Extraordinary Rendition Statement by Maya Harris

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

My name is Maya Harris and I am the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.  We are standing here before the offices of Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., because today we filed a federal lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing Company.

We are suing on behalf of three victims of the United States government’s unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program—a program where terror suspects are flown to countries where the U.S. government knows detainees are routinely tortured or otherwise abused in violation of universally accepted legal standards.

Our lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of the three men whose photos you see before you: Ahmed Agiza, Abou Elkassim Britel, and Binyam Mohamed.  These three men were transported to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

The lawsuit alleges the complicity of a major U.S. corporation—Jeppesen Dataplan—in carrying out the loathsome and pernicious practice of extraordinary rendition. As alleged in the complaint, since December 2001 Jeppesen has provided flight and logistical support to at least 15 aircrafts that have made a total of 70 rendition flights.

Extraordinary rendition should be condemned; it should not be seen as a source of corporate profit.

We filed this lawsuit on behalf of three individuals who have been repeatedly tortured, terrified, humiliated and deprived of their basic human rights. As the complaint sets forth in detail, Jeppesen provided the full range of flight services to transport these three men to the countries where they were tortured.

Corporations that choose to participate in such illegal and egregious actions can and should be held accountable.

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc

In Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article, “Outsourcing: The CIA’s Travel Agent,” a former Jeppesen employee quoted a senior Jeppesen executive as acknowledging, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights – you know, the torture flights. Let’s face it, some of these flights end up that way.”  The executive also reportedly said, “It certainly pays well. They”—referring to the CIA— “spare no expense. They have absolutely no worry about costs.”

As you can see, none of our three plaintiffs are here with us today.  That’s because one, Binyam Mohamed, is imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay—a facility whose very existence rightly continues to be a source of international shame for the United States. The second plaintiff, Abou Elkassim Britel, is imprisoned in Morocco. And the third, Ahmed Agiza, is imprisoned in Egypt. 

None of these three men can speak for themselves today.  So we will. And what we have to say is that Boeing Company subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan played a direct and fundamental role in the torture of these three men when it supplied essential services in all stages of the planning and execution of the rendition flights.  It did this knowing that our plaintiffs—who are representative of countless others—were placed on these rendition flights, shackled and blindfolded, and were being taken to countries where torture awaited them.

In a country that believes in respect for the rule of law and basic human dignity, participation in a program based on disappearance and torture should never be seen as simply another money-making activity.

Finally, we are also announcing today that the ACLU petitioned the United States Supreme Court this morning to review the case of Khaled El-Masri, an innocent German citizen who was another victim of the government’s unlawful rendition program.  Mr. El-Masri’s kidnapping and detention at the hands of the CIA is known throughout the world.  Yet, his lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after the government invoked the so-called “state secrets” privilege. That decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and we are now seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.