A thumb in the eye of the civilized world

To no ones surprise, but the dismay of civilized people the world over, the partisan hacks on the Roberts court have refused without comment to hear a case brought by a German citizen of Lebanesse descent who claims he was abducted by CIA agents and spirited to a prison in Afghanistan where he was subjected to torture tactics. His case is the most extensively documented instance of the United States practice of "extraiordinary rendition" of terrorism suspects.

The Supremes upheld the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit, which found for the government on the specious grounds of "state secrets."

When the Fourth Circuit refused to hear Mr. al-Masri's case, they had reservations. “We recognize the gravity of our conclusions that el-Masri must be denied a judicial forum for his complaint,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in March. “The inquiry is a difficult one, for it pits the judiciary’s search for truth against the executive’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.” When the Fourth Circuit ruled, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the action “truly unbelievable” and “reminiscent of third-world countries.”

While today's action by the Supremes, which let the ruling by the Fourth Circuit stand, is not a surprise; it is expected to cast a further chill over the relationship between the United States and Germany, strained over the United States bullheaded persistence in prosecuting a failed policy in Iraq.

...Mr. Masri’s lawyer in Germany, Manfred Gnijdic, said the high court’s refusal to consider the case sends a message that the United States expects other nations to act responsibly but refuses to take responsibility for its own
actions.

“We are very disappointed,” Mr. Gnijdic said in an interview with The Associated Press. “It will shatter all trust in the American justice system.”

Mr. Masri contended in his suit that he was seized by local law enforcement officials while vacationing in Macedonia on New Year’s Eve 2003. At the time, he was 41 years old and an unemployed car salesman.

“They asked a lot of questions — if I have relations with Al Qaeda, Al Haramain, the Islamic Brotherhood,” Mr. Masri said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times. “I kept saying no, but they did not believe me.”

After 23 days, he said, he was turned over to C.I.A. operatives, who
flew him to a secret C.I.A. prison in Kabul. There, Mr. Masri said, he was kept
in a small, filthy cell and shackled, drugged and beaten while being
interrogated about his supposed ties to terrorist organizations. At the end of
May 2004, Mr. Masri said, he was released in a remote part of Albania without
ever having been charged with a crime.

The CIA has never admitted to involvement in the al-Masri case, but investigators in Europe have found his account credible and arrest warrents have been issued for 13 CIA agents who have been implicated. While it is unlikely that the Bush administration would have any higher regard for the law in another nation when he doesn't even respect it at home, the existence of the warrants will hamper the ability of the agents to move about Europe.

The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization that seeks to focus attention on constitutional issues, called the Supreme Court’s refusal to take
up the case “profoundly disappointing.”

“The government’s treatment of Mr. El-Masri has been appalling, and the executive branch should not be permitted to hide its mistakes behind the so-called state secrets privilege,” said the organization’s senior counsel, Sharon Bradford Franklin. “Now that the Court has declined to consider this issue, Congress should immediately take up legislation to reform the state secrets privilege and clarify that it does not authorize unchecked power to disregard individual rights.”

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has introduced legislation to ban extraordinary rendition, said today that “the Bush administration reflexively responds with the ‘state secrets’ defense whenever it is caught bending or simply ignoring the law.”

I have taken a few moments to contact my Senators and Representative and encourage them to support or sponsor legislation to rein in the abuses of the State Secrets provision that has become a petticoat under which to hide from accountability. I would encourage you to do the same - and remember to be civil.

And if this utter apostasy, this "fuck you" to the rest of the world, does not highlight the importance of a Democrat making the next Supreme Court appointment, I don't know how to reach you.

That's really gotta hurt...

It was a bitch-slapping. There is no other accurate descriptive. The conservative Fourth Circuit cut down the idea of perpetual detention and enemy combatants and had some stinging words to say about it, too.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”

The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.

The Fourth Circuit is extremely conservative. And now the question on my mind is: Will the Bush administration press the Supremes for a definitive ruling, or will they try to forestall and run out the clock? Inquiring minds want to know (and the suspense is killing me!)