Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 Revisited Again
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zoomerz" data-source="post: 20153" data-attributes="member: 390"><p><strong>Re: 9/11 Revisited Again</strong></p><p></p><p>This might prove revealing....</p><p></p><p><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050325/ts_latimes/courtoksreleaseofpost911interviews" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...st911interviews</a> </p><p></p><p>Court OKs Release of Post-9/11 Interviews</p><p></p><p>Fri Mar 25, 7:55 AM ET</p><p> </p><p>Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times</p><p></p><p>From Associated Press</p><p></p><p>ALBANY, N.Y. ? New York City's Fire Department must release audiotapes and transcripts of interviews conducted with firefighters who responded to the 2001 terrorist attacks, except for portions that could cause serious pain or embarrassment, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.</p><p></p><p>? Latimes.com home page</p><p>? Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>The decision by the Court of Appeals was part of a ruling that also determined what portions of 911 calls and dispatch communications must be disclosed by the city. While the court agreed unanimously to the release of the interviews, it split 4-3 in ruling that in most cases only the operators' side of 911 calls, and not what the callers said, should be disclosed.</p><p></p><p>The decision, written by Judge Robert Smith, said that while "the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how well or poorly the 911 system performed that day ? we conclude that the public interest in the words of 911 callers is outweighed by the interest in privacy of those family members and callers who prefer that those words remain private."</p><p></p><p>The court rejected arguments that privacy interests of those killed no longer exist.</p><p></p><p>"We think this argument contradicts the common understanding of the word 'privacy,' " particularly when it comes to the families of the dead, Smith wrote.</p><p></p><p>Thursday's court ruling comes in response to a Freedom of Information request by the New York Times to examine tapes of 911 calls made from the World Trade Center directly after the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as firefighters' internal interviews with employees after the attacks.</p><p></p><p>Under Thursday's decision, the Fire Department would have to return to the state's trial-level court and argue on a case-by-case basis that specific statements by firefighters interviewed for an oral history on the response to the attacks would cause pain or embarrassment.</p><p></p><p>Times counsel David McCraw said the newspaper was pleased with the court ruling on oral histories, saying they are part of an important record detailing the first impression of responders, which could help the public learn more about what happened that day.</p><p></p><p>Michael A. Cardoza, the city's corporation counsel, said the decision protected the privacy of the attacks' victims and their families.</p><p></p><p>Neither McCraw nor New York City officials could say Thursday when the information would be made available. </p><p></p><p>Z-</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zoomerz, post: 20153, member: 390"] [b]Re: 9/11 Revisited Again[/b] This might prove revealing.... [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050325/ts_latimes/courtoksreleaseofpost911interviews]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...st911interviews[/url] Court OKs Release of Post-9/11 Interviews Fri Mar 25, 7:55 AM ET Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times From Associated Press ALBANY, N.Y. ? New York City's Fire Department must release audiotapes and transcripts of interviews conducted with firefighters who responded to the 2001 terrorist attacks, except for portions that could cause serious pain or embarrassment, the state's highest court ruled Thursday. ? Latimes.com home page ? Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times The decision by the Court of Appeals was part of a ruling that also determined what portions of 911 calls and dispatch communications must be disclosed by the city. While the court agreed unanimously to the release of the interviews, it split 4-3 in ruling that in most cases only the operators' side of 911 calls, and not what the callers said, should be disclosed. The decision, written by Judge Robert Smith, said that while "the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how well or poorly the 911 system performed that day ? we conclude that the public interest in the words of 911 callers is outweighed by the interest in privacy of those family members and callers who prefer that those words remain private." The court rejected arguments that privacy interests of those killed no longer exist. "We think this argument contradicts the common understanding of the word 'privacy,' " particularly when it comes to the families of the dead, Smith wrote. Thursday's court ruling comes in response to a Freedom of Information request by the New York Times to examine tapes of 911 calls made from the World Trade Center directly after the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as firefighters' internal interviews with employees after the attacks. Under Thursday's decision, the Fire Department would have to return to the state's trial-level court and argue on a case-by-case basis that specific statements by firefighters interviewed for an oral history on the response to the attacks would cause pain or embarrassment. Times counsel David McCraw said the newspaper was pleased with the court ruling on oral histories, saying they are part of an important record detailing the first impression of responders, which could help the public learn more about what happened that day. Michael A. Cardoza, the city's corporation counsel, said the decision protected the privacy of the attacks' victims and their families. Neither McCraw nor New York City officials could say Thursday when the information would be made available. Z- [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 Revisited Again
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top