Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc - Case Study Example

Student’s Name Lecturer’s Name Topic Date Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc Introduction The case of Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.1 is a good illustration on how government or state matters should be handled. The issue which was presented in this case was whether the court of appeals can correctly affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss cases at the pleading stage. The case of Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. follows the Ninth Circuit which examined the states secrets doctrine that relates to the War on Terror2. The plaintiffs in this case ware the victims of the United States which was under the extraordinary rendition program. Extraordinary rendition program was alleged to secretly transport suspected terrorist to particular places for interrogation by the United States agents or foreign governments in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency3. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which acted on behalf of the five plaintiffs sued Jeppesen Dataplan, an airline corporation claiming for having highly contributed to the renditions operations of CIA4. The CIA is a client of Jeppesen since 20015. Jeppesen provides the CIA with airplane to secretly transport terrorists’ suspects. According to ACLU, Jeppesen made major contributions through provision of navigational and logistic support to the CIA’s rendition program6. However, the government of United States took a step to dismiss the cases that claiming any litigation in a court of law with a reason that those cases were detriment to national security. They also further argue that such case could lead revelation of state secrets making the country vulnerable to attacks. The motion which earlier on had been granted by district courts was reversed by Ninth Circuit7. According to the district court and the government, the dismissal of this case was based on the fact that the state secret doctrine must be upheld at all times. The concept of a state secret developed from the fact that some government and national secrets should not be revealed for the collective goodness of the whole society8. This is because a society has its own secrets and it is safer if there are certain clandestine activities. Background of the law The case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. underlies the concept of state secret in the United States9. In the present, the doctrine of state secret is marked by two strands rooted from the two landmark Supreme cases of Totten verses United States and United States verses Reynolds. The Supreme Court has long recognized that in exceptional situations courts must act in the interest of a state’s national security to prevent disclosure of state secrets10. The contemporary states secrets doctrine encompasses two applications of the principle where one, the “Totten Bar” bars adjudication of claims premise to state secrets and the other, the “Reynolds privilege’ which is considered to be an evidentiary privilege, excludes privileged evidence from the case and may result in dismissal of the claims11. In the case of Totten verses United States, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not rightfully compensated him for services he had rendered. The plaintiff, a spy, was commissioned by the Lincoln who was then the president of the United States to provide espionage ser vices during the civil war12. The spy was to head to the south, verify the strength of the confederate army and to procure plans of forts and fortifications and acquire any other information which deems to be beneficial to the government of United States13. The agreement was that the spy would be paid $200 per month. The spy consequently performed his duties properly as it was stipulated thought-out the entire war period. He was only compensated for the expenses he had incurred and this violates the agreement. The spy file a suit in the court of law, he lost the case but he later appeal in the supreme. The Supreme Court of appeal rule that a contract for espionage services should not litigated in a court of law14. The judges argue that that the action was barred because it was premised on the existence of a contract for secret services with the government which was a fact not to be disclosed. The “Totten Bar” applies to any plaintiff whether as a party to a secret agreement with the government or not. On the other hand, the major purpose of the bar is to prevent the revelation of states secrets considered harmful to national security15. With the case of United States verses Reynolds, the sate secret doctrine undergirds a “privilege against revealing military or state secrets” to anyone, whatsoever16. In this case, which often referred to as Reynolds, three civilians were killed in a military plane clash. The military aircraft was carrying secret electronic equipment for testing. The estate of the three civilians brought a tort case against the government claiming negligence of the military. The government declined furnishing any kind of information related to this because it would be against the public interest17. Though the district court ordered production of the documents to assess the validity of the government’s claims, the Air Force declined18. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the government was allowed to assert the privilege and prevent discovery of evidence. This was because to much inquiry into the claim of privilege would lead to disclosure of what was meant to be protected by the privilege19. The facts and the reasoning of the court in the selected case The case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. is considered one of the critical cases that impacted on the international welfare20. The facts of this case include; five victims of the extraordinary program conducted under the United States in control of the Central Intelligence Agency. Under this program alleged terrorists are secretly abducted and transported to overseas where they are interrogated and tortured21. The five victims were: Mohamed, Britel, Agiza, Bashmilah and Al- Rawi22. All the five victims claim that they were torture, forced disappearance and secret incommunicado detention in the hands of the US agents or foreign governments in concert with CIA. They claimed that Jeppesen Dataplan Inc23 was responsible for the fact that it provided aircraft and logistical support for CIA rendition flights24. The plaintiffs were allegedly transported inhumanely to various prisons aboard flight provided by Jeppesen. In the flight, they were as well tortured and placed in pain-positions among other mistreatments25. Officials and some employees of Jeppesen affirmed the matter by saying that they engaged in rendition flights since they were paid well. Following this, the plaintiffs filed a suit against Jeppesen under the Alien Tort Statute26. The Alien Tort Statute provides foreign nationals with an opportunity to sue in the United States courts for tort violation of their rights under the customary international law27. Following this, the court dismissed the allegations on the basis of state secrets privilege. The United States government intervened in the case even before Jeppesen could provide its argument28. The government asserted the states secrets privilege and provided two declarations that satisfy the procedural requirements of invoking the privilege29. In granting the motion of dismissal, the court ruled that the state secret doctrine articulated in Reynolds barred the case to continue. In supporting their ruling, judges argue that the plaintiffs’ case was surrounded by clear facts that amount to states secrets. The allegation, therefore, cannot be file in a court of law either through suit or litigation30. The ruling was later upheld by Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) which demonstrated that allowing the case to proceed is a great risk to public security. Sensitive and vital information can be reveal making the state security vulnerable31. This decision was however reversed through the Ninth Circuit32. According to a panel of three judges it was held that the states secrets privilege operates to protect confidential government evidence from disclosure33. However, it does not to prevent individuals from using information of which they have independent knowledge. With a view in this case, since the plaintiffs allege that they had knowledge of their own mistreatment, then their claims ought to be permitted to proceed34. However, a request was made to Ninth Circuit to rehear the decision en banc (that is, before a panel of eleven appellate judges). Critical analysis on the wrong decision the court came to The court was wrong in the decision as regarding Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc35. The state secret privilege should not be used as an excuse for the government of United States to continue with its rendition, which is against human rights36. On the lower side, the court declined the government’s invitation to extend the harsh Totten bar on all judicial remedies whenever a state secret is implicated37. Instead, it adopted the Reynolds privilege so that the case could continue provided that any evidence considered to be state secret is not indispensible to “a prima facie case or to a valid defense”38. If the government continued to prevent the plaintiffs to continue with the case, then it means that this will be an incentive for the government to continue with more secretive operations that are against the public policy39. On the other hand, the plaintiffs can bring their argument based on outside information that will not violate the state secret doctrine40. However, the court is right since it is concerned with future victims of inhumane acts; reasoning that if they lack outside evidence then they will be prevented to continue with litigation by the Reynolds privilege41. It is also against the public policy for the government to be more and more secretive42. Another argument is that, though the state secret surrounds legitimate clandestine activities, torture is something centrally to this. There should be a review of the state secret doctrine to prevent the government getting away with other inhumane operations limited to public disclosure43. Concerning this case, a prediction of the possible disposition of the Supreme Court of the United States will be. In the light of the facts and arguments presented in this case, the Supreme Court may fail to uphold the state secret doctrine. This is because the facts surrounding this case are centrally to the legitimate clandestine activities44. In addition, the Supreme Court should establish that the states secret doctrine is an evidentiary privilege that may be invoked to exclude certain information from discovery and should not be used to dismiss the case45. The argument here is that, the plaintiffs or victims of rendition possess certain evidence that is independent on each of them but which does not in any way violate the state secret doctrine46. On the other hand, WFL supports non-dismissal of this case by saying that CIA does not loose its secret status merely because there many discovery of its operations47. Conclusion The Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc48. Case is among the many cases that have raised international concern in matters related to states welfare. Torture and inhumane acts to the five victims of the CIA rendition program supersedes the United States, state secret doctrine49. The Supreme Court should be lenient in applying this doctrine, otherwise government and its other bodies might get away with the most heinous operations. The case should proceed while the law becomes more precise in the meaning of “states secret50. Read More