|
Justice Denied
By William A. Cohn
10/26/07 "ICH" --- - It was a case of mistaken identity. It
could have happened to any one of us.
And yet, in 2007 it is hard for us to imagine the ongoing
nightmare endured by Khaled El-Masri, the German citizen whose
story helped to expose the ugly underbelly of the US-led global
war on terror. On October 9th, Masri’s last hope at getting
justice in the US was dashed when the Supreme Court declined to
review the lower court rulings dismissing his case based on the
government’s assertion that to give Masri his day in court would
require the disclosure of state secrets and thus harm US
national security.
His Kafkaesque plight brings to mind the inquisitorial “justice”
meted out by totalitarian regimes. That the High Court refused
to hear his case without comment is all too fitting for the
silence and secrecy Masri encountered in his search for answers
in the US. Now, Masri must turn to the European Court of Justice
in the hopes that Europe will afford him the justice he was
denied in America. Since the US is not a signatory to the
European Convention on Human Rights, Masri should bring suit
against Germany for its complicity in his mistreatment in order
to obtain an adjudication affirming the mistreatment he received
at the hands of US agents.
The Supreme Court decision, which the New York Times called a
“Supreme Disgrace,” in essence accepted the Bush
administration’s contention that the judiciary must ‘trust us’
that allowing Masri’s case to proceed would harm national
security. But the constitutional rule of law is based on
distrust, not trust. That is why, recognizing as axiomatic that
‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ the
Constitution established a system of checks and balances by
means of a separation of powers aimed at accountability. By
rubber-stamping claims of executive privilege, the judiciary
shirks its constitutional duty, and thus fails us all.
Masri’s story has been one of the most widely reported cases of
so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’, the practice of secretly
abducting suspected terrorists and indefinitely detaining them,
often in countries known to torture prisoners. On December 6,
2005 Masri filed a lawsuit in US federal court against former
CIA director George Tenet, and others, alleging that the
defendants, acting as agents of the US government, kidnapped,
wrongfully imprisoned, abused and tortured him. The 44-year-old
married father of five alleges that on December 31, 2003 he was
forcibly abducted while on holiday in Macedonia, detained
incommunicado, handed over to US agents, then beaten, drugged,
and taken to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he was
interrogated in a cruel and inhuman manner. His allegations have
been investigated and substantiated by the German state
prosecutor and the Council of Europe, the continent’s human
rights watchdog.
It seems that Khaled El-Masri was thought to be Khalid al-Masri,
the name given to the CIA by the Hamburg-based terror suspect
Ramzi Binalshibh as the person who helped Mohammed Atta’s 9/11
cabal make contact with a senior Qaeda member in Germany.
Likely, the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ produced
false ‘intelligence’ and they chased a fictive person with
reckless abandon. The validity of Masri’s German passport was
never checked before he was flown to Afghanistan. German
Chancellor Merkel told the press that US Secretary of State Rice
acknowledged to her the mistake with Masri. Rice’s staffers
subsequently denied any such admission having been made. Rice,
like all Bush officials, has refused to comment on Masri’s
claims.
Masri’s lawsuit sought an apology and monetary compensation. US
District Judge T.S. Ellis III held that Masri’s “private
interests must give way to the national interest in preserving
state secrets,” adding that if the allegations are true “all
fair-minded people must also agree that El-Masri has suffered
injuries as a result of our country’s mistake and deserves a
remedy.” Indeed, there is no justice without a remedy for a
legal wrong. But following the Supreme Court refusal to review
his case, it is now a certainty that Masri will never obtain a
remedy through the US legal system.
The Masri case reveals much of what has gone wrong in the ‘war
on terror.’ The Supremes let stand the March 2nd Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling which upheld Judge Ellis’ dismissal of
the lawsuit because it could expose state secrets. These
decisions have brought widespread disbelief, disappointment and
disgust. Following the Fourth Circuit ruling, ACLU attorney Ben
Wizener said: “This is doubly insulting. Everyone knows that Mr.
El-Masri was a mistaken victim of the rendition program. He is
now a victim of the misuse of the state-secrets privilege.”
Masri’s is not the only such case to be so dismissed. For
instance, Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen taken to an Edgar
Allan Poe-like secret prison in Syria, also had his case thrown
out of US federal court by a state secrets ruling. The Canadian
government substantiated Arar’s claims and offered an apology
and compensation for its role in his ‘rendition’. Sadly, the
current US administration lacks the strength to ever apologize.
The once-obscure state secrets privilege has been expanded and
used ever-more since it was created in the 1953 case US v.
Reynolds. Information declassified half a century later reveals
that the state secrets claim in the Reynolds case was a lie –
the government was seeking to hide its mistakes and protect
against embarrassment, not to protect the country’s security.
This revelation has fueled calls for reform by legal scholars,
public interest groups and the American Bar Association. Since
1993, judges have required in-camera review of the disputed
documents underlying state secrets claims in less than an eighth
of cases, opting instead for blind deference.
On October 11th, the Times opined, “this administration has
repeatedly relied upon [the state secrets doctrine] to avoid
judicial scrutiny of its lawless action . . . courts need to
apply a healthy dose of skepticism to state secrets claims.”
Recently, parts of the judiciary have awakened. Federal judges
have denied state secrets claims, noting that to defer to a
blanket assertion of state secrets would be to abdicate their
duty. On October 10th, a federal judge, citing domestic and
international law prohibiting torture, barred the transfer of
Guantanamo Bay inmate to Tunisia, marking the 1st time the
judiciary has blocked the government transfer of a terror
detainee. Perhaps this signals a new willingness to question
claims of executive privilege.
As part of a community working to instill respect for the rule
of law in post-communist Europe, these are challenging times.
America should lead by example in assisting new democracies to
root out corruption and establish transparency and
accountability in governance. Yet its refusal to cooperate with
German prosecutors in Masri’s case, the Canadians in Arar’s
case, or the Italians in a rendition investigation there, erodes
international cooperation. And revelations of secret torture
memos, secret prisons, and secretive government under a novel
‘unitary executive’ theory undermine efforts advocating a rule
of law agenda.
We owe Khaled El-Masri our gratitude for helping to expose human
rights abuses committed in our name. By taking his claim to the
European Court of Justice Masri can shed additional light on the
self-defeating post-9/11 tactics employed in the US and Europe.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Masri was turned back at the airport without explanation when he
flew to the US to appear at his first court hearing, and in the
end he was denied review by the Supreme Court without comment.
Mr. Masri is reportedly experiencing psychiatric problems today.
Let us hope that he has the strength to continue his search for
truth and fairness with the European Court of Justice. For we
all have a stake in his struggle for justice.
William A. Cohn, who reported on the Masri case in the spring
2006 issue of The New Presence, is a writer, lawyer and lecturer
at the University of New York in Prague
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
