Appeals Court Rules Against Administration in Jeppesen Case

This is awesome news: Suit by 5 ex-captives of CIA can proceed, appeals panel rules.

37 Responses to “Appeals Court Rules Against Administration in Jeppesen Case”

  1. shcb Says:

    I wouldn’t get too excited yet, the 9th circus court is the most overruled in the country. What is it, something like 95% of the time? Hell, they have even been known to overrule themselves.

  2. jbc Says:

    Well, it apparently handles far more cases than any other federal appeals court district, so it would be surprising if it wasn’t overruled more often than any other. Your 95% figure would be surprising to me if it were true. Do you have an actual source for that? Have you put any effort into verifying whether or not the source is reliable?

  3. shcb Says:

    I’ll look into that, I’m probably exaggerating a bit but I think the figure I heard was over 75% of the cases that go to the Supremes are overridden. But you know how statistics are, they can be manipulated. I’ll check.

  4. shcb Says:

    I’ve looked a little, I found a Mike Rosen show where he refers to, read from actually, a Wall Street Journal piece from March 12, 2007 in which they looked at all the cases that were sent to the Supreme Court in the preceding year, 8 cases. They were overruled in every case. Of the 72 possible votes of the Supremes they got just 5 in their favor. The key work here is “panel” what typically happens with the 9th is a 3 judge panel will make a controversial judgment like this only to be overridden by a larger panel later. So, who knows, this may go through but I wouldn’t get too excited just yet.

    BTW, I couldn’t find that WSJ piece in their archives, it is probably too old and wasn’t that important.

  5. enkidu Says:
    (heh, I linked to Slate! oooooo! lefty crazy info incoming)

    your partisan googles are skewing your ‘information’
    oh wait, you didn’t bother to google anything outside of foxnoise and macho mike and that fat drug addict, whatsizname, you know… the GOP leader guy?

    seriously shcb, you really need to try to expand your information intake sources away from such partisan poltroons. Just try the bbc or something else, heck i sometimes visit Al Jazeera just to see what them damn dirty apes is ‘thinking’ (at least in their english site, which is much toned down from their arab language sites). I visit right wing sites, but usually the vitriol is just too toxic (only so many death threats one can take ya know?) and the opinions too laughable underinformed.

    or just Go Galt, sublime, or secede already
    it’d be easier on all the normal people

  6. shcb Says:

    JBC asked for a credible source, I think the WSJ is pretty credible.

  7. jbc Says:

    There’s a big difference between saying that 95% of a court’s decisions have been overturned (which is how I read your original comment), and saying that of those decisions appealed to the Supreme Court, and actually heard by the court, all were overturned. How many decisions by the 9th Circuit were not appealed? How many were appealed, but not heard? Presumably there were many more than 8 cases decided by the 9th circuit in that year.

    I’ve never listened to Mike Rosen. I tend not to listen to conservative talk radio. I don’t consider it journalism. I consider it entertainment. It is intentionally crafted to mimic the form of journalism, while engaging in selective presentation of information that caters to and reinforces its target audience’s ideologically skewed preconceptions.

    The 9th Circuit is a good example. I don’t doubt that you have been exposed to information that reinforces the view that the 9th Circuit is made up overwhelmingly of liberal Democrat appointees who routinely make ridiculous rulings, and that as a result those rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court all the time. It’s easy to write a story that reinforces that view; all you have to do is cherry-pick a few decisions and a few statistics, and present them in a particular way. I googled up a story that does just that in just a few seconds of trying. See:,2933,56382,00.html


    The business of being a citizen, of weighing public issues and reaching an informed opinion and participating in public discussion to try to persuade others to agree with you, is at its heart a fairly important activity. It deserves more care for the truth than is displayed in that article. At the level of individual discussions, our collective political discourse is often silly and undignified, but taken together those discussions are what make up our society’s decision-making apparatus, and the outcome of that process has life-and-death consequences. Because of that, it deserves to be taken seriously.

