"Rats!" in my best Charlie Brown voice

On Friday, in noting that the Supreme Court had taken up for review three cases relating to terrorism investigations and suggested that indicated the Court was prepared to set limits on presidential authority in such cases, I also mentioned the civil suit looking for release of information about those swept up in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

"If the Court also agrees to hear that case," I wrote, "I think we can be certain that Shrub is in for at least something of a slapdown."

Well, bummer.

The Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups seeking access to basic data about hundreds of individuals detained by the federal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a decision that allows officials to continue withholding the names of most detainees, as well as other information related to their arrests, indefinitely.

Although it sets no precedent, the court's decision is still a significant victory for the Bush administration,

reports the January 12 Washington Post. The decision lets stand a DC Court of Appeals ruling which found the administration's claim that terrorist networks could reap advantage from any disclosure of information about the detainees, even their names, "reasonable."

This strikes me as one of the bizarrest things I can imagine. The government acknowledges it arrested nearly 1,200 people in secret, in the majority of cases using technical immigration infractions, and often detained them incommunicado for extended periods. It has released the names - but no other data - on 150 of them, acknowledged another 762 but released no information on them, not even when or if they were released, and has said nothing at all about an additional 300 or so. This, we're told, is "reasonable."

The government claims that release of any information would allow terrorist cells to draw a "road map" of the government's investigation - as if those groups would be unaware that some of their members have been arrested. This, we're told, is "reasonable." (I'm reminded of the "secret" bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Secret from who? we wondered. Certainly not from the Cambodians.)

The government says the vast majority of the detainees have been deported or released, which there is of course no way to check without information. This, we're told, is "reasonable."

The government also says that

even though [it is] not collecting and disclosing data about the detainees, the detainees or their attorneys were mostly free to disclose their cases if they wished.

"Any secrecy surrounding the arrests is thus the product of private choice, not governmental dictate,"

which means any claimed need for or benefit from secrecy is out the window. Still we're told that continued secrecy is "reasonable."

Hey, don't I know there's a war on? Why do I hate the USA so much?

Footnote: "Any secrecy surrounding the arrests is thus the product of private choice, not governmental dictate." Besides the fact that's simply not true, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, says (material witnesses are "subject to gag orders imposed by courts at the government's request"), it's like oh yeah, all these people are going to be going "Yoo hoo! Over here!" ::pointing to self:: "Muslim held as terror suspect! Hello!"

Can we live in the real world for a time?

Update: Edited to insert the link to the Center for National Security Studies.