home

Secret Law?

by TChris

We're all familiar with classified facts and secret warrants, but should there be such a thing as secret legal arguments? The Justice Department thinks so, but the Washington Post argues for transparency in the government's interaction with the legal system.

The question arises from the case of Ahmed Abu Ali, who was arrested in Saudi Arabia. Ali's family believes the United States engineered Ali's arrest and continuing detention. The family brought a lawsuit in federal district court, and the Justice Department moved to dismiss the suit -- but doesn't want to make its reasons public, or even share its theory with the lawyers representing Ali's family.

It has proposed adding to the facts at Judge Bates's disposal by submitting secret evidence that Mr. Abu Ali's attorneys would have no opportunity to challenge. Most recently, it urged that the case be dismissed on the basis, yet again, of secret evidence -- this time supplemented with what a Justice Department lawyer termed "legal argument [that] itself cannot be made public without disclosing the classified information that underlies it."

If lawyers fighting for Ali's freedom had access to the "secret evidence," they might be able to refute it. And if they knew the government's "secret arguments," they might be able to convince the judge that the arguments lacks merit. But if everything is kept secret, neither Ali's lawyers nor the public can act as a check against the administration's lawless behavior. The adversarial system of justice cannot function in Ali's case if the Justice Department gets its way.

In this case, the liberty of a U.S. citizen is at stake. ... What is clear is that Mr. Abu Ali has been held for 20 months without being charged and that, as Judge Bates wrote in December, his lawyers "have presented some unrebutted evidence that [his] detention is at the behest and ongoing direction of United States officials." It should be unthinkable that the courts would resolve this matter without hearing from both sides on key legal questions. It should have been unthinkable for the government to propose such a step.

< More Hunter Thompson Musings | Hunter Thompson: Defied Classification >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    ...It should have been unthinkable for the government to propose such a step...
    nuff said!!!

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    This is nothing new, or peculiar to the present administration. Being forced to assess your own taxes (by filing a 1040) VOLUNTARILY, is a blatant violation of the 5th amendment. One usually cannot be forced to waive one's rights - although an exception is made here. Why? Well, because most Americans don't pay income taxes. Nearly half actually profit from the extortion of income from the other half. It's the same thing with the abuse of the rights of "terrorist suspects". Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but so what? It's only a few thousand individuals who are being trampled, and the rest of us profit (by being more secure), so it continues. In a democracy, as long as you can keep about half the folks on the side of government, you can do just about anything to anyone. Just wait till the next 9-11 if you want to see abuses of "terrorist suspects". ouch.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    It's concievable that revealing the arguments really would endanger national security or some such. But precisely because the issues are so important, we need transparency and accountability. Maybe there's a middle ground. Make the top dozen or so DOJ officials promise to reveal everything in six months or go to prison for kidnapping, obstructing justice, and conspiracy.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#4)
    by cp on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    "the trial" has finally arrived in d.c., gratis of our very own justice dept. where the hell is franz kafka when you really need him? i think they may well have out-kgb'd the kgb on this. the really, truly, scary thing is, they managed to find some u.s. law school trained attorneys, who apparently actually believe this, and told a judge these things with a straight face. since things tend to flow from the top, not the other way around, how long before some local district attorney refuses to allow a defendent to know what the charges are against them, and ignores a court order to produce evidence, all on the grounds of "local security"? i know, you're laughing. as i would, except................it's already happened, just at the national level first.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#5)
    by cp on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    EClaire, spare us the "unconstitutional income tax" drivel, will you please? it's dull, it's boring, it's been done before, and by better than you. oh, did i mention the 16th amendment to the constitution? sorry, that one always seems to get in the way of the "unconstitutional" arguments. before you even start, the supreme court seems to think the 16th amendment was ratified properly, at the time it was ratified. so, unless you can come up with some new, never before heard argument, take it somewhere else. this isn't the appropriate thread for it.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    i think they may well have out-kgb'd the kgb on this. the really, truly, scary thing is, they managed to find some u.s. law school trained attorneys, who apparently actually believe this, and told a judge these things with a straight face.
    Cheer up, slightly. Mr. Abu Ali is still alive, so the KGB's title is intact. There are aproximately eleventy trillion(*) laywers in the U.S., so finding even a couple hundred who worship the Devil and eat babies would only slightly lower the average. (*)Numbers may be made up

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#7)
    by wishful on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    I watched some of the family's testimony on C Span some time ago where they were pleading for justice. There was credible evidence that he is being tortured, so it's still a contest with the KGB. And, why isn't this the headline on the front page, above the fold, in every worthwhile newspaper in this democracy. Democracy itself has been shattered by this dirty maneuver and its dirty perpetrators. Oh wait, I said worthwhile newspaper. Never mind.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    "outway?" Is that the third way of Bill Clinton? Spelling aside, you're deflecting the point. It's not as much that an individual has a right to have "the public debate the merits of his case," as it is that any individual has the constitutional right to confront his accusers and the evidence presented against him:
    Article [VI.]

