View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: Asshcroft can be sued by 9/11 witnesses |
|
|
Asshcroft abused the material witness statute to detain those against whom he had no charges. It is yet undetermined that he will be held responsible for this.
Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case
By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press Writer Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Writer � Sat Sep 5, 7:32 am ET
BOISE, Idaho � 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.
The ruling allows Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen, to proceed with a lawsuit that claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was detained in 2003 as a material witness in a federal terrorism case.
Phone messages left at Ashcroft's Washington D.C. lobbying and law firms were not returned Friday.
Ashcroft had asked that the matter be dismissed, saying he was entitled to absolute immunity from the lawsuit because his position at the Department of Justice was prosecutorial.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller would only say Friday that the agency was reviewing the opinion.
If the ruling stands, Ashcroft could be forced to submit to a deposition, said Richard Seamon, a professor at the University of Idaho College of Law and a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
more at link |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cheonmunka

Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
What if it turns out Abdullah was a terrorist, would liberals be crying foul then? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
dmbfan

Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
What if it turns out Abdullah was a terrorist, would liberals be crying foul then? |
Good question. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sqrlnutz123
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 Location: South Korea
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume that since they had no evidence as such to begin with, and he is not currently detained or under investigation, that he isn't. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheonmunka wrote: |
What if it turns out Abdullah was a terrorist, would liberals be crying foul then? |
So let's just lock everybody up just in case they are terrorists?
If there were any evidence against him, he would have been arrested. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|