Ashcroft subject to lawsuit court rules

[MrMatt]

I really hope this guy is able to nail ashcroft to the wall. His life is basically ruined, and it was over something that was obviously a mistake.

(CNN) -- Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is not immune from being sued by a man who says he was illegally detained under Justice Department policies implemented after the September 11 terror attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The man, a native-born U.S. citizen who was once a college football star, was held and interrogated by the FBI for 16 days in 2003 and his travel was limited for another year, court documents said.

A spokesman for Ashcroft, asked for his reaction, said, "We're reviewing the decision and have no further comment."

The court rejected Ashcroft's argument that his involvement was as a prosecutor, which would give him full immunity from lawsuits, not as an investigator, which could leave him liable.

"We disagree," the decision said. "Many tools and tactics available to prosecutors can serve either an investigatory or advocacy-related function."

Abdullah al-Kidd's lawyers said Ashcroft developed a policy under which the FBI and Justice Department would use the federal material witness law as a pretext "to arrest and detain terrorism suspects about whom they did not have sufficient evidence to arrest on criminal charges but wished to hold preventively or to investigate further."

His arrest warrant was based on an FBI affidavit that said he was needed to testify at the trial of a Saudi man who had been indicted on visa fraud. Al-Kidd was never called as a witness in that case, in which the defendant was acquitted, court documents said.

The decision said that "al-Kidd's arrest functioned as an investigatory arrest or national security-related pre-emptive detention, rather than as one to secure a witness's testimony for trial."

Al-Kidd, an African-American born in Wichita, Kansas, converted to Islam and changed his name from Lavini T. Kidd, according to court documents.

He was taken into custody at Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia as he prepared to depart to Saudi Arabia, where he planned to study Arabic and Islamic law, the documents said.

The FBI interrogated him, moving him from Virginia to Oklahoma and then Idaho, court documents said. He was kept in chains while being held in high-security cells that were lit 24 hours a day, his lawyers said.

A judge ordered his release 16 days later, but he was required to surrender his passport and stay in Nevada for another 15 months.

During that time, he lost his job with a government contractor because he could not get a required security clearance. The father of two also was divorced by his wife.

The FBI began watching al-Kidd months before detaining him, as part of their anti-terror investigation aimed at Muslim men, his lawyers said.

When agents learned of his plans to fly to Saudi Arabia, they obtained the "material witness" warrant based on their contention he would not return.

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.

 

[IamDavid]

Pathetic polotics that will lead no where.

 

[jackschmittusa]

IamDavid

So you really don't care if our leaders break the law?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
IamDavid

So you really don't care if our leaders break the law?

Unfortunantly, about 90% of the voters for either party really don't fucking care about the legality of their actions as long as it's their party.

It's religion made into politics. "OUR guy is always good".

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
IamDavid

So you really don't care if our leaders break the law?

Unfortunantly, about 90% of the voters for either party really don't fucking care about the legality of their actions as long as it's their party.

It's religion made into politics. "OUR guy is always good".

:thumbsup:



I don;t care what party someone is. To be able to hold a US citizen the way they did him is wrong on so many levels.
Just as Bush knew he was breaking a lot of laws as well but by the time it got to the court the damage was already done. He is not the first to do this either.

 

[Lemon law]

Not only should Ashcroft get a huge dope slap, so should the courts who took 6 damn years to come up with a no brainer.
Justice delayed is justice denied takes on a whole new meaning after six years.

 

[waggy]

i have to say i agree with this law. Ashcroft broke the law in this case and should pay fully for that.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MrMatt

I really hope this guy is able to nail ashcroft to the wall. His life is basically ruined, and it was over something that was obviously a mistake.

... Or it wasn't a "mistake." It could be one more case where the Bushies' got caught in their larger, overall campaign of subversion and shredding of our Constitutional rights.

In any case, it's good to hold them responsible for their crimes and their mistakes in open court. :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Here is the story of what happened to the plaintiff under Ashcroft's abuse of the 'material witness' law to detain people the government lacked legal basis to.

It's from the Appelate court ruling, linked in Glenn Greenwald's column.

Link to the column

According to the allegations of his first amended complaint,
Plaintiff-Appellee Abdullah al-Kidd (al-Kidd), a
United States citizen and a married man with two children,
was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter.
He was handcuffed, taken to the airport?s police substation,
and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined
in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia,
Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip
searched on multiple occasions. Each time he was transferred
to a different facility, al-Kidd was handcuffed and shackled
about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released
from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live
with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to
Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents,
regularly report to a probation officer, and consent to home

12270 AL-KIDD v. ASHCROFT

visits throughout the period of supervision. By the time al-
Kidd?s confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months
after his arrest, al-Kidd had been fired from his job as an
employee of a government contractor because he was denied
a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from
his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment
since his arrest.

Al-Kidd was not arrested and detained because he had
allegedly committed a crime. He alleges that he was arrested
and confined because former United States Attorney General
John Ashcroft (Ashcroft), subordinates operating under policies
promulgated by Ashcroft, and others within the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ), unlawfully used the federal
material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, to investigate
or preemptively detain him. Ashcroft asserts that he is entitled
to absolute and qualified immunity against al-Kidd?s claims.
We hold that on the facts pled Ashcroft is not protected by
either form of immunity, and we affirm in part and reverse in
part the decision of the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Al-Kidd
Plaintiff-Appellee al-Kidd was born Lavoni T. Kidd in
Wichita, Kansas. While attending college at the University of
Idaho, where he was a highly regarded running back on the
University?s football team, he converted to Islam and changed
his name. In the spring and summer of 2002, he and his thenwife
were the target of a Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) surveillance as part of a broad anti-terrorism investigation
allegedly aimed at Arab and Muslim men.2 No evidence
of criminal activity by al-Kidd was ever discovered. Al-Kidd
planned to fly to Saudi Arabia in the spring of 2003 to study
Arabic and Islamic law on a scholarship at a Saudi university.
On February 13, 2003, a federal grand jury in Idaho
indicted Sami Omar Al-Hussayen for visa fraud and making
false statements to U.S. officials. On March 14, the Idaho
U.S. Attorney?s Office submitted an application to a magistrate
judge of the District of Idaho, seeking al-Kidd?s arrest as
a material witness in the Al-Hussayen trial. Appended to the
application was an affidavit by Scott Mace, a Special Agent
of the FBI in Boise (the Mace Affidavit). The Mace Affidavit
described two contacts al-Kidd had with Al-Hussayen: al-
Kidd had received ?in excess of $20,000? from Al-Hussayen
(though the Mace Affidavit does not indicate what this payment
was for), and al-Kidd had ?met with Al-Hussayen?s
associates? after returning from a trip to Yemen. It also contained
evidence of al-Kidd?s contacts with officials of the
Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA, an organization
with which Al-Hussayen was affiliated),3 including one official
?who was recently arrested in New York.? It ended with
the statement, ?[d]ue to Al-Kidd?s demonstrated involvement
with the defendant . . . he is believed to be in possession of
information germane to this matter which will be crucial to
the prosecution.? The Mace Affidavit did not elaborate on
what ?information? al-Kidd might have had, nor how his testimony
might be ?germane??let alone ?crucial??to the prosecution
of Al-Hussayen.

The affidavit further stated:
Kidd is scheduled to take a one-way, first class flight
(costing approximately $5,000) to Saudi Arabia on
Sunday, March 16, 2003, at approximately 6:00
EST. He is scheduled to fly from Dulles International
Airport to JFK International Airport in New
York and then to Saudi Arabia. . . . It is believed that
if Al-Kidd travels to Saudi Arabia, the United States
Government will be unable to secure his presence at
trial via subpoena.

In fact, al-Kidd had a round-trip, coach class ticket, costing
approximately $1700. The Mace Affidavit omitted the facts
that al-Kidd was a U.S. resident and citizen; that his parents,
wife, and two children were likewise U.S. residents and citizens;
and that he had previously cooperated with the FBI on
several occasions when FBI agents asked to interview him.
The magistrate judge issued the warrant the same day.
Pursuant to the material witness warrant, al-Kidd was
arrested two days later at the ticket counter at Dulles International
Airport. He was handcuffed and taken to the airport?s
police substation, where he was interrogated. Thereafter, he
was detained for an aggregate of sixteen days at the Alexandria
Detention Center in Virginia, the Oklahoma Federal
Transfer Center, and the Ada County, Idaho, Jail. He was strip
searched on multiple occasions and confined in the highsecurity
unit of each facility. During transfer between facilities,
al-Kidd was handcuffed and shackled about his wrists,
legs, and waist. He was allowed out of his cell only one to
two hours each day, and his cell was kept lit twenty-four
hours a day, unlike other cells in the high-security wing.
On March 31, after petitioning the court, al-Kidd was
ordered released, on the conditions that he live with his wife
at his in-laws? home in Nevada, limit his travel to Nevada and
three other states, report regularly to a probation officer and
consent to home visits throughout the period of supervision,
and surrender his passport. After almost a year under these
conditions, the court permitted al-Kidd to secure his own residence
in Las Vegas, Nevada, as al-Kidd and his wife were
separating. He lived under these conditions for three more
months before being released at the end of Al-Hussayen?s
trial, more than fifteen months after being arrested.4 In July
2004, al-Kidd was fired from his job. He alleges he was terminated
when he was denied a security clearance because of
his arrest. He is now separated from his wife, and has been
unable to find steady employment. He was also deprived of
his chance to study in Saudi Arabia on scholarship.
Al-Kidd was never called as a witness in the Al-Hussayen
trial or in any other criminal proceeding.

 

[Tab]

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.

I'm assuming he oversaw it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Tab

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.

I'm assuming he oversaw it.

Ashcroft created the program to abuse the material witness law. Again from the ruling:

B. Ashcroft

Defendant-Appellant Ashcroft was Attorney General of the
United States during the relevant time period. According to
al-Kidd?s complaint, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, Ashcroft developed and promulgated a policy by
which the FBI and DOJ would use the federal material witness
statute5 as a pretext ?to arrest and detain terrorism suspects
about whom they did not have sufficient evidence to
arrest on criminal charges but wished to hold preventatively
or to investigate further.? (Cited in, and emphasis added, in
al-Kidd?s complaint.)

To support this allegation, the complaint first quotes Ashcroft?s
own statement at a press briefing:

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.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Attorney General Ashcroft
Outlines Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (Oct. 31,
2001), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/
speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks10_31.htm (emphasis added in
complaint). The complaint also cites internal DOJ memoranda
quoted in a report by the DOJ?s Office of the Inspector General
(OIG Report),6 which describe the use of ?aggressive
arrest and detention tactics in the war on terror,? OIG Report
at 12, including the use of material witness warrants to confine
aliens suspected of terrorist involvement, id. at 38-39, 75.
The complaint also quotes the public statements of a number
of DOJ and White House officials implying or stating outright
that suspects were being held under material witness warrants
as an alternative means of investigative arrest or preventative
detention. In addition to this direct evidence, the complaint
cites a number of press reports describing the detention of
numerous Muslim individuals under material witness warrants.
The complaint further alleges that the policies designed
and promulgated by Ashcroft have caused individuals to be
?impermissibly arrested and detained as material witnesses
even though there was no reason to believe it would have
been impracticable to secure their testimony voluntarily or by
subpoena,? in violation of the terms of § 3144.

In his complaint, al-Kidd links his personal detention to
these broader policies not only through inference, but also
through the statements of Robert Mueller, the Director of the
FBI. On March 27, while al-Kidd was jailed in Idaho, Mueller
testified before Congress, listing five ?major successes? in the
FBI?s efforts toward ?identifying and dismantling terrorist
networks.? The first was the capture of Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, identified as ?a key planner and the mastermind
of the September 11th attack.? The second was al-Kidd, iden-
tified as having been ?arrested . . . en route to Saudi Arabia.?
The other three ?successes? all involved individuals ?indicted?
or ?charged? with some crime connected to terrorism. See
FBI?s Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcommitee
on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, House Appropriations Commitee, 108th Cong. (2003)
(statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI), available
at http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mueller032703
.htm (hereafter Mueller Testimony).

Finally, the complaint notes that ?material witnesses have
been routinely held in high security detention facilities.? The
OIG Report cites an Assistant U.S. Attorney who complained
that the DOJ?s Bureau of Prisons ?did not distinguish between
detainees who, in his view, posed a security risk and those
detained aliens who were uninvolved witnesses.? OIG Report
at 20. It alleges ?a general policy? of extensive mistreatment
of material witnesses at the New York City Metropolitan Correctional
Center (MCC). It cites a case, United States v. Awadallah,
202 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59-61 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
(Awadallah I), rev?d on other grounds, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir.
2003) (Awadallah II), which discusses the conditions of confinement
of another putative material witness, Osama Awadallah,
held in New York City. 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.?

 

[Harvey]

In this report, the bolded statement from the opinion of the three judge panel is damning:

Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case

By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press Writer Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Writer ? Sat Sep 5, 7:32 am ET

BOISE, Idaho ? A federal appeals court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be sued by people who claim they were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after 9/11, and called the government practice "repugnant to the Constitution."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled Friday that the claims of a former University of Idaho student plausibly suggest Ashcroft purposely used the material witness statute to detain suspects whom he wished to investigate and detain preventively.

"We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history," Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote.

The ruling allows Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen, to proceed with a lawsuit that claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was detained in 2003 as a material witness in a federal terrorism case.
.
.
All three judges on the panel have reputations as politically conservative jurists, with two appointed by former President George W. Bush and the third a Reagan appointee.
.
.
(continues)

 

[ModerateRepZero]

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. Makes me wonder if Ashcroft is in trouble because there is at least some evidence / more than plausible reason to believe that the agents either were directed to lie/omit information to the judge and other legal authorities, or that he wasn't responsible but he was aware of the abuse/pressure and didn't act to stop it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
IamDavid

So you really don't care if our leaders break the law?

Notice you will not get a reply from him

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

We know Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction including yellow cake from Nigeria

 

[Craig234]

Were people scared off by the long ruling excerpts? They're worth reading. They help show how important the issue is for our country. I don't knwo if anyone read them.

 

[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.

Craig234, I'll re-read your stuff, but so far am not seeing the direct tie to Ashcroft.

So far, this is what I'm mostly seeing them say:

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.?

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

 

[ebaycj]

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.

Craig234, I'll re-read your stuff, but so far am not seeing the direct tie to Ashcroft.

So far, this is what I'm mostly seeing them say:

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.?

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

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?

 

[Moonbeam]

Fern: 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.


M: It's not about what you see. Courts exist to tell us what to see, to interpret for us the meaning of our law where we would prefer to have our own opinions. You either take the court's opinion as the law, appeal and win, or accept their interpretation as the legal facts of the matter. Again, it's not about what you see because interpretation of what is legal is specialized and reserved for those we assign that expertise.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
.
.
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.

Craig234, I'll re-read your stuff, but so far am not seeing the direct tie to Ashcroft.

So far, this is what I'm mostly seeing them say:

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.?

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 should have read the Craig's quotes from the court's ruling before posting yet another shallow and ill-derived conclusion. I'll make it easy for you. Following is the same text from his second post spread to full width with key phrases in bold. Don't skip over the rest of it because it is the full context for the bolded sections.

B. Ashcroft

Defendant-Appellant Ashcroft was Attorney General of the United States during the relevant time period. According to al-Kidd?s complaint, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Ashcroft developed and promulgated a policy by which the FBI and DOJ would use the federal material witness statute5 as a pretext ?to arrest and detain terrorism suspects about whom they did not have sufficient evidence to arrest on criminal charges but wished to hold preventatively or to investigate further.? (Cited in, and emphasis added, in al-Kidd?s complaint.)

