PDA

View Full Version : Al Qaida suspects sue Boeing, with ACLU's help


Bill Parcells
06-03-2007, 08:44 AM
Friday, June 1, 2007

Al Qaida suspects sue Boeing, with ACLU's help
WASHINGTON Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.


The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."

The suit charged that Jeppesen helped the CIA transport the three plaintiffs to secret locations in Egypt and Morocco, where the company knew they would undergo torture, Middle East Newsline reported.

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

The plaintiffs named in the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, were Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel and Ahmed Agiza. Britel and Mohamed were said to have been flown by the CIA to Morocco. Agiza was taken to Egypt.

The suit said Jeppesen, based in San Jose, Calif., has been a key provider of flight and logistical support services for CIA aircraft in the rendition program. Since December 2001, the suit said, Jeppesen provided flight and logistical support to at least 15 CIA aircraft that conducted 70 rendition flights.

Jeppesen was said to have provided aircraft crew and flight planning services for the CIA program. The subsidiary also ensured customs clearance and security for CIA aircraft and crew.

"Jeppesen's services have been crucial to the functioning of the government's extraordinary rendition program," ACLU staff attorney Steven Watt said. "Without the participation of companies like Jeppesen, the program could not have gotten off the ground."

The suit was filed under the Alien Tort Statute, which permits aliens to bring claims in the United States for alleged violations that involve American citizens or assets. The statute accounts for torture.

In 2002, Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, was transported to Morocco, where he spent 18 months in prison in what the suit asserted included torture by the intelligence services of the North African kingdom. In 2004, he was taken by the CIA to a secret U.S. detention facility in Kabul, Afghanistan, and then to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he remains.

Britel was flown from Pakistan to Morocco in 2002. He was said to have remained in Morocco. Agiza was taken from Sweden to Egypt and remains in detention.

"For the first five weeks after his arrival in Egypt, Mr. Agiza was detained incommunicado," the suit said. "During his time and for some 10 weeks thereafter, he was repeatedly and severely tortured and denied meaningful access to consular officials, family members and lawyers."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_terror_06_01.asp

The good ole ACLU!

tiptap
06-03-2007, 09:00 AM
Bill, I am not in favor of torture first. I am not in favor of torture last. I am in favor of good police interdiction like what we saw at JFK. The ACLU is instituted to protect constitutional rights. And one of them is no cruel or unusual punishments even before a trial. It is the high ground about this issue. But that represents what is important in my support of my country. And at this point no court has ruled on this.

Bill Parcells
06-03-2007, 09:12 AM
Bill, I am not in favor of torture first. I am not in favor of torture last.
Agreed.
I am in favor of good police interdiction like what we saw at JFK. The ACLU is instituted to protect constitutional rights. And one of them is no cruel or unusual punishments even before a trial. It is the high ground about this issue. But that represents what is important in my support of my country. And at this point no court has ruled on this.
The ACLU was fighting against the Patriot Act ( police and or Government interdiction) from the very start. the terrorists even explain in their propaganda videos how to use our own laws against us, and the ACLU is helping them achieve their goals.

jAZ
06-03-2007, 09:54 AM
Sounds to me like YOU hate our freedoms.

Bill Parcells
06-03-2007, 10:01 AM
Sounds to me like YOU hate our freedoms.

While I support the concept of what the ACLU does, they have taken their honorable goals and twisted it. they no longer defend Americans and their rights, they have just become a militant tool.

Mi_chief_fan
06-03-2007, 10:06 AM
I'll probably regret asking this, but from what I read, they were merely "suspects", it doesn't say that they were found guilty of anything. So, if this guy was taken, flown halfway around the world, tortured, and set free, what does that say? It says to me that he shouldn't have been taken in the first place, and if it were me, i'd probably file suit as well.

jAZ
06-03-2007, 10:08 AM
While I support the concept of what the ACLU does, they have taken their honorable goals and twisted it. they no longer defend Americans and their rights, they have just become a militant tool.
They defend civil liberties.

Sully
06-03-2007, 10:10 AM
I HATE organizations that protect the constitution. Communist bastards.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 10:13 AM
This raises an interesting question; If a person is a hyphenated American (an immigrant) and has ties to Al Queda or some other terrorist organization how should they be handled?

What are the options for their handling?
As an infiltrator?
As a citizen?
As an enemy?

I'm sure there are other categories they could be placed in but at what point do we afford them of the rights of this country based on our constitution? Has the ALCU misinterpreted the constitution? Has the supreme court misinterpreted our constitution?

Slick32
06-03-2007, 10:15 AM
They defend civil liberties.

As previously inferred, do enemy's have our civil liberties?

banyon
06-03-2007, 10:32 AM
Why isn't there equal coverage when the ACLU defends Rush Limbaugh?

DAMN LIBRL MEDIUH!! :cuss:

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 10:35 AM
They have a strong suit, but I don't think Boeing is the right target. Sure, they profit from people using their jets. However, Boeing doesn't know what they're going to be used for. (Unless they built it for torture or something).

So, while the lawsuit is pretty viable, it's the wrong target in my opinion.

irishjayhawk
06-03-2007, 10:36 AM
As previously inferred, do enemy's have our civil liberties?

Yes, because we're the ones prosecuting them. Anyway, the Geneva Convention prohibits torture etc and that's international law. So either way, really.

wazu
06-03-2007, 11:21 AM
ACLU = PETA

patteeu
06-03-2007, 12:16 PM
Why isn't there equal coverage when the ACLU defends Rush Limbaugh?

DAMN LIBRL MEDIUH!! :cuss:

You mean like almost no coverage at all? Limbaugh coverage was ubiquitous.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 12:22 PM
Something like the doctrine of sovereign immunity should prevent lawsuits against government contractors carrying out the bidding of the government when the government could not be sued for exactly the same act and when the contractor is faithfully performing the duties it was legitimately hired to do.

Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also a good government policy-based consideration. If the government cannot utilize private companies in this way then the government will have to build up this capability in-house and that will not serve taxpayers well.

In the end, this case will be dismissed for national security reasons anyway, I suspect.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 01:34 PM
Yes, because we're the ones prosecuting them. Anyway, the Geneva Convention prohibits torture etc and that's international law. So either way, really.

If you want to believe that anyone follows the Geneva Convention you can do that. I'm certain that our enemies do not follow it. I'm sure everyone thinks we should be above that, and yes I'm one of them, but I also realize that there are people that do not subscribe to following rules previously broken by the enemy. Putting the war on even playing ground.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 01:43 PM
While I support the concept of what the ACLU does, they have taken their honorable goals and twisted it. they no longer defend Americans and their rights, they have just become a militant tool.
So one case with three litigants means they "no longer defend Americans and their rights?" That's quite an amazing leap, there!

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 01:49 PM
Something like the doctrine of sovereign immunity should prevent lawsuits against government contractors carrying out the bidding of the government when the government could not be sued for exactly the same act and when the contractor is faithfully performing the duties it was legitimately hired to do."Hired" is the key word. Not "assigned," not "ordered," but "hired." The civilian contractors had a choice whether or not they wanted to bid for the job and accept it. At no point did the government walk into their offices and say, "You are going to do this, and you have no choice in the matter." That exempts them from any protection they might have otherwise had under the umbrella of "sovereign immunity."Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also a good government policy-based consideration. If the government cannot utilize private companies in this way then the government will have to build up this capability in-house and that will not serve taxpayers well.Or the government can refrain from the practice of extraordinary rendition to countries where they know torture and inhumane practices will be employed, which won't hurt the taxpayers one little bit.In the end, this case will be dismissed for national security reasons anyway, I suspect.For national security reasons? Where do you get that?

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 01:51 PM
but I also realize that there are people that do not subscribe to following rules previously broken by the enemy. Putting the war on even playing ground.
Sacrificing our integrity and allowing ourselves to be dragged down to their level, don't you mean?

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:02 PM
"Hired" is the key word. Not "assigned," not "ordered," but "hired." The civilian contractors had a choice whether or not they wanted to bid for the job and accept it. At no point did the government walk into their offices and say, "You are going to do this, and you have no choice in the matter." That exempts them from any protection they might have otherwise had under the umbrella of "sovereign immunity."

Don't be such a dumbass. That's why I said "something like sovereign immunity" instead of "sovereign immunity."

Or the government can refrain from the practice of extraordinary rendition to countries where they know torture and inhumane practices will be employed, which won't hurt the taxpayers one little bit.

Sure they could. So what? That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

For national security reasons? Where do you get that?

I suspect that the government will refuse to turn over information that the judge will consider important for a fair trial and that they will do so on national security grounds. But that's just a guess.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Sacrificing our integrity and allowing ourselves to be dragged down to their level, don't you mean?

Here's another one that can't distinguish between our level and their level. Pathetic.

Slick32
06-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Sacrificing our integrity and allowing ourselves to be dragged down to their level, don't you mean?

No, but it sounds like that is the way you have judged the situation.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 02:30 PM
Don't be such a dumbass. That's why I said "something like sovereign immunity" instead of "sovereign immunity."
Instead of "something like sovereign immunity," you should have gone with "nothing," because it would have been more accurate.

Sure they could. So what? That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
It's got everything to do with what we are talking about here. If our government were engaging in abominable practices, and hiring civilian contractors so they can distance themselves ever so slightly from the deed, there wouldn't be a need for lawsuits such as this.

I suspect that the government will refuse to turn over information that the judge will consider important for a fair trial
At least on that score, I have no doubt that you're right.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 02:31 PM
Here's another one that can't distinguish between our level and their level. Pathetic.
I can distinguish between our level and theirs. What I can't distinguish between is their level and the level to which you (and people like you) would be willing to let us sink in the name of "security."

Bill Parcells
06-03-2007, 02:53 PM
So one case with three litigants means they "no longer defend Americans and their rights?" That's quite an amazing leap, there!
The ACLU was fighting against the Patriot Act, now who was that bill supposed to protect?

You must be a card toting member.

go bowe
06-03-2007, 04:16 PM
Don't be such a dumbass. That's why I said "something like sovereign immunity" instead of "sovereign immunity."



Sure they could. So what? That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.



I suspect that the government will refuse to turn over information that the judge will consider important for a fair trial and that they will do so on national security grounds. But that's just a guess.it's a pretty good guess...

Logical
06-03-2007, 04:33 PM
They have a strong suit, but I don't think Boeing is the right target. Sure, they profit from people using their jets. However, Boeing doesn't know what they're going to be used for. (Unless they built it for torture or something).

So, while the lawsuit is pretty viable, it's the wrong target in my opinion.

They are targeting Boeing because the US Government has never been successfully sued and basically has immunity in the US justice system. It is not fair but it is a tactic.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2007, 04:45 PM
The ACLU was fighting against the Patriot Act, now who was that bill supposed to protect?

You must be a card toting member.

Oh for f*ck's sake. That's exactly the kind of reactionary demagoguery that makes most posters think this forum is the boil on the asshole of CP.

A vaccine can be "designed" to protect someone from an illness. But if it causes more problems that it alleviates, it might not be in the best interest of someone to get it.

What about that is hard to understand?

Logical
06-03-2007, 05:45 PM
Oh for f*ck's sake. That's exactly the kind of reactionary demagoguery that makes most posters think this forum is the boil on the asshole of CP.

A vaccine can be "designed" to protect someone from an illness. But if it causes more problems that it alleviates, it might not be in the best interest of someone to get it.

What about that is hard to understand?

Hamas,

If I might interject your post is as much or more why most posters consider DC a boil. It is the lack of civility and frankly more Planet BB members would side with Bill than with you. I personally agree with your point but your expression of that point was not done in a way as to make you seem reasonable.

Bill Parcells
06-03-2007, 06:03 PM
Hamas,

If I might interject your post is as much or more why most posters consider DC a boil. It is the lack of civility and frankly more Planet BB members would side with Bill than with you. I personally agree with your point but your expression of that point was not done in a way as to make you seem reasonable.
Believe it or not, Hamas is one of my favorites here on CP, along with Laz. but we will never agree on politics.

It's not just DC on CP, every political forum gets ugly.

Mi_chief_fan
06-03-2007, 06:58 PM
Hamas,

If I might interject your post is as much or more why most posters consider DC a boil. It is the lack of civility and frankly more Planet BB members would side with Bill than with you. I personally agree with your point but your expression of that point was not done in a way as to make you seem reasonable.

Look, I know i'm busy and don't get here much anymore, but am I missing something? Didn't you used to be pretty far to the right of, say, Pat Buchanan? Maybe it was another logical. The other one also thought Jeremy Shockey was so good that he descended directly from Jesus, and that Tony Gonzales wasn't "great" but "very good."

Logical
06-03-2007, 06:59 PM
Believe it or not, Hamas is one of my favorites here on CP, along with Laz. but we will never agree on politics.

It's not just DC on CP, every political forum gets ugly.

I understand I have had many people that I battle with, a lesson I learned is we can battle and not make it personal.

Logical
06-03-2007, 07:00 PM
Look, I know i'm busy and don't get here much anymore, but am I missing something? Didn't you used to be pretty far to the right of, say, Pat Buchanan? Maybe it was another logical. The other one also thought Jeremy Shockey was so good that he descended directly from Jesus, and that Tony Gonzales wasn't "great" but "very good."Depends on the issue I am still pretty far right on certain subjects. Of late the subjects have shifted to the ones where I am either moderate or liberal.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2007, 07:03 PM
Hamas,

If I might interject your post is as much or more why most posters consider DC a boil. It is the lack of civility and frankly more Planet BB members would side with Bill than with you. I personally agree with your point but your expression of that point was not done in a way as to make you seem reasonable.

Actually, Bill and I get along quite well, which was one of the reasons for the "vitriol" of the post. I probably should have included an emoticon of some sake to get that across. Nothing about that was *intended* to be a personal attack on bill parcells the man behind the keyboard. It was, however, an expression of exasperation regarding the belief that the ACLU is somehow in cahoots with anti-liberty groups because they defend everyone.

Logical
06-03-2007, 10:20 PM
Actually, Bill and I get along quite well, which was one of the reasons for the "vitriol" of the post. I probably should have included an emoticon of some sake to get that across. Nothing about that was *intended* to be a personal attack on bill parcells the man behind the keyboard. It was, however, an expression of exasperation regarding the belief that the ACLU is somehow in cahoots with anti-liberty groups because they defend everyone.

Frankly the ACLU suing Boeing (through their subsidiary) to me is deplorable. I understand why they would try but to me Boeing is an innocent third party that will have to pay through the nose lawyers in a nuisance case.

A smaller company would possibly be bankrupted in a similar situation.

jAZ
06-03-2007, 11:08 PM
Frankly the ACLU suing Boeing (through their subsidiary) to me is deplorable. I understand why they would try but to me Boeing is an innocent third party that will have to pay through the nose lawyers in a nuisance case.

A smaller company would possibly be bankrupted in a similar situation.
1) Boeing is a big boy
2) I don't know the law here, but if the suit has grounds based on the law, then I don't know why their actions should be considered above the law.

WoodDraw
06-03-2007, 11:22 PM
1) Boeing is a big boy
2) I don't know the law here, but if the suit has grounds based on the law, then I don't know why their actions should be considered above the law.

I agree. By accepting the contract they accepted the future consequences. I don't know if there is a case here or not, but we'll find out. I don't buy the patriotic, for the good of the country defense. That's nothing but crap with no legal standing.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 11:42 PM
The ACLU was fighting against the Patriot Act, now who was that bill supposed to protect?
The only Americans being protected by the Patriot Act are in Washington. As far as regular Americans go, the Patriot Act does no favors. It's among the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted. Fighting against the Patriot Act is defending Americans!

You must be a card toting member.You still haven't answered my question, how do you figure that they "no longer defend Americans," based solely on one case with only three litigants?

Logical
06-04-2007, 12:06 AM
1) Boeing is a big boy
2) I don't know the law here, but if the suit has grounds based on the law, then I don't know why their actions should be considered above the law.

I doubt Boeing knew anything more than they were accepting a contract to haul government passengers. In case most people don't know it the CIA does not typically announce that they are the CIA but use a cover agency identification to avoid that.

StcChief
06-04-2007, 10:50 AM
since when are Enemy combatants protected by our constitutional rights.

Throw this outta court

banyon
06-04-2007, 11:37 AM
since when are Enemy combatants protected by our constitutional rights.

Throw this outta court

They don't and I don't see where the article claims that they do.

They have rights and standing to sue which flow from the Geneva Convention which outlaws torture.

memyselfI
06-04-2007, 11:39 AM
Shame on Rush Limbaugh for accepting help from terrorist sympathizers and enablers. :shake:

StcChief
06-04-2007, 12:42 PM
Al Qaida operatives are NOT protected, they are Stateless terrorist entity.

Nightwish
06-04-2007, 01:01 PM
Al Qaida operatives are NOT protected, they are Stateless terrorist entity.You're failing to see the distinction between "Al Qaeda operatives" and "terrorist/Al Qaeda suspects." The word "suspects" should be a big clue-in as to why the ACLU is pursuing this. It means their involvement with Al Qaeda or terrorist activities is only alleged, not firmly established. Once they are proven to be members of Al Qaeda and/or to have been involved with terrorist activities, then I would have no problem with them being exempted from Geneva Convention protections. But until then, they are entitled. I know there are many of you who would like to see the "innocent until proven guilty" cautionary completely done away with, at least in the case of suspected and accused terrorists, in the interest of getting an eye for an eye. Another word for that is "witch hunt." Fortunately, though, most Americans haven't sunk to that level yet.

Logical
06-04-2007, 03:30 PM
Al Qaida operatives are NOT protected, they are Stateless terrorist entity.
I think the problem with this is (at least what I heard is) eventually we released these fellows, so I doubt we can claim they are AQ operatives. Either that or our government is more stupid than even I thought possible.

go bowe
06-04-2007, 05:03 PM
i'd say the government is stupid most of the time...

go bowe
06-04-2007, 05:11 PM
I think the problem with this is (at least what I heard is) eventually we released these fellows, so I doubt we can claim they are AQ operatives. Either that or our government is more stupid than even I thought possible.the theory i've seen is that the suspects who were released were no longer useful for purposes of gathering intelligence about aq and terrorism in general...

part of it could also be that the government didn't have good enough legal cases wrt those guys...

redbrian
06-04-2007, 05:55 PM
Funny how in some peoples eyes you are innocent until proved guilty unless you are the Government or CIA (or like organization) and then you are guilty period.

Nightwish
06-05-2007, 12:08 AM
Funny how in some peoples eyes you are innocent until proved guilty unless you are the Government or CIA (or like organization) and then you are guilty period.It's one thing to opine whether someone may be, may not be, is probably/likely/almost-certainly (or not) "guilty" in discussions that aren't about the legal process and our legal establishments. It's quite another to claim objectively that a person isn't entitled to Geneva Convention protections on the grounds that they are only suspected of a crime. Now, if you were trying to say that there are some of us who believe that if you're part of the government, then you're automatically guilty and that you should not be permitted due process, then you'd have a point. Thus far, I don't recall anyone implying anything like that.

For the record, I don't believe that everyone in the government is automatically a complete scoundrel ... just that most of them are, and I'm very distrustful of any upper echelon politician, regardless of party (power corrupts, as they say). And I believe that many of those suspected of being Al Qaeda operatives probably are. But at this point, that isn't known for certain. And until it is incontrovertibly proven that they are operatives for Al Qaeda, then they are entitled to be treated like the only thing we know they are for certain - human beings who happen to be enemy combatants.

Ultra Peanut
06-05-2007, 12:14 AM
You're failing to see the distinction between "Al Qaeda operatives" and "terrorist/Al Qaeda suspects." The word "suspects" should be a big clue-in as to why the ACLU is pursuing this. It means their involvement with Al Qaeda or terrorist activities is only alleged, not firmly established. Once they are proven to be members of Al Qaeda and/or to have been involved with terrorist activities, then I would have no problem with them being exempted from Geneva Convention protections. But until then, they are entitled. I know there are many of you who would like to see the "innocent until proven guilty" cautionary completely done away with, at least in the case of suspected and accused terrorists, in the interest of getting an eye for an eye. Another word for that is "witch hunt." Fortunately, though, most Americans haven't sunk to that level yet.If they're suspects, they are CLEARLY evil and deserve whatever they get.

RedDread
06-05-2007, 12:50 AM
This is gonna be a short case:

Jeppesen representative: "No we did not know who they were, yes we knew where we were going to land, no we did not see them after we dropped them off"

Case = Ova

Nightwish
06-05-2007, 12:55 AM
This is gonna be a short case:

Jeppesen representative: "No we did not know who they were, yes we knew where we were going to land, no we did not see them after we dropped them off"

Case = Ova
It won't go down that way. They won't be able to pull the "we didn't know who they were" argument. For one thing, they bid with the US government for the contract. And even if they didn't, when a dangerous prisoner is going to be carried by aircraft or mass transit, someone from the airline is informed ahead of time. They don't just show up unannounced, because special precautions have to be taken beforehand.

Logical
06-05-2007, 01:08 AM
It won't go down that way. They won't be able to pull the "we didn't know who they were" argument. For one thing, they bid with the US government for the contract. And even if they didn't, when a dangerous prisoner is going to be carried by aircraft or mass transit, someone from the airline is informed ahead of time. They don't just show up unannounced, because special precautions have to be taken beforehand.While your statement is true, the fault is they don't have insight into what the prisoner is being transported for only that he is.

Nightwish
06-05-2007, 01:12 AM
While your statement is true, the fault is they don't have insight into what the prisoner is being transported for only that he is.
Don't they give them the names, though? If they are under a contract they bid for, and the government informs them they'll be carrying dangerous prisoners, and they look at the flight manifest and see that all the prisoners are named Mustafa or Ali, I suspect they might get the picture. They may not have it carved in stone, but they've got a pretty good idea.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-05-2007, 01:16 AM
While your statement is true, the fault is they don't have insight into what the prisoner is being transported for only that he is.
http://www.volumecity.com/store/images/dvd/conair.jpg

Logical
06-05-2007, 01:24 AM
Don't they give them the names, though? If they are under a contract they bid for, and the government informs them they'll be carrying dangerous prisoners, and they look at the flight manifest and see that all the prisoners are named Mustafa or Ali, I suspect they might get the picture. They may not have it carved in stone, but they've got a pretty good idea.


Ah so you are profiling.:D

Pennywise
06-05-2007, 07:25 AM
What they should be doing is looking into a case against McDonnell Douglas. Makers of the AH-64.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a92_1181022062

"Let us know when you want us to smoke these mother****ers."

CHIEF4EVER
06-05-2007, 11:23 AM
The only Americans being protected by the Patriot Act are in Washington. As far as regular Americans go, the Patriot Act does no favors. It's among the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted. Fighting against the Patriot Act is defending Americans!
This is one of the few things you and I agree on. The 'Patriot Act' is a f*cking joke.

Brock
06-05-2007, 11:30 AM
The suit charged that Jeppesen helped the CIA transport the three plaintiffs to secret locations in Egypt and Morocco, where the company knew they would undergo torture, Middle East Newsline reported.

Good luck proving that.

StcChief
06-05-2007, 11:48 AM
This should be very short and sweet. I wonder where
American Civil Liberties Union gets off on defending NON-American citizens.

This must be a get your name out there again campaign

Ultra Peanut
06-05-2007, 12:08 PM
BAN THE ACLU

WoodDraw
06-05-2007, 01:14 PM
This should be very short and sweet. I wonder where
American Civil Liberties Union gets off on defending NON-American citizens.

This must be a get your name out there again campaign

Under the law passed by Congress saying they could? Silly laws...

Brock
06-05-2007, 02:05 PM
This should be very short and sweet. I wonder where
American Civil Liberties Union gets off on defending NON-American citizens.

This must be a get your name out there again campaign

It's about Boeing's deep pockets.

Duck Dog
06-05-2007, 03:49 PM
I wish hippies would f uc kin g die already.

StcChief
06-05-2007, 04:02 PM
Heard an ACLU head on local talk radio. They defend both sides Rep/Dem if they think a civil liberties isthe issue... Selective in nature what they take on....

Never heard of them defending Non-Americans. AlQueda Terrorist suspects

Duck Dog
06-05-2007, 04:49 PM
Heard an ACLU head on local talk radio. They defend both sides Rep/Dem if they think a civil liberties isthe issue... Selective in nature what they take on....

Never heard of them defending Non-Americans. AlQueda Terrorist suspects


They'll defend anybody. KKK, terrorists, Nazis, Liberals.

noa
06-05-2007, 04:52 PM
KKK, terrorists, Nazis, Liberals.

LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-05-2007, 04:57 PM
I wish hippies would f uc kin g die already.

Seriously dude, show a modicum of class. At least respect the filter.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 06:31 PM
I agree. By accepting the contract they accepted the future consequences. I don't know if there is a case here or not, but we'll find out. I don't buy the patriotic, for the good of the country defense. That's nothing but crap with no legal standing.

Why do you think we have sovereign immunity if not for the good of the country?

WoodDraw
06-05-2007, 08:39 PM
Why do you think we have sovereign immunity if not for the good of the country?

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends."

People, and therefore corporations, enjoy no such protection. Immunity doesn't exist on patriotic grounds; it exists based on the logic and practicality of law.

Nightwish
06-05-2007, 09:34 PM
They'll defend anybody. KKK, terrorists, Nazis, Liberals.
... Christians, Jews, Catholics, Conservatives, Neocons, teachers, lawyers, doctors, politicians ...

WoodDraw
06-05-2007, 11:08 PM
... Christians, Jews, Catholics, Conservatives, Neocons, teachers, lawyers, doctors, politicians ...

I've never understood the exagerated criticism of the ACLU. Their purpose lends itself towards extreme views, but they are consistent. See Eugene Volokh for some rational conservative discussion of the ACLU.

Logical
06-05-2007, 11:31 PM
It's about Boeing's deep pockets.Yup

patteeu
06-05-2007, 11:38 PM
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends."

People, and therefore corporations, enjoy no such protection. Immunity doesn't exist on patriotic grounds; it exists based on the logic and practicality of law.

What you quoted is an excuse for why sovereign immunity should be continued even after we've abandoned the idea that the "King can't be wrong" but the real reason we have sovereign immunity is because it would be impractical to govern without it. The good of the country is served by avoiding the paralysis that would come from lifting the shield of sovereign immunity. It's not a matter of patriotism, it's a matter of the good of the country and the practical requirements for being able to govern, IMO.

You're right that people and corporations don't have this protection, but to the extent that a corporation is doing the bidding of the government and acting as an extension of the government, the policy reasons for shielding the government from suit are similarly present.

WoodDraw
06-05-2007, 11:47 PM
What you quoted is an excuse for why sovereign immunity should be continued even after we've abandoned the idea that the "King can't be wrong" but the real reason we have sovereign immunity is because it would be impractical to govern without it. The good of the country is served by avoiding the paralysis that would come from lifting the shield of sovereign immunity. It's not a matter of patriotism, it's a matter of the good of the country and the practical requirements for being able to govern, IMO.

You're right that people and corporations don't have this protection, but to the extent that a corporation is doing the bidding of the government and acting as an extension of the government, the policy reasons for shielding the government from suit are similarly present.

Corporations aren't extensions of the government though, and shouldn't be treated as such out of convenience. If a corporation commits a crime, they shouldn't be immune because they were being contracted by the government. Your beliefs are based on politics, not law. The lasting implications and potential for abuse are immense.


My quote also comes from a well known SC ruling on sovereign immunity, but the rational behind it isn't all that important to this discussion.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 12:02 AM
Corporations aren't extensions of the government though, and shouldn't be treated as such out of convenience. If a corporation commits a crime, they shouldn't be immune because they were being contracted by the government. Your beliefs are based on politics, not law. The lasting implications and potential for abuse are immense.


My quote also comes from a well known SC ruling on sovereign immunity, but the rational behind it isn't all that important to this discussion.

Yeah, I recognized it, but can you tell me that you really find it a compelling quote? I don't.

And this, as I'm sure you are aware despite what you said in your post, isn't about committing a crime.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 12:35 AM
Yeah, I recognized it, but can you tell me that you really find it a compelling quote? I don't.

I was just correcting your definition. Sovereign immunity exists almost as a trueism. You have no legal authority against the body that holds all legal authority. In reality, sovereign immunity is generally waived.

And this, as I'm sure you are aware despite what you said in your post, isn't about committing a crime.

I don't know what 'this' refers to? If you mean this case, how do I know if a crime was committed? That's irrelavent. I can sue you right now saying you killed my pet Alfred, whether true or not. A judge decides whether there is enough evidence or not; no immunity is needed. If Boeing did nothing wrong than they have nothing to fear. Justice, when left alone, actually works pretty damn well.

Logical
06-06-2007, 01:12 AM
I was just correcting your definition. Sovereign immunity exists almost as a trueism. You have no legal authority against the body that holds all legal authority. In reality, sovereign immunity is generally waived.



I don't know what 'this' refers to? If you mean this case, how do I know if a crime was committed? That's irrelavent. I can sue you right now saying you killed my pet Alfred, whether true or not. A judge decides whether there is enough evidence or not; no immunity is needed. If Boeing did nothing wrong than they have nothing to fear. Justice, when left alone, actually works pretty damn well.Nothing to fear except legal fees that might range into the millions.

trndobrd
06-06-2007, 01:35 AM
Nothing to fear except legal fees that might range into the millions.


Cha-Ching!

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 01:41 AM
Corporations aren't extensions of the government though, and shouldn't be treated as such out of convenience. If a corporation commits a crime, they shouldn't be immune because they were being contracted by the government. Your beliefs are based on politics, not law. The lasting implications and potential for abuse are immense.

My quote also comes from a well known SC ruling on sovereign immunity, but the rational behind it isn't all that important to this discussion.

Nothing to fear except legal fees that might range into the millions.

That's why I'd like to see sovereign immunity extended to corporations that are acting on behalf of the government, at least in regard to civil cases (except in cases of gross negligence or reckless endangerment, and I can't agree that that standard would apply in the issue at hand. Maybe that's why they'd probably kick my ass out of the jury pool via peremptory challenge in short order.)

The ACLU is looking for a pay day here, IMO, and I can't support that kind of manipulation of the legal system. (Note, WoodDraw, that I don't think we have a justice system at all. Ours is just a legal system. It's a minor point, but since you said something about "Justice" being left alone a couple of posts ago, I thought I'd take the opportunity to say something that didn't really deserve its own post as an isolated point.)

Corporations will often settle in cases such as these to avoid protracted and costly legal entanglements, and possibly exhorbitant damage awards. That smacks of extortion, and there have been times when I've wondered why RICO hasn't been used against the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Rainbow Coalition, et al.

Caveat: I'm not trained in the law. I may be waaaaay over my head.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 01:43 AM
Nothing to fear except legal fees that might range into the millions.

That logic precludes all lawsuits. If the case is frivilous then it will be dismissed. If not, it deserves to move forward. You guys aren't the first people to think of these problems. Legal fee's can be reimbursed.

trndobrd
06-06-2007, 01:54 AM
That logic precludes all lawsuits. If the case is frivilous then it will be dismissed. If not, it deserves to move forward. You guys aren't the first people to think of these problems. Legal fee's can be reimbursed.

That rarely happens.

The ALCU isn't really in it for payday purposes. I haven't seen the details of the cause of action against Boeing or what tortious action they allegedly committed against the plaintiffs, but this smells more like a publicity stunt.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 02:08 AM
Well first, the ACLU is a non-profit organization. They aren't in it for a payday, they are in it to get a judicial ruling on the issue. They can't sue the government, so they are going after Boeing. That's fairly simple. Say it is a publicity stunt if you want, but that is irrelavent to the issue.

Second, sovereign immunity can't be extended; it just is what it is. There is no constitutional provision that gives Congress the power to grant broad immunity. Congress has limited authority to strip federal courts of jurisdiction, but that power is extremely limited.

Third, Boeing knows what they are doing. By accepting the contract, they accepted the possibility of future consequences. Does anyone really think that a company signs a contract with the CIA without their legal department literally spending hours discussing it? Come on.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 02:27 AM
Well first, the ACLU is a non-profit organization. They aren't in it for a payday, they are in it to get a judicial ruling on the issue.

Nonprofit corporations can't retain profits. That only means that they have to distribute any money that comes into the corporation to the owners/shareholders/employees of the corporation. The people involved in the ownership of the corporation are allowed to collect all of the revenues that come into "nonprofit" corporations.

The corporation can't profit, but the people who run the corporation can become wealthy as long as the income is given to them instead of retained inside the corporation.

I wasn't trained in the legal system, but I'll give you a lesson on how business entities and the tax system works any time.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 02:56 AM
Nonprofit corporations can't retain profits. That only means that they have to distribute any money that comes into the corporation to the owners/shareholders/employees of the corporation. The people involved in the ownership of the corporation are allowed to collect all of the revenues that come into "nonprofit" corporations.

The corporation can't profit, but the people who run the corporation can become wealthy as long as the income is given to them instead of retained inside the corporation.

I wasn't trained in the legal system, but I'll give you a lesson on how business entities and the tax system works any time.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant to tie that more in with the second part of the paragraph. The ACLU files a good amount of its suits against governments which are protected against monetary rewards. Normally, they get nothing but lawyers fees. In this case, they can't sue the government, so they are sueing Boeing. If they lose, which they almost certainly will, they get nothing. If this is a scheme by them to make money it might be the worst scheme ever created.

trndobrd
06-06-2007, 08:58 AM
Well first, the ACLU is a non-profit organization. They aren't in it for a payday, they are in it to get a judicial ruling on the issue. They can't sue the government, so they are going after Boeing. That's fairly simple. Say it is a publicity stunt if you want, but that is irrelavent to the issue.

Second, sovereign immunity can't be extended; it just is what it is. There is no constitutional provision that gives Congress the power to grant broad immunity. Congress has limited authority to strip federal courts of jurisdiction, but that power is extremely limited.

Third, Boeing knows what they are doing. By accepting the contract, they accepted the possibility of future consequences. Does anyone really think that a company signs a contract with the CIA without their legal department literally spending hours discussing it? Come on.


The publicity factor is very relevant. The ALCU is in the publicity business.

Sovereign immunity isn't really the issue since it is only a jurisdictional defense. The issue will be proving some tortious action on the part of Boeing. However, I am curious if you are reference a specific case which excludes corporate entities acting at the direction of a government agency from having immunity.

Yes, you are cetainly correct about the future consequences. We can all rest easy, no doubt Boeing ensured there were a generous indemnity and hold harmless clauses in the contract.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 07:29 PM
I was just correcting your definition. Sovereign immunity exists almost as a trueism. You have no legal authority against the body that holds all legal authority. In reality, sovereign immunity is generally waived.

I didn't give a definition. So anyway, do you find that definition compelling?

I don't know what 'this' refers to? If you mean this case, how do I know if a crime was committed? That's irrelavent. I can sue you right now saying you killed my pet Alfred, whether true or not. A judge decides whether there is enough evidence or not; no immunity is needed. If Boeing did nothing wrong than they have nothing to fear. Justice, when left alone, actually works pretty damn well.

I do mean "this case" and it's not irrelevant since you described it as a crime. I was just correcting you.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 08:30 PM
I didn't give a definition. So anyway, do you find that definition compelling?

Sure. Sovereign immunity exists, but largely as a legal principle. I'm not saying the government doesn't use it on occasion, but they generally consent to be sued in all reasonable cases. The further one moves from the actual government institutions, the less the courts have upheld immunity. Many, including the beloved Scalia, argue that sovereign immunity shouldn't even be applied to federal officials. There is no immunity given to independant corporations and, as far as I can tell, Congress has no power to change that.

I do mean "this case" and it's not irrelevant since you described it as a crime. I was just correcting you.

Let's go back and look at what I said:

"Corporations aren't extensions of the government though, and shouldn't be treated as such out of convenience. If a corporation commits a crime, they shouldn't be immune because they were being contracted by the government. Your beliefs are based on politics, not law. The lasting implications and potential for abuse are immense.

Notice the word if and the generic word "corporation". I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to figure out if a crime was committed here. I don't know, and neither do you. Again, that's what we have courts for. No immunity is needed if a crime didn't take place.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 08:37 PM
Sure. Sovereign immunity exists, but largely as a legal principle. I'm not saying the government doesn't use it on occasion, but they generally consent to be sued in all reasonable cases. The further one moves from the actual government institutions, the less the courts have upheld immunity. Many, including the beloved Scalia, argue that sovereign immunity shouldn't even be applied to federal officials. There is no immunity given to independant corporations and, as far as I can tell, Congress has no power to change that.



Let's go back and look at what I said:

"Corporations aren't extensions of the government though, and shouldn't be treated as such out of convenience. If a corporation commits a crime, they shouldn't be immune because they were being contracted by the government. Your beliefs are based on politics, not law. The lasting implications and potential for abuse are immense.

Notice the word if and the generic word "corporation". I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to figure out if a crime was committed here. I don't know, and neither do you. Again, that's what we have courts for. No immunity is needed if a crime didn't take place.

I stand corrected on the fact that you were making a general point rather than calling this instance a crime. On your other point though, we do know that this lawsuit is not a criminal case.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 08:52 PM
I stand corrected on the fact that you were making a general point rather than calling this instance a crime. On your other point though, we do know that this lawsuit is not a criminal case.

Well yes, but again, I'm not using the legal definition of a crime. By crime, I mean something illegal. Criminal chages obviously won't be filed.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 09:38 PM
Well yes, but again, I'm not using the legal definition of a crime. By crime, I mean something illegal. Criminal chages obviously won't be filed.

Ok, fair enough.