In These Times's The ITT List was recently named one of the top 5 campaign blogs for its coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Check out our current blogging of the Republican National Convention.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Features > February 4, 2008

Extraordinary Rendition on Trial

ACLU tries to ground the Boeing subsidiary that trafficked in torture

By Christopher Moraff

At the end of the day, the case is about sending a clear message to U.S. companies that they will be held accountable for profiting from human rights violations.

On Nov. 1, 2002, Bisher Al-Rawi, a citizen of Iraq, was preparing to board a plane at Gatwick Airport in London, en route to Gambia, when screeners found something suspicious in his luggage.

Al-Rawi—a permanent resident of the United Kingdom who worked sporadically as an interpreter for MI5, the U.K. counterintelligence agency—was traveling to Africa to set up a nut-oil processing venture there, having spent the previous months obtaining the necessary permits and licenses from Gambian authorities.

It took four days for British authorities to conclude the object he was carrying was nothing more than a common store-bought battery charger. On Nov. 4, Al-Rawi was released from custody, but by then, a course of events had been set in motion that would launch Al-Rawi on a five-year Kafkaesque odyssey ending with his March 2007 release from U.S. detention at Guantánamo Bay. Unbeknownst to him, Al-Rawi was about to become the subject of a then-secret CIA program known as “extraordinary rendition.”

In August 2007, Al-Rawi and a second man, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah—a 38-year-old Yemeni citizen who underwent a similar ordeal in 2003—joined in an ACLU lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, alleging the company played a critical role in their renditions. A total of five plaintiffs are named in the suit, each of whom, it is alleged, was rendered with planning and logistical support from Jeppesen. The other three plaintiffs, Ahmed Agiza, Abou Elkassim Britel and Binyam Mohamed, remain in custody in Egypt, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, respectively. All five say they were subjected to an array of physical and mental abuse—ranging from sleep deprivation to electric shock torture—at the hands of their captors.

This is the second time the ACLU has challenged extraordinary rendition in open court. The first case was that of Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen who, in 2003, the CIA rendered to Afghanistan while El-Masri was vacationing in Macedonia.

The ACLU, on El-Masri’s behalf, sued former CIA head George Tenet and several shell companies operated by the agency. In 2006, El-Masri’s claim was dismissed after the U.S. government argued that a public trial would “present a grave risk of injury to national security.” Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal.

But the Jeppesen case is the first time a U.S. public company has been taken to task for its complicity in the rendition program.

According to the company’s website, Jeppesen Dataplan is an international flight operations service provider that coordinates everything from landing fees to hotel reservations for commercial and military clients.

Evidence shows that a unit of the company—Jeppesen International Trip Planning Service (JITPS)—provided logistical support to the CIA for the renditions of at least seven people: aid that the ACLU calls “critical” to the program’s operational success.

What’s more, the complaint alleges that Jeppesen intentionally submitted “dummy flights” to various aviation authorities in order to conceal the true flight paths of the rendition planes.

Among the witnesses for the plaintiffs is a former Jeppesen employee, Sean Belcher, who says that during his orientation as a technical writer at the company’s San Jose facility, he was told by the managing director of JITPS that the company provided support services for so-called CIA “torture flights.”

Belcher worked for Jeppesen for a little more than a month before resigning, five days after he learned of the company’s CIA link, he says.

Jeppesen declined to comment in depth on the case, saying it is against company policy to discuss pending litigation. But in an e-mail, company spokesperson Mike Pound dismissed Belcher’s statement as “hearsay,” adding that Jeppesen manages flight logistics and planning for thousands of organizations and people, and it is not necessary to know the specific nature of a customer’s flight.

“In the event that we learn something about the purpose of a flight, our customers have the reasonable expectation that it will be held in confidence,” Pound said. “We do not comment on any work done for any customer without their consent.”

To litigate the case, the ACLU is relying on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal law dating from 1789 that gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over civil actions filed by foreigners who allege violations of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The same law recently enabled three Chinese dissidents to file suit against Yahoo! for sharing information with the Chinese government that led to their arrests. Yahoo! settled that case in December 2007 for an undisclosed sum.

If the Bush administration has its way, the Jeppesen case will never get that far. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, once again evoking the “state secrets” privilege.

Echoing its argument in the El-Masri case, the United States asserts in its filing that disclosure of details of the rendition program—or even admitting that the plaintiffs were rendered—”could be expected to cause serious and, in some cases, exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

But the success of the motion rests largely on the government’s claim that the rendition program constitutes a state secret, an assertion that is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.

In its response to the motion to dismiss, the ACLU has presented roughly 1,000 pages of documents that suggest the CIA’s rendition program was anything but a secret. Included are everything from actual flight plans to petitions for the release of specific detainees and reports on the rendition program from the European Parliament, the United Nations and the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom.

“Since El-Masri there is more information in the public domain about the rendition program,” says Ben Wizner, one of the ACLU’s lead attorneys on the case. “Every month that goes by, it gets harder and harder for the United States to make a straight-faced argument that the rendition program is a black-box clandestine operation.”

In addition, says Wizner, increasingly more of that information is coming from the federal government itself.

“You have the president publicly revealing, confirming and defending the rendition and detention program. You have [CIA Director] Mike Hayden giving speeches at the Council on Foreign Relations and going on Charlie Rose to talk about the rendition program.

“It is interesting to see the length the U.S. government is going to try and prevent any accountability for its contractors,” Wizner says.

Requests for comment from the U.S. attorney that filed the government’s motion to dismiss, Michael Abate, were directed to the Justice Department’s public affairs office. Department spokesperson Charles Miller subsequently declined comment.

The Dark Prison

Days after his run-in with airport authorities at Gatwick, Al-Rawi flew without incident to Banjul, Gambia, where—on a tip from the British—he was promptly detained by local intelligence officials. Within a month, he found himself strapped to a stretcher in a CIA-operated Gulfstream V jet aircraft with no idea where he was being taken or by whom.

Next page »Page 1 of 2
Christopher Moraff is a writer and photographer who frequently contributes to In These Times, The American Prospect online and Common Sense magazine. He currently serves as a features correspondent for The Philadelphia Tribune and is associate editor of the finance magazine the Monitor, where he specializes in covering corporate fraud. He lives and works in Philadelphia.

More information about Christopher Moraff

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    As always, ITT publishes stuff and leaves out the most interesting parts.

    Al-Rawi has been accused of association with al-Qa’eda, aiding terrorists in moving between Britain and Pakistan, concealing terrorists in Britain, and moving funds in support of al-Qa’eda operations.  Al-Rawi’s return to Britain followed an extradition request by Britain, where he was wanted on terrorist charges, and which followed negotiations between Britain and the USA to assure that adequate security safeguards were in place for al-Rawi in Britain. 

    These charges against al-Rawi are somewhat more serious than having a “suspicious” “common store-bought battery charger” in his luggage.  My horseback estimate is that the charger was a pretense to hold al-Rawi for a few days to verify information or prepare to track him further. 

    ITT seems always to support the people who want to kill us.  In that effort, ITT is in bad company: ACLU, MoveOn , NYT, Reid, Pelosi, and the HillBillys, to name a few. 

    Well, so what?  Does anyone besides the Sinisteres care if a terrorist undergoes rendition, waterboarding, confinement, intensive questioning?  Not me.  I expect my government to protect me from people who want to kill me (terrorists) or enslave me (Sinisteres).  As regarding the domestic Sinisteres, we have the right and ability to defend ourselves, and we will do so as necessary.

    Posted by scorp on Feb 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM

    scorp mouths the lies that the tyrants create to control. That is the reason for the lies, to give the mealy something to chew on, to give the sheep something to browse. What kind of coward sells out anyone and, seemingly, would sell out everyone just because he is yellowed by the fearing lies of those who only seek to control him? 

    Considering scorp’s rote comments the back of a horse is an apt description.

    Posted by braamer on Feb 4, 2008 at 8:12 PM

    What is the really frightening aspect of the whole matter is that the government can literally get away with murder and torture simply by claiming that any action brought in court against it by the victim would “present a grave risk of injury to national security”.
    So if you are the unfortunate innocent victim, what is your recourse against the perpetrators?
    Join Al’Quaeda? (for government hacks: this is meant ironically)
    The arrogance and stupidity of our executive is mindboggling. They are supposed to be our servants and Amrica is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. We better get back to that attitude in a hurry, before we p..s off the rest of the world.

    Posted by dlibori on Feb 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM

    Hats off to Sean Belcher, the tech writer who walked away from his job with the aforementioned Boeing subsidiary rather involve himself in what he perceived to be nefarious undertakings at variance with our nation’s precepts of accountability under the law.  As ACLU agents lilke Ben Wizner and those of us who depend on the ACLU to reveal our government’s egregious excesses and insufferable license have come to know since the Church Committee hearings three decades ago, black-box clandestine operations are sometimes revolting. So deep is the depth of CIA insertion into our nation’s commercial life, that it is not a stretch to wonder whether recipients of such funding delude themselves into thinking that they rake it in as a matter of “patriotism.” The company spokesperson, Mike Pound, seems the straight man for this dark comedy.

    Posted by Bud Wizer on Feb 6, 2008 at 5:12 PM

    “the victim would “present a grave risk of injury to national security”.

    One wonders what should happen if the “victim” does present a grave risk to national security (e.g., the waterboarding “victims’).

    “So if you are the unfortunate innocent victim, what is your recourse against the perpetrators?”

    One might wonder if there are any “innocent victims”. I somehow feel little empathy for September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. They got less than they deserve and are lucky we are NOT like them!

    Posted by wolf on Feb 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Christopher Moraff
"To people who say they are sick of the corporate dominated and celebrity fixated news media, I say, "Stop whining and subscribe to In These Times." --Barbara Ehrenreich
Popular Discussions