Post by Yaw on Jan 12, 2004 23:03:55 GMT -5
Welcome to the rage-inducing story of the day, from the Washington Post.
Court Allows 9/11 Secrecy
Justices Decline Case on Detainees
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 13, 2004; Page A01
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups seeking access to basic data about hundreds of individuals detained by the federal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a decision that allows officials to continue withholding the names of most detainees, as well as other information related to their arrests, indefinitely.
In a brief order released without published dissent, the court turned down a petition by the Center for National Security Studies, the American Civil Liberties Union and several media organizations that had argued that the Bush administration's refusal to release information about the detainees violated the Freedom of Information Act and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. The Washington Post Co. filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the petition.
Although it sets no precedent, the court's decision is a significant victory for the Bush administration, which has argued that fighting an unconventional war against terrorists requires the executive branch to assert broad new authority to arrest and detain suspected members of al Qaeda -- and to withhold much information about how it wields that authority so that terrorist organizations do not learn too much about the government's strategy and tactics.
The decision let stand a 2 to 1 ruling last year by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found "reasonable" the administration's claim that terrorist networks could reap advantage from any disclosure of information about the detainees, even their names.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the D.C. Circuit's ruling breaks with "200 years of tradition in which arrests have always been public."
"We have a situation where the government arrested more than a thousand people in secret, and the courts have let them get away with it," she said.
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said he was "pleased the court let stand a decision that clearly outlined the danger of giving terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could have allowed them to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."
In a brief urging the court to reject the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson told the justices that the D.C. Circuit correctly recognized that information about the detainees could be withheld under an exception to the Freedom of Information Act covering data related to ongoing criminal investigations. He also noted that FBI and Justice Department officials had testified that disclosure would let terrorists draw a "road map" of the investigation.
Olson argued that even though the government was not collecting and disclosing data about the detainees, the detainees or their attorneys were mostly free to disclose their cases.
"Any secrecy surrounding the arrests is thus the product of private choice, not governmental dictate," he wrote.
Martin said that was unrealistic, because many of the detainees were Arab or Muslim men who did not understand their rights and were often held incommunicado for extended periods or, in the case of material witnesses, subject to gag orders imposed by courts at the government's request.
She noted that a Justice Department inspector general's report had documented cases of mistreatment of the detainees by federal officials and that without a full disclosure of the detainees' names, it will be impossible to hold the government accountable.
"There is no accountability for the abuses, and secrecy allowed the abuses," Martin said. "That's always been the objection to secrecy."
The Justice Department has acknowledged that it detained more than 1,200 people in connection with the investigation into the 2001 attacks.
The detainees fit into three categories: those arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorism and then detained for immigration violations; those arrested and held on federal criminal charges; and those held as material witnesses.
Those in the latter two categories were entitled to government-supplied defense lawyers, but alleged immigration-law violators subject to deportation proceedings had to find their own legal counsel.
Since 2001, the government has released the names of about 100 criminal defendants but withheld their citizenship status, arrest and detention dates and locations, and release dates.
The government has acknowledged that 762 people had been held on immigration charges but withheld their names, their attorneys' names, and facts about their arrests and release.
For about 50 named material witnesses, the government has released no data.
That leaves about 300 "for which we never got a clear explanation," Martin said.
The government has said the vast majority of the detainees have been deported or released, with the exception of a few material witnesses.
Justices Decline Case on Detainees
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 13, 2004; Page A01
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups seeking access to basic data about hundreds of individuals detained by the federal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a decision that allows officials to continue withholding the names of most detainees, as well as other information related to their arrests, indefinitely.
In a brief order released without published dissent, the court turned down a petition by the Center for National Security Studies, the American Civil Liberties Union and several media organizations that had argued that the Bush administration's refusal to release information about the detainees violated the Freedom of Information Act and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. The Washington Post Co. filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the petition.
Although it sets no precedent, the court's decision is a significant victory for the Bush administration, which has argued that fighting an unconventional war against terrorists requires the executive branch to assert broad new authority to arrest and detain suspected members of al Qaeda -- and to withhold much information about how it wields that authority so that terrorist organizations do not learn too much about the government's strategy and tactics.
The decision let stand a 2 to 1 ruling last year by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found "reasonable" the administration's claim that terrorist networks could reap advantage from any disclosure of information about the detainees, even their names.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the D.C. Circuit's ruling breaks with "200 years of tradition in which arrests have always been public."
"We have a situation where the government arrested more than a thousand people in secret, and the courts have let them get away with it," she said.
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said he was "pleased the court let stand a decision that clearly outlined the danger of giving terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could have allowed them to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."
In a brief urging the court to reject the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson told the justices that the D.C. Circuit correctly recognized that information about the detainees could be withheld under an exception to the Freedom of Information Act covering data related to ongoing criminal investigations. He also noted that FBI and Justice Department officials had testified that disclosure would let terrorists draw a "road map" of the investigation.
Olson argued that even though the government was not collecting and disclosing data about the detainees, the detainees or their attorneys were mostly free to disclose their cases.
"Any secrecy surrounding the arrests is thus the product of private choice, not governmental dictate," he wrote.
Martin said that was unrealistic, because many of the detainees were Arab or Muslim men who did not understand their rights and were often held incommunicado for extended periods or, in the case of material witnesses, subject to gag orders imposed by courts at the government's request.
She noted that a Justice Department inspector general's report had documented cases of mistreatment of the detainees by federal officials and that without a full disclosure of the detainees' names, it will be impossible to hold the government accountable.
"There is no accountability for the abuses, and secrecy allowed the abuses," Martin said. "That's always been the objection to secrecy."
The Justice Department has acknowledged that it detained more than 1,200 people in connection with the investigation into the 2001 attacks.
The detainees fit into three categories: those arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorism and then detained for immigration violations; those arrested and held on federal criminal charges; and those held as material witnesses.
Those in the latter two categories were entitled to government-supplied defense lawyers, but alleged immigration-law violators subject to deportation proceedings had to find their own legal counsel.
Since 2001, the government has released the names of about 100 criminal defendants but withheld their citizenship status, arrest and detention dates and locations, and release dates.
The government has acknowledged that 762 people had been held on immigration charges but withheld their names, their attorneys' names, and facts about their arrests and release.
For about 50 named material witnesses, the government has released no data.
That leaves about 300 "for which we never got a clear explanation," Martin said.
The government has said the vast majority of the detainees have been deported or released, with the exception of a few material witnesses.