Judge Rejects Bush Administration's 'State Secrets' Claim

[maddezmom]

Source: PR Newswire

Judge Rejects Bush Administration's 'State Secrets' Claim; Says FBI and Department of Homeland Security Must Reveal 'Watchlist' Status for Americans Seeking End to Unnecessary, Unlawful Border Stops



CHICAGO, April 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a case challenging
repeated, lengthy and abusive border stops of American citizens upon their
return to the United States after traveling abroad, a federal magistrate
judge in Chicago has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to disclose to the named
plaintiffs whether or not their names appear on the Terrorist Screening
Database (TSDB). In making his ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney
Schenkier rejected the Bush Administration's assertion of a "state secrets"
privilege. Under the order made public for the first time last week, the
government must produce documents indicating whether the ten named
plaintiffs in the case, including lead plaintiff Akif Rahman of suburban
Chicago, are listed on the TSDB.



In rejecting the government's argument that revealing any information
about the plaintiffs' status on the TSDB would reveal "secret" information,
Judge Schenkier wrote that "courts may not uncritically accept the
government's assertion of the state secrets privilege." After reviewing
arguments on both sides, Judge Schenkier noted that the government "on
certain occasions has disclosed to persons information that would tend to
confirm or deny their TSDB status." Judge Schenkier's reference was to
several letters written to members of Congress who inquired about the
repeated stops of their constituents.



The Bush Administration repeatedly has invoked a claim of "state
secrets" as a shield against judicial review of various surveillance and
other policies secretly implemented in recent years. The Administration, as
an example, invoked "state secrets" to block litigation brought on behalf
of Khaled El-Masri, a German National who was kidnapped while on vacation
in Macedonia, secretly transported to Afghanistan and subjected to beatings
and torture. In response to this case and others, legislation was
introduced in both the U.S. House and the Senate to regulate the assertion
of the "state secrets" privilege, calling for judicial review of the actual
materials claimed to contain state secrets.



Read more: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2008/0004798613&EDATE=

[annabanana]

1. Now they will claim that the watchlist

has been accidently erased.

[Robbien]

3. Or not bother with that

and just ignore the court's order altogether. Who is going to stop them?

[jonnyra]

6. Exactly my thought

They dont give a shit. They do as they please and no one will stop them. They are going to ride out the last 8 months of the term, launch an attack on Iran and then get the hell out.

One hell of a government we have here AMerica. We should be so proud.

[dmkinsey]

37. Yeah, a big "so what"

Does anyone expect the administration to say "No problem, we'll get out best staff right on that and have that complete list over to you tomorrow"???

Of course not! This administration doesn't respect the courts, the law or anyone. They'll just ignore this ruling. What can happen?
Nothing

[jonnyra]

49. Good one dmkinsey...

"No problem, we'll get out best staff right on that and have that complete list over to you tomorrow"???


NOW THATS COMEDY!

[derby378]

8. I hope either Obama or Clinton will shred the list once they're elected

All this focus on health care and the economy is okay, but without our Constitutional rights, nothing else matters.

[mac2]

16. They haven't said they would do anything to return our rights

have they?

[derby378]

24. Then maybe we'd better put a little pressure on them

Down here in Texas' 16th Senatorial District, we passed a resolution that mandates that neither Clinton nor Obama will offer a pardon to Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. And the resolution had better pass this coming June at the State Convention in Austin.

In 2006, at our last Democratic State Convention, a resolution to impeach Bush was narrowly defeated despite heavy grassroots work on the floor. It was a very close vote, but in the end I don't think we had the votes. Which is why conventioneers really need to stay until the bitter end to vote on this sort of thing.

[mac2]

26. Democrats who didn't want to impeach Bush?

Were they really Democrats? Guess Democrats in your state were just so glad to get him out of your state. He will be back soon so they made the wrong decision. They keep coming back like bad pennies.

Even the World Court says he commmitted genocide and is a war criminal. What's wrong with us Democrats? We like and give comfort to war criminals like Bush and Blair.

The delegates at the Democratic convention better do something this time about our party survival and goals. The DLC ran all over us at the last one. Even Kucinich delegates were silenced regarding the Iraq war for "the good of all".

[cstanleytech]

28. You are putting the burden on the wrong party IMHO

Sure the democrats could have tried but you know very well that they lacked the votes needed to really make any headway and besides the republicans should have been the ones to impeach him since they claim to be the more "moral" and "constitutional" party.
As for why they did not try after they finally regained control, my bet is because they knew full well the republicans would have filibustered and stonewalled any such attempt at that point and it would have been like shooting themselves in the foot and galvanized the republican base.
As it is now the republican base is disorganized and on the retreat because the republicans in washington have exposed themselves as the corrupt liars that most of us here on this forum have known that they have been for years.

[mac2]

30. Those in our party who have gone along or refuse to negate

Bush lists and illegal spying are part of the problem don't you think?

Even when they had power to do something...they gave it away. Some Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee even approved of RW judges without question. Republicans get what they want.

I don't want to think they might do this or that. I want them to promise the return of our Constitution and Bill of Rights...negating spying,etc. without a warrant. I don't want the Americas Union and merger with Canada and Mexico.

"Candidates who abuse us, cannot lead us." Vote Smart.org

[JDPriestly]

38. There are ways to get votes -- like withholding votes or coveted positions and recognition -- like

going directly to constituents in hotly contested jurisdictions. The "lack of votes" excuse does not sit well with me. It's lame, lousy lie. We elect or Senators and Representatives to fight for what is right. They are not supposed to be just taking it easy and bringing measures certain to get through Congress. I have to say, Dennis Kucinich showed himself to be a true leader when he introduced an impeachment measure into Congress. What progress has he made, what pressure has he applied toward getting impeachment hearings since dropping out of the presidential race? What is John Conyers doing on our dollars?

[mac2]

40. They act like we should do it all when we sent them there

to act in our best interest. We have our own jobs.

Conyers got a best selling book out of impeachment. I even bought one of his and another guy who is a lawyer. I can't remember his name.

Conyers is a member of one of those secret groups (Trilateral Commission or something similar)so I wasn't surprised when he lead it and just let it go. A false start type of thing.

Kucinich seems to be Red Herring. He is ignored because he's made fun of, etc. His opinions right on about democracy and freedom but is made out to be "odd". No other Dems fight with him. I didn't like him keeping his delegates from bringing the war to the floor at the convention nor his amnesty stand as of late. Regardless they are both heroes for even trying.

We have been betrayed so many times since 2000 by Congress and our President, cabinet, agency heads, etc. LIttle they seem to care about America.

[cstanleytech]

45. Oh, its lame all right but not a lie.

Fact is they did lack the votes and even now it would be a close thing and most likely it would fail or atleast thats my opinion.
Now what was really lame is how the republicans in washington and alot still in the nation still willing follow and obey this president, thats lame.

[JanusAscending]

47. You haven't been paying very close attention.

One of the first things Obama promised to do was to restore Habeas corpus, along with all of the other rights that have been stolen from us. I haven't heard much from the hilster.

[mac2]

42. Certainly not our Congress.

[Supersedeas]

48. Nancy Disaster is on Larry King -- maybe she'll explain

[lovuian]

12. You got it Annabanna yep

it will have been erased
Duh what list
they ain't no list judge

Bye

[Xipe Totec]

14. was accidentally destroyed during a waterboarding session.

[mac2]

2. Arresting and jailing people in other countries without

a trial is against our law. We pay so we are responsible. Off-shore justice and prisons is a fear tactic and unlawful under the world treaties and many countries laws. The leaders get paid off to allow it. It plain criminal activity.

The Magma Carter ignored. Bush is lawless and arrogant to think anyone would accept this type of manipulation. Congress what the ...are you thinking? Impeach him.

[SavageDem]

9. I really hope "Magma Carter" was a joke...

...as a former President on lava is entirely different from the Magna Carta...

[Lasher]

13. Hah!

Good one.

[mac2]

17. Yep.

[Botany]

4. My Dad's Friend made that list.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Professor_who_criticized_Bush_added_to_0409.html


Professor who criticized Bush told added to terrorist 'no-fly' list
Michael Roston
Published: Monday April 9, 2007


A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush's executive overreach was recently told that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration's terrorist watch list. He shared his experience this weekend at the law blog Balkinization.

Walter F. Murphy, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Emeritus, at Princeton University, attempted to check his luggage at the curbside in Albuquerque before boarding a plane to Newark, New Jersey. Murphy was told he could not use the service.

"I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.

[gratuitous]

5. Oh please, professor Murphy

The Watch List entry is for Walter Murphy of "Walter Murphy and his Big Apple Band" infamy. We're trying to prevent the spread of his odious and inexplicable hit "A Fifth of Beethoven" to other countries. You just happen to share his name, and it's totally coincidental that "Walter Murphy" went on the Watch List after your speech which you say was televised (truly, we had no idea!).

Signed,
Homeland Security

[Sam Ervin jret]

7. lol, the MSM will buy that "reasoning"

unfortunately so would many Americans still deep in slumber through this administration.

[Ikonoklast]

10. And everyone that plays the accordion

And ugly people.
People with hairy eyebrows.
Everyone that smells like they ate garlic.
And any person for any reason deemed to be an enemy of the administration.

The TSA is used as a tool of punishment for those disloyal to the regime.

[mac2]

15. It's more about Bush political enemies than protecting us

from "terrorists". There were no "so called terrorist names" on the passenger lists of 911.

911 was about removing our rights and democracy. None of it made sense. There was also a huge gold robbery at the WTC the media and our leaders ignore.

Sorry that professor and expert on Constitutional law was a target of this administration. This shows how we now have police state rule. The citizens suffer while we pay for them to rule against us. It's all so Orwellian...going to war to protect "democracy" and "civilization" around the world while they remove it. If that's not true why silence us?

[fascisthunter]

11. Fascist Totalitarian Pricks

No honor, no morals, just greed and insanity.

[L. Coyote]

18. Write your DEMs and thank them for the law that Bush is confronting!!

[Supersedeas]

19. can now picture Justice Roberts salivating at establishing legally a secret police state

[mmonk]

20. Interesting.

[ConcernedCanuk]

21. I don't think that I am alone in deciding to never again visit the United States in my lifetime.

.
.
.

The USA might as well build a Berlin/China wall around itself, as it is already isolating itself from global markets and military cooperation.

Empire is dying . .

Get used to it.

[NikolaC]

22. Maybe

But Stephen Harper is a mini-Bush so, unless Canadians keep an eye on him, they will be facing some of the same in the near future.

[mac2]

33. I heard that speech by Kucinich on CSPAN

He makes great speeches but the media (and our own party) doesn't swarm him with praise like Obama.

[mac2]

27. Just wait awhile the Americas Union laws will be practiced in

Canada too. It's not just the United States who take away our rights. It is a global fight to remove democracy by the elite few. That includes Canada.

[happygoluckytoyou]

23. YOU VILL OBEY DE SCHTATE SECRETS AND YOU VILL LIKE IT

DER FATHERLAND IS CALLING.... MOST HATED PRESIDENT, BUT MOST BENEVOLENT DICTATOR....
TWO TASTE TREATS IN ONE

VOTE FOR MCCAIN... 4 YEARS OF THE SAME

[mac2]

31. Boot Click

[barbtries]

25. yay for the judge

too few of them around

[cstanleytech]

29. Well its about freaking time.

They have been hiding behind this claim as a defense for whatever they wanted to do and almost no judge has had the brass to call them on it.

[mac2]

32. That other judge's husband was killed in Chicago.

I'm thankful a judge stood up to the government.

They will lose their jobs and no courts will be necessary. It is foolish if one is a lawyer or judge to accept all the unconstitutional actions of the police state. They also take an oath of officed don't they?

[cstanleytech]

34. If I recall correctly they do have an oath of office

but sadly to many of them in my opinion worry more about keeping their job or staying on long enough to get the retirement benefits than they do about impartially enforcing the law on everyone, including upon the president.

[zanne]

35. Can't the Supreme Court save their asses again?

I find it very hard to believe that they'll ever release those documents.

[mac2]

43. They can burn them in a building like the FBI files were burned

on 911. Now why would anyone store files and gold in the WTC except to destoy and steal? The WTC had been a target in the past.

[dlfuller]

36. The whole "state secrets" thing has always just been a cover

State secrets my ass.

That just means anything illegal, immoral, or embarrassing. History shows that they have been lies to cover criminal behavior, and it is high time the courts rule that state secrets do not exist.

[mac2]

44. and they are a criminal gang.

[santamargarita]

39. Only Fascist Pigs and Dictators have State Secrets...

...and that Nazi Bastard Bush is both!

[mac2]

41. The son of Powell who was shot down over Russia

stated his father didn't think secrets were any good since the enemy usually knew more than us. Most things get out to the enemy.

His father wasn't honored until after his death. The lie the US told was hidden for so many years. Eveyone knew the truth.

[jtrockville]

46. Does this have implications for Sibel Edmonds?

Her gag order was predicated on "state secrets".