Thread: The ACLU sues an American company for helping the war effort.

Divide and Litigate
The ACLU sues an American company for helping the war effort.

BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


President Bush must envy Franklin Roosevelt. Although he faced a difficult two-front war in Asia and Europe, after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt led a united nation.

The popular wartime slogans--formulated as often as not by government information officers who would today be called propagandists--emphasized political, social and economic solidarity. "Together, We Win" emphasized a famous poster, showing the hands of labor and management brought together by Uncle Sam. Those days, unfortunately, are long gone.

From the very beginning of the war on terror, there has been strong and vocal opposition, both to the war itself and to the Bush administration's wartime policies. This opposition has been celebrated and encouraged by much of the media and, consistent with America's favorite pastime, has increasingly taken the form of litigation in the courts.

The government itself has, of course, been subject to a blizzard of lawsuits. Virtually every aspect of the administration's war on terror-related policies--from the USA Patriot Act, to the use of military commissions to try captured al Qaeda members for war crimes, to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, so-called data mining, no-fly lists and related transportation security measures--has been challenged in court. On balance the courts have upheld the administration's actions, or required relatively modest changes--or additional congressional action in the case of military commissions. Significantly, the Supreme Court has accepted the legality of the president's adoption of a "laws of war paradigm."

It is, therefore, not surprising that the war's opponents have shifted tack. On May 30, 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary specializing in air flight planning services, in the federal district court in northern California. The suit alleges that Jeppesen provided air flight services to the CIA as part of the agency's "extraordinary rendition" program, through which the three plaintiffs--citizens of Ethiopia, Italy and Egypt--were supposedly transferred to Pakistani, Moroccan and Egyptian custody, where they were wrongfully imprisoned and abused, up to and including torture.

The ACLU case is based on the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, which gives the federal courts authority to hear civil claims for certain narrowly drawn breaches of customary international law. It's a real stretch. As the Supreme Court stressed in its most recent ATS case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), that law permits suits only where the alleged offense is firmly established as a violation of international law for which individuals are entitled to be compensated. These are very few and far between. Indeed, in the Sosa case the court specifically rejected a claim for ATS relief based upon the forcible abduction of a Mexican physician--wanted for alleged complicity in the death of a DEA agent--and his transfer to authorities in the U.S. The defendant in that case was far more directly involved in the alleged misconduct than was Jeppesen.


Assuming that the case is not thrown out because of the well-recognized "state secrets" privilege--as was a similar claim brought by Maher Arar, a Canadian rendered by the U.S. authorities to Syria--the ACLU's complaint should quickly be dismissed for failing to state a legally cognizable claim. Jeppesen did not abuse the plaintiffs. It allegedly provided flight services, such as flight plans, ground service and weather reports, to the CIA agents who rendered the plaintiffs to foreign officials. There is nothing illegal about that, or about the practice of rendition itself. This is a longstanding practice whereby one country transfers a prisoner to another country regardless of whether they have a formal extradition treaty.

Extraordinary rendition in terror cases has, in fact, been a bipartisan practice, used both by Democratic and Republican presidents, beginning well before the 9/11 attacks. Although it has strained U.S.-European relations in recent years, extraordinary rendition does not violate international law; and this is true even when the detainee is rendered to a country with a poor human rights record.


In cases that pose a real risk that a particular detainee will be abused by the receiving state, it is incumbent upon the sending state to obtain sufficient assurances, as a condition of the transfer, that the individual will be treated lawfully and humanely.

Indeed, despite the general condemnation of U.S. renditions by the European media and EU institutions, a number of European states--as part of their own post-9/11 antiterrorism measures--have sought to transfer or deport individuals to countries with human-rights concerns based on exactly such assurances. However, transport companies like Jeppesen are neither in a position to know the particulars of these agreements nor to monitor their implementation, and are moreover entitled to assume that the government agencies they service are themselves acting lawfully.

Leaving aside the lack of legal merit, the ACLU's claims are part of a highly troubling new trend. They are of a piece with a number of other ATS lawsuits brought against government contractors, actions filed last year against telecommunications companies alleging that they violated federally protected privacy rights by cooperating with the NSA's data-collection efforts, and an action, filed last March in Minnesota, against several airline passengers who had reported what they believed to be suspicious activity by a group of Muslim imams. The government enjoys legal immunities and other advantages in litigation that private citizens do not have. Moreover, for a private individual, a lawsuit, however meritless, can mean personal financial ruin and, at a minimum, significant disruption in his life. Corporations are similarly subject to costly and distracting litigation.

These are real advantages from an antiwar activist's perspective, since the result is likely to be a marked aversion by the citizenry in general, and government contractors in particular, to engage in conduct, however lawful, supporting the war. This alteration in the corporate mind set, such that risk-averse companies, no matter how patriotic their management, would find it safer to say no to any war-related requests from the federal government is very likely the goal of at least some activists.


Divided nations can, of course, win wars. Throughout the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln faced a vocal and determined antiwar effort in the North, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt had to defend various of their policies in the courts. Even Lincoln, however, did not have to deal with antiwar efforts targeting private citizens who were themselves supporting the government's war effort. That is new, and it will make fighting and winning the war against terror all the more difficult.

Messrs. Rivkin & Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

So what source did you get this steaming pile of partisan crap from?

It complains about a "blizzard" of lawsuits. But, I do not see it mention that in those suits it have been repeatedly proven that Bush's politices have violated the Constitution, international law, federal law and the UCMJ.

Fuck any comapny that helps Bush violate the Constitution and law. They deserve to be sued and based on the track record, they will most likely lose as they should.

Why are you so insistent on defending a proven criminal administration at the expense of the Constitution and the "rule of law"?

Why do you attack those that have stopped Dear Leader from making himself a one man government and legal system?

Are you a fan of dictatorship?

Why do you hate the Constitution and laws of this country?

The ACLU should be called the AlQaeda Civil Liberties Union based on it's efforts to protect and support the rights of terrorists, thugs and murderers.

The relevant passages I want to highlight illustrate the nonsensical positions taken by Leftist organizations like these:

From the very beginning of the war on terror, there has been strong and vocal opposition, both to the war itself and to the Bush administration's wartime policies. This opposition has been celebrated and encouraged by much of the media and, consistent with America's favorite pastime, has increasingly taken the form of litigation in the courts.

The government itself has, of course, been subject to a blizzard of lawsuits. Virtually every aspect of the administration's war on terror-related policies--from the USA Patriot Act, to the use of military commissions to try captured al Qaeda members for war crimes, to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, so-called data mining, no-fly lists and related transportation security measures--has been challenged in court. On balance the courts have upheld the administration's actions, or required relatively modest changes--or additional congressional action in the case of military commissions. Significantly, the Supreme Court has accepted the legality of the president's adoption of a "laws of war paradigm."

Unlike many of my opponents on the Left who prefer censoreship, i would never suggest shutting down the ACLU for being the nonsensical organization that it is. I prefer to point out their blatant stupidity for the types of cases it decides to take.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The ACLU should be called the AlQaeda Civil Liberties Union based on it's efforts to protect and support the rights of terrorists, thugs and murderers.

The relevant passages I want to highlight illustrate the nonsensical positions taken by Leftist organizations like these:

From the very beginning of the war on terror, there has been strong and vocal opposition, both to the war itself and to the Bush administration's wartime policies. This opposition has been celebrated and encouraged by much of the media and, consistent with America's favorite pastime, has increasingly taken the form of litigation in the courts.

The government itself has, of course, been subject to a blizzard of lawsuits. Virtually every aspect of the administration's war on terror-related policies--from the USA Patriot Act, to the use of military commissions to try captured al Qaeda members for war crimes, to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, so-called data mining, no-fly lists and related transportation security measures--has been challenged in court. On balance the courts have upheld the administration's actions, or required relatively modest changes--or additional congressional action in the case of military commissions. Significantly, the Supreme Court has accepted the legality of the president's adoption of a "laws of war paradigm."

Unlike many of my opponents on the Left who prefer censoreship, i would never suggest shutting down the ACLU for being the nonsensical organization that it is. I prefer to point out their blatant stupidity for the types of cases it decides to take.

Yeah, I read that lie. "On blance" the courts have struck down most of his illegal programs entirely declaring them violations of the Constitution, international law, federal law and the UCJM.

Only the most biased and partisan source (still want to know where you got this lying crap BTW) could look at all of those rulings and somehow conclude that even one was a victory for bush or upheld any of his law breaking. It is totally false.

This article is laughable and full of shit, from the legal facts to the opinions.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Divide and Litigate
The ACLU sues an American company for helping the war effort.

BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


Moroccan and Egyptian custody, where they were wrongfully imprisoned and abused, up to and including torture.

The ACLU case is based on the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, which gives the federal courts authority to hear civil claims for certain narrowly drawn breaches of customary international law. It's a real stretch. As the Supreme Court stressed in its most recent ATS case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), that law permits suits only where the alleged offense is firmly established as a violation of international law for which individuals are entitled to be compensated. These are very few and far between. Indeed, in the Sosa case the court specifically rejected a claim for ATS relief based upon the forcible abduction of a Mexican physician--wanted for alleged complicity in the death of a DEA agent--and his transfer to authorities in the U.S. The defendant in that case was far more directly involved in the alleged misconduct than was Jeppesen.


Assuming that the case is not thrown out because of the well-recognized "state secrets" privilege--as was a similar claim brought by Maher Arar, a Canadian rendered by the U.S. authorities to Syria--the ACLU's complaint should quickly be dismissed for failing to state a legally cognizable claim. Jeppesen did not abuse the plaintiffs. It allegedly provided flight services, such as flight plans, ground service and weather reports, to the CIA agents who rendered the plaintiffs to foreign officials. There is nothing illegal about that, or about the practice of rendition itself. This is a longstanding practice whereby one country transfers a prisoner to another country regardless of whether they have a formal extradition treaty.

Extraordinary rendition in terror cases has, in fact, been a bipartisan practice, used both by Democratic and Republican presidents, beginning well before the 9/11 attacks. Although it has strained U.S.-European relations in recent years, extraordinary rendition does not violate international law; and this is true even when the detainee is rendered to a country with a poor human rights record.


In cases that pose a real risk that a particular detainee will be abused by the receiving state, it is incumbent upon the sending state to obtain sufficient assurances, as a condition of the transfer, that the individual will be treated lawfully and humanely.

Indeed, despite the general condemnation of U.S. renditions by the European media and EU institutions, a number of European states--as part of their own post-9/11 antiterrorism measures--have sought to transfer or deport individuals to countries with human-rights concerns based on exactly such assurances. However, transport companies like Jeppesen are neither in a position to know the particulars of these agreements nor to monitor their implementation, and are moreover entitled to assume that the government agencies they service are themselves acting lawfully.

Leaving aside the lack of legal merit, the ACLU's claims are part of a highly troubling new trend. They are of a piece with a number of other ATS lawsuits brought against government contractors, actions filed last year against telecommunications companies alleging that they violated federally protected privacy rights by cooperating with the NSA's data-collection efforts, and an action, filed last March in Minnesota, against several airline passengers who had reported what they believed to be suspicious activity by a group of Muslim imams. The government enjoys legal immunities and other advantages in litigation that private citizens do not have. Moreover, for a private individual, a lawsuit, however meritless, can mean personal financial ruin and, at a minimum, significant disruption in his life. Corporations are similarly subject to costly and distracting litigation.

These are real advantages from an antiwar activist's perspective, since the result is likely to be a marked aversion by the citizenry in general, and government contractors in particular, to engage in conduct, however lawful, supporting the war. This alteration in the corporate mind set, such that risk-averse companies, no matter how patriotic their management, would find it safer to say no to any war-related requests from the federal government is very likely the goal of at least some activists.


Divided nations can, of course, win wars. Throughout the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln faced a vocal and determined antiwar effort in the North, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt had to defend various of their policies in the courts. Even Lincoln, however, did not have to deal with antiwar efforts targeting private citizens who were themselves supporting the government's war effort. That is new, and it will make fighting and winning the war against terror all the more difficult.

Messrs. Rivkin & Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from

Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

Interesting op ed piece, but it is just an op ed piece.


Some interesting quotes from it with a bit of commentary.

“The ACLU case is based on the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, which gives the federal courts authority to hear civil claims for certain narrowly drawn breaches of customary international law. It's a real stretch. As the Supreme Court stressed in its most recent ATS case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), that law permits suits only where the alleged offense is firmly established as a violation of international law for which individuals are entitled to be compensated.“

Okay. It’s a real stretch according to your piece. Let them fight it out in court. If they have done nothing wrong, then I expect they will be vindicated.

“Indeed, despite the general condemnation of U.S. renditions by the European media and EU institutions, a number of European states--as part of their own post-9/11 antiterrorism measures--have sought to transfer or deport individuals to countries with human-rights concerns based on exactly such assurances.”

Deporting criminals to their home countries? Novel idea those Euros have, but it’s making an unfair comparison in this case. Apples and oranges.


“Leaving aside the lack of legal merit, the ACLU's claims are part of a highly troubling new trend. They are of a piece with a number of other ATS lawsuits brought against government contractors, actions filed last year against telecommunications companies alleging that they violated federally protected privacy rights by cooperating with the NSA's data-collection efforts, and an action, filed last March in Minnesota, against several airline passengers who had reported what they believed to be suspicious activity by a group of Muslim imams. The government enjoys legal immunities and other advantages”

We have a right to privacy, and those people have a right to pray. Constitutionally guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

So what source did you get this steaming pile of partisan crap from?

You have as much difficulty with reading comprehension as you do with coherent thinking don't you?

Originally Posted by Distressed American

It complains about a "blizzard" of lawsuits. But, I do not see it mention that in those suits it have been repeatedly proven that Bush's politices have violated the Constitution, international law, federal law and the UCMJ.

Your statements that those suits have repeatedly proved Bush's policies are violations of the Constitution are figments of your imagination. I'd like for you to illustrate which cases out of the hundreds that have been brought, have been violations of the constitution.

I look forward to a credible list with resulting decisions.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Why are you so insistent on defending a proven criminal administration at the expense of the Constitution and the "rule of law"?

Your statements are profound in their ignorance and nonsense. You have yet to provide one example of criminal activity by this administration and violations of constitutional law.

The only steaming pile of bile appears to be that which you spew forth on these forums with such reckless abandon; Reckless with the truth, reckless with your impugning this Administration and reckless abuse of the facts.

You illustrate the profound ignorance one has to deal with when debating those on the left. You spew your emotional bile with such fluid ease it is hard to determine what is an outright distortion, a lie, and outright nonsense.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Why do you attack those that have stopped Dear Leader from making himself a one man government and legal system?

This is just more of your emotional nonsense. I find your use of the term "dear leader" when referring to the President of the United States to be an offensive reference to a despotic dictator. Your efforts to enter into the circle of stupidity are duly noted.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Are you a fan of dictatorship?

Obviously you are a fan of nonsensical rhetoric without any reference to facts or reality. Your efforts to enter into the circle of stupidity are once more duly noted.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Why do you hate the Constitution and laws of this country?

Where have I stated that I hate the Constitution? Do you just make up this idiotic nonsense as you go?

I suppose you think that anyone who challenges your nonsense is against the Constitution and the rule of law. How completely inane and presumptuous can anyone be?

I suggest that you seek professional help for that profound denial you are in.

Remember, denial leads to ignorance, don't do denial.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Yeah, I read that lie. "On blance" the courts have struck down most of his illegal programs entirely declaring them violations of the Constitution, international law, federal law and the UCJM.

Why don't you share which cases they were, and what the final legal decision was instead of filling this thread with your emotional absurdities?

I know it is asking for some intellectual effort, something which you illustrate a propensity for avoiding.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Why don't you share which cases they were, and what the final legal decision was instead of filling this thread with your emotional absurdities?

I know it is asking for some intellectual effort, something which you illustrate a propensity for avoiding.

You know Truth, I will come out and say it. Your obviously a smart guy, and I actually do enjoy debating you as it is a challenge, but have you ever noticed you close every post with some sort of derogatory or snide remark? It really detracts from myself having just that much more respect for you, and not befitting the level of intellect of which you are certainly capable.

Try taking the high road. It really does make life easier.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

“Leaving aside the lack of legal merit, the ACLU's claims are part of a highly troubling new trend. They are of a piece with a number of other ATS lawsuits brought against government contractors, actions filed last year against telecommunications companies alleging that they violated federally protected privacy rights by cooperating with the NSA's data-collection efforts, and an action, filed last March in Minnesota, against several airline passengers who had reported what they believed to be suspicious activity by a group of Muslim imams. The government enjoys legal immunities and other advantages”

We have a right to privacy, and those people have a right to pray. Constitutionally guaranteed.

They have the right to pray, but not to the degree where it interferes with others rights. It's illegal to shout fire in a crowded auditorium. It is also illegal to make threats and act suspicious when getting onto an airplane. I find it telling when people cannot distinguish the difference between the two.

Sorry Think, but I don't condone any behavior that would put fear into the majority of other passengers in a deliberate effort to provoke a response.

Any Muslim who thinks it is sport to scare the hell out of their fellow passengers SHOULD be removed and the airliner has the RIGHT to remove them at their discretion if they believe that it threatens the safety of the aircraft and other passengers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Why don't you share which cases they were, and what the final legal decision was instead of filling this thread with your emotional absurdities?

I know it is asking for some intellectual effort, something which you illustrate a propensity for avoiding.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

You know Truth, I will come out and say it. Your obviously a smart guy, and I actually do enjoy debating you as it is a challenge, but have you ever noticed you close every post with some sort of derogatory or snide remark? It really detracts from myself having just that much more respect for you, and not befitting the level of intellect of which you are certainly capable.

Try taking the high road. It really does make life easier.

Think, I don't end "every" post with some sort of derogatory remark. If you notice, it is reserved for those who spend a great deal of their time being total morons. If you are debating with intellectual honesty, you won't see me being condescending to you. If I am, then I apologize in advance for it.

I am not here for a popularity contest. If someone is being a total moron and disingenuous here, I call them on it. Sorry you find it so offensive. To be honest and fair, show me where ANY of Distressed comments above are anything remotely honest or intellectual or an attempt at debate?

Perhaps you are more tolerant of ignorance than I am. I prefer to call it when I see it.