    I think people who get their information primarily from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and their imitators are displaying poor citizenship. Not because I disagree with their politics. But because they are selfishly putting the enjoyment they get from the maintenance of their pre-existing worldview ahead of their responsibility as citizens to inform themselves.

  8. enkidu Says:

    the WSJ is a credible ‘right wing’ source, Slate is as credible a ‘left wing’ source. But you couldn’t find the WSJ article so you just rely on your hate radio ranter to be telling the complete truth? I think you just proved my point.

    your point?

  9. shcb Says:

    But a decision can’t be overturned if it isn’t appealed, that would seem obvious to me. Your nitpicking is starting to sound like Enky now. And that 0 for 8 record doesn’t include decisions that were overturned within the court, nor does it include decisions that weren’t overturned because they weren’t appealed.

    I’m not sure what brought on that rant about talk radio, the radio personality, in this case Rosen, was reading a piece from the WSJ, a print publication. Now of course the commentator commented during and after his reading, which is of course what he does, but my reference was to the portion he read. If the WSJ had the article easily archived I wouldn’t have even mentioned where I heard about it, but in the interest of disclosure I gave the date it was published if you wanted to go find it. It also may have only been in the print version. I find it comical to be lectured about citizenship because of where one gets his information when mine comes from the WSJ and in the last thread you use Mother Jones as your source? I really don’t care where the information comes from as long as it is accurate, I’ll add my bias and opinion from there.

    We’ll just have to wait and see how this turns out and see if this three judge panel is overturned.

  10. shcb Says:

    I didn’t comment on the Fox news link. For years we have been complaining that the main stream press dresses up opinion pieces on the news pages. They only give half the story and when taken to task say “but the information was correct wasn’t it?” Welcome to our world.

  11. shcb Says:

    so here is a Foxnews piece on Obama and the ecconomy, do you think it is fair?

  12. enkidu Says:

    hate to nitpick or whatever the current wwnj bugaboo might be, but would it be possible for you to get some information *other than* from fox, rosen, rush pantloadmedia and hard right wing sources?

    but since you ask, here goes:

    CLAIM 1
    150,000 jobs saved or created
    arguably true, the stimulus money is coming for lots of companies and lots of businesses who might have laid off poeple, using the word “saved” may be a bit more tepid than saying just “created” but it is far more honest
    point Obama
    also, how many tens of millions of jobs were vaporized under bush?


    CLAIM 2
    actually 2 claims, two different speeches, different subjects really
    invest in America… and… balanced budget/pay-as-u-go
    Hard to say exactly wtf fauxnewz is babbling about here as they are all over the map, but it seems to be some blather about balanced budget? Obamas first quote is about investing in America (rather than blowing our wad on useless oil wars overseas). Point Obama. Then his second quote asks for something like pay as you go? Sounds good, but probably unrealistic in the present bush-handover/catastrophe fixin… Call it a draw, sounds, good, but probably not going to happen, but the stimulus spending on America is a good thing.
    point Obama
    I sure loved blowing trillions of dollars of debt in Iraq! We sure were smart to invade, find all those WMDz and get all that $10 a barrel oil!
    I mean just look at our economy! ZOOM!


    CLAIM 3
    We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, that wasn’t me.
    The wingnut math here just does not work out (adding $428 B over 4 years is $107 B a year… peanuts compared to what we blew in Iraq/wwnj graft etc). Also, if the defecit is $1.3 T to start and he is adding $107 B it doesn’t equal $1.7T and is no where near quadrupling (despite the bush financial kneecapping with that $750 B bank giveaway er I mean bailout)

    also I hate for reality to intrude on a good wwnj screed, but mb, just mb wwnjs would bother to – oh, I don’t know – accept that the president writes the budget? try wikipedia, just once, instead of hate radio bullshit, you might learn something!

    Congressional consideration of the federal budget begins once the President of the United States submits a budget request, which is formulated over a period of months with the assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, the largest office within the Executive Office of the President.

    One reason Obama’s budgets are also higher is he is including the Iraq/Afghanistan costs in the budget for the first time rather than pushing thru ‘supplementals’


    CLAIM 4
    prevention saves money on healthcare
    If you don’t smoke you are less likey to get lung cancer – fact
    obese southerners have an increased likelyhood of cardiovascular disease (and evidently mental problems as well) – fact (+snark)
    We will save huge amounts, and despite the tortured logic (you guys just LOVES you some torture!) Obama isn’t claiming he is going to pay for ponies for everyone with prevention savings – fact.
    point Obama


    CLAIM 5
    what to do about Social Security? mb cut a bit? or raise the cap?
    mb if we stopped taking the money out of the SS trust it wouldn’t be considered insovlent? well it is due to previous larceny, but mb folks will just have to pay a bit more and expect a bit less due to past irresponsibility, sorry…
    foxnoise says Obama’s plan would cut the SS deficit by half… so if it is say 10 now and will be 5 under the Obama plan, this is bad how? Why weren’t these folks howling at the bush plan – which btw was to have us all sink our SS funds into the dogtrack, er I mean stock market… brilliant plan that one!
    point Obama


    CLAIM 6
    with bipartisan compromise we can get some sort of halfassed healthcare ‘reform’ passed
    fox: boohoo we lost the election and we still want to ruin, er I mean run things! boohoo! Look, either bring your best game to the table or get the bleep out of the way. If you can’t compromise then expect a long cold stay in the wilderness… consider it ‘Going Galt’. Everyone else just wants you 21%ers to Go Away
    point Insurance Companies

    mb its just a half step on the road to universal care, but I think keeping companies that make money on *denying* healthcare to their customers is a bad plan and not very 21st century. Every other industrialized nation has universal care, our care is great, until you get sick, or if you can’t pay the profit margin to the insurance leaches. Then you die. Painfully. Expensively.

    So it looks like 5 pts to Obama
    zero to the wwnj propagandists at fox
    and everyone loses on healthcare (except the ‘insurance’ industry)

    I bet it pearls clutching time for ol shcb

    ps – it isn’t nitpicking to ask you to use real world math (for example, adding 3% to a 36% tax rate does not equal a 51% rate)

    pps – the comments on that fox link are a wonderful cross-section of wwnj ‘thinking’, me I’m thinking my feelings are hurt by all those capitals, racism and utter dumbfuckery, hopefully someone will be along presently to scold those rapscallions into more proper behavior!

  13. shcb Says:

    sorry to put you through all that work but if you notice the byline shows it is an AP piece, not a Fox News piece

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    JBC, You’re intelligence shines through on this posting and your comment. Well written, and definately NOT nitpicking as shcb asserts in his juvenile schoolyard attempt to deflect valid criticism with vapid accusations against the critic. I’d nominate you for a blogger of the week award if there were such a thing.


    That last comment proves that you are both (1) a liar and (2) a hypocrite.

    (1) LIAR: You yourself clearly stated that it was a foxnews piece:

    (2) HYPOCRITE: Enky’s work was valid whether it was criticising a Foxnoise or an AP article (the fact remains that Foxnoise chose to run it as it served it’s Wrong Wing biases). Your asinine quibbling about the source proves that YOU ARE THE “NITPICKER” here, not jbc.

  15. knarlyknight Says:


  16. shcb Says:



    So now anything by AP is suspect as well? Excuse me, not suspect, invalid. That narrows down viable sources to what, Al Jazera and Mother Jones?

    This is one of the problems with liberals, they can never give up a point, even when they have been caught with their pants at their ankles.

  17. shcb Says:


    Honestly, I didn’t read the AP piece so I have no idea what you are talking about (didn’t really read much of your post either)

  18. NorthernLite Says:

    Obama has definitley straightend out the ship! Just think back to last fall and what the mood of the world was and the direction America was heading in.

    Has any other president in history inheritied so much of a mess and accomplished so much in 100 days? Man, I can’t wait to see what they start doing now that they have complete control and can’t be held back by the old timers party of NO.

    And his press conference was fabulous last night. He’s so intelligent and thoughtful with his anwers that you can’t help but feel reassured when he speaks.

    Yep, still loving him.

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    You still think shcb bases his information on what’s available? Or do you now see that he has blinders thick as mud.

    shcb, yet another vapid accusation from you to deflect criticism, this time about the merits of the AP? Nice try but that is not even worth a response. Actually, you are not even worth a response: a liar and a hypocrite who defends torture, etc.

    JBC is right, why bother with you since your views are no longer credible.

  20. shcb Says:


  21. enkidu Says:

    let me get this straight, so…
    you link to something on fox
    but it’s not from fox
    and you didn’t bother to read it

    then you ask if it is fair

    you sir are a fool and should be treated as such
    no wonder people mock you to your face at cocktail parties
    no wonder jbc describes you as a child
    nitpick? fucking nuts

    go read the comments on fox and wallow in your ignorance and partisan hatred, it is sickening.

    I don’t want Rs at just 21%, I want them to be a bunch of toothless 5%ers, holed up in their cabins fightin the scurvy and with no internet connection whatsoever . go galt now, while real estate prices in the ass end of no place are low. They’ll never be as low as your IQ, or your 4th grade reading and math skills so go go Go Galt now!

  22. shcb Says:


    never murder a man committing suicide

    Woodrow Wilson

  23. enkidu Says:

    How you think you’ve ‘won’ here is beyond any rational human understanding.
    you link to something you haven’t read and whether it is from a right winger at fox or a right winger at the AP is equally irrelevant, you still only get your ‘information’ from the most partisan sources you can find. Oh wait, you didn’t read it… gotcha!

    You can’t ‘debate’ or rebut anything using real world math or logic, but smugly declare since it comes from the AP you can clutch your pearls and declare victory?

    epic fail

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    Epic indeed.

    I finally gooogled Galt and found this explanation:

  25. shcb Says:

    Face it you and JBC both got caught doing the same thing in less than 24 hours on the same thread, when it was obvious what happened it was all hands on deck damage control. Even NL got into the act a little. What fun.

    The only difference is JBC is smart enough to bug out early keeping his smug aloofness safely out of the fray, not very honorable but smart, he should have been a general.

  26. enkidu Says:

    gosh lil ricki, I hate to nitpick, but you asked if an AP article on fox was fair and I gave you my analysis on all 6 points. You haven’t read either but this means you win? Seems like your analysis is pulled directly from your ass once again.

    How is the weather over there in the Wingnutoverse? Sound like bat-shit crazy with a chance of fucking nuts for the foreseeable future.

    It is going to be a long 4 years for you wingnuts. And when the economy starts rolling again and we start really fixing all your rightwingnutjob fuckups, what will be your schtick then?

  27. shcb Says:

    JBC goes off on me about talk radio because some guy in Denver reads a WSJ piece and you are constantly going after anything right of the NY Times not because of the content of their articles but because of the color of their bias. I just wanted to see if you would criticize the article because of the contend of the article. So I just grabbed the first article on Fox that wasn’t written by Fox and plopped it out there. I had no idea you would pick this one time to actually read the damn thing and comment on it in length, I figured you would just go into a Fox rant like JBC. I really felt kind of bad about that. If you had just commented on the article I would have had egg on my face but true to form you pulled it out in the end and now you are separating yoke from your eyebrows.

  28. enkidu Says:

    I’ll go slow for you shcb

    So you start out with a statement that is purported to be from the WSJ, but you heard it on hate radio, and a search of google doesn’t turn up the actual article.

    You take as an article of faith that your favorite purveyor of hate radio ‘opinion’ (so hard not to just call it by its more common name: bullshit) is giving you “the facts” and yet even when you try to confirm those facts, you can’t… but still believe you are “right” (or whatever, it’s hard to tell from your disjointed ramblings). This reminds me of the thread where you call the August PDB, my little paper… um, it isn’t my opinion, its a scan of the actual document in question. You know, real world fact. But because it would expose your skewed world view, your answers plumb the depths of the inscrutable ignorance that is wwnj ‘thinking’.

