Ashcroft subject to lawsuit court rules

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Interesting how Fern admits Ashcroft "developed the broader policy under which this occurred" yet you felt compelled repost Craig's quote which has nothing to do with the issue that Fern was discussing. Fern was commenting about tying Ashcroft to the dishonest means to obtain the warrant.

Perhaps you should pay better attention to what people are actually typing instead of worrying about bolding and scolding.

Excuse YOU for not being the one paying attention. I read all of Fern's post. He started by saying that the people who lied to the judge should be prosecuted for violating al-Kidd's rights, but then, he goes into full apologist mode and ducks the bigger issue of whether Ashcroft is responsible and with his bullshit about "the broader policy."

He then goes into full denial while admitting his ignorance:

Craig234, I'll re-read your stuff, but so far am not seeing the direct tie to Ashcroft.
.
.
I don't see how Ashcroft's policy amounts to ordering FBI agents etc to lie to judges, nor that he should have known it would lead to that.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the facts of the case, including the court's ruling, and all of what Fern, instead of being in such a hurry to take weak, unsupported shots at me. :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn
Let me help you out Craig.

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
This part is most damning.

The agents failed to tell the magistrate who issued the warrant that al-Kidd was an American citizen with family in the United States, or that he had previously cooperated with the FBI, his lawyers said. They also told the judge he had a one-way ticket, when he actually held a round-trip ticket, they said.

You don't omit relevent information or even worse lie to a judge in order to obtain a warrant.

I agree. However, how is that relevant in regards to Ashcroft? Did he get the warrant? I'm just curious as to how individual details of the case have anything to do with him.

Yeah, the people that lied to the judge should be massive doo-doo for vilating that guy's civil rights.

But as CAD syays, I don't clearly see how Ashcroft is at fault here? Yeah, he developed the broader policy under which this occurred, but again whoever lied to the judge should be responsible.

[snip]

I don't see how Ashcroft's policy amounts to ordering FBI agents etc to lie to judges, nor that he should have known it would lead to that.

Fern

You pick out one sentence but ignore the rest. Notice in the quote above, the conversation to which he was replying was specific to the issue of the dishonest means used to obtain the warrant. Fern specifically mentioned the "lying" more than once (not just "later" as you claim). Pease don't make me have to bold text......My fees for tutoring in remedial reading are steep, but in your case it would be money well spent. Consider it.

No, you picked out one sentence (the one specific to the warrant) and ignored the rest (where he made a broad statement about no connection to Ashcroft which, as I said, was ambiguous as to whether he meant the lawsuit in total or only the warrant.) I posted the accurate interpretation, you did not.

Let's say a poster said, responding to a post on OJ Simpson's guilt of murder:

"I see no connection to OJ.

The supposed belongings in his duffel bag proving his guilt were never confirmed."

Now, is the poster saying he sees no evidence of OJ being guilty of murder, and then commenting on one part of the case? Or ir is he only commenting on the duffel bag?

You can't really tell for sure from the ambiguous comment, but reading it, it looks more like he's talking about the general issue.

So, a response answering that, poingint out the connection of OJ to the murder - or Ashcroft to the wrongs in the lawsuit - is fine, and the poster can clarify if they want that they only meant the duffel bag, or the warrant, instead of having you come along and make baseless obnoxious statements misrepresenting the post.

If we're all in agreement that Ashcroft is clearly liable for the main areas in the lawsuit, and only the connection to the warrant is challenged, then we can agree and that's it.

The only one getting schooled on how to read here is you, Corn.

 

[Corn]

We'll discuss who is not paying attention at ATPN school if Fern returns to clarify.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn
We'll discuss who is not paying attention at ATPN school if Fern returns to clarify.

That actually won't clarigy anything, unless he says he was referring to the lawsuit in general, and contradicts your claim.

If he says he was referring to only the warrant, it doesn't prove the original post wasn't ambiguous, and that you weren't wrong to say otherwise.

 

[waggy]

i suspect Asscroft will be droped from teh suit or settle as they don't want to open this to future lawsuits from people.

But damn it sure looks like he did some nasty shit. he should be punished for it. but i doubt its going to happen.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

He's responsible for the exact same reason a CEO is responsiblie for any flaws/mistakes in his company's books (which would have be made by his accounting department, not the CEO himself).

I'm sure you understand the "CEO -> Accounting flaw" connection, so how can you not see the Ashcroft -> "due process flaw" connection?

I don't think the anology to a CEO and company books/financials is applicable.

IIRC, Sarbanes-Oxley (I believe you are referring to it?) requires the CEO and CFO to personally certify the financial statements of the company.

I don't think Ashcroft personally 'certifies' each of these invetsigations etc. However, if he did personally certify the (false) information provided to the judge, yeah he's guilty too.

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

Ashcroft sucks ass and always has, just like most of the other scum suckers Bush called friends.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Corn
We'll discuss who is not paying attention at ATPN school if Fern returns to clarify.

Well, I'm back and I'll try to clarify now.

1. We have a the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144 (This was news to me. This sounds like something under an 'investigory' system, but ours is an 'accusatory system. You might remember Natalie Hollaway and how those thought to be witnesses could be arrested and detained under the Dutch investigatory system.)

Ashcroft says he wil use the law to protect the USA; his 'new policy'.

Today, I am announcing several steps that we are
taking to enhance our ability to protect the United
States from the threat of terrorist aliens. These measures
form one part of the department?s strategy to
prevent terrorist attacks by taking suspected terrorists
off the street . . . Aggressive detention of lawbreakers
and material witnesses is vital to
preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks.

2. The Plantif, Al-Kidd, alleges the material witness statute was abused to arrest him illegally, they cite various lies and/or omissions by the FBI in obtaining the warrent from the judge. The lies and omissions are a central part of their case.

3. Because Ashcroft developed this policy he should have known it would be abused by the FBI etc:

The complaint avers that
Ashcroft ?knew or reasonably should have known of the
unlawful, excessive, and punitive manner in which the federal
material witness statute was being used,? and that such manner
?would also foreseeably subject? detainees ?to unreasonable
and unlawful use of force, to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement, and to punishment without due process.?

So, looks to me like the whole thrust of this lawsuit is trying to tie the abusive conduct by the FBI (lying to judge etc that the Plantiff cites) directly to Ashcroft ("knew or reasonably should have known").

I.e., they - the plantiff and his lawyers - are arguing a direct tie to Ashcroft for the FBI's wrong doing. I don't see it.

OK, before hitting 'reply' I re-read Harvey and Craig123's posts - I believe the lying etc by the FBI is so important to this case that without it we wouldn't even have a case. And to nail Ashcroft they have to tie him directly to it; and in fact it's obvious from reading their case that is exactly what they are trying to do. IMO, Error 404 - link not found.

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

"No one is above the law," is a simple, universal truth that should always be upheld. I've never understood why anyone, regardless of partisan affiliation would allow someone to be immune from our nation's laws.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Well, I'm back and I'll try to clarify now.

1. We have a the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144 (This was news to me. This sounds like something under an 'investigory' system, but ours is an 'accusatory system. You might remember Natalie Hollaway and how those thought to be witnesses could be arrested and detained under the Dutch investigatory system.)

Ashcroft says he wil use the law to protect the USA; his 'new policy'.

Today, I am announcing several steps that we are
taking to enhance our ability to protect the United
States from the threat of terrorist aliens. These measures
form one part of the department?s strategy to
prevent terrorist attacks by taking suspected terrorists
off the street . . . Aggressive detention of lawbreakers
and material witnesses is vital to
preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks.

Mmmm-m-m-m-m... KoolAid.

2. The Plantif, Al-Kidd, alleges the material witness statute was abused to arrest him illegally, they cite various lies and/or omissions by the FBI in obtaining the warrent from the judge. The lies and omissions are a central part of their case.

"The lies and omissions" are a manifestation of Ashcroft's directives. His own statements make it clear that he intended to use the material witness provisions as offensive weapons to abuse the rights of those hold anyone he suspected, regardless of whether he had sufficient evidence to justify their imprisonment... or any evidence at all.

3. Because Ashcroft developed this policy he should have known it would be abused by the FBI etc:

The complaint avers that
Ashcroft ?knew or reasonably should have known of the
unlawful, excessive, and punitive manner in which the federal
material witness statute was being used,? and that such manner
?would also foreseeably subject? detainees ?to unreasonable
and unlawful use of force, to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement, and to punishment without due process.?

So, looks to me like the whole thrust of this lawsuit is trying to tie the abusive conduct by the FBI (lying to judge etc that the Plantiff cites) directly to Ashcroft ("knew or reasonably should have known").

I.e., they - the plantiff and his lawyers - are arguing a direct tie to Ashcroft for the FBI's wrong doing. I don't see it.

Didn't your mother warn you, if you didn't stop that, you'd go blind? :shocked: :roll: