"Sometimes naked and shackled, but was never charged with a crime"

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Justices to Hear Appeal by Ashcroft Over Detention Suit
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — Abdullah al-Kidd, born in Kansas and once a star running back at the University of Idaho, spent 16 days in federal detention in three states in 2003, sometimes naked and sometimes shackled hand and foot, but was never charged with a crime.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether he may sue John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, for what Mr. Kidd contends was an unconstitutional use of a law meant to hold “material witnesses.” Mr. Kidd says the law was used as a pretext for detaining him because he was suspected of terrorist activities.

The material witness law is typically used to hold people who have information about crimes committed by others when there is reason to think they would otherwise not appear at trial to give testimony. Critics say the Bush administration radically reinterpreted the law after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, using it as a preventive-detention tool.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

[Jeffersons Ghost]

1. I need one more rec please. this deserves some publicity

[DirkGently]

36. Done. Emblematic of why we can't "look forward" past these abuses.

[krispos42]

37. How about #162?

:-)

[EFerrari]

2. Done.

[gratuitous]

3. I'm on pins and needles!

Another snappy 5-4 decision exonerating the Bush administration. Anyone want to bet?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

6. no bets you're probably right

[66 dmhlt]

30. I'll take that bet! Name the stakes!

It almost assuredly will NOT end in a 5-4 vote - nor a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0 vote.

That's for the simple reason that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from participating in the case because of her previous involvement with it as Solicitor General. So it will most likely end in a 4-4 tie, in which case the lower court's decision stands.

However, it's still possible for a 5-4 vote. Just a couple of weeks ago Sen. Leahy introduced legislation to allow the court to assign a retired justice to hear cases when an active justice recuses or is otherwise disqualified from participating. Unfortunately for we who revere our Constitution, the three living retired justices (John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor) are generally considered moderate to liberal - so fat chance of the Teapublicans doing the honorable thing and passing that bill.

NOTE: I take cash, major credit cards or PayPal.

[gratuitous]

35. Yeah, I just saw Kagan's recusal last night

So, I'm guessing that we'll see a meaningless 4-4 split, and somehow the Supreme Court will mangle that into a ruling that denies Al-Kidd the right to sue Ashcroft, even though the Ninth Circuit ruling was that Al-Kidd could proceed with a suit.

Stranger things have happened with this gang on the bench.

[66 dmhlt]

40. Actually a 4-4 tie would be good

When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Source (under the dropdown "Conference" bullet):
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SeparationOfPowers/USSupremeCourtProcedures.aspx

Of course that assumes that Kennedy will actually have a spine and do the right thing. He's got a spotty record when it comes to related decisions.

In HAMDI v. RUMSFELD (which dealt with an American citizen being detained under the guise of the "War on Terror") Kennedy joined with O'Connor, Rehnquist, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg in a 6-3 ruling that found Americans were afforded due process, regardless of the act authorizing the "War on "Terror."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6173897153146757813&q=%22Hamdi+v+Rumsfeld%22&hl=en&as_sdt=100000000002

But in ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (for which Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion) - it doesn't bode so well.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10490065676294220138&q=%22Ashcroft+v+Iqbal%22+%22supreme+court%22&hl=en&as_sdt=100000000002

However, in Ashcroft v Iqbal, Iqbal was, indeed, charged with a crime. Additionally Iqbal never alleged that Ashcroft was himself aware of any constitutional violations taking place. Rather, he alleged that Ashcroft was vicariously liable for the actions of his employees.

al-Kidd was never charged with any crime, nor was he ever called as a material witness for any trial. And Ashcroft himself was aware that al-Kidd was being detained unlawfully, as demonstrated by the fact that Ashcroft specifically mentioned al-Kidd as one of the "successes" of the material witness statute allowing the Feds to detain a person without charging them.

That said, the Ninth gets overturned alot, and this Court is looking to advance their own right-wing agenda.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Jeffersons Ghost.

[Luciferous]

5. K&R

[Swamp Rat]

7. k&r

[Rex]

8. Crisco Kid better start counting his money.

I think he is about to lose it all.

[malaise]

9. K & R for justice n/t

[spanone]

10. 'Critics say the bu$h* administration radically reinterpreted the law'

i bet constitutional scholars say that too.

[WinkyDink]

24. "BROKE the law" is the common parlance.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

34. I say the Bush administration totally ignored several laws

[donheld]

11. k & R

[Hydra]

12. Welcome to the future

And people here said this couldn't happen here.

Could. Did. Will again.

[awoke_in_2003]

18. From 1984...

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."

[annm4peace]

13. This makes me sick. and i have been protesting US torture for 5 freakin years

** well kids.. Obama is coming here to University of MN.. and there will be a group of us in orange jumpsuits and black hoods and banners. Say No to Torture Disbar Delahunty (a co-author of torture memo).. and other banners.

[defendandprotect]

39. "Say NO to Torture" ..... good work!!

Would be nice to get Obama on the right side of that issue!!

:)

[ProudDad]

14. K&R

Fascist fucking police state... See Joe Miller's goons...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. Kind of important...

OK, really important.

Can we include Cheney, Rummy, and Gonzales as defendants too? Am I forgetting anyone?

[activa8tr]

21. Or there's probably a few more, but I'd love to see

Bush in the witness box, (Cheney will be dead before this comes to court, let's face it).

[Dystopian]

16. KandR.

peace~

[awoke_in_2003]

17. "Home of the Brave"...

:puke:

[Solly Mack]

19. K&R

[Scurrilous]

20. K & R

:thumbsup:

[DailyGrind51]

22. Why add insult to injury, I guess?

[Sweet Charming Dem]

23. K&R

[WinkyDink]

25. That it has even come to this is vile. And with the Supremely Criminal Court, it's a no-brainer.

[Capitalocracy]

38. And Kagan's off the case

I shouldn't complain about someone removing themselves when there's a conflict of interest (I mean, my god, how many conflicts of interest have influenced this terrifying court?) but sometimes it seems like more of a political cop-out... maybe it's just an extension of how I'm feeling about Obama. This administration's attitude and excuses regarding the judicial system are out of hand. Appealing DADT when it's clearly unconstitutional, using Bush tactics of using "state secrets" to justify circumvention of the legal system, it's unbelievable.

[madokie]

26. Everything the bush/cheney criminal cabal did was wrong in so many ways.

In todays political climate I think it would be impossible for the USA to prosecute them and I truly believe that is what the ICC is all about, cases like these that will be filed against them ultimately. I'm a patient person.

rec #99

[amyrose2712]

27. K&R

[Vinca]

28. I imagine most of us could write the decision on this.

Scalia will probably read the case over and over and over and over . . . just for the fun of it.

[Javaman]

29. asshat will get away with this, because if this poor guy is allowed to go ahead..

then there will be nothing stopping other people from suing moron* and his room full of dopes.

We have 3 sets of laws in this nation: 1) for the rich 2) for the politically connected 3) for the rich and connected.

Oh, what about us? oh we always get screwed, laws or no laws.

[Tsiyu]

31. A nation with Sadists as leaders

We should all be so proud...

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. kick and recommend!!

[Poll_Blind]

33. K&R! n/t

PB

[grahamhgreen]

41. "I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations

"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture..."


- George W. Bush, June 2003

[Jeffersons Ghost]

43. yeah I remember him saying that. what a hypocrite

[lsewpershad]

42. Now

We'll see the metal of the Supremes

[Liberal_in_LA]

44. kick

[G_j]

45. this is a disgrace

there is ZERO defense for Ashcrofts', and now Holders' actions.
Holder is abetting serious crimes.