Jeppesen and the CIA

I was listening to a story on NPR about this, and one of the points that the commentator made was that any trial or lawsuit that came out of this would likely get quashed under the "need to protect National Security" laws. The thing that occurs to me is, if national security is such a concern, then why did the CIA and the US Government go with an outside, private sector,
for-profit company to get the work done.

That said, while I don't think Jeppesen has any legal responsibilty in this matter, I feel they do have a moral responsibility. If they knew this was going on, then they should have, at the very least, stopped taking the business.
 
Old Pete said:
Not a damned thing wrong with it!!!-- Now you tell me you don't see something wrong with slitting a man's throat, video taping it and posting it on the internet. Go ahead.

I have a hard time imagining anything the CIA did to KSM that would bother me in the least.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that there is NO oversight and many innocent people are being picked up. But who cares right? You don't see anything wrong with it because it's not your family member that is being picked up and taken away to another nation for questioning, most likey through torture.

Of course the terrorist tactics are sickning and horrible. That however doesn't mean that we throw away all our principles.

The strength of a democracy is shown at bad times when there is fear in the citizens. There is so much talk of democracy and bringing it to the world. But as soon as we are scared, toss it all out the window.

So we don't torture people like in the middleeast, we just contract it out???
 
Personally I think that most of you guys are missing the point.

A company is being sued for something that its customer did with its product. That company has no legal or moral responsibility to police its customer's actions. Think about it. The implications of this type of law suit are incredibly bad for private companies everywhere.

If Jepp can be held responsible for handling flight planning without checking the end usage of that flight, then GM can be sued for selling a car to a person that is used in a bank robbery. Luisville Slugger can be sued when an abuser beats his wife to death with a 32" MLB special. Gillette can be sued when someone uses a straight razor to cut a pocket and steal a wallet.

How in the world you people expect Jeppesen to have a clue what the U.S. government is doing with the flight planning services that they supply, is beyond my comprehension. I no more expect Jepp to know what the reason for those flights were than I expect them to quiz me on why I want them to plan a flight for me from South America to the United States. I can guarantee that my Very Important Passenger will be upset if I spill the beans about his confidential business meetings to anyone. I can also guarantee that Jeppesen has absolutely no need to know why this, or any other, flight is taking place.

The legal and moral questions surrounding the transport of those people has absolutely no bearing on a lawsuit against a private contractor with no control over the end use of its product.

Think about the ramifications people.
 
I mentioned earlier that I'm not sure I agree with the lawsuit against Jepp. I was talking about the CIA program itself. I personally like Jepp and wouldn't mind working for them!

I do however think that the Bush adminsitration has used a lot of private contractors in the war on terror. Even in Iraq, it was private contractors that (I think CACI) that were found to be crossing the line at Abu Ghraib. So private companies in some cases do participate knowingly.
 
skydog said:
I was listening to a story on NPR about this, and one of the points that the commentator made was that any trial or lawsuit that came out of this would likely get quashed under the "need to protect National Security" laws. The thing that occurs to me is, if national security is such a concern, then why did the CIA and the US Government go with an outside, private sector,
for-profit company to get the work done.

That said, while I don't think Jeppesen has any legal responsibilty in this matter, I feel they do have a moral responsibility. If they knew this was going on, then they should have, at the very least, stopped taking the business.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Private sector, by taking on roles that have traditionally done by public organizations (which have the capacity, oversight, and mission statements for such missions) open themselves up to this type of litigation - that otherwise would not have been available if the administration had not gone and found the lowest bidder.
 
SteveC said:
Personally I think that most of you guys are missing the point.

A company is being sued for something that its customer did with its product. That company has no legal or moral responsibility to police its customer's actions. Think about it. The implications of this type of law suit are incredibly bad for private companies everywhere.

If Jepp can be held responsible for handling flight planning without checking the end usage of that flight, then GM can be sued for selling a car to a person that is used in a bank robbery. Luisville Slugger can be sued when an abuser beats his wife to death with a 32" MLB special. Gillette can be sued when someone uses a straight razor to cut a pocket and steal a wallet.

