CIA torture case thrown out (surprise surprise)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4996140.stm

This really gets me. I already had a discussion with BrianB about whether rules of justice would be applied when considering the British Guantanamo victims. You can guess our positions on that.

Parts of this story:

A US court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a German citizen who says he was kidnapped and beaten by the CIA.

However, the district court judge in Virginia rejected the challenge, saying Mr el-Masri's "private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets".

He has alleged he was beaten and injected with drugs after being seized near Macedonia's border with Albania, before being taken to Afghanistan and held for five months.

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

Click to expand...

It looks like the US has completely disposed of Justice on the basis that they are 'at war'. So all they have to do is keep the war going and they can do exactly what they want.

Am I right to be horrified by this?

Xenocrates said:

Am I right to be horrified by this?

Click to expand...

Yes.

We will now see Bushpologeticists attacking the article, attacking the source, and claiming that German citiziens don't have the right to a trial, because it might expose sooper sekrit stuff.

I guess we've arrived then

Seriously though, there could be any number of reasons that the case was thrown out. I generally don't trust any news media to give me the absolute truth without some kind of bias (be it left, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, etc. or right, yea, you Fox News, Wallstreet Journal etc.). So really, it might just be that his whole story was fabricated or atleast the getting drugged and beaten. Or, atleast, the drugs could just be non-harmful "truth serum" drugs. Him being beaten could also basically mean he resisted, so they used force to subdue him. Even if it doesn't, anyone who thinks ANY country doesn't use forceful interrogations are extremely niave. There's no better way to make someone talk then through the threat of bodily harm.

Xenocrates said:

Guantanamo victims.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that there are probably people in Guantanamo that shouldn't be there, but to lump them all in one category and say they're victims is pretty wrong. In fact, I recall reading a story awhile back about a prisoner being released from Guantanamo who then made his way to Iraq and was killed fighting there, so these aren't just innocent guys picked up off the street. They're suspected of being terrorists, which is why they're there. I can't think of any other reason that the U.S. Military would continue to keep them there other then that reason. Trying to say that we keep 'em locked up to put nipple shockers on them at night and break fingers during the day is absurd. Sorry, but the military has alot better things to do.

Xenocrates said:

It looks like the US has completely disposed of Justice on the basis that they are 'at war'. So all they have to do is keep the war going and they can do exactly what they want.

Click to expand...

A few weekends ago, several of my buddies went out to a bar, got ****-faced, then got in a fight with a couple of locals. They were charged with disorderly conduct and drunken disorderliness and got in quite a bit of trouble. I don't think we've abandoned our laws.

Xenocrates said:

Am I right to be horrified by this?

Click to expand...

No.

Pfff... First I wanted to discuss this here, but after usarmy18´s statement, I fear I will become insulting.

I thought "In dubio pro reo" is accepted in all western society, the same with the human rights...

So, why are you called USarmy?

If Iran kidnapped foreigners, incarcerated them outside their borders and then held them without charge indefinitely you'd be ok with it?

So if one of them alleges torture you'd support the Iranian position of refusing legal remedy?

And if there were credible stories of bibles being defaced (defacated on and flushed) you'd be happy that they covered that up?

If Iran had been reprimanded by the UN and amnesty internationalfor allowing torture, you'd understand and forgive them?

I fancy you'd call it for what it is; fascism. The apologists for US policies are starting to look a little silly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4878096.stm

Xenocrates said:

So, why are you called USarmy?

If Iran kidnapped foreigners, incarcerated them outside their borders and then held them without charge indefinitely you'd be ok with it?

So if one of them alleges torture you'd support the Iranian position of refusing legal remedy?

And if there were credible stories of bibles being defaced (defacated on and flushed) you'd be happy that they covered that up?

If Iran had been reprimanded by the UN and amnesty internationalfor allowing torture, you'd understand and forgive them?

I fancy you'd call it for what it is; fascism. The apologists for US policies are starting to look a little silly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4878096.stm

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

Where did I say I supported any of that? I never once said I supported what happens at Guantanamo Bay. Not one freakin time. I said it's naive to think this is a perfect little world where crap like torture doesn't happen. We do it to them and they do it to us. Anyone forgetting the soldier kidnapped during the summer of '04 and getting a video broadcasted of him getting shot in the back and dumped in a grave out in the middle of the desert? I clearly stated in my post that I think that you're twisting the facts, not that I supported anything that has happened. Everyone on here twists the facts. My god, it's suddenly such a crime that a SUSPECTED TERRORIST is locked up in jail and termed as an enemy combatant. Holy **** that's happened for decades, but NOW it's such a dreadful crime. Quit being so hypocritical and open your eyes a little. None of this is new.

Honestly, I could care less if bibles were defecated on or flushed down the toilet. I'm no religious fundamentalist, mainly because I have the brain cells to see what a bunch of fictitious crap it is. That story about the Koran being **** on was retracted later on as false, incase you didn't get that, or you're just ignoring that point.

I get what you're trying to say about Iran being reprimanded by the U.N. for torturing prisoners (though I have no idea why you're using Iran as an example). My response to that is look what the U.N. Human Rights watch has amounted to. They have countries like freakin Iran, Cuba, and Libya running the show. Sorry, but the U.N. long ago lost any credibility in the eyes of this soldier. It's just one, big, ****ed up beauracracy.

Xenocrates said:

So, why are you called USarmy?

If Iran kidnapped foreigners, incarcerated them outside their borders and then held them without charge indefinitely you'd be ok with it?

So if one of them alleges torture you'd support the Iranian position of refusing legal remedy?

And if there were credible stories of bibles being defaced (defacated on and flushed) you'd be happy that they covered that up?

If Iran had been reprimanded by the UN and amnesty internationalfor allowing torture, you'd understand and forgive them?

I fancy you'd call it for what it is; fascism. The apologists for US policies are starting to look a little silly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4878096.stm

Click to expand...

In a real fascism, this message board wouldn't be allowed to run..
In a real fascism, there would be no press reportage of the story...
IN a real fascism, nobody hears of ANY torture until it actually happens to them...


I could go on, but then I would be falling into the same trap of believeing that words constantly used make something true even when nothing on the ground is so.

Sorry USarmy, I must have misunderstood your post.

Maybe it was the fact that you're not appalled by abandoning law while the US is accusing Iran of ignoring law that confused me.

The fact that the US is using the UN as a tool to crack the Iranian nut, or at least trying too, as they did with Iraq, while you are decrying the UN's lack of authority is somewhat surprising.

They're not abandoning law. Under the Geneva Convention, technically, they're all spies. So I'd say we're being pretty humane instead of executing them forthright. Sorry, but I'm just not squeamish about torture. Sure, it pisses me off when it happens to one of my own guys. That doesn't mean that if we don't do it, that they won't. That's just pretty naive.

I don't agree with the government that they should even be a part of the U.N., let alone trying to work out a major crisis such as Iran getting nuclear weapons via the U.N. It's a waste of time and effort in my opinion. I'm also not decrying the lack of the U.N.'s authority. I'm saying their a corrupt, useless beauracracy that we (the US) shouldn't be a part of.

usarmy18 said:

They're not abandoning law. Under the Geneva Convention, technically, they're all spies. So I'd say we're being pretty humane instead of executing them forthright. Sorry, but I'm just not squeamish about torture. Sure, it pisses me off when it happens to one of my own guys. That doesn't mean that if we don't do it, that they won't. That's just pretty naive.

Click to expand...

Putting yourself down on the level of those you critisize is never a good way to win an argument or hearts and minds for that matter.

I don't agree with the government that they should even be a part of the U.N., let alone trying to work out a major crisis such as Iran getting nuclear weapons via the U.N. It's a waste of time and effort in my opinion. I'm also not decrying the lack of the U.N.'s authority. I'm saying their a corrupt, useless beauracracy that we (the US) shouldn't be a part of.

Click to expand...

Lets just say that the UN is a reflection of the world then. It is, IMO, the best of bad alternatives. Unless you think that being a loner is better that belonging to a group.

Maybe the case was tossed out of court because it wasn't true. Just because you hate the Bush admin so much and think its the evil in this world doesn't make it true just like because some guy who was picked up and shiped to gitmo then cried torture doesn't mean he was totured. In a court of law proof must be shown. I'm going to assume that this guy had no proof. Just saying you've been tortured ain't gonna swing. The people at gitmo weren't just randomly picked up while they planted a garden. The vast majority were picked up on battle fields or in other "hot spots".

Xenocrates said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4996140.stm

This really gets me. I already had a discussion with BrianB about whether rules of justice would be applied when considering the British Guantanamo victims. You can guess our positions on that.

Parts of this story:



It looks like the US has completely disposed of Justice on the basis that they are 'at war'. So all they have to do is keep the war going and they can do exactly what they want.

Am I right to be horrified by this?

Click to expand...

The "in times of war" line was a bit ill-advised, what this brief article doesn't show you is the actual opinion of the court and the law it is based upon.

Taking an educated guess, a good place to start is here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0731_ZS.html

The guy was not looking to enjoin the government to stop them from their actions, just compensation via money and a formal apology. It is well established case law that there is often government immunity from such lawsuits.

This man's claim is similar to people who have been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. Rarely are people able to sue the state or federal government over such instances.

It isn't facism.

skadistic said:

Maybe the case was tossed out of court because it wasn't true. Just because you hate the Bush admin so much and think its the evil in this world doesn't make it true just like because some guy who was picked up and shiped to gitmo then cried torture doesn't mean he was totured. In a court of law proof must be shown. I'm going to assume that this guy had no proof.

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read the OP?

However, the district court judge in Virginia rejected the challenge, saying Mr el-Masri's "private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets".

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

Whether this guy was guilty or not is beside the point. The point is that a U.S. judge just said that abducting people, beating them, torturing them, holding them without charging them, and shipping them off to Afghanistan is ok, because the U.S. is at war.

warpus said:

Maybe you didn't read the OP?

However, the district court judge in Virginia rejected the challenge, saying Mr el-Masri's "private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets".

"In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy."

Whether this guy was guilty or not is beside the point. The point is that a U.S. judge just said that abducting people, beating them, torturing them, holding them without charging them, and shipping them off to Afghanistan is ok, because the U.S. is at war.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I said it was a rather unfortunate choice of words. He was probably going for the general platitude that the judiciary branch usually gives the executive greater leeway in international affairs, national security, and waging war. That concept is as old as the Republic itself.

Personally I really hate this whole "at war" concept in regards to be "at war" with terrorism. We are always "at war" with terrorists.

Also keep in mind the vast majority of judicial opinion are written (or at least first drafted) by law clerks: recent law school graduates (albeit exceptionally qualified ones). Honestly it just sounds like a throw-away line sandwiched in between citations to cases. District Court decisions pretty much always come down to strict matter-of-law reasoning with the bulk of the theory coming at the appellate levels.

I'd be shocked if this thing didn't move up the ladder further, with more appeals.

Brian_B said:

This man's claim is similar to people who have been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. Rarely are people able to sue the state or federal government over such instances.

Click to expand...

Not being an expert on US law, I'll defer to you here, but it seems to me that you could argue that case law regarding wrongful conviction and incarceration shouldn't apply here: after all, Mr. El-Masri was never charged with or convicted of anything, he was taken and held in areas quite outside US jurisdiction, and was released without a real apology or being provided with so much as a bus ticket home - not all that practical if you're dumped on the Albanian/Macedonian border.
If Judge Ellis's ruling stands, I"think that would mean that the US can pick up anyone at all, anywhere in the world, without there being any recourse whatsoever if it turns out that there's been a mistake ( as there apparently was in El-Masri's case; they mistook him for somebody else), presumably for as long as the war on terror lasts.

I'm not sure how History will remember this. Because I would be amazed if that abduction was the sole mistake made in the name of the war against terrorism.

I've cooled down a bit now. Every day the news out of Washington is like this, every single day.

The man accuses individuals and agencies in the USA of kidnapping him and torturing him. The US has repeatedly stated that it has a zero tolerance policy on torture in front of the UN.

Here they have an opportunity to prove to the World that they take allegations of torture seriously but a judge has decided that, since the President says the US is at War the the law should be suspended.

A man alleges torture and kidnap and he can't put his case before a court.

jameson said:

Not being an expert on US law, I'll defer to you here, but it seems to me that you could argue that case law regarding wrongful conviction and incarceration shouldn't apply here: after all, Mr. El-Masri was never charged with or convicted of anything, he was taken and held in areas quite outside US jurisdiction, and was released without a real apology or being provided with so much as a bus ticket home - not all that practical if you're dumped on the Albanian/Macedonian border.
If Judge Ellis's ruling stands, I"think that would mean that the US can pick up anyone at all, anywhere in the world, without there being any recourse whatsoever if it turns out that there's been a mistake ( as there apparently was in El-Masri's case; they mistook him for somebody else), presumably for as long as the war on terror lasts.

Click to expand...

You also have to consider that redress is not necessarily limited to the U.S. court system. In this case: foreign relations and diplomacy, ambassadors, etc. The ruling doesn't say the U.S. is free to detain anyone it chooses anywhere in the world, it says the U.S. courts aren't really the proper venue to debate foreign policy. As I sad, the practice of the U.S. courts being "hands off" in terms of foreign relations is as old as the country itself. Obviously modern day exigencies cause this to be slightly problematic. It may not be satisfactory to hear: your redress lies in diplomacy and international relations but that is the way all lawyers, judges, etc. have been taught since pretty much day one.

usarmy18 said:

That doesn't mean that if we don't do it, that they won't. That's just pretty naive.

Click to expand...

What's more naive is saying it's OK for us to do it because if we don't, they will.

We're the United States of America, we stand for freedom, justice, and liberty. We're not the theocracy of Iran.

usarmy18 said:

I'm saying their a corrupt, useless beauracracy that we (the US) shouldn't be a part of.

Click to expand...

You just described the US government as well.