"STATE SECRETS" SHIELD CIA FROM TORTURE ALLEGATIONS

torture, secrecy? just where do these two come together, a travesty of a court case, no one is therefore responsible for this mess...shame on the courts!

To "Delete My Profile", I'm not sure why you're writing anonymously - your remarks about democrats are somewhat akin to Bob Dole's comments during a presidential debate about "Democrats' War's" and you can see where that got him (he was referring to World War II, Vietnam and Korea).

The issue here isn't about the size of the democrat's cajones, and to me it's not about El Masri (per se), it is about any person walking down main street USA or main street Asuncion or Damascus or (you get the idea)… and essentially being kidnapped off the streets by government agents, ours, the Azerbaijanis', the Syrians, the Russians again you get the drift…and being held incommunicado and with out any legal recourse. I think the British or was it the French (or both of them)? that kidnapped American citizens at sea that lead to the War of 1812.

We love the debate but ask for civility in your exchanges.

This incident is truly frightening. As Jeff A. put it, this is: "not about El Masri (per se), it is about any person walking down main street USA or main street Asuncion or Damascus or (you get the idea)… and essentially being kidnapped off the streets by government agents, ours, the Azerbaijanis', the Syrians, the Russians again you get the drift…and being held incommunicado and with out any legal recourse". What's even more frightening is that Jeff A. had to explain the content of the article to some of the readers.

The author provided several links to further elucidate the situation. The first link is to the published opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, written by Judge King. Two key pieces of information are contained in this document.

First, on page 7, it states: "In El-Masri's view, two additions to the body of public information on these topics are especially significant in this appeal. First, on June 7, 2006, the Council of Europe released a draft report on alleged United States renditions and detentions involving the Council's member countries. This report concluded that El-Masri's account of his rendition and confinement was substantially accurate. Second, on September 6, 2006, in a White House address, President Bush publicly disclosed the existence of a CIA program in which suspected terrorists are detained and interrogated at locations outside the United States. The President declined, however, to reveal any of this CIA program's operational details, including the locations or other circumstances of its detainees' confinement."

Clearly, the Council of Europe confirmed El-Masri's account of his confinement, indicating that his human rights, as well as his civil rights, were violated (he had "not only been held against his will, but had also been mistreated in a number of other ways during his detention, including being beaten, drugged, bound, and blindfolded during transport; confined in a small, unsanitary cell; interrogated several times; and consistently prevented from communicating with anyone outside the detention facility, including his family or the German government.").

Also, President Bush publicly disclosed the existence of a CIA program of the type El-Masri describes. Whether or not Bush provided operational details, the program itself was not a "secret".

Second, on page 8, it states: "Under the state secrets doctrine, the United States may prevent the disclosure of information in a judicial proceeding if "there is a reasonable danger" that such disclosure "will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953). Reynolds, the Supreme Court's leading decision on the state secrets privilege, established the doctrine in its modern form.".

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that part of the explanation for why agencies get away with egregious violations of civil rights is that the courts are using the standard "a reasonable danger" (that such disclosure "will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged). The term "reasonable" is subject to broad interpretation. The defendant (the agency) could claim that their case rested upon state "secrets" without ever divulging what the secrets were (all related information would be privileged). Since only those directly involved in the "secret activities" can know whether this is true or not, the case would have to be dismissed, by default, not by a preponderance of evidence against the plaintiff. The justification for this is that National Security takes precedence over the rights of the individual.

SEC. 10. NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS of the bill (H. R. 985), introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (and colleagues), would level the playing field a bit by requiring the agency head to submit a report to Congress "describing the reason" for the state secrets privilege assertion. This approach is less subjective than allowing the courts to determine what constitutes a "reasonable danger" of exposing state secrets. We would all be better off if this bill was enacted.

What happened to Mr. El-Masri has nothing to do with terrorism or war. It is about human rights - and whether Americans will retain the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution - or have them revoked.

Allowing any government agency to violate our civil rights does not make us "safer" from terrorism (or anything else). In fact, we are less safe because, if we can be deprived of our right to due process, we have no freedom at all. And, without freedom, what would life be? Our rights and our freedom are worth fighting for.

Yes " Delete My Profile" the reality of the world is that nations must keep secrets. However, that in no way authorizes us, as a nation, to practice flagrant human rights abuse in the name of national security. When we resort to the very practices we so vehemently protest and, in fact, punish other nations for perpetrating we stand to lose all credibility and we endanger the very foundations upon which our nation was established. Certainly we can't have tabloids shouting State secrets from every street corner; however, there must be a system of accountability in place. Our government was designed to operate within and depend upon a system of checks and balances for good reason; primarily, prevention of the profligate, indiscriminant abuse of power. Allowing certain government agencies to operate in the dark, with little or no accountability, using whatever methods they deem necessary or appropriate at the moment to 'ensure our national security' threatens the very security they seek to ensure. As Lisa so aptly stated: "we are less safe because, if we can be deprived of our right to due process, we have no freedom at all." I concur, without freedom just what are we being kept safe from? Perhaps Patrick Henry put it best when he said "Give me liberty or give me death".

I have to wonder if DMP has ever heard of the phrase "star chamber". The ruling by this court says essentially that the Executive Branch can label anything a "state secret", and then it will be beyond review by the judicial system. In the past, the Executive Branch has abused this kind of power repeatedly. Indeed, in the greater scheme of things, the development of secret powers and the lack of oversight for any law enforcement branch has inevitably led to abuse, in pretty much any nation in history.

Once upon a time, this nation was founded on the principle that the state should not be allowed to trample on individual rights. This kind of freedom seems to make some people uncomfortable. The uncomfortable people can often be identified as their thinking is drenched in stereotypes and paranoia. Typically, they accuse anybody with dissenting viewpoints about the direction the nation should take of high treason - lacking any evidence to that end is no hindrance to the paranoid. As the paranoia increases, the ordinary requirement to adhere to the factual record flies out the window.