Judge Alito will be so pleased
 

This case will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court
Can you guess how Sam will vote... it's his career dream come true.

NY Times

Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.

When I was younger I promised to myself that I would not become one of those old farts who kept saying "the world is going to hell in a handbasket".
But court decisions like this make me want to reconsider :mad:

So if you get beat up in a bar, you'll sue the taxi company that took you there.:rolleyes:

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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 ?

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

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.

Anything the appeals court says about Jeppesen's costs doesn't mean jack shit, if the supremes think otherwise.

So it will be left to the idiots that made corporate influence over elections legal, and dissolved the constitutional rights of private property. Beautiful, fucking beautiful.:rolleyes:

I know Wikipedia is not always the ultimate truth, but it's an easy source that seems to be reasonably accurate.
Wiki describes Jeppesen as a company that does charting, sells pilot supplies and aviation training.
But then there is this paragraph...

Alleged involvement with CIA extraordinary rendition flights

The reason I continued reading about Jeppesen was the example that this company was just a taxicab (i.e., an unknowing, innocent bystander) in the rendition operations of the CIA, and so should not have been named in the lawsuit. But I had the nagging thought that if I were put into a taxi and was dropped off at some bar against my will, and someone beat me, I would certainly think about suing the taxi company as a contributing factor.

Likewise, if the paragraph in Wikipedia is accurate, it seems reasonable for Jeppesen to have been named in the ACLU lawsuit.

I don't suppose they bothered to ask what other flights they handled for the CIA, or other government agencies, for that matter?
Of course the CIA, or anyone else, would go to Jeppesen. They are it.

You go to a travel agency, the travel agency goes to an airline, the airline goes to Jeppesen.

They are as guilty an the company that made the plane, or the company that supplied the fuel, or the company that made the handcuffs.

Oh, and Jeppesen isn't the taxi, they are the Garmin on the taxi's dashboard.

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.

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...

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.:mad:

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

Hmm ????
on what grounds?
So it was basically meaningless in this case - He'll never get out.

Link

I'm not sure what to make of this - There seems to be too much info missing or I'm just not getting it. Finding him not guilty on 284 out of 285 charges seems bizarre. Oh wait, here it is .....

Was she? or did the jurors make a deal? The plot thickens..... To be continued.

Beat her up? Pants her? Pee in her drink? Most likely they said they were right and she was wrong. If she feels that's an "attack", she's too emotional to be making rational decisions anyway. :rolleyes:

You can attack someone verbally. If there were a bunch of other jurors all in her face yelling at her, that's an attack. Not an assault, but an attack.

In legalese, not reality. :rolleyes:

Would it matter if the taxi company that took you to the bar knew they were hired by the beaters explicitly to deliver beatees?

Bitch, bitch, bitch. OK, Should AAA be sued for providing a Triptik to someone that used it to transport illegal stuff?

xoB, we've been thru these arguments before.
If AAA knew the plan was illegal, it's called conspiracy.

Oh wait ! That's what Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted of, and may be sentenced to life in prison.

Thats a little more than renting a car .... just sayin'

AAA prints a million Triptiks, how the fuck would they know what people are doing with them? Jeppesen does the logistics for millions of flights, for both the government and businesses. How the fuck do they know what the customer is going there for? You obviously don't understand what Jeppesen does. They are the world's leading provider of airport and air route information... to everyone.

Of course, IF AAA did not know the triptik was for an illegal act...

But the Jeppsen thing was different.
Jeppsen did know what they were doing, with whom they were doing it,
and they were making a profit from it.
So naming them in the law suit seemed entirely appropriate to me.

Hearsay of speculation by another employee, even a manager, means jackshit, even if the speculation is accurate. Do you really think the CIA told Jeppsen the particular reasons they were flying spooks here and there, or a small percentage of the flights were moving prisoners? Don't forget, Jeppson wasn't actually on the planes, they saw nothing. The lawyers are just looking for deep pockets they can draw into a bullshit conspiracy.

AAA should be sued for being a shitty-ass wouldn't hook me up the one time I called them because it was too late at night to come help our stranded asses in the Arizona desert company. But not about that Triptik stuff.

Too late at night? That's when you need the fuckers. :(

Darn straight. That's sort of like owning a 22-hour-a-day convenience store.

Or ER.

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

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

Another page of Animal Farm will be turned this summer.

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

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

That cuts right to the chase :rolleyes:

The Citizens United case is, and will be, an extremely important issue for every US citizen.
It's not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's a "corporate influence" issue...
regardless where the corporation is headquartered, in the US or some foreign country.


NY Times
Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: January 19, 2011

Either way this investigation goes, John will be so pleased

Common Cause is a well known Lefty-Liberal group who has been known to get lots of money from George Soros, I guess ole George just doesn't like the competition. Where was Common Cause when Soros was buying off American political influence or bankrupting the UK banks?

Good God what a bunch of hypocrites.....

Racist and eliminationist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Here is some of the video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-co...m-protest-mob/

Rendition, that nasty word/deed, is back in the news...


NY Times
ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
September 19, 2012
High Court in Italy Backs Convictions for Rendition

Sometimes it is necessary to invent a bogeyman when none exists. Then extremists will support the endeavor.

Reuters
Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley
Jun 24, 2013

UPDATE 2-U.S. justices rule against college worker in harassment case
Sam's parents are so proud, as are the parents of Clarence Thomas.

The "conservative" wing of the USSC is working steadily to reverse
laws which historically have protected minority rights.
In this session, this group has ruled in one way or another to reverse
protections which affect minorities in voting rights, harassment in the workplace,
legal remedies for employment discrimination, and now a strike
at a well established law affecting American Indians.

The facts in this case were quite clear and undisputed, but the
non-Indian public and these Justices wanted a different decision.

Sam Alito has written an opinion based on the public emotion rather than the law.
He calls it a technicality, but it's just an excuse to over run basic provisions of,
and previous USSC rulings on, a very important protection to another minority, American Indians.
He seeks a ruling against this particular child's biological father.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...googlenews_wsj
Wall Street Journal
June 25, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

It took a day or so, but Indian tribal leaders are now responding to this "one-off" decision of Alito et al.

USA Today
Peter Harriman
6/25/13
Ruling on adopted Indian kids threatens tribes, some say
Leaders worry that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door to what was happening before Indian Child Welfare Act.

My understanding of this, despite current wordings in some media,
is that the father proposed marriage when the mother learned she was pregnant.
When she said no to marriage, he then refused financial support of the child
and agreed to give full custody to the mother.

Later, the mother decided to put the child up for adoption.
The father and the tribe have a legal right to notification of such adoption proceedures.

It was not until afterward that the father learned of the adoption through informal tribal contacts.
It was at that time he gained custody through legal channels.
The non-Indian "adoptive" parents then appealed the case to the USSC.

The father has always maintained that he did give up "custody" before the baby was born,
but did not give up his "parental rights" or his legal Indian rights under ICWA.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina agreed with him, and he was given physical custody of his daughter.

Sam's opinion and the USSC majority have now made her parental custody unnecessarily tenuous.

It might make other custody battles more tenuous, but I would think that "decided by the Supreme Court" is as un-tenuous as parental custody can be.

HM, I don't think so.
I suspect that by referring the case back to the South Carolina Supreme Court,
the issues can/will be debated again, and the decision may yet
go with the father.

Who knows ...

Unfortunately, they didn't clearly rule. South Carolina said, the father gets the girl. The Supreme Court said, the law does not require taking the child away from the adoptive couple in this case--but having issued this ruling on the spirit of the law, they did not actually make a ruling on custody, they just kicked it back to the South Carolina court with their opinion added. Now, the South Carolina court may choose to re-examine the case in light of the Supreme Court's clarification and reverse their previous ruling, or they may decide to stick with their original ruling in favor of the father anyway.

It should be noted that I am strongly on the adoptive couple's side here. Aside from everything else fucked up about the situation,

Sam Alito strikes again...

Previously.
In government "permit" situations, conditional meant:
If you do this..., your permit will be approved
If you don't do this..., your permit will not be approved.

According to Sam, not any more. Corporations rule !

NY Times
By JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Published: June 26, 2013
A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development

Once more Sam et al. will change the course of US public life
... CORPORATIONS [SHALL] RULE !


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
November 24, 2013

Court Confronts Religious Rights of Corporations

It is announced today that the USSC will take up this case.

Get ready for GE to tell you which god (CEO) to worship. :eek: