How Two Federal Judges Invoked "Secrecy" To Block Access To Bush Torture Data

[babylonsister]

HOW 2 FEDERAL JUDGES INVOKED “SECRECY” TO BLOCK ACCESS TO BUSH TORTURE DATA
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-12-11 02:49.

By Sherwood Ross


Two Federal judges have deliberately invoked secrecy statutes to conceal the Federal government’s illegal use of torture, a prominent legal authority says.

Named are judges Terence Boyle of the U.S. District Court of Eastern North Carolina, and T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Virginia, both nominees of President Ronald Reagan.

According to Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Judge Boyle refused to allow CIA contractor David Passaro access to government memos that could be construed to show he was acting under orders when he tortured a prisoner to death. And Judge Ellis threw out a case brought by Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen illegally arrested and tortured by the CIA.

Judge Ellis “used the states secret doctrine to shield a once secret, now revealed criminal governmental enterprise---torture is a criminal violation of both international and domestic law,” Velvel said.

The state secrets doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1953 in a case in which, it is now known, the government lied to the Court “but which nonetheless continues to be used by reactionary judges for the purpose of letting the government get away with torture if not murder,” Velvel said.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38174

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Ray-gun nominees? Ya don't say.

[Traveling_Home]

2. So Appeal - People act surprised - Just take the next step

[babylonsister]

4. Appeal? We know how well that works. nt

[Festivito]

3. Hmm. Ellis. As in John ELLIS Bush, aka Jeb. Hmm.

As in a Mr. Ellis who called Florida in 2000 for his cousin George W. Bush currently occupying our White House.

[gratuitous]

5. The "state secrets doctrine"

Talk about judicial activism. Nothing in the Constitution or the U.S. Code creates or condones a "state secrets" doctrine that shields the government from its own wrong-doing just by uttering some magic words.

The trouble with appealing such an unconstitutional decision is that there is the risk at the Circuit level of enshrining this odious doctrine into the jurisprudence of the United States. I believe that either of these verdicts would be appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which is notoriously amenable to legalizing and legitimizing government abuse of power. Go on from there to the Supreme Court as currently constituted, and you're asking for Fat Tony Scalia's personal brand of lunacy becoming the supreme law of the land. No thanks.

Of course, Congress could always pass a law, which the Republicans would surely characterize as "appeasement" of some undefined form of "terrorism" in making the government accountable to its citizens.