The US Supreme Court has essentially given a 'green-light' to the Bush Crime Family's torture program, also known as 'rendition', this morning with its denial of Khaled El-Masri's petition.
A brief background on the case:
Mr. El-Masri claims he was headed for vacation from his home in Germany when he was detained at the Serbian-Macedonian border. He says he was swept into the Central Intelligence Agency's "extraordinary rendition" program where he was treated inhumanely, beaten and interrogated repeatedly at the direction of U.S. intelligence agents.
Mr. El-Masri maintains he was detained in a case of mistaken identity and that agents released him in a mountainous region of Albania in May 2004 after reaching the same conclusion. After his release, Mr. El-Masri reported his treatment to the German government, prompting a still-pending investigation by German officials, and sued in U.S. courts over his treatment. The U.S. government has fought the lawsuit, arguing the case must be dismissed because it could expose state secrets important to the war on terrorism. When the lawsuit was first filed, the CIA issued a statement saying it must be dismissed to "protect classified intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure and thereby avoid damage to the national security."
source
The 'opinion' is below, from Westlaw. As you can see, it simply denies the petition, without stating its reasons. However, it can be assumed that the Court believed the Government's arguments regarding the States Secrets Doctrine.
--- S.Ct. ----, 2007 WL 1646914 (U.S.), 75 USLW 3663, 76 USLW 3021
Supreme Court of the United States
EL-MASRI, KHALED V. UNITED STATES.
No. 06-1613.
Oct. 9, 2007.
*1 The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
U.S.,2007.
EL-MASRI, KHALED V. UNITED STATES.
--- S.Ct. ----, 2007 WL 1646914 (U.S.), 75 USLW 3663, 76 USLW 3021
END OF DOCUMENT
State Secrets Doctrine
The court below summarized the Doctrine in its opinion, at p. 15. I attach it below:
To summarize, our analysis of the Executive’s interposition of the state secrets privilege is governed primarily by two standards. First, evidence is privileged pursuant to the state secrets doctrine if, under all the circumstances of the case, there is a reasonable danger that its disclosure will expose military (or diplomatic or intelligence) matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged. See Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10. Second, a proceeding in which the state secrets privilege is successfully interposed must be dismissed if the circumstances make clear that privileged information will be so central to the litigation that any attempt to proceed will threaten that information’s disclosure. See Sterling, 416 F.3d at 348; see also Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 11 n.26; Totten, 92 U.S. at 107. [emphasis added]
When the court below applied this law to the facts of el-Masri, it found that the case could not continue. Here is the explanation given, at pp. 1-17:
The controlling inquiry is not whether the general subject matter of an action can be described without resort to state secrets. Rather, we must ascertain whether an action can be litigated without threatening the disclosure of such state secrets. Thus, for purposes of the state secrets analysis, the "central facts" and "very subject matter" of an action are those facts that are essential to prosecuting the action or defending against it.
El-Masri is therefore incorrect in contending that the central facts of this proceeding are his allegations that he was detained and interrogated under abusive conditions, or that the CIA conducted the rendition program that has been acknowledged by United States officials. Facts such as those furnish the general terms in which El-Masri has related his story to the press, but advancing a case in the court of public opinion, against the United States at large, is an undertaking quite different from prevailing against specific defendants in a court of law.
If El-Masri’s civil action were to proceed, the facts central to its resolution would be the roles, if any, that the defendants played in the events he alleges. To establish a prima facie case, he would be obliged to produce admissible evidence not only that he was detained and interrogated, but that the defendants were involved in his detention and interrogation in a manner that renders them personally liable to him. Such a showing could be made only with evidence that exposes how the CIA organizes, staffs, and supervises its most sensitive intelligence operations. With regard to Director Tenet, for example, El-Masri would be obliged to show in detail how the head of the CIA participates in such operations, and how information concerning their progress is relayed to him. With respect to the defendant corporations and their unnamed employees, El-Masri would have to demonstrate the existence and details of CIA espionage contracts, an endeavor practically indistinguishable from that categorically barred by Totten and Tenet v. Doe. See Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875) (establishing absolute bar to enforcement of confidential agreements to conduct espionage, on ground that "public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential"); Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005) (reaffirming Totten in unanimous decision). Even marshalling the evidence necessary to make the requisite showings would implicate privileged state secrets, because El-Masri would need to rely on witnesses whose identities, and evidence the very existence of which, must remain confidential in the interest of national security. See Sterling, 416 F.3d at 347 ("[T]he very methods by which evidence would be gathered in this case are themselves problematic.").[emphasis added]
The Supreme Court, upon reading this decision below, decided to deny el-Masri. It is a very good assumption that the Court believed the argument below, and the briefs above by the Government.
This is the death-knell for ALL similarly-situated 'renditioned' innocents who were tortured by the Bush Administration and its agents in the various Black-Sites that specialize in torture and death.