SCOTUS: Govt Can Use State Secrets to Hide Crimes

SCOTUS just declined to take the Jeppesen Dataplan suit.

The high court rejected an appeal by five men who claimed that U.S. operatives—with support from Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing unit—abducted them and sent them to other countries where they were tortured. They alleged Jeppesen provided critical flight planning and logistical support to the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program. The men were seeking unspecified monetary damages from the company.

This effectively means that men like Binyam Mohamed, who the Brits have admitted was tortured after being rendered, cannot sue for redress. And the ruling is particularly egregious since a Jeppesen executive admitted that his company was flying rendition flights.

In effect, SCOTUS’ decision not to take this case leaves in place state secrets precedent that allows the government to commit grave crimes, but hide behind state secrets.

Update: The Brennan Center and a bunch of other crazy hippies who believe in rule of law wrote a letter in response to SCOTUS’ decision to DOJ reminding them that, per their purported state secrets policy, credible allegations of wrong-doing must be referred to the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies for investigation.

In December of last year, the undersigned groups and individuals wrote to inquire whether the Department of Justice had referred to the Inspectors General (IG) of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, or any other department or agency allegations arising out of the government’s extraordinary rendition program detailed in several recently dismissed civil complaints—a referral required by the Department of Justice’s policy on the use of the state secrets privilege issued on September 23, 2009 (hereinafter “the September 23 policy”).  As we have received no response to that letter, and today’s Supreme Court decision makes it highly unlikely that any examination of the issue will take place in the courts, we submit this open letter posing the same question.

If the required referrals have not yet been made, we respectfully request that you now ask the relevant IGs to undertake a joint investigation into the Executive’s use of extraordinary rendition and to issue a public report—with as little redaction as possible—of their findings.  Should the IG investigation uncover government wrongdoing, we also urge that plaintiffs’ legitimate claims be acknowledged and redressed—that the government vindicate their claims by recognizing the ordeals they endured and denouncing any wrongdoing; by issuing a public apology; by providing monetary compensation; and through any other means that justice requires.

[snip]

Consequently, we believe that a thorough investigation—conducted by all relevant Inspectors General with full access to all relevant witnesses, documents, tapes, photographs, and other material, and culminating in a public report—would serve the interests of justice, and would accord with the September 23 policy’s aspiration to “provide greater accountability and reliability in the invocation of the state secrets privilege.” Moreover, where government wrongdoing is uncovered, providing plaintiffs appropriate redress could at least grant some small measure of recompense for the denial of these plaintiffs’ day in court.

This is me officially holding my breath for the Obama Administration to do what they promised on this front.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

0 Responses to SCOTUS: Govt Can Use State Secrets to Hide Crimes

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @dcbigjohn Awesome pics. Looks like a good time.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @xbradtc Baltimore officials have already admitted that the knife he was carrying was legal. No legitimate grounds for arrest. Nor killing.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @xbradtc Under Wardlow, a minimal Terry stop probably. The type of conduct that obviously occurred here, not even close.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Great news; about time RT @evanchill Canada says will finally issue @MFFahmy11 a passport after an embarrassing delay http://t.co/Sq1Shwd9S8
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Popehat @CathyYoung63 "attorney and astute commentator Ken White" Man, you get all the good descriptions.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @daneyvilla It seems pretty much that's about it
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Restrained him on the ground.....for what?? Gray ends up with a severed spine for making eye contact with a cop?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz How can this be proper basis? http://t.co/tmhnSmgPwt
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Why did the Baltimore police start chasing Freddie Gray to begin with? What was probable cause for physical arrest?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DanCBarr I had season tix and was at nearly every game that season+playoffs. Incredible energy. You are right, Warriors now do seem like it
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DerekGossler @william_pitts Ive been going to+then giving money to my alma mater for 40 years, don't pull that be a solution shit with me
7hreplyretweetfavorite