Supreme Court Lets John Ashcroft Get Away With It

[Viking 1]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the post-9/11 arrest of an American Muslim who was never charged with a crime.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Ashcroft did not violate the constitutional rights of Abdullah al-Kidd, who was arrested in 2003 under a federal law intended to make sure witnesses testify in criminal proceedings.

Al-Kidd claimed in a federal lawsuit that the arrest and detention violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

But even the justices who disagreed about the constitutional issue agreed that Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his role in al-Kidd's arrest. The court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that denied Ashcroft immunity from liability in this case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_ashcroft_lawsuit

Gee, never saw that one coming! :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Here is my hopeful silver lining on news like this:

First, at least this made it to the Supreme Court. Cold comfort, I know. But still...

Second, part of this process is working out exactly who is culpable for such action. Right now it looks like the FBI is in the crosshairs because of how agents handled the material witness warrant. I still think there are twists and turns enough in this process to gain a foothold which not only will Mr. al-Kidd be able to use to seek justice, but that others will as well.

PB

[loudsue]

3. I hope you're right about that. Justice has a whole new meaning in the USA these days.

Not anything that looks like "justice" to me, for sure.

[progressoid]

4. Yeah, big surprise.