Higazy

Jim Henley:

I agree with Kevin Drum. It’s befuddling that the weekend’s news about the Higazy decision and the FBI’s attempt to censor the details of their conduct in the case out of the judges opinion has gone largely unremarked.

Now that I'm reading the story: Holy shit!

Basically, the FBI coerced an innocent man into confessing by threatening his family with torture, eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor, but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web. Then up came a new version:

The court simply omitted from the revised decision facts about how the FBI agent extracted the false confession from Higazy. For some reason, this information is classified. Just as the opinion gets interesting, when we are about to learn how an FBI agent named Templeton squeezed the "truth" out of Higazy, the opinion reads at page 7: "This opinion has been redacted because portions of the record are under seal. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy's statements were coerced."

The new rule of law -- even when your banana republic antics get caught and exposed, you can use the cover of national security secrets to keep the facts obscured. Welcome to America.

Comments

I must say that we live in very peculiar times...

Posted by RKU | October 23, 2007 9:51 AM

It really is a MiniTrue Moment, isn't it?

Posted by Karl Maurer | October 23, 2007 9:58 AM

no kidding, and it wont stop either

Posted by tuffstuff | October 23, 2007 9:58 AM

Welcome to Kafka-land.

Posted by Chris | October 23, 2007 10:00 AM

I don't believe anything unless I see it in a Hollywood blockbuster. Oh, wait.

Posted by Brendan | October 23, 2007 10:05 AM

Now that I'm reading the story: Holy shit!

Unfortunate, but c'mon. This could have been much, much worse. The case might have been heard down in Sort-of-America. Sad that they pulled an opinion, but this seems like at least as important a part: eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor. You like his chances for that 400 miles down the road?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 23, 2007 10:07 AM

Not to go all college sophmore but only fascists and totalitarians do crap like this. Compound that with the fact that one of the two major parties in this country would be lobbying to give this FBI agent the medal of freedom after this and you see what a completely fucked state were in right now.

Posted by DRR | October 23, 2007 10:17 AM

The Bill of Rights is for sissies! Don't you get it?!? We are in a new kind of war, with threats to our way of life. Either we do away with quaint notions such as "the fourth amendment" and "the eighth amendment", or the terrrrrrrrists will take away our freedoms!

Posted by CKT | October 23, 2007 10:20 AM

The U.S. and its allies had the luxury of being the victors after WWII and imposing the Nuremburg trials on Nazi criminals. Who does the world turn to to mete out justice when the criminals are in charge of the mightiest military on the planet? Who hangs Bush and Cheney for their genocides, their torture, their waging of preemptive wars? Who calls bullshit when Bush declares himself not bound by domestic laws, declares his actions not subject to the Geneva Convention? Bush can effectively do whatever he wants and he's immune to any punishment. In other societies, in other times such defiance of laws and their consequences led more disgruntled factions to exercise extrajudicial measures when dealing with such despots.

Posted by steve duncan | October 23, 2007 10:20 AM

This could have been much, much worse...eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor.

Agreed. But I have a strong suspicion that there exist many more cases similar to this one--only without the (relatively) happy ending.

Posted by James Gary | October 23, 2007 10:23 AM

> you can use the cover of national security secrets to keep the facts obscured

Technically not correct; the National Security Act (or a related law; too lazy to look it up) specifically prohibits using the classification system to conceal law-breaking. So if we had a DoJ that was worth a damn that sort of thing would be quashed tout suite.

But as a friend has taught me, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas."

Posted by millsapian87 | October 23, 2007 10:27 AM

Where's the outrage?

Posted by Scott | October 23, 2007 10:39 AM

Matt,

Please get serious.

If they published how the FBI threatened Higazy's family with torture in Egypt, then the Islamofascists will teach their families to resist the Egyptian torture techniques. Remember, they aren't like us. The terrorists would subject their own families to torture if they thought they could gain an advantage. Which is exactly what the terrorists will do if they learn that they may be coerced by the FBI with threats against their families.

We are in a war against people who will torture their own families to defeat us.

Why can't you understand the nature of the threat?

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 10:45 AM

We are approaching a point that the authors of the Declaration of Independence described at some length....

Posted by sglover | October 23, 2007 10:55 AM

"Gather around, children! After evening prayer, I will waterboard each one of you to make you immune from the power of the Great Satan."

Hey Owenz-- if you're gonna troll, at least try to not be so hackily predictable. The "terrorists aren't really human" schtick is so tired.

Posted by James Gary | October 23, 2007 10:58 AM

Don't count on Democrats to challenge any of this. They are cowards to whom aggression = strength. Anything that compromises the aggressive prerogatives of the American government is perceived as weak. And the avoidance of the appearance of weakness is the coward's prime motive.

Posted by postxian | October 23, 2007 11:03 AM

When it comes to the FBI, there is nothing new about this at all. FBI agents conspired with Whitey Bolger to have people murdered. The FBI, with Janet Reno's assistance, engaged in blatant obstruction of justice in the wake of the Ruby Ridge fiasco, and FBI personnel advanced their careers by doing so. The FBI has been a thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy for over a half century.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 11:05 AM

Hey Owenz-- if you're gonna troll, at least try to not be so hackily predictable. The "terrorists aren't really human" schtick is so tired.

Heh heh. Don't you watch the GOP primary debates? It never gets tired.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if you taking my post seriously means I did a good job or a bad job with my attempt at sarcasm.

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 11:06 AM

Owenz, I detected the sarcasm, but I was also shocked by how similar it sounded to authentic Wingnut Brand Crazy (TM), served up regularly by folks like Malkin, Hewitt, LGF, etc

Posted by J | October 23, 2007 11:11 AM

Owenz was joking. Will is correct.

And sglover, what do mean approaching? Even the name of the king is the same, and both are/were mad.

Mad, I tell you.

Posted by Jeff | October 23, 2007 11:12 AM

I guess I've got to be the one to disagree with this assessment, as the FBI only censored this information for the benefit of their future victims. After all, if everyone learns about their softball techniques for squeezing false confessions out of people, they'll just have to rachet-up their methods to compensate. For instance, rather than threatening to torture a dude's family, they'll actually have to torture the family. And that helps no one.

So I say it's best that we keep mum on all this until after we complete our war on terror, after which we can all have a few laughs over dinner about the mistakes that were made...excepting the people who are still in prison for their false confessions, of course. But as they say, you can't make an omelette without imprisoning innocent men.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | October 23, 2007 11:13 AM

When the FBI was behaving just as horribly, if not worse, with regard to Randy Weaver and his family, many of the people now denouncing the FBI were eager to dismiss Weaver as an Aryan Nation gun nut, so as to minimize the FBI's shameful behavior. Why would this be?

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 11:22 AM

Owenz- I was pretty sure you were being sarcastic, but with James Gary's response I started to wonder. It really says something about the posters you get sometimes.

Posted by mpowell | October 23, 2007 11:23 AM

Hmmm, I'm not sure if you taking my post seriously means I did a good job or a bad job with my attempt at sarcasm.

Whoops, I totally missed that one. I fear I am poorly equipped to exist in a world where the sarcastic reductio ad absurdum argument against administration policy is the exact same argument used by proponents to defend said policy?

Posted by James Gary | October 23, 2007 11:25 AM

...that final "?" should be a ".".

Posted by James Gary | October 23, 2007 11:26 AM

Here's the real question: on what grounds is the Appeals Court redacting this information?

We hear all the time that we cannot disclose the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques because the terrorists will train themselves to resist them. This is a silly rationale, obviously, but at least it's a rationale.

On what grounds could an Appeals Court possibly justify redacting the FBI's conduct in this case? How can this information, if made public, hurt the War on Terror?

I would suggest the following:

By redacting this information, the Appeals Court is broadly endorsing the FBI's use of threats against the families of terrorists. It is not endorsing the FBI's threats in this specific case because Higazy provied to be an innocent man, but in general - this is acceptable behavior for the government.

If threatening the families of terrorists is illegal, then the only justification for redacting this information is to cover up government law breaking. I don't believe the Court would redact information for the express purpose of covering up government law breaking. Which means the Court must believe the FBI's conduct was somehow legitimate.

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 11:27 AM

and let's not forget... our gpvernment really did kidnap KSM's family, so it's not like we can pretend that Templeton was just bluffing.

Posted by s9 | October 23, 2007 11:35 AM

Now that you've blogged about it...are you really going to do anything really constructive about the current state of affairs?

Posted by The Dog | October 23, 2007 12:02 PM

Now that you've blogged about it...are you really going to do anything really constructive about the current state of affairs?

Ummmm, Matt is a blogger. What exactly should he be doing other than...well...blogging about stuff?

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 12:11 PM

Note that the original opinion has been available pretty much continuously at Howard Bashman's HowAppealing blog. They had some problems on Sunday, and I was kind of afraid that the 2nd circuit sent some jack-booted thugs around to pull the plugs out. But then it came back up.

He got slashdotted yesterday and it's still there...

http://howappealing.law.com/102207.html#029189

and in case you haven't read the actual redacted text from the opinion, here it is courtesy of /.

-----------------

Nevertheless, on December 27, Templeton--who up until this point was not involved in the investigation--conducted a polygraph examination of Higazy. Templeton began the test by asking Higazy background questions on subjects such as Higazy's scholarship, homeland, family in Egypt, brother in upstate New York, and girlfriend. He also asked Higazy whether he had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The first round of testing allegedly suggested that Higazy's answers to the questions relating to the September 11 attacks were deceptive. As the second series of questioning was ending, Higazy requested that Templeton stop. He testified that he began "feeling intense pain in my arm. I remember hearing my heartbeat in my head and I just couldn't breathe. I said, 'Sir, sir, please, stop. It hurts. Please stop. Please take it off.'" Templeton unhooked the polygraph, and according to Higazy, called Higazy a baby and told him that a nine-year-old could tolerate this pain. Templeton left the room to get Higazy water, and upon his return, Higazy asked whether anybody else had ever suffered physical pain during the polygraph, to which Templeton replied: "[i]t never happened to anyone who told the truth."

Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."

Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn't prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family's in danger. If I say this device is mine, I'm screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I'm screwed and my family's in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine."

Higazy explained why he feared for his family: "The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is --they're suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam's security force--as they later on were called his henchmen--a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word 'torture' comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn't imagine them doing anything to my sister."

And Higazy added: "[L]et's just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be --might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn't going to risk that. I wasn't going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that's convincing? And I said okay.

Posted by tekel | October 23, 2007 12:31 PM

When the FBI was behaving just as horribly, if not worse, with regard to Randy Weaver and his family, many of the people now denouncing the FBI were eager to dismiss Weaver as an Aryan Nation gun nut, so as to minimize the FBI's shameful behavior. Why would this be?

No clue. I for one opposed electing the son of the man who was President at the time of the Ruby Ridge incident. But even though a majority of those voting agreed with me, not enough Supreme Court Justices did.

Still, though I sympathize with Mr. Allen's condemnation of the first President Bush, at least Mr. Weaver had his day in court and was acquitted of most charges, while the FBI was taken to task in the courtroom and later by the US Senate over the incident. Imagine if the FBI had been able to successfully redact the records of its wrongdoing, instead of Michael Kahoe having to plead guilty to his attempted coverup. Then we'd have a closer case to the Higazy one, if we also added in a refusal of the media to report on the matter, and the strong possibility that cases like Higazy's are going on all the time in secret.

Though I do agree that picking a Bush-appointed judge to be an insubordinate head of the FBI, where he could shelter his buddy Larry Potts from further punishment, was a serious bungle by the new Clinton administration. That's what attempted bipartisanship with Republicans tends to get you, though, and I thank Mr. Allen for reminding us of that.

Posted by mds | October 23, 2007 12:39 PM

The unredacted opinion is posted at How Appealing.

http://howappealing.law.com/

Posted by bob | October 23, 2007 12:43 PM

mds is apparently under the misimpression that Janet Reno was not the FBI head's superior, or that Bill Clinton was not Janet Reno's superior, so we somehow come to the state where the Clinton/Reno Justice Department is not responsible for Larry Potts' promotion.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Will Allen, did you actually read what mds wrote?

"Though I do agree that picking a Bush-appointed judge to be an insubordinate head of the FBI, where he could shelter his buddy Larry Potts from further punishment, was a serious bungle by the new Clinton administration. That's what attempted bipartisanship with Republicans tends to get you, though".

He explicitly blamed Clinton, after pointing out that the actual incident was the elder George Bush's fault. Isn't that good enough for you?

Posted by Anon. | October 23, 2007 1:17 PM

When the FBI was behaving just as horribly, if not worse, with regard to Randy Weaver and his family, many of the people now denouncing the FBI were eager to dismiss Weaver as an Aryan Nation gun nut, so as to minimize the FBI's shameful behavior. Why would this be?

Oh please. I love how conservatives trot out the 15-year old case of Randy Weaver to try to paint liberals at hypocrites for defending the civil liberties of the accused. I have a question for those courageous, patriotic conservatives who continue to defend Weaver: whose civil liberties have you defended since Weaver?

Here's the reality about Randy Weaver: his case isn't unusual because liberals failed to publicly defend his rights, it's unusual because it's one of the few times in recent history that conservatives actually gave a shit about civil liberties.

Liberals are the ones who defend civil liberties in this country. That's why we're supposedly "soft on terror" and "soft on crime." We are the ones who risk our political necks for principle on this issue, over and over.

Randy Weaver's former supporters? The only time I hear from them these days is when they are trying to undermine pro civil liberties arguments by calling liberals hypocrites.

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 1:23 PM

No, he blamed Clinton for appointing Louis Freeh. He did not blame Clinton and Reno for signing off on the promotion of Larry Potts, which was the greatest misdeed at the highest level of government in the Ruby Ridge fiasco. The actual incident was Bush I's fault in the sense that Bush I, like all previous and subsequent Presidents, did nothing to reign in abusive Federal law enforcement, be it the ATF or FBI or other agencies. The Ruby Ridge cover up mostly occurred under Janet Reno's supervision and knowledge. Many people who now rightly denounce the FBI's behavior under Bush II supervision were quite active in defending the FBI and Reno Justice Department during the Clinton years, despite behavior which was every bit as bad. I find this curious.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 1:26 PM

owenz, I'm not a conservative, so you are pointlessly yammering.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 1:31 PM

"When the FBI was behaving just as horribly, if not worse, with regard to Randy Weaver and his family, many of the people now denouncing the FBI were eager to dismiss Weaver as an Aryan Nation gun nut, so as to minimize the FBI's shameful behavior. Why would this be?"

Why would this be? Are you suggesting some sort of conspiricy? What exactly is your point?

Now, personally, I thought the FBI acted horribly AND that Randy Weaver was/is nuts. I'm also of the opinion that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. So how do I fit into the consiracy?

Where the hell is the "black helicopter" crowd, anyway? I remember back when Reno was the anti-Christ and Clinton was "tryin' ta takaway our guns". Seems like every other week a new state "militia" (if you can call a bunch of submachine guns and a keg of Pabst a "militia") was in the news. Now that the Feds are actually "disappearing" people, mum's the word? Or maybe they all got jobs with Blackwater...

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 2:25 PM

Whew, gotta remember to spellcheck...

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 2:26 PM

I'll edit the large block of text that Mr. Allen so willfully ignored to focus on the Freeh bit, 'm'kay?

I sympathize with Mr. Allen's condemnation of the first President Bush, and the evil, evil Janet Reno and Bill Clinton, even though for some reason he was only squealing about Ms. Reno at first. Purely by coincidence, because he's not a conservative. (Evil, evil Clinton! Anything that George W. Bush has done pales in comparison to the horrible murderous behavior of the previous Democratic President! Yeah, how in God's name could we be under the misapprehension that Will Allen was a conservative?) At least Mr. Weaver had his day in court and was acquitted of most charges, while the FBI was taken to task in the courtroom and later by the US Senate over the incident. Imagine if the FBI had been able to successfully redact the records of its wrongdoing, instead of Michael Kahoe having to plead guilty to his attempted coverup. Then we'd have a closer case to the Higazy one, if we also added in a refusal of the media to report on the matter, and the strong possibility that cases like Higazy's are going on all the time in secret.

So, anyway, Mr. Allen, you've spent all your energy on minimizing the current vicious lawbreaking behavior of this administration's FBI in favor of shrieking about how much worse the goddamn Clinton administration was. You've also wanted to know where our outrage was for Ruby Ridge. FYI, I was outraged. Where's your outrage for the Higazy case, and all the other ever-more-egregious disregard for the rule of law going on with this non-Clinton executive branch, you mendacious little conservative apologist fuck?

Oh, wait, sorry, you're not a conservative, you're an independent thinker who mindlessly regurgitates Rush Limbaugh's smears. So let me rephrase that: you mendacious little independent-minded fuck.

Posted by mds | October 23, 2007 2:34 PM

MDs, apparently, in your vomiting fit, you somehow have also become illiterate and thus have concluded that I wrote that the Clinton Administration was worse, or that you personally were not outraged at how the Reno Justice Department aided and abetted the FBI obstruction of justice. Let me know when you have been medicated, so you can begin to converse coherently.

Rihilism, I was merely curious as to why some of the same people who rightly denounce the FBI's actions today defended the FBI and Justice Department regarding their behavior in reference to the Weaver family. For all I know the Weaver family was nuts, but I didn't think them being nuts gave the Reno Justice Department reason to aid and abet the cover up of unconstitutional acts by Federal law enforcement agents which resulted in the violent deaths of citizens.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 2:48 PM

owenz, I'm not a conservative, so you are pointlessly yammering.

Fair enough, you're not a conservative. But my point remains: in discussions like this, Randy Weaver's name nearly always comes up in the context of someone undermining pro civil liberties arguments by accusing liberals of being hypocrites on the issue of civil liberties.

I interpreted you of accusing liberals of being hypocrites when you said the following:

"[M]any of the people now denouncing the FBI were eager to dismiss Weaver as an Aryan Nation gun nut, so as to minimize the FBI's shameful behavior. Why would this be?"

You finished by asking: Why would this be?

Here is my answer: you believe liberals failed to defend Weaver because you think (a.) liberals don't like religious conservatives like Weaver, (b.) liberals don't like guns, and/or (c.) liberals ignored Weaver's plight as a favor to Bill Clinton.

Am I wrong?

Further, am I wrong in assuming that the main point of your comment is to undermine the current argument in favor of civil liberties for terrorism suspects by painting liberals as unprincipled hypocrites on the issue of civil liberties?

Posted by owenz | October 23, 2007 2:50 PM

Ad hominem attacks? Must we?

Posted by Wharf R. | October 23, 2007 2:59 PM

No, owenz, I didn't ask what I believed. I asked why some people who now rightly denounce the FBI's behavior now were defending it with regard to Ruby Ridge. Do you care to answer?

As to my opinion of the what should be done with regard to the FBI's decades long pattern of abusing citziens, often with terrible violence, I have favored wholesale housecleaning for a couple of decades. The entire culture of that bureaucracy is rotten.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 3:03 PM

Abbie Hoffman we need you.. come back to us.

Posted by poser | October 23, 2007 3:12 PM

I asked why some people who now rightly denounce the FBI's behavior now were defending it with regard to Ruby Ridge.

What people? Could you please identify the people currently denouncing the FBI's abuse of national security letters, their use of kidnapping to terrorize innocent people into false confessions, etc, and their invocation of national security to cover all of it up, who applauded the abuses of Ruby Ridge? Quotes, please, then perhaps owenz would be better able to answer your oh-so-principled question. 'Cause I think you're just being a lying little fuck about "some people".

But glad to know you've been consistently decrying the abuses, by pointing out how they were so much worse under the Clinton administration than now. You need to bring up Jamie Gorelick on FISA and physical searches next, Mr. Allen; that space is still empty on my "mendacious little conservative apologist fuck" bingo card.

Posted by mds | October 23, 2007 3:30 PM

Your illiteracy continues, mds. Again, I never said things were worse during the Clinton Administration, and apparently your lunacy has caused you to think the word "defended" is synonymous with "applauded". One can only conclude you are in a psychotic state. Let me know when it lifts, and I will gladly supply you with a list of names, mostly U.S. Senators, who defended the FBI then, and are denouncing it now.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 3:38 PM

And excuse me for still refusing to buy your fake "non-conservative" bit, Mr. Allen. If you were, e.g., a leftist, you wouldn't be using Bill Clinton as an excuse to minimize the abuses to civil liberties of the current administration. And you sure as hell aren't a libertarian; Jim Henley is a real libertarian, and there's a quote up above from his post expressing his longstanding disgust with the Higazy affair, which is remarkably free of the bottom-feeding "B-b-b-but Clinton!" dodge for wrongdoing that is happening right now. You, sir, are no Jim Henley.

Alas, now's when you leap into action and link to your denunciations throughout the blogosphere of how Maher Arar was robbed of the redress through the courts that Randy Weaver received. I'll have to eat plenty of crow then.

Posted by mds | October 23, 2007 3:45 PM

"When the FBI was behaving just as horribly, if not worse, with regard to Randy Weaver and his family," [emphasis added]

Whoa, sorry, guess I thought that when you declared that the treatment of a particular family in an isolated case that received substantial public scrutiny was worse than the likelihood that the FBI is routinely engaging in the behavior highlighted in the Higazy matter, that the media are largely silent about it, and that the FBI is successfully insulating itself from any repercussions whatsoever, well, I apologize for misconstruing it.

So, "The List" of "mostly U.S. Senators," who applauded the treatment of the Weaver family while condemning the FBI over Higazy, is only available to those who fail to challenge you for it. How convenient.

Posted by mds | October 23, 2007 3:52 PM

George Bush and his ilk are doing the best they can to ruin this country, but they will fail - only because that's ultimately what they are best at.

Posted by Ebondji's Tonic | October 23, 2007 3:52 PM

George Bush and his ilk are doing the best they can to ruin this country, but they will fail - only because that's ultimately what they are best at.

Posted by Ebondji's Tonic | October 23, 2007 3:52 PM

Really, MDS, now your illiteracy has led to you to think that "the FBI" is the same thing as "the Clinton Administration". You literally cannot comprehend the meaning of words. It is thus impossible to converse with you.

I do think actually shooting innocent people to death is slightly worse than extracting false confessions from innocent people through threats of torture, although I would not contest vigorously a contention that both acts are so awful that trying to seperate them is pointless.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 4:06 PM

Also, MDS, again, "defend" is not a synonym for "applaud". You need remedial help.

Posted by Will Allen | October 23, 2007 4:14 PM

but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web

You can't pull anything "off the web". It was pulled from the Court's website, and Howard Bashman was asked to take the unredacted opinion down from How Appealing. He didn't.

Posted by mythago | October 23, 2007 4:41 PM

God damn whatever passes for a soul in George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

Justice will rejoice as the crows pick at their ribs.

Posted by labradog | October 23, 2007 7:35 PM

"The case might have been heard down in Sort-of-America. "

Like in NYC, where the police shoot innocent people 50+ times and sodomize prisoners with plungers?

Oh, wait, it WAS heard in "sort-of-america." My bad.

Posted by Bill aka NO DooDahs! | October 24, 2007 9:30 AM