What If A Court Gave An Important Ruling, But We Were Not Allowed To Know What It Was?

from the sign-of-the-times dept

That Anonymous Coward alerts us to the news that DC federal appeals court has issued a ruling (pdf) in the case of Gitmo detainee Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif, but the entire ruling is classified, so the public has no idea what it says.
A ruling last year at the district court had ordered the administration to release Latif for lack of evidence that he had anything to do with Al Qaeda. And now... we have no idea what the government is ordered to do or not do. So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    Shoot it. It's foaming at the mouth. Justice is DEAD! LONG LIVE JUSTICE!

    Disclaimer: the above is meant for purely sarcastic purposes, and does not represent the Will of the People...yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:16pm

    Is this a joke?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    I can't tell you

    So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?

    I am sorry, I can't tell you that either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    chris (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    so when do we just switch to the tribunal process?

    an get all of that pesky bill of rights nonsense out of the way?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Answer...

    "So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?"

    We begin seriously considering scrapping it all and starting over, like our own founding document instructs us to do. I swear to god, this country's patriots are the most un-patriotic people in America....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    More intriguing to me is this is someone who is mentally ill who had gone to Afghanistan seeking treatment and then got swept up.

    I wonder how much of him still being detained, over 9 years later, is because none of our leaders lack the balls to see justice done. That they are to worried about Faux News painting them as weak on terrorism because they let this man go free. This man who made the mistake of looking for medical care, is not a terrorist, but he fit a profile so he must be a terrorist. Are we really back to the idea if they float they must be a witch?

    What is the value of one mans life when there is an election cycle to protect?

    And while you ponder the fate of this unfortunate soul, consider what a few more years of solitary are going to do to Bradley Manning. No one mentions him anymore, is he just going to be detained forever and hidden away behind rulings the public can not see?

    Secrets are toxic to Democracy, and we are well on our way to being a SuperFund site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      "More intriguing to me is this is someone who is mentally ill who had gone to Afghanistan seeking treatment and then got swept up."

      I think it more intriguing that someone who was mentally ill thought Afghanistan was a good choice to get treatment. Perhaps it proves that they are in fact mentally ill.

      Secrets aren't toxic to democracy, people who can't leave well enough alone are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeff (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re:

        Secrets are always damaging to democracy. The truth will *always* win. The necessity of secrecy in this case has nothing to do with protecting the republic and everything to do with protecting our overlords from embarassment...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re:

        Secrets aren't toxic to democracy, people who can't leave well enough alone are.

        transl.

        "Now now, don't worry your little head about..."

        This kind of secret has only one purpose - to cover wrongdoing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Some Other AC (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

        Re: Re:

        "Secrets aren't toxic to democracy, people who can't leave well enough alone are."

        Democracy and our particular flavor of it was based on openness of decision and rule. Unfortunately, our "government" at all Federal levels has become so biased by financial and political viewpoints that they are now unable/unwilling to disclose any information that would cast a negative shadow on their "well meaning" decisions. Honestly, we the people vote for city, state and federal representatives. They in turn, get to vote for other versions of representation(Federal Judges/various committees). However, you will notice over the last double handful of elections, the options we are given to vote for are usually the ones the media has jumped behind and have the largest financial backing. Doesn't matter their true platform. Until we, as a country and voting population, get well and truly educated on the specifics and valid backgrounds of each potential candidate and take the power out of the media and financial behemoths, we will continue down the same path. The insane part is, we keep expecting different results.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dementia (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, what needs to happen is that anyone seeking the offices be automatically disqualified. We don't need professional politicians, we need people willing to accept the burden of the office because its a job that needs to be done.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            BearGriz72 (profile), Oct 18th, 2011 @ 7:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            How about something like THIS
            "Moments after he is confirmed by Congress, while waiting in a tunnel beneath the building to come up after the vote, a Japanese airline pilot deliberately crashes his 747 into the Capitol during the joint session of Congress, killing most of the people inside, decapitating the U.S. government and elevating Ryan to the Presidency."
            NOTE: I do not & will not advocate murder on any level.

            However the idea of completely cleaning out the current government (with the possibility of a few exceptions), and starting over with people that don't really want the job but are willing to do it because it needs to be done and done right, well that is a powerfully tempting notion.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Matt (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

        Re: Re:

        For whom is this "well enough"?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Ridiculous statement.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 6:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Are you saying that the whole of humanity is toxic?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        EmmuI, Oct 20th, 2011 @ 5:35am

        Re: Re:

        Latif went to Pakistan for medical treatment.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeff (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

      Re:

      ^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

      Unfortunately I can't vote it insightful again and again. As a 20 year military retiree, I can't agree more. This country is completely lost to our corporate masters. The real question to ask is: "what is the value of one mans life when I can get a shit-load of money from my cropophilia loving corporate masters..."

      Sad day... sad day's indeed. If I wasn't an old man, I'd be on the front lines, because we've lost our way...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      I've been thinking about Bradley Manning lately. And you know what?

      I think Obama needs a primary challenger. Even if Obama is going to win, he needs to see the vote of no confidence that most Democrats have with his track record.

      What better way than to choose a "traitor" to run against him in the Primary? Since Manning hasn't been charged with a crime or convicted, he can still run for POTUS, right?

      Anonymous says "Free Bradley Manning". I say "Bradley Manning for President!"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


    I think it's time to "separate" again...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

      I like this part better.

      "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rekrul, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 8:58pm

      Re:

      I think it's time to "separate" again...

      That's terrorist talk!!! Guards! Throw him in Gitmo!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Justin (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:49pm

    Ignorance of the Law

    This brings a whole new meaning to ignorance of the law. If the people who are supposed to be leaders of this country can show this much ignorance towards the law and this country, they better not get pissed when people show that same level of ignorance and disrespect right back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:49pm

    So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?

    Overthrow the corrupt government. Period.

    "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

    Abraham Lincoln

    "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

    Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular
    troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
    Noah Webster

    Uh oh Lucy, we have one of dem dare home grown terrists afoot. Oh noooooos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PlagueSD (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      Just to add on to that with 2 more Noah Webster quotes...from 1832.

      "If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes." Noah Webster

      "Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded." Noah Webster

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Philip Taylor, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Liberty

    This is outrageous in a democracy. Secrets only undermine freedom!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

    This is why the whole lot of you should be joining in on the OCCUPY thing.I have been going a few days a week.This Government needs a rude awakening.
    It will only get worse unless we the people step in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    It's things like this that make the federal government look more and more like a dictatorship as time goes on.

    I mean seriously, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's perfectly ok for the government to keep you locked up in jail indefinitely even after you've served all the time you were sentenced to if you're deemed a 'threat' to society should you be released. Now combine that with secret laws and secret interpretations of the law, and now even secret court rulings on secret laws, and how are we supposed to know the government isn't just throwing anybody they dislike in jail just to look like they're doing something?

    There's a reason why our founding fathers defined treason in the constitution, it's a favorite tool of dictators to crush descent. It looks like today's politicians have found a way around that pesky problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Charles (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

      Re:

      I have been stewing inside for a long time about the erosion of our rights. Nobody seems to notice or care.

      I get all my news from the internet, including techdirt- thanks Mike. The mainstream media have abandoned us. Much of society classifies you as a geek or a kook if you try to discuss these issues.

      I don't know when it will happen, but I am sure critical mass will be reached and the people will be heard. I hope I get to see it.

      I don't know where to start, but I know I need to get off my duff and do something. as do we all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 10:54pm

      Re:

      Sorry, I couldn't resist. 'Dissent' not 'descent.' Not often I point those out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    ignorance of the law is no excuse. You should just 'know' the law so why would you need to see the ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Peter Dow (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

    Ignorance of the law

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!"

    So now anyone can be arrested, but because the reason is classified, they'll never know why. Seems like it paves the way for a police state...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daddy Warbucks, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Story after Story warning us.
    Book after Book scaring us.
    Messenger after Messenger slain.
    Liberator after Liberator fighting Big Government.

    The authors of the Declaration of Independence risked life and limb to prevent this very thing.
    Why are you (generally speaking) allowing it?
    Because no one can stop itI dare you to try.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

    Secrecy..

    ha. They don't believe the detainees have any rights anyway. It's only a matter of time before they simply start shooting them or maybe adopt the old "push them out of an airplane with no parachute" bit.

    The government "detains" people under secret laws that no one knows about. This is clearly a sign that the government is corrupt beyond belief. Himmler and his cohorts would be proud of our government today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Owlbarn (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 1:41pm

    Why isn't the decision date disclosed? Is this classified too? You can always try to file a FOIA request. But good luck with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Matt (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

      Re:

      Decision date is marked as October 14.

      Agree that FOIA is unlikely to be availing, but it might at least shake loose why it is considered to be "classified".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PrometheeFeu (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

        Re: Re:

        It's rather obvious. The decisions is classified because it contains elements which if revealed may constitute a threat to national security.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    What if we were ruled by rich idealistic tyrants are weren't a free society...

    Oh wait..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    And weren't.. a free society.


    And what if I could spell? lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

    RE Classified

    Of course it's classified, we have not gotten the Patents done yet, and, are still deciding who gets the copyrights...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:26pm

    At this point, the US government's collective mentality is that of a spoiled brat. It does whatever it wants, because it knows no matter what it does it won't receive any sort of real punishment.

    Simple protests are meaningless; the government believes itself unassailable. If the people vote Republican, they get another Dubya. If the people vote Democrat, they get another Obama. Both sides take funding from the same corporations, so both sides toe the same line, no matter how much they promise to change their ways.

    Eventually, inevitably, widespread dissemination of facts illuminating corruption will trigger radical change. We can only hope that it takes the form of resignations and reform rather than armed uprisings and lynchings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 3:45pm

    This is why the whole lot of you should be joining in on the OCCUPY thing

    Or join the Tea Party. Ironically, both are fighting against this sort of thing. It's the apathetic political 'middle' that lets this go on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    CheMonro (profile), Oct 17th, 2011 @ 4:17pm

    Classified comment not available to the public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 6:19pm

    When the president of the United States allowed a human being to be assassinated I didn't care that much after all it was Osama Bin Laden who cares about that piece of shit right, not me, I would have done it too, and probably go to jail, there is a barrier there for me to pass and that solution I would use only in extreme cases because it is an extreme act and that would give me pause to really, really think about that, but the government don't have that, they don't have those limitations any more apparently everything goes and that can turn to shit quickly, they expanded the thing to assassinate an American citizen of course he was a piece of shit terrorist but a citizen nonetheless, and again no barriers, now what happens when the government decides they can kill anything that threatens them for national security reasons is this America going back to the dark days where the government experimented on their own people, assassinated anyone who disagreed with them?

    There are no barriers the price is low right now and they got away with it, of course the people who they killed deserve it, but where are the mechanism that guarantee this will not be used more and more against Americans?

    All this secrecy crap is scary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JustSomeGuy, Oct 17th, 2011 @ 7:47pm

    This is the funny bit ...

    You guys don't realise this yet, but the terrorists *won* this war.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 18th, 2011 @ 3:51am

    All about the precedent

    For me, the key questions here are:
    1) What legal basis is there for classifying the ruling?
    2) How could the government expect to get away with this?
    3) How could anyone think this is a good idea?

    It's (obviously) hard to prove, but I'm pretty sure the answer to #3 has to do with precedent. If, as I suspect, the court denied the appeal (and upheld the order to release Latif), this would serve as an incredibly important precedent for releasing any other detainees that are being held for no particularly good reason.

    If the ruling had been in the administration's favor, they'd really want to cite it in their dozens of other similar cases. If the ruling went against the administration, they'd really want to prevent the ruling from being cited. By classifying the judgement, they're essentially removing the case from the entire body of US case law -- any precedent that would have been set (including in the original case) will now be entirely ignored.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anon, Oct 18th, 2011 @ 6:54am

      Re: All about the precedent

      about that "legal basis"...

      the inmates are now running the asylum, and making things "legal" pretty much at a whim.Those who should be stewards, guardians, and defenders of our society are legislating honest, law-abiding citizens into being criminals while giving themselves carte blanche and setting the system so they cannot be held accountable for anything.

      Be a law-abiding citizen doing what you do every day, go to bed that night, wake up the next morning to being a criminal for doing the same thing you did yesterday the next day...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      EmmueI, Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:04am

      Re: All about the precedent

      I wonder if the administration is actually thinking this far ahead re: precedent. If they are, then that's scary. I have a tendency to want to apply the Fulbright rule regarding classification here and in other gitmo cases: Whatever's embarrassing to the govt gets classified. In Kennedy's decision on Latif and habeas corpus, it sounded like the govts case was based on mistranslations and ratting (possibly the work of torture including the "speech impediments(?)"), and etc. And all that was to criminalize a man who was either too poor to pay for medical care in Yemen &/or there weren't many treatment options for his type of head injury/& or schizophrenia, so he was advised to go to Pakistan. But he never got the treatment. Did the US military bother to give this poor man an MRI or catscan before they tortured and force-force fed him? I forgot how Latif was "apprehended" by our illustrious military/s and I should check, but I believe it was probably ye old payoffs in Pakistan which is common for many of the prisoners.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Oct 18th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

    Secret laws and court orders

    Joe is dragged into court and charged with breaking the law.

    Joe: What law?

    Persecutor: Sorry, can't tell you, it's classified.

    Joe: You can't tell me what law I broke, but I am to be prosecuted for breaking it?

    Persecutor: We could tell you what law you broke, but then we'd have to kill you.

    Joe: Then I won't answer the charges until I know what I am charged with.

    Persecutor: The court has just now ordered you to do something, but the court order itself is classified. Failure to comply with the court order will result in sanctions, including the death penalty. We could tell you the contents of the court order, but then we'd have to kill you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Thebes, Oct 18th, 2011 @ 10:41pm

    Secret Laws

    Secret Laws and secret judgements and the tools of Tyrants.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robert, Oct 25th, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Classified pending redaction

    This opinion is being redacted (just like the unclassified lower court opinion was). The facts include classified information. Once these have been edited out, the legal reasoning regarding the evidentiary burden should be released. Clearly the facts would be helpful in understanding that position, but not required.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This