Secret arrests after 9/11 will stay secret

[Q]

Posted on Tue, Jan. 13, 2004

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Secret arrests after 9/11 will stay secret

The Supreme Court says it will not hear an appeal by groups seeking access to information on illegal immigrants held after the Sept. 11 attacks.

BY CHARLES LANE
Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court Monday refused 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.

The decision allows the government 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 the information violated the Freedom of Information Act and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

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. --- Continues: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7695946.htm

[gandalf]

1. "The US are an admirable democracy"

... one of Germans largest newspapers, Suedeutsche Zeitung, wrote. OK, if they think so...

[xchrom]

2. in spite of certain rulings

i.e. the texas sodomu case or not hearing louisiana's ten commandments case this is a conservative court -- and in bushco's back pocket.
and it will remain so until liberals get sea change in this country.

[Selwynn]

3. This is only because the SC is already hearing two other appeals...

..and doing so speedily, refusing to wait for a second brief from the White House. If the supreme court rules against the administration in these cases, the ruling would apply to the case in question here.

So its not as bad as it sounds yet. Wait for the SC rulings on the cases it has agreed to hear,then we'll see.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. The Rhenquist/Scalia Court is even worse than Taney's

:argh: