Opinion Supreme Court Wrestles with State-Secrets Privilege in Zubaydah Case
The nihilism of Neil Gorsuch
Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee’s radical vision to remake America, explained.The case in front of the Supreme Court was Collins v. Yellen (2021), which had at its center the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), an obscure body that oversaw hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of transactions intended to stabilize the housing market after the 2008 recession. The FHFA is led by a single director whom only the president can fire “for cause.” The plaintiffs in Collins v. Yellen argued the president must have unlimited power to fire the agency’s head, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
In a last week, I noted that the so-called War on Terror was back in the Supreme Court after a long hiatus. The more interesting aspect of the oral argument United States v. Zubaydah, to my mind, was Justice Kavanaugh’s, in effect, calling the Biden administration on the president’s false claim to have ended the “Forever War”: Buzzed by the justice, DOJ’s acting solicitor general Brian Fletcher conceded the administration’s position that the war is still going on — which it must be if, for example, the administration’s continuing detention of enemy combatants and attacks on al-Qaeda targets is to be legally valid.
Supreme Court rejects appeal by D.C. residents for more representation
The Supreme Court on Monday advised a lower court to reconsider earlier decisions on the border wall and rejected an appeal from Washington, D.C. residents for voting rights in Congress.The high court on Monday directed lower courts to reconsider their previous rulings that froze funding for construction of a wall at the southern border.
But the underlying case is also interesting, and I said I’d address it in a separate post.
Abu Zubaydah (the nom de jihad of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn) was a high-ranking aide to al-Qaeda emir Osama bin Laden. He is believed to have been complicit in the 9/11 plot, among other terrorist schemes. He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and subjected to enhanced interrogation, including over five dozen waterboarding sessions, in the ensuing four years before being lodged at Guantanamo Bay, where he remains detained. In that four-year period, he was transferred to overseas “black sites” that the CIA was operating, with the cooperation of some foreign-intelligence services.
What to know about the Supreme Court and what to expect in its new term
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear several controversial cases this term. Here is a primer on the nation's highest court.The court has agreed to hear several controversial cases this term, including a Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy that could overturn or undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade case that has stood as precedent and created a constitutional right to abortion for nearly 50 years.
In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that, in 2002 and 2003, Zubaydah had been interrogated in Poland at at least one CIA black site and in a manner that constituted torture. It ordered the Polish government to pay the jihadist €100,000. (I continue to believe that the application of waterboarding and other enhanced tactics, whatever their much-debated intelligence value, did not constitute torture as a matter of American law, but that is neither here nor there for present purposes).
European and Polish authorities continue to investigate the matter, in particular the suspected participation of Polish intelligence operatives, but have had difficulty acquiring related documents and testimony — there have been extensive legal proceedings and publication of materials, but much remains classified. Zubaydah filed a lawsuit to try to force testimony and production of documents from two CIA contractors, James Elmer Mitchell and John Jessen, who have previously been identified and who have testified in other proceedings about their roles in enhanced interrogation.
Opinion: The latest political cartoons
Opinion: The latest political cartoons
That is what the case before the Supreme Court is about.
The United States has asserted the “state secrets” privilege in refusing to acknowledge the existence of a black site in Poland, as well as the identity of foreign-intelligence collaborators and the nature of their assistance. While the privilege is not popular, a) it is vital if the U.S. is going to have cooperation from foreign-intelligence services and sources (which is essential to protecting the country from foreign threats to our security); and b) it was properly invoked here — even if much of the information has already become public, the government (and particularly its intelligence services) must not publicly acknowledge information or assistance received from foreign actors based on U.S. promises of confidentiality.
, the trajectory of the oral argument in the Court last week suggests that the justices will uphold the state-secrets privilege invocation (although it must be noted that noises made during argument are no guarantee of the outcome of a case). But about the case has centered on a suggestion made by Justice Neil Gorsuch, which would theoretically sidestep the need for a ruling.
Supreme Court wrestles with eroding secrecy around U.S. torture tactics
State secrets claim is blocking testimony about brutal tactics CIA allegedly used against Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in Poland.The case before the justices, involving the alleged torture of Al Qaeda operative and Guantanamo prisoner Abu Zubaydah while he was held in Poland in 2002 and 2003, presents fundamental questions about whether and when judges can override executive branch decisions on matters related to national security and so-called “state secrets.
Zubaydah’s counsel claimed — implausibly, in my view — that the terrorist was not really trying to get a formal U.S. government acknowledgement of what happened, but just wanted to fix the “torture” in a particular time frame (which would allow Polish investigators to connect it to Poland). If that is the case, Gorsuch asked, why couldn’t the government just allow Zubaydah to testify “as to his treatment during those dates”? Gorsuch got testy when it emerged that the Justice Department had never considered that possibility, largely because Zubaydah had never asked.: “This case has been litigated for years and all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and you haven’t considered whether that’s an off-ramp that the government could provide that would obviate the need for any of this?”
Fletcher said the government would look into it and advise the Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s most extreme progressive who rarely agrees with the conservative Gorsuch, admonished Fletcher that “we want a clear answer” on whether Zubaydah will be permitted to testify. It is shortsighted, however, to believe that Gorsuch has come up with a workable solution that no one thought of lo these many years.
To begin with, Zubaydah is a terrorist who is believed to have been instrumental in many al-Qaeda mass-murder plots. The government could not permit him to testify without giving him immunity from prosecution, since his testimony would obviously open him up to cross-examination about his background and activities. (Of course, it is likely that the light any prosecution would inevitably shine on Zubaydah’s interrogation goes a long way toward explaining why the U.S. has never charged him with a crime, in either military or civilian court — and why the habeas corpus position he filed to challenge his detention has been. It must thus be conceded that the terrorist might not be indicted even if he were to make testimonial admissions that put him in criminal jeopardy.)
Two women sue Nebraska in order to be recognized as legal parents of sons they had as a couple
Two women are suing Nebraska after being denied parental rights over sons they had when they were a couple. Each woman gave birth to one son.Erin Porterfield and Kristen Williams started their family in 2002 using assisted reproductive technology. Each woman gave birth to one of their sons, now 16 and 18, and both are considered a “person that has put themselves in the position of a parent,” for both sons, but with no legal parental right.
More basically, there is no reason to believe that Zubaydah’s account, even if credible, would be enlightening. While he was being subjected to enhanced interrogation, our government would not have kept him informed about locations and the passage of time, and he would not have been at liberty to write it all down. Even if he offered to testify, and our government immunized him to let that happen, it is highly unlikely that his account would be useful to establishing where he was on particular dates over 18 years ago.
The best course here is for the Court to just decide the case that has been presented, rather than explore ways not to decide it. Clearly, the Justice Department does not want to put the Court in a hard spot of upholding the unpopular invocation of the state-secrets privilege. It has done so only because a) there is no better option, and b) there is already enough public information available for Polish authorities to competently investigate the actions of Polish officials if they choose to press the matter.
More on National Review
U.S. Says Guantanamo Detainee Can Tell Polish Officials About His Treatment In CIA Custody .
After originally redacting his declaration, the government has granted permission to Guantanamo Bay detainee to speak to Polish officials about his torture while in CIA custody.The detainee, Abu Zubaydah, was detained and tortured abroad for two decades. Zubaydah was presumed to be a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, and the government still believes he "was an associate and longtime terrorist ally of Osama bin Laden.