See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Appeals Court Rules Against Ashcroft In 9/11 Case
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 5, 2009
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2009-09-05 00:44:59 by Brian S
Ping List: *WAR CRIMES* Subscribe to *WAR CRIMES*
Keywords: None
Views: 202
Comments: 13
BOISE, Idaho — A federal appeals court delivered a stinging rebuke Friday to the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 detention policies, ruling that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after 9/11. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the government's improper use of material witnesses after Sept. 11 was "repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history." The court found that a man who was detained as a witness in a federal terrorism case can sue Ashcroft for allegedly violating his constitutional rights. Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen and former University of Idaho student, filed the lawsuit against Ashcroft and other officials in 2005, claiming his civil rights were violated when he was detained as a material witness for two weeks in 2003. He said the investigation and detention not only caused him to lose a scholarship to study in Saudi Arabia, but cost him employment opportunities and caused his marriage to fall apart. He argued that his detention exemplified an illegal government policy created by Ashcroft to arrest and detain people — particularly Muslim men and those of Arab decent — as material witnesses if the government suspected them of a crime but had no evidence to charge them. Ashcroft had asked the judge to dismiss the matter, saying that because his position at the Department of Justice was prosecutorial he was entitled to absolute immunity from the lawsuit. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller would only say Friday that the agency is reviewing the opinion. Phone messages left at Ashcroft's Washington D.C. lobbying and law firms were not immediately returned Friday afternoon. The exact ramifications of the ruling were not immediately clear, but at a minimum it casts a negative spotlight on the Bush administration's practice of detaining Muslim men earlier this decade at a time when the nation was still on edge after Sept. 11. "It's a very big ruling, because qualified immunity is ordinarily a very robust form of protection," said Richard Seamon, a professor at the University of Idaho College of Law and a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General. "To overcome that immunity, you have to show that the defendant almost deliberately acted unconstitutionally to violate someone's rights — no innocent mistakes." If the ruling stands, Ashcroft could be forced to submit to a deposition, Seamon said. "The mere prospect of that causes a lot of concern for these officials, with the time and secrecy parts of that and all the publicity that this kind of thing attracts," Seamon said. "That's exactly why qualified immunity exists, so these officials can be spared that." The judges said they also didn't intend to dampen the ardor of prosecutors as they carried out their duties, and said they were mindful of the pressures face by the attorney general. But, they said, even qualified immunity doesn't allow the attorney general to carry out national security functions completely free from any personal liability concerns. 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. Al-Kidd's attorney, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling panel had implications reaching far beyond the government's actions in detaining material witnesses post-Sept. 11. "Our hope is that we can now begin the process of uncovering the full contours of this illegal national policy," he said. The 9th Circuit judges said al-Kidd's claims plausibly suggest that Ashcroft purposely used the material witness statute to detain suspects whom he wished to investigate and detain preventively. "Sadly, however, even now, more than 217 years after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing, or to prevent them from having contact with others in the outside world," Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote. "We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history." The Department of Justice may now ask the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the ruling by the panel, may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it could allow the lawsuit to revert back to Boise's U.S. District Court. If the case goes back to the lower court, the government will likely have to comply with al-Kidd's discovery requests — releasing documents and files that it has previously maintained were highly confidential and that could pose a threat to national security. The ruling was the latest development in a saga dating back to 2003, when al-Kidd was standing in Dulles International Airport in Washington and surrounded by federal agents. The Kansas-born husband and father of two was held for two weeks before being extradited to Idaho and released to the custody of his wife by a federal judge. The government thought al-Kidd had crucial testimony in a computer terrorism case against fellow Idaho student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. Al-Kidd and Al-Hussayen both worked on behalf of the Islamic Assembly of North America, a Michigan-based charitable organization that federal investigators alleged funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and published material advocating suicide attacks on the United States. A jury eventually acquitted Al-Hussayen of using his computer skills to foster terrorism and of three immigration violations after an eight-week trial. Al-Kidd, who had played football for the University of Idaho under the name Lavoni Kidd, was never charged with a crime. In his lawsuit, al-Kidd says he still suffers from the fallout of his arrest and confinement. He says he was jailed for 16 days in high-security cells that were lit 24 hours a day, and that he was strip-searched several times. When a court ordered that he be released, he was required to live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel, surrender his passport and other travel documents, report to a probation officer and submit to home visits. The confinement and supervision lasted 15 months, and by the time it ended he had separated from his wife and had been fired from his job for a government contractor because the arrest left him unable to get the necessary security clearance. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that another former Sept. 11 detainee, Javaid Iqbal, couldn't sue Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller for abuse he suffered while detained because Iqbal couldn't show there was anything linking the top government officials to the abuses. The 9th U.S. Circuit judges said al-Kidd's case was different, however, because he was able to offer as evidence specific statements that Ashcroft himself made regarding the post-Sept. 11 use of the material witness statute. Ashcroft said that the use of the material witness statute and other enhanced tactics "form one part of the department's concentrated strategy to prevent terrorist attacks by taking suspected terrorists off the street," the ruling said. But the judges also noted that as the case moves forward, al-Kidd will have a significant burden to show that Ashcroft himself was personally involved in an illegal policy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Ashcroft said that the use of the material witness statute and other enhanced tactics "form one part of the department's concentrated strategy to prevent terrorist attacks by taking suspected terrorists off the street," the ruling said. Hang him. Hang him high.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
ping
If one doesn't fit neatly into some government category, they're different and must be fixed.-jethro tull
Ashcroft was a good Attorney General. He was pro-2nd Amendment and private gun ownership. While AG, he also nixed a number of proposed wiretapping plans, such as "Raptor". This is why the fascists are going after him. I missed him.
