More on court ruling against Ashcroft and "preventative detention" under Bush administration
Last week, I blogged about a federal appeals court decision which could make former Attorney General John Ashcroft personally liable for decisions leading to the detention of a US citizen as a material witness after 9/11.
John Schwartz at the New York Times has filed a more thorough report than the AP item I blogged. His piece includes details about the Kansas-born man who filed the lawsuit, with representation from the ACLU. Snip:
Panel Rules Against Ashcroft in Detention Case (NYT)The lawsuit was brought in 2005 by Abdullah al-Kidd, who was born Lavoni T. Kidd in Kansas and converted to Islam in college. He was arrested in 2003 at Dulles Airport as he prepared to fly to Saudi Arabia for graduate work in Islamic studies, and was held for weeks under a law that allows the indefinite detention of material witnesses to a crime. After his detention, he was ordered to stay with his in-laws in Las Vegas; his travel was restricted over the next year.
Mr. Kidd, who was not called as a witness in the case in which he was detained and was never charged with a crime, sued Mr. Ashcroft and other officials in 2005, challenging his detention as unconstitutional and saying it cost him his marriage and his job. His lawyers argued that he was held as part of a secret Bush administration policy to use the material witness statute as a tool to detain and interrogate people when there was insufficient evidence to charge them with a crime.
the latest
latest episodes
hang them.
There are more important and obviously disturbing points, but I just want to say that if you are using a law to achieve something other than what it was originally intended...
Then you are doing it wrong. Please try again.
To be fair, if the Attorney General had acted any differently then Cheney would have made good on his thread to eat Ashcroft's children.
@jay_acker ---
No, no, no.
There is ALWAYS the risk that those in power will push the boundaries of the law for their own benefit. This is why laws need to be written to prevent their misuse by those in power.
We must always be vigilant that our civil liberties are not being stolen by those who lust for wealth and power. Grant the government powers that can be misused, and you guarantee that at some future point, they WILL be misused.
Since Obama shot down a reasonable course of action for redress on illegal wiretapping I was sure that he would stop this as well. I know that this can be a slippery slope but redress must be achieved. I believe it sends a much more dangerous and detrimental message to allow people to commit crimes, disregard the constitution and hide behind the skirts of implied immunity because of job titles. I am particularly excited to see a Reagan appointee standing up for this man's right to not be illegally detained without being charged as well as one Bush appointee. I hope that if the evidence supports it, that this man wins to set a precedence that citizens should not have their liberty restricted without due process. I would also encourage the White House to NOT file a "Friend of the court" in this matter to discourage this process of cleansing.
Lets hope he wins...and is awarded a ridiculously large amount of money. Too bad there's no chance Ashcroft could be charged criminally.
tizroc: what did obama shoot down? he does not have prosecutorial powers. any time the white house opines on a legal course of action, know that it is just that: opinion. legally, obama does not make those decisions.
As a tried-and-true Missourian, I can say without any uncertainty that Ashcroft was nothing more than a total patsy for the whims of Cheney and his cabal. He's an unwitting fool.
Takuan, too easy. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Iron_maiden_(torture_device)
And all of them on pay-per-view. What national debt?
Judge Bea, who was also appointed by President Bush, argued that Mr. Ashcroft should have immunity in the case, and that the majority was wrong to allow Mr. Kidd “to seek redress from the wallet of a federal cabinet-level official.”
Huh, really?
Eh@7
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090122/2227203494.shtml
This was just before they (White House) sent forth a request to the Justice Department saying they would not pursue any avenue against the giants. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/135267/obama_lawyers_invoke_%22state_secrets%22_to_block_warrantless_spying_lawsuit/) They then sent "Friend of the Court" documents to several open courts asking them to drop them in the name of National Security.
They also stopped the release of further documents, including what was gathered by the "operation".
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/06/eff-sues-obama-admin.html
As a disclaimer, I voted for and still support Obama. I am however rather disappointed and disillusioned by several broken promises as well as his lack of support for gay marriage. I know he still has a ways to go in his presidency, and still believe he is doing a nice job. I think he has had a much more transparent term than Bush, and I commend that. I just hope, and ask that he stay out of this as well, maybe we will see some justice in our lifetime for some of the crimes committed on Bush's watch.
@ Thewalrus: Yes, really. It's called sovereign immunity. Look it up. It's not a Bush innovation, either.
This decision was rendered by the Ninth Circuit, which is notorious for novel decisions that are quickly overturned by the US Supreme Court.
It may take a while, but the legal chickens will come home to roost for the Bushites.
To all commenters complaining about the "liberal bias" of the 9th Circuit: of the three judges in this case, two were appointed by George W. Bush, and one was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
RTFA.
From the NYT: "All three judges on the panel have reputations as politically conservative jurists, with two appointed by former President George W. Bush and the third a Reagan appointee."
Anon @15
Was that just a knee jerk reaction? A quick review of the comments shows that not a single person posted any such complaint. Anon @13 said "notorious for novel decision..." I hoped that the White House wouldn't step in as a friend of the court ( to discourage this cleansing process) and Connie H. posted my deepest hearts disire but I am not sure what you are trying to get across. If I have missed something I would encourage you to sign up (it's free) and add some constuctive discource.
Tizroc: re:anon #15: what's #13, chopped liver?
Howzabout some fax before impugning?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016
Ugly Canuck @#17.
No, as I said in my post; 13 said "it was notorious for NOVEL decisions..." No where did they indicate it was about Liberals, or liberally novel decisions. That was my point, no one said that it was a liberal thing, until post #15. No one even used the word liberal until that post. Point of fact is that many people in many walks of life are capable of making some NOVEL decisions.
As for the assumption that I was impugning (criticize or cast doubt on) Anon@15 in the #16 post; I am afraid you are incorrect. I asked if it was a knee jerk reaction, and then followed with a request for discourse. No where in my post was I insincere in my request. I wanted to know if it was a knee jerk reaction because there are many posts criticizing liberal bias in these forums, but didn't see it in this one. My question is still valid since I do not see any liberal critique of decisions from the 9th district court here. I could be wrong and anon could post that they DID mean they are all a bunch of hippies who make weird hippie choices and smoke pot. In the meantime I would say that while #13 isn't chopped liver there was nothing to indicate that the novel choices of the 9th districts court where neither liberal nor conservative, just novel. Which is why I asked, if it was a knee jerk reaction to the post.
Best wishes,
-Tizroc