[这个标题中的sides比较有意思：就拘捕恐怖分子一案 法庭站到CIA的一边]

WASHINGTON – A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit involving the Central Intelligence Agency’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects and transferring them to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power.

华盛顿：一个冲突相当大的联邦上诉法庭，在周二取消了关于CIA在拘捕恐怖分子和移送到其他国家进行关押和审讯的案件。这个判例，在推动清除潜余恐怖势力的努力方面，给了奥巴马政府一个重要的胜利。

By a six-to-five vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversing an earlier decision, dismissed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for the C.I.A.’s “extraordinary rendition” program, as it is known. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case on behalf of five former prisoners who say they were tortured because of the program – and that Jeppesen was complicit in their treatment.

6对5的投票，第九巡回上诉法庭，推倒前面的一次决定，取消了对从属于波音公司的杰普逊公司的因为CIA安排“特别引渡”程序的飞行而提起的起诉。美国民权联盟代表5名前被拘者提起了这个诉讼称：这些人因这个程序而受到了折磨，而杰普逊公司在其中起同谋的作用。

Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case as presenting “a painful conflict between human rights and national security.” But, he said, the majority had “reluctantly” concluded that the lawsuit represented “a rare case” in which the government’s need to protect state secrets trumped the plaintiffs’ need to have any day in court.

法官雷蒙描述这个案件代表了“人权和国家安全间的痛苦矛盾”。他说：多数派方面不情愿地总结了这个案件只代表个别少有的案件，在这类案件中，政府保护国家机要的需要高于原告要诉著法庭的需要。

The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

这个结论，支持了继续布什政权的奥巴马政府推动的大范围反恐政策的各种做法。这本来是倍受批评的布什总统的手段，这一种连续的自由政府行为，已经背离了奥巴马总统竞选时的华丽说辞。

Among other policies, the Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program – though the administration says it now takes greater safeguards to prevent detainees from being mistreated.

The American Civil Liberties Union swiftly said it would appeal the ruling in the Jeppesen Dataplan case to the Supreme Court, presenting the Roberts Court with a fresh opportunity to weigh in on a high-profile case testing the scope and limits of presidential power when it comes to countering terrorism.

It has been more than 50 years since the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on the state-secrets privilege, a judicially created doctrine that administrations of both parties have increasingly used to win dismissals of lawsuits related to national security matters -- thereby shielding governmental actions from court review. In 2007, the court declined to hear an appeal of a similar rendition program case by the appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.

The current case turns on the question of whether the executive branch can invoke the “state secrets privilege” to shut down entire lawsuits, or whether it could only use it to withhold particular pieces of sensitive information while allowing the litigation to go forward. In April 2009, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit adopted the narrower view, ruling that the lawsuit should proceed.

But the Obama administration appealed that ruling to the full San Francisco-based appeals court. And on Wednesday, a narrow majority endorsed the broader view of executive secrecy powers, concluding that the lawsuit must be dismissed without even a trial that would be limited to already-public information.

“This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security,” Judge Fisher wrote. “Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.”

Ben Wizner, a senior A.C.L.U. lawyer who argued the case before the appeals court, said the organization was deeply disappointed in the ruling.

“To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” Mr. Wizner said. “That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed it courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”

Both Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. and the C.I.A. referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment on the ruling.

The five plaintiffs in the case represented an array of scenarios. Some alleged they were tortured by United States interrogators in the C.I.A.’s “black site” prisons in Afghanistan and elsewhere, while others said they were tortured by other governments, like Egypt and Jordan, after the C.I.A. handed them off to foreign security services. Some have been released, while others remain in foreign prisons.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Binyam Mohamed, an Ethopian citizen and legal resident of the United Kingdom who was arrested in Pakistan on immigration charges. He claimed he was turned over to the C.I.A., which flew him to Morocco and turned him over to the Moroccan security service, who held him for 18 months and subjected him to an array of tortures, including beatings, 24-hour subjection to loud music, and cutting his penis and other body parts with a scalpel and then pouring stinging liquid on the wounds.