Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
It's not simply divulging information about the intended target, it's about divulging information about how the intelligence operated, how the detention was carried out, methods used etc. If it was as simple as getting the CIA to say 'whoops, sorry about that' then you're right, there wouldn't be much need to disclose anything else, but I don't think that's what was being requested as relief. There's also the fact that the mere acknowledgement of the legitimacy of any facts included in el-Masri's complaint would effectively reveal state secrets.
|
Right. So basically your argument ends up being a roundabout way of saying that nobody can vet the legitimacy of the state secrets claim (for fear of the state secrets being mentioned), and if anyone is deemed by the government to be a casualty of the government's invoked state secrets privilege, then tough.
Since the government vets its own claim, I think it is clear why people have little interest in accepting the legitimacy of the US government's due process in this general area.
Also, it's immaterial how the intelligence operated if the case brought forth by Al-Masri is intended to protect
his rights. The government need not reveal any element of their state secrets and/or divulge internal operations
because none of those were ever intended for Al-Masri anyways. However, what your constructed framework is doing is forbidding Al-Masri from freely presenting to the court what happened to
him. In other words, an individual can no longer retell his
personal experience for fear that it will incriminate the opposition. Pretty chilling.