Defendant-Appellant Ashcroft was Attorney General of the United States during the relevant time period. According to al-Kidd?s complaint, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Ashcroft developed and promulgated a policy by which the FBI and DOJ would use the federal material witness statute5 as a pretext ?to arrest and detain terrorism suspects about whom they did not have sufficient evidence to arrest on criminal charges but wished to hold preventatively or to investigate further.? (Cited in, and emphasis added, in al-Kidd?s complaint.)

In addition to this direct evidence, the complaint cites a number of press reports describing the detention of numerous Muslim individuals under material witness warrants. The complaint further alleges that the policies designed and promulgated by Ashcroft have caused individuals to be ?impermissibly arrested and detained as material witnesses even though there was no reason to believe it would have been impracticable to secure their testimony voluntarily or by subpoena,? in violation of the terms of § 3144.

In his complaint, al-Kidd links his personal detention to these broader policies not only through inference, but also through the statements of Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI. On March 27, while al-Kidd was jailed in Idaho, Mueller testified before Congress, listing five ?major successes? in the FBI?s efforts toward ?identifying and dismantling terrorist networks.? The first was the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, identified as ?a key planner and the mastermind of the September 11th attack.? The second was al-Kidd, iden- tified as having been ?arrested . . . en route to Saudi Arabia.? The other three ?successes? all involved individuals ?indicted? or ?charged? with some crime connected to terrorism. See FBI?s Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcommitee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, House Appropriations Commitee, 108th Cong. (2003) (statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI), available at http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mueller032703
.htm (hereafter Mueller Testimony).

Finally, the complaint notes that ?material witnesses have been routinely held in high security detention facilities.? The OIG Report cites an Assistant U.S. Attorney who complained that the DOJ?s Bureau of Prisons ?did not distinguish between detainees who, in his view, posed a security risk and those detained aliens who were uninvolved witnesses.? OIG Report at 20. It alleges ?a general policy? of extensive mistreatment of material witnesses at the New York City Metropolitan Correctional
Center (MCC). It cites a case, United States v. Awadallah, 202 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59-61 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Awadallah I), rev?d on other grounds, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) (Awadallah II), which discusses the conditions of confinement of another putative material witness, Osama Awadallah, held in New York City. 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.?

If you don't believe Ashcroft knew about these policies and how they were implimented, at a minimum, you're extremely naive.

al-Kidd's suit is a civil suit for damages, not a criminal proceeding. If you don't think he's responsible for them as Attorney General, you don't have a clue about civil liability.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

You should have read the Craig's quotes from the court's ruling before posting yet another shallow and ill-derived conclusion. I'll make it easy for you. Following is the same text from his second post spread to full width with key phrases in bold. Don't skip over the rest of it because it is the full context for the bolded sections.

[snip]

If you don't believe Ashcroft knew about these policies and how they were implimented, at a minimum, you're extremely naive.

al-Kidd's suit is a civil suit for damages, not a criminal proceeding. If you don't think he's responsible for them as Attorney General, you don't have a clue about civil liability.

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.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

You should have read the Craig's quotes from the court's ruling before posting yet another shallow and ill-derived conclusion. I'll make it easy for you. Following is the same text from his second post spread to full width with key phrases in bold. Don't skip over the rest of it because it is the full context for the bolded sections.

[snip]

If you don't believe Ashcroft knew about these policies and how they were implimented, at a minimum, you're extremely naive.

al-Kidd's suit is a civil suit for damages, not a criminal proceeding. If you don't think he's responsible for them as Attorney General, you don't have a clue about civil liability.

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.

When Fern said:

Craig234, I'll re-read your stuff, but so far am not seeing the direct tie to Ashcroft.

Did he mean the whole case, or only the misleading warrant he mentioned later?

I read it as the whole case, and that's what Havey answered.

I don't see where the misleading warrant is being sued for, but it is part of the story.

 

[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.