• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case

jackalope

jackalope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
1,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case

By REBECCA BOONE (AP) – 6 hours ago

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, calling the practice a "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.

... 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.

more ...
Click to expand...


What? The imperial presidency may finally be required to answer under the law? No matter the result of any such trial, just the fact that they MIGHT be required to answer to the laws of our country is a very good thing!

I hope this appeals court ruling stands.
 
I knew John Ashcroft was evil when he sang that stupid song on teh Youtubz.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woLQI8X2R6Y&feature=related"]YouTube - John Ashcroft[/ame]

Now, that may have been totally cheesy, but it had old conservative gals' hearts a-thumpin', and it was harmless. Or at least I thought it was harmless. When I played it backwards, it became obvious that George Bush had appointed a demon from hell to serve as his Attorney General.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMDG_bpBAk"]YouTube - John Ashcroft Let The Eagle Soar backwards[/ame]
 
I haven't read the full opinion, but personal liability seems like a rather huge stretch here.

It's also worth noting that this was a divided panel, not a unanimous one as the article implies.
 
RightinNYC said:
I haven't read the full opinion, but personal liability seems like a rather huge stretch here.

It's also worth noting that this was a divided panel, not a unanimous one as the article implies.
Click to expand...

That's modern day "conservatives" for you. {in reality they're authoritarians}

Their first inclination is to defend their guys in Government over the rights of individual US citizens.

It was a split decision! ( Both judges in the majority were appointed by Bush I and Reagan)

Our political elites being held responsible for some silly little imprisonment of a Muslim? Come on!
 
Last edited:
It will be throw out of Court by the USSC on appeal. This would only open a very large can of worms there is a reason why you can't sue Federal Officials.
 
Scorpion89 said:
It will be throw out of Court by the USSC on appeal. This would only open a very large can of worms there is a reason why you can't sue Federal Officials.
Click to expand...

Profound.

"It will open a large can of worms" is an accepted legal argument in wingnut Bizzaro World????
 
Scorpion89 said:
It will be throw out of Court by the USSC on appeal. This would only open a very large can of worms there is a reason why you can't sue Federal Officials.
Click to expand...

Your qualifications are?
 
no one cares about ashcroft except partisans and historians

the bush admin is history

obama's the president now, and he's screwing up everything

every headline is a disaster

he can't do anything right

this van jones thing is KILLING him, politically

the school mess aint helping

and he has an entire 16% of the economy to WRITE DOWN sometime this weekend

between now and wednesday nite

he has to come up with ALL the answers, ALL the details to obamacare

cuz no one's gonna give him an ounce on TRUST alone

not after all america has seen

BIG TROUBLE politically

backfiring in his rushmore face, headlines just this week:

1. van jones

2. the schoolday controversy

3. unemployment 9.7%

4. gotta start all over on health care, new approach, starting wed nite

5. no public option, he's pretty sure, he says, he's still not quite certain

6. afghanistan

7. some kinda abu ghraib type prison breakdown over there

8. charlie rangel---both the hush money and the race card

9. a special prosecutor to go after the folks who flipped khalid sheikh muhammad

10. cash for clunkers doesn't pay its bills

dang

and what positive headlines does THE CHIN have to offer on the other hand?

oh, yeah, john ashcroft

LOL!

well, have fun with it, folks, it's totally understandable
 
Thank you for lowering the IQ of every one who ever reads your post.
 
the president wants to talk about health care

all the political class is discussing the racist czar and the wannabe substitute teacher

the president's "supporters," who rarely support, instead spend all their time personally attacking his critics, want to examine JOHN ASHCROFT

LOLOLOL!

politics is a funny business
 
The Prof said:
the president wants to talk about health care

all the political class is discussing the racist czar and the wannabe substitute teacher

the president's "supporters," who rarely support, instead spend all their time personally attacking his critics, want to examine JOHN ASHCROFT

LOLOLOL!

politics is a funny business
Click to expand...

Knowing that facts are not a big part of your discussions, but I thought I would quote one quick thing from the ruling.

ABDULLAH AL-KIDD, ü No. 06-36059 Plaintiff-Appellee,
Click to expand...

Now what position does Mr. Al-Kidd hold in the Obama administration? He is, after all, the one who brought this suit as I understand it.

Here is another line from the ruling:

Argued April 8, 2008
Click to expand...

Hmmm...who's administration was in charge on that date?
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I haven't read the full opinion, but personal liability seems like a rather huge stretch here.

It's also worth noting that this was a divided panel, not a unanimous one as the article implies.
Click to expand...

The article did imply it was a unanimous decision. Was it a 2-1 decision? Do you have another article?
 
jackalope said:
The article did imply it was a unanimous decision. Was it a 2-1 decision? Do you have another article?
Click to expand...


Here you go:

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Bea
12265
Click to expand...

There was a David R. Thompson who was the other judge, but no idea how he felt on this, or why his name is not mentioned in the above.
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
That's modern day "conservatives" for you. {in reality they're authoritarians}

Their first inclination is to defend their guys in Government over the rights of individual US citizens.
Click to expand...

No, my first inclination is to express surprise at an inexplicable abrogation of prosecutorial immunity, a long-standing practice that was recently upheld in Iqbal.

It was a split decision! ( Both judges in the majority were appointed by Bush I and Reagan)
Click to expand...

What do you think that proves?

Our political elites being held responsible for some silly little imprisonment of a Muslim? Come on!
Click to expand...

If you're going to keep up with this nonsense, I'm not going to bother responding to you.
 
i already totally conceded your mr ashcroft, have fun with him

but he's so yesterday, i suggested

meanwhile, the president, who is starting all over on health care, as indicated by his summoning both houses wed nite, must come up with all the details concerning 16% of the us economy THIS WEEKEND

public option or no public option?

co ops, if so, what do they look like?

how you gonna pay for it?

and 100 other things

HE STILL SAYS HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IF HE PLANS TO WRITE THE BILL HIMSELF THIS TIME OR ONCE MORE TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS

he hasn't really even STARTED, therefore

and he's got to get it ALL done by wednesday

we all know what he's doing monday and tuesday---LOLOL!

the point---ashcroft aint worth a feather compared to WHAT's GOING ON TODAY

but, by all means, have fun with him

say hi to richard armitage

LOL!
 
Redress said:
Here you go:



There was a David R. Thompson who was the other judge, but no idea how he felt on this, or why his name is not mentioned in the above.
Click to expand...

ty, redress.
 
Hey Prof...we are discussing an Appeals Court ruling. Put down the joint and join in if you want, but right now, you are totally off on some tangent no one else is even close to.
 
jackalope said:
ty, redress.
Click to expand...

RightInNYC is a lawyer type almost(but still an ok guy mostly, for a lawyer anyway), and he might be able to give a better answer than I did. I just happened to have the ruling open.
 
Redress said:
Your qualifications are?
Click to expand...

FWIW, the 9th Circuit has an atrocious record on appeal. Even if this isn't reversed at an en banc hearing and makes it to the Supreme Court, it looks bleak. Of the 16 9th Circuit cases that made it to the SC last year, one was affirmed in whole, two were affirmed in part, and 13 were reversed in whole.
 
Redress said:
Hey Prof...we are discussing an Appeals Court ruling. Put down the joint and join in if you want, but right now, you are totally off on some tangent no one else is even close to.
Click to expand...

i know, friend, i'm talking about TODAY

BIG STUFF

ashcroft is a pea

by all means, talk about what you want to

ashcroft has an ugly headline

health care is dead
 
RightinNYC said:
FWIW, the 9th Circuit has an atrocious record on appeal. Even if this isn't reversed at an en banc hearing and makes it to the Supreme Court, it looks bleak. Of the 16 9th Circuit cases that made it to the SC last year, one was affirmed in whole, two were affirmed in part, and 13 were reversed in whole.
Click to expand...

"en banc"?

That does not sound much worse than normal though really. IIRC, the SC overturns about 3/4ish of the rulings they rule on.
 
The Prof said:
i know, friend, i'm talking about TODAY

BIG STUFF

ashcroft is a pea

by all means, talk about what you want to

ashcroft has an ugly headline

health care is dead
Click to expand...

The health care threads are elsewhere. Feel free to talk about it in those threads. We are discussing a current ruling. We are able to talk about more than one thing even, you might try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom