Fade to Black: El-Masri v. United States Validates the Use of the State Secrets Privilege to Dismiss Extraordinary Rendition Claims
![handle is hein.journals/mjgt17 and id is 439 raw text is: Cite as: 17 MINN. J. INT'L L. 435 (2008)
Comment
Fade to Black: El-Masri v. United States
Validates the Use of the State Secrets
Privilege to Dismiss Extraordinary
Rendition Claims
CPT Daniel J. Huyck*
In the words of Justice Jackson, comprehensive and
undefined presidential powers hold both practical advantages
and grave dangers for the country . . . [especially] in a time of
transition and public anxiety.' Judge King of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently dismissed El-Masri v.
United States (El-Masri I1)2 based on one such undefined
presidential power: the state secrets privilege.' The state
* J.D. Candidate 2009, University of Minnesota Law School; B.S., Northern
Michigan University, and Captain in the Minnesota Army National Guard. The
positions and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not represent the
views of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United
States Army, or the government of the great state of Minnesota. To all those at
MJIL who provided expert advice and assistance, thank you for your hard work and
dedication-any errors are mine and mine alone. Thank you is also owed to my
wonderful wife and family (who will likely never read past this point). Finally, I
dedicate this article to my unborn daughter who is due to arrive June 2008.
1. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 634 (1952)
(addressing the duty of a president during the times of national trials, specifically
the Korean War).
2. 479 F.3d 296, 313 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3663, 76
U.S.L.W. 3021 (U.S. Oct. 9, 2007) (No. 06-1613). El-Masri's initial claim alleged that
George Tenet, three corporate defendants, ten unnamed employees of the Central
Intelligence Agency (the 'CIA'), and ten unnamed employees of the defendant
corporations . . . were involved in a CIA operation in which he was [unlawfully]
detained and interrogated in violation of his rights under the Constitution and
international law. Id. at 299.
3. The U.S. government claimed that an adequate defense would pose an](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/mjgt17&div=17&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most