Judge Alito will be so pleased

[Lamplighter]

"By a 6-to-5 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for the Central Intelligence Agency to transfer prisoners to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation."

Jeppesen was not the taxi company.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course they were. They didn't captured anybody, they were hired by the CIA to arrange charter flights. I doubt if they were told who, or even how many, were on those flights.

[Lamplighter]

Well, if you're right the case will not be appealed to the Supreme Court, or if it is appealed the SC will decide not to accept it.

But then, I wonder why the 3-judge court appeals court didn't come to your conclusion and dismiss it outright,
or why the ACLU even decided to take on this case and file it the way they did.
Silly them, and silly me for thinking that participation in rendition and torture at the behest of the CIA is not OK !

After all, if the President says it's legal, then it's legal.
Wait, wait, that's what Sam Alito said a few years ago.
Oh well, this case is not important.
Never mind...

But wait another minute. Alito worked for Reagan who said something along the lines of "Trust, but verify".
I guess they were talking about something else.
Never mind...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Certainly Jeppesen was involved, they were hired to schedule flights, that's what they do. Jeppesen is the worlds biggest provider of flight data, route mapping, and airport patterns, in the world. Christ, the FAA goes them for advice and consent. I would be surprised if Jeppesen doesn't schedule most of the CIA's flights, clandestine or otherwise.

They're suing Jeppesen because they can't sue the CIA. Jeppesen's getting fucked because they're available. It's the same way they sued my buddy the plumbing contractor, when a high rise sprinkler system proved inadequate, even though it was installed as the architect designed it, underwriters and the city approved it, and it was inspected after he installed it.

Yes, it will go to the supremes because it's a political football. These people, and their supporters, are not doing this for compensation. They are trying to castigate the CIA/government, and do an end run with a lawsuit to change policy.

[Lamplighter]

Maybe it is some sort of legal "end-run", I don't know or really care.

But is that to suggest that the rendition/torture policies of previous years should be ruled legal and unquestionable in US courts ?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I know you don't care.
No, it's to suggest Jeppesen is getting fucked.

[Lamplighter]

No, the "don't care" is about using a "legal end-run" to get to some more important issues. If it's a legal tactic, it's legal.

If Jeppesen is an innocent party in all this, there would be no harm.
IIRC, the appeals court has already ruled somewhere along the line that Jeppesen's legal costs would be reimbursed so they would not be harmed by the decision... and that this was an unusual action for a court to take.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Jeppesen was not the taxi company.

Absolutely the were nothing but a taxi company. This sounds like some far reaching attempt by the ACLU to make an end around on the inability to sue the government. It is a dead end. They should lose the case and don't have a chance in hell in the US Supreme Court.

[Lamplighter]

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...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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.

Actually, relatives of fire victims sued the plumbing contractor, but not the building owner, architect, City, Underwriters, bank, or insurance company. A judge with half a brain would have said this is not right, but it dragged through the courts for years, with the plaintiffs finally winning millions. Not because the contractor did anything wrong, because he had the money.

[Lamplighter]

At least one federal judge understands that rendition and torture are not American values...

LosAngeles Times
U.S. civilian court acquits ex-Guantanamo detainee of all major terrorism charges

The verdict involving a suspect in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa
may complicate efforts to try Sept. 11 defendants in nonmilitary U.S. courts.
But Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani may still face life in prison without parole for his conviction on a lesser count.

The verdict could presage trouble for President Obama's plans to close the U.S. military prison in Cuba
and bring its remaining detainees to the United States for trial.
Officials who want military commissions to try the men argue that terrorism suspects
would get too many rights and protections in civilian court.

In Ghailani's monthlong trial, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to allow a key government witness
to testify after finding that the information had been produced by torture at an undisclosed CIA foreign detention site.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I admit to my own belief that the CIA knew that rendition and torture were illegal, and were attempting to hide their activities.

They were just doing their job as they believed at the time they were directed to do.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They were just doing their job as they believed at the time they were directed to do.

I'm not saying this in order to prove Godwin's Law, but isn't that a Nuremberg defense?

It's really too bad that Stanley Milgram isn't around to make the talk show rounds.

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

http://www.grossmont.edu/bertdill/docs/perilsobed.pdf <-- PDF

The subject, Gretchen Brantt, is an attractive thirty-one year old medical technician who works at the Yale Medical School. She had emigrated from Germany five years before

Brandt: I think we are here on our own free will. I don't want to be responsible if anything happens to him. Please understand that.

Milgram's experiment was conducted in 1963. Miss Brandt would have been about 13 years old when the Nuremberg trials were conducted.

Maybe people can learn.

..and maybe some people can't http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html

[Lamplighter]

Another page of Animal Farm will be turned this summer.

NPR
Supreme Court Tackles Warrantless Entry Case
by Nina Totenberg
January 12, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court is wrestling with a case that could give
police greater power to forcibly enter a home without a warrant.

The Constitution bars warrantless searches except in certain circumstances
— for example, an emergency search to prevent the destruction of evidence.

But on Wednesday, the question before the court was whether police,
by themselves creating such exigent circumstances,
are unconstitutionally evading the warrant requirement.

The case before the court began in 2005 when Lexington, Ky.,
police banged on the door of an apartment where they thought they smelled marijuana.
After loudly identifying themselves, police heard movement inside,
and fearing the destruction of evidence, they broke in.
<snip>

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether this meant that police could merely "sniff at every door,"
knock on those doors where they smelled marijuana, and break in once they heard a noise.

It "would be perfectly fine for the officers to do that," Farley responded.

Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that if the suspects had quickly answered the door
and simply refused to permit entry, the police would have been powerless to do more.
"The police," he said, "were taking advantage of the stupidity of the criminals."

Justice Elena Kagan worried that allowing police to create exigent circumstances
would be "essentially eviscerating the warrant requirement in ...
the one place that the Fourth Amendment was most concerned about."

A decision in the case is expected by summer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why not just pass a law that all front doors be clear glass.