ACLU Sues Boeing Subsidiary Over Secret Renditions

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:30:24 AM EST
Tags: detainees, CIA (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The ACLU announced today it is suing Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary for its participation in secret renditions.

The lawsuit, which the ACLU said it would file Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of the men to secret overseas locations, where they were tortured and subjected to other "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" under the agency's "extraordinary rendition" program.

"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable."

More information about the lawsuit is available at the ACLU website here.

< Is Carl Bernstein a Sexist? | Constititutional Moments and Partisan Entrenchment >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

ACLU Sues Boeing Subsidiary Over Secret Renditions | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What's bothering me about this most (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Stevend on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:18:09 PM EST

Why is the ACLU going out of its way to protect the rights of foreign nationals from US corporations?

If they are going to do that, shouldn't they also be suing the folks who beheaded the American journalists?

what bothers me abuot the above comment ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:42:05 PM EST

... is that the US using secret prisons, kidnapping and torture doesn't bother him.

How many heads have been cut off? By who? How many people has the cia kidnapped, put in secret prisons and tortured?


Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jondee on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:19:34 PM EST

rendition and torture in the service of the percieved greater good is o.k, until Hugo Chavez tries it.


: Forget the hypocrisy for a minute.. (none / 0) (#16)
by jondee on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:21:34 PM EST

What bothers me about Sailor (none / 0) (#21)
by Stevend on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:17:59 AM EST

"secret prisons" "kidnapping" and "torture" are inflamatory terms and I think you are using them without context. Remember that the other side is brainwashing teenagers to commit mass homicide in the name of God.

Of course no-one wants to hurt anyone else - that's part of the fabric of being American - but allowing evil to persist unchecked may be a far worse evil. To the extent that the US Govt. is being aggressive in going after the bad guys, I'm ok with that.

Now, back to my point, if the "American" Civil Liberties Union is going to use the courts to hamstring the efforts to confront the evil, shouldn't they make at least a token effort against the evil itself?


Doublethink. (none / 0) (#22)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:47:53 AM EST

if the "American" Civil Liberties Union is going to use the courts to hamstring the efforts to confront the evil, shouldn't they make at least a token effort against the evil itself?

Opposing torture and kidnapping by Americans IS "confront[ing] evil."


RePack (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:08:33 AM EST

If you are going to quote him, at least try and keep the context that he is asking why the ACLU is not attempting to do both.

Question.

Why are you always more worroed about, in your eyes, the "sins" of America than you are the "sins" of those who oppose us?


: there are whole armies ... (none / 0) (#28)
by Sailor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:14:06 AM EST

... and countries devoted to that.

Why are you always more worroed about, in your eyes, the "sins" of America than you are the "sins" of those who oppose us?
do you still beat your wife?
We are Americans, we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

: Dumb question of the week (none / 0) (#29)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:26:41 AM EST

Why are you always more worroed about, in your eyes, the "sins" of America than you are the "sins" of those who oppose us?
Because the sins of America are done in MY NAME and WITH MY MONEY by people who claim to "represent" me while they are in fact, raping me.

are you saying that (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:11:27 AM EST

the US isn't kidnapping people, putting them in secret prisons and torturing them?

To the extent that the US Govt. is being aggressive in going after the bad guys, I'm ok with that.

The you endorse kidnapping people, putting them in secret prisons and torturing them. There is no justification for that. It is unAmerican and inhumane.

Wow, what an inflamatory term 'evil' is. You must think god is on your side in this 'crusade.'

And BTW, the ACLU is combatting 'evil', they are fighting to stop torture, secret prisons and kidnapping. It's not like they have an army to do it with.


Name? (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:57:11 AM EST

Remember that the other side is brainwashing teenagers to commit mass homicide in the name of God.

And in whose name is our side brainwashing teenagers to commit mass homicide?


Practicality (none / 0) (#9)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:20:00 PM EST

You go after the bad guys you can reach.


Gabriel (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:27:58 PM EST

So you think Boeing, et al are bad guys???


Not Boeing. (none / 0) (#11)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:32:48 PM EST

As I have already said once: despite Jeralyn's erroneous title, neither Boeing itself, nor its shareholders or employees, are associated with this suit or are alleged to have committed any wrong.


Forget the lawyering for a minute... (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:19:34 PM EST

I tossed in the et al...

Do you think anyone is wrong in this???


Well... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Repack Rider on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:15:11 PM EST

Do you think anyone is wrong in this???

If you don't see anything wrong with kidnapping and torture, it's probably impossible to explain to you what's wrong with it.


RePack (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:01:40 AM EST

I think Stevend's comment (below) pretty well covers it all. I would add the following.

The program has been in place since the Clinton Administration.
If it is illegal, it has been is around 17 years for someone to challenge it in Congress.
That no one has tells me that it is not illegal, and that the ACLU has no facts that would stand up to a thorough examination during a congressional hearing. That would include torture and kidnapping.

They hope to get a civil court case with lower standards of evidence, yet with limitations on what can be introduced. Obviously Jeppesen/Boeing has limited ability to obtain information as compared to Congress.

This is an attempt by the ACLU to turn the legislative process on its head by using the courts to replace Congress.
That is bad policy, and sooner or later, will be harmful to the country.

typo fixo (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:10:19 AM EST

make that 13-14 years


An oversight (none / 0) (#30)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:30:22 AM EST

That no one has tells me that it is not illegal, and that the ACLU has no facts that would stand up to a thorough examination during a congressional hearing. That would include torture and kidnapping.

I see the problem. No one has tells [sic] you that kidnapping and torture are illegal.

Kidnapping and torture are illegal.

Now do you understand?


