• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

US Supreme Court rules against Muslims, favors Ashcroft

Melensdad

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Looks like former US Attorney General did nothing wrong after the 9/11 terror attacks when the US detained several Muslim suspects and others as 'material witnesses'. One sued.

Just the beginning of the story, but follow the link for the whole story:
Supreme Court: Ashcroft not liable in detention of American Muslim post-9/11
By Robert Barnes, Tuesday, May 31, 11:57 AM

Former attorney general John D. Ashcroft cannot be sued for his role in detaining an American Muslim, even though the government did not charge the man with a crime or bring him as a witness in a terrorism investigation, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Justice Antonin Scalia said using the federal “material witness” statute to detain but not charge Abdullah al-Kidd in a terrorism investigation does not give al-Kidd a right to sue, because no court precedent had said such a use of the law was unlawful.

“Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions,” Scalia wrote. “When properly applied it protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

“Ashcroft deserves neither label.”
Click to expand...

LINKY for whole story => http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...uslim-post-911/2011/05/31/AG7CAZFH_story.html
 
jpr62902

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
I don't know that we can say that Ashcroft "did nothing wrong." This case just says that Ashcroft was protected by sovereign immunity. An immunity which other participants in this circumstance apparently didn't get, since the muslim in question was paid damages by the US gummint (per the article, anyway).
 
muleman

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
The muslims have obviously been studying how to use our own laws against us. They cry loudly and try to shove their views in front of the press as often as they can.
 
loboloco

loboloco

Well-known member
I think there was something hinkey about that whole program, but SCOTUS seems to believe otherwise.

But Scalia, writing for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said President George W. Bush’s attorney general from 2001 to 2005 deserved immunity.
He noted that a neutral federal magistrate had authorized detaining Kidd. At the time of the arrest, Scalia said, “not a single judicial opinion had held that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional.”
That settled the matter as for as whether Ashcroft could be held personally liable, the rest of the court agreed.


This is from the original link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top