Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ashcroft not Immune from Imprisonment Lawsuits

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ashcroft not Immune from Imprisonment Lawsuits

    Didn't know if anyone had kept up on this. CNN is not where I originally saw the story but here is a related CNN link

    Basically:

    A federal court ruled U.S. citizens who were held without charges during post 9/11 terror investigations can sue the then Attorney General John Ashcroft for unlawful imprisonment. The ruling was made by a panel of 3, Republican appointed, federal appellate judges. They ruled that Ashcroft had violated the rights of citizens held on material witness warrants when the government lacked probable cause to arrest them. The Panel called such actions "repugnant to the Constitution" and ruled that Ashcroft had no immunity from lawsuits brought on by those detained. This is in reference to the case brought by Abdullah Kidd, a Kansas born Muslim convert who was held without charge for 16 days in 2003.

    Anybody have any updates on this?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

    — John Stuart Mill

  • #2
    Even if they did try to sue Ashcroft, that would only be the case for about a day before the Dept of Justice took his place as the defendant.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by madchiken View Post
      Even if they did try to sue Ashcroft, that would only be the case for about a day before the Dept of Justice took his place as the defendant.
      They did sue Ashcroft. The Ninth Circuit held that the suit could proceed. The Justice Department is defending him, but Ashcroft remains a named party.

      http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/06-36059.pdf
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DAL View Post
        They did sue Ashcroft. The Ninth Circuit held that the suit could proceed. The Justice Department is defending him, but Ashcroft remains a named party.

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

        The Federal Employees Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4563) as an amendment to the FTCA. The act overruled Westfall by broadening the class of activities given immunity. Originally limited to the operation of motor vehicles, the act gave immunity to any wrongful or negligent act that an employee commits while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment. Congress required the government to accept sole responsibility for its employees' actions in the scope of employment, leaving those employees free to administer government policies without fear of personal liability.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by madchiken View Post
          The Federal Employees Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4563) as an amendment to the FTCA. The act overruled Westfall by broadening the class of activities given immunity. Originally limited to the operation of motor vehicles, the act gave immunity to any wrongful or negligent act that an employee commits while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment. Congress required the government to accept sole responsibility for its employees' actions in the scope of employment, leaving those employees free to administer government policies without fear of personal liability.
          You said that "it would only be about a day before the Dept of Justice took his place as the defendant." Obviously that did not happen even though months have elapsed. There is a difference between who is liable and who is named a party. It affects discovery.

          Also, this is not an FTCA action.
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            I posted that cause it is interesting and unprecedented. Its rather silly to imply that it cannot be done because it has never been done or because their was a law or precedent that kept it from happening in the past. That is the point...it is unprecedented...without precedent....
            "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

            — John Stuart Mill

            Comment

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 6132 users online. 369 members and 5763 guests.

            Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X