# Secret Detention, Secret Evidence, \[i\]Secret Arguments\[/i\]???!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447 "2005-02-23T01:00:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/61 "2005-02-23T21:56:13Z")
DOUBLE Secret Probation. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/62 "2005-02-23T22:37:36Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > But hey, as long as you feel like slingin’ Latin around, is there a class of procedures where only one party makes arguments and the other party never even gets to hear them? 'Cause it occurs to me that even in the case of issuing a warrant, the other party (namely the person getting arrested) eventually gets to know why the warrant was issued. Ex parte doesn’t seem to cover that particular angle. Your example helps my case, not yours. When a prosecutor secures a warrant, the other side does not get to argue before the issuing magistrate that the probable cause grounds are lacking. Only one side gets to present the case for a warrant to issue. At _arraignment_, the other side gets to hear the charges. At a _probable cause hearing_, the other side may argue the lack of probable cause. At a _motion to quash_, the other side may argue the warrant was defective. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/63 "2005-02-23T23:02:11Z")
**John** , if you still want a second source for this, [here](http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-4/110826336098640.xml&storylist=washington) is an AP report from Feb. 12: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) — Concerned about government secrecy in a terrorism case, a federal judge expressed skepticism Friday at the Bush administration’s request to dismiss a lawsuit on behalf of a Virginia man held in Saudi Arabia. > > The government is bolstering its effort to get the case thrown out by submitting classified information to U.S. District Judge John Bates that is unavailable to lawyers for imprisoned terrorist suspect Ahmed Abu Ali. > > **"This is about as close to a state secrets shutdown" of a case without the executive branch of government actually doing so, the judge said at a hearing.** > > Bates suggested the Bush administration’s position arguing for secrecy is unique because Abu Ali’s lawyers have no information about the government’s case. > > \*\*Bates asked for any other instances in which even the legal theory for dismissing a case is unknown to the other side. > > Justice Department lawyer Ori Lev replied that he knew of none, but that there is ample legal basis to throw out the case filed by Abu Ali’s family. > > Lev cited several cases in which the government prevailed in somewhat similar circumstances. > > But “freedom is at stake” for Abu Ali, while the cases the government cites don’t involve imprisonment, responded the judge.\*\* > > Bates will decide whether he can rule on the Bush administration’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit based entirely on classified information that Abu Ali’s lawyers cannot see. > > The judge asked Cole if he would file opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. > > **"Would we file opposition to a motion we have not seen?" Cole asked, sounding incredulous.** Cole said that he would, adding, “Everything we have filed has been fighting with shadows.” My bold. For lawyers and legal geeks, here is the “habeas” ruling from December: (pdf) [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1258.pdf](http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1258.pdf) (html cache) [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:AiFpLKrwFRcJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1258.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:AiFpLKrwFRcJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1258.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) Also, a [timeline](http://www.humanrightsusa.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=13) of the case, with more docs and news cites. Of course, the “secret arguments” is now considered moot, since the indictment, and the media is framing the story as a “plot to assassinate the president”. How convenient. Time to rally 'round the leader, right? Especially _now_, when the SS debate is going south, and the Gannon/Guckert story is picking up steam. Note that Ali has not been formally charged with the “assassination plot”… Meanwhile, this kid has [no fingernails](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60916-2004Nov18.html), according to the alleged remark by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg back in November: > [@](#): > > The lawyer stated in the affidavit that he asked Kromberg about bringing Abu Ali back to the United States to face charges so as “to avoid the torture that goes on in Saudi Arabia.” > > Kromberg "smirked and stated that ‘He’s no good for us here, he has no fingernails left,’ I guess they figured he was good for a quick news cycle diversion… Anyone think this case will go anywhere beyond that? ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/64 "2005-02-24T00:06:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your example helps my case, not yours. > > When a prosecutor secures a warrant, the other side does not get to argue before the issuing magistrate that the probable cause grounds are lacking. Only one side gets to present the case for a warrant to issue. > > At _arraignment_, the other side gets to hear the charges. At a _probable cause hearing_, the other side may argue the lack of probable cause. At a _motion to quash_, the other side may argue the warrant was defective. And in the case filed by Mr. Abu Ali’s family, if the judge had granted the government’s request to file a secret legal argument, Mr. Abu Ali’s family would have had a chance to rebut…when, exactly? As I said, when a warrant is issued against a person, the other side eventually gets to hear why the warrant was issued. It may be at a different proceeding, but it does happen. In the case of the civil charges filed by Mr. Abu Ali’s family, had the judge granted the government’s request, there would have been _no_ proceeding analogous to an arraignment, probable cause hearing, or motion to quash. This example doesn’t help either side in this argument, truth be told. No one has compared this civil case to issuing a warrant. I was actually curious, though, if there _were_ any proceedings in which the other party _never_ gets to rebut the presented arguments, because I was curious if there was _any_ precedent for this sort of thing at all in the current legal system. Your response doesn’t answer that question, however: in the case of a warrant, just because the chance to rebut occurs at a different proceeding or a set of proceedings doesn’t mean the chance to rebut never occurs. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447/65 "2005-02-24T17:42:21Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I was actually curious, though, if there _were_ any proceedings in which the other party _never_ gets to rebut the presented arguments, because I was curious if there was _any_ precedent for this sort of thing at all in the current legal system. Your response doesn’t answer that question, however: in the case of a warrant, just because the chance to rebut occurs at a different proceeding or a set of proceedings doesn’t mean the chance to rebut never occurs. I guess there is no precedent of note; if there was, **Bricker** would have been right on top of it… Other than the PR reasons I mentioned in the previous post, could there be a _legal strategy_ reason why the DOJ avoided a ruling on “secret arguments”? If there had been a ruling that went against their argument (which seemed likely, even though Bates was hand-picked, and the 4th district court is considered very conservative), wouldn’t that constitute a case law example they wanted to avoid? Does that mean they intend to try it again? ☹ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-detention-secret-evidence-i-secret-arguments-i/291447.md?page=3)