Alleged torture victims' lawsuit dismissed on secrecy grounds

[Blue_Tires]

Source: L.A. Times

Five foreign men who claim they were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA had their lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary dismissed Wednesday by a sharply divided federal appeals court because of the danger of state secrets being revealed at trial.

The suit brought against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. of San Jose sought to hold the defense contractor responsible for alleged civil rights abuses committed during counter-terrorism operations conducted by U.S. intelligence forces. Jeppesen reportedly supplied the flight services and other assistance to CIA interrogators who conducted the "extraordinary rendition" program.

In a 6-5 ruling by the full U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the majority agreed with U.S. Justice Department assertions that the case shouldn't go forward, even on the basis of unclassified evidence already revealed to the public.

The majority of the court said it reached the conclusion "reluctantly" that the claims of the five men couldn't be decided at trial because of the risk of courtroom disclosures damaging U.S. national security. The judges pointed out that the plaintiffs could seek other forms of compensation or congressional redress now that "our decision forecloses at least one set of judicial remedies."

Five judges joined in a dissenting opinion, arguing that to dismiss the men's claims before a court could evaluate their merits was an extreme application of case law to the government's assertion of the state-secrets privilege.

The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represented the plaintiffs said the 9th Circuit ruling would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had a day in court," said Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney. "If this decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers."

Charles S. Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the government had no comment on the ruling.

In the 55-page majority opinion, the judges repeated in exacting detail the plaintiffs' claims of having been stripped, beaten, subjected to electrical shocks and laceration of genitals in the CIA's interrogation of foreign subjects suspected of having information about terrorist attacks.


Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/torture-lawsuit-dismissed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+%28L.A.+Now%29

---

"electrical shocks and laceration of genitals" ... Makes me proud to be an American...

Where is Holder in all of this??

[montanacowboy]

1. USA,USA,USA

Justice had no comment. Of course not. They are looking forward, remember?

[Senator]

36. Yes We Can!

Refuse to abide by and enforce the laws and treaty obligations our greater generations fought and died to forge.

This will be Obama's ONLY legacy.

---

[zipplewrath]

2. Don't they understand looking forward?

"To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had a day in court," said Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney. "If this decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers."

They need to look forward, not backwards. Obama "has the backs" of the torturers, as long as they were with in the "four corners" of the policy. There's nothing to see here, just move on.

[texastoast]

3. And the soldiers who were killed because of corporate greed never got their day either

State secrets, you see. The state wanted to keep it a secret how much taxpayer money was paid for a POS military installation. Blaming the captain. Fuckers. Not how it happened.


http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/935/935.F2d.544.91-6002.1405.html

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/973/1138/386475/

[Capitalocracy]

4. We need an oversight mechanism on state secrets

They can't simply be allowed to classify everything they want to. This really makes me angry, and I am not proud to be an American when we act like a military dictatorship.

[JDPriestly]

6. Capitalocracy -- how right you are.

[boppers]

30. We have an oversight mechanism.

The problem is that it's fairly broad reaching.

[JDPriestly]

5. If there is a just God, I hope He can forgive our country.

This is beyond horror. I read Jane Mayer's book. The conduct of the torturers and those who authorized torture is absolutely inexcusable. It was immoral and those who have the authority to prosecute the torture and are not doing it are complicit and just as immoral as those who committed and authorized the acts in the first place.

[Iowa]

7. You nailed it.

[W T F]

8. Thoses judges should be tortured in the name of national security........

I'm sure they'll have no problem with it.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. If only Goering and the gang had thought of that defense at Nuremberg!

[Blue_Tires]

34. if only...

[Drops_not_Dope]

10. and

states secrets are worthy of being disclosed if the peeps who represent govt. are torturing other peeps that have no say in govt.


Besides states secrets are revealed often, but disbelieved by the masses.

[Capitalocracy]

12. I'll share one with you right now

Torture of people brought in on zero evidence also took place on U.S. soil in secret Immigrations and Customs Enforcement prisons, using cold water to induce a near-hypothermia state and repeated use of Tasers (while under restraint) as well as beating.

Believe me?

[Drops_not_Dope]

35. Sure I do

I'm not one of the masses in denial.

And oh could I share some with you too but I have enough problems as it is.

[eallen]

11. This is Obama's responsibility

He ran against Bush policies on torture, state secrets, and other civil liberty issues. Once in office, he has followed most of the same policies. Even with torture, he has stopped it, but blocked any accountability of what was done, and hence, any certainty it won't be repeated.

Civil libertarians who supported Obama rightly feel we have been completely betrayed.

:mad:
:mad:
:mad:

[riderinthestorm]

27. Do we know Obama has stopped the torture?

I'm so cynical that now I'm not even sure he isn't hiding that hold-over from the GW Bush Admin as well. Since he's followed virtually all of the other despicable Bush Admin policies why do you believe he's stopped torturing?

And if we vote for him in 2012, are we complicit?

[EFerrari]

33. The Red Cross says there's a black site at Bagram

so no, we don't.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/11/2009112910813631168.html

[Francesca9]

13. 9th Circuit throws out CIA torture lawsuit for national security reasons

Source: LA Times

The decision by a divided appeals court says the risk of state secrets being exposed outweighs the alleged victims' right to seek damages from a Boeing subsidiary they say aided in the renditions.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rendition-20100909,0,419570.story

[msongs]

14. yeah only book burning is bad lol nt

[RandomThoughts]

15. They will pay.

[rhett o rick]

28. Freedom, democracy? Or fascism? I am so ashamed of my country. nm

[savalez]

16. I hope the the U.S. Supreme Court has a different take on this.

[Abq_Sarah]

26. I doubt they would

This has pretty much already been decided by the SCOTUS.

[mike r]

17. Court Sides With C.I.A. on Seizure of Terror Suspects

Source: New York Times

A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit involving the Central Intelligence Agency’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects and transferring them to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power.

By a six-to-five vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversing an earlier decision, dismissed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for the C.I.A.’s “extraordinary rendition” program, as it is known. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case on behalf of five former prisoners who say they were tortured because of the program – and that Jeppesen was complicit in their treatment.

Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case as presenting “a painful conflict between human rights and national security.” But, he said, the majority had “reluctantly” concluded that the lawsuit represented “a rare case” in which the government’s need to protect state secrets trumped the plaintiffs’ need to have any day in court.

The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html

[Vincardog]

18. has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often

sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

When I point out how different President Obama is from Candidate Obama I am called a RW loving GOP supporter.

WE have to stop the RW slant OUR Government is taking.

[Capitalocracy]

20. Transparency

Accountability
Rule of Law

These are the things Obama unequivocally promised. Apparently he and I have very different definitions of these concepts.

[DrSteveB]

19. Basically, the government can torture you and you can't sue

If you survive.

Since state secrets are involved.

[Capitalocracy]

21. Which of course could apply to anything else as well

Torture, indefinite detention, whatever they want, the state secret defense has no limitation.

[WhiteTara]

22. sigh. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

23. So much for the Bill of Rights

Might as well burn that one as well.

[RussBLib]

24. Just what might those "state secrets" be?

TexasToast might have it right. It is a "secret" how badly we shoved money on these politically-connected private security firms.

Perhaps Bush and Cheney have deep ties to Blackwater.

Maybe a trial might reveal how brutally we treated some people, based on no evidence whatsoever.

Could the "state secrets" be simple embarrassment at how badly we fucked up?

Perhaps a trial would reveal how Dick Cheney personally skull-fucked several detainees to death in his lust for blood.

How bad could it be? Whose political hide is being protected? Would a trial reveal which of our allies were bloodthirsty right along with us?

Most likely we are just covering up how many laws we broke, and how we brutally fucked over so many innocent people. Yeah, that's a "secret."

Obama shouldn't stand for this. No President should stand for this. Unless they're complicit, perhaps.

[annabanana]

25. +1

[The Northerner]

29. I couldn't agree more

[boppers]

32. Some of the leaked "secrets" have already caused problems.

Take, oh, the "collars".

Detainees were explaining how they were collared "like dogs", and then abused. Sounds creepy, eh?

Fast forward a few slips and we learn:
1) The collars were neck braces, designed to prevent injury.
2) The reason to avoid neck injury was that the detainees were being pushed at walls designed to make excessively loud sounds upon impact.

Basically, once the leaks were all added up, the whole illusion of risk evaporated... we were going out of our way to *not* hurt people, while trying to make them think they were in real mortal danger. If they know we're bluffing, they lose their reason for fear.

Some of the "renditions" have already panned out as fake outs, as well. We made them think they were in another country, with looser torture laws, when it was really just theater to make them *think* they were in danger, and in other countries. Other times, we actually shuffled them around to other countries, and yet, they're still alive to sue, because it was theater there, as well.

Remember that dude who was water boarded over 50 (I forget the exact number) times? He knew he was never in any real physical danger, which is why it didn't work the first 10, 15, 20 times... when "the secret" is that "the US won't kill you", interrogation is without any mortal fear.

This is good cop/bad cop games on a huge scale.

[Solly Mack]

31. K&R

"If this decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers."

[Turborama]

37. Victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue, US court rules

Source: The Independent (UK)

Legal action by terror suspects sent by the CIA to foreign countries for torture blocked on national security grounds

By Stephen Foley in New York

Friday, September 10 2010

The victims of the Bush administration's programme of "extraordinary rendition" will not be able to sue the private company which transported them to foreign countries for torture by the CIA, after the present White House stepped in to squash their lawsuit on the grounds of national security.

A California court has sided with the Obama administration, which argued that a case led by the British resident Binyam Mohamed against the aerospace giant Boeing was bound to reveal state secrets and sensitive intelligence information.

Legal supporters of Mr Mohamed raised uproar at the decision, which the judge in charge of the case said had presented a "painful conflict between human rights and national security".

Ben Wizner, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, called it "a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about our nation's reputation in the world", and vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court. "To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture programme has had his day in court," the attorney said.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/victims-of-extraordinary-rendition-cannot-sue-us-court-rules-2075424.html

[Ghost Dog]

38. No genuine rule of law in the usa. N/T.

[Odin2005]

39. Fascism.

[OnyxCollie]

40. K&R. nt

[Nihil]

41. Another swipe with the whitewash brush ...

... labelled "state secrets and sensitive intelligence information" ...

:thumbsdown:

[Demeter]

42. Despair

[Solly Mack]

43. K&R

[BeFree]

44. Why don't I feel safer?

Uknow... betcha the T-beggars are gonna be all over this.

[depakid]

45. Greenwald's response:

Suffice to say -- with great understatement -- Obama's doing this doesn't trigger the same level of outrage and objection as when Bush did it, at least not in most circles.

And I do so fondly recall the days back in the Spring of last year when civil libertarians who were vigorously objecting to Obama's Bush-replicating legal positions were told by vocal Obama supporters that Obama was only doing this in order to ensure that Bush's extremist legal theories were rejected by courts and thus we were all generously showered with the Magnanimous Gift of Good Precedent.

Again with great understatement, Obama's appealing the 9th Circuit's rejection of the Bush/Obama "state secrets" argument to the full court- and thus securing one of the most harmful judicial endorsements ever of this radical secrecy doctrine- is not exactly consistent with that Obama-justifying rationale.
--------

Ben Wizner who argued the case was a bit more emphatic:

The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.

More here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html