Does it involve a consensual sex act between adults? No?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Whether overshadowed by Britney or Bonds, American's concern for past torture victims of the GWOT continues to rank pretty low.

Your Google results simply confirm that the MSM is aware of this.

Well, SoCal is on fire so obviously no play down here in SD.

so basically, the redaction was pointless. they could have just left the thing posted, since it's fairly obvious no one cares anyway.

Albus Dumbledore is gay. That's news we can use.

I guess police state policies aren't news anymore.

Lessons learned from this case are: 1) the government will do anything to cover it's ass, 2) the court of appeals will help them if possible and 3) the FBI doesn't give a rats ass about the truth or finding actual perpetrators. All it cares about is arresting somebody, anybody, so long as there is good press.

Feel safer knowing your FBI is more interested in obtaining a false confession than it is in finding out the truth?

But Matt Drudge didn't say anything about it, so it doesn't count. The NY Times told me that today.

This would only be news if our government came clean and apologized. Instead, it's just one more in a seemingly endless line of constitutional abuses. I'd get worked up about it, but I'm burned out on the issue. I reached my saturation point on outrage in Bush's first term. Now, I resign myself to the belief that US history is being written by Franz Kafka. Hopefully, the book will end soon.

I'm not sure what the big deal is supposed to be. A court redacted information because it was embarrassing to the FBI?

Big deal. That is small potatoes compared to the guy they actually SENT to Egypt to be tortured.

Ho hum. Rendition, old story. Torture, old story. Imprisonment without due process, old story. Shredding of Constitution, old story.

MSM sez "We've been there. Done that."

Dumbledore gay? Now THAT's news.

God Bless America

I mean Amerika.

In this era of rampant corruption in government, especially where it involves rogue military or law enforcement or the highest levels of the executive branch (all rogue by any standard) is alas, a "dog bites man story."

A story that will deserve top billing if we're ever so lucky, is "Electorate Revolts Throws the Bums Out."

the FBI screwed up

Why are you sugarcoating it, Kevin? Our federal law enforcement agency broke the law.

This would be page 1 and on all the conservative talk shows IF it happened to an American citizen in a foreign country!

Is there really as little interest in the Higazy redaction story

As you clarify somewhat, you mean the Higazy torture threat/false confession under duress/redaction/g*$$@#&*ed outrage story. In case other copies go away, store an (.RTF converted) copy of the unredacted 2d Circuit Court opinion at Google Docs. I did, anyway.

Well, considering that lawsuits seeking redress for an innocent Canadian and an innocent German abducted in peaceful territories and sent abroad to be tortured - the latter by our own boys, in secret, and culminating in the poor bugger being released mystified on a side road in Albania - were dismissed because just talking about the cases in court might reveal something secret (such as, say, that we torture), this seems like par for the course.

In the Maher Arar case, part of the judge's ruling was that it might damage our foreign relations if we had to admit Canada was cool with our having one of their citizens tortured. Never mind the damage by, say, having one of their citizens tortured.

Still, my favorite little bit of evil from the administration's legal cases comes from early on in the Padilla case: after Padilla was transferred to military custody, his lawyer tried to file in court seeking to protect his rights, and the government lawyer argued the filing was invalid because Padilla hadn't signed it. Mind you, they wouldn't let Padilla see the appeal, or the lawyer; that was why the lawyer was going to the court. I think the government lawyer that put forward this Kafkaesque Catch-22 of an argument was never punished for being an evil b@st@rd who spits on all concepts of Habeas Corpus. They were, after all, just one more cog in the machine.

Warren Terra is getting close to the point.

This whole scenario is Kafkaesque only in the sense that we used to apply it to others, away from here. The Soviet gulag, the Argentinian junta, Turkish prisons, Saddam's Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, and on, and on. But not good ole Charlie Brown's USofA.

Time to face the disgusting reality. This is the Bush-Cheney USA.

Please, everyone, write your senators and reps concerning restoration of the writ of habeas corpus for all, as this lies at the root of the disappearing of captives, torture without recourse for the many victims, the veil of secrecy stretched across this most diappointing, immoral and terrorizing action that belittles the USA.

And encourage friends to do the same.

More outrage, please.

This is probably not a big item because:

(i) it doesn't advance the left's agenda, given that (a) it involves the FBI, and the standard lefty line has been that we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter, (b) the guy involved is a little too low-level to permit anyone to credibly claim that it's Bush's fault--presumably it's a career FBI agent, and (c) despite what some commentators say, it isn't clear that there was anything illegal here--no one was actually tortured and cops say things like "it'll go easier if you talk" all the time.

(ii) it doesn't advance the right's agenda, given that (a) it involves an Arab being falsely accused and ultimately vindicated and (b) it involves misconduct by law enforcement, which the right doesn't normally highlight, except occasionally when gun rights are involved.

You are asking: "Who supports justice for its own sake, without regard to any political agenda?" No one! Or, at least, very few in the blogosphere.

Maybe if a good-looking young white American woman went missing in France and it turned out the French had renditioned her to F@#*edupistan where she was tortured until she confessed to a crime she hadn't committed, then the traditional media might take notice.

So the innocent man's family was threatened. So far I haven't heard any wingnut defense of torturing the suspect's loved ones to force a confession out of him in the ticking time bomb scenario. (Of course they don't grasp the concept that a suspect might turn out to be as innocent as his wife or baby son, so they don't understand that the barbarity of torturing anyone is equal. If you knew all about the "crime" and who was guilty, you wouldn't need to torture anyone.)

You can't tell me Jack Bauer wouldn't sacrifice a baby's finger if he could save a city from nuclear annhilation. Heck, the little tyke would grow up never missing it. There would be the bonus advantage that he'd probably get the confession he wanted much more quickly, and actually end up committing less brutality, because the parent wouldn't be able stand it. Maybe he could even use a random baby kidnapped on the street, if the suspect was soft-hearted enough.

I mean, you're talking about a ticking time bomb and MILLIONS of lives at stake. It happens ALL THE TIME, and torture ALWAYS WORKS, so that's why our cities mostly don't blow up. 9/11 never would have happened if they'd tortured enough babies.

Yay, Jack Bauer.

"All that it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."
--William Shakepeare

y81: nice job.

The FBI has to become serious about its reputation. After all, it involves national security. They are as bad as the Bush Admin in covering their asses, but unlike the Bush Admin, they are still going to be around in 2009.

I think most of us are suffering from outrage fatigue which was, I am sure, Karl Rove's most despicably brilliant strategy. Just keep cramming the outrages down our throats until we can't even gag anymore. I've been thinking that for years.

My theory is Rove is going to fry in hell for all eternity for destroying democracy in America. I wonder if he's ever at all afraid of dying, or is he such a psychopath that the thought of judgement day just doesn't faze him? I mean, even if you're not religious, you can't really KNOW, can you, until your time comes.

I don't think Rove is particularly concerned about frying in hell. I suspect he views it as an arena with potential for eternal Republican control.

I wondered the same thing. And why the Dodd hold story last week didn't make bigger headlines. There must be a lot of news.

. . . the standard lefty line has been that we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter . . .

No, this is the standard rightie line misrepresenting what they portray as the standard leftie line.

. . . the guy involved is a little too low-level to permit anyone to credibly claim that it's Bush's fault--presumably it's a career FBI agent . . .

Only if you are moronic enough to believe that setting basic policy for law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and military action doesn't permeate down (as all such policies are intended to do) to those who actually carry them out, as opposed to merely stopping with those who draft them and only if you are daft enough to believe that the effects of other publicized or otherwise known activities directly authorized by the president don't influence what "low-level" agents believe they will be able to get away with.

After all, the whole purpose of the administration issuing "secret" memos was to give cover to people just like this "low-level" agent who is acting on the orders and under the direction of supervisors aware of those memos and how much license they give to engage in violations of civil rights, whether it be through torture or other illegal, immoral, and unethical means.

. . . despite what some commentators say, it isn't clear that there was anything illegal here--no one was actually tortured and cops say things like "it'll go easier if you talk" all the time

Ummmm . . . threatening one's family with torture is not the same as things going easier for the perp and only a mendacious prick would equate the two.

And yes, there are other things besides torture that are illegal, including coercion of confessions.

Your definition of "illegal" is as obtuse as it is dishonest and deliberately artificially narrow.

No wonder theAmerican'tist approves.

I think, ultimately, if you assume that the FBI did in fact make its filing under seal, then the courts usually defer to that. And, it is technically not public information unless the court somehow rejects the sensitivity of the information (almost never happens). So, the court's action (withdrawing a decision that contained information deemed to be confidential) is not that big a deal. (Compare this to a situation in which the FAA withdrew from the record of a rulemaking a transcript from a PUBLIC HEARING claiming it was confidential.

Now as for the sensitive infromation itself, as I understand it, the FBI threatened the guys family by saying they were going to sic the Egyption secret police on his folks. That's not very nice, and it might be criminal. But, its not nearly as interesting compared to say the FBI sticking bamboo up his fingernails or something.

It should be a bigger deal, but its not and it won't be. Now, if and when Hamdi ever gets to be interviewed, that might be interesting...

I too thought it would be a bigger deal. But for what it's worth, it did finally make the WaPo.

They could have done a better job with it, though.