PDA

View Full Version : Ashcroft: Judges Should Rehear 9/11 Witness Case



Gold9472
10-21-2009, 08:20 AM
Ashcroft: Judges should rehear 9/11 witness case

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRh2OMc1xO2GJ2_AXd8y0PJ6iuHAD9BF3NJG0

By REBECCA BOONE (AP) – 13 hours ago

BOISE, Idaho — Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling that he can be held personally responsible for wrongfully detaining people as material witnesses after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen, sued Ashcroft and other federal officials after he was arrested and jailed as a material witness in a terrorism case against another man.

Al-Kidd was never called to testify at the trial and said the government violated people's civil rights by using the material witness statute to preventively detain people.

Only the portion of the lawsuit against Ashcroft is on appeal. The rest of the case is pending in U.S. District Court in Boise.

Ashcroft appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court said the former attorney general could be held personally responsible if al-Kidd proves Ashcroft created a policy of detaining people with suspected terrorist ties without probable cause.

The San Francisco-based circuit panel agreed with the lower court last month, saying if the "immediate purpose" of a material witness arrest is to hold someone without evidence of a crime, then Cabinet-level officials could indeed be held responsible.

Misusing the material witness law for national security was repugnant to the Constitution, Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote for the majority.

In a request filed Monday, Ashcroft said the Sept. 4 ruling by a three-judge panel was fundamentally flawed and gutted immunity laws designed to allow prosecutors to carry out their office without fear of frivolous lawsuits. He asked the full 9th Circuit to review the 2-1 decision.

"At bottom, the majority's ruling creates a huge loophole in the absolute immunity defense. Even the majority recognized that plaintiffs would likely use the 'immediate purpose' exception to sue prosecutors for bringing criminal charges with the 'real' immediate purpose of pressuring the defendant to provide information on other suspects," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Anne Ravel wrote in the request.

The ruling creates a dangerous precedent, Ravel said, and "erred in holding that the law was sufficiently clear to hold a Cabinet-level officer personally liable for a never-before-recognized constitutional violation."

The 9th Circuit can either deny the request or — more rarely — accept it and rehear the case. If the request is denied, Ashcroft could then ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the matter.