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    That is the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, and no national security law supercedes it. Evidence against you counts as "witnesses," and you have a full right to examine it, cross-examine those who collected it, and argue against it. That right is meaningless if what happens in TChris's first quote is allowed to stand:

    It has proposed adding to the facts at Judge Bates's disposal by submitting secret evidence that Mr. Abu Ali's attorneys would have no opportunity to challenge. Most recently, it urged that the case be dismissed on the basis, yet again, of secret evidence -- this time supplemented with what a Justice Department lawyer termed "legal argument [that] itself cannot be made public without disclosing the classified information that underlies it."

    The government can't waive your rights for you on behalf of national security. The framers knew this put lots of power in the hands of individuals and limited the power of the government to prosecute and imprison. They wanted it that way. If we want to change it, we know how - a constitutional amendment. Barring such a thing in the immediate future, anyone in custody must be allowed to access all evidence against him - no exceptions.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pete Guither on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:34:05 PM EST
    Dagma, ... what Matt said... and: Believing in the constitution and American principles of freedom and justice doesn't reflect a lack of foresight and common sense. It is, in fact, what true patriotism is about.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    Dagma, et al., the other problem with "secret" justice is that it creates secret law. Those of us who practice on the civil side of the bar (not to say that you criminal defense attorneys aren't civil, but you know what I mean) have been dealing with this for a long time in cases where one or more parties to a dispute seek to resolve the dispute through litigation, but also want to keep the facts that are relevant to the dispute out of the public record through confidentiality agreements and orders. Aside from all the other problems this can cause, the result often is that the judgments rendered in these cases essentially are meaningless to anyone who's trying to figure out what the court actually decided. And by "anyone who's trying to figure out what the court actually decided," I mean people who are trying to figure out what the law is.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    CP, Every word of your post was based on your incorrect assumptions of what I either think or believe. First, I made no mention of the 16th Amendment, nor do I have any issue with whether it was properly ratified. (but I'm aware of the belief of some that it wasn't) I think I addressed the point quite well, and you completely missed it.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    et al - First, we have no proof that the SA government would release him if requested, although they have said they would. But now they have charged him with terrorism related crimes. So they may not be so willing. Secondly, we have no proof that the US government arranged for him to be arrested, although he was interviewed by three FBI agents. Not at all unusual. The family "believes" in both cases. Which is not surprising. These are some tangled webs we have woven. My comment would be, why can't the judge be shown the information in private? Are we saying that he can get a Top Secret clearance?

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    If you cant think of a situation where national security constraints outway the right of an individual to have the public debate the merits of his or her case, it proves once again the pervading lack of foresight and common sense on the left. [Dagma, please limit yourself to four comments a day on this site. All in excess will be deleted.]

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:15:17 PM EST
    Well, if they're going to be bringing up such 'double secret probation' tactics, why not come up with our own? Say that you have absolute proof of the defendant's innocence, but you can't reveal it due to religious reasons! Then if they continue you can sue them for religious persecution! Yayyyyyy cookies for everyone. I think anyone who believes we should have secret trials that nobody knows about should be made to relive WW2 through now and have it pointed out to them that we didn't need them THEN, during the rise of facism in Europe and Asia, so why should we need it NOW, when 'freedom is on the march'? Come to think of it, they should also have Ben Franklin's famous quote tattooed on their forehead backwards so that they can be reminded of it every time they look at their pathetic faces in the mirror. /rant

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    Its only the start, you will see secret prisons for many non terrorist people who talk to much about a dead land called the USA, Its here and so are you. think out of the box people, before you are in a box.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:17:00 AM EST
    How should I say this, ahhhh....., bullsh!t! Your deflecting the point. The man has every right to confront his accuser, the Saudi's, he just doesnt have the right to further his cause by publicizing the intelligence means that got his dispicable terrorist a$$ captured in the first place. Which by the way if you haven't realized it by now, is exactly what you are arguing to enable him to do.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    et al - Well, it looks like Ali will have his day in court. Charged with conspiring to kill the President. AP - "ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Feb. 22) - A former Virginia high school valedictorian who had been detained in Saudi Arabia as a suspected terrorist was charged Tuesday with conspiring to assassinate President Bush and with supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea."

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#18)
    by zak822 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    Welcome to the Star Chamber.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    Big bad George Bush just keeps screwing all this innocent by-standers. If he keeps it up, he might just prevent domestic terrorist attacks for 7 years post-911. What a bad man he is.... p.s thank god he won re-election.

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:23:35 AM EST
    "There can be no doubt—"said K., quite softly, for he was elated by the breathless attention of the meeting; in that stillness a subdued hum was audible which was more exciting than the wildest applause—"there can be no doubt that behind all the actions of this court of justice, that is to say in my case, behind my arrest and today's interrogation, there is a great organization at work. An organization which not only employs corrupt warders, oafish Inspectors, and Examining Magistrates of whom the best that can be said is that they recognize their own limitations, but also has at its disposal a judicial hierarchy of high, indeed of the highest rank, with an indispensable and numerous retinue of servants, clerks, police, and other assistants, perhaps even hangmen, I do not shrink from that word. And the significance of this great organization, gentlemen? It consists in this, that innocent persons are accused of guilt, and senseless proceedings are put in motion against them..."

    Re: Secret Law? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:58:38 AM EST
    scar - Nothing to say, eh? Happiness is wanting what you get. ;-)