PDA

View Full Version : Court rejects alleged CIA kidnap victim


Achilles
10-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cia_lawsuit)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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. Hmmm, I thought he was held for 5 months. Also, I recall that he was forced to sign a waiver stating that he would not sue the U.S. government before he was released.

Web Rider
10-09-2007, 01:41 PM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cia_lawsuit)
Hmmm, I thought he was held for 5 months. Also, I recall that he was forced to sign a waiver stating that he would not sue the U.S. government before he was released.

but legal documents signed under coercion don't count anyway, US law says so.

I vaguely remember this case when news first got word of it. It's not a surprising verdict though.

Achilles
10-09-2007, 02:17 PM
Anyone else concerned that the CIA is abducting German citizens and holding them in secret prisons in the middle east?

SilentScope001
10-09-2007, 02:25 PM
Anyone concerned that El-Masri may be a liar?

Unlikely, but hey, it's possible in this day and age. Governments aren't all that saintly, but then again, they aren't all devils either.

mimartin
10-09-2007, 02:31 PM
I found this interesting The administration has not publicly acknowledged that el-Masri was detained So we are not saying we ever had him, but and lower courts dismissed his suit after the administration asserted that state secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit was not blockedwe are admitting that state secrets will be revealed if this is allowed to continue.

I understand the need for state secrets, I also demand my government have checks and balances. I could not agree more with Manfred Gnijdic the attorney for Khaled el-Masri when he was quoted as saying “It will shatter all trust in the American justice system.”

We take a German a citizen (correct me if I’m wrong, but Germany is one of the US allies) from a foreign land and hold him without any due process. Then we release him and tell him he is not due any compensation for our mistakenly imprisoning him (notice I didn’t complicate the issue by saying anything about torture). We could have also settled the suit by just paying him the $75,000 and issuing a public apology for our mistake. An avoidable mistake that may not have ever happened if we allowed these people any type of due process in the first place (how would we have reacted if Germany had done this to one of our citizen?)

I thought we were supposed to be the good guy in the white hats.

One of George Lucas cheesy lines keeps going through my head. Padmé - What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?

Web Rider
10-09-2007, 03:12 PM
Anyone else concerned that the CIA is abducting German citizens and holding them in secret prisons in the middle east?

I am concerned with ANY government doing this to ANY citizen, be them from that government's nation or another.

However, there is a point at which you gotta cut your losses, unless there is some smoking gun to support that this is no more than a one out a million accident....

Also, we're quite aware most CIA type organizations do this, the US CIA is simply more under the microscope. We're quite unsure how to best deal with it.

mimartin
10-09-2007, 03:29 PM
However, there is a point at which you gotta cut your losses, unless there is some smoking gun to support that this is no more than a one out a million accident....But isn’t one out of million too many if you are that one?

Achilles
10-09-2007, 03:44 PM
We take a German a citizen (correct me if I’m wrong, but Germany is one of the US allies) from a foreign land and hold him without any due process. Then we release him and tell him he is not due any compensation for our mistakenly imprisoning him (notice I didn’t complicate the issue by saying anything about torture). We could have also settled the suit by just paying him the $75,000 and issuing a public apology for our mistake. An avoidable mistake that may not have ever happened if we allowed these people any type of due process in the first place (how would we have reacted if Germany had done this to one of our citizen?) FWIW, the name of the guy on their list was Khaled al-Masri. What a difference a vowel makes. Also FWIW, his contention was that if it had been a simple matter of mistaken identity (al vs el), then that could have been cleared up in a few minutes. The fact that his mosque had been under investigation leads him to believe that the CIA didn't care that they had the wrong guy because he still might have been useful to them.
However, there is a point at which you gotta cut your losses, unless there is some smoking gun to support that this is no more than a one out a million accident.... "One in a million" as far as abducting the wrong guy or "one in a million" as far as abducting someone that was later found to be innocent and released? As far as the former, I can't say. As far as the latter, I think the current renditions count is only in the thousands (maybe. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt), but it has happened at least half a dozen times (so far as the documented cases are concerned).

Web Rider
10-09-2007, 03:45 PM
But isn’t one out of million too many if you are that one?

context is everything. If say, we're fighting this War, and the worst thing I did was say Bush was dumb, well, yes. But say we're fighting this war and theres a general description of guy, who looks similar to me, and I get picked up isntead of him, well, then not really.

yeah, i'd be upset, but less so than if I was mistaken for arabic.

"One in a million" as far as abducting the wrong guy or "one in a million" as far as abducting someone that was later found to be innocent and released?

both. But them getting released is the ideal end to it all.

Corinthian
10-09-2007, 04:06 PM
Silentscope has a point. He may be lying. It does happen, you know.

mimartin
10-09-2007, 04:15 PM
Silentscope has a point. He may be lying. It does happen, you know. Sure he could be lying, but that does not explain this statement from the article. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that U.S. officials acknowledged that el-Masri's detention was a mistake. The article also gives an example where the U.S. government has used this privilege before, but was lying about the need for its use.

If you see smoke there usually is a fire, even if you don’t see the flames.

Achilles
10-09-2007, 04:43 PM
I guess I'm a little confused. Is there some question as to whether or not renditions take place?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/renditions.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html
and of course, everyone's favorite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Here's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TEbquHRbySU) a YouTube clip for anyone that is interested in watching.

RobQel-Droma
10-09-2007, 11:17 PM
Anyone else concerned that the CIA is abducting German citizens and holding them in secret prisons in the middle east?

Suddenly, we go from one case put forth here, to we're doing this all over the place to innocent people?

