While the torture of detainees is an abomination, the drivel that is printed here is ridiculous.

Holding Boeing and Jeppesen accountable is like trying to hold them accountable for terrorists crashing Boeing airplanes into targets in the US.

If a person is stabbed with a $1.99 Ginzu knife should Ginzu be held accountable? If a Chevrolet is used in a bank robbery, and in the getaway the robbers kill a pedestrian, should Chevrolet be held accountable?

Holding Boeing accountable for bad manufacturing if wings fall off is reasonable. Holding Boeing accountable for stealing from the government when they overcharge for parts is reasonable.

Do they plan to hold Dell accountable for the computers they used to schedule the flights? How about Pentel who made the pencils that they recorded flight notes with, or Office Depot where they may have bought the note paper for the flights. Better yet, Exxon Mobile who sold the fuel for the flight.

Again, holding Boeing responsible is the height of ambulance chasing. Just a pile of smelly “stuff”

Like suing Caterpillar if your daughter stands in front of a D-9 and gets - surprise! - killed.

What's next? Suing Ralph Lauren if one of his wash cloths was used to waterboard?

Have we forgotten the way the US held German companies accountable for participating in transporting Jews to the camps? The train manufactures? The oven manufacturers? The people who held stock in those companies. They were all considered complicit at the time.

Dell didn't know who was using it's computers. But Boeing did know what was going on. They were clearly complicit. That makes the difference.

Caterpillar manufactures equipment that has no purpose other than to violate human rights in Israel and Palestine. It is built as a weapon. Not as a piece of construction equipment. The design is different and suited to illegal purposes. So it is a good example of that line where morality and legality are involved.

There is nothing cynical about Catholic confession when it is used to confront one's shadow side consciously, admit it, and ask for forgiveness. It is a powerful ritual for dealing with those things we would rather sweep under the rug and ignore. Or rationalize away. So I like the suggestion for penance for Boeing.

What would it take to persuade Boeing that it is for the good of the country and our community to take stock of the moral lines? I think a share holders meeting could be a good place to begin.

But in all fairness, the Jews in Auschwitz weren't weren't sent there for blowing up German buildings. They were sent there simply for being Jewish. Many terrorists were relying on turning western culture's native virtues into a weapon against us. We wouldn't dare to treat their operatives as anything more than shoplifters or burglars, so they could act with virtual impunity. The big bad US-of-A was at the core an impotent strongman. Surprise! Push even a milquetoast hard enough and he will lash out. And the US did. It may not be democracy's most glorious hour, but given the mood of the times, it's not surprising.

Brenda,

German companies were held accountable not because of how their equipment had been used, but because they used the Jews as slave labor. And, what made Boeing clearly complicit?

How does Boeing know what it’s planes were being used for? They sell airplane “A” to Delta or Northwest, the airline upgrades it fleet, relegating airplane “A” to the “used airplane lot.” Then, the CIA or a cover company buys airplane “A” off the used airplane lot, putting it to an improper use. When you last purchased an automobile, did the car salesperson do a background check asking if you were planning to use it for illegal activities?

Your Caterpillar argument is similar, Cat sells to a distributor, the distributor sells to a sales company and they sell to Israel. The design of equipment is no different; the equipment is used to move dirt. How a government choose to us the equipment is a choice direct from the government or even the operator on site, the operator could have chosen not to run over a person, they didn’t.

If the artist formerly known as Molly Norris is killed by a Muslim fatwa-ist, should her family sue the Seattle Weekly? David Brewster?

Speaking of the Weakly, they reported on Boeing's rendition role at length. If I recall correctly, prisoners were chained to the plane(s) floor, among other things, and reputedly tortured while in the air. Boeing made the flight plans and even the hotel reservations for the CIA. You really think someone up the Boeing chain didn't know - and approve?

If Boeing is going to be held accountable for torture it should have more to do with their seat pitch and width than anything else.

Boeing's involvement in this is different than that of providing just another product employed in the process of committing torture. It bears some responsibility for its role in this. For one thing, its pilots and the staff who agreed to the rendition all have top secret security clearances and have some knowledge of what they are being asked to do. They could decline and let one of dozens of other contractors do this instead. Read Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater for evidence of that.

As a Boeing stockholder and the grandson of a Boeing engineer, I am embarrassed by the company's actions in this instance.

Maybe Airbus should get our defense contracts, after all. Boeing won't be able to provide equipment that meets military requirements. Are they still putting Hellfire missiles on Apaches?

Adam Vogt,

While I have not read the piece you suggested, I did look up Jeppesen’s account of events. They were asked by a firm to provide flight data between two points with appropriate refueling stops. They did. It is not in Jeppesen’s business statement to ask about cargo or use of airplanes. Providing flight data is what Jeppesen has been doing for more than 70 years. That is their business. Again, they do not ask about cargo or why someone wants the flight data, they just provide it.

I will agree that when Jeppesen found out, like everyone else did, through the media, the executives were quite callous in commenting that at least the CIA paid their bills on time and the money was good.

I will use you as an example, if for instance you write a straightforward, run of the mill news story that inflames someone to commit mayhem, should you be held legally and financially responsible?

If Boeing and it’s subsidiaries can be sued, then we as American citizens should all be sued. We elected that idiotic Bush who started us down this despicable road

A well-balanced civil society requires that individuals (and organizations) are more-or-less aware of the principles and rules by which the society operates and that they are empowered (and expected) to act in accordance with those rules and principles. This is even true when an individual or organization is asked to take part in activities that are organized by an agency of authority – if the request seems wrong individuals or organizations are expected to question the situation and if they determine that the act they are requested to perform is illegal then they are expected to report the crime to higher authorities or at least refuse to participate. This principle is just as applicable to the federal government’s fight against international terrorism as it is when local law enforcement is working to protect our communities from other types of crime or for that matter when anyone is engaging in any act that is or might be illegal.

The question in this case is whether Boeing or its subsidiary should be held accountable for their involvement. Because this issue involves an important local employer and a company that means a great deal to our region and many of our residents and an issue that invokes the memory of a great national tragedy and our nation’s ensuing defense from the possibility of future similar attacks it can be hard for us to gain a perspective from which to clearly judge the situation. One way to do this is to do a thought experiment where we transpose the essential dynamics of this situation to another context and examine them there.

In doing a thought experiment based on this situation let’s do as the Ninth Circuit Court did and assume that the essential facts as the plaintiffs have described them are true (much of what they assert is based on documentation in the public record or on events that have been acknowledged by foreign governments as true). But let’s relocate the situation to a context that is more accessible to us and one where we feel more comfortable judging the actions of the participants.

Let’s say in this case that an enthusiastic team of local police detectives is working to bring down a violent local gang and that the gang has been responsible for the deaths of uninvolved citizens and needs to be stopped. Let’s also assume that from time to time the detectives engage the services of a local car and driver service to transport themselves or their informants to and from area locations. The detectives have figured out that the local gang members are more afraid of how they would be treated by a rival gang in a nearby city then they are of the police so the detectives begin engaging the car and driver service to drive handcuffed and drugged gang members to the rival gang’s territory where they are beaten and tortured for information that will be used to take the local gang down. The car and driver service also provides services to rent hotel rooms and provide meals for the police detectives when they are visiting the nearby city of the rival gang. This seems to work well and the car and driver service does this a few dozen times for the detectives and profits as a result of the work. Let’s also assume in this thought experiment that he car and driver service is very well aware of what is happening to the local gang members that are being transported to the nearby city.

The question in this situation becomes; should the car and driver service be criminally or civilly accountable for its role the activities that the detectives were engaged in? Does the provision of material support matter or is the car and driver service immune from legal (or ethical) accountability because they were simply doing what local police were requesting? To answer this question we need to go back to the notion of individual responsibility and the expectation that any individual or organization in our society that is asked to do something illegal by anyone be able to refuse and is able to report the behavior.

The CIA does not have any special provision to violate the law, nor does any other organization or individual in this country including the President and the entire federal government. The law protects all and requires legal behavior from all members of the society. It is unfortunate that this case can’t be fully adjudicated because of the state secrets that apparently are involved in the details of the case. The reason this is unfortunate is that it leaves us (and the international community) with the impression that a claim of state secrets is sufficient to absolve the government itself of accountability for its actions. In this case it’s pretty clear that what was done was wrong and illegal and that those who organized, directed, supported and profited from these actions should be held accountable, following orders is not an excuse.

I really wish the press would do away with the "Lazy B" moniker. It may sound cute, but is far from the truth. It's disrespectful to the many of us who work very hard producing great products and bringing much prosperity to the region.

What an idiot, flaming peace of attention getting drivel.
Crosscut you can do way better then this!