Reply With Quote
Ashcroft, he of the aluminum s drapery?
Not high enough. Go after his bosses.
Major ruling against Ashcroft highlights evils of preventive detention
Yesterday -- in a very significant decision (.pdf) written by Bush-43-appointed federal judge Milan Smith and joined by a Reagan-appointed judge -- the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a lawsuit to proceed that was brought against John Ashcroft for the illegal and uncons utional detention of American Muslims. The suit was brought by Abdullah al-Kidd, an American citizen of African-American descent who converted to Islam. Al-Kidd was arrested, detained under abusive conditions, and then had his movements and freedoms severely restricted for sixteen months despite no evidence that he had done anything wrong.
The suit arises out of a policy established by Ashcroft of abusing the "material witness" statute, which authorizes the detention of key witnesses to a criminal case where it's likely they will be unavailable to testify in the absence of their pre-trial detention. Ashcroft used that statute as a pretext for arresting American Muslims where there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause they had committed a crime (the standard required to justify their arrest). In other words, Ashcroft's DOJ would pretend that they wanted to detain Muslim citizens because they were "material witnesses" to a crime, when the real reason was that they suspected them of Terrorist connections and wanted to arrest and investigate them but lacked the evidence required by law to justify an arrest -- i.e., they wanted to "preventively detain" them in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing.
The real significance of this case is that it highlights the dangers and evils of preventive detention -- an issue that will be front and center when Obama shortly presents his proposal for a preventive detention scheme, something he first advocated in May. What Ashcroft is accused of doing illegally is exactly the same thing Obama wants the legal power to do (except that Obama's powers would presumably apply to foreign nationals, not citizens): namely, order people imprisoned as Terrorist suspects -- "preventively detained" -- where there is insufficient evidence to prove they committed any crime.
I really urge everyone to read the section of the court's decision which sets forth in a concise, clear and non-legalistic manner the facts of what was done to al-Kidd by the DOJ: it's just 3 pages long, beginning on page 12271 ("Facts and Procedural Background") through 12274 (the three pages after that, also highly recommended, detail Ashcroft's culpability in creating this nefarious, illegal detention scheme). Please just go read this 3-page section laying out the facts of what was done to al-Kidd's life and what preventive detention powers allow the Government to do. Anyone who supports Obama's call for a preventive detention scheme is, by definition, supporting things like this (though, if anything, what happened to al-Kidd -- as horrible as it is -- is short and innocuous compared to what a "prolonged detention" scheme would permit: years of indefinite, charge-free imprisonment).
The principal legal issue strictly resolved by the court here is somewhat narrow and legalistic. A political official has absolute immunity from lawsuits based on decisions made in a prosecutorial capacity (e.g., whether to indict or prosecute someone), but not for law enforcement decisions (e.g., whether to arrest or detain someone). You can't ever sue a prosecutor for deciding to prosecute you, but you can sue someone who arrests you if they acted illegally and in clear violation of your legal rights. The Ninth Circuit ruled that where, as here, there is credible evidence that the real reason an official ordered someone detained as a material witness (normally a prosecutorial act) was to arrest them, that is a law enforcement act, not a prosecutorial one, and he is therefore not en led to absolute immunity from lawsuits if he violated the law when doing so. Hence, this lawsuit against Ashcroft personally -- alleging that he ordered Muslims detained in clear violation of their legal rights -- can proceed.
But, as the court obviously recognized, the real significance of this ruling goes far beyond that narrow immunity issue. There are few powers more anathema to our system of government than the power to imprison people in the absence of proof that they committed a crime. Yet when Obama advocated that Congress enact a preventive detention scheme, that is exactly the power he sought for himself. Here is the court's eloquent concluding section, manifestly applicable not only to the case before it but to the wider, imminent debate over preventive detention:
None of that changes because it is a non-citizen who is imprisoned without evidence of any crimes. Preventive detention is a noxious and dangerous power to vest in the Government. That's what Thomas Jefferson meant when -- in a 1789 letter to Thomas Paine -- he wrote: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its cons ution" (emphasis added). John Ashcroft's abuse of the material witness statute to "preventively detain" numerous American Muslims who had done nothing wrong was "repugnant," dangerous and tyrannical -- and that's exactly what any Congressional scheme would be that purports to vest the President with the legal power to "preventively detain" people in the absence of criminal charges.
Ashcroft, he of the aluminum s drapery?
Not high enough. Go after his bosses.
Maybe it were wiser to prevent this practice from becoming legal, as Obama will soon propose. There's needn't be any rush to prosecute the previous administration. Besides, this action is civil, not criminal.
Rush? these Repug crimes were already 4 - 5 years ago. Rush?
The chances for prosecution of higher ups before last november were nil. Even now, they are very unlikely. For war crimes there is no statute of limitations, so like I said, there's no rush.
Wonder if this has any connection to Ashcroft writting recently that the Bush adminisratation was manipulating the terror alert level for political purposes.
I think this a great idea and will set a wonderfull precident, but somehow I think politicains from both sides of the aisle might just shoot it down.
You might be thinking of Tom Ridge.
At the very least it will divert attention away from the failures of the Obama administration, though I'd never be so cynical as to suggest this may in anyway be the motives behind it.
Conservative judges want to draw attention away from the failures of the Obama administration?
I believe the 9th circut court has the highest rate of overturned cases of any appeals court in America...go figure.
Of course... Doesn't it make sense?
On the contrary, it draws attention to Obama's outrageous aim to provide a legal basis for arbitrary detention.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-06-2009 at 11:53 PM.
Novelty hardens into custom.
Bush pioneered the style of brazenness required to sustain imperial discretion, while Obama now seeks to provide the legal architecture for administrative detention and a host of other shady executive powers.
In the UK they put up with this.
I wonder how it will go over here?
why should it bother the british, Long kesh prison and H block made gitmo look like a palace, gitmo looks like a palace compared to what alot of the american working class live with.
Bull , micca.
What is
That Gitmo is a palace compared to American jails. I understand our jails are tough, but the comparison is untenable. Inmates in jail have access to their lawyers and the courts.
And equating the conditions of confinement with Gitmo is just dishonest or deluded.
extending to the filth in gitmo the social contract of citizens is dishonest and deluded.
In an episodic way, LE may inflict brutality on inmates, but at Gitmo abusive treatment was, and maybe still is, policy.
Tough luck. The government abused its discretion, not to mention a lot of innocent people, so the courts are reining it in.
The USG's losing streak in court is impressive.
The government has lost, like, 29 of 36 cases. They are not able to present any credible basis for detaining in the great majority of cases that have reached the light of day.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-08-2009 at 02:53 PM. Reason: 29 of 36 as of today
The courts now and for quite sometime have been nothing more than political footballs, that is why they are held in such universal contempt.
Your losing streak continues as well. If you don't believe in tripar e government and coequal branches, you're not really a Cons utionalist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
