Now we know why this Administration doesn't seem to care about government injustice

[Hayabusa Rider]

They defend it.

The Supreme Court intervened again Monday in a lawsuit against a former George W. Bush administration official, agreeing to decide whether former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is entirely shielded from claims that he misused the law to arrest terrorism suspects under false pretenses.
Obama administration lawyers appealed on Ashcroft's behalf and asserted that it would "severely damage law enforcement" if the nation's top law enforcement official could be held liable for abusing his authority.

Get breaking news alerts delivered to your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.

In the last five years, civil libertarians have tried — without much success — to sue former Bush administration officials for overstepping the law. Last year, the Supreme Court shielded Ashcroft from being sued by Muslim immigrants in the New York area who said they were arrested and abused in jail after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, even though they had no involvement in a terrorism plot.The current case arose when Abdullah Kidd, previously known as Lavoni Kidd, a former football star at the University of Idaho, was arrested and shackled at Dulles International Airport outside Washington in March 2003. He was taken into custody not because he was suspected of a crime but because he was a supposed material witness in another case.
Federal law permits the government in special situations to hold someone as a material witness in a pending case.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union accused Ashcroft of a "gross abuse" of this authority. They say he misused the law to arrest innocent people, even when the government lacked the required probable cause.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Ashcroft announced he would use all of his legal authority to capture terrorists. Hundreds of Muslim men were arrested and held on immigration charges. That option was not available in Kidd's case because he is a U.S. citizen.
Kidd had converted to Islam in college and changed his name to Abdullah Kidd. He had cooperated with the FBI after the Sept. 11 attacks and answered questions about another Muslim man in Idaho who was under investigation in connection with his website.
Several months had elapsed since Kidd had heard from the FBI, but when he bought a round-trip ticket to travel to Saudi Arabia, where he had a scholarship to study, the FBI moved to have him arrested.
An FBI agent wrongly told a magistrate that Kidd had bought a one-way, first-class ticket. The magistrate ordered Kidd arrested and held as a witness. A few days later, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified in Congress and mentioned Kidd's arrest as one of the bureau's successes.
Kidd was repeatedly strip-searched and shackled for more than two weeks in a high-security cell where the lights were kept on, according to his complaint. He was then released, but his passport was taken.
In 2005, Kidd sued Ashcroft and other officials, contending they had violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause. Ashcroft moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that as the nation's chief prosecutor, he was absolutely immune from such claims.
But a federal judge in Idaho and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the suit. Judge Milan Smith said it was "repugnant to the Constitution" for the government to say it "has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wants to investigate them for possible wrongdoing."
The justices announced they would hear the case of Ashcroft vs. Kidd early next year and decide whether the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity required that the suit be dismissed. Justice Elena Kagan is staying out of the case because of her involvement in it as a top Justice Department official.

And here is how the Obama administration feels about it.

Obama administration lawyers appealed on Ashcroft's behalf and asserted that it would "severely damage law enforcement" if the nation's top law enforcement official could be held liable for abusing his authority.

There we have it. It doesn't matter if it's an act of outright disregard for the Constitution. Government must have it's power.

We've heard about how that Iraq and the infractions of liberty were not being investigated because Obama had other things on his list. We heard about how he's been blocked by Republicans.

The truth is that he embraces what was done.

The apologists will defend him, but he's a scoundrel.

 

[sandorski]

It doesn't mean he/they embrace the actions at all. There are Principles involved that go far beyond the Actions. I'm not sure I agree with those Principles, but the Courts should decide the Merit of them.

 

[her209]

The apologists will defend him, but he's a scoundrel.

Why would "the apologists" defend this? They warned about this.

 

[qliveur]

I think that Obama et al just want to leave the door open so that they can also disregard the Constitution whenever it suits them.

It's sickening and infuriating, but hardly surprising.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It doesn't mean he/they embrace the actions at all. There are Principles involved that go far beyond the Actions. I'm not sure I agree with those Principles, but the Courts should decide the Merit of them.

Then what do they embrace? They are looking to make a government representative immune from purposefully abusing the Constitution. Hindering "law enforcement". It's more like abetting a wholesale disregard for law. They wish to keep the option open for themselves.

In the end the governments rights will probably trump the citizens. That's tragic. We'll see.

 

[Tom]

defending executive immunity in a court case isn't abuse of power. Ignoring or bypassing the court would be, but despite the hysteria there's no sign of that in this administration.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

defending executive immunity in a court case isn't abuse of power. Ignoring or bypassing the court would be, but despite the hysteria there's no sign of that in this administration.

No, the administration is effectively assuring that present and future officials will be able to purposefully violate the Constitution. I didn't say that Obama was to blame for what Ashcroft did. They are attempting to shield the government when it blatantly abuses it.

Here is how it plays out. The Administration is saying that no matter what Ashcroft did he's to be held blameless. Lock up a US citizen without legal basis? Well no harm can come to someone who endorsed it. Go for it. The power of the government is more important than it's adherence to the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold.

 

[sandorski]

No, the administration is effectively assuring that present and future officials will be able to purposefully violate the Constitution. I didn't say that Obama was to blame for what Ashcroft did. They are attempting to shield the government when it blatantly abuses it.

Here is how it plays out. The Administration is saying that no matter what Ashcroft did he's to be held blameless. Lock up a US citizen without legal basis? Well no harm can come to someone who endorsed it. Go for it. The power of the government is more important than it's adherence to the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold.

I would love to see the whole Bush Admin pursued to the full extent of the Law. OTOH, the kind of Political turmoil and partisanship of such an action make the whole Clinton witch hunt look like friendly elevator conversation.

 

[nonlnear]

I would love to see the whole Bush Admin pursued to the full extent of the Law. OTOH, the kind of Political turmoil and partisanship of such an action make the whole Clinton witch hunt look like friendly elevator conversation.

Going after Bush for the (arguably) false pretenses of the Iraq war would arguably be damagingly partisan. Going after Ashcroft for explicit Constitutional abuses which were authorized from the top would be refreshingly unifying - except to the partisan hacks inside the DC beltway. There is such wonderfully fertile common ground to be plowed here in the name of justice, ground that the grassroots of the GOP and the Democratic parties can heartily agree on. It's only the party leadership who have something to gain by not pursuing justice.

To think that the Attorney General is immune from prosecution when that prosecution is for willful violation of his duties is ludicrous. It's one think to cut an elected leader like Nixon slack for the sake of the country, but an officer of the court must be held to a higher standard or there is no law.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I've got to throw my "WTF!" in here. Might as well be a Monarchy. We peasants should know better than to think we are equals.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I've got to my "WTF!" in here. Might as well be a Monarchy. We peasants should know better than to think we are equals.

No kidding. No government official should be immune from being held responsible for their actions, especially law enforcement.

 

[Scotteq]

We've heard about how that Iraq and the infractions of liberty were not being investigated because Obama had other things on his list. We heard about how he's been blocked by Republicans.

The truth is that he embraces what was done.

The apologists will defend him, but he's a scoundrel.

Trust me: They'd hang Ashcroft up by his scrotum in order to have clearer access and speed the introduction of a proprietary mixture of ground glass, habanero juice, and battery acid up Ashcroft's ass... In the interests of Equal Opportunity, this would be accomplished while pumping Ground Glass, Salt, and Hydrogen Peroxide into his Urethra. Complete the picture with a nice Haagen Dazs 'NuttyBuddySh*t~n~Puke Frozen Phallas to... swallow..., a stereo blaring Yoko Ono singing.. well.. anything... And (of course) pining Ashcroft's eyes open so he can't *not* look at the nudie pics of Maggie Thatcher and Ronny Reagan doing the deed... (Think of an upside down version of the reeducation scene in "Clockwork Orange", and you wouldn't be far off) LEAVE NO ORIFICE UNTOUCHED!!




Seriously: If it were simply a matter of punishing Ashcroft, then Ashcroft would indeed be publicly crucified. Politically, there's every reason to do it since the act would galvanize and energize the Dems while also making Repubs look bad/worse.


The difference is - now that the Dems are in power - they do NOT want Prosecutor Holder to be subject to the same restrictions. Which would happen if the Supreme Court made a ruling against Ashcroft. So, they'll grit their teeth, give Ashcroft a hall pass to the little boy's room, and make DAMNED SURE that Prosecutor Holder has a free reign to be the Administration's attack dog.


So, it's the same old: "What's good for the goose I don't like is fine. Just keep your hands off of *MY* goose."~routine we've seen from the administration since... well... ever..

 

[FerrelGeek]

I think that Obama et al just want to leave the door open so that they can also disregard the Constitution whenever it suits them.

It's sickening and infuriating, but hardly surprising.

I've got to throw my "WTF!" in here. Might as well be a Monarchy. We peasants should know better than to think we are equals.

/Thread

 

[Craig234]

I don't quite claim that I know Obama's motivations.

Whatever they are, I think most feel he 'sells out' too much - even if those on the right are for the terrible things he sells out to but happy to have an attack against him.

Sometimes I suspect that he doesn't understand the need to 'lead' by a more forceful approach, and rather has a lawyer's bias for 'compromise'.

That can suit him well on occasion - breaking gridlock among well-intended parties that don't exist on the right currently - but do great harm to his side's agenda other times.

It's the same mistake Clinton made with his 'triangulation' or 'third way'.

The last Democratic President to seem to do less of that and more of his agenda was Jimmy Carter - and when you ignore the howls of the ignorant, you find a study determined he was the most successful president of either party at getting more of his agenda passed than any president since LBJ (the master of twisting arms in Congress).

If you actually look at a list of things Carter got passed, it shows why that's the better approach (google the 60 Minutes clip for a summary).

The popular history falsely thinks Carter got nothing done - and doesn't realize electing Reagan over him is a huge mistake by voters.

Obama does not appear very principled by many of these policies defending, continuing, sometimes expanding the Bush policies - as well described by Glenn Greenwald. That's not to say Obama hasn't made some big improvements as well - the ban on torture, for example, seems a big improvement.

Chalmers Johnson (writer on the excesses and problems the US causes with empire) says 'every president is told of his vast secret military for use as he likes, and no president has resisted using it.' Maybe there's something to that 'angle' with Obama, the seduction of the president's modern powers, going back to Jefferson's warning that a powerful standing military always seduced leaders to using it badly and was incompatible with democracy.

Bush was marketed as the 'first MBA president' whose 'business' experience would lead to great economic policies - and he led as the country has the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Obama is the 'constitutional law professor' who would fix the wrongs done by the criminals who came before him who had an agenda to bring in lawyers who would find the most loopholes possible for immoral use of power - and most of us are disappointed (though again, the right is confusing, or more likely, confused).

Occasionally, the people who are defending the powers of the president are right. Younger people may not remember, and are not usually told, of some history, when there was some undercurrent of discussion at times of hugely clipping the powers of the president - even abolishing it in favor of Congress. These were generally driven by abuses of power by the president, or when the president was not liked and people didn't want him able to run off and do things they didn't like.

But this 'unitary presidency' theory of the radical right goes much too far at expanding the powers of the presidency at the expense of the other branches - and the public.

Even well informed commentators seem to be grasping for straws as they try to find the reasons for some of Obama's accommodations of the right, and/or authoritarian policies.

Many - I'd say most - liberals are disappointed in Obama on these issues. But they do remember why even someone wrong like Obama can be better than the alternative he replaced, an administration who rushed in backroom meetings, with the President's personal attorney made attorney general to guarantee a lack of oversight, to evade torture laws by defining the difficult to define torture as 'major organ failure'. Thumb screws and burning feet presumably are approved under this guideline.

Short of electing a progressive President who can to enshrine better things in the system, I don't know what we can really do, but protest the wrongs.

And as usual in politics, we might have some fair-weather allies who are with us, even if to oppose Obama more than to support the moral issues.

 

[nobodyknows]

In the end the governments rights will probably trump the citizens. That's tragic. We'll see.

In all fairness, if corporations rights trump the rights of citizens then why shouldn't Uncle Sam's?

 

[Tom]

No, the administration is effectively assuring that present and future officials will be able to purposefully violate the Constitution. I didn't say that Obama was to blame for what Ashcroft did. They are attempting to shield the government when it blatantly abuses it.

Here is how it plays out. The Administration is saying that no matter what Ashcroft did he's to be held blameless. Lock up a US citizen without legal basis? Well no harm can come to someone who endorsed it. Go for it. The power of the government is more important than it's adherence to the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold.

I think you missed my point. The administration isn't "assuring" anything by making an argument in front of a court.

And there are legal remedies for abuse of power other than personal liability lawsuits. Ashcroft could be prosecuted if he violated the law, for example.

I'm not supporting the argument, just saying it isn't some sort of unconstitutional power grab to make an argument.

 

[bamacre]

LOL at Craig's wall of text. If you haven't read it, don't bother. Cliff notes: "I'm not sure why the Democrats are fucking up, but it's ok because the Republicans are still worse."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you missed my point. The administration isn't "assuring" anything by making an argument in front of a court.

And there are legal remedies for abuse of power other than personal liability lawsuits. Ashcroft could be prosecuted if he violated the law, for example.

I'm not supporting the argument, just saying it isn't some sort of unconstitutional power grab to make an argument.

No, making an argument isn't unconstitutional, however it does indicate where the administration comes down on this. Also, was there a technical violation of the law since it was on foreign soil? I don't know. What restitution can be had if there were? That's why all of the justice system isn't limited to violations of the letter of the law.

A valid argument is that senior officials might be subject to specious lawsuits and I agree there is a concern, however we are talking what appears to be intentional misrepresentation to circumvent civil liberties. Limiting liability is reasonable, but absolute immunity? That hardly seems right.

 

[Scotteq]

LOL at Craig's wall of text. If you haven't read it, don't bother. Cliff notes: "I'm not sure why the Democrats are fucking up, but it's ok because the Republicans are still worse."

heh - I said why earlier: Because they don't want AG Holder to have to live with whatever restrictions the Supreme Court might hand down. Therefore Ashcroft gets a pass.

As a Pragmatist, this is eminently clear.

 

[techs]

Not too worry.
When the Republicans institute the Unitary Presidency and their Supreme Court lackeys uphold it we won't have to worry since then a President or anyone in the Executive Branch can do whatever they want and the law won't apply.

 

[nonlnear]

heh - I said why earlier: Because they don't want AG Holder to have to live with whatever restrictions the Supreme Court might hand down. Therefore Ashcroft gets a pass.

Ah yes, the insufferable restriction of the AG actually having to follow the law and respect the constitutional rights of the people. Nope, we can't have that!

And there are legal remedies for abuse of power other than personal liability lawsuits. Ashcroft could be prosecuted if he violated the law, for example.

That's well and good in theory but prosecuted by whom? The DOJ? It would take extraordinary political will to bother appointing a special prosecutor for this matter, and it seems unlikely given the political winds. In this case the civil remedy is by far the most practical way to obtain some sort of justice, as it's the only remedy with a snowball's chance in hell of ever being pursued.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not too worry.
When the Republicans institute the Unitary Presidency and their Supreme Court lackeys uphold it we won't have to worry since then a President or anyone in the Executive Branch can do whatever they want and the law won't apply.

A partisan.

So how do you feel about what Obama's administration is doing? Since you believe that the government ought to be able to take your house to give to developers, I'm not expecting much.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL at Craig's wall of text. If you haven't read it, don't bother. Cliff notes: "I'm not sure why the Democrats are fucking up, but it's ok because the Republicans are still worse."

That sums up every post Craig makes.

 

[qliveur]

^Agreed.

Not too worry.
When the Republicans institute the Unitary Presidency and their Supreme Court lackeys uphold it we won't have to worry since then a President or anyone in the Executive Branch can do whatever they want and the law won't apply.

Um, the Dems are doing it, too, genius. That's what this thread's about. Why don't you unass your head and stop being such an obvious hack?