Associated Press:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.
Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of mistaken identity.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bush's Supreme Court has once again shown the world that the United States is no longer a leader in human rights. I don't see how Laura can tell Myanmar to stop it's violations, while sleeping with a man who is committing atrocities in his own country, and turning our friends into enemies. We need to allow these wronged people their day in court, and we need to see to it that this administration shows up in court, too -- America vs. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, et al.
No, no, no. It's OK when we do it, dummy. Only a stupid lib would think that morality, law, decency, and the laws of cause and effect apply to the United States of America, the Jesus Christ of naitons, that is, the only nation EVER to have a perfect moral history.
By the way, I totally agree with you and the above was a poor attempt at satirizing the insane right-wing freaks who post here.
This is an outrage and a shameful day for all Americans.
This means that Cheney can come to your home, break in during the middle of the night, kidnap you, put you on a plane to Afghanistan, lock you in a CIA rendering facility and beat the crap out of you for five years and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.
National Insecurity at it's worst. The thought police are watching you.
EVeryone should watch this.
Very powerful...
Lets see how many open minds there are here.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/174.html
I feel ashamed for what my country is doing. Deeply ashamed.
What is unconscionable here is that El-Masri was NOT asking for money, but an apology and an admission that he was not a terrorist...but our government could not give him that very simple exhoneration. Admitting he was not a terrorist would not compromise any state secrets. The argument is specious, and the Supremes who bought it have failed at their jobs as the highest sitting justices in the land for falling for the Bush Admin.'s patently false declaration.
Justice is no longer served in this country.
What have we become? Why have we allowed a bunch of thugs to usurp our democracy? And look at what's happened to our Supreme Court.
I can't help but remember the role played by Burt Lancaster in Judgment in Nuremberg of a German chief justice who collaborated with Hitler's government. In the end, after Spencer Tracy sentences Lancaster to death for his crimes, Burt says, You must believe me; I never thought it would turn out the way it did. (Obviously, I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall the dialog verbatim.) And Spencer, who plays the quintissential American in this film responds, Herr XXXXX, it was going to end this way the first time you signed a death warrant to kill an innocent man.
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Surely their names will live on in infamy for what they have allowed the Bush administration to do in the name of security. And neither am I happy with Kennedy at the moment.
Get ready for prime time boys and girls - we're next.
So the Supremes reject a case filed by a man who claims to have been kidnapped and tortured because that could reveal state secrets...like the fact that we kidnap and torture people.
Circular reasoning, pure and simple (well, simple anyways.)
http://www.newsprism.com
It was very disheartening to read that the Supreme Court rejected to hear the case of an innocent man who was abducted and tortured by the CIA. The rationale for this decision was a concern that state secrets might be revealed. The only secret that might have been revealed is that this government has lost all sense of integrity.
In the past, the United States has condemned other countries for human rights violations. We have implemented embargos and sanctions against these countries. The US ambassador to the UN has gone before the Security Council and the general assembly to present a case for diplomatic interventions. How is it possible that it's this country that now is violating human rights by abducting individuals, torturing, incarcerating and denying these individuals habeas corpus? Is the hypocritical "we can torture all those we deem suspicious of terrorist activities" the government's mantra?
The Supreme Court was morally obligated to hear this man's case.
Gee, big surprise, another gag order. Gee and this makes how many now? 911, gag order on the media which should have warned us of impending attacks on US Soil. Night of the elections, GAG ORDER, Operation Camp Falcon, in which 300 of our military were killed, maimed, left for dead, and nothing, NADA was said to the Public about thier dead sons and daughters. Gag order,
the real reason Bush chose to attack Iraq, the Valerie Plame Case, Gagged. Shall I go on? How about how it was Black water, not Iraq who carried out 911, and set up Iraq to take the fall? Gagged. This administration has committed more acts against its own people, chosen to gag the media, use censorship and attempted censorship with Chris Mathews and CNN and people question this guy who was a torture victim? Look, I don't think this guy was a candidate for sainthood, far from it, but what he is saying is true. Folks, Bush and cheney belong in jail.
EVeryone should watch this.
Very powerful...
Lets see how many open minds there are here.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/174.html
EVeryone should watch this.
Very powerful...
Lets see how many open minds there are here.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/174.html
How come the republican torture strategy didn't work in the case of the 9-11 attacks? (Some 4000 Americans were killed in the major two-city attack.) There was about a three-month period with which to work to prevent the attacks????
The most secretive administration in HISTORY
NOT to protect the US
NOT to protect Americans
NOT to fight "terrorism"
ONLY to protect themselves and HIDE their egregious violations of US law
ONLY to keep themselves out of prison
ONLY so the world won't see how immoral their behavior has been
It's all about SELF-INTEREST on behalf of Bush and his cronies
I can only imagine who ruled against it, they make me ashamed of being a Catholic. I wander what Bishop will refuse them the Body of Christ, My guess is none.
No surprise here. The SP is BushCo's Legal Department.
Fine with me....and all the Huffies in Huffieland went boo-hoo--hoo
Boo hoo hoo... as in the the way the families of service people who have lost their lives in a clusterfuck occupation for false reasons? Or the ones who lost lives years before actually defending for real the welfare of this country and its Constitution. "Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Are they under here? Heh, heh, heh."
Yep there goes the republic, and the boot-lickers cheer. You should ask Dumbya if he could break out his old pom poms, and give us a couple kicks and splits.
So you care more about the welfare of those who want to kill us? And this particular case is crazy to begin with. You are one of those, sir, who want to use anyone or anything to make this country look bad anyway.
I for one don't want my courts time wasted on non citizens and their ridiculous claims.
The torture crowd are wailing.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 10- 9-07 11:37 AM | Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM