Wall Street pals to donate money?

Come now.

The idea that a trial would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that the Obama administration can't decide how to spend Department of Justice funds is almost lunacy!

They know how to move money around.

For fiscal year 2010 the Department of Justice will spend almost 28 billion dollars!

FY 2010 Current Services 25,849,392
FY 2010 Enhancements 1,941,995
National Security 721,480
Traditional Missions 313,456
Prisons/Detention 410,262
Grants 496,797
Subtotal 27,841,220

They have a certain amount of discretion. Congress does not dictate how every penny is spent by federal agencies.

[dennis4868]

16. Yes, his corporate buddies....

who want to roll back financial reform and put in the pockets of repubs over a billion dollars the last election....what a joke to think that Obama is in bed with corporate America....gotta love the hyperspeculation here at DU!

[Better Believe It]

17. You're right. I'm glad Obama didn't appoint any Wall Street/Corporate boys to gov't positions

Just working class hero's among his pals.

[JoePhilly]

20. This has nothing to do with wall street and you know it.

Obama and the DOJ have tried to bring the trials here and the cowards in Congress (D and R), using an array of tactics, have blocked it.

He now has 2 choices, leave them in GITMO untried forever or move on to military trials.

It is interesting to note that, if he did nothing, the Huffpo article would not exist. There would be no trial of any kind, but this particular complain would not exist. Now that he's decided that he can't wait for Congress to act, and decided to bring this folks to justice using the capabilities that he does have available, THAT sparks screaming.

Her anger should be directed where it belongs, at Congress.

[Better Believe It]

21. Dennis brought up the idea that Obama can't afford to pay for a real trial.

So I suggested that Obama could hit up his Wall Street and corporate pals for donations to cover the costs.

Follow the discussion if you want your comments to make sense.

[JoePhilly]

25. The issue was never about cost, and you know it.

[Better Believe It]

26. It's about the rule of law and compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

And I just don't like to see it trampled on.

How about you?

[DeSwiss]

31. Repeat everything except place the word "Bush" where you used Obama.

- Yeah, right.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

38. Wall Street played a roll.

snip

Mr. Bloomberg said that a more secure location, like a military base, would be less disruptive and less costly. His remarks echoed growing opposition from Wall Street executives, the real estate industry and neighborhood groups, who have questioned the burdens that such a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/nyregion/28bloomberg.html



And read this...

snip

Mr. Holder was right to sound bitter about the decision at his news conference on Monday. But the Obama administration must shoulder some of the blame. As The New Yorker reported last year, it did little to prepare the political groundwork for a local trial and barely defended the idea after the unfounded attacks began.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05tue1.html?ref=opinion

[tomp]

49. it's a conspiracy.

dems and repubs are opposite hands of the same body washing one another in order to give cover to obama who never really intended to close guantanamo because he knew full well that the powers that be would not allow it.

take pretty much any issue--wash, rinse, repeat.

people like you are either professional supporters of a corrupt system or just suckers taken in by ameri-myth from media propaganda

[dennis4868]

23. what's wrong with that....

if they are good and smart people....

[HankyDubs]

45. yeah

All the good and smart people on wall street. Good thieves. Smart thieves.

I guess, just like Bush, there is a % who support the party leader no matter what.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. How did he expect to fund it when he made the promises??

Are you saying that, as a Harvard Constitutional Scholar/Professor and US Senator, that he is a stupid man and didn't know how the system works?

Maybe a better solution would be to not make promises, just because they sound good, if you're not 100% sure you can keep them.

[chervilant]

46. No DUH!

Interesting how ANYONE can continue to support Obama. His appointment of Arne Duncan, and his complicit assault on teachers and their unions is sufficient reason to explore viable options in 2012.

[blackspade]

62. I don't expect Obama to pay for it out of his pocket.

To suggest that anyone in this tread expects him to is ludicrous.
What I and others expect is that he will do his job and uphold the Constitution.
That means that these folks that have been held for years be given a speedy and fair trial in open court for the crimes they are charged with.
To do it any other way violates the Constitution and makes a further mockery of our justice system.

[wildbilln864]

15. k&r! and thanks for posting this! nt

[JoePhilly]

18. Her anger should be aimed at Congress, where it belongs.

Its just one more shit stain that Bush left for Obama to clean up.

[demmiblue]

19. Lulz.... ironic. n/t

[Better Believe It]

27. So the buck stops at President Obama?

Well, he should do the right thing!

[mistertrickster]

42. Give it up, Joe. After the ten-thousandth excuse, one just comes to the

inescapable conclusion, his heart is NOT in the right place.

[chervilant]

47. Interesting analogy...

Building on it, one might say that Obama is grinding Bush's myriad shit stains into our nation's carpet.

[bvar22]

56. Its ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!!!

[bluestate10]

24. Congress is blocking funds for a transfer of prisoners to the US for trail.

The alternative is to continue to deny that woman justice. President Obama has taken the position that any trial of a murderer, even a military trial is better than no trial. Given that Congress has made trial in NYC or anywhere else in the US impossible, trial in Cuba was the most realistic choice.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Congress can do that without the President signing it in?

[DeSwiss]

32. Why not use.....

...oh I don't know THE ARMY he has at his disposal!?!?!

- Geeze.....

[JackRiddler]

44. In this case, a military trial is not a trial. It is a scripted theater piece.

[tomp]

50. exactly right. kangaroo court.

no doubt of the outcome and no look at the evidence.

too many unanswered questions to allow a public trial.

[DeSwiss]

29. K&R

"And what does it say about the solemn capabilities of our Department of Justice if it is left to "subcontract out" its duties and responsibilities to the Department of Defense? We should all think about that scary notion for a bit."

- But I think that is why we won't think about it Kristen because it's so scary.......

[emilyg]

30. Thank you. k/r

[Bluebear]

33. Kristen, grab an axle.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_itjNqajMfsQ/SUNYCGRov3I/AAAAAAAABPQ/RT5atQGt-r4/s400/UNDER+THE+BUS+II+copy.jpg

[slipslidingaway]

35. knr ...

"...Yet, not so much for President Barack Obama who has chosen this great day to announce his billion-dollar campaign for re-election. His slogan asking us to "join in" by writing him a check.

...So President Obama, am I IN? Will you be receiving my check?

Hell no."

[bhikkhu]

36. Congress blocked the closing of Guantanamo

At the risk of appearing judgmental of one who's shoes I would struggle to walk in, but the article sounds contrived and insincere, the usual thinly veiled political attack with all the appropriate code-words and false premises.

What she is complaining about is what the repugs failed to do for eight years (did she complain then?) and what they have continued to make virtually impossible, if one has maintained the interest to keep up with the whole farce. Based upon her conclusions, she doesn't seem to have been paying much attention.

[AlbertCat]

53. What she is complaining about is what the repugs failed to do for eight years

No. She's complaining about a promise made on a specific occasion by a specific person... that didn't get done.

[Shiver]

60. Because both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and in the states

have basically made it impossible. No one is willing to have them in their states to be tried. Congressional fear has basically tied his hands.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. I believed him when he said he would escalate the lost war in Afghanistan.

And, by gum, he did. Which is why I didn't vote for him.

[slipslidingaway]

39. That surely did not get much attention here on DU ...

but I remember reading and posting about it.

[axollot]

52. It's the only promise he kept. *sigh* n/t

[Shiver]

58. No, it isn't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Current score of 'Promises Kept' is 134, and many of the 'Promises Broken' aren't so much broken as blocked.

[mistertrickster]

40. Another paid shill for Karl Rove. Damn those right-wing 9-11 widows!

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

43. Though the idea that OBL did 9/11 ....

is extremely naive -- and think she knows that --

[PufPuf23]

48. Potus Obama is the best we have regards to choice and action

but he has shown himself to lack integrity and be ammoral in heart.

Let's raise $1 billion for re-election!!!!!

POTUS Obama is an attractive personality but his appointments, policies, and actions are ugly.

Still I will vote Obama in 2012 over GOP and no other viable choice.

Such is the USA. I am sorry for the young and children for the perversion of present and future and principals.

Today was not good for moral.

[grahamhgreen]

51. PLEASE, anybody, we need a primary challenger!

[cali]

54. what's the point?

[grahamhgreen]

55. The point

is that I don't want the rest of America thinking that the Dem solutions to our problems are the ones that obama supports.

The solutions are simple; raise taxes on the rich; end the wars; wind power.

[TBF]

59. "Because I'm tired of gambling on your hope, believing in your promises,

and being thrown under your bus"

Amen.