    Then you link to a AP article on fox and then ask whether it was fair. But again you didn’t read it, didn’t read the response and are basically just closing your (evidently egg covered?) eyes, clamping your hands over your ears and shouting “nya nya nya nya nya”

    You don’t read the article you link to, but you ask if it is fair. When someone responds and gives a solid point by point rebuttal to the claim/counterclaim of the article you linked to, you ignore that as well to play your little ‘gotcha!’ game. Seriously lil ricki, this is why folks mock you openly. You are proudly, defiantly ignorant of the very things you claim to champion and then wave your hands or clutch your pearls and totter off decrying the coarseness of the dialog blah blah blah. The point is you only ingest right wing opinion whether it comes from the AP or fox isn’t really as important as you can’t face reality (you know, facts).

    You’ve been brushing your teeth with bullshit and liking it for too long. Your magical thinking and ‘any means, any end’ mentality have brought America to the darkest corner of the human soul. Your faith that Rs never done broke no laws ever is an article of faith in a provably, repeated demonstrated falsehood. But because these things are comforting to you, because they reinforce your a priori beliefs that the word “right” in right wing is about being correct (instead of some measure on a notional political continuum) you loudly trumpet your ignorance and partisan poltroonery at every opportunity. Because everyone else is wrong but you super smart angry fat old white guys.

    I’d be happy to eat crow if I were wrong about, oh just about anything we’ve ever ‘debated’. But you pick a series of ridiculously easy issues. You have been quite far to the ‘right’ but nowhere near correct. You haven’t had a fact based thought in years have you? If you truly were interested in ‘the facts’, in responsibility, accountability and decency, you wouldn’t natter on about 90% (or is it 51%?) of the crap you do. Sure you can tell a nice anecdote and you’ve traded some nice recipes, but until you and your ilk can face the sunshine and say, we screwed up, things were done that shouldn’t have been done and we’ll work with the rest of the nation to fix what we’ve broken. You know… facts. Well, people are going to continue to laugh in your face, mock you and deride your shrinking circle of increasingly looney hatemongers (just read those comments at your fox link, my purple prose pales in comparison).

    ‘Debate’ with hard core wwnjs (like… wwnj here) is like agreeing to a duel with a circus clown. You meet at the field, you bring the dueling pistols, offer the case to the clown and WHAM! he hits you with a pie. Pistols? It was supposed to be pie! I win I win! So you go get a pie meet back at the field, smash the pie in the clown’s face and he squirts you with that flower on his lapel “Pies!?!?” Its water pistols! I win I win! And so the cycle goes…

  29. shcb Says:

    I think yours and Knarly’s (over) reaction tells another story.

  30. enkidu Says:

    I feel bad for you lil ricki

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    Wow. Just wow.

  32. shcb Says:

    Well, if history tells us anything it is that over half these kids will eventually grow up and about 30% of them won’t.

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    No kidding. Condileeza never really grew up and is still living in childhood fantasy world. Poor woman doesn’t even seem to comprehend the evil she has done, or how close she is to prison: it’s a wonder anyone that dumb can get a PhD.

    Article’s conclusion for those that missed the poin:

    So I score this: Stanford student 6, Rice 0. Rice needs to do some homework before her next appearance on campus. But first perhaps she’d better hire a good lawyer.

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    …and that article was written by an actual grown up who knows much about these things (obviously far more than Ms Rice knows)

  35. shcb Says:

    This suggestion demonstrates an astonishing failure of reasoned judgment. U.S. fatalities in World War II totaled 405,400.

    The whole idea of preemptive war is to stop the Hitler’s of the world before you have to expend 405,400 soldiers to regain control. Talk about “an astonishing failure of reasoned judgment”. But that is what constantly amazes me about the liberal mind. They just can’t seem to put the horse in front of the cart. They are always looking at the aftermath completely divorcing themselves of the cause. The criminal was shot 7 times when the autopsy showed the first shot killed him, police brutality!

  36. enkidu Says:

    we don’t use a cart or horse
    we ride a bike or drive a car

  37. shcb Says:

    ok, as long as it is an electric car.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.