This is Crap

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Bigtime:

From Jake Tapper and Ariane de Vogue:

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.
Click to expand...


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html
 
Why the hell should Jeppesen be held accountable? This is bogus. If they have a problem with the CIA... sue them. Jeppesen plans flights. It does not require the CIA to tell them what they will be doing once they get to their destination. Why not sue the company that made the tires for the plane or the one that provided the CIA with the pens they might have used on the flight?

You are correct.... the fact that this case ever made it to court is pure crap.
 
Darla said:
Big disappointment.
Click to expand...

Why?

Please explain why you think Jeppesen is responsible for knowing the intentions of the CIA or for the actions of the CIA. Jeppesen provides charting and flight planning. It is not responsible for the actions taken by its passengers once they arrive at their destinations.
 
Let's see, should someone be allowed to sue Ford because a little girl was kidnapped and driven away in a Ford Ranger? Preposterous! Too bad it didn't actually get to court so that the petitioners would be laughed out of court.

Immie
 
Update:

A federal appeals court yesterday reinstated a lawsuit by five former detainees who sued a Boeing subsidiary over its alleged role in transporting them to foreign countries, where they say they suffered brutal interrogation under the CIA's "black site" prison system.

Three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit batted aside claims by the Obama administration that the suit would reveal "state secrets" at the heart of the agency's covert operations and so should be dismissed.

The former detainees claim that logistics company Jeppesen Dataplan should pay monetary damages for its role in conspiring with officials in the United States and other countries to fly the men overseas, where they allegedly experienced electric shocks, beatings and sleep deprivation, among other things.

But the lawsuit foundered after the Bush White House, and later the Obama administration, invoked the state-secrets privilege and asked a trial judge to throw out the claim, which stems from the CIA's disbanded program of "extraordinary rendition" for suspected terrorists. Then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told the court that disclosure of some of the information could cause "serious and in some instances exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States."

Yesterday, the appeals court panel allowed the case to proceed, at least for now, without making a prediction about the detainees' ability to win. The unanimous panel, Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Mary M. Schroeder and William C. Canby Jr., rejected administration arguments that the very nature of the dispute was secret and said a judge should weigh, on a case-by-case basis, what kinds of evidence the detainees could receive and use in court.

The judges asserted that the plaintiffs did not necessarily need to delve deeply into the CIA's clandestine rendition program. Rather, the ruling said that detainees needed to prove only that Jeppesen provided support for the flights on which the five men were transported to foreign prisons while knowing the passengers would be subjected to torture there.

The appeals court panel noted in a footnote that the executive branch in the past had misused the state-secrets argument to cloak revelations that would embarrass federal agencies, rather than to protect sensitive operations from the eyes of enemies.

To side with the government, the court ruling said, would mean that judges "should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law."

The appeals court decision opens the door on a chapter of recent history that Obama has said he would prefer would remain in the past.

"This historic decision marks the beginning, not the end, of this litigation," ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, who argued the case, said in a statement. "Today's ruling demolishes once and for all the legal fiction, advanced by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, that facts known throughout the world could be deemed 'secrets' in a court of law." Three of the plaintiffs have been released, and two remain in prison in other countries.

CIA spokesman George Little declined to comment yesterday, and Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that officials there were reviewing the court's order. Authorities have the option of seeking a review from the full 9th Circuit appellate court or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The court ruling came on the same day that Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) criticized the Obama administration for invoking the state-secrets privilege three times this year. Civil liberties groups have said the new White House is reflexively using the argument, which they assert is at odds with Obama's campaign promises of transparency.

Feingold and two other Senate Democrats have sponsored a bill that would urge judges to play a greater role in evaluating executive branch assertions of executive privilege.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042803368_pf.html
 
Immanuel said:
Let's see, should someone be allowed to sue Ford because a little girl was kidnapped and driven away in a Ford Ranger? Preposterous! Too bad it didn't actually get to court so that the petitioners would be laughed out of court.

Immie
Click to expand...

If Ford arranged and did the kidnapping, of course.
 
Dungheap said:
Update:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042803368_pf.html
Click to expand...

wow, imagine that... the 9th circuit ... what a shock...

Again... answer this... WHY should Jeppessen be expected to know the intentions of a government agency? Should the CIA reveal its intentions to every buisiness it uses in the course of its work?

I think we should get a class action suit against these five idiots, the judges on the 9th and the lawyers who represent the five idiots.... for wasting tax payers dollars to defend this frivolous suit.
 
Superfreak said:
wow, imagine that... the 9th circuit ... what a shock...

Again... answer this... WHY should Jeppessen be expected to know the intentions of a government agency? Should the CIA reveal its intentions to every buisiness it uses in the course of its work?

I think we should get a class action suit against these five idiots, the judges on the 9th and the lawyers who represent the five idiots.... for wasting tax payers dollars to defend this frivolous suit.
Click to expand...

Now that would be good use of tax dollars!
 
Superfreak said:
wow, imagine that... the 9th circuit ... what a shock...

Again... answer this... WHY should Jeppessen be expected to know the intentions of a government agency? Should the CIA reveal its intentions to every buisiness it uses in the course of its work?

I think we should get a class action suit against these five idiots, the judges on the 9th and the lawyers who represent the five idiots.... for wasting tax payers dollars to defend this frivolous suit.
Click to expand...


Judge Bybee, author of the notorious torture memos, sits on the 9th Circuit. It isn't what it used to be.

You aren't asking the right question. This isn't a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state claim for which relief can be granted. if it were, you might have a point. The issue is whether the government should be able to afford blanket immunity to corporations it contracts with to engage in illegal activity under the guise of national security.
 
Dungheap said:
Judge Bybee, author of the notorious torture memos, sits on the 9th Circuit. It isn't what it used to be.

You aren't asking the right question. This isn't a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state claim for which relief can be granted. if it were, you might have a point. The issue is whether the government should be able to afford blanket immunity to corporations it contracts with to engage in illegal activity under the guise of national security.
Click to expand...

The illegal activity is not being enacted by the companies. The renditions were done under Clinton and Bush by the CIA. PERIOD.

Or are we now going to sue the companies that make the communications equipment the CIA uses, the companies that make the weapons they use etc.... for providing goods and services to the CIA. It is NOT the responsibility for companies to ensure that their clients do nothing illegal with their goods or services. PERIOD. Otherwise no one would ever sell anything to anyone for fear they might do something illegal.

If you are pissed at what the CIA did, sue the CIA and the US government... to sue companies that provided services to the government is fucking moronic.
 
Superfreak said:
The illegal activity is not being enacted by the companies. The renditions were done under Clinton and Bush by the CIA. PERIOD.

Or are we now going to sue the companies that make the communications equipment the CIA uses, the companies that make the weapons they use etc.... for providing goods and services to the CIA. It is NOT the responsibility for companies to ensure that their clients do nothing illegal with their goods or services. PERIOD. Otherwise no one would ever sell anything to anyone for fear they might do something illegal.

If you are pissed at what the CIA did, sue the CIA and the US government... to sue companies that provided services to the government is fucking moronic.
Click to expand...


I understand your point, but whether these individuals have a viable claim against the corporation is not the question the court is answering. Instead, the question is whether the government can grant blanket immunity to companies it contracts with against liability to third-parties under the guise of national security.

Edit: I also note that you assume that the companies has no knowledge of what the CIA was in fact doing. From what I have read that assumption is simply unsupportable.
 
Superfreak said:
The illegal activity is not being enacted by the companies. The renditions were done under Clinton and Bush by the CIA. PERIOD.
Or are we now going to sue the companies that make the communications equipment the CIA uses, the companies that make the weapons they use etc.... for providing goods and services to the CIA. It is NOT the responsibility for companies to ensure that their clients do nothing illegal with their goods or services. PERIOD. Otherwise no one would ever sell anything to anyone for fear they might do something illegal.

If you are pissed at what the CIA did, sue the CIA and the US government... to sue companies that provided services to the government is fucking moronic.
Click to expand...


You forgot to add; "and currently being done/approved by the Obama administration."
 
Dungheap said:
I understand your point, but whether these individuals have a viable claim against the corporation is not the question the court is answering. Instead, the question is whether the government can grant blanket immunity to companies it contracts with against liability to third-parties under the guise of national security.

Edit: I also note that you assume that the companies has no knowledge of what the CIA was in fact doing. From what I have read that assumption is simply unsupportable.
Click to expand...

Given that Jeppesen is located less than three miles from my office and the fact that I know several of their top execs... I think I have a pretty good grasp on this case from their point of view. The CIA tells them... we want to fly from A to B.... Jeppessen plans the trip and supplies the flights. Period. They do not go to the CIA and say 'well gee guys... what will you be doin' over there with these prisoners'. Period. It doesn't happen.

Again, yes, the government has the right to say the companies are granted immunity as the companies are not responsible for the actions of the government. Period. Otherwise NO company would risk doing business with the government.... especially with agencies like the CIA.
 
Superfreak said:
Given that Jeppesen is located less than three miles from my office and the fact that I know several of their top execs... I think I have a pretty good grasp on this case from their point of view. The CIA tells them... we want to fly from A to B.... Jeppessen plans the trip and supplies the flights. Period. They do not go to the CIA and say 'well gee guys... what will you be doin' over there with these prisoners'. Period. It doesn't happen.

Again, yes, the government has the right to say the companies are granted immunity as the companies are not responsible for the actions of the government. Period. Otherwise NO company would risk doing business with the government.... especially with agencies like the CIA.
Click to expand...


1) According to the testimony of several Jenppessen employees your top-executive pals aren't quite being square with you. But that is besides the point.

2) I don't think you quite understand the implication of what you are proposing here. The U.S. government has asserted that regardless of what actually took place there can be no claim against Jeppessen, even if Jeppessen knew what the CIA was doing and knew that in flying these individuals to Morocco and Egypt that they would be tortured, because the subject-matter of the complaint deals with national security issues protected by the state secrets doctrine. Moreover, the government asserts that it's assertion of state secrets cannot be challenged or questioned by the judiciary.

It's would basically be a license for the CIA to conduct contract killings and other assorted atrocities that no one could do anything about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top