BREAKING: CNN reports that the SCOTUS Blocks El-Masri civil lawsuit against US for alleged Torture

[kpete]

Ta-da! Torture is now officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court too. There absolutely must not be ANY relief from victims against the most holy United States of America.

BREAKING: CNN reports that the SCOTUS just blocked the El-Masri civil lawsuit against the US for alleged torture of him by CIA agents and others when they held him at a black site — after picking him up on inaccurate information.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/09/rank-incompetence/

SCOTUSblog has more.

Court grants no new cases
Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

The Supreme Court granted no new cases Tuesday and, in a major action, refused to reopen the question of the government’s power to limit or scuttle lawsuits by claiming that “state secrets” have to be protected. The Court denied review of an attempt to challenge the Central Intelligence Agency’s program of capturing individuals abroad and sending them to other countries for aggressive interrogation — the so-called “extraordinary renditions” program. There were no noted dissents from the denial order in El-Masri v. U.S. (06-1613).

The Court also refused to give states new guidance on how a death-row inmate is to be judged mentally retarded and thus not subject to the death penalty. (Chester v. Texas, 06-1616). And, just as it did a week ago in another case, the Court declined a plea to reconsider a 1985 ruling that property owners must first seek compensation in state court under state law before they may go to federal court to challenge the seizure of their property. (Rockstead v. Crystal Lake, 06-1716.) The same issue was bypassed in 06-1481 on Oct. 1.

Over the dissents of three Justices, the Court sent back to lower courts for reconsideration a new case testing what instructions must be given to a jury in a death penalty case to assure that they need not be unanimous in finding offsetting (mitigating) factors even though they must all agree on their ultimate punishment verdict. The case is Hudson v.

Spisak (06-1535). The case was returned to the Sixth Circuit Court for a new look under two prior precedents, Carey v. Musladin and Schriro v. Landrigan. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that they would have accepted the case for review now.

The Court took no action on Tuesday on a plea to expand its review of the lethal injection procedure in capital punishment cases. The new case is Taylor v. Crawford (07-303). The Court was asked to expedite that petition and hear it along with 07-5439, granted in September.

more at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-grants-no-new-cases-2/

[aquart]

1. No difference between Republicans and Democrats?

[Frances]

3. I think there is a difference between purists and practical people

as well as a difference between Repubs and Dems.

[opusprime]

10. Democrats could have stopped this long ago...

by not voting for the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the illegal wiretapping, and the funding for all of these fraudulent endeavors.

They did nothing and remained silent, thereby giving tacit approval.

Currently, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

[skipos]

15. "Currently, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans."

Yeah, look at how all Repubs and Democrats alike voted against SCHIP. :eyes:

If you want to claim there isn't enough of a difference to satisfy you, that is fine. But this "no difference" nonsense is as much of a lie as "Bush=Gore."

[lateo]

30. If the end result is the same.

If we vote in Democrats "with a mandate for change" and nothing changes what do you call that?

[skipos]

31. Things have changed

Just not to the degree that you and many others like. You can claim that there is little difference, that is fine. But to say there is "no difference" is an absolute lie. I heard all this "no difference" nonsense with Gore and Bush. Would Gore have appointed Alito and Roberts? Would Gore have played guitar while people were dying in Katrina? Would Gore have given us Clear Skies? Would Gore have had us in Iraq? No, he wouldn't. So spare me the "no difference" hogwash.

[lateo]

36. What exactly has changed?

Except the people chairing the committees?

[skipos]

38. You just proved my point

"What exactly has changed EXCEPT..."

That means SOMETHING has changed, just not to the degree that satisfies you.

[lateo]

46. Yes,

change that provides no real change is now acceptable to Democrats.

funny how low our standards are now.

[frylock]

53. it's fucking pathetic

[frylock]

37. what's changed?

sure, there is "oversight", but what has come of that? Why hasn't Harriet Myers been charged with inherent contempt?

[skipos]

39. You just admitted that something has changed

Again, it is not to the degree that you like.

[frylock]

52. it's window dressing

[pnwmom]

28. They couldn't have stopped the Iraq war by voting against the IWR.

Bush would have started it anyway, using the blank check IWR that the new Repub majority would have been happy to provide him with in January 2003. If the Dems had voted against the more limited Oct. 2002 resolution, it wouldn't even have been a bump in the road for Bush -- he was riding high on public support in those days and the Rethugs would have been happy to follow him anywhere he wanted to go, with or without any Dems.

If Gore had been sworn into office in 2000, we would never have begun the war in Iraq, and we would have an entirely different Supreme Court. There's a monumental difference between where we are now and where we would be under President Gore.

[Virginia Dare]

33. Thank you, good points...n/t

[Hydra]

40. 2 problems with these points

1. Bush has gotten so much mileage off of the IWR- as I pointed out to you yesterday, he can invade Iran with that document and say that he had "bipartisan support"

In other words, BAD. VERY BAD. HUGE POLITICAL MISCALCULATION.

2. SCOTUS allowed Bushco to violate the law regarding election fraud, and gave their seal of approval to an unelected person to become President. They are currently irrelevant, by their own decision...and if they don't know it, they should look at how often Bush does what they say.

[bdamomma]

49. and we probably wouldn't have had a 9/11 either.

[Fovea]

13. Oh Yes!

The republicans are terrorists, and the dems are afraid to stop them.

I see a big difference there.

[Forkboy]

23. There is, but unless you're a political junkie like us it's getting harder and harder to see it.

Whether the meme is true or not (I don't think it is) the perception is out there, and out there strongly, because the Dems don't do much to illustrate the differences anymore.There's a reason more than half of the US doesn't vote at all, and every single non-voter I've ever spoken to has said a version of this charge that's there's no, or at best, little, difference between the two parties.There is zero confidence in either party right now, and it's deserved on both sides.

We can only do so much to point out the differences (try explaining policy to non political people and have fun watching their eyes glaze over), but until the party proper starts doing so forcefully and passionately this charge will continue to hurt both the Dems, and worse, the country.

[The Stranger]

25. No difference between WAR PARTY Republicans and WAR PARTY "Democrats" -- yes, that's right.

They are simply WAR PARTY.

[Jacobin]

47. Ahem....there were NO DISSENTS

from the writ denial.

Accordingly, your rhetorical question appears to have answered itself properly and without irony.

[mmonk]

2. I guess the constitution is officially over.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. You're a little late.

The actual date of death was December 12, 2000.

[asjr]

8. Yes. What I have suspected is true.

the Constitution is dead and Antonin Scalia will deliver the eulogy.

[backscatter712]

14. We still have a Second Amendment.

It was put in for just such an emergency.

[robinlynne]

32. and they have blackwater.

[MADem]

4. Declining review is not the same as sanctioning, though it has the same short term effect.

They just said they "didn't wanna hear it."

That could change down the line.

[Richard Steele]

5. When discussing such a clearly unconstitutional program, "don't wanna hear it" SANCTIONS it. nm

[MADem]

18. No. Don't wanna hear it means exactly that. They don't want to get involved, NOW.

That could change. It often does with the Supremes.

They actually did us a favor, though it's hard to see it because of the immediate effect of the failure to rule.

Right now, if they took that case, with the current makeup of the court, they'd probably find for the government 5-4.

And THAT would be a "sanction."

[EVDebs]

7. Was it because El-Masri isn't a US citizen ?

Therefore a "standing" to sue issue ? The CIA et al's 'black ops' will soon have our budget far in the red !

[kansasblue]

9. I was wondering the citizen thing too.

us citizen or not ? not good either way. A step closer each time.

[bdamomma]

50. could he (Mr. Masri) take this to another court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7036051.stm


The US Supreme Court has thrown out an appeal by a Lebanese-born German citizen who accuses the CIA of kidnapping and torturing him.
Khaled al-Masri had been appealing against the decision of lower courts not to hear his case against the CIA on national security grounds.

Mr Masri says he was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and flown to Afghanistan for interrogation.

His case has highlighted the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The Supreme Court's decision "terminated" Mr Masri's lawsuit and was issued without comment, The Associated Press news agency notes.

[kansasblue]

11. El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent,

El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent,

[truebrit71]

16. Fine...find another way to sue them...in an International forum...

..there were no dissents on this? None?

God help us all....

[MrCoffee]

17. citizenship has nothing to do with it...he had standing to sue

He lost on the State Secrets defense.

[EVDebs]

41. That's what I was getting at. The entire rendition program wasn't 'thought through'

from the start: what do you do with the rendered, especially those caught up who ARE innocents ? The hubris of the entire op leads to BLOWBACK like this once the public becomes aware. Plausible deniability is b.s. once the plausible becomes 'implausible'.

These guys are doing the enemy a great service pr-wise. But, this is a typical GOP operation only it has the national security seal of approval on it that makes all of us look bad.

[pscot]

26. Not being a citizen didn't prevent the CIA

from kidnapping him and torturing him. It would seem to me that the actions of our government automatically confer standing. If the US of A can snatch the guy and torture him, he ought to have access to redress in the US of A court system.

[Kagemusha]

29. Going off memory from the lower court stuff...

...Only tangentally because he isn't a US citizen. Since he was harmed by the US government, he would normally be able to sue for compensation, but the real reason is national security, i.e. he cannot be allowed to expose elements of the nation's War on Terror via secret arms (CIA etc.) because it would harm the nation, and that trumps whatever harm this one individual has received. So the judiciary system essentially said, go away, you little gnat.

Since the US rejects any international court that might hear such a case, it's over. There's no redress to be found in the US. Redress outside the US, while theoretical, is pretty much hopeless in practical terms.

It is not so much a black mark on the constitution or the judiciary as on the American flag and nation itself.

[EVDebs]

42. He should have filed a 'qui tam' motion then in order to expose a waste of taxpayer dollars

on useless 'renditions' of innocent bystanders. This is similar to the Vietnam era Phoenix program where S. Vietnamese were snitching off those they had grudges against.

Don't these asshats read their own history books ?

[MrCoffee]

12. a District Court judge, a unanimous Circuit Court, and a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS

agree that this guy doesn't have a case.

read the circuit court's opinion here:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/061667.P.pdf

[MADem]

20. SCOTUS just didn't take it. They didn't say the guy had no case.

They just didn't want to consider it....

[librechik]

24. they want Congress to deal with it. Will they?

AAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

[EVDebs]

43. See post 42, file a Whistleblower lawsuit on his behalf LOL !

[cascadiance]

54. Kinda like they didn't take Sibel Edmonds case November 28th two years ago...

What happened to Souder on this? I wonder if he was the odd man out that also didn't vote to hear Edmonds' case too. All it takes is four justices to vote to get a case heard!

I guess her case was "precedence" for not taking this case today.

BTW, did any more marble chunks fall off the Supreme Court today again? I like the comment on this page:

http://www.topdog08.com/2005/11/index.html

There is no way these two stories are not related.

Supreme Court turns down appeal from fired translator

...

Piece Falls From Supreme Court Facade

Maher Arar is probably also glad he no longer flies through this country either!

[Marrah_G]

19. I think my heart just broke

I love my country and I hate seeing what these people are trying to turn us into. If it goes much further I will be squarely on the side of those looking toward a revolution. I am a moderate liberal, not anti- gov or anti- authority, but I see us heading for a cliff if something doesn't happen in the next couple years to bring us back from the edge.

This is disturbing on so many levels it's hard to even put it all down into words.

[bdamomma]

51. If these thugs keep pushing their agenda on us, it will come to that

a confrontation of some sort. It comes down to our own survival.

[Javaman]

21. So there it is...

they can torture us, the can spy on us, they can listen to us, they can try us without evidence, they can hold us indefinitely, they can search our homes without a warrant.

explain to me how this is still America as defined by the constitution?

it's over folks.

[Solly Mack]

22. Ahem....

O bountiful of its many lies,
For many waves of pain,
For purple bruises turning green
Above the law, we won't explain!

America! America!
We'll shed your blood glad-ly,
And cloak our crimes in lies and law
From sea to bloody sea!


O beat the skin from peoples feet
With steady positions of stress
A prison cell for freely smackin'
Across their wounded backs.

America! America!
We'll rend your very flesh,
Confirm our might in perverse delight,
Our tor-ture in law.

O bloodied well, Bush prov'd
In excruciating strikes,
Who more than loved the pain they caused,
And money more than life.

America! America!
By US, all their oil refined
and our success be taxed for less,
our gains through others pain .

O beautiful is our patriot lie
That plays on people's fears
Thine cities scream with bloody dreams
Drowned by human tears.

America! America!
We'll shed your blood glad-ly,
And cloak our crimes in lies and law
From sea to bloody sea!

[EFerrari]

27. Che was right. "It is the nature of imperialism to turn men

into wild, bloodthirsty animals."

[Solly Mack]

45. you'd think we'd learn

alas

[MadHound]

34. Nice to see that the Dems kept their powder dry

However I have to wonder if it isn't getting a bit damp now, what with all the blood of those innocents.

[Bandit]

35. There were no noted dissents from the denial order in El-Masri v. U.S. (06-1613).

Pretty much says it all

[EVDebs]

48. Anyone got that jpeg of the SCOTUS in clownsuits after the 2000 "selection" of * ?

Time to bring it out for all to see again ! Makes you wonder why they couldn't hold the trial 'in camera' and sear El-Masri and his attorney's to secrecy if "justice" were a consideration here ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Those of you who have not, need to read Naomi Wolf's book The End of America

before it is even ilegal to have that book.

We just crossed an important door to fascism and yes, the DEMS have enabled it