Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Il boomerang della tortura

C'è ancora chi chiama le cose con il loro nome.
Namib
---------------------------
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e28ba28a-7511-11dc-892d-0000779fd2ac.html
Bush faces court ruling over CIA prisons
By Patti Waldmeir and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: October 7 2007 21:23 | Last updated: October 8 2007 01:04
The administration of President George W. Bush could face a further
challenge to its anti-terrorism policies from the Supreme Court, which is
expected to say on Tuesday whether it will take up a case involving US
secret prisons overseas.
The court met on Friday to discuss whether to hear El-Masri v US, a case of
mistaken identity involving a German citizen who claims he was held for
months and tortured at a secret prison in Afghanistan, even after US
intelligence officials realised they had the wrong man.
The court's decision will come at a time when the administration is facing
renewed criticism over its interrogation policies, in the wake of
revelations last week that the department of justice authorised
controversial interrogation techniques in 2005. In 2004 the department had
denounced torture as "abhorrent".
Civil liberties groups are urging the justices to hear the Masri case, which
was dismissed by a federal appeals court on the grounds that it would
require disclosure of state secrets.
Mr Masri claims he was detained while on holiday in Macedonia, because his
name was similar to that of a wanted al-Qaeda terrorist. He says he was
turned over to CIA agents who flew him to a secret prison in Kabul where he
was held for five months. He claims to have been drugged, beaten and
tortured - and fitted with a nappy by his captors - before being released in
Albania.
The Council of Europe, which conducted an investigation into Mr Masri's
allegations, has filed a brief in the case. Senator Dick Marty, chairman of
the council's legal affairs and human rights committee, argues in the brief
that "the US government has hidden behind the state secrets doctrine in
order to escape judicial accountability for its actions" in the "war on
terror" and that it should not be allowed to do so in the Masri case.
The issue in the case is whether the government can avoid answering Mr 
Masri's
allegations, or whether it must respond to them - even if the evidence is
kept out of open court. "How can it be that the whole world can talk about
this case and the only place it can't be talked about is in a federal
courtroom? It's outrageous," says Steven Shapiro, legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The ACLU is also bringing another case challenging the government's right to
use its state secrets privilege to stay out of court. ACLU v NSA, involves
the administration's secret surveillance programme. The government faces
litigation around the country on this issue and has sought to avoid
defending itself in court on the grounds that national security would be
jeopardised. The justices will decide whether to hear the ACLU case later
this year.
They have already agreed to consider whether detainees at Guantánamo Bay in
Cuba have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. The US
Congress stripped them of that right with the Military Commissions Act of
2006. The country's top court must decide whether that law violates the
constitution.
If the court agrees to hear both the renditions case and the surveillance
case, it could pose a challenge to the powers employed by the administration
to wage the "war on terror".
The White House has already been rebuffed by the conservative court in
several rulings on its powers in the terror war, including the 2006 ruling
in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, which struck down as unlawful the military tribunal
system set up for Guantánamo prisoners.

 C'č ancora chi chiama le cose con il loro nome.
E chi sarebbe?  Non certo la Corte Suprema, visto che non si e' ancora
espressa.
Nemmeno il giornalista del FT, che si limita ad indicare le accuse
rivolte dal richiedente all'amministrazione USA.
Di chi stai cianciando allora?
Di quegli imbecilli di una commissione del Consiglio d'Europa che si
sono fatti ridere dietro?
-Stefano