CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Rendition Case to Move Forward (Finally!)Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our "extraordinary rendition" lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. can go forward. Filed on behalf of five men who were kidnapped, forcibly disappeared and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture, Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen seeks to hold Jeppesen accountable for its knowing participation in the Bush administration's unlawful rendition program. Today's decision reversed a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit after the government intervened and improperly asserted the "state secrets" privilege. The government had argued that allowing the case to proceed would be a threat to national security. The ruling today rejects that argument and says that the government must invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to specific evidence, not to dismiss the entire lawsuit from the outset - a position that we've argued all along. The government could not seriously argue, for example, that the Pentagon Papers remained "secret" and therefore subject to the state secrets privilege even after having been published in The New York Times, simply because the government itself refused to declassify or otherwise "officially disclose" the content of the papers.We couldn't agree more. Ben Wizner, ACLU counsel in the case, said in a statement: "Our clients, who are among the hundreds of victims of torture under the Bush administration, have waiting for years just to get a foot in the courthouse door. Now, at long last, they will have their day court. Today's ruling demolishes once and for all the legal fiction, advanced by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, that facts known throughout the world could be deemed 'secrets' in a court of law." To date, no victim of torture has ever had his day in court. Bisher Al-Rawi, a plaintiff in this case who was released from Guantánamo in 2007 without ever having been charged with a crime, stated: "I am happy to hear this news. We have made a huge step forward in our quest for justice." ACLU attorney Steven Watt, who is also counsel in the case, added: "Allowing this case to go forward is an important step toward reaffirming our commitment to domestic and international human rights law and restoring an America we can be proud of. Victims of extraordinary rendition deserve their day in court." In its decision, the court also wrote that "the Executive's national security prerogatives are not the only weighty constitutional values at stake," and quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush that security depends on the "freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adhering to the separation of powers." It doesn't get much clearer than that. — Ateqah Khaki & Nahal Zamani
Tags: Human Rights Program, national security project
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 3 Responses to "Rendition Case to Move Forward (Finally!)" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Apr 28th, 2009 at 5:21pm
Congrats, ACLU!
Apr 29th, 2009 at 10:16am
Great job guys! We need to quit treating these "terrorist" so poorly. Sure they've done some questionable things but it's because of Christianity and our lust for oil...and probably Wal-Mart. If we ask them nicely and perhaps compromise a bit (would it really hurt our women to wear burkas a day or two a week)they'll probably leave us alone. Oh yeah, Bush lied!!
Apr 29th, 2009 at 3:46pm
alert(hello);