The ACLU's Case for Legal Reform

Since Congressional Democrats didn't end the war, the ACLU rounds up the usual suspects--forcing corporations into Federal court:

The American Civil Liberties Union today [May 30th] filed a federal lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Company, on behalf of three victims of the United States government's unlawful "extraordinary rendition" program. The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel and Ahmed Agiza to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

You ask, did Boeing take, transport or torture terrorists? Nope, no, nah; if Radical Islamics got less than the full Sandy Berger, the ACLU fingers only the government: "The CIA rendition flights transfer terror suspects to countries where the U.S. government knows detainees are routinely tortured or otherwise abused in contravention of universally accepted legal standards."

And Boeing? The ACLU complaint (e.g., at 3) accuses Boeing's subsidiary of the following heinous acts:

In return for undisclosed fees, Jeppesen has played a critical role in the successful implementation of the extraordinary rendition program. It has furnished essential flight and logistical support to aircraft used by the CIA to transfer terror suspects to secret detention and interrogation facilities in countries such as Morocco and Egypt. . .

Among other services provided Jeppesen prepared pre-departure flight planning services, including itinerary, route weather, and fuel plans for both aircraft involved in their renditions; procured necessary landing and overflight permits for all legs of the rendition flights; and through local agents, arranged fuel and ground handling for the aircraft; filed flight plans with national and inter- governmental air traffic control authorities; paid passenger fees for the crew; and made arrangements to secure the safety of the aircraft and crew on the ground.

Says ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero:

American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values. Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.

Uh, legally accountable for what? Well, the ACLU has smart lawyers. And they know the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the CIA (with some exceptions likely irrelevant here, but which explain the "contravention of universally accepted legal standards" language). So, the ACLU's beef is that Boeing aided flight safety. What, exactly, is illegal about that? Nothing--selling air navigation information to aircraft owners and operators is Jeppesen's principal business. But Boeing has no sovereign immunity: it's a large, shareholder-owned enterprise. And, as Romero's quote makes clear, the ACLU hates corporations, especially profit-making ones. In progressive-speak, "undisclosed fees" means "Lions and tigers and bears--oh my!"

This suit won't succeed; publicity, not precedent, is the point. And the expenses -- lawyers, court fees, money value of time -- of the inevitably successful "Motion to Dismiss" will befall Boeing, not taxpayers. But those costs will be amortized into Jeppesen charts and/or capitalized into new 787 aircraft; borne by the airlines; and passed to consumers in ticket price increases and snacks-for-sandwiches substitution.

Next time you bitch about the price or quality of air travel, blame loony lefties at the ACLU. Support law suit reform. And think twice about electing a long-time tort litigator.

MORE:

Veteran Reagan and Bush 41 Administration officials David Rivkin and Lee Casey, in Tuesday's WSJ:

Leaving aside the lack of legal merit, the ACLU's claims are part of a highly troubling new trend. They are of a piece with a number of other ATS lawsuits brought against government contractors, actions filed last year against telecommunications companies alleging that they violated federally protected privacy rights by cooperating with the NSA's data-collection efforts, and an action, filed last March in Minnesota, against several airline passengers who had reported what they believed to be suspicious activity by a group of Muslim imams. The government enjoys legal immunities and other advantages in litigation that private citizens do not have. Moreover, for a private individual, a lawsuit, however meritless, can mean personal financial ruin and, at a minimum, significant disruption in his life. Corporations are similarly subject to costly and distracting litigation.

These are real advantages from an antiwar activist's perspective, since the result is likely to be a marked aversion by the citizenry in general, and government contractors in particular, to engage in conduct, however lawful, supporting the war. This alteration in the corporate mind set, such that risk-averse companies, no matter how patriotic their management, would find it safer to say no to any war-related requests from the federal government is very likely the goal of at least some activists.

Divided nations can, of course, win wars. Throughout the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln faced a vocal and determined antiwar effort in the North, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt had to defend various of their policies in the courts. Even Lincoln, however, did not have to deal with antiwar efforts targeting private citizens who were themselves supporting the government's war effort. That is new, and it will make fighting and winning the war against terror all the more difficult.

(via Cheat Seeking Missiles, Gribbit's World)