: RePack is the King of Out Of Context Quotes (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:35:07 PM EST

Here is the complete point
#
If it is illegal, it has been is around 17 years for someone to challenge it in Congress.
# That no one has tells me that it is not illegal, and that the ACLU has no facts that would stand up to a thorough examination during a congressional hearing. That would include torture and kidnapping.

et al (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:31:55 PM EST

I suspect that the next time we have a commercial airliner accident we'll have a whole bunch of new "defendents."

More seriously, this has got to stop. What you have here is an attempt by the ACLU to legislate by lawsuit.

Not exactly a democratic thing to do.

: Accident? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by kdog on Wed May 30, 2007 at 05:19:07 PM EST

I see nothing accidental about kidnapping people and seeing to their torture.
If a private citizen chartered an airplane to commit a kidnapping, and the charter company knew about it, the charter company could and should be held partially liable no?

That's a hella complaint. (none / 0) (#1)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:40:51 AM EST

I just finished reading the complaint in this case, and I have to say, it is extremely well written. Even more importantly, it is tight legally (unlike many ACLU suits). I'd really love to see Jeppesen's answer.

One thing that does bother me is Jeralyn's claim that this is a suit against Boeing. That is incorrect. Jeppesen Dataplan is a subsidiary of Jeppesen Sanderson which is a subsidiary of Boeing. Boeing itself, and its shareholders and employees, are not part of the suit and no allegations of wrong-doing have been claimed against them.

How about (none / 0) (#2)
by HeadScratcher on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:24:59 PM EST

The company that sold the fuel for the planes, the car makers who manufactured the cars who took the pilots to the plane, the food service company who fed the people on the plane, the clothing company who made the clothes for the people on the plane, etc...? After all, if they knew what the planes were doing and they made a profit couldn't this be the same?

they didn't know what ... (none / 0) (#5)
by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:53:42 PM EST

... their products were being used for, Jeppesen did. If Jepp helped drug dealers plan flights to evade law enforcement, that too would be a crime.


Isn't the assumption then (none / 0) (#6)
by HeadScratcher on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:24:34 PM EST

That Jeppesen knew he was breaking the law?


: allegation (none / 0) (#7)
by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:32:38 PM EST

charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of the men to secret overseas locations

Boeing's Form 10-K (none / 0) (#3)
by Sumner on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:30:25 PM EST

Here's a look at Boeing's FORM 10-K.

ia(plainly)nal, (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:32:05 PM EST

but as a lay person it would seem to me that any lawsuit should be predicated on whether or not the flight the CIA hired them to do was illegal, and if so then that Jepp's knew, or reasonably should have known, that the flight was illegal.

No?

SUO (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:41:57 PM EST

Details, details, details....


The legal theory (none / 0) (#19)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:56:38 PM EST

The claims of this legal theorygoes like this:

The Alien Tort Statute, in its entirety reads, "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." (FYI history lesson: it is among the very oldest laws in the United States, established during the first Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.)

The Supreme Court has confined use of the ATS to norms of international law that are "specific, universal, and obligatory." In other words, the ATS cannot be used for marginal or far-fetched legal theories. It can only be used against clear violations of international law or U.S. treaties. Examples of clear violators of international law include piracy and slave-traders. They are deemed hostis humani generis, the enemy of all mankind. It is noteworthy that toturers have also been deemed hostis humani generis.

That's the second part of these fellows' legal argument. They have two causes of action. Tortious forced disappearance and tortious torture. They list a series of international laws and treaties to which the U.S. belongs to back up the claim that those two tortious acts are clear violations of international law or U.S. treaties.


Come on Gabe (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:03:00 AM EST

Again.

Do you think this is a good thing the ACLU is doing??


Second dumbest question of the week (none / 0) (#31)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:34:21 AM EST

Do you think this is a good thing the ACLU is doing??

Defending core American values enshrined in the Constitution?

What is this, a trick question?


: RePack (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:37:50 PM EST

It's one that I didn't ask you.
We know what you think.

Yes and no. (none / 0) (#32)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:39:06 AM EST

I'd like to see folks like al-Masri receive some kind of relief. On the other hand, I see a need to capture, detain, and interrogate alleged terrorists.

I don't see why we can't have both, but it'll probably take Congressional action to sort the law out. Right now the extra-territorial capture, detention, and interrogation of alleged terrorists is legal under domestic law. Torture has long been illegal, but the definition of torture has not been settled by Congress or clarified by the courts. "Forced disappearances" are illegal if conducted by the government domestically, but may be legal if conducted outside the U.S.

In short, the state of the law is a mess. I want vindication for the al-Masris and I want to continue to pursue, capture, keep, and interrogate alleged terrorists abroad. But I know that the law at the moment probably does not help al-Masri.


: Gabe (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:39:12 PM EST

A nice lawerly answer.
;-)

more (none / 0) (#34)
by Sailor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:58:25 AM EST

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday charged that a company with offices in downtown San Jose helped the CIA transport three men who were blindfolded, housed in small quarters, beaten until their bones broke and left with mutilated genitals during brutal interrogations.
Using flight documents obtained in Europe, the ACLU filed suit against the company, Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., in the U.S. District Court for Northern California for its part in the alleged kidnapping, torture and inhumane treatment of the three.
[...]
According to the complaint, Jeppesen helped the CIA get fly-over and landing permits in other countries and provided itineraries and lodging for the flight crews.
The flights took people the CIA wanted to interrogate to prisons in countries - Morocco and Egypt - that allow torture or to then-secret CIA-run detention facilities where the U.S. government argues that its own laws do not apply, according to the lawsuit.

: Sailor (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:36:37 PM EST

doesn't understand the meaning of "alleged."