By Elizabeth Coscia ’12, Commentary Editor

Imagine yourself a captive subject to the malicious will of another. Your ability to defend yourself has vanished and your consciousness is clouded by apprehension of the horrendous torture that awaits you. Imagine your hatred of and disdain for your torturers. Now imagine your desire for retribution.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed a case regarding the torture and victimization of prisoners held by the Central Intelligence Agency. The American Civil Liberties Union represented five of the captives by filing a case against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of the Boeing commercial jetliner and military aircraft manufacturing company. Jeppesen was allegedly implicated in transporting the prisoners to foreign countries to be interrogated and tortured by the CIA. The court ruled that the case should not be heard because doing so would reveal state secrets.

Headlines following the decision called the case a victory for the Obama administration due to its accordance to aggressive national securities policies. However, the case not only represents a shameful moment for the Obama administration, but a disgrace of human rights. The state secrets privilege exists in order to protect the United States as an extension of National Security, not to cover up the blunders of the government. The sacrifice of human rights for the credibility of the government must be viewed as utterly unacceptable. The dismissal of this case proved especially shocking because the evidence that has emerged attests to the validity of the suit, including the confession of a Jeppesen employee. Furthermore, while the state secrets privilege allows certain cases to be heard with the exclusion of potentially damaging evidence, the court dismissed this case completely.

President Obama claimed that his National Security System would apply a different approach than the militaristic pillars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He claimed that his National Security System would emphasize morality. However, Obama rejected the case in the same way that Bush had done in 2007. Obama must use the states secrets privilege carefully and with accordance to the standards of human rights in order to remain consistent with his philosophy of morality.

The case of United Sates vs Reynolds in 1953 formally recognized the state secrets privilege for the first time. After the crash of a military airplane, a B-29 superfortress bomber, the government denied the widows of three of the victims access to the accident reports, claiming that the release of such knowledge would reveal state secrets. However, the declassification and release of the reports in 2000 showed that they contained no secret information. Moreover their release did reveal information regarding the deficient quality of the aircraft, data that would have harmed the integrity of the government and air force. It appears that the very first case in which the states secret privilege was used set the precedent for its misuse in the future. In 1953 civilians aboard a military aircraft died without recognition of the government’s implication, and now in 2010 prisoners faced cruel and inhumane torture without retribution.

The United States has established an enviable system in which individuals have the ability to seek justice when a wrong or immoral act has been committed.  Retribution proves both invaluably satisfying to those who have been wronged and necessary for the enactment of justice and morality. If any government privilege stands in the way of the well-being of individuals in our country, such a privilege should be withdrawn.