"The mere prospect of that causes a lot of concern for these officials, with the time and secrecy parts of that and all the publicity that this kind of thing attracts," Seamon said. "That's exactly why qualified immunity exists, so these officials can be spared that." In a perfect world there wouldn't even be a case here, but we live in a far from perfect environment wherein criminals have seated themselves at the controls and levers of power. These nazis have abused the discretion allowed them by their office in order to commit criminal acts against the very base of their "official" authority, the people. The acts of criminal abuse while constantly claiming immunity under state secrets and state security provisions has been tolerated beyond reason for too long. No one is immune for criminal activity, NO ONE ! Even considering a separation between someone's official status and their personal status is a farce. When Ashcroft orders his goons to enter someone's home and take their property without a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so, has he not made a personal decision or is he a robot ? This separation of official capacity and personal capacity is bullshit fed to the mullets by the criminals. This case will stand alone as it applies to a non-citizen rather than a citizen that has become in truth a voluntary subject/slave. Most Americans have waived any rights they ever had in order to have Uncle Sambo buy them some dog food in their old age. [Voluntary servitude is LEGAL]. Prosecutorial Immunity has been applied too broadly for years and this has led to far more abuse than this particular case actually exposes. Federal (and STATE) prosecutors have forged evidence, destroyed evidence, fabricated evidence to such a degree that these acts have become the acceptable norm and thereby cause some people to think our justice system is a joke or broken beyond repair. One very simple example of the nonsensical claims made by the Justice Department (and most others similarly effected) is the sealing of JFK Documents for national security reasons. If Oswald were a lone nut as was the governments theory for years, and he was dead ... why keep documents sealed ? Where is the national security threat ? The government lies continually to keep the mullets thinking they live in a free state ... nothing could be further from the truth and these false claims of immunity and national security degrade us and our freedom. We must look like complete fools to the rest of the world.
The U.S. Govt is a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity for a pound of flesh.
I missed him. No shit ! By the way, how did you hear about Mr. Ashcroft there on planet UR-anus, word of mouth ?
The U.S. Govt is a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity for a pound of flesh.
Amen.
A most excellent summation. Of course the national security threat is the threat against the lives and liberties of the conspirators and accessories within our own government.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
"after 9/11" Say "after US Jew caused 9/11".
Ka-frikkin - ching !
The U.S. Govt is a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity for a pound of flesh.
... Sept. 11, 1787
The U.S. Govt is a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity for a pound of flesh.
Well that's how you learned about him. I learned about him from WND, Frontpage and Newsmax.
Both of these rags are neo-con, right wing gatekeepers, that support the fraud known as the (terrorist) State of Israel, like AMY GOODMAN is a gatekeeper for the left. Your sources are very suspect, as is your ability to discern reality. Reading "shit" is OK but believing it is something quite different.
The U.S. Govt is a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity for a pound of flesh.
This from someone who has no sources, Mr. Glasshouse.
The 9th U.S. Circuit judges said al-Kidd's case was different, however, because he was able to offer as evidence specific statements that Ashcroft himself made regarding the post-Sept. 11 use of the material witness statute.
#2. To: Brian S, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs* (#0)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
If the ruling stands, Ashcroft could be forced to submit to a deposition, Seamon said.
#5. To: PaulCJ (#3)
Ashcroft was a good Attorney General.
#6. To: noone222. all (#4)
The government lies continually to keep the mullets thinking they live in a free state ... nothing could be further from the truth and these false claims of immunity and national security degrade us and our freedom. We must look like complete fools to the rest of the world.
#7. To: noone222 (#4)
One very simple example of the nonsensical claims made by the Justice Department (and most others similarly effected) is the sealing of JFK Documents for national security reasons. If Oswald were a lone nut as was the governments theory for years, and he was dead ... why keep documents sealed ? Where is the national security threat ?
#8. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the government's improper use of material witnesses after Sept. 11 was "repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."
#9. To: Original_Intent (#7)
Of course the national security threat is the threat against the lives and liberties of the conspirators and accessories within our own government.
#10. To: your_neighbor (#8)
(Edited)
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the government's improper use of material witnesses after Sept. 11 was "repugnant to the Constitution ...
#11. To: noone222 (#5)
By the way, how did you hear about Mr. Ashcroft there on planet UR-anus, word of mouth ?
#12. To: PaulCJ (#11)
I learned about him from WND, Frontpage and Newsmax.
#13. To: noone222 (#12)
Your sources are very suspect,
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest