NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, after 9/11, more than 700 Muslim men were taken into custody in the New York area. Many were held in solitary confinement for months and were never charged with terrorism. Today, SCOTUS heard oral argument in a case concerning whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller can be sued for the violation of the rights of one of these men.

Supreme Court urged to toss lawsuit that says Ashcroft, Mueller ordered arrest of Muslims (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus11-2008dec11,0,780822.story)

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller are named in the suit. But the post-9/11 jailing of more than 700 Muslim men was 'perfectly lawful,' says a Bush administration lawyer.

By David G. Savage

11:04 AM PST, December 10, 2008

Reporting from Washington — A top Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court today to throw out a lawsuit that accuses former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft of having ordered the arrest and jailing of hundreds of Muslim men in the New York area after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This "was a perfectly lawful response to the 9/11 attacks," Solicitor Gen. Gregory Garre told the justices, not an unconstitutional targeting of Muslims or Arabs because of their race or religion.

More than 700 Muslim or Arab men were taken into custody in the fall of 2001, and many of them were held in solitary confinement for months. None were charged with crimes related to terrorism, but many of them were found guilty of immigration-related offenses.

The suit naming Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller is one of several similar cases in the federal courts. The Bush administration argues that Ashcroft and Mueller should be dismissed at the preliminary stage because the plaintiffs have no proof these high-ranking officials personally ordered the arrests and the harsