Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

"State Secret" Privilege Used to Block Lawsuit on Behalf of Torture Victims

By Maya Harris, ACLU Northern California. Posted February 10, 2008.


Is extraordinary rendition really a "state secret" anymore?
Advertisement

Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and legal resident of the United Kingdom, was abducted in 2002 by masked men and flown, blindfolded, from Pakistan to Morocco. For 18 months, Mohamed was regularly beaten into unconsciousness by his interrogators. After a scalpel was used to cut into his body, hot, stinging liquid was poured into his wounds.

Mohamed is just one victim of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, which the Bush administration has defended openly, yet is now arguing it cannot discuss without endangering national security.

The government is calling for the dismissal of an ACLU lawsuit -- brought on behalf of Mohamed and four other rendition victims -- against the San Jose Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. for its alleged participation in the rendition program. The Bush administration has intervened in the case and is invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid accountability for its illegal torture policies. A hearing on the government's motion was held Feb. 5 in San Jose and we are awaiting a decision.

The "state secrets" privilege has historically been used to exclude discrete pieces of evidence from lawsuits in order to protect national security, not to throw out entire cases. But the Bush administration has begun to misuse the privilege by routinely waving the "state secrets" flag in an effort to quash lawsuits that might expose its illegal conduct. In addition to this case, the "state secrets" claim has been raised in an effort to throw out other torture and illegal wiretapping suits.

Far from being a "secret," the rendition program is infamous around the world and has been spoken about repeatedly by government officials. (Watch the video explaining the ACLU's case and the practice of rendition.)

During a Sept. 6, 2006, speech, President Bush acknowledged that among the "thousands of terrorists" captured by U.S. and allied forces, a "small number" had been "transferred to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts." Those individuals were "held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency," he said.

Though the administration contends that the rendition program operates within the law and that detainees are sent to countries that the government claims will not commit torture, the truth is that "extraordinary rendition" involves the kidnapping and transportation of alleged terror suspects to detention and interrogation facilities in countries where the use of torture is common and well-documented.

Jeppesen's involvement -- like the rendition program itself -- is widely known. Jeppesen has been a main provider of flight and logistical support services for aircraft used by the CIA for the clandestine rendition flights. There is ample evidence of Jeppesen's involvement, including traceable flight plans.

In addition, Sean Belcher, a former Jeppesen employee, has given sworn testimony that the flights were discussed openly at Jeppesen. Belcher said that at a meeting on Aug. 11, 2006, Bob Overby, director of Jeppesen International Trip Planning Service at Jeppesen's San Jose office, said, "We do all the extraordinary rendition flights."

Belcher said Overby described these as "torture flights," adding, "let's face it, some of these flights end up this way," or words to that effect. Overby, Belcher said, noted that Jeppesen was well-compensated for its efforts.

To dismiss this lawsuit before Jeppesen has even answered the complaint is both unjust and premature. If there is evidence in the case that must be withheld for national security reasons, the judicial system is equipped to exercise such safeguards within the context of a trial. But there is a wealth of information already in the public domain that should propel this lawsuit forward.

It comes down to this: We live in a country founded on the rule of law and respect for the dignity of human beings. A government that practices disappearance and torture -- and companies that profit from it -- must be held accountable.

The CIA's rendition program is illegal and inhumane. It -- and the lives it has destroyed -- is no secret. Its victims deserve their day in court.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: cia, extraordinary rendition, aclu, binyam mohamed, state secrets privilege

Maya Harris is the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. This opinion was originally printed in the Sacramento Bee. Resources related to the lawsuit, including legal documents, multimedia, and background information, are available on the ACLU of Northern California website.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unimaginable Hell
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 10, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given what we all know about the use of torture (in our name) by those who are EVIL SADISTIC MONSTERS, then what possibly could they be hiding? Something far worse and even more evil!?!? Use your imagination, if it is even possible to imagine the horribly vile activities that are being done by our government and its conspirators.
Whenever I hear the phrase "states secrets", I immediately am reminded of the VERY REAL and LITERAL FASCISM that now characterizes the Bush administration. These people, those who rule over us, are among the worst humanity has to offer. And that is my opinion based solely upon what information is publicly available.
I am not a religious man. But these people are precisely why I believe in Hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unimaginable Hell Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Unimaginable Hell Posted by: QQOblivion
» RE: Unimaginable Hell Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Unimaginable Hell Posted by: blitzmesser
Gotta Love A Country...
Posted by: BAKslider on Feb 10, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that even has torture on its political plate as a dialog.

We are actually having a national debate over the right/wrong of torturing people.

I would have thought that torture would turn the stomach of even the most evangelical Christian but they are the ones cheering it on. Who would Jesus waterboard?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: christianity Posted by: Dboy
» RE: christianity Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: christianity Posted by: Quannah
» RE: christianity Posted by: carbon-based
» Wake up, 'carbon'... Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Wake up, 'carbon'... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: christianity Posted by: Quannah
» RE: christianity Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: christianity Posted by: blitzmesser
I WONDER HOW MANY LAWYERS IT TAKES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 10, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all legalized and almost air tight. It's easy to blame everything on 'Christianity' but the reality is that the lawyers are working full time to make sure that the Bush Admin. is covered. The element of risk exists but it's tough to challenge most of it. I hope someone succeeds. Maybe their luck will run out. They are a disgrace. The world is tired of them and so am I. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Permit me a dissenting opinion
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 10, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US Constitution, does not, and never has, implied, inferred or relegated, any rights to anyone who is not an American Citizen.

The ACLU is engaged in yet another one of their groundless campaigns in which they attempt to pervert the judicial branch of government to change law, and hold the executive branch to task, in direct violation of the Constitution itself. The ACLU is morally and legally wrong.

We are at war. During war, atrocities are committed by both sides of the war. This is the case with not just this war, but all wars. The atrocities are the symptom, the cause is the war.

Whining about the associated atrocities, is not the answer. This stupid lawsuit, is not the answer. The answer is to end the war, and that is the ONLY answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: EncinoM Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: rickiey
» RE: EncinoM Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: Quannah
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ncinoM Posted by: Quannah
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Yes, Encino... Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Yes, Encino... Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Permit me a dissenting opinion Posted by: blitzmesser
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 11, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if the police where you live couldn't be fired or even disciplined. Would you feel like you could rely on them to protect you?

Now think about the Federal government.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: Dboy
Phony “war on terror” = war on Americans & Humanity
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 11, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution has been breeched in so many places by the unwarranted, criminal use of de facto Fascist corporate Washington police power in the prosecution of illegal and arrantly bogus “war on terror” that it beggars belief.

From its inception “Al-Qaeda” has never been a native Mid East organization but more a false-flag CIA and Saudi funded sham similar to CIA “Operation Gladio” built to murder Europeans and frame “leftist” groups from the 60s through the 80s.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=CHO20060909&articleId=3194

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/
riconosciutoandtimosman8nov01.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror
/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

By the way, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds as an American citizen was also silenced with the "State Secrets Priviledge" for (among other things) having hard, documented evidence of government foreknowledge on 9/11 attacks. A greater travesty of justice would be difficult to imagine.

http://www.justacitizen.com

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rickiey does standup Posted by: zipper696
» RE: ickiey does standup Posted by: blitzmesser
The other thing
Posted by: Quannah on Feb 11, 2008 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that really pisses me off about this entire riduculous policy concerning "detainees" is the fact that we are actually having a debate in this country about whether or not we should TORTURE people!

After WWII, we tried 6 Japanese military personnel as war criminals for waterboarding US and Allied prisoners of war. They were found guilty. THEY WERE HANGED!

Why is this even a DEBATE?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The other thing Posted by: rimchamp77
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 12, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article could've done a better job explaining this but the note under the article gives a link to the ACLU affiliate web page explainign it.

ATCA dates back to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

As long as the defendant is physically within the US when served, neither the defendant, the plaintiff nor the act itself have to have been committed within US territory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]