May 18, 2009 – Page 2

Sabrina De Sousa stands accused by Italian officials as being one of the chief American agents participating in the alleged extraordinary rendition of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr off the streets of Italy and flying him to Egypt where he claims to have been tortured and imprisoned.

According to the Washington Post, De Sousa seeks diplomatic immunity from prosecution. “De Sousa, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India, says she was ordered not to travel abroad because of the fear of arrest, preventing her from visiting her mother in India and siblings in Europe. De Sousa quit her job in the federal government in February.”

Italian prosecutors, according to the NY Times, claim that De Sousa “was a C.I.A. officer serving under diplomatic cover in the United States Consulate in Milan” at the time of Nasr’s abduction – an accusation that she denies. Rather, De Sousa “described herself as a diplomat”.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It’s a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they’re likely to be.

Regrettably, that hasn’t occurred since the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork. At the time, Bork scared the hell out of me and I’m grateful his nomination was not approved. Even so, I always respected how Bork was upfront about his ideology and judicial philosophy. Bork didn’t hide what he was and the American public and the Senate had a clear picture of what sort of justice he would be.

Sadly, since the Bork nomination fight, our Supreme Court appointments process has become a Kabuki dance existing in an alternate reality. Nominees are conditioned to reveal as little as possible about their judicial philosophies or even avoid acknowledging they have one. A pitiful example is Chief Justice John Roberts who famously compared Supreme Court justices with baseball umpires during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings:

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

May 18, 2009 archive

Alleged CIA ‘rendition’ officer warned not to travel abroad

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber