Thoughts on this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842009/posts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=10571539

 

I wonder if the ACLU will sue the insurgents who violate our people's civil rights by torturing and killing them? What a crock!

 

If they did have explicit knowledge of supporting those actions, I can see how they could be held liable. My first reaction was that Jepp was being sued for providing chart services to the operators. If they were actively involved in the process, then they are liable. While I want no mercy for those who engage in terror, we are supposed to be the civilized ones. If we are going to bend the rules, we need to do a better job of keeping it quiet. Someone leaked the info that Jepp was involved, they can't be punished criminally b/c that would involved revealing details of the operations, so they get hosed this way. When it comes to spook stuff, keep your mouths shut.

 

"It's good to be the king!", someone once said...

 

The suit says they "...provided flight services that enabled..."

Presumably, the act of enabling the CIA came from providing charting to far away places. Under this logic they could have enabled the CIA to conduct a training flight, deliver flowers, or anything else one could do with an airplane.

The question is this: What liability and responsibility do support vendors have to aircraft operators with respect to the conduct, legal or not, of their flights.

My guess is that the CIA didn't ask Jepp for a Rendition flight plan to Torture Central. So then, what responsibility does Jepp have for interrogating the CIA as to why they need these charts?

Under this logic, the fueler enabled the conduct of this flight way more than Jepp charts. Why not go after catering too?

Thanks for indulging my Perry Mason fantasy


I rest my case.

 

You know this has to end some time soon,Some of us still can't go anywhere in the EU

 

HSLD, you're doing a good job of describing that well loved tort concept of "proximate cause."

proximate cause
n. a happening which results in an event, particularly injury due to negligence or an intentional wrongful act. In order to prevail (win) in a lawsuit for damages due to negligence or some other wrong, it is essential to claim (plead) proximate cause in the complaint and to prove in trial that the negligent act of the defendant was the proximate cause (and not some other reason) of the damages to the plaintiff (person filing the lawsuit). Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes between the original negligence of the defendant and the injured plaintiff, which will either reduce the amount of responsibility or, if this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the defendant will not be liable at all. In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

 

Is this anything like the attempt to hold Smith&Wesson liable for liquor store robberies?

 

Yes. In law school, we used to see who could come up with the longest string of "causes."

 

I didn't read the whole article but I would guess that Jepp. didn't know the details of the flight. I'm sure the CIA doesn't just call and say what they are doing. It was probably more like hey we need to go here with this many people can you help us, oh btw we weren't here. I doubt you hear any phone conversations like:

CIA: Hey we want to transport some terrorists to xx country so they can be tourtued can you hook us up?

JEPP: You bet anything to help kill more terrorist pigs!!

Give me a break ACLU. Next thing you know they will be sueing Boeing for producing the A/C that the terrorists used on 9/11.