Torture suit too hot to be heard, admin. accused of trying to cover up wrongdoing

[G_j]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/16/BA6H1B4L3P.DTL


Torture suit too hot to be heard, U.S. says
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009

(12-15) 17:43 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A lawsuit accusing a Bay Area flight-planning company of aiding an alleged CIA program of kidnapping and torturing terror suspects threatens national security and is too sensitive to discuss fully in a public courtroom, an Obama administration attorney argued Tuesday.

"The case cannot proceed without getting into state secrets," Justice Department lawyer Douglas Letter told an 11-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Several judges noted that most of the essential facts of the case have been widely aired - the existence of the "extraordinary rendition" program under President George W. Bush, the five plaintiffs' accounts of their abduction and torture, and the alleged participation by Jeppesen Dataplan of San Jose - and asked why the case is too sensitive for the courts to hear.

Letter said he could reply only in a closed session. For the record, he said, "the U.S. government will not confirm or deny any relationship with Jeppesen."

The court met privately with Letter after the one-hour public hearing, a practice that the plaintiffs' lawyer, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union, described as common in cases involving government claims of secrecy.

During the public session, Wizner accused the administration of trying to cover up wrongdoing.

..more..

[G_j]

1. I suppose we're all used to the new "transparency"

but here is another shining example.
:mad:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. By claiming state secrets they're essentially admitting the charges in the complaint.

No torture and kidnapping? Then no secret to be kept.

Guilty.

[G_j]

3. excellent point

and I guess that is supposed to be the end of it.

[hayu_lol]

4. Desperately attempting to protect...

Bush/Cheney from investigation and prosecution.

DUH!

[G_j]

5. I guess some things are just too obvious

oh, they would never do that!
:sarcasm:

[anigbrowl]

7. No they're not.

It is possible for cases to be heard in camera, ie without being open to the public. I am anxious that this case go ahead, but your argument that mention of state secrets proves the prosecution case makes no sense. For example, you might have proof that someone named in the complaint was in fact in a completely different country at the time, but that information might itself be secret. Or part of the case (for either side) might rely on testimony from someone who is a spy in a foreign country but whose identity is supposed to remain secret. I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case, only that your assumption is illogical because it doesn't account for all possibilities.

There is a procedure for hearing cases involving sensitive national security information, and I hope it gets used. It's a mistake to assume that secrecy is proof of criminality, though; sometimes it is justifiable.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Of course it's possible. It's practically mandatory.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[G_j]

6. IMO, an important story..

:shrug:

[G_j]

8. seems destined to fly under the radar

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

9. Need to change your OP title: LIEBERMAN SEEN BREASTFEEDING TIGER WOODS!

K&R