Former Attorney General and lightning rod for the left wing, John Ashcroft can be sued says the 9th circuit court of appeals. Abdullah al-Kidd says that John Ashcroft violated his rights when he was held for 16 days in 2003, suspected of having information about a terrorism case. Gee, thanks 9th circuit.
John Ashcroft
The 9th circuit court of appeals, known for its left leaning rulings, decided 2-1 that Bush era policies of detaining Muslims under the material-witness law were in their words “repugnant to the constitution”. Never mind that we had just been attacked, and were in the early stages of garnering information on Muslim extremist groups geared toward our destruction. From the Jubilant San Francisco Chronicle:
The government lacks “the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end … merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing,” Judge Milan Smith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said in the majority opinion.
“We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” Smith wrote.
The lone dissenting opinion said that John Ashcroft was acting as a prosecutor and couldn’t be sued for ordering the arrest of a potential witness. The ruling that John Ashcroft can be sued, opens a Pandora’s box of possible judicial actions against the former administration for their efforts in defending the country.
If John Ashcroft can be sued for detaining possible suspects in terror cases, does that mean that we can sue Eric Holder for investigating the CIA and possibly making us less safe? I’m just saying.
Eric Holder CIA Video
September 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“we can sue Eric Holder for investigating the CIA and possibly making us less safe? I’m just saying.”
You can’t really be this dumb, can you? Ashcroft violated the constitution by detaining US citizens without evidence. Only insane rightwing nuts, like yourself, think people in power and politicians should be above the law and free to violate constitution. Holder is investigation people working for CIA who may have violated the law at the time. No one is detained without evidence. There is nothing illegal about doing investigation. No violation of constitution or the law. No similarity between the two cases at all. Think of a better analogy next time, idiot.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Immunity doesn’t extend to intentional violations of the constitution. That’s existing law already in place and the decision of the circuit court is not out of the ordinary in that regard. No precedents are being set or changed. This would be a boring case if it wasn’t for the fact that Ashcroft was a defendant. 2 judges held that Ashcroft was not acting as an prosecutor in this case, and therefore was not eligible for immunity. 1 judge disagreed.
This decision doesn’t set any sort dangerous precedent and prosecutors are in no more danger of being sued then they were before. You really have to mess up in order to find oneself outside the protection of immunity.
Would you really prefer a world where the same people who swear to uphold the constitution are granted immunity in the rare cases where they act against it?