ACLU Upset Over Judge Not Allowing More Classified Information To Be Exposed

Posted on May 19, 2006

Hasn’t the media and the ACLU exposed enough classified information for our enemies? Ha! For the ACLU it is never enough!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a man who says he was an innocent victim of the United States government’s program transferring terrorism suspects secretly to other countries for detention and interrogation.

Judge T. S. Ellis 3d ruled in favor of the Bush administration, which had argued that the “state secrets” privilege provided an absolute bar to the lawsuit against a former C.I.A. director and transportation companies. Judge Ellis said the suit’s going forward, even if the government denied the contentions, would risk an exposure of state secrets.

The ACLU didn’t really like this ruling.

Mr. Masri’s lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union had argued that there were no state secrets to protect as his story has been widely reported and officials had even acknowledged the existence of the rendition program. But Judge Ellis said there was an important distinction between “a general admission the program exists and the admission or denial of the specific facts at issue in this case.”

Ben Wizner, an A.C.L.U. lawyer for Mr. Masri, said, “The idea that the court must close its eyes and ears to common sense and protect the nation from disclosure of information that the whole world knows is absurd.” He said an appeal would be considered.

What is absurd is that the ACLU constantly closes its eyes and ears to common sense when it comes to national security. There is a reason that America has ways of fighting terror that are to our most benefit when the enemy doesn’t know about them. This is the kind of common sense that the ACLU can not understand. The judgement was a sound one. There is no reason that our government should release its secret programs in fighting terror over the claims of this one man. This judge made a good call, and knew his place within the judicial branch was not to undermine America’s efforts to protect itself.

Judge Ellis said Mr. Masri’s interests in having his rights vindicated in court must yield to “the national interest in preserving state secrets.” But he noted that if Mr. Masri’s account were true, he “suffered injuries as a result of our country’s mistake and deserves a remedy.” He said only the legislative or executive branches could provide such a remedy, presumably in the form of compensation or apology.

He is absolutely right. It is refreshing to see a judge that knows the limits of the judicial branch, something that was obviously shocking to the ACLU who have no regard whatsoever for America’s best interest. One would hope it was like cold water in the ACLU’s face who are used to activist judges overstepping their boundaries. However, I doubt it was any kind of wake up call to the ACLU, and most likely fell on deaf ears to an organization that has much more interest in undermining America’s security and soverignty than it does in America’s security.