Not really, to answer your question. I feel sorry for the guy, and I do wonder why he was necessary to hold him for so long and not compensate him - I know I'd be pissed. I'm not sure what was going on there. Maybe that frustration is where all his claims are coming from....

But you make it sound like this is our usual policy.... :confused:

Achilles
10-09-2007, 11:23 PM
But you make it sound like this is our usual policy.... :confused:Could you expand on what you mean by "this"? I have several posts in this thread that may or may not address what you are bringing up, so "this" is a little too vague for me to determine context. Thanks in advance.

mimartin
10-10-2007, 12:02 AM
It seems this isn’t an isolated incident and it is not just happening to people of Arabic decent. We are equal opportunity at detaining the innocent.
Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html)
Murat Kurnaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz)
Being released in a timely matter is the ideal end to this all. Having months or even years of your life taken away is not.

Here's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TEbquHRbySU) a YouTube clip for anyone that is interested in watching. Thanks for the link. That was truly disturbing, but something everyone needs to see and hear.

John Galt
10-10-2007, 12:07 AM
this. disgusts. me.

Totenkopf
10-10-2007, 12:23 AM
Could you expand on what you mean by "this"? I have several posts in this thread that may or may not address what you are bringing up, so "this" is a little too vague for me to determine context. Thanks in advance.

I'd say the context is staggeringly self evident. Rob's basically asking if you're contending that it's US policy to scoop people up somewhat indiscriminately, "torture" them, dicscover they're seemingly/actually innocent and then pressuring them to keep quiet after releasing them. Or....was this more the exception than the rule? Afterall, we all know how governments are LOATHE to admit to any wrong doing...accidental or otherwise.

RobQel-Droma
10-10-2007, 01:10 AM
Could you expand on what you mean by "this"? I have several posts in this thread that may or may not address what you are bringing up, so "this" is a little too vague for me to determine context. Thanks in advance.

Well, not to be rude, but I did only quote one certain part of your post, so I would think it would be rather clear....

It seems this isn’t an isolated incident and it is not just happening to people of Arabic decent. We are equal opportunity at detaining the innocent.
Christian Science Monitor

Yes, that is one other incident. Probably shouldn't have happened, or should have ended soon too. But the US seems to be in kind of a tight spot, since apparently there could be some problems sending them back to China.

Murat Kurnaz
Being released in a timely matter is the ideal end to this all. Having months or even years of your life taken away is not.

Dude, that happened in 1982...

....not to mention that the guy seemed to have also spouted torture stories too....

But I agree with the last part.

Jae Onasi
10-10-2007, 01:18 AM
Don't make me come in here with my mod tools.....

Achilles
10-10-2007, 01:18 AM
this. disgusts. me.But wait, there's more.

“(5) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on individualized or collective basis) to be:
(i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents;
(ii) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(iii) a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States. So the President and the Secretary of Defense have the authority to arbitrarily deem someone a "lawful enemy combatant"? I don't see anything here that specifies that this is only applicable to non-citizens (*cough*JosePadilla*cough*).
“(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense—

“(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
“(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
“(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged. So again, completely up to the President and the Secretary of Defense.

Criteria seem a little vague. Without due process, how would one contest their being "part of or affiliated with" one of these groups? Seems that either the President or the Secretary of State could simply decide that they are and that would be the end of the matter.

That last one is a little tricky too; "too have supported hostilities in the aid of such a force or organization so engaged"? Support how? If an Army medic provides medical care to a captured al Qaeda bad guy in accordance with the Geneva conventions, could either the President or the Secretary of State deem him an unlawful enemy combatant? Remember, nothing here stating this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens.

So basically, the President or the Secretary of State may decide that you are an unlawful enemy combatant (thereby suspending your habeas corpus rights), have you renditioned to Guantanamo Bay where your only recourse is to wait for a military commission to review your case (where you are not afforded the right to face your accusers, see evidence presented against you, furnish witnesses to establish your innocence, etc).

Yay for us.

Well, not to be rude, but I did only quote one certain part of your post, so I would think it would be rather clear.... I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before directing you to post #12 and asking which part of it you wish to contest.

Rogue Warrior
10-10-2007, 04:26 AM
Guantanamo detainee David Hicks is still awaiting trial for training with Al Qaeda after he was snapped up in 2001. Similar case. My question is how long would the sentence be if the people that are being arrested and imprisoned are guilty? What happened to measures being in place to ensure law enforcement agencies do not get it wrong?

Achilles
10-10-2007, 05:03 AM
My question is how long would the sentence be if the people that are being arrested and imprisoned are guilty?Great question which raises others. I suspect that since we're speaking about prisoners of war and military crimes, we'd be dealing with the UCMJ (which I am not terribly familiar with).

What happened to measures being in place to ensure law enforcement agencies do not get it wrong?As in "where did they go"? Never existed. Habeas corpus does not extend to foreigners. No due process. No bill of rights guaranteeing a speedy trial, jury of peers, etc, etc. Allegedly the third Geneva Convention extends them some basic rights to trial, which it seems the Military Commissions Act was designed to help facilitate. However there are some flaws with that portion of the MCA as well.

Rogue Warrior
10-10-2007, 06:31 AM
I might be thinking civilian law as opposed to military. Even so if it is the CIA what would it fall under? Some spooky netherworld straight out of Splinter Cell perhaps?

Universal code of military justice. (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm)

mimartin
10-10-2007, 08:43 AM
Dude, that happened in 1982.

....not to mention that the guy seemed to have also spouted torture stories too....

But I agree with the last part.

Dude, Murat Kurnaz was born in 1982.

Mr. Kurnaz was arrested in late 2001 and was not released until 2006.