Obama administration to defend John Ashcroft at Supreme Court

[Enrique]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/ashcroft-to-get-high-court-review-of-lawsuit-by-man-held-as-terror-witness.html

(...)

Obama administration lawyers are representing Ashcroft at the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court ruling would have dire consequences for criminal investigations.

The ruling would “threaten the ability of prosecutors to discharge their duties without fear of personal liability, severely limit the usefulness of the material witness statute and substantially chill officers in the exercise of important government functions,” acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued in the appeal.

Al-Kidd, an African American who converted to Islam, contends he was swept up in a broad anti-terrorism investigation aimed at Arab and Muslim men and approved by Ashcroft. He was arrested at Dulles International Airport outside Washington as he was preparing to board a flight to Saudi Arabia, where he says he planned to study at a university.

He alleges that over the next 16 days he was treated as if he were a terrorist rather than a witness. He says he was strip- searched, shackled and placed with hardened criminals. Al-Kidd also says he was interrogated without the presence of a lawyer.

Terrorism Case

Al-Kidd’s lawyers said in court papers that his case “involves a gross abuse of the government’s narrow power” under material witness law, which lets the government hold innocent persons to ensure they will be available to testify.

(...)

[GodlessBiker]

1. The government protecting its own.

[n2doc]

2. So if the Admin loses will Obama pardon Ashcroft?

That would be the ultimate FU to those who still care about justice in this country.

[eggman67]

7. Nothing to pardon

It's a civil case not a criminal case. The question is whether this guy can sue Ashcroft personally, or does he have to sue the government.

[The Northerner]

3. Disappointing, if confirmed true

[HughMoran]

4. Does the government have a choice?

Do you know, or is everything seen through partisan glasses?

[Autumn]

5. I would think they would have a choice.

Ashcroft was an ass who helped the previous administration to trample human rights. So whats partisan about someone being disappointed that our Administration is defending him? Just covering up crimes I guess.

[old mark]

6. I think they pretty much have to defend him...I hope they lose.nt

[Autumn]

8. Well I certainly hope they lose. I really don't know that

they are required to defend him, seems like there would be some lee-way. Nothing partisan about hoping for justice though.