|
Let's assume Bruce's plumber-friend mentioned above is a licensed plumber and the system he installed has a problem.
The owner of the building doesn't know whether it's the fault of the plumber or of the architect or both,
so he sues both and asks the court to decide proportional guilt.
Expert witnesses then examine the installation and tell the court
if the work was done exactly according to the architect's plans or not,
AND they tell the court whether a licensed plumber knew or should have known if the plans were inappropriate.
The court then decides proportional guilt between the plumber and the architect.
In another scenario, let's assume I call a someone and tell them I'm going to rob a bank,
and I'll pay them a lot of money to ( "arrange to" ?) pick me up when I come out of the bank.
Whoever I called knows exactly what I'm doing,
and they do make "arrangements " for some a taxi to help me escape,
and a taxi does pick me so I successfully make my escape from an illegal act.
Again, proportional guilt would need to be decided between ME (the robber),
the "someone" I called to make the arrangements,
whoever actually sends a vehicle, the driver who picks me up,
AND the actions of each party before and after the robbery.
This proportional guilt can only be decided by an independent 3rd-party court of law,
and each of the parties must be named in the case.
Bob Overby, the Managing Director of Jeppesen, has been quoted as being knowledgeable
of the rendition flights and as asserting that his company made profits from these flights.
So it seems reasonable the ACLU has named Jeppesen within the suit.
Of course the ACLU is not going to all this trouble just to get a ruling against only the Jeppesen company.
They are going for a ruling on the legality of the actions of the CIA in the rendition and torture operations.
The only way to get a ruling is in federal court.
I admit to my own belief that the CIA knew that rendition and torture were illegal,
and were attempting to hide their activities.
Call me paranoid or conspiratorial or whatever...
BUT, the point of this case is that the 11-judge appeals court has now ruled
that the public shall get no examination of facts and no decision of (proportional) guilt.
In other words, we citizens must now "Trust, but don't even attempt to verify"
FURTHER, the point of my remarks about Judge Alito is that his advocacy
for unchecked powers in an "Executive Presidency" make his position on such a (potential) case a no-brainer.
Instead, it is the sort of case he would welcome.
I admit to my own belief that the CIA knew that rendition and torture were illegal, and were attempting to hide their activities.
Call me paranoid or conspiratorial or whatever...
|