Supreme Court Allows Secrecy for 9/11 Detainees

Yahoo (Reuters) ^ | 1/12/04 | Reuters staff

[The_Victor]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Monday allowed the Bush administration to keep secret the names and other basic details about hundreds of people questioned and detained or arrested after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Without comment, the top court refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties and other groups challenging the secret arrests and detentions for violating the Freedom of Information Act and constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

The justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that disclosing the names could harm national security and help those "plotting future terrorist attacks or intimidating witnesses in the present investigation."

[The_Victor]

I wonder how the anti-Ashcroft crowd feels about this?

TDIDS

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
43	Idaho	110.00	3	36.67	92	1.20	45.00	2

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Sacajaweau]

btt

[smith288]

Ashcroft is the devil! (just kidding)

[COEXERJ145]

As soon as I saw "Supreme Court" I thought "How have they screwed us today?" Looks like they got one right this time. Maybe there is hope they'll reverse the 9th Circus ruling that says everyone in Gitmo deserves a lawyer and access to the American legal system.

[freeangel]

I figure they made the announcement before they had coffee and probably got confused.

[StriperSniper]

I wonder how the anti-Ashcroft crowd feels about this?

That the radical right Bush Court(despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it) has backed him up.

[TommyDale]

Non-citizens have no guarantee of rights. And former citizens, or ex-patriates who fought against our country should also have no rights.

[Dilbert56]

SCOTUS should be reticent about hamstringing the C-I-C during wartime. How absurd if every POW or unlawful combatant were to be now entitled to due process.

The "hate Ashcroft" is always whining about the Patriot Act. Well it's legislation passed by Congress, I.e. the law of the land. Don't like it? Change it through legislation.

Congress has punted on it's responsibility in cases like Padilla. We need something to ensure an Executive Branch can't just declare someone an enemy combatant and hold them. Congress needs to legislate one layer of safeguard but they won't face up to it. Instead half of them whine about legislation they passed almost unanimously.

[rintense]

Look for a Barbra Streisand 'Truth Alert' later today!

[11th_VA]

This is terrible for all the Islamic people living in this country. Guess they better leave before they get locked up ... (/sarcasm)

[freeeee]

Let's see if I have this right.

One person can point his finger at anyone and call him a bad guy.

Then that person can be secretly 'disappeared' in the night, never to be seen or heard from again.

This power is absolute. No evidence is ever required. No hearing is held. There is absolutely no oversight, and no checks or balances. There is literally nothing that can't be done to 'disappeared' people, because no one will ever find out. Nothing and nobody can will ever know abuse of this fearsome power, much less stop it.

And this power is indefinite. There are no concrete or even vague criteria given for the length of its use.

Come to think of it, I think I've heard of this before...

[Rummyfan]

Thank G*d they got this one right!

[BlackbirdSST]

Let's see if I have this right. One person can point his finger at anyone and call him a bad guy. Then that person can be secretly 'disappeared' in the night, never to be seen or heard from again. This power is absolute. No evidence is ever required. No hearing is held. There is absolutely no oversight, and no checks or balances. There is literally nothing that can't be done to 'disappeared' people, because no one will ever find out. Nothing and nobody can will ever know abuse of this fearsome power, much less stop it. And this power is indefinite. There are no concrete or even vague criteria given for the length of its use. Come to think of it, I think I've heard of this before...

Thanks for stating the obvious. Blackbird.

[goldstategop]

There's a good chance the SCOTUS will uphold the rest of the Patriot Act. I mean its already held restrictions on free speech to be constitutional, so denying terrorists due process is not that big a stretch and for the record, I do believe terrorists are not entitled to claim any rights whatsoever. My attitude is, "lock em up and throw away the key!"

[DallasMike]

Let's see if I have this right.

I hate to say this, but you don't.

Me calling you a bad guy is not going to make you disappear into the night. The people deported either were here illegally or had definite, provable ties to terrorist groups. They had lawyers, too, because the lawyers of several of them have written articles whining about how unfair it was for their terrorist clients to be deported back to Bumdiddle, Egypt.

[Teacher317]

SCOTUS should be reticent about hamstringing the C-I-C during wartime. How absurd if every POW or unlawful combatant were to be now entitled to due process.

The problem is the current trend towards classifying everyone as an enemy combatant and everything as a "war". Does a drug-lord caught by federal agents in the "War on Drugs" count, as well? He certainly isn't a sympathetic figure, and could easily get included later, if not already... and then...

I hope the boundaries on this power are VERY well-defined, otherwise (heck even despite them) the next egomaniacal (read: Clinton-esque) CIC we have will abuse it. Here's to hoping they got it right in the details!

[The_Victor]

Only foriegners are detained, and the burden of proof still exists. Only the publicity of the information is restricted.

[demlosers]

Gitmo forever.

[freeeee]

Me calling you a bad guy is not going to make you disappear into the night.

That's because you're not the King, er I mean president or attorney general.

The people deported either were here illegally or had definite, provable ties to terrorist groups.

Not you or anyone else will ever know who is 'disappeared', or whether or not they were terrorists, or their citizenship status, or what evidence there is against them, or if there was ever any evidence at all. You won't even know it happened, or how often it is used.

Didn't you read the article?