How in the world you people expect Jeppesen to have a clue what the U.S. government is doing with the flight planning services that they supply, is beyond my comprehension. I no more expect Jepp to know what the reason for those flights were than I expect them to quiz me on why I want them to plan a flight for me from South America to the United States. I can guarantee that my Very Important Passenger will be upset if I spill the beans about his confidential business meetings to anyone. I can also guarantee that Jeppesen has absolutely no need to know why this, or any other, flight is taking place.

The legal and moral questions surrounding the transport of those people has absolutely no bearing on a lawsuit against a private contractor with no control over the end use of its product.

Think about the ramifications people.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: Bingo;

Jeppesen provided a service that it probably provides thousands of times a day; flight planning. Jepp provides the same service to private pilots, corporate, charter, government, military, whoever.

Jepps only involvement was: airplane wants to go from point A to point B, airplane needs info for that route of flight, assist flight crew to get from A to B.

Jeppesen had no knowledge of who or what was being transported, and if Jepp asked, would the CIA tell them? God no.
 
SteveC said:
Personally I think that most of you guys are missing the point.

A company is being sued for something that its customer did with its product. That company has no legal or moral responsibility to police its customer's actions. Think about it. The implications of this type of law suit are incredibly bad for private companies everywhere.

If Jepp can be held responsible for handling flight planning without checking the end usage of that flight, then GM can be sued for selling a car to a person that is used in a bank robbery. Luisville Slugger can be sued when an abuser beats his wife to death with a 32" MLB special. Gillette can be sued when someone uses a straight razor to cut a pocket and steal a wallet.

How in the world you people expect Jeppesen to have a clue what the U.S. government is doing with the flight planning services that they supply, is beyond my comprehension. I no more expect Jepp to know what the reason for those flights were than I expect them to quiz me on why I want them to plan a flight for me from South America to the United States. I can guarantee that my Very Important Passenger will be upset if I spill the beans about his confidential business meetings to anyone. I can also guarantee that Jeppesen has absolutely no need to know why this, or any other, flight is taking place.

The legal and moral questions surrounding the transport of those people has absolutely no bearing on a lawsuit against a private contractor with no control over the end use of its product.

Think about the ramifications people.
Click to expand...

Luisville Slugger takes part in handling national security issues? Gillette is used to take part in handling national security issues? Such as being used by the CIA to transport potentially innocent individuals.

Horrible analogy Steve.

Companies, that knowingly participate in national security issues, that are private sector, ARE open to litigation. They are NOT protected by being a public service (like the military, CIA, NSA, or other three letter agency).
 
surreal1221 said:
Luisville Slugger takes part in handling national security issues? Gillette is used to take part in handling national security issues? Such as being used by the CIA to transport potentially innocent individuals.

Horrible analogy Steve.

Companies, that knowingly participate in national security issues, that are private sector, ARE open to litigation. They are NOT protected by being a public service (like the military, CIA, NSA, or other three letter agency).
Click to expand...

therein lies the key here though. DID jeppesen know what was going on?

Highly unlikely, and just plain illogical to think that the CIA would be telling Jeppesen "Yeah I need a flight plan from A to B so we can torture this guy"

They supported a flight, something they do day in and day out.
 
I'm not sure how they have a case. Am I responsible if I fly a CIA operative from ATL to CDG when he's going to fly onto a secret CIA base in Prague to interrogate some detainee?
 
I use the AOPA flight planner all the time, it is "powered by Jeppesen".

If I use that program to plan my flight to illegally transport drugs, illegal aliens, terrorists, hazardous waste, KGB infiltrators, or sasquatch; is Jeppesen responsible?
 
I wonder if anyone used JC's timetables for adulterous affairs. I hope I don't get a subpoena in a divorce proceeding! :sarcasm:
 
surreal1221 said:
Luisville Slugger takes part in handling national security issues? Gillette is used to take part in handling national security issues? Such as being used by the CIA to transport potentially innocent individuals.

Horrible analogy Steve.

Companies, that knowingly participate in national security issues, that are private sector, ARE open to litigation. They are NOT protected by being a public service (like the military, CIA, NSA, or other three letter agency).
Click to expand...

Sorry but it is not a horrible analogy.

This is a private corporation providing a legal service. They are not responsible for the customer's unknown use of their product anymore than is Gillette or Louisville Slugger or GM.

Jeppesen is not knowingly participating in a national security issue. They are providing flight planning services to a government entity. They do not, nor should they be required to, know what the purpose of those flights are. It is ridiculous to imply that the CIA, or any other governement or private enterprise, be required to disclose the reason for the flights to Jeppesen, and it is even more absurd to require Jeppesen to try to find out the reason for the flights, much less hold them responsible.
 
If you are walking down a street and you see one person assaulting another, are you going just walk on by and do nothing, or are you going to intervene?

I firmly believe that all humans have the responsibility to intervene when they become aware of "evil," if at all possible. Now intervention may mean nothing more than calling the police, but they still have the responsibility to do something. You can't just ignore it.
 
skydog said:
If you are walking down a street and you see one person assaulting another, are you going just walk on by and do nothing, or are you going to intervene?

I firmly believe that all humans have the responsibility to intervene when they become aware of "evil," if at all possible. Now intervention may mean nothing more than calling the police, but they still have the responsibility to do something. You can't just ignore it.
Click to expand...

But am I legally complicit (prosecutable) in the assault if I choose not to help?

Final Seinfeld episode anyone?
 
skydog said:
If you are walking down a street and you see one person assaulting another, are you going just walk on by and do nothing, or are you going to intervene?

I firmly believe that all humans have the responsibility to intervene when they become aware of "evil," if at all possible. Now intervention may mean nothing more than calling the police, but they still have the responsibility to do something. You can't just ignore it.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is the assumption that Jeppesen knew the purpose of the flights.


(edit to add)
bdhill1979 said:
But am I legally complicit (prosecutable) in the assault if I choose not to help?

Final Seinfeld episode anyone?
Click to expand...

...or are you liable if you didn't even know that an assault took place?
 
Steve, the issue I have with this . . . and hopefully you'll understand it after I get it out in the open.

When private companies are providing services that are fundamentally public, or governmental, they are opening themselves up to this type of litigation. End of story.

I have no problem with Jeppesen providing services to our government. But they certainly can not expect to get off scott free when they are assisting ANYONE, whether it be another private individual, or a public establishment perform an illegal act.

Private vs Private litigation is one thing. Private organizations assisting public establishments are a different animal.

Your gillette or luisville slugger analogies are private companies vs private individuals, which have nothing to do with national security or providing a public service to the population. Hence, my assertion that it was a horrible analogy.
 
I don't know if Jepp knew about it or not. As far as legally responsible or not, I believe there have been people prosecuted for failing to intervene under Good Samaritan laws.
 
surreal1221 said:
Steve, the issue I have with this . . . and hopefully you'll understand it after I get it out in the open.

When private companies are providing services that are fundamentally public, or governmental, they are opening themselves up to this type of litigation. End of story.

I have no problem with Jeppesen providing services to our government. But they certainly can not expect to get off scott free when they are assisting ANYONE, whether it be another private individual, or a public establishment perform an illegal act.

Private vs Private litigation is one thing. Private organizations assisting public establishments are a different animal.

Your gillette or luisville slugger analogies are private companies vs private individuals, which have nothing to do with national security or providing a public service to the population. Hence, my assertion that it was a horrible analogy.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not buying your assertion that a company is liable for what the federal government does with services that the company legally provides. How you can possibly expect Jeppesen to know how the government is using their flight planning services is beyond my comprehension.

I can't even imagine the conversation. Government official calls Jeppesen and requests flight planning services from Point A to Point B on such and such dates. "I want full weather briefings, trip planning, fuel options, routings, all airspace overflight approvals, meals, crew housing, etc., for our Gulfstream 550, N#12345." Jepp rep: "Yes sir. And what exactly is the reason for your trip sir?" Click.....bzzzzzzzzzz.

There is absolutely no reason for Jepp to know the reason for the trip. None. All they are providing is the information and contacts to allow the trip to progress with the minimum of hassle. This is a service that they provide hundreds or thousands of times a year. They do not need to know the reason for the trip to provide their service, nor should they expect to know the reason for the trip. To hold them responsible is ridiculous.

They were not assisting the government perform an illegal act any more than the company that provided fuel for the aircraft or the one that provided the meals for the crews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top