back to article Feds bat for Boeing in rendition lawsuit

The US government argued vehemently yesterday in District Court that government contractors engaged in confidential activities are covered by the controversial state secrets doctrine to the extent that litigation would require disclosure of government secrets. The state secrets document is a common law doctrine that the American …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
mo

Typical

Rendition = The capture (and ownership) of political opponents or suspected terrorists by the United States government, and their removal to countries where the torture, rape, and/or prisoner abuse are legally permitted or overlooked

The State is all powerful, able to dictate its own terms, with no discussion except on its terms. Nothing matters, people who might see something wrong are 'Conspiracy Theorists'!!

The State is flying 'non-people' into 'no law' zones to torture them and claiming this is acceptable.

0
0
Bronze badge

Action!

We need to cut off political ties with this rogue state until such time as regime change had brought them to a moral standard acceptable to the international community!

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Good!

Have they booked a seat for Abu "Hook" Hamza yet, I'm quite keen to see him spend some quality time in a thrid-world prison rather than living it up at our tax payers expense with his own arse-wiper.

0
1
Silver badge

In other words

The US government has been telling lies since at least 1953 to cover its ass, and the rights of its victims - the very citizens it is supposed to protect - can be damned.

Hmm, now why does that not surprise me ? Why do I feel that absolutely no government has told the truth unless it was tracked into a corner and had no other choice ?

0
0
tom
Unhappy

What, me? Uncomfortable?

"The extensive recent coverage of American torture outsourcing has made many Americans uncomfortable..."

One of the reasons I love reading El Reg is this amazing gift for understatement displayed by so many of the writers. I've been self-censoring my criticism of my own government's actions for several years now, especially on the web where it can be automatically scraped and cataloged. Waterboarding? I'll pass, thanks.

0
0
Go

The existence of the program...

... is a known fact, in the public domain. And attested to in public by one of the defendants, according to your report. There is no reason why the case should not proceed on that basis.

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

I have a theory....

These "human-rights/bash-Uncle-Sam" threads usually attract a fair share of Indymedia types. They all seem convinced that the NSA, CIA, MI5 and (a somehow omnipotent) Bush are all spying on them and just looking for some web content to justify whipping them off on an all-expenses-paid flight to Kabul for some water sports. My theory is if that the tinfoil-hatted think there is something in a thread to get the Big Brothers interest then they won't post out of fear, so to here goes:

Semtex, guns, 9-11, Osama bin Laden! Learn to fly a jumbo without landing! Straits of Hormuz, Iran, Ayatollah, Isfahan, enrichment, Netanz , heavy-water, plutonium, Arak!

Let's see if any of them dare post now!

0
1
Thumb Down

the 1953 case

Now that the details of the 1953 are released, can the families go back and sue the government for lying or something? Surely something should happen to punish the military and the government for blatantly lying and just waiting till all the people involved are dead before admitting "Yep we made it all up".

Surely something has to be made of that case, else what's to stop the government from declaring everything a state secret and basically preventing ANY justice from happening?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Iglethal

Fully agree. The 1953 perjury should be prosecuted, but I doubt they could persuade the courts to take back their decision on the principle, even if it was based on false testimony :( I'd like to see decisions based on it withdrawn, and make them try and make the case again.

0
0

@ AC

I'd be suprised if the judiciary DIDNT want to go back on this because basically this ruling means that the government can go over the heads of the judiciary anytime they want by saying the words "National Security".

Removing that bit of case law would put the Judiciary back in power to make decisions. Seems strange they wouldnt press the issue!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums