|
|
Rendition RewindYesterday, a federal appeals court announced that it will hear the government’s appeal of an earlier ruling that allowed the ACLU’s lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., to go forward. In 2007, we sued Jeppesen for its role in the Bush administration’s unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program. Our lawsuit was filed on behalf of five men who were forcibly disappeared and then tortured in U.S.-run secret overseas prisons or by foreign intelligence agents. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Bush administration intervened, improperly asserting the “state secrets” privilege and asking the judge to have the case thrown out without considering any evidence in support of the mens’ case. Although the lower court upheld the government’s claims, in April, a three-judge panel reversed the lower court’s dismissal (PDF) of the lawsuit. The panel held, contrary to the assertions of Obama administration lawyers, and as we had argued, that the “state secrets” privilege can only be invoked with respect to specific evidence, and not to dismiss the entire suit. In June, the Obama administration appealed the decision, and asked an “en banc” panel of 11 judges to rehear the case, which the court announced yesterday that it will hear. Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, and counsel in the case, stated:
The San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage of the rehearing points out that, “Of the five plaintiffs, two are still imprisoned in Egypt and Morocco, and the other three were released without U.S. charges.” To date, no torture victim from the Bush-administration’s “War on Terror” has had his day in court. Tags: Human Rights Program, national security project, Rendition |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
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.