The rule of law.

[Partha]

Well, no, not really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

ATTORNEYS FOR the Justice Department appeared before a federal judge in Washington this month and asked him to dismiss a lawsuit over the detention of a U.S. citizen, basing their request not merely on secret evidence but also on secret legal arguments. The government contends that the legal theory by which it would defend its behavior should be immune from debate in court. This position is alien to the history and premise of Anglo-American jurisprudence, which assumes that opposing lawyers will challenge one another's arguments.

Judge Bates is cautious and generally deferential to government concerns. Yet he was evidently disturbed by this argument, at one point asking whether the government could identify "any case in which . . . even the legal theory for dismissal is not known to the other side?" The government could not.

Rule of law? Who needs it in a Bush administration?

[Mukik]

call me when its over..am heading down under..

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Please pardon my ignorance. I was reading the article, and I am trying to make sure I understand it, so if someone wouldn't mind helping me out, I'd appreciate it. If I'm not mistaken, here's what we have.

US citizen is held for 20 months in Saudi Arabia, with no charges actually being filed against him. His lawyers (?) take it to court asking someone to look into it, and prosecution/government (?) want that case dropped, but won't give evidence/information explaining to the judge why the case should be dropped?

The question marks are where I'm a little unclear. When I first read it, I thought charges had been filed against him, and someone was asking that those charges be dropped, but subsequent re-readings lead me to believe that my first impression was false, and that my second is more accurate.

It also looks like he's being held by the Saudi's and not by the US, although potentially at our behest, but that's not totally clear either. I'm not sure if our legal process has a way to handle that type of situation, but I can't help but wonder if our government believes this person has done something wrong, why would we need the Saudi's to hold him for us?

[Klast Brell]

We have been debating various aspects of this for years now. The Bush administration has adopted a tactic of "extraordinary Rendition”. That is turning people over to other countries. These are countries that the person is not a citizen of, and where the person has not taken any actions that were related to his detainment in the first place.

The US then shrugs it's shoulders and says you have no right to challenge this because the prisoner is not being held on American soil. This is the reason for Gitmo and the prisoners being held on ships in international waters as well.

[SicTimMitchell]

This just in, charges made public:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ty_bush_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen previously held in Saudi Arabia and returned to this country, has been charged with supporting al Qaeda and accused of discussing, in 2002 and 2003, ways to kill President Bush (news - web sites), according to court documents made public Tuesday.

Extraordinary rendition is far more sinister than Klast makes it out to be, though. Originally, it meant that if a citizen we suspected of terrorism was already wanted for a crime in another country, we'd send 'em home for a bit on that basis. It was used in maybe a handful of cases.

Now it's being used to send suspects to countries that we know practice torture for interrogation, then have them returned to U.S. custody. A CIA official who helped design tthe original plan is now speaking out against it.

As he puts it, this puts the U.S. itself in a tough spot -- we can't try these people, because our complicity in the abuse will come out. We can't let them go, for the same reason. (Although a couple have been released to Britain and Canada.) The only options are to hold them forever or kill them.

[SicTimMitchell]

BTW, you'd be surprised at some of the countries used for extraordinary rendition. It's not just Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Albania is a big one.

Also, the CIA has apparently itself practiced "waterboarding" on suspects. Some high-value detainees have apparently been waterboarded, making it hard to prosecute them because the debate over whether near-drowning someone, and then reviving them, is torture or not isn't really one that would play well on the national stage.

[SicTimMitchell]

Heh. I'm not psychic, I swear.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _bush_plot

[Partha]

Ruling on the motion from the government to dismiss Ali's charges.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1258.pdf

It don't look good for Mr. Ashcroft, et. al.

Petitioners have provided evidence, of varying degrees of competence and persuasiveness, that: (i) the United States initiated the arrest of Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia; (ii) the United States has interrogated Abu Ali in the Saudi prison; (iii) the United States is controlling his detention in Saudi Arabia; (iv) the United States is keeping Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia to avoid constitutional scrutiny by United States courts; (v) Saudi Arabia would immediately release Abu Ali to United States officials upon a request by the United States government; and (vi) Abu Ali has been subjected to torture while in the Saudi prison.

The United States does not offer any facts in rebuttal. Instead, it insists that a federal district court has no jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition of a United States citizen if he is in the hands of a foreign state, and it asks this Court to dismiss the petition forthwith. The position advanced by the United States is sweeping. The authority sought would permit the executive, at his discretion, to deliver a United States citizen to a foreign country to avoid constitutional scrutiny, or, as is alleged and to some degree substantiated here, work through the intermediary of a foreign country to detain a United States citizen abroad.

The Court concludes that a citizen cannot be so easily separated from his constitutional
rights....

And goes on to quote none other than SCALIA later about how inappropriate this is.

[Relbeek Einre]

Booya.

Did you notice that Abu Ali's lawyer is named Ed MacMahon?

HAYOOOOOOO!

[vaulos]

Aye. As I've said before, actions innitiated by the US government towards US citizens is always in the Federal Court's purview. And the determination of citizenship is always appealable to the Federal Court as well. Non-citizens are another matter, however. Though, I should think we would want to be careful in how we deal with foreigners, considering that we who travel are often foreigners ourselves.