Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
When Your Detainees Absolutely, Positively Need To Get There Overnight...
Apparently, the CIA contracts out for the delivery of torture suspects. At least that's what the ACLU is claiming in a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary:
A Boeing Co. subsidiary accused by the American Civil Liberties Union of facilitating torture by providing services to the CIA for secret overseas flights said it does not, as a rule, inquire about its customers' business.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday claiming Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., enabled the clandestine transportation of three terrorism suspects to secret overseas locations where they were tortured and subjected to other "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."...
"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable."
The company's response:
"We don't know the purpose of the trip for which we do a flight plan," said Mike Pound, a spokesman for Englewood, Colo.-based Jeppesen.
"We don't need to know specific details. It's the customer's business, and we do the business that we are contracted for," he said. "It's not our practice to ever inquire about the purpose of a trip." The company had no immediate comment on specifics of the lawsuit.
Pirate Captain|5.31.07 @ 7:56AM|#
For liability purposes, it is he ocean that will kill you, not us.
|5.31.07 @ 8:27AM|#
If the FBI were to require Jeppesen to notify them of any flight
plans entered for certain destinations, the ACLU would be all over
that in a heartbeat. Oh wait... Jeppesen already files flight plans
with the Government. No win.
Obviously the ACLU has too much time on its hands. Perhaps I'll
have to reconsider my membership.
CB
thoreau|5.31.07 @ 9:08AM|#
Yes, their flight crews mind their own business and pay no attention to the hooded, shackled guy screaming in agony in the passenger cabin.
D.A. Ridgely|5.31.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Yes, their flight crews mind their own business and pay no
attention to the hooded, shackled guy screaming in agony in the
passenger cabin.
In other words, the detainees are flying coach?
|5.31.07 @ 10:09AM|#
This is tricky for libertarians. On one hand, torture is really awful if the government does it. On the other hand, it's not nearly as bad as the government regulating business. Of course, businesses who engage in or enable torture will eventually fail in the marketplace if customers get fed up with it, so I guess the answer is "carry on".
|5.31.07 @ 10:13AM|#
I assume the ACLU is suing Exxon for providing Jet-A as well.
And Goodyear for putting tires on the jet. And the pilots for
flying the plane, and the airport for letting the aircraft take
off, and the concrete manufacturer for making the concrete used in
the runway, and the contractor for building the runway, and all of
the passengers who have paid a passenger facility charge that
allows the Air Traffic Control system to work.
CB
|5.31.07 @ 10:21AM|#
CB has it right...the same strategy product liability lawyers
have used for ages...when you can;t make a case directly, go after
anyone and everyone who might have been connected.
In this case, why stop before getting to We the People?
|5.31.07 @ 10:24AM|#
The whole 'extraordinary rendition' thing, as part of the whole
torture thing, gets my teeth to grinding.
However, I don't hold the Post office responcible for the bombs Ted
Kaczynski paid them to deliver. I don't hold ISPs responcible for
kiddie porn. So I'm not sure what their exposure here is. Is my
landlord responcible for the pot I'm growing in the closet?
|5.31.07 @ 10:30AM|#
This is tricky for libertarians. On one hand, torture is
really awful if the government does it. On the other hand, it's not
nearly as bad as the government regulating business. Of course,
businesses who engage in or enable torture will eventually fail in
the marketplace if customers get fed up with it, so I guess the
answer is "carry on".
That straw man didn't put up much of a fight, did he Dan T?
The problem here isn't gov't regulating business, so much
as government colluding with business so that the latter can profit
from the nefarious schemes of the former. Clearly this is an
ethical breach on the part of both parties.
The ideal solution is to punish both parties for gross violations
of human rights. But since the government--that hallowed body we
entrust with the protection of our rights--is the one engaging in
the violations in the first place, they need to be stopped in order
to give them authority to punish Jeppesen.
|5.31.07 @ 10:34AM|#
"The ideal solution is to punish both parties for gross
violations of human rights."
Hugh, I assume you are in favor of punishing gun manufacturers for
producing a product that is sometimes used in a crime, even though
that is not what it is intended to do? And liquor manufacturers,
and car manufactures et al?
CB
thoreau|5.31.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Regarding Dan T.:
When somebody routinely elicits the "OMG! Did he really just say
that?" response, it's time to ignore.
|5.31.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I can see how people could consider Boeing to be morally or ethically responsible, but legally? I'm not a big fan of "We can't go after the people ACTUALLY responsible, so we'll pick on you, instead"
|5.31.07 @ 10:40AM|#
"We don't need to know specific details. It's the customer's
business, and we do the business that we are contracted for," he
said. "It's not our practice to ever inquire about the purpose of a
trip."
Maybe air carriers should be subject to a "know your customer"
rule, requiring them to make sure that they're not being used for
some illegal purpose. I think there are precedents for such
rules.
|5.31.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Cracker's Boy, dagny,
Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for shooting deaths, nor is
Hostess liable for heart disease. These are products that people
use independently of their manufacturer.
Services are a grayer area.
I'm not clear as to the exact allegations being made at Jeppeson,
but if they are providing logistics and/or personnel in these
rendition cases, then they are ethically and legally liable to some
extent.
If they're just selling the gov't the planes, then they're off the
hook.
Clearly, though, the main villain in this case is the CIA.
|5.31.07 @ 10:49AM|#
So... do we think that when the CIA chartered the jet from
Jeppesen, in the box that says "Purpose of Trip", they wrote
"deliver hooded, shackled prisoner into hands of torturer"? Or do
we think they wrote "Private travel to Egypt"?
CB
|5.31.07 @ 11:03AM|#
In case no one has noticed (or checked), Jeppesen is NOT an
operator of aircraft. It is a company specializing in aeronautical
charts, flight planning and navigation services.
So the CIA purchased navigation charts, or flight planning
information from Jeppesen and they (Jeppesen) become an accessory
to torture...! Give me a break!
Using the same parameters, then anyone from ACLU who pays for a
seat on any airline where the pilot in command owns a set of Jepp
charts, or the airline uses the navigation or flight planning
provided (and virtually all do) that ACLU wonk is contributing to
Jeppeson/Boeing's activities and also becomes an accessory to
torture. Or do ACLU wonks get to ride for free and for the most
part don't actually contribute to anything?
Gaijin says: "CB has it right...the same strategy product liability
lawyers have used for ages...when you can;t make a case directly,
go after anyone and everyone who might have been connected.
In this case, why stop before getting to We the People?"
Right on!
|5.31.07 @ 11:05AM|#
How much does this pay, anyway? I've got room for six terrorism
suspects in my minivan.
Incidentally, what are "torture suspects"? People suspected of
being tortured? People who have committed the crime of torturing
others?
|5.31.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Waterboarding - go after the garden hose manufacturer.
Electric shock - battery and wire companies
Sleep deprivation - GE, Sony (light bulbs and sound system)
Uncomfortable positions - Handcuff, chain, and wire tie
makers
This dog won't hunt. Although I'm admittedly less schooled on the
subject then I should be, seems like the US Constitution, Geneva
Conventions, and Int'l Law would be stronger launching pads. Of
course, you still can't fight City Hall (even if you are the
ACLU).
|5.31.07 @ 11:16AM|#
As far as I can tell from the linked article the company did not
provide pilots or jets.
Jeppesen Dataplan provides flight plans, fuel, airport data and other services to its clients.
|5.31.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Jeppesen-Sanderson was originally (and still is) a publisher of
aeronautical information (charts, approach plates) who got into the
flight planning business. Members of the Aircraft Owner's and
Pilot's Association can use a lightweight version of their planning
software for free.
The ACLU is smoking crack on this one, although their actual
motivation is likely to try to obtain the actual flight plans
(equipment, destinations, dates and times) though discovery.
--
Maggie Leber
AOPA 925383 - Amateur Radio Station K3XS
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 11:32AM|#
The government says that if I loan you my car and you use it to
hire a hooker or buy drugs, I can have my car confiscated even if I
have no idea you were going to use it in a crime.
If my friends and I can be held to such standards of behavior, so
too can the government and its partners in torture.
|5.31.07 @ 11:34AM|#
"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA
rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American
values..."
If it was a non-profit, say, for instance, the ACLU, that would be
okay?
But beyond the scare word "profit", do I understand that the ACLU
expects these companies to (a) fully understand US law, (b) fully
understand the law of the nations they are helping their customer
transport passengers to, (c) fully understand how the US and those
other nations might violate their laws in order to practice
torture, (d) know precisely what constitutes torture, and (e) know
that their passengers are going to be tortured?
Just trying to be clear on what this lawsuit is asking for...
David|5.31.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Ok obviously Jeppesen-Sanderson is not the ACLU's real target in
this case. They are just trying to gain evidence and whatever
leverage they can against the CIA. And I seriously don't
care.
I'm sorry but it really really does not bother me that the ACLU is
using tricky legal maneuvers in an attempt to hold our government
accountable for torturing people. I mean really.
|5.31.07 @ 12:00PM|#
The real villain here, obviously, is the U.S. Government/dba The
CIA.
My problem with the ACLU suing a private company is that the
private company will have to defend itself with money that would
otherwise go to that company's bottom line; ie. profitability.
(That's why Dan T. is in favor of the lawsuit; anything to go after
a company's profit is justified.)
Yeah, we're all pissed at the CIA, but the ACLU has no business
dicking around with a company so they can obtain some documents. My
bitch is against the ACLU, in this case (obviously after the
CIA).
CB
|5.31.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Jennifer,
That's an excellent point. And since there's practically no due
process in civil forfeiture, I'm going to go seize me a new jet.
Zooom!
Mike Laursen|5.31.07 @ 12:06PM|#
shackled guy screaming in agony
You're totally misrepresenting how the CIA conducts renditions! The
guy would be gagged, too.
|5.31.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I find it absolutely astounding that anyone would quibble about
the legal methods/reasoning used to try to stop our government from
illegaly kidnapping and torturing people.
Talk about a lack of priorities!
LarryA|5.31.07 @ 12:27PM|#
The government says that if I loan you my car and you use it
to hire a hooker or buy drugs, I can have my car confiscated even
if I have no idea you were going to use it in a crime.
But if you lend me a map so I can find a location where I know
there are hookers, should an anti-prostitution nonprofit be able to
sue you for your car and your house?
I find it absolutely astounding that anyone would quibble about
the legal methods/reasoning used to try to stop our government from
illegaly kidnapping and torturing people.
So you would cut down the law to get to the Devil?
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 12:30PM|#
So you would cut down the law to get to the
Devil?
The Devil's already cut down the more serious laws against
kidnapping and torture.
But if you lend me a map so I can find a location where I know
there are hookers, should an anti-prostitution nonprofit be able to
sue you for your car and your house?
If I believed prostitution were as evil as kidnapping and torture,
I'd be hard-pressed to blame them. But in this case, I merely
advocate a form of legal kung-fu--turn the government's own sleazy
weapons against it.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Jennifer | May 31, 2007, 11:32am | #
The government says that if I loan you my car and you use it to
hire a hooker or buy drugs, I can have my car confiscated even if I
have no idea you were going to use it in a crime.
If my friends and I can be held to such standards of behavior, so
too can the government and its partners in torture.
So I take it that if you approve of this lawsuit, you also approve
of asset forfeiture for the mere accusation of solicitation? I'm
gonna choose the internal consistency approach and say that both
are bullshit.
From what I can see, a better analogy would be for the cops to fine
the Texaco who sold gas and a map to a guy headed to the red light
district for purposes of getting a hooker.*
* Assuming that my understanding of Jeppessen's role is correct,
which it may or may not be. From my reading of their services, they
are not the kind of services that would give you direct knowledge
of the cargo in these flights. There are a lot of things that need
to be known before you can make an informed decision regarding a
particular flight.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 12:40PM|#
"But if you lend me a map so I can find a location where I
know there are hookers, should an anti-prostitution nonprofit be
able to sue you for your car and your house?"
If I believed prostitution were as evil as kidnapping and torture,
I'd be hard-pressed to blame them. But in this case, I merely
advocate a form of legal kung-fu--turn the government's own sleazy
weapons against it.
So if you're trying to protect people, the law doesn't matter? It
sounds as if you're using exactly the same legal reasoning that the
Bush administration uses.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 12:45PM|#
But in this case, I merely advocate a form of legal
kung-fu--turn the government's own sleazy weapons against
it.
To expand a bit more to explain why I am actually frightened of the
methodology you're advocating, let me put it this way. You're
suggesting that what's sauce for the goose, namely subverting the
law to further the government's aims, should be sauce for the
gander, namely protecting the people from the government.
Unfortunately while it is true that what's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander, the reverse is true. Sauce for the gander has
to be sauce for the goose. If you stomp on peoples' rights to stop
the government, then you're tacitly approving of the principle that
peoples' rights can be subverted for the common good.
|5.31.07 @ 12:57PM|#
But in this case, I merely advocate a form of legal
kung-fu--turn the government's own sleazy weapons against
it.
Having taken those weapons in hand, you will be hard pressed to
criticize them later.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:02PM|#
So I take it that if you approve of this lawsuit, you also
approve of asset forfeiture for the mere accusation of
solicitation? I'm gonna choose the internal consistency approach
and say that both are bullshit.
I agree both are bullshit. But what's even more so is deciding
that, while we're using such tactics to prosecute sca-a-a-a-ry
crimes like prostitution and drug use, using them against
kidnappers and torturers is beyond the pale.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Actually no. I think that both are beyond the pale. I vehemently oppose their use. I will speak out vigorously when anybody is short-sighted enough or cynical enough to advocate them. And if I could stop the government engaging in theft, I would. But I won't subourne theft. Seriously, you want to be like Bush?
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Seriously, you want to be like Bush?
I'd much prefer to use tried-and-true legal methods, like filing
writs of habeas corpus and the like. Except the government no
longer allows that.
And if the government finds that companies are no longer willing to
do business with it for fear of getting into legal trouble, too
fucking bad.
|5.31.07 @ 1:15PM|#
But what's even more so is deciding that, while we're using
such tactics to prosecute sca-a-a-a-ry crimes like prostitution and
drug use, using them against kidnappers and torturers is beyond the
pale.
Who is "we"?
The fact that the government feels it can harm a third party in its
quest for justice really shouldn't make you feel that you can harm
a third party in your quest for justice.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:22PM|#
The fact that the government feels it can harm a third party
in its quest for justice really shouldn't make you feel that you
can harm a third party in your quest for justice.
What alternative do you propose that has a chance of actually
working? The court system has completely abandoned any pretense of
giving a rat's ass about the rights of the accused, and on this
very blog we've seen commenters argue that Constitutional rights
like those against torture or being held without trial don't apply
to non-citizens. And in practice, apparently, they don't. So what
do we do?
|5.31.07 @ 1:29PM|#
If the purpose of the ACLU lawsuit is truly discovery, they
should come right out and say so. "We the ACLU are suing Jeppesen,
but the intent is to perform discovery on CIA documentation. In
fact, we will pay Jappesen's legal bills and, unless they are found
in extreme breech of corporate responsibility, we will pay their
settlement as well."
Now that would get people's attention!
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Anyone who intentionally targets the innocent to get at the bad guys is herself a bad guy. The ends do not justify the means.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:29PM|#
So what do you suggest we do, Lunchstealer? I can afford to be patient, but the people being kidnapped and tortured (sometimes literally to death) cannot.
thoreau|5.31.07 @ 1:31PM|#
To be fair, a private contractor working with the feds is not quite as "private" as other private companies.
|5.31.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Jennifer,
I find that torture of people who would just as soon be killed if
they couldn't be captured to rate no higher than the third worst
thing the government does.
Do you suggest I can use even more extreme measures on even more
innocent parties to fight the two continuing government offenses
that I find worse?
|5.31.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I suppose my point is that this is not a case akin to product
liability. This case is more along the lines of aiding and abetting
an escaped convict.
I'm not sure about legal tradition, but it seems reasonable to hold
someone blameless if they don't know that the person crashing on
thier couch an escaped convict.
So if Jeppeson truly had no idea that these midnight flights to Abu
Dhabi had anything to do with torture, they should be held
blameless as well.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:40PM|#
I find that torture of people who would just as soon be
killed if they couldn't be captured to rate no higher than the
third worst thing the government does.
Even ignoring your incorrect supposition that the only guys we
torture are those captured in battle who might just as easily have
been killed instead, I note you have not answered my question of
what we can realistically do to stop OUR government from kidnapping
and torturing people. Pooh-poohing it as no big deal doesn't count
as an answer.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I'm not sure about legal tradition, but it seems reasonable
to hold someone blameless if they don't know that the person
crashing on thier couch an escaped convict. So if Jeppeson truly
had no idea that these midnight flights to Abu Dhabi had anything
to do with torture, they should be held blameless as
well.
Good point, but that also raises the question of "did they not
know, or not WANT to know?" If the guy on my couch is wearing an
orange jumpsuit with "Property of Department of Corrections" on it,
and has a sawed-off shackle around his ankle, claiming I didn't
know he was a convict won't work.
So it boils down to timing: if Jeppeson helped the CIA before its
torture activities became known, maybe they should get off the
hook. Otherwise, it's not that they didn't know, but that they
didn't want to.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 1:45PM|#
So what do you suggest we do, Lunchstealer? I can afford to
be patient, but the people being kidnapped and tortured (sometimes
literally to death) cannot.
I'm going to change some nouns in your statement, and see what you
think of it.
So what do you suggest we do, Lunchstealer? I can afford to be
patient, but the people being blown up by suicide bombs and death
squads cannot.
That would be the argument for allowing the government to
ignore civil rights in Iraq. The only difference is who you're
suggesting we break the rules for. You're arguing a mirror image of
John's defense of Abu Grhaib.
I'm far more sanguine about civil disobedience, where at least the
one who's being disobedient is being honest and acknowledging that
they are breaking the law. Here, you're asking the government legal
system to do your dirty work for you.
|5.31.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I note you have not answered my question of what we can
realistically do to stop OUR government from kidnapping and
torturing people.
I don't know Jennifer. What can we do to stop "OUR" government from
prosecuting the trade and consumption of drugs or restricting
immigration?
I know I feel pretty powerless.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 1:50PM|#
That would be the argument for allowing the government to
ignore civil rights in Iraq. The only difference is who you're
suggesting we break the rules for.
Another difference is that I'm suggesting using the government's
rules against its own collaborators.
As I said before, if we still had a non-kangaroo court system for
dealing with this, I'd be all in favor of working through that.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Jennifer,
Remember that I'm only opposing the concept of going after these
guys to punish the Bush administration. Going after them
to punish them for their own failings is OK in my book. If it is
provable that they've knowingly abetted civil or human rights
abuse, they should be held liable. But it should be Jeppessen's
actions we consider, not Bush's.
I really just don't want Jennifer's death squads coming for me just
because I happened to do business with the wrong people.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 2:03PM|#
As I said before, if we still had a non-kangaroo court system for
dealing with this, I'd be all in favor of working through
that
What's the point of working through courts at all then? Why not
just assassinate anyone who's worked with the Bush administration.
Or anyone who voted for him? That too might be effective.
|5.31.07 @ 2:05PM|#
What can we realistically do to stop OUR government from
kidnapping and torturing people?
Legally: vote, advocate, protest, call for international
condemnation/war crimes tribunal, support right's watch orgs,
etc.
Or you can become a jihadist.
Neither path is going to lead to rapid results however (nor is the
ACLU approach).
Sigh.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Remember that I'm only opposing the concept of going after
these guys to punish the Bush administration. Going after them to
punish them for their own failings is OK in my book.
I want to go after them for playing a role in the illegal rendition
of people to countries where they were tortured. But as I amended
earlier, it all depends on when--if Jeppeson did this in late 2001,
when they still had reason to believe we were The Good Guys, that
would be a different matter. But it's been a few years since anyone
could plausibly claim "I had no idea the CIA's secret midnight
flight to Fuckistan might have led to bad things."
What's the point of working through courts at all
then?
The hope that the civil courts still maintain a shred of the
decency which the criminal courts have long since abandoned.
|5.31.07 @ 3:14PM|#
So what do you suggest we do, Lunchstealer? I can afford to
be patient, but the people being kidnapped and tortured (sometimes
literally to death) cannot.
Jennifer,
I have a vauge suspicion that you might be involved in CIA torture
operations yourself. So you would agree that it is totally
justified to sue you, in a lawsuit that would require you to spend
millions of dollars to defend yourself, in order to try to collect
evidence of possible conspiracy between you and the CIA?
I mean, if you are innocent it is lame that you would be going
bankrupt and all, but I am not 100% sure you are innocent of CIA
torture, and what else am I supposed to do to stop this kind of
horrible behavior? I can't go directly after the CIA.
You see Jennifer, sometimes we need to destroy the village to save
it!
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 3:21PM|#
I have a vauge suspicion that you might be involved in CIA
torture operations yourself. So you would agree that it is totally
justified to sue you, in a lawsuit that would require you to spend
millions of dollars to defend yourself, in order to try to collect
evidence of possible conspiracy between you and the CIA?
Based on what? If you can show that I helped plan an itinerary for
a torture trip a la Jeppesen, that's one thing. But this case
against Jeppesen is based on more than mere "vague suspicion."
|5.31.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Jennifer, I don't think anyone has even a "vague suspicion" that Jeppesen had any knowledge whatsoever about the purpose of the flights its products and services were being used for.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 3:52PM|#
I don't think anyone has even a "vague suspicion" that
Jeppesen had any knowledge whatsoever about the purpose of the
flights its products and services were being used for.
As I mentioned before, it depends on when they happened. Right now
there's no way anybody can plausibly claim not to know what it can
mean when the CIA contracts a super-secret flight to one of the
scumsucker countries of the world. The question is: was that the
cases when these flights occurred?
|5.31.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Jennifer says: "The government says that if I loan you my car
and you use it to hire a hooker or buy drugs, I can have my car
confiscated even if I have no idea you were going to use it in a
crime.
If my friends and I can be held to such standards of behavior, so
too can the government and its partners in torture."
So if the government is going after innocent people in one case, it
is morally acceptable to go after innocents in any other case
because a precedent has been set? Instead of, oh I don't know,
repealing the prostitution and drug laws?
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 4:03PM|#
it is morally acceptable to go after innocents in any other
case because a precedent has been set? Instead of, oh I don't know,
repealing the prostitution and drug laws?
If the latter option were plausible I'd be all for it. But we all
know damned well the government's not in the habit of admitting it
made a mistake. So shove its mistakes down its own goddamned throat
until it fucking chokes to death on them.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 4:10PM|#
OK, Jennifer, if you think that they can provably be shown to
have known that the CIA was engaged in illegal activities, then
that's a very different case than your
I-loaned-my-car-to-a-friend-who-got-a-hooker example.
Before you seemed to be advocating going after them solely for
having done business with someone who turned out AFTER THE FACT to
have done something illegal. The car confiscation concept seemed to
be indicating that you didn't care what Jeppesen knew, you wanted
to screw them over just for having done business with the Bush
administration.
lunchstealer|5.31.07 @ 4:16PM|#
What's the point of working through courts at all
then?
The hope that the civil courts still maintain a shred of the
decency which the criminal courts have long since
abandoned.
If we have politically motivated trials in civil court to
counterbalance percieved failings elsewhere, then we just have a
big politically motivated mess and there's NO PLACE left being
objective. Better to leave the civil courts objective and not just
have a big fight between sellouts.
If the criminal courts are kangaroo courts, then the answer isn't
turning the civil courts into kangaroo courts. It's just a terrible
idea.
|5.31.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Jennifer, as for your agonized handwringer over what we can do
to stop this, at the risk of sounding callous, the answer is: wait,
and vote. The Bush admin has what, a year and a half to go before
they're term-limited out of office? Do you really think the ACLU or
anyone else can, in the short time left, force Bush to obey the
Bill of Rights?
Realistically, this will only stop if we get a new president who
thinks extraordinary rendition is a bad idea.
|5.31.07 @ 5:01PM|#
When I was still working at the car wash, we washed a lot of
vehicles with US Government plates. It's quite possible that some
of them were used to transport "torture suspects", and I've known
about the extraordinary rendition practices of the government for
quite some time.
Does that make me an accessory to torture?
|5.31.07 @ 5:03PM|#
If the criminal courts are kangaroo courts, then the answer
isn't turning the civil courts into kangaroo courts. It's just a
terrible idea.
I'm not so sure about that. Have you ever seen two kangaroos box?
It's quite entertaining.
|5.31.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Hugh, I assume you are in favor of punishing gun
manufacturers for producing a product that is sometimes used in a
crime, even though that is not what it is intended to
do?
Don't kid yourselve here. If someone provides the getaway car in a
bank robbery, they are prosecuted for the robbery as well. They
can't say oh we didn't really know that those sacks were full of
cash and those masked men were bank robbers.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Jennifer, as for your agonized handwringer over what we can
do to stop this, at the risk of sounding callous, the answer is:
wait, and vote. The Bush admin has what, a year and a half to go
before they're term-limited out of office?
This may sound sarcastic, but it's not: my belief that your
solution would work pretty much evaporated once the Democrats took
control of Congress and abandoned their plan to get out of Iraq.
Unless we get stupendously lucky regarding Ron Paul, the new
election will likely make as much difference as Buckingham Palace's
Changings of the Guard makes a difference regarding the Queen's
level of security.
|5.31.07 @ 7:55PM|#
Jennifer, maybe we'll get some Bill of Rights hating clod in a
year and a half. Bad. But, what you're talking about doing would
involve all the following: the Democratic majority growing a pair
and abandoning their plan for now to hang onto their slim foothold
of power by appearing reasonable and moderate by not doing
impeachment hearings, getting dirt on Bush, impeaching him,
removing him from office, getting dirt on Cheney, impeaching him,
removing him from office, getting dirt on the right-winger
replacement veep Cheney picked, impeaching him, removing him from
office, getting a reasonable new president picked by that
right-winger -- all in the space of six months to a year. Yeah,
that'll work.
There just is no time to do that. Like it or not, running out the
clock is the only realistic approach.
Or, did they change the name of this website from Reason to Emotion
when I wasn't looking?
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 9:19PM|#
But, what you're talking about doing would involve all the
following: the Democratic majority growing a pair and abandoning
their plan for now to hang onto their slim foothold of power by
appearing reasonable and moderate by not doing impeachment
hearings, getting dirt on Bush, impeaching him, removing him from
office, getting dirt on Cheney, impeaching him, removing him from
office, getting dirt on the right-winger replacement veep Cheney
picked, impeaching him, removing him from office, getting a
reasonable new president picked by that right-winger -- all in the
space of six months to a year.
And this differs from what you're talking about doing . . .
how, exactly?
Honestly, you lost me at "Democratic majority growing a pair." They
won't, and thus won't do anything that will make them appear "soft
on terror" anymore than they'll do things which make them "soft on
drugs."
So if we get a Democrat in the White House we're screwed, and if we
get a Republican other than Ron Paul we're screwed.
|5.31.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Jeppesen does the same thing that the Auto Club does -- they put
map books together, tell people where to get fuel and so on.
I guess the ACLU will go after AAA next.
|6.1.07 @ 12:31AM|#
Jennifer, that's the beauty of being a libertarian -- instead of running a 30 or 40 percent chance of having someone you can stand elected to office, and thus being stuck with bland, boring, acceptance, you can be sure of having someone in office to furiously excoriate, year after year. Adds extra zest to one's life, yeah?
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 7:30AM|#
Yeah. Especially if you're kidnapped and tortured by the CIA, with the help of upright American companies willing to turn a blind eye in exchange for a healthy profit.
Guy Montag|6.1.07 @ 11:11AM|#
I assume the ACLU is suing Exxon for providing Jet-A as
well. And Goodyear for putting tires on the jet. And the pilots for
flying the plane, and the airport for letting the aircraft take
off, and the concrete manufacturer for making the concrete used in
the runway, and the contractor for building the runway, and all of
the passengers who have paid a passenger facility charge that
allows the Air Traffic Control system to work.
The next thing you know the ACLU will be suing all of the airlines
for transporting domestic convicts, with police escorts, because
they might get beaten up by a prison guard.
Before anybody pipes up with "Con Air", they are not the only
transporter of prisoners in the USA. Quite frequently prisoners are
flying on regular commercial flights with police escorts.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245