Page 1 of 3
ACLU sues Boeing over CIA transfers
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:37 pm
by MorbidKate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18938494/
"Boeing sued over CIA transfers
Company accused of transporting abducted foreigners to overseas prisons
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:09 a.m. ET May 30, 2007
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union is suing a unit of Boeing Co., charging that it assisted the Central Intelligence Agency in secretly abducting suspect foreigners to overseas prisons where they were held and interrogated.
The ACLU said it would file a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing unit that provides flight and logistics support to plane operators, later on Wednesday.
The suit, to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is on behalf of three people the ACLU said had been abducted by the CIA.
"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable."
At least 1,245 CIA flights are alleged to have been made into or over Europe in the four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, a European Parliament report said earlier this year.
Washington acknowledges the secret transfer of suspects to third countries but denies torturing them or handing them over to countries that did. A call to Jeppesen seeking comment on the suit was not immediately returned.
The ACLU also said on Wednesday that it would ask the Supreme Court to review the dismissal of a lawsuit against former CIA Director George Tenet and 10 CIA employees by a German who says he was kidnapped and tortured by the spy agency about three years ago.
In March a U.S. appeals court upheld the dismissal of the suit, brought by Khaled el-Masri, a German of Lebanese origin, after agreeing with U.S. government arguments that moving forward with the case would pose a risk of exposing state secrets.
El-Masri was arrested in Macedonia in late 2003 and says he was handed over to the CIA, who flew him to Afghanistan and wrongly held him until his release in late May 2004.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:56 pm
by Rotku
Wouldn't it be easier to file a case against the CIA?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:08 pm
by MorbidKate
Rotku wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to file a case against the CIA?
Nope.
El- Masri and Canadian Maher Arar tried to sue the CIA in federal court but their cases were dismissed on grounds that they would reveal state secrets. Even if those secrets were about illegal activities.
Gotta love the "State Secret Ploy". Works every time.
Kate
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:59 pm
by Rotku
Not very democratic, is it? Shouldn't all sectors of government be accountable in the high courts? I thought there would be something in the constitution about that.
Surely they could do the same with boeing? I mean, if they are been had up for assisting the CIA, wouldn't that require state secrets as well? It certainly wouldn't look well for the CIA, if boeing does get found guilty - not going to make any other big businesses rush to help the CIA in future.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:15 pm
by Mulu
Boeing has limited security clearance. It's actually a pretty creative tactic, given the stonewall of state secrets against suing the US.
Ideally, the CIA would simply be investigated by a Special Prosecutor, but that isn't going to happen. More ideally, we'd submit all these bastards to an international war crimes tribunal, but that *really* isn't going to happen.
The ACLU is doing the smart thing, going after the target they can.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:29 pm
by BalvinSlice
Follow the money..
To get the CIA money, you need to have the government admit guilt, not possible.
To get Boeing money, you need to make a stink and get the stock price to drop, then get them to settle out of court, very possible.
As for the grab, bag, and drop.... nasty business and stupid cause you always get caught.
Yes, the CIA flew these poor SOBs home. And of course, the US is to blame that countries like Egypt that have no civil liberties and torture people. Maybe the ACLU should sue Egypt? How about they sue North Korea, Iran, China, hell... most countries for lack of civil liberties and torturing people?
Oh thats right they are the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION!
But wait, I thought these guys were not Americans and were tortured and held in non American countries. Wait... why Boeing? oh the FRIGGING MONEY!
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:46 pm
by Lusipher
The ACLU is a freaking joke. Any cause they can stick their necks into that is against the governement they get into. They dont care about the outcome. its insane too, since the ACLU gets funding from the government.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:53 pm
by Mikayla
Dan:
The ACLU is a freaking joke. Any cause they can stick their necks into that is against the governement they get into. They dont care about the outcome. its insane too, since the ACLU gets funding from the government.
1. I know folks at the ACLU personally, and trust me, they care about the outcome. Its why they all take pay cuts to go work at the ACLU - they care about civil liberties.
2. I don't believe they receive government funding - here is what their website says:
The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.
If you have a credible source that shows the ACLU does receive government funding, I would be happy to check it out.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:44 am
by Zakharra
Mik, I think this is what he's referring to:
Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the
district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the
Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be
exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United
States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object,
or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable
remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as
modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State
wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to
and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the
cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of
punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such
officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such
officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.
The bold faced parts specifically. I've heard of something like that. The ACLU, among others gets money for winning cases. I'm no law expert
You, Mulu and others have proven that easily enough.
So I could (very likely
) be wrong about what the passage says.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:48 am
by Swift
Zakharra wrote: The bold faced parts specifically. I've heard of something like that. The ACLU, among others gets money for winning cases. I'm no law expert
You, Mulu and others have proven that easily enough.
So I could (very likely
) be wrong about what the passage says.
Thats hardly a crushing indictment against the ACLU though, isn't it a fairly regular thing that the party on the losing end of most types of lawsuits get ordered to pay the fees of the winner?
Also, that is hardly government funding
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:55 am
by Mikayla
Indeed, that is certainly not government funding - and look at the requirement - they have to be the prevailing party in a civil rights case. In other words, they only get paid attorney's fees IF they successfully advocate for someone's civil rights. Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? That people who successfully help others gain/enforce their civil rights get attorney's fees? It does not seem like a bad thing to me - seems, I dunno, like justice.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:11 am
by gribo
Few other companies to sue: GM, People get killed in car accidents? Colt , The CIA must have guns, right? Lockheed martin, Fighter jets kill people, IBM, The CIA must have computers, no?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:25 am
by Zakharra
Mikayla wrote:Indeed, that is certainly not government funding - and look at the requirement - they have to be the prevailing party in a civil rights case. In other words, they only get paid attorney's fees IF they successfully advocate for someone's civil rights. Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? That people who successfully help others gain/enforce their civil rights get attorney's fees? It does not seem like a bad thing to me - seems, I dunno, like justice.
I know, I know. I've heard that they do get it somehow, but my Search skill isn't high enough and I'd get lost in the legalese too easily. The search engine gave me a bunch of nutjob websites, so I didn't use those and back tracked to the specific US legal code that they mentioned, to be sure they weren't slanting things.
Danu, if you got some proof, link'em please?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:30 am
by Grand Fromage
Danubus having to provide evidence for an assertion, eh?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:03 am
by Zakharra
Grand Fromage wrote:Danubus having to provide evidence for an assertion, eh?
Yes. Just saying things will get you burned, as has happened to me in the forums, so good credable links or at the least ones that are not extreme left/right leaning. If you say it, you should be able to back it up.