Supreme Court refuses appeal of tortured detainee.
Today, the Supreme Court “terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed. Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of mistaken identity.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
57 Responses to “Supreme Court refuses appeal of tortured detainee.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Yup. It’s official.
Amerika is now a police state.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI love my country, but I am ashamed of my Supreme Court.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pmState secrets? As in it would show that we are WAR CRIMINALS. Naw, couldn’t be that, could it?
Buck Fush
October 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pmToo often, this administration claims “state secrets” when all they seem to be protecting is the fact that they’ve broken the law.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm“…state secrets would be revealed…”
Who are they kidding? It is no secret that King George the Dumb is an ass. He is akin to the Emperor with the fancy clothes but KGtD is riding around on Uncle Dick with no brains.
And that aint no secret, Baby!
October 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pmState secrets revealed to whom, the Supreme Court justices?
State secrets like habeus corpus, the rule of law, due process…
those kinds of state secrets?
Heaven help us if those should be revealed……….
October 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm/sarc off.
our govt is WORTHLESS.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pmYeah, I guess that the truth about how our government abducted and tortured an innocent man would “give aid and comfort to our enemies.”
/sarc off
October 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pmSo the Supreme Court is using as precedent an instance where the government lied to them about the need for secrecy. The constitution does grant the Congress the authority to keep some of what they do secret, but I do not see any such privilege extended to the Executive Branch. (The president can require written opinions from his cabinet, but that’s for accountability, not secrecy.) The decision upon which the Bush administration relied to win their case appears to be the product of “judicial activism”, which I thought was something they all hated.
Democracy cannot function when the government is allowed to declare something a “state secret” and no one is permitted the opportunity to determine if that is actually true.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThis is a surprise ?
October 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“I am ashamed of my Supreme Court.”
Comment by koko the talking gorilla
Many years ago, in a discussion of the South, an African American said “It is y’all’s ami, it aint Miami.”
It can be your Supreme Court but it sure as Hell isn’t mine. I will wait until 2009 after the neocon crooks are impeached to claim any part of the Court.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pmAnd so the Supremes will condone torture to support their new America.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHow long before the neocon enablers begin hailing this decision as a victory in the war on terror?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAnyone know how each Justice voted in this matter?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHow long before the neocon enablers begin hailing this decision as a victory in the war on terror?
I think even the neo-cons realize that this decision has little to do with the “war on terror” — it has everything to do with the “war on error”.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThis reeks of another 5-4 democracy flusher.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pmhttp://www.correntewire.com/ shocker_original_state_secrets_case_was_built_on_a_lie
The above link is from Corrente Wire. I recommend the blog lots and lots. This link talks about state secrets being claimed by the government, but in the end they are not really secrets - simply ways to avoid telling the public the truth.
This administration is the most secretive - ever. They use it as a way to shield themselves from scrutiny and oversight. If the Bush administration makes you proud, you are unAmerican.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#14, Neptune: Per the article, “The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any explanation or recorded dissent.”
We’ll never know.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pmI wonder if Bush would feel the same way if this case involved an American who had accused, say, Iran of holding him in a secret prision for 4 months and torturing him. Would he say to the Iranians, “oh, you go ahead and dismiss the case. We wouldn’t want national secrets or anything like that revealed, you know.”
We know how he feels if other countries adopt the policies of the Military Detainee Act, and one of our soldiers is held indefinitely and then put on trial with evidence withheld: “The world would be a better place.”
Bush is for the rule of law only when it benefits him.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pmComment by neptune — October 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
The court refused to hear the case. I don’t believe the court publishes the results from the certiorari process, but only 4 of the 9 members need to agree to hear the case for the case to be heard.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pmJustice is not found in the USA.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm20… depends. Was this hypothetical American part of the “Base”?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pmComment by Menehune — October 9, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Given this administration’s actions in the past, that certainly would play a role, wouldn’t it?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe court refused to hear the case. I don’t believe the court publishes the results from the certiorari process, but only 4 of the 9 members need to agree to hear the case for the case to be heard.
Comment by dim wit — October 9, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Can you provide a link with this process? That would be very helpful. Thanks!
October 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSo the “we don’t torture” gang refuses an appeal where they surely could prove without a doubt that the plaintiff was (*wink*) not tortured.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI think the “state secrets” that would be revealed include the fact that this “we don’t do torture” country does, in fact, do torture.
Gotta keep any testimony stating anything other than “we don’t do torture” off the official record, ya know?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:32 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
You can read all about the Supreme Court’s rules at this website. (I wanted to find something other than Wikipedia. Who knows how much of that the Bush Justice Dept changed to suit their beliefs.)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/
October 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmCan you provide a link with this process? That would be very helpful. Thanks!
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Complicated:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/ (Part III)
Simplified:
October 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
The “state secrets privilege” has to go. Just as a prime example, the landmark case that established this right shows that it was ill-conceived to begin with. In that case, it turns out that the main reason for invoking the privilege was to avoid embarrassment and trial and that no secrets were involved.
Cheers,
October 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pmI’d like to hear a bit more than just the headline. Did this guy appeal a lower court ruling that he had no standing, or what? There are a lot of questions that I have about whether American laws, rights and privileges apply in foreign countries to citizens of other foreign countries. If I go to England, get abducted by Israeli agents and interrogated in South Africa, can I who do I sue, under which laws and which court?
And on a broader note, please define “torture”. From what I have heard, American “torture” is a walk in the park compared to WW2 German, 1944 Japanese, 1965 Vietnamese, 1999 Iraqi, current Indonesian, etc., etc. Sure waterboarding is very frightening, but it has little comparison to having your genitals cut off and stuffed in your mouth, or having your head sawed off on live TV.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe fact they denied cert may have to do with not enough justices (less than 4) thinking the merits need addressing, or perhaps that the judges want to wait for a different case on the same issues. I suspect the former (at least for the conservatives on the court). A denial of cert is not a ruling on the merits, though, and lower courts are free to reach their own conclusions (albeit in theory constrained by the precedent of Reynolds).
Cheers,
October 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pmJustice died along with America on September 11, 2001!
October 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pmThe “state secrets privilege†has to go. Just as a prime example, the landmark case that established this right shows that it was ill-conceived to begin with. In that case, it turns out that the main reason for invoking the privilege was to avoid embarrassment and trial and that no secrets were involved.
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo — October 9, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I just reviewed the Reynolds decision. The court had no opinion about the merits of invoking the privilege, just on whether there was a right of the government to do so. They held it similar to the right to avoid self-incrimination (5th Amendment), that is, if the court were to question the appropriateness of invoking the right, that right would be already violated just by that examination.
Just because the government (or anyone else) invokes a right and evades responsibility for an act, that does not prove that it it is wrong to protect the right. Should we have revoked the 5th Amendment just Al Capone invoked it for himself? The logic here is the same.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#
Justice died along with America on September 11, 2001!
Comment by Quizmos — October 9, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Partially because the Clinton Administration prevented the various national defense and law enforcement agencies from sharing their research (see Jamie Gurelik (I’m not sure of the spelling)) and treating international threats as internal law-enforcement matters rather than national defense - which happens to be a specific constitutional responsibility of the national government.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:19 pmComment by richg — October 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Why, such dereliction of duty in regards to national security sounds like grounds for impeachment.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:35 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
You can read all about the Supreme Court’s rules at this website. (I wanted to find something other than Wikipedia. Who knows how much of that the Bush Justice Dept changed to suit their beliefs.)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Than you Wayne. I also found another reference that is, perhaps, easier to find a direct answer.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
http://www.answers.com/topic/certiorari?cat=biz-fin
October 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by richg — October 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Dick, Gorlick didn’t set up the “wall.” From TP, 8/19/05:
October 9th, 2007 at 3:45 pmGorlick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. (It also didn’t create a wall between the FBI and the Justice Department but that’s another story.) Whatever problems Shaffer had trying to communicate with the FBI it had absolutely nothing to do with Gorelick.
We’ve really come full circle here. Our Constitution values the interests of the individual over the state. Here we see that the interests of the state subjugate individual civil liberties. This is the very definition of fascism.
“Fascist ethics begin with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.”- Mario Palmieri, “The Philosophy of Fascism”
October 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pmAmerica
“The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any explanation or recorded dissent.â€
AAAAAaaaarrrggghhhhh!!!
October 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pm#34 richg:
Just because the government (or anyone else) invokes a right and evades responsibility for an act, that does not prove that it it is wrong to protect the right. Should we have revoked the 5th Amendment just Al Capone invoked it for himself? The logic here is the same.
In fact, courts can (and do) make inquiries as to whether a Fifth Amendment claim is justified. No one is immune from compulsory testimony (a situation I disagree with; I’ve commented on this at length back in Usenet days); people are only free from “self-incrimination”. Courts may limit questioning to areas that would not be incriminatory to the person testifying, may grant immunity, or may determine that the testimony asked for is not of an incriminatory nature and must be given. You are not free to “plead the Fifth” for instance, in a civil suit; even if it hurts your case, you have to answer questions from the opposing party. If necessary, courts may place limits on the testimony given to make sure it’s not used for criminal prosecution (this was the theory in the North congressional hearings; the courts struck it down as being insufficient). In the case of “state secrets”, such a privilege will fail if not well-founded; the problme lies in the amount of deference and scrutiny given to such a claim. There’s no reason for the courts’ deference to the determination of the gummint; courts can (in my mind) adequately look at and protect any actual secrets that need protection. Inviting the gummint to be both judge and judged is an invitation to abuse, as the Reynolds case showed, and as is likely the el-Masri case as well.
Cheers,
October 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pm#35 richg:
Partially because the Clinton Administration prevented the various national defense and law enforcement agencies from sharing their research (see Jamie Gurelik (I’m not sure of the spelling))…
What a pile’o'crop. Echoing RW “spin points” won’t get you anywhere.
Cheers,
October 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pmCough… cough…..
How many “terror†suspects did Bill Clinton catch and convict in the 1993 bombing??? Now how many “terror†suspects did Bush catch and convict for 9/11?????
See the difference?????? One requires using law enforcement techniques, the other requires using the shotgun approach and HOPPING that you get something.
Comment by RemoveBush — October 9, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
You just proved one of my points. We have people arrayed against us who, in their own minds at least, are in an all-out war on the United States. And it was being treated through law enforcement means rather than as national security.
Law enforcement requires that we arrest the ‘bad guys’ AFTER they have done a ‘crime’. It is not, nor can it be a preventive. Just ask any woman with a restraining order against a stalker. The cops cannot do much of anything until AFTER he has killed her.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pmComment by richg — October 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Dick, Gorlick didn’t set up the “wall.†From TP, 8/19/05:
Gorlick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. (It also didn’t create a wall between the FBI and the Justice Department but that’s another story.) Whatever problems Shaffer had trying to communicate with the FBI it had absolutely nothing to do with Gorelick.
Comment by Bad Eye — October 9, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
“Rich” please. And thank you for a more reasonable response than most that I have read here.
I am assuming that ‘TP’ is ThinkProgressive. I’d like a more authoritative source if possible. You wouldn’t let me get away with simply quoting Drudge as a source, and it seems to me that quoting TP would be just as partisan, only on the other side.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pmLaw enforcement requires that we arrest the ‘bad guys’ AFTER they have done a ‘crime’. It is not, nor can it be a preventive. Just ask any woman with a restraining order against a stalker. The cops cannot do much of anything until AFTER he has killed her.
Comment by richg
So your solution to the problem is that we go out and kill them before they have a chance to kill us. Maybe the woman should have killed her husband before he had a chance to kill her. Oh, wait a minute, that would be considered murder.
So how are we any different? We attack the wrong country and slaughter their people all because we are afraid of al Quaeda. In the meantime we have made thousands of new terrorists (the people who are pissed off that we have destroyed their country and are killing their people). And the person who we say (it has never been proved) orchestrated 911 is sitting in the hills of Afghanistan laughing his ass off at us.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:18 pmSo your solution to the problem is that we go out and kill them before they have a chance to kill us. Maybe the woman should have killed her husband before he had a chance to kill her. Oh, wait a minute, that would be considered murder.
So how are we any different? We attack the wrong country and slaughter their people all because we are afraid of al Quaeda. In the meantime we have made thousands of new terrorists (the people who are pissed off that we have destroyed their country and are killing their people). And the person who we say (it has never been proved) orchestrated 911 is sitting in the hills of Afghanistan laughing his ass off at us.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
You have missed (and mischaracterised) my point: That is, using the law enforcement method is unsuited to those who consider themselves to be at war. Laws do not stop anyone who is willing to risk dying for his cause of making our people die for ours.
The other stuff you stated is putting words in my mouth that were not there.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:47 pm“Rich†please. And thank you for a more reasonable response than most that I have read here.
I am assuming that ‘TP’ is ThinkProgressive. I’d like a more authoritative source if possible. You wouldn’t let me get away with simply quoting Drudge as a source, and it seems to me that quoting TP would be just as partisan, only on the other side.
Comment by richg — October 9, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Is this good enough for you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007
October 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm14 - in order for certiorari to be granted, at least 4 Justices must agree to the petition. This means that at least 6 Justices sided with the Administration’s position.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:16 pmThis means that if you, or I , or anyone is abducted and tortured by the government, all the government need to is say “State Secret” and we’ll never get a day in court.
Constitutional Rights are purely illusory at this point.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:17 pmIs this good enough for you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007
Comment by Bad Eye — October 9, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
No. That’s like me pulling up an article from AmericanThinker. Try again. This time from a non-partisan source.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:35 amAlthough Rich, with that attitude, I’d say you have a promising career in the Department of Pre-crime. Just make sure you ignore the Minority Report.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:35 amNo. That’s like me pulling up an article from AmericanThinker. Try again. This time from a non-partisan source.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 12:35 am
And what is your non-partisan source that tells you that Gorelick was responsible for the “wall”?
October 10th, 2007 at 8:52 amBy the way…I suspect the reason 6 or more justices agreed not to look at this case is because even they, with a straight face, couldnt use the original case which created this “state secrets” theory to justify upholding it in this case. The original case is a PERFECT example of when precedent could be over-ruled because its so painfully, glaringly obvious that the court got it wrong. Was this even addressed by any of the circuit court judges? I wonder…
October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 amYou have missed (and mischaracterised) my point: That is, using the law enforcement method is unsuited to those who consider themselves to be at war. Laws do not stop anyone who is willing to risk dying for his cause of making our people die for ours.
Comment by richg — October 9, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Then explain how law enforcement was able to prevent what many consider a plausible plot in Britain to bring down airliners using, among other things, bottled water. 24 people were arrested in connection with the plot, which had not been carried out. And what about the “terrorists” that planned the attack on Fort Dix?
Are you saying that law enforcement is only successful in cases of terrorism after the act has been carried out?
It’s pretty obvious that laws by themselves aren’t going to stop terrorists. Hell, DUI laws do not stop people from drinking and driving. But law enforcement goes way beyond just putting a law on the books and then sitting on the sidelines expecting everyone to abide by them. The word “enforcement” is there for a reason.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:04 amNo. That’s like me pulling up an article from AmericanThinker. Try again. This time from a non-partisan source.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 12:35 am
While you’re at it, why don’t you provide proof that Media Matters lied about the info in the link I provided.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:09 amNo. That’s like me pulling up an article from AmericanThinker. Try again. This time from a non-partisan source.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Short of getting a direct quote from Gorelick — and I doubt you’d even believe her then — you’ll just have to accept the info below from CNN.com’s archives. But, if you can prove it wrong, then by all means let’s see your non-partisan source.
A handful of congressional Republicans called for the resignation of commission member Jamie Gorelick after Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony blamed her for erecting the infamous “wall” between intelligence and criminal investigations when she was Deputy Attorney General under Clinton.
As it turns out, Gorelick had simply distilled case law going back to the early Reagan Administration, and Ashcroft’s Justice Department abided by the same policy for a time even after 9/11.
And this, from Sen. Slade Gorton, Republican, and member of 9/11 Commission:
But what I’m telling you is that “the wall” was created by laws sponsored by the Church committee back in the 1970’s. And they went all the way through until after 9/11 was over. And that nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies.
(Source: O’Reilly Factor, Fox News. It’s in their archives. And I note that Bill apparently didn’t make an attempt to prove Sen. Gorton wrong.)
One final thought: apparently no one jumped on the “blame Gorelick” (and by extension, Clinton) until Ashcroft accused her of creating “the wall.”
As well, if this “wall” was such a big problem, Bush had nearly 9 months to tear it down prior to 9/11. If he had been aggressive at fighting terror when he first entered office, instead of worrying about when he was going to vacation in Crawford, then things might have turned out differently.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:47 amAlthough Rich, with that attitude, I’d say you have a promising career in the Department of Pre-crime. Just make sure you ignore the Minority Report.
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:35 am
I wasn’t talking about criminals who simply want to get something for themselves in violation of a person’s rights, but about a movement that wants to take us out AS A NATION. Treating the latter as a crime-prevention matter would be like taking an antibiotic to prevent a mugging.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pmCome on, Rich, respond to my posts. Oh, you can’t, right?
October 11th, 2007 at 9:57 pm