Then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft violated the rights of U.S. citizens in the fevered wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by ordering arrests on material witness warrants when the government lacked probable cause, a federal appeals court said in a scathing opinion Friday.
In a ruling that said Ashcroft could be sued for prosecutorial abuses, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the former attorney general immunity from liability for how he used the material witness warrants in national security investigations.
Members of the panel, all appointees of Republican presidents, characterized Ashcroft's detention policy as "repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."
Civil liberties advocates cheered the ruling in the case brought by Kansas-born Muslim convert Abdullah Kidd, saying it spotlighted excesses committed by the Bush administration in the post-9/11 scramble to thwart terrorist plots.
"The court made it very clear today that . . . Ashcroft's use of the federal material witness law circumvented the Constitution," said Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued Kidd's case. "Regardless of your rank or title, you can't escape liability if you personally created and oversaw a policy that deliberately violates the law."
The ruling could allow Kidd's suit for damages to proceed to trial if the government doesn't appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seek Supreme Court review.
A spokesman for Ashcroft, Mark Corallo, didn't return phone calls.
Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said: "We will review the court's decision and make a determination in the future as to what the government's next step will be."
Although the ruling denied immunity to Ashcroft, the government would probably be responsible for covering any successful damage claims brought by those found to have been wrongly arrested.
Kidd, a former University of Idaho running back whose birth name was Lavoni T. Kidd, sued Ashcroft after he was arrested at Washington Dulles International Airport en route to a Saudi scholarship program in March 2003.
He was handcuffed, strip-searched and shuttled among interrogations in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho before being released 16 days later and ordered to surrender his passport and live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada.
The arrest led to Kidd being denied a security clearance and losing his job with a government contractor.
In his 2005 complaint, Kidd noted that then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, in an appearance before a congressional subcommittee during Kidd's detention, had pointed to his arrest and that of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as evidence of government progress in reining in terrorists.
"To this day, the government has never explained why the director of the FBI would tell the United States Congress that the arrest of Mr. al Kidd -- supposedly a witness -- represented one of the government's noteworthy recent successes in the war on terrorism," the complaint stated.
It is unclear how many U.S. citizens were picked up on material witness warrants in the sweep conducted by national security forces after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Like the preventive detention abroad of foreign terrorism suspects and the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, in which suspected enemies were whisked from foreign locales to interrogation "black sites," the material witness arrests were conducted in secret.
At least two other prominent Muslim converts are known to have been arrested as supposed material witnesses.
Alleged would-be "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla was detained at Chicago O'Hare International Airport and held for 3 1/2 years without charges before his 2007 conviction in an unrelated terrorism case in Florida.
Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney erroneously connected to the 2004 Madrid train bombings, was also arrested as a material witness and held for two weeks. He was never charged, and has received an apology from the U.S. government as well as a $2-million settlement.
Constitutional law scholars applauded the 9th Circuit decision as affirmation of citizens' rights to be free from illegal detention.
"This is really important," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. "This is a federal court of appeals saying that what was done here under the material witness statute was clearly a violation of the Constitution -- that it was not protected by prosecutorial absolute immunity."
That means that the unknown numbers of wrongfully detained suspects could sue Ashcroft for damages, claiming their rights were violated, Chemerinsky said.
Georgetown Law professor David Cole said that Ashcroft adopted an aggressive "preventive paradigm" after Sept. 11 designed "to incapacitate people who government officials thought suspicious but lacked evidence of any wrongdoing. They were locked up and then investigated, rather than the other way around."
Virtually all of the targets had nothing to do with terrorism, Cole said.
The Supreme Court has made a distinction between using material witness warrants to ensure someone's appearance at trial and misusing them to detain someone to be investigated for suspected wrongdoing, the panel noted in its 98-page opinion.
The panel also cast the previous administration's practice of detaining suspects without cause as behavior that the framers of the Constitution would have found abhorrent.
The judges, alluding to the George W. Bush administration, said that although "some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain" suspects without evidence of wrongdoing, the panel considered such preemptive detentions "an engine of political tyranny."
The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of Bush's, whose practices in the war on terrorism were at the heart of the case.
Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea, a fellow Bush appointee,wrote a separate opinion partially concurring and partially dissenting. Smith was joined fully by Senior Circuit Judge David R. Thompson, named to the bench by President Reagan.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ashcroft-rights5-20...
Fiorelli
I am betting it goes to the Supreme Court.
1This will certainly be a case to watch!
2"The judges, alluding to the George W. Bush administration, said that although "some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain" suspects without evidence of wrongdoing, the panel considered such preemptive detentions "an engine of political tyranny."
It's scary to think about what the last administration felt it could do. It seems they used the Constitution for toilet paper. They certainly didn't abide by it.
3"the panel considered such preemptive detentions "an engine of political tyranny." I agree with the panel here 100%
4This admin isn't exactly following the Constitution to a T either.
5since i'm sure it will be asked, when i'm thinking unconstitutional i'm thinking of all the czars and the takeover of GM.
6How is having someone designated as the President's point man on an issue unconstitutional - or equal to having citizens handcuffed, strip-searched, shuttled among interrogations in several states, and ordered to surrender their passport and live with family in Nevada, causing them to be denied a security clearance and losing his job with a government contractor?
Is it the number of czars that makes it unconstitutional?
How is taking over GM equal to having citizens handcuffed, strip-searched, shuttled among interrogations in several states, and ordered to surrender their passport and live with family in Nevada, causing them to be denied a security clearance and losing their job?
I'm just not feeling the comparison.
7I never said equal. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, it shouldn't be "well you can break some rules, but not others"
But it's wise to not make inflammatory statements if the people on your side can be accused of the same thing.
8all constitutional amendments are equal to the original document, just some are more equal then others.
9"well you can break some rules, but not others"
10The question remains, how can the czar thing suddenly be unconstitutional? Is it okay to have some, but whatever number Obama has is unconstitutional?
here's a theory on the czars: http://www.therealitycheck.org/2009/08/30/obamas-unconstitutional-czars/
11here's an article where a Dem is saying they're unconstitutional: http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/06/15/senior_democrat_s...
12This isn't a random politician complaining about policy he doesn't like - this is a three-judge panel saying Ashcroft can be sued for practices that the judges see as "an engine of political tyranny."
Not about czars, not about GM.
It's about having citizens handcuffed, strip-searched, shuttled among interrogations in several states, and ordered to surrender their passport and live with family in Nevada, causing them to be denied a security clearance and losing their job - and them being able to sue in return.
13I'm not saying its not wrong. I'm just saying that if one is going to say something as inflammatory as "It's scary to think about what the last administration felt it could do. It seems they used the Constitution for toilet paper." then they should be 100% positive that their prefferred admin can't be accused of doing anything but following the Constitution to the very letter.
14There is no panel of judges calling the actions of her preferred administration "an engine of political tyranny" and freeing victims of a past administration constitutional abuses to seek justice.
15A panel of judges does not equal fact.
16What kind of power do Czars have?
17Pay czar Kenneth Fineberg has been quoted as saying he can decide what CEOs get paid:
Asked by Reuters whether his powers include reaching back and revoking bonuses awarded to financial industry executives before his office was created earlier this year, Feinberg asserted broad and binding authorities -- including the ability to "claw back" money already paid out.
"The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final," Feinberg claims. "Anything is possible under the law."
18Personally, I would call that unconstitutional.
19But he's not talking about 'czar' laws, he's talking about laws concerning the specific issue he's handling - not random authority the President has handed him - because the President doesn't make laws.
20handling those specific issues and being the final word on them is giving a czar too much power.
a czar should be able to make recommendations but ulimately ELECTED officials should have the last say.
21Members of the President's aren't elected, the heads of agencies like the FCC aren't elected - they work with and for the president, carrying out policies in compliance with laws passed by elected officials.
22But that system was designed in the Constitution or by elected officials. We still had a voice in its conception.
No one has a voice with czars and there is, apparently, no limit to their powers or how many of them there can be.
I think that is wrong and unconstitutional. You don't agree clearly. But that shows that the constitution is still up for interpretation.
23Realistically, if you think about the claim that there is no limit to their powers, it makes no sense. Presidents don't have absolute authority, so they can't give absolute authority to anyone else. The 'czars' have titles like "Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change" - not Big Boss of All Matters Energy. Czar is not their official title, it's media shorthand.
What examples of czars exercising their unchecked powers do you have to support the claim that there is no limit to their powers?
Why would any president, much less the last four, try to give members of their administration more power than they themselves have?
How could a President, who has limits on his own power, appoint people with unlimited authority?
Why would the number of czars be relevant to whether they are Constitutional? Would it somehow be okay for a President to have five omnipotent czars in his administration?
24Can't you just accept that we don't agree and that others have opinions different from yours and thats ok?
25No one's stopping you from having an opinion; however, you brought it up here and have repeatedly come back to emphasize your points so there's nothing unreasonable about responding to them.
26"Can't you just accept that we don't agree and that others have opinions different from yours and thats ok?"
Sorry Haus, but two were tangoing on this thread. Looks like you guys were just having a friendly debate and isn't that part of what 4.0 is all about?
27I never said it was unreasonable but can't you understand how someone can just feel badgered and just want to drop it?
28Where's the sympathy in gun control threads?
29Hey I give up on that plenty!
30Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.