EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
Popular content
Today's Top News
Court Dismisses Suit Alleging 'Torture Flights'
Torn between claims of national security and pleas for redress for torture victims, a federal appeals court reluctantly dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing a Bay Area aviation-planning company of arranging CIA flights of suspected terrorists to overseas dungeons.
A US court dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday against a Boeing subsidiary for allegedly flying terror suspects to secret CIA sites for interrogation, saying the case could have exposed state secrets. (AFP/File/Saul Loeb) Although much of the so-called extraordinary rendition program has been publicly disclosed, including the alleged role of Jeppesen Dataplan of San Jose, allowing the suit to proceed "would present an unacceptable risk of disclosing state secrets," the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 6-5 ruling.
The ruling is a victory for both President George W. Bush's administration, which directed the rendition program and acknowledged its existence, and the Obama administration, which promised to curb the program's excesses but argued that it was too sensitive to be litigated in court.
The American Civil Liberties Union said it would appeal to the Supreme Court. The high court has refused to review two rulings by other appeals courts dismissing suits against the government by men who said they were abducted by the CIA and flown to foreign torture chambers.
"Not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had his day in court," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said.
The Justice Department emphasized that the Obama administration limited government invocations of secrecy in court last year by requiring a department committee to review all such claims, with Attorney General Eric Holder having the last word.
The policy is meant to "ensure that the state-secrets privilege is only used in cases where it is essential to protect national security, and we are pleased that the court recognized that the policy was used appropriately in this case," said department spokesman Matthew Miller.
Extraordinary rendition is the practice of abducting suspected terrorists and taking them for interrogation to CIA prisons or foreign countries, including nations that the United States has condemned as human rights violators. The Bush administration said it always insisted on a guarantee that the prisoner would not be tortured.
Jeppesen, a Boeing Co. subsidiary, was described in a 2007 Council of Europe report as the CIA's aviation services provider. In a court declaration in the current suit, a company employee quoted a director as telling staff members in 2006 that Jeppesen handled the CIA's "torture flights."
The five plaintiffs accused the company of arranging their flights to foreign or CIA prisons, where they said they had been interrogated brutally. Two of the men are still being held in Egypt and Morocco, while the others have been released without U.S. charges.
Wednesday's ruling overturned an April 2009 decision by a three-judge appeals court panel that reinstated the suit. After a hearing that included a closed-door session with a government lawyer, and a private review of classified documents, the court majority said key elements of the case - such as Jeppesen's alleged relationship with the CIA - could not be examined without compromising U.S. security.
Judge Raymond Fisher wrote in the majority opinion that he could not publicly discuss the reasons for the court's conclusion, but was satisfied that the government was not invoking secrecy to "avoid embarrassment."
Fisher also said the plaintiffs could seek reparations from the administration or aid from Congress.
Dissenting Judge Michael Hawkins said the courts should decide legal disputes rather than "permitting the executive to police its own errors." He also said the court should have kept the case alive and required the government to show why specific evidence should remain secret.
The ruling can be read at sfgate.com/ZKGQ.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show AllIt is difficult to imagine what state secret, except for the existence of the program itself, could be involved in the flight of a plane, identification number ( we know some of those), altitude, speed, touchdowns, just what would it be?
"just what would it be?"
It would be embarrassing for the government if the public was to see what it has become.
glenn ford September 9th, 2010 9:52 am -- How about the identities of the people responsible for the torture? And the details of how they did it? In other words, the evidence that would be needed to prosecute the people for violating the laws they broke? This is the really scary thing about the decision -- it approves a cover-up. If someone could show that no one will escape criminal responsibility because of the maintenance of secrecy, one might at least consider whether a national security interest is involved.
The only people held responsible for rendition and torture have been the "small" people!
NMBill September 9th, 2010 10:17 am -- Exactly. We call the real culprits, who remain scot free, the "architects" of the torture policy.
This is an admission by the government that there is no defense for what they have done, but that since they have the power they will neither be accountable for it nor change what they do. 'When the government does it that means it's legal' -- the old Nixon excuse.
[edited for typo]
The silver tongued con man at his best: " the Obama administration which promised to curb the program's excesses but argued it was too sensitive to be litigated in court ". The only thing sensitive here is the sensitivity of the torturers and the rest of the culpable people in the rendition program. Rendition program: The CIA's euphemistic name for torture!
It's not surprising that a reactionary Amerikkkan court would hold that the government can hide behind the bogus threats-to-national-security claim to conveniently obscure its policies of rendition, torture and mass murder.
Abuse so often hides behind secrecy.
Are there no rights that cannot be trumped by the National Security State.
We truly live in a nightmare.
Egelko sez: "The Justice Department emphasized that the Obama administration limited government invocations of secrecy in court last year by requiring a department committee to review all such claims, with Attorney General Eric Holder having the last word."
***
I count 36 words in the above sentence, which together say absolutely nothing.
An ellipses in place of this non sequitur would have been more illuminating.
Please read Glenn Greenwald's write-up on this decision as it's very powerful and incisive in ways that reduce the above to used coffee grounds, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Yet another fact proving Obama is Public Enemy #1 and further evidence that the US federal government is every bit as Barbarous as that of King Geore III. The Declaration of Independece fairly well lists the crimes of the current US governemnt to the point where it ought to be used again for the same reason.
Obama's support for the rendition program and the courts support in not hearing due process cases against the illegal use of rendition and torture has created a bubble within the constitutional system of law that we hold dear.
Even an innocent person can be rendered and tortured and or killed without access to due process rights given to us by the constitution. Obama has within that legal bubble become the King we freed ourselves from 2 centuries ago.Obama and the feds can decide without accusation, fact or witness of any crime detain, rend, torture or kill any American citizen. That citizen surviving that ordeal can not depend on our legal system for redress and to be made whole.
There is now a hole or bubble within our legal system that is secret, horribly destructive to human life and for which you can neither defend, prevent or even seek recourse in the court system.
Is it not then reasonable that you would have the right to defend your life thinking that this might happen to you when confronted by federal agents? It would seem then you have no rights against rendition from Federal agents if caught. It would seem the only reasonable thing to do would be to pull out your weapons and kill as many as you can. If you survive you would get your day in court at least. Your defense is your right to due process and self defense that you lose once you open your mouth to or become captive of federal agents.
It seems only prudent to arm your self to the teeth. Bush and Obama have torn a hole in the rule of law and now we are ruled by them not the law and at their wish our lives and those of our loved ones may be ended at anytime, secretly, horribly and with out any legal recourse.
Abe Winken September 9th, 2010 5:28 pm -- You've hit upon possibly the most serious defect in the government's position. We know that torture of detainees is illegal, and now we know that the law, at all levels, doesn't protect us from being tortured if we're detained. No need to talk about being detained for suspected terrorism, or treason; if they can torture you for suspected terrorism, they can torture you for anything. Nor is the threat limited to arrests by federal agents. From this point on, no one can feel morally bound to not resist being taken into custody. It's now necessary to carefully consider the circumstances to determine whether the likelihood of being tortured is high enough to require violent resistance.
The Bush/Obama policies on torturing detainees has thus done serious damage to the rule of law. It's vital that this be reversed. Given the mind-set of the American public, I'm afraid reversing it will be extremely difficult. But the first step will be pointing out the problem, as you have so eloquently done.
Yet the assholes in government all over the U.S. say the rest of us should obey laws we find inconvenient. Snerk!! Yeah, right.
That's a central issue: people are still obligated to what is morally right, but there is no longer a moral obligation to follow the law because the 'social contract' to be law abiding in a nation of law has gone away. The 'new norm'
is do what you think is right and that you can get away with; in other words, anarchy and chaos. There is no Constitution in effect any more, and consequently, no laws.
"There is no Constitution in effect any more, and consequently, no laws."
I argued this point toward the end of BushCo. The descent into total Barbarism is now complete. We'll soon see preemptive murder justified by the precedence set by both BushCo and ObamaInc. Or if it's okay for the government to kidnap people, then why can't I? And so forth.
Why not have the ACLU and others (NLG, CCR, Judicial Watch) and others, create their own court setting and make it public? What the government wants most is to suppress news about this so why not create it so people learn the details and know these people and can decide for themselves, in a court of public opinion.
Your either with us and no constitutional rights or your against us and no constitutional rights.
Now choose!!!!!!!
Wow, we are living in the Twilight Zone! Wouldn't it be weird if GW was picked up, and accused of being a celebrity impersenator of GW? Along with that being shipped off to say, Egypt and accused of burning Korans?
Wouldn't that be a mess. I wonder if that would make the news, and would he be able to sue? Naw, there couoldn't be 2 of them, could there?
If you haven't ever seen it, take a look at the film, "Judgment at Nuremberg," with Spencer Tracy as one of the presiding judges, Richard Widmark as prosecuting attorney, and Burt Lancaster as one of the distinquished German judges on trial as a prisoner at the end of WWII. Oh, how pure and noble and incorruptible we believed ourselves to be at that time.
Of course, everything is being done now to protect "State Secrets," lest the whole ball of yarn begins to unravel and the nasty truths, including the names of all those nasty people who have lied to us, become exposed.
Short of that The Constitution of the United States is indeed just a bunch of "old pieces of paper" [GWB], and our Republic, as it was envisioned, is dead, mortally wounded by "the King" and "All the King's Men."
Fascism prevails. And we as a nation will continue to rot from the inside out, until ... ??????????
/cm
Does anyone really think "the American way of life" deserves another day?
Verses added to update "Boobie Jurisprudence" (2005) from Fernando Po, U.S.A., the in-progress verse chronicle of post-linguistic America:
...
But now we have the Democrats
In power for their turn
With their own president to shred
The laws that they, too, spurn
The people had a “choice,” you see:
To fry or else to burn
And so, once more, the courts have claimed
That dark of night must rule;
That tyranny’s enabler must
Protect the bungling ghoul
From Justice – License guaranteed
To make the despot drool
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2005, 2010
This 6 to 5 appeals court decision that demolishes any quaint notions of civil liberties in Amerikkka is typical of the police-state mentality of the ruling elite. The 9th circuit court, once considered to be a left-leaning bastion in an increasingly reactionary Amerikkkan judical system, clearly has devolved into the Kafkaesque logic that plagues this nation's court system.
As another commondreams poster said recently, if police arrest any of us, we can have no expectation of any civil liberty protections that were once common under the US Constitution. Since the government has to follow no laws, then We the People should follow no laws.
The people in power are immune to rational argument. They no longer pretend to be guided by any legal documents or laws. They rule by threat of brute force and spread terror among the populace by the sprawling, uncontrolled growth of penal institutions.
Schools, libraries, fire departments across the land are closing to make available money for housing political dissidents. It is happening now. As with global warming the tipping point is long past. We are now in the absurd position of relying on the sense of fairness of the billionaires in power.
Ah, yes, national security and state secrets. All heil der fuhrer.
thanks to Pelosi (impeachment off the table) and President Barry Oblahblahblahma(lets look forward...and not piss off any Republicans) we are reduced to going after the equivilent of Dr Mengele's Auschwitz bus driver.
criminals are in charge of justice.
criminals are expected to investigate themselves and put themselves in prison.
what a tragic-commedy this is.