Supreme Court refuses to hear CIA kidnapping allegation


El-Masri alleged he was abducted in Macedonia on New Year's Eve 2003 and taken to a U.S.-run detention facility in Afghanistan as part of a secret program aimed at suspected terrorists. "I was humiliated, I was beaten, I was drugged," the Lebanese-born man told CNN last year. "After five months, they simply took me back and dropped me like a piece of luggage in the woods of Albania."

U.S. officials told CNN the Bush administration privately has confirmed to Germany the man was captured by mistake, but it has not made a public admission.

Tuesday's announcement means el-Masri's lawsuit is moot, but the issue of the state secrets privilege is still percolating in the courts, with a number of pending lawsuits.





http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/09/cia.rendition/index.html?iref=newssearch

No comment aye? :(

Its like a White House press conference in here...

If it makes you feel happier, I was disappointed in the decision, and I find the repeated over-use of "states secrets" a questionable defense.

Jedd, I haven't been onn much here in the last few days nor have had time to read/comment on the thread, butu I think the Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case is reprehensible and cowardly - clearly they don't want to put themselves in a position where they would be forced to confront the absolute indefensibility of the White House's position.

Der Spiegel (the German newspaper), needless to say, had an article on this and are taking their own government to task for not pushing harder on the US on this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,510523,00.html

The article is an excellent and thought-provoking read, and suggests that that our own brand of state sponsored terror is unlikely to change substantially with the next administration as it is highly unlikely that any of the apparatus put in place in this administration is likely to be dismantled - power, once seized, is rarely relinquished.

Regards,
Nydia

If it makes you feel happier, I was disappointed in the decision, and I find the repeated over-use of "states secrets" a questionable defense.

It does make me feel happy, because it shows that at least some people are bothered by what we let slide. I am not trying to post links and push it like here in your face! But rather bring to light the issues that embarass me.

While it is sad what happened to this man, 2 quotes stood out in that story:


It is not known how many terror suspects have been detained under the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program in which they are moved to other countries.
I'm also interested in the terrorist to innocent person ratio, myself.


"I think it's hard to argue that this is within the bounds of international law; after all, it's a kind of kidnapping," said Arthur Hulnick, a former CIA officer and a professor at Boston University. "On the other hand, it's one of the few good weapons that the intelligence community has for pre-empting some of the terrorists."



Nothing is ever clear cut bad or good. It's a useful tool, but in the hands of the misguided, or deliberately vindictive, very dangerous.

Jedd,


I think most in the US are quite disgusted with this type of thing.

This same thing happens to Americans in America...nothing shocking here really. Convicted, sent to death row, and then 20 years later..hey we made a mistake, hes innocent.

'It does make me feel happy, because it shows that at least some people are bothered by what we let slide. I am not trying to post links and push it like here in your face! But rather bring to light the issues that embarass me.'

- AHHH! Thank GOD we have Jedd in our midst. He brings to light the injustices of the world and is the only person on these forums to stand up to The Man.

Thank you Jedd for opening our eyes.

Thank you.

'It does make me feel happy, because it shows that at least some people are bothered by what we let slide. I am not trying to post links and push it like here in your face! But rather bring to light the issues that embarass me.'

- AHHH! Thank GOD we have Jedd in our midst. He brings to light the injustices of the world and is the only person on these forums to stand up to The Man.

Thank you Jedd for opening our eyes.

Thank you.

Congratulation on being an Asshole, how is that workin out for you?

clearly they don't want to put themselves in a position where they would be forced to confront the absolute indefensibility of the White House's position.

So indefensible that the lower court and 4th circuit court of appeals (on de novo review and, I believe, without dissent) agreed with the government's position? More importantly, so indefensible that the plaintiff agreed that the government had satisfied the requirements for assertion of states secrets? The Supreme Court denied cert. because they agreed with the 4th Circuit's ruling.

The only issue for the courts to decide was whether the plaintiff could establish his case without the use of state secrets.

"[A]dvancing a case in the court of public opinion, against the United States at large, is an undertaking quite different from prevailing against specific defendants in a court of law."

Note that he did not sue the U.S. government. He sued the defendants personally -- the government intervened as a defendant to assert states secrets.

"To establish a prima facie case, he would be obliged to produce admissible evidence not only that he was detained and interrogated, but that the defendants were involved in his detention and interrogation in a manner that renders them personally liable to him."

"Furthermore, if El-Masri were somehow able to make out a prima facie case despite the unavailability of state secrets, the defendants could not properly defend themselves without using privileged evidence."

'Congratulation on being an Asshole, how is that workin out for you?'

- It's working out like a nice little blond on my nuts.
Hey Jedd'Herzera Pro 4500 - shutty.

This case sort of reminds me of Luther V Borden in a way.

Even though this is an extremely ideological Supreme Court, they might have acted properly in not hearing the case, but I would have rather that they heard the case and then ruled that it was not their business, rather an issue between the Executive and Legislative.

Congress needs to assess precisely what the administration is doing and have massive oversight. What I would do if I were the congressional leaders is to pass a law banning any "enhanced interrogation techniques" that have not been vetted and approved by act of congress. Then Elastic Clause the Executive Branch's ass into behaving.

Congress needs to assess precisely what the administration is doing and have massive oversight. What I would do if I were the congressional leaders is to pass a law banning any "enhanced interrogation techniques" that have not been vetted and approved by act of congress. Then Elastic Clause the Executive Branch's ass into behaving.

The argument against that sort of oversight has been the "Jack Bauer" defense: What if terrorists have planned something, and we have to get the info RIGHT NOW!!!!???!?!!!??? >insert digital clock counting down from 24 hours here<

While I understand that torturing isn't a generally accepted method for getting valuable information, and people will admit to just about anything under torture, the image of the "good guys" getting the information out of the "bad guys, just in the nick of time" is an persistant one.