海角大神

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to hold a government contractor partly responsible for a secret CIA program to whisk terror suspects to undisclosed prisons overseas for brutal interrogations.

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6 to 5 to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of five individuals who charged they were seized and imprisoned without legal process, and tortured at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The appeals court action ends the litigation before it was able to formally begin. The majority judges said they felt compelled to throw the suit out under legal precedents upholding the so-called state secrets doctrine.

The plaintiffs sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary, that allegedly provided air transport and other international logistical support to the CIA operation. The CIA program, known as 鈥渆xtraordinary rendition,鈥� was instituted during the Bush administration and has continued with some changes under President Obama.

Although the executive branch won in court, the majority judges were troubled by their ruling.

鈥淎fter much deliberation, we reluctantly conclude 鈥� the plaintiff鈥檚 action must be dismissed,鈥� wrote Judge Raymond Fisher.

The plaintiffs鈥� lawyer, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was a sad day. He pledged to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

鈥淭o date, not a single victim of the Bush administration鈥檚 torture program has had his day in court,鈥� Mr. Wizner said in a statement. 鈥淚f today鈥檚 decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.鈥�

Richard Samp, a lawyer with the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, praised the decision.

鈥淭he judicial branch is simply not the appropriate forum for airing these types of issues,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淭he CIA could not maintain the confidentiality of its affairs if those who oppose its policies were free to air their opposition in an open courtroom.鈥�

Under the state secrets doctrine, courts have generally granted deference to executive branch claims that certain litigation may involve highly sensitive US government information which, if disclosed, would cause significant damage to national security.

The Bush administration argued that Mohamed v. Jeppesen was just such a case. The Obama administration continued with that argument.

The majority judges said because of state secrets concerns they were precluded from explaining in detail why the case could not move forward without harming national security. But they said they were convinced such harm would result.

鈥淎ny effort by Jeppesen to defend [against the suit] would unjustifiably risk disclosure of state secrets,鈥� Judge Fisher wrote.

In a dissent joined by four other judges, Judge Michael Hawkins said the court was wrong to dismiss the entire lawsuit at such an early stage. He said the case should be remanded to a federal judge to determine to what extent actual evidence in the case might raise a threat of disclosing state secrets.

Hawkins acknowledged that the state secrets doctrine is an established precedent. But he said the privilege need not be so broadly enforced.

鈥淭he doctrine is so dangerous as a means of hiding governmental misbehavior under the guise of national security, and so violative of common rights of due process, that courts should confine its application to the narrowest circumstances that still protect the government鈥檚 essential secrets,鈥� he wrote.

The majority concluded its opinion with a quasi apology to the plaintiffs. 鈥淥ur holding today is not intended to foreclose 鈥� or to prejudge 鈥� possible nonjudicial relief, should it be warranted for any of the plaintiffs,鈥� Judge Fisher said.

He said in the interest of justice the government might examine the plaintiffs鈥� claims and 鈥� if warranted 鈥� award reparations to them. In addition, he suggested there might be a Congressional investigation and remedial action by lawmakers.

鈥淚t should be a rare case when the state secrets doctrine leads to dismissal at the outset of a case,鈥� Fisher wrote. 鈥淭his is one of those rare cases.鈥�

Judge Hawkins countered in his dissent that the majority鈥檚 suggested alternative remedies undercut the concept of checks and balances. 鈥淧ermitting the executive to police its own errors and determine the remedy dispensed would not only deprive the judiciary of its role,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut also deprive the plaintiffs of a fair assessment of their claims by a neutral arbiter.鈥