By R. Renee Yaworsky
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
SAN FRANCISCO, United States—In what has been called a “sad day” for “torture victims” and “all Americans”, the Ninth Circuit ruled that possible exposure of state secrets outweighs victims’ right to seek damages.
The Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 6-5 on Wednesday to block a lawsuit by individuals who claim they were tortured in CIA interrogations. The alleged torture took place under the post-9/11 “extraordinary rendition” program which transported terrorist suspects to secret prisons. The lawsuit was brought against Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary, for allegedly flying the suspects to locations where they were tortured.
The lawsuit was filed in 2007 by five such suspects who believed the program was illegally operated by the CIA and Jeppesen, leading to “forced disappearances.”
One of the plaintiffs, Binyam Mohamed, was captured in Pakistan and flown to a Morocco CIA “black site” where he says he was tortured. He claims his penis was cut multiple times with a scalpel in efforts to make him confess involvement with al-Qaeda.
The court’s decision supports the president’s power to invoke the “state secrets privilege” and dismantle lawsuits that concern national security. The majority agreed with the Obama administration that if the lawsuit proceeded, state secrets could be exposed.
In his decision for the majority, Judge Raymond Fisher explained the case as “a painful conflict between human rights and national security.”
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for five dissenting judges, expressed concern that the lawsuit was dismissed too hastily. “[The alleged victims] are not even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of nonsecret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third parties,” he wrote.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ben Wizner of the ACLU, has promised to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If this decision stands,” he said, “the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while extending complete immunity to its torturers.”
Wizner categorized the decision as “a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world.”
Reprieve, a human rights group, stated that the court had “derailed another precious chance at a legal reckoning with the excesses of the war on terror. Yet again, those responsible for torture and rendition have used ‘state secrecy’ to avoid facing up to their crimes in court.”
Opponents of extraordinary rendition worry that the practice outsources torture to countries where it is deemed acceptable.
For more information, please see:
Independent-Victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue, US court rules-10 September 2010
San Francisco Chronicle-Court dismisses suit alleging ‘torture flights’-9 September 2010
Guardian-US courts must lift lid on torture-9 September 2010
AP-Appeals court lets government halt torture lawsuit-9 September 2010
Wall Street Journal-Ninth Circuit Rules 6-5 to Toss Rendition Case Against Boeing-8 September 2010
