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: