ACLU sues Jeppesen for Flights

This is rich. The [Anti] American Civil Liberties Union, also known for
its staunch support of the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association
(NAMBLA), just filed a suit of Boeing's Jeppesen subsidiary. The
reason? The ACLU is accusing Jeppesen for providing flight services to
the CIA, which Boeing "knew or should have known," was using for the
purpose of "torturing" terrorists.

Even assuming for the purpose of the argument that the CIA was actually
torturing terrorists, why would Jeppesen be at fault? They merely
provide navigation support and handling for air traffic control, fuel
requirements, formalities, etc. for airplanes. Somehow ACLU wants to
hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/den...8/daily21.html

"Jim Maher" wrote in message
...
hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as a
heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but perhaps
their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do business.
Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued, many may simply
opt to decline government business.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jim Maher" wrote in message
...
hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as
a
heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but
perhaps
their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do
business.
Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued, many may
simply
opt to decline government business.

I rmember reading that they get paid for there time if they win the law
suit.....if they win a few along the way i do not think they worry about
losing a few...tom

This suit reminds me of the ones cities brought against the handgun
manufacturers. The courts will toss this one out, as well.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jim Maher" wrote in message
...
hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as
a heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but
perhaps their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do
business. Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued,
many may simply opt to decline government business.


Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
the suit and go after the real perps...

In a previous article, "Robert Barker" said:
Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
the suit and go after the real perps...

You can't sue the government. You can only hold them accountable at
election time.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"God be between you and harm, in all the empty places that you must walk"

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Robert Barker" said:

Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
the suit and go after the real perps...


You can't sue the government. You can only hold them accountable at
election time.

Sure you can. Happens every day. But you have to go to Federal Court
and they have to allow you to sue them.

...and they have to allow you to sue them

That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jun 3, 7:16 pm, Jose wrote:
...and they have to allow you to sue them

That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?

Jose


Under traditional English law, from which our legal system is largely
derived, the government is protected by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity ("The King can do no wrong.") However, most, if not all,
government entites in the US (the fed as well as states, cities,etc)
have waived the doctrine for certain classes of cases, hence "allowing
you to sue them." Rarely does the gov't waive the protection on a
case by case basis. The plaintiff in this case is probably hoping to
fit into some general category of case in which the govt has already
waived its sovereign immunity. That said, I agree that the case
should be without merit.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:16:49 GMT, Jose
wrote:

...and they have to allow you to sue them

That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?

The issue seems to be "standing." Wikipedia has a fairly terse article
with that title. It seems to say that you can sue the government in
Federal Court if you can show the court that you have been injured or
would be injured by something the government has done or wants to do,
but Congress can force the Court to take a case it doesn't want to
hear by passing an act for that specific purpose.

As a layman, I think this is different than ordinary tort law, where
the bar is set much lower.

Don