divide and litigate

Divide and Litigate

The ACLU sues an American company for helping the war effort.

I don't think facillitating torture (or "enhanced interogation" techniques, if you prefer) helps the war effort. I think it hurts the war effort. Torture is not only a poor and ineffective technique for obtaining accurate information, is deprives the United States of one of our greatest weapons: moral authority and holding the moral high ground.

As for the status of this civil case, I don't have an opinion. The facts will be lawfully adjudicated in a court of law, or the suit will be dismissed as having no merit. I'm not familiar enough with the facts or case law precedent to have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
you quite obviously did not read the article.

They did not facilitate torture. They provided a service to a government agency. They have every right to expect the US government to act within the law.
 
Superfreak said:
you quite obviously did not read the article.

They did not facilitate torture. They provided a service to a government agency. They have every right to expect the US government to act within the law.
Click to expand...
But that does not excuse them from breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you are rich or in politics.
 
"But that does not excuse them from breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you are rich or in politics."

Jeppesen DID NOT BREAK THE LAW. What ridiculous spin.
 
" defending torture?"

Learn to read retard. No one is defending torture. Please, do the world a favor and go play in traffic.
 
Superfreak said:
"Just using your words SF."

And just HOW did you use my words?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
you quite obviously did not read the article.

They did not facilitate torture. They provided a service to a government agency. They have every right to expect the US government to act within the law."

The implication is quite specific.
 
"The implication is quite specific"

No it is not. Are you saying that we don't have the right to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law? That a company like Jeppesen should require foreign governments and the CIA to provide copies of the assurances? Or are you saying that no one should work with the US government?
 
Superfreak said:
"The implication is quite specific"

No it is not. Are you saying that we don't have the right to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law? That a company like Jeppesen should require foreign governments and the CIA to provide copies of the assurances? Or are you saying that no one should work with the US government?
Click to expand...

Under the bush government, we have learned not to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law. Especially if that agency is in any way subordinate to the president. And as noted in another post they are even infiltrating non partisan organizations (GAO). I guess bush did not like the truth that the GAO was putting out.
 
Superfreak said:
"The implication is quite specific"

No it is not. Are you saying that we don't have the right to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law? That a company like Jeppesen should require foreign governments and the CIA to provide copies of the assurances? Or are you saying that no one should work with the US government?
Click to expand...

But why not let the courts decide this? We don't know everything. For all you know, there exist internal memos showing that top executives of the company did know.
 
"Under the bush government, we have learned not to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law. Especially if that agency is in any way subordinate to the president. And as noted in another post they are even infiltrating non partisan organizations (GAO). I guess bush did not like the truth that the GAO was putting out."

So then by your rules, no one should do business with the US government? Right?

Darla... the problem I have is that it is these types of friviolous suits that logjam our court systems. But hey, I understand your point... why not just let the aclu file suit against anyone just on a whim.... because the court system can simply review the case and toss them out. No worries.
 
When this case gets tossed out... I hope you all show equal support for Jeppesen filing a defamation suit against the ACLU.

I am sure you care that idiotic suits like the ACLUs hurt the employees of Jeppesen. That the money Jeppesen spends on defending this suit is money that could have gone to salaries or benefits for the employees. Because you know it is not the execs that are going to take the hit.
 
Superfreak said:
"Under the bush government, we have learned not to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law. Especially if that agency is in any way subordinate to the president. And as noted in another post they are even infiltrating non partisan organizations (GAO). I guess bush did not like the truth that the GAO was putting out."

So then by your rules, no one should do business with the US government? Right?

Darla... the problem I have is that it is these types of friviolous suits that logjam our court systems. But hey, I understand your point... why not just let the aclu file suit against anyone just on a whim.... because the court system can simply review the case and toss them out. No worries.
Click to expand...


Darla... the problem I have is that it is these types of friviolous suits that logjam our court systems.

I find it fascinating that you go ballistic when the ACLU sues a contractor for flying it's clients to uzbekistan to allegedly be tortured.

But, you remain dead silent on the thread where Robert Bork fell on his ass giving a speech at Yale, and then decides to sue Yale University for a million bucks.


Very telling, don't you think? ;)



(just teasing)
 
Superfreak said:
"Under the bush government, we have learned not to expect that a government agency will act in accordance with the law. Especially if that agency is in any way subordinate to the president. And as noted in another post they are even infiltrating non partisan organizations (GAO). I guess bush did not like the truth that the GAO was putting out."

So then by your rules, no one should do business with the US government? Right?

Darla... the problem I have is that it is these types of friviolous suits that logjam our court systems. But hey, I understand your point... why not just let the aclu file suit against anyone just on a whim.... because the court system can simply review the case and toss them out. No worries.
Click to expand...

LOL. That's right! Now you've got it. Listen, if the judge rules it frivolous and the company wants to file for defamation, I don't have a problem with them doing that. That's what courts are for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top