Ashcroft subject to lawsuit by man who cites Justice policies

[shemp]

Court rules that al-Kidd has right to sue Ashcroft

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is not immune from being sued by a man who says he was illegally detained under Justice Department policies implemented after the September 11 terror attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The man, a native-born U.S. citizen who was once a college football star, was held and interrogated by the FBI for 16 days in 2003 and his travel was limited for another year, court documents said.

A spokesman for Ashcroft, asked for his reaction, said, "We're reviewing the decision and have no further comment."

The FBI began watching al-Kidd months before detaining him, as part of their anti-terror investigation aimed at Muslim men, his lawyers said.

When agents learned of his plans to fly to Saudi Arabia, they obtained the "material witness" warrant based on their contention he would not return.

The agents failed to tell the magistrate who issued the warrant that al-Kidd was an American citizen with family in the United States, or that he had previously cooperated with the FBI, his lawyers said. They also told the judge he had a one-way ticket, when he actually held a round-trip ticket, they said.

Here's a picture of the terrorist:

 

[WildCat]

And once again the SCOTUS smacks down the 9th Ciircuit:

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.

8-0 ruling.

 

[BenBurch]

The fellow really did have his civil rights violated, and there could still be cause for action on that naming the United States as the defendant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unfortunately, the federal government has sovereign immunity. It can only be sued if it waives that immunity.

ETA: To clarify, that waiver is by statute. You'd need a law that says you can sue the U.S. government.

 

[gnome]

What is the remedy then for a civil rights violation?

 

[INRM]

gnome

What is the remedy then for a civil rights violation?

Good question, and unfortunately in this case the answer is nothing.

 

[WildCat]

What is the remedy then for a civil rights violation?

I think he sued several states over the way he was treated in prison. But there's apparently nothing unconstitutional about holding material witnesses, it has been US law since 1789. It's literally as old as the US Constitution.

 

[gnome]

I think he sued several states over the way he was treated in prison. But there's apparently nothing unconstitutional about holding material witnesses, it has been US law since 1789. It's literally as old as the US Constitution.

Surely there are some limits to it though, or else it's quite an end run around a clearly defined constitutional protection.

 

[WildCat]

Surely there are some limits to it though, or else it's quite an end run around a clearly defined constitutional protection.

Of course there's limits. Such things have to be approved by a judge. And in this case it appears the FBI lied to the judge, telling the judge Kidd bought a one-way $5,000 first class ticket to Saudi Arabia with cash, when in fact he purchased a round trip coach-class ticket with a credit card. I think he still has a suit ongoing against the FBI also.

 

[gnome]

Hmm... wouldn't that be a case of perjury on the part of the FBI agent that informed the judge?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is the remedy then for a civil rights violation?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established a waiver of sovereign immunity for cases that fell under it. I've also seen a discrimination suit brought by a Native American Tribe that construed Title VII as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Basically, the plaintiff has to argue that there is a waiver in order to bring suit.

I'm not sure if there is one that applies to the mistreatment al-Kidd suffered.