exactly what is SCOTUS "refusing" to hear?

The Supreme Court refused to even consider a case involving abduction and torture by the US government in its fight on terrorism.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal

Without comment, the justices let stand an appeals court ruling that the state secrets privilege, a judicially created doctrine that the Bush administration has invoked to win dismissal of lawsuits that touch on issues of national security, protected the government’s actions from court review. In refusing to take up the case, the justices declined a chance to elaborate on the privilege for the first time in more than 50 years.

The case was originally ruled against the litigant by the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., which dismissed the case without permitting Mr. Masri’s lawyers to take discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the dismissal in March.

The attorneys were not even allowed to discover the facts of the case because of the Bush/Cheney administration's penchant for secrecy under the guise of national security.

Again, I ask, "Exactly what is SCOTUS 'refusing' to hear?

That there are issues with the operations of national security?

That the idea of transparent government is no longer an American position?

That the Bush/Cheney administration does torture?

That SCOTUS has a majority on it that rubber stamps anything the Bush/Cheney administration says?

i believe that Chief Justice John Marshall is not rolling over in his grave -- he's spinning...

the social conservative [read 'right-wingnut authoritarians'] are nearing completion of their politicalization of the federal judicial system...