Supreme Court Refuses Torture Case

"Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment."

Thats the scary thing, what happens when years latter we find, it was nothing secret just embarrassing or even worse, criminal, which happens more often than protecting actual state secrets. whats amazing is this guy only suing for $75,000. Yeah like poster said above and like we do in iraq, just pay the dude, would have been worth it to keep atleast one black eye off your record.
Billions missing that WE the people sent to iraq... syphoned off for your friends i suspect, couldnt have syphoned off a measly 75k of hush money?
Could we actually get a dumber president outside of the special olympics?
(sorry that was mean to the handicapped)

Imagine this happened to you,

Imagine a country -say Russia or China - did this to an American citizen walking along 5th avenue

Imagine a country -say Russia or China - did this to an American citizen walking along 5th avenue

What I can't understand is, on second thought it's most of the last six years watching it all blows my mind.

Besides, does anybody really believe that the shop gets cleaned out when the president changes?

I think that if we could really know what's happened in the past, we would find this is not NEW, per se. I have no doubt previous presidents have used these sorts of tactics . .just not as liberally nor as sloppily. Bush is not turn the US into the big nasty tyrant, we have been that way for going on a century.

More like "empissen-off" the enemy, then

and pissen off our friends too.

Wow, I made a Freudian slip above: replace "conservative branches" with "political branches" (i.e. the legislative and executive branches)

I dunno, TP. I mean I see your point - correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're basically saying is that they didn't hear his case because frankly it's not important enough. That they have a limited number of cases they can hear, that they have no obligation to hear everything that's appealed to them and that it's up to them to turn down a case without comment, right?

If I'm wrong, please correct me there, but if that's the case I hardly find this to be any less serious. Can you honestly tell me that a sovereign citizen of a foreign country formally accusing the United States Government (with emphasis on the executive branch) of kidnapping and torturing him under a program that the government consistently denies even exists is simply not that important? I'd like to know what cases they heard this year that have been more important, more worth hearing than this one - because I'm not trying to sensationalize but this case cuts to the absolute heart of the current struggle between this administration and basic human decency - not to mention impeachable offense and despicable conduct on the world stage.

As for why AP attributes the dismissal to the government secrecy bit, I'd imagine it's because once dismissed the original ruling stands. In refusing to hear the case, the SC is tacitly agreeing with the lower court, isn't it?

I'm jumping into the fray when perhaps I shouldn't be, given that I haven't read the opinion of the lower court, but I'm going to make the safe guess that no one reading this comment has, either. Based on the article, I'm guessing that the lower court decided that it could not hear the man's case because it was not justiciable (thanks to the state secrets problem) and therefore outside of the judiciary's discretion. The Supreme Court then would have had the opportunity to grant cert., and do any number of things: agree that it is a nonjusticiable issue, deny the man's claims, accept the claims, etc... They declined to pursue that opportunity, for reasons we don't know. Granted, you could look at it as an implicit endorsement that the lower court did the right thing, but the bottom-line is that we just can't know. From the sound of it, no justices dissented from the denial of cert., so they obviously didn't find the case very sexy. If it slipped by a watchdog like Stevens' eye without complaint, I'll trust his opinion that it wasn't a case appropriate for the S. Ct.'s review.

I think it's pretty silly, borderline absurd, to call this the most important case of the year. It doesn't really resemble the kind of case the Court would decide. One of the most important purposes of the Supreme Court is to set uniform standards of law for lower federal courts and state courts to follow. Most of the cases they choose to grant cert. to they choose to do so because there is a legitimate conflict in the law--some circuits go one way, some go another way, and there needs to be a clearly established standard. The Court also jumps towards opportunities to clarify doctrinal tests and address cases that test the limits of them, case in point the Bong Hits 4 Jesus First Amendment case heard last year. Sometimes they settle totally novel constitutional conflicts that present opportunities to create new doctrines. This case doesn't fit into any of the usual suspects of categories. I'm pretty new to the law, but I can say that the news that cert. was denied for this case doesn't surprise me at all. If you really want to get angry, read about a case like Breard, and then reevaluate how you feel about the importance of this case. (cliffnotes: our judiciary @!$%#slaps international legal obligations created by the Vienna Convention)

One important thing I left out: The case presents a very interesting issue with respect to the proper use of state secrets. State secrets is an executive device that the judiciary has to give the a very high degree of deference. Whether we like it or not, it has been decided over our 200 years of history that the judiciary shouldn't question such things. The Ct. could find a constitutional violation, but it'd have to overcome an extremely significant hurdle via the executive privilege. That's just not going to happen with this incarnation of the Court, which is pretty restrained and deferential. It's good to see people angry about this, but the reality is that there's nothing unusual about this.

Ugh, sorry about the typos--I haven't been getting enough sleep lately

Curse you and your well-educated, researched, qualified and courteously delivered explanations.

I guess I need to go back and relearn the definition of checks and balances because "that word does not mean what I think it means," if you know what I mean.

But your points are well taken. It's just such an obvious and egregious abuse of power on the part of the administration that it's difficult to comprehend. It was my understanding that the supreme court is there pass the final verdict on such things - that when such a case finally got to them they'd be allowed to lay the smack down. It's a little bit disconcerting to realize exactly how narrow their job description really is, and a lot bit disconcerting to realize that there isn't actually anyone who is then allowed to stand up to the administration. They kinda seemed like the last line of defense...

I hear ya. I'm not happy with the Court right now, either, after the Seattle School District decision. Newsviners, if you're looking for a good reason to distrust the Roberts Court, read Brown v. Board, then take a look at Grutter v. Bollinger, then read about the Seattle case. Wikipedia page of the cases would probably work well for the exercise.

...you should write a short article with relevant links and some very brief commentary, I bet a lot of people would love to read it. It'd take you 10 minutes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but I think Alexis de Tocqueville pretty much highlighted the problems with the American judiciary in respect to the deference it pays to the other branches. Sure, it's supposed to act as a check on the other branches, but when one realizes how thin that protection actually is, it gives one pause. Until, of course, you recognize how thin those protections are in every other country, as well.

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time the court has ruled against common sense or refused to make a ruling where common sense demands it. It's just that now it's a lot easier for everyone to learn about it.