In an era when hallmark guarantees of civil liberties and personal freedom are being randomly denied by presidential fiat, the U.S. Supreme Court should be the court of last resort where Americans could expect comfort and relief from oppressive executive powers.
Not so with this Supreme Court, widely understood in legal and political circles as an ideological ally to President Bush and the agenda of radical conservatives.
The suspicions have been bolstered again by anecdotal evidence.
The highest court in the land has refused to hear the case of a Lebanon-born German citizen. The man was turned over by Macedonian police to CIA agents in December 2003, spirited away to an Afghanistan prison where he was shackled, beaten, drugged and interrogated by the CIA, then abruptly released in May.
Extensive investigations by German authorities concluded Khaled el-Masri was a victim of mistaken identity.
He thereupon sued the U.S. government for being kidnapped, held without charges and physically abused.
Rather than acknowledging its humiliating incompetence and offering el-Masri an apology and recompense, the Bush administration clammed up.
Bush lawyers claimed that to allow el-Masri to seek redress in court would reveal "state secrets."
The high court judges apparently bought this "state secrets" sham, a dodge that Bush lawyers have used 39 times since 2001. Even during the 23 years of tense nuclear uncertainties of the Cold War with the Soviet Union between 1953 and 1976, presidents used "state secrets" only six times.
No discernible "state secrets" are involved in the el-Masri case. Virtually each day of his captivity by the CIA has been documented by the media and the German government, which confirmed his wrongful imprisonment.
The first remedy for this abuse of the "state secrets" privilege is for judges to ask for a detailed explanation of what those secrets entail. This can be done "in camera" (Latin for "in chamber")—a private hearing between the judge and attorneys for both sides. It's a routine procedure in many court cases.
Unless the government proves that secrets genuinely are at stake and a president isn't trying to smokescreen a political blunder, judges should allow cases such as el-Masri's to be heard. This man is entitled to air the horrors of his wrongful kidnapping and torture.
If the "state secrets" gambit isn't stopped, presidents of little shame could virtually seal the White House from accountability by uttering two words—"state secrets"—to create a perpetual blackout of even the most harmless information.
