I ran across a lead to the following in Natalie Davis' "AllFacts and Opinion" blog:
Secret 9/11 case before high court
Miami – It's the case that doesn't exist. Even though two different federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it. Period.
"The entire dockets for this case and appeal, every entry on them, are maintained privately, under seal, unavailable to the public," says a partially censored 27-page petition asking the high court to hear the case. "In the court of appeals, not just the filed documents and docket sheet are sealed from public view, but also hidden is the essential fact that a legal proceeding exists."
Despite the heavy secrecy, a brief docketing error led to a newspaper report identifying MKB by name in March. The report said MKB is an Algerian waiter in south Florida who was detained by immigration authorities and questioned by the FBI.
MKB's legal status remains unclear, but it appears unlikely from court documents that he is connected in any way to terrorism. He has been free since March 2002 on a $10,000 bond. [Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/03]
Does that make sense? Prosecute under the terrorist laws but let the defendant wander around free? Is John Edwards right?
The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. [John Edwards On Civil Rights]
What do you think?
PS: The Rehnquist book is interesting (frightening) in showing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arguing why it's a good thing to give up constitutionalrights. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves:
'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'
-- Benjamin Franklin.