A step in the direction of justice for post-9/11 abuses

[Muravyets]

On citizens I agree with you 100%. On non-citizens does the Constitution legally apply to them as well? I am not sure, but only a lawyer dealing in COnstitutional Law could really answer that I suppose.

Well, I do not take it to the same level as you do vis a vis the hypothetical nuke, but I do salute and respect you for your convictions.

Humans have rights, too, and the US acknowledges them by the treaties and international accords and resolutions that it has not only signed but also helped write -- and which US law dictates have the same force and effect as US law. You don't get use technicalities to declare human beings "non-persons" just so you can get away with acting out your fantasy fears on them.

[Ashmoria]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

You should try watching less "24".

See, this is what makes me say that people who think as you do are the greatest and most immediate threat the US (and just about any other country) faces today. YOU would disappear people off the streets out of fear of a fantasy. YOU would torture and maim people for years on end out of fear of a fantasy. People like you would (and did) prosecute wars, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of innocent civilians as well as over-using our military to the point of crippling it and putting the nation into what may turn out to be an endless debt, all out of fear of a fantasy. And YOU are right here among us, now. The terrorists you are so afraid of are few and far, but YOU are way too close for my comfort.

yupyup

this is why we HAVE a constitution. to protect us from the panic of people like john ashcroft and dick cheney. isnt that what happened, they panicked when a terrible thing happened? we've had plenty of bad things happen in the past 233 years and we survived even when we had to follow the constitution. we dont need to ditch it now.

[Muravyets]

From what I gather, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Bush should be forced into hard labor for exceeding their rights in the interest of protecting their country.

So when Bill Clinton issued a finding for the CIA to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden, as Clinton himself admitted to on national television, in direct violation of US law, that was OK?

Just wondering what Amendment covers Double Standard.

No. It was not okay. Go ask Jack Bauer about that Double Standard thing. He'll find it right under his ticking nuclear time bomb.

[Muravyets]

yupyup

this is why we HAVE a constitution. to protect us from the panic of people like john ashcroft and dick cheney. isnt that what happened, they panicked when a terrible thing happened? we've had plenty of bad things happen in the past 233 years and we survived even when we had to follow the constitution. we dont need to ditch it now.

Exactly. QFT.

[Lord Tothe]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

You should try watching less "24".

See, this is what makes me say that people who think as you do are the greatest and most immediate threat the US (and just about any other country) faces today. YOU would disappear people off the streets out of fear of a fantasy. YOU would torture and maim people for years on end out of fear of a fantasy. People like you would (and did) prosecute wars, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of innocent civilians as well as over-using our military to the point of crippling it and putting the nation into what may turn out to be an endless debt, all out of fear of a fantasy. And YOU are right here among us, now. The terrorists you are so afraid of are few and far, but YOU are way too close for my comfort.

I find myself in agreement with Muravyets! *planet implodes*

But more seriously, I must say that ends do NOT justify the means. Peace cannot be gained through coercive force, nothing can be built through destructive means, and justice cannot be brought about by unjust means. The PATRIOT Act is an abomination, and the powers usurped by Bush with Ashcroft and others as accomplices (and not surrendered by Obama, I see) are antithetical to the very concept of liberty.

[Tekania]

On citizens I agree with you 100%. On non-citizens does the Constitution legally apply to them as well? I am not sure, but only a lawyer dealing in COnstitutional Law could really answer that I suppose.

Well, I do not take it to the same level as you do vis a vis the hypothetical nuke, but I do salute and respect you for your convictions.

Some most certainly do apply to non-citizens. For example, the rights outlined in the Amendment 3 are applied to owners of a house, thus being applicable to a citizen or non-citizen who owns such house; and Amendment 8 is directed generally. Neither of which use language to narrow it to citizen only rights.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

On citizens I agree with you 100%. On non-citizens does the Constitution legally apply to them as well? I am not sure, but only a lawyer dealing in COnstitutional Law could really answer that I suppose.

Well, I do not take it to the same level as you do vis a vis the hypothetical nuke, but I do salute and respect you for your convictions.

The Constitution applies to government. It enumerates what the government can and can't do. So regardless of whether someone is or isn't a citizen is irrelevant; the rules of the Constitution still apply to government.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Idiocy.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the opportunity once again to punch the 9th Circuit in the face.

Hands off our intelligence agents and agencies! No persecutions of Bush administration members!

http://www.iwillnotconvict.com

Wow, beyond your complete moral failure and hostility towards the Constiution, your lack of reading comprehension is truly impressive!

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POSSIBLE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CIA FOR TORTURE.

This is the case of a U.S. Citizen who was illegally detained and interrogated for days on end under the excuse that he was a "material witness." He was never suspected of or charged with committing a crime. He was not involved in terrorism in any way. The question is, if his rights were violated, can he sue those that violated his rights or are they immune from liability.

[The Cat-Tribe]

From the news story link:

"It's a very big ruling, because qualified immunity is ordinarily a very robust form of protection," said Richard Seamon, a professor at the University of Idaho College of Law and a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General. "To overcome that immunity, you have to show that the defendant almost deliberately acted unconstitutionally to violate someone's rights — no innocent mistakes."


In overcoming this immunity, what is the standard that has to be met? Are the facts presented taken in presumption to one side or the other?

I'm way way way early in my legal studies, but I've seen some kinds of standards, such as relating to summary judgement, where the facts are taken (for the purposes of that motion) as favorable to one side.

It seems from the facts in the articles, there is more than enough evidence to make a prima facie case that Ashcroft made far more than just "innocent mistakes".

Immunity, either absolute or qualified, depends on a number of factors I can discuss further if needed.* The standard of review depends on the stage of the proceedings. This was an appeal of a denial of a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. As the Ninth Circuit explains:

[W]e proceed as we must in a review of all Rule 12(b)(6) motions, accepting as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in his complaint “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

EDIT: *From the Ninth Circuit opinion, here is some of the relevant law re Ashcroft's alleged absolute immunity:

In Bivens actions and those taken under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “[m]ost public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268 (1993). Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity, however, when they engage in activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976), and done “in the course of [their] role as an advocate for the State,” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. They are entitled only to qualified immunity, however, when they perform investigatory or administrative functions, or are essentially functioning as police officers or detectives. Id. In addition, the United States Attorney General is not entitled to absolute immunity in the performance of his or her “national security functions.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 520. The burden to establish absolute immunity rests with the official seeking it:

The presumption is that qualified rather than absolute
immunity is sufficient to protect government
officials in the exercise of their duties. We have been
“quite sparing” in our recognition of absolute immunity,
and have refused to extend it any “further than
its justification would warrant.”

Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486-87 (1991) (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 (1988); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 811 (1982)). “f application of the principle is unclear, the defendant simply loses,” and receives only the default of qualified immunity. [i]Buckley, 509 U.S. at 281 (Scalia, J., concurring).

From the Ninth Circuit opinion, here is some of the relevant law re Ashcroft's alleged qualified immunity:

Determining whether officials are owed qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

I hope this legalese doesn't raise more questions than it answers. Regardless, I'll try to answer further inquiries.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I must admit that this IS interesting and probably more complex than first assumed. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel's first point is the better of the two in the OP, since quoting opinion from a pre-Consititutional era lawyer/jurist from a foreign nation, while respectable, has no binding legal authority.

However, as it has been posted, previously, in this topic, the Ninth Circuit IS the Court of Appeals that has the record of being overturned the most by the SCOTUS.

[Tekania]

I must admit that this IS interesting and probably more complex than first assumed. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel's first point is the better of the two in the OP, since quoting opinion from a pre-Consititutional era lawyer/jurist from a foreign nation, while respectable, has no binding legal authority.

Actually, it does. US jurisprudence is a Common-Law system.

However, as it has been posted, previously, in this topic, the Ninth Circuit IS the Court of Appeals that has the record of being overturned the most by the SCOTUS.

Don't see SCOTUS ruling that Ashcroft had any valid authority to overturn Constitutional amendments as he saw fit...

[Maurepas]

Sounds good to me, these kinds of things need to get done if we are to take back the moral highground in this...

[The Cat-Tribe]

I must admit that this IS interesting and probably more complex than first assumed.

