Supreme Court OKs Secrecy for Post-9/11 Arrests

Fox News ^ | 01/12/04

[Recovering_Democrat]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Good news for the War on Terror. Bad news for so-called "civil libertarian" crybabies.

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic. More Bang For The Buck!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[conservativefromGa]

IBTL

[Sacajaweau]

Already posted

[Cathryn Crawford]

Here's the whole thing:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The high court turned down a request to review the secrecy surrounding detainees, nearly all Arabs or Muslims, who were picked up in the United States immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center (search) and the Pentagon.

Many if not most of the more than 700 detainees at issue in the case have since been deported. Some picked up after Sept. 11 were charged with crimes, and others were held as material witnesses. Only Zacarias Moussaoui (search), who was detained before the Sept. 11 attacks, is being prosecuted in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Washington study center critical of the Bush administration responses after Sept. 11 sued to learn names and other basic information about the detainees. The appeal raises constitutional questions under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and legal questions under the federal Freedom of Information Act (search).

Twenty-three news organizations and media groups, including The Associated Press, joined in asking the high court to hear the case.

"It is the responsibility of courts, and especially this court, to provide meaningful judicial review when the government invokes national security to justify unprecedented secrecy in exercising its awesome power to arrest and detain hundreds of people," lawyers for the Center for National Security Studies (search) argued in a court filing.

"History shows that, in times of crisis and fear, executive officials are prone to overreact, especially in their treatment of minorities in their midst," the appeal said.

The government grabbed people on thin suspicion, then moved to deport detainees who had no demonstrated link to terrorism but who had violated civil immigration laws, lawyers for the Center for National Security Studies told the court.

The government sealed immigration records and omitted detainees' names from jail rosters, among other tactics, to make sure that details of hundreds of arrests remained secret, the lawyers said.

The high court's decision not to review the case represents a victory for the Bush administration. Last week, the high court disappointed the administration by taking on a higher-profile terrorism case involving the rights of an American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had argued strongly that it has authority to hold the man, Yaser Esam Hamdi (search), indefinitely and without charges in a military prison.

The detainee names case is Center for National Security Studies v. Justice Department, 03-472.

[Prodigal Son]

Entire article:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The high court turned down a request to review the secrecy surrounding detainees, nearly all Arabs or Muslims, who were picked up in the United States immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center (search) and the Pentagon.

Many if not most of the more than 700 detainees at issue in the case have since been deported. Some picked up after Sept. 11 were charged with crimes, and others were held as material witnesses. Only Zacarias Moussaoui (search), who was detained before the Sept. 11 attacks, is being prosecuted in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Washington study center critical of the Bush administration responses after Sept. 11 sued to learn names and other basic information about the detainees. The appeal raises constitutional questions under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and legal questions under the federal Freedom of Information Act (search).

Twenty-three news organizations and media groups, including The Associated Press, joined in asking the high court to hear the case.

"It is the responsibility of courts, and especially this court, to provide meaningful judicial review when the government invokes national security to justify unprecedented secrecy in exercising its awesome power to arrest and detain hundreds of people," lawyers for the Center for National Security Studies (search) argued in a court filing.

"History shows that, in times of crisis and fear, executive officials are prone to overreact, especially in their treatment of minorities in their midst," the appeal said.

The government grabbed people on thin suspicion, then moved to deport detainees who had no demonstrated link to terrorism but who had violated civil immigration laws, lawyers for the Center for National Security Studies told the court.

The government sealed immigration records and omitted detainees' names from jail rosters, among other tactics, to make sure that details of hundreds of arrests remained secret, the lawyers said.

The high court's decision not to review the case represents a victory for the Bush administration. Last week, the high court disappointed the administration by taking on a higher-profile terrorism case involving the rights of an American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had argued strongly that it has authority to hold the man, Yaser Esam Hamdi (search), indefinitely and without charges in a military prison.

The detainee names case is Center for National Security Studies v. Justice Department, 03-472.

[Fifth Business]

Twenty-three news organizations and media groups, including The Associated Press, joined in asking the high court to hear the case.

I thought they were neutrals in the War on Terror.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If the names are secret, how do we know that only foreigners are arrested?

[Fifth Business]

The stench? Good question.

[Prodigal Son]

Good question. I was afraid to ask it myself. Didn't want to seem weak on the WOT.

[Prodigal Son]

I thought they were neutrals in the War on Terror.

But they're not neutrals on the access to information I would reckon.

[BlackbirdSST]

If the names are secret, how do we know that only foreigners are arrested?

Who cares? They are obviously guilty as charged, or un-charged, because our gubermint say's so. They have never lied to us have they? Do I need a sarcasm tag? Blackbird.

[Modernman]

Who cares? They are obviously guilty as charged, or un-charged, because our gubermint say's so

I wish I could disagree with you, but I find the whole idea that the government can hold people without any recourse to the courts somewhat unsettling.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps they only bought Microsoft Flight Simulator software?

[mrsmith]

They had the normal access to the courts, lawyers, and to the public.

This is just a FOIA case.

The courts watched out for the detainees' rights exactly like they always do.

[pabianice]

The Belgians, the French, and Sandra O'Connor are saddened... deeply saddened...

[Doctor Stochastic]

If they've had access to a lawyer and the courts, there isn't much problem, even if the names are kept secret.

Problems only arise in the cases for which secret arrests and detentions are not later publicly reviewed. (This could be some months later if necessary.) It will be interesting go watch President Dean and Attorney General Rodham handle this type of affair.

[mrsmith]

Public review of secret national security information historically doesn't happen for a generation or so.
I don't see any reason to make exceptions in these cases.

I doubt Hillary! would be AG, it is just a low level henchman-bagman position in Democrat administrations.
Secretary of State and Defense Vice-President Rodham. Yep, that would give her a scope of activity she could live with- for a while.

[Prodigal Son]

It will be interesting go watch President Dean and Attorney General Rodham handle this type of affair.

It's cold comfort, but I'll be watching it from afar. But yes, you're right. It will be interesting.

[Prodigal Son]

Public review of secret national security information historically doesn't happen for a generation or so.
I don't see any reason to make exceptions in these cases.

Well, that's all well and good unless you're the one sitting behind bars somewhere waiting on a generation to pass so the press can find out about it.