ACLU off the deep end yet again

Superfreak said:
Darla... actually, I would like you or anyone else to provide one shred of evidence they were tortured. To date, all I have seen is "testimony" from terrorists or their lawyers. You and others are assuming they are tortured because they are taken to other countries. Did you ever stop to think that they are taken to other countries to avoid all the frivilous crap that goes on here?

US... SHOW ME where Jeppesen participated in torture. They filed a flight plan and flew the CIA and terrorists to other countries. YOU assume they are being tortured.... because that is what you WANT to believe. I am not being naive, I beleive some may have indeed been tortured, but to act as if Jeppesen is responsible is idiotic.

Again... should the ACLU also sue the companies that make the parts for the planes? Or how about a lawsuit against the companies that provide financial services to Jeppesen? All the companies that do business with Jeppesen? I mean they all know that Jeppesen provides flight services for the government. Should they also not be included... for surely supporting the company that provides services to the government should also be included since they too would have KNOWN the government was torturing the hell out of these terrorists. Why are they not all included?

Also... why not go after Boeing... the PARENT company of Jeppesen?
Click to expand...


The accusation is NOT that jeppson tortured people.

The accusation is that they took tax payer dollars, to facillitate torture.


It'll be sorted out by the legal system, sfreak. Jeppsen has the right to the presumption of innocence. The ACLU and their clients have a right to file civil liablity, if they can prove their case. And if a judge determines it has merit to move forward. That's how it works.
 
There are a lot presumptions flying around. Let evidence emerge, let the courts handle it and then judge.
 
"Sf, this is very upsetting that you would say this. I will get you an interview I would like for you to read, but not until this evening. I can't do it from work."

I will be happy to read it. I'll look for it tomorrow, but remind me just in case this thread is not still active at that point.
 
"Ahh you pronounce them guilty of terrorism without due process....That figures. And pronounce Jeppson not guilty without due process, how fair and balanced "

AGAIN... THE CIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TREATMENT OF ITS PRISONERS. It is NOT the responsibility of Jeppesen any more than it is the responsibility of the companies that provide parts or services to Jeppesen.
 
"The accusation is NOT that jeppson tortured people. "

That WAS the accusation that US tossed out, which is why I responded to US in that manner.

"The accusation is that they took tax payer dollars, to facillitate torture."

Which is complete bullshit... because with THAT "logic" then the companies that do business with Jeppesen also should be charged because they too profited from taxpayers dollars via the CIA. Lets just charge all the people that work for Jeppesen individually as well.... I mean hell, they got paid salaries indirectly via the CIA funds that went to "torture" people.

"It'll be sorted out by the legal system, sfreak. Jeppsen has the right to the presumption of innocence. The ACLU and their clients have a right to file civil liablity, if they can prove their case. And if a judge determines it has merit to move forward. That's how it works."

The ACLU and their clients should have to provide evidence that the torture took place. Prove that the government did indeed send them overseas to be tortured. But they haven't done that. Yet, they can file a case against Jeppesen for providing a service to the CIA on the grounds that they assert the CIA deliberately sent people to be tortured. It is bullshit...

and AGAIN... why not sue the CIA... the ones RESPONSIBLE for the treatment of the prisoners. Jeppesen has every right to think that a government agency will follow the laws of the country. It is NOT their job to monitor what the CIA does or doesn't do. That is the job of Congress.
 
Ok SF lets say you are a cab driver, I show what looks like an official badge and contract with you to take me and my hooded and shackled friend to a warehouse in a lonely area of town. Later you find out that a person is found beaten and sexually assaulted in that warehouse. Do you think that you are going to be let off scott free cause you were just contracting with someone for a job? What you SHOULD have done was said no the person offering to contract with you. If the beaten and sexually assaulted person figures out who you were and that you were involved in the transport, you are going to be sued. You knew or should have known that something was up.
 
lol

Oh, not this again. I love the premise of the thread: that somehow, the ACLU is always going off the deep end; a bunch of whacked out lefty crazies.

You're right socretease. Ignorance of the law, or mere facillitation of torture is no excuse. I'm not saying these dudes are guilty, but I've found that ACLU rarely brings a frivilous case forward. They're are pretty good and pretty professional lawyers. Undoubtedly, the best civil rights lawyers in the nation. And as for the implied charges of partisan hackery by ACLU: completely without merit, as the ACLU takes on cases protecting the civil liberties of everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Jerry Falwell to Larry Tapper Craig.
 
Cypress said:
lol

Oh, not this again. I love the premise of the thread: that somehow, the ACLU is always going off the deep end; a bunch of whacked out lefty crazies.

You're right socretease. Ignorance of the law, or mere facillitation of torture is no excuse. I'm not saying these dudes are guilty, but I've found that ACLU rarely brings a frivilous case forward. They're are pretty good and pretty professional lawyers. Undoubtedly, the best civil rights lawyers in the nation. And as for the implied charges of partisan hackery by ACLU: completely without merit, as the ACLU takes on cases protecting the civil liberties of everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Jerry Falwell to Larry Tapper Craig.
Click to expand...

cyress, what really matters is what Venezuelen children are learning in their government classes.
 
LadyT said:
cyress, what really matters is what Venezuelen children are learning in their government classes.
Click to expand...


lol. It was so wrong of me not to be fascinated with school curriculum in venezuealan schools. To demonstrate my interest in worldly affairs, I've been tempted to start a thread about the science budget of the Republic of Iceland.
 
Cypress said:
lol. It was so wrong of me not to be fascinated with school curriculum in venezuealan schools. To demonstrate my interest in worldly affairs, I've been tempted to start a thread about the science budget of the Republic of Iceland.
Click to expand...

Clearly that's more pressing than anything related to our civil liberties.
 
Socrtease said:
Ok SF lets say you are a cab driver, I show what looks like an official badge and contract with you to take me and my hooded and shackled friend to a warehouse in a lonely area of town. Later you find out that a person is found beaten and sexually assaulted in that warehouse. Do you think that you are going to be let off scott free cause you were just contracting with someone for a job? What you SHOULD have done was said no the person offering to contract with you. If the beaten and sexually assaulted person figures out who you were and that you were involved in the transport, you are going to be sued. You knew or should have known that something was up.
Click to expand...

IF it is an offical of the US government, then I it is more than reasonable to believe that they will act in a lawful manner.

By your example, no cab driver would ever pick up someone coming out of a bar drunk for fear of what that person "might" do. I mean, my god, a drunk could piss out a window, knock someone out, throw something from the cab etc... and you should "know" that these things "might" happen.

Where is this case now Socrtease? Did you go looking for threads to re-open or is there some new development?
 
Superfreak said:
IF it is an offical of the US government, then I it is more than reasonable to believe that they will act in a lawful manner.

By your example, no cab driver would ever pick up someone coming out of a bar drunk for fear of what that person "might" do. I mean, my god, a drunk could piss out a window, knock someone out, throw something from the cab etc... and you should "know" that these things "might" happen.

Where is this case now Socrtease? Did you go looking for threads to re-open or is there some new development?
Click to expand...


IF it is an offical of the US government, then I it is more than reasonable to believe that they will act in a lawful manner.

Baloney.

It was "officials" of the US Government that ordered the wiretapping of Dr. Martin Luther King, that ordered the bugging of Danielle Ellesberg, and ordered the massacre at Mai Lai, Vietnam.
 
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the company is also alleged to have created fictitious flight plans to mask where they were flying and also participated in "dummy flights" that were designed to mask their activities.

Given what we know about how the "passengers" were treated, publicly available information and these fictitious flight plans and dummy flight, these folks weren't just passive suppliers of a service without knowledge of what was going on. They were active participants.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the company is also alleged to have created fictitious flight plans to mask where they were flying and also participated in "dummy flights" that were designed to mask their activities.

Given what we know about how the "passengers" were treated, publicly available information and these fictitious flight plans and dummy flight, these folks weren't just passive suppliers of a service without knowledge of what was going on. They were active participants.
Click to expand...

According to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal board meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way." (Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, Oct. 30, 2006

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture...s20070530.html
 
Cypress said:
According to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal board meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way." (Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, Oct. 30, 2006

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture...s20070530.html
Click to expand...


Yeah, I read that above nut SF just discounted it altogether. I was more curious with how he responds to the allegation regarding the falsified flight plans and dummy flights as found by the EU investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top