Court Rules Detainee Names Can Remain Secret

[Timber Loftis]

Taking off on Arvon's thread "Why I hate the government," here is my current gripe. I don't mind so much when the government sits on its lazy, red-tape beleaguered ass whittling away my tax money. I do mind when it jails people, does not disclose their names, denies access to an attorney, and does not charge them. If you don't charge them, then they broke no law, IMO.

Judge Tatel is my personal hero for today, 6/17/03. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Note that according to one of the lawyers, this is the FIRST JUDICIALLY APPROVED SECRET ARREST IN US HISTORY. Welcome to the "home of the free until the government gets you in its sights."

Today's NY TIMES:
__________________________________________________ _____________

Names of 9/11 Detainees Can Remain Secret, Court Rules
By MARK J. PRENDERGAST

A federal appeals court, reversing a lower-court decision, ruled today that the government did not have to disclose the names of more than 700 people detained in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, agreeing with the Justice Department that making that information public could "allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to map the course of the investigation."

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a rebuff to the civil liberties and other groups that were challenging the Bush administration's refusal to provide the names and other information about people, mostly immigrants, held in connection with the 9/11 terrorism investigation, on the ground of national security.

The court said the government could withhold the dates and locations of arrest, detention and release of all detainees, including those charged with federal crimes, and the names of lawyers representing them.

"A complete list of names informing terrorists of every suspect detained by the government at any point during the Sept. 11 investigation would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation," the majority wrote today. "Disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation. Moreover, disclosure would inform terrorists which of their members were compromised by the investigation, and which were not."

But in a sharply worded dissent, Judge David S. Tatel faulted his two colleagues, David B. Sentelle and Karen Lecraft Henderson, for showing "uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees."

While noting that the government had a legitimate basis for keeping some information secret, Judge Tatel cited "another compelling public interest," which he defined as "knowing whether the government, in responding to the attacks, is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation."

"Citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail," Judge Tatel wrote in arguing that the government had overextended its use of an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.

Judge Tatel said fuller disclosure concerning the detainees would help the public determine whether people had been detained "mainly because of their religion or ethnicity" and whether the government was "holding them in custody for extended periods without charge or preventing them from seeking or communicating with legal counsel."

But Judges Sentelle and Henderson said the judiciary owed a certain amount of deference to the government in determining what would and would not harm national security interests in the campaign against terrorism.

"America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," the judges wrote. "It is abundantly clear that the government's top counterterrorism officials are well-suited to make this predictive judgment. Conversely, the judiciary is in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executives judgment in this area of national security."

The case, brought by a large coalition of groups seeking the names under the Freedom of Information Act, is one of a handful of cases dealing with the delicate balance between civil liberties and public safety that are making their way through the courts in response to administration actions after Sept. 11.

On June 3, the groups' concerns and criticisms of administration actions gained credence when the Justice Department's inspector general reported that the roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after Sept. 11 had been plagued by "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions.

But today's appellate court decision was clearly a setback for the coalition.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a coalition member, said in a statement that the court's action could presage a "stunning rollback of rights in America."

"This ruling gives amazing deference to the Justice Department and cripples the critical role of oversight in protecting rights in America," Mr. Neas said. "This ruling allows the Department of Justice to bury these secret arrests even deeper. Now the public is denied access even to the names of attorneys representing detainees."

A principal lawyer for the coalition in the suit, Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies civil liberties group, said, "We are disappointed that for the first time in U.S. history, a court has approved secret arrests and we plan to pursue the case," according to Reuters.

The ruling can be appealed either to the full appellate court or to the Supreme Court.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement on the Justice Department's Web site, "We are pleased the court agreed we should not give terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could allow terrorists to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."

In the lower-court ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court in Washington held that the Bush administration had no right to conceal the identities of hundreds of people arrested after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and she ordered that most of their names be released within 15 days, though she stayed her ruling to allow for an appeal.

Judge Kessler said that while it was the obligation of the executive branch to ensure the physical security of American citizens, "the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."

The F.B.I. and the Department of Justice appealed. Speaking after Judge Kessler's ruling, Robert McCallum, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, asserted that government investigators "firmly believe that the information sought by the plaintiffs, if released, could jeopardize the investigation and provide valuable information to terrorists seeking to cause even greater harm to the safety of the American people."

But Judge Kessler dismissed as too speculative the government's argument that the release of the names would allow terrorist groups to track the progress of its investigation.

[ 06-17-2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

Hey, most of those detainees aren't even American right? So why should we care? And for the nameless, faceless Americans that may be caught up in this... They are probably traitors. For terrorists, it is guilty til proven innocent...right?

It's not like it's the principle of the matter or it's anything that has to do with consistent values. Right?

Wrong! No! We should care. Whatever principles our justice system has left is what's at stake. Secret arrests are the most un-American thing I can imagine.


Alas, who cares about news like this when the Clintons are still around to bash? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I am sooooo worried...they are just rounding up thousands of people..ohhh all those poor innocent souls being detained....oh the humanity.....

OOps wait....the Supreme court has ruled...and this court has ruled again...law enforcement branches are all A-OK with it....all I see here are a bunch of lawyers trying to find a way to make some $$$.

I can be as cynical and sarcastic as you can Timber

[ 06-18-2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: I am sooooo worried...they are just rounding up thousands of people..ohhh all those poor innocent souls being detained....oh the humanity..... OOps wait....the Supreme court has ruled...and this court has ruled again...law enforcement branches are all A-OK with it....all I see here are a bunch of lawyers trying to find a way to make some $$$. I can be as cynical and sarcastic as you can Timber

THE FIRST JUDICIALLY-APPROVED SECRET JAILING. I am not cynical or sarcastic. I am seriously worried. Jailing people without levelling charges??? They can do it to you, too.

So, I'm watching Law & Order the other night. Since my wife's a prosecutor, we tend to watch this a lot, me yelling about injustice and abuse of rights and her smiling smugly. Anywho, the FBI arrests our intrepid hero detectives. In one scene, one of them says "Charge me or let me go. I'm leaving."

The FBI agent smugly replies "No you're not, since 9/11 I can keep you 72 hours without charging you." The use of tragedy to justify a police state? That's not the US. Not my US. And I am getting violently angry over it.

[ 06-18-2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[antryg]

I'm glad to see the judiciary has such strong faith in the anti-terrorism leadership. After all, all the evidence that they possessed before 9/11 didn't lead to a credible threat and all the level orange threats that never amount to anything are credible. One day we will even find the link between Al Quida and Iraq which was clear and provable until we conquered the country. Maybe we should just use the old Soviet Union's excuses and tatics and take over all of North America to protect the heartland of America from attack. After all, wouldn't Canada, Mexico, all of Central and South America be better if they had our help, guidance, and protection.

These types of arrest do worry and concern me. If one persons undocumented testimony can send people to prison (ex. the Tulia, Texas and Dallas, Texas drug case scandals)then abuse by police and federal agencies can happen anywhere. It only takes 1 corrupt offical to due major damage to indivuals and our political freedoms for which our forebearers (including mine) shed their blood.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by antryg: I'm glad to see the judiciary has such strong faith in the anti-terrorism leadership. After all, all the evidence that they possessed before 9/11 didn't lead to a credible threat and all the level orange threats that never amount to anything are credible. One day we will even find the link between Al Quida and Iraq which was clear and provable until we conquered the country. Maybe we should just use the old Soviet Union's excuses and tatics and take over all of North America to protect the heartland of America from attack. After all, wouldn't Canada, Mexico, all of Central and South America be better if they had our help, guidance, and protection.

Wait, take over Canada. They must be part of the Axis-of-evil since they didn't back Dumbaya in his war against Irak!

[ 06-18-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: THE FIRST JUDICIALLY-APPROVED SECRET JAILING. I am not cynical or sarcastic. I am seriously worried. Jailing people without levelling charges??? They can do it to you, too. Ok [img]smile.gif[/img] I was just goofing wit my first post, so here is a serious treatment...on one hand the libertarian in me says hmmm it could happen to me....on the other hand the I hate terrorists and people who associate with groups with links to terrorists says screw them. Seriously, if you are stupid enough to associate yourself in some way with one of these organizations..this is just a darwinian result. So, I'm watching Law & Order the other night. Since my wife's a prosecutor, we tend to watch this a lot, me yelling about injustice and abuse of rights and her smiling smugly. Anywho, the FBI arrests our intrepid hero detectives. In one scene, one of them says "Charge me or let me go. I'm leaving." The FBI agent smugly replies "No you're not, since 9/11 I can keep you 72 hours without charging you." The use of tragedy to justify a police state? That's not the US. Not my US. And I am getting violently angry over it. Ok ok, T.L. calm down...first off Colleen and I love Law and Order it is one fo the shows we watch...I saw that episode too and at first I got a bit PO'd then I remember that the writers are a pretty leftist/liberal bunch and then I calmed down...this is coming out of the Hollywood Mass Media machine ya know..though usually L&O isn't too bad....and it is set in a nearby city [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by antryg: I'm glad to see the judiciary has such strong faith in the anti-terrorism leadership. After all, all the evidence that they possessed before 9/11 didn't lead to a credible threat and all the level orange threats that never amount to anything are credible. One day we will even find the link between Al Quida and Iraq which was clear and provable until we conquered the country. Maybe we should just use the old Soviet Union's excuses and tatics and take over all of North America to protect the heartland of America from attack. After all, wouldn't Canada, Mexico, all of Central and South America be better if they had our help, guidance, and protection. These types of arrest do worry and concern me. If one persons undocumented testimony can send people to prison (ex. the Tulia, Texas and Dallas, Texas drug case scandals)then abuse by police and federal agencies can happen anywhere. It only takes 1 corrupt offical to due major damage to indivuals and our political freedoms for which our forebearers (including mine) shed their blood.

Antryg you can blame all the stupid Code Orange BS on the Media and idiot civilians. They bitched and bitched about the government not telling them about threats...welll now they got their wish...everytime something is discovered...bang we alert the media..now you cannot blame the administration or the intel services for not letting you know someone is pissed off at us.

Sometimes you get what ya wish for guys...this is it...Enjoy

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, L&O may well indeed be a product of Holy-wood's liberal machine, but the law is the law and just because an FBI guy didn't say it in real life doesn't mean he CAN'T.

Does anyone out there see a connection between the current terrorist-linked imprisonment and Japanese Internment? The Supreme Court rubber-stamped that too, you know. For the same National Security reasons.

[antryg]

Just a wild guess on my part but if you are a spy or terrorist and one of your contacts disappears, don't you assume they have been arrested. I'm not sure that keeping names secret stops terrorists from figuring it out. If they think it will interfere with an investigation I could even stretch my faith/belief in waiting a week to make it public. Several months or "when I say so!" is totally unacceptable.