Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case

[Pren]

[07:49] A federal appeals court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be sued by people who claim they were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after 9/11, and called the government practice "repugnant to the Constitution."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled Friday that the claims of a former University of Idaho student plausibly suggest Ashcroft purposely used the material witness statute to detain suspects whom he wished to investigate and detain preventively.

"We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history," Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote.

...

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.

The judges said they didn't intend to dampen the ardor of prosecutors as they carried out their duties, and said they were mindful of the pressures faced by the attorney general. But even qualified immunity doesn't allow the attorney general to carry out national security functions completely free from any personal liability concerns, they said.

Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case - Yahoo! News

Another Arab guy was ruled against in a similar case, but apparently there was sufficient evidence in this one to show that Ashcroft abused his authority to use the power granted post-9/11 to investigate people who he was interested in.

[Simas]

Here it be.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/06-36059.pdf

but apparently there was sufficient evidence in this one to show that Ashcroft abused his authority

To be clear, the court did not hold there was sufficient evidence to show Ashcroft abused his authority. On the contrary, the court mentioned al-Kidd will face a substantial burden back in the district court. The court held it was plausible Ashcroft abused his authority. Also, Ashcroft's immunity claims were denied.

Broadly, Ashcroft was saying al-Kidd shouldnt be allowed to sue him. The court disagreed. SCOTUS went the other way in Iqbal, but the facts there were different.

[Fammaden]

The courts are the one branch out of the three that actually does some shit once in a while to uphold my faith in our system. Though I guess the judicial branch technically refers to the supreme court?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

But it was for our own protection, don't you see! HE WAS TRYING TO SAVE AMERICA!

[tjac]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

The courts are the one branch out of the three that actually does some shit once in awhile to uphold my faith in our system. Though I guess the judicial branch technically refers to the supreme court?

It's encouraging that you actually appreciate the judicial branch. I think you're right that it still does some good (of course it's flawed, too -- especially in intellectual property and criminal matters). It's too bad that so many people are so ignorant of law and civics that they can't see beyond the cliches of activist judges and nullifying juries.

Anyway, the judicial branch encompasses the whole thing: district, appellate and supreme. And the state court systems parallel the federal.

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by tjac

It's too bad that so many people are so ignorant of law and civics that they can't see beyond the cliches of activist judges and nullifying juries.

Yeah that "activist judges" neo con talking point is annoying. I'm sure if the evil "activist judge" was ruling in favor of some ideology that the offended parties supported, then it would suddenly cease to be a problem. The courts are certainly NOT perfect, but of the three branches it seems like they are the only one with the capacity to place the constitution over petty self interest and external influence. Might be a ton more behind the scenes that I don't know about I guess.

[Astrocreep]

damn neojewcons