Supreme Court Rejects CIA Kidnapping Case

Khaled el-Masri, (also spelled al-Masri) the 42 year old German shoe salesman and father of five who was plucked off a street in Macedonia while on holiday, beaten and flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan where he was held for 5 months until the U.S. and Condoleeza Rice admitted he was picked up by mistake (a case of mistaken identity) has had his lawsuit against the U.S. rejected by the Supreme Court today. Reuters reports here and the AP here.

All of TalkLeft's coverage of el-Masri is accessible here. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on his behalf and has this webpage about extraordinary rendition.

< False Hope On FISA? | Hillary, Rolph and Taylor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When this news was breaking this morning (CNN or MSNBC), I heard either el-Masri could or was planning on using "an International Court" the United States has treaties with regarding torture, kidnapping, etc.

    Would the proper venue be International Court of Justice, or some other World Court?

    Any feedback or beliefs about getting justice through a World tribunal, as they do NOT (obviously) recognize state secrets.

    information re: The Convention Against Torture , which the United States ratified in October of 1994.

    Some great information at the link, however here are the two key FAQs:

    Why does the U.S. have to comply with the Convention Against Torture? Because the U.S. ratified the treaty in October 1994, it is obligated to comply with the provisions of the treaty just as it would any other domestic law. The U.S. Constitution itself makes clear that treaties are "the law of the land."

    Does the Convention apply only to U.S. actions abroad?
    No. The Convention Against Torture applies to all U.S. actions inside the United States and all U.S. actions outside the United States wherever the U.S. exercises effective control. For example, the Convention applies to the actions of U.S. officials at U.S. detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.

    And let's NOT forget the Presidential Oath of Office

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Emphasis added)

    My how quaint.


    The new nazi state (none / 0) (#3)
    by etarhan on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    I wonder if anyone is aware that for some rather long time, U.S. is rapidly being transformed into a nazi state. This is being done through new laws which put the state before the people, build an effective cloak around the administration, make them unaccountable for anything they do, etc., etc., in the name of the fight against terror. It is only ironic that for many years, they have seeded and cultivated the terror, of which they spoke now in a disowning manner. In the past, they would do it under closed doors, but nowadays they dont even try to talk in whispers. They do everything in the open, and they intimidate anyone who dares to oppose them.

    WW 3 has started a long time ago, and the world has seen nothing yet.

    no etarhan, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    no one's noticed that, we've all been living in a cave for the past 6 years. i'm sure we're all appreciative of the penetrating insight you've provided, and jeralyn, TC, BTD and the gang will get right on that.

    What I don't understand (none / 0) (#5)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 03:43:44 PM EST
    but then I'm no lawyer, is that having admitted the detention, how can the secrets privilege be used to win the case. If this were a criminal case charging el-Masri, the gov't would lose, since its decision to invoke the secrets privilge would have crippled his right to defend himself. With so many of the facts of this case already known and there being procedures for examining security sensitive materials in court, why isn't the gov't made to face that same choice between losing a case and contesting it? Do courts necessarily have to be so deferential to these state secrets claims? On NPR a legal expert described this as a "costless privilege that always wins." Wins at the cost of justice he might have added.

    there are four liberal judges (none / 0) (#6)
    by diogenes on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    If it only takes four judges, as the NY Times editorial said today, to review a case, then at least one liberal thought that this case was without merit.  Or am I missing something here?