Thank you.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel's first point is the better of the two in the OP, since quoting opinion from a pre-Consititutional era lawyer/jurist from a foreign nation, while respectable, has no binding legal authority.

1. That is merely the conclusion of a 57-page opinion. The Ninth Circuit's decision does not rest on that quote from Blackstone. They are merely using a fundamental treatise of law on which the Founder's themselves relied to illustrate how objectionable the government's alleged conduct is.

2. Blackstone's Commentaries are not some irrelevant foreign notions. They are often regarded as the leading work on the development of English law and played a role in the development of the American legal system. They were relied on by the Founders in framing the Constitution. In fact, a scholarly analyis the various sources read and cited by our Founders concluded Blackstone was by far the most-cited English/American scholar. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) (explaining that Blackstone's Commentaries were "the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation"). Accordingly, Blackstone's Commentaries are frequently relied upon by SCOTUS regarding the meaning of (or purpose behind) the Constitution. Not only were the Commentaries cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915, they continue to be relied upon -- particularly by conservative jurists. For example, Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) relies frequently (about 25 citiations) on Blackstone's Commentaries in holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. Arguably, the U.S. judicial system is built on "the back of Blackstone's Commentaries." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (citing Blackstone on several key points).

However, as it has been posted, previously, in this topic, the Ninth Circuit IS the Court of Appeals that has the record of being overturned the most by the SCOTUS.

Depending on what exactly you mean by this, it is a lie, distortion, and/or myth about the "liberal" Ninth Circuit. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the merits of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

[EternalNight]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

People who believe the law is a hindrance to life and society, not a protection of it, as you apparently do, are people who I want nowhere near my government, or my nation's military, or any other position of power, or, frankly, anywhere near me, physically. Because people like that are dangerous, and tend to be twitchy.

In other words, it is the attitude that you express that makes us less safe.

Why are you making me out to be the villain?

I'm just saying I hope we do not have a few million people disintegrated for the sake of morality. But If we do, I guess it would be ok.

I do not believe the law is a hinderance to life and society, so please do me the common courtesy of not insulting me or putting words in my mouth.

I am neither twitchy or dangerous, and consider your statements to be borderline insulting.

Is it such a crime to say "I hope many of our people do not get killed?"

[EternalNight]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

You should try watching less "24".

See, this is what makes me say that people who think as you do are the greatest and most immediate threat the US (and just about any other country) faces today. YOU would disappear people off the streets out of fear of a fantasy. YOU would torture and maim people for years on end out of fear of a fantasy. People like you would (and did) prosecute wars, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of innocent civilians as well as over-using our military to the point of crippling it and putting the nation into what may turn out to be an endless debt, all out of fear of a fantasy. And YOU are right here among us, now. The terrorists you are so afraid of are few and far, but YOU are way too close for my comfort.

I made a god-damned hypothetical statement, and now you call me the greatest and most immediate threat to the country?

When the hell did I say I would make people dissappear? When did I say I would torture people? Or kill thousands of innocent civilians? I will give you a hint. I NEVER DID.

And it was a really nice fantasy when 3,000 people got killed back in 2001.

People like YOU are the dangers in this country, who villify anyone you perceive as being different in opinion from you.

I normally do not get this angry, but I guess I object to being called a greater danger to my own nation then the man who planned the attacks against us.

Oh wait a minute, objecting is wrong, isn't it?

[Dzvasdvsdv]

Of course he was guilty. He was Muslim was he not? They're all guilty of something.

[Tropical Montana]

Excellent!

Ive been saying for years that bush, cheney, rumsfeld, et al, should be lynched as traitors to the constitution for their abuses of power they perpetrated in the name of counter-terrorism.

make the subsequent lynchings pay-per-view across the world and pay off the national debt!

[You-Gi-Owe]

However, as it has been posted, previously, in this topic, the Ninth Circuit IS the Court of Appeals that has the record of being overturned the most by the SCOTUS.

Depending on what exactly you mean by this, it is a lie, distortion, and/or myth about the "liberal" Ninth Circuit. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the merits of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

What do you think I mean? Did I claim that the 9th was "liberal"?

[The Cat-Tribe]

However, as it has been posted, previously, in this topic, the Ninth Circuit IS the Court of Appeals that has the record of being overturned the most by the SCOTUS.

Depending on what exactly you mean by this, it is a lie, distortion, and/or myth about the "liberal" Ninth Circuit. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the merits of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

What do you think I mean?

I'm not sure and I didn't wish to assume. Feel free to be more specific, provide evidence, and/or explain the relevance.

Did I claim that the 9th was "liberal"?

Nope, sorry. Good for you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Idiocy.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the opportunity once again to punch the 9th Circuit in the face.

Hands off our intelligence agents and agencies! No persecutions of Bush administration members!

http://www.iwillnotconvict.com

Why should those who's job it is to uphold the country's laws be above them?

[Taeshan]

Live and let die. Or in this case, stupid Bush.

[Muravyets]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

People who believe the law is a hindrance to life and society, not a protection of it, as you apparently do, are people who I want nowhere near my government, or my nation's military, or any other position of power, or, frankly, anywhere near me, physically. Because people like that are dangerous, and tend to be twitchy.

In other words, it is the attitude that you express that makes us less safe.

Why are you making me out to be the villain?

I'm just saying I hope we do not have a few million people disintegrated for the sake of morality. But If we do, I guess it would be ok.

I do not believe the law is a hinderance to life and society, so please do me the common courtesy of not insulting me or putting words in my mouth.

I am neither twitchy or dangerous, and consider your statements to be borderline insulting.

Is it such a crime to say "I hope many of our people do not get killed?"

Your comments above, which are just a repeat of your earlier comments, are the reason I am casting you as the villain of this piece. I explained exactly why in the post to which you are (not) responding.

So in addition to promoting a vicious fiction that exists only cast torture is a positive light while demonizing those who oppose it, we can also put down repetitiveness and not reading the thread on your list of villainous behaviors.

[Muravyets]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

You should try watching less "24".

See, this is what makes me say that people who think as you do are the greatest and most immediate threat the US (and just about any other country) faces today. YOU would disappear people off the streets out of fear of a fantasy. YOU would torture and maim people for years on end out of fear of a fantasy. People like you would (and did) prosecute wars, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of innocent civilians as well as over-using our military to the point of crippling it and putting the nation into what may turn out to be an endless debt, all out of fear of a fantasy. And YOU are right here among us, now. The terrorists you are so afraid of are few and far, but YOU are way too close for my comfort.

I made a god-damned hypothetical statement, and now you call me the greatest and most immediate threat to the country?

When the hell did I say I would make people dissappear? When did I say I would torture people? Or kill thousands of innocent civilians? I will give you a hint. I NEVER DID.

And it was a really nice fantasy when 3,000 people got killed back in 2001.

People like YOU are the dangers in this country, who villify anyone you perceive as being different in opinion from you.

I normally do not get this angry, but I guess I object to being called a greater danger to my own nation then the man who planned the attacks against us.

Oh wait a minute, objecting is wrong, isn't it?

And now we can add burning strawmen to the list.

[Tekania]

I made a god-damned hypothetical statement, and now you call me the greatest and most immediate threat to the country?

When the hell did I say I would make people dissappear? When did I say I would torture people? Or kill thousands of innocent civilians? I will give you a hint. I NEVER DID.

And it was a really nice fantasy when 3,000 people got killed back in 2001.

People like YOU are the dangers in this country, who villify anyone you perceive as being different in opinion from you.

I normally do not get this angry, but I guess I object to being called a greater danger to my own nation then the man who planned the attacks against us.

Oh wait a minute, objecting is wrong, isn't it?

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine

No offence, but you proposed the hypothetical. And were called out on it... United States government suspending enumerated rights of its citizens is far more horrendous and despicable an act than a foreign initiated attack causing the death of thousands...

In the second case, you have thousands dead...
In the first case, you yourself have killed your county...

[EternalNight]

Actually I made a statement that was taken out of context apparently. I do not support torture, and the nuke comment was to a person that I was just wondering what level of commitment he/she had to their beliefs, it was not the "GRRRR GRRR Torture before the nuke goes off!" thing people seem to think it was.

But fine, maybe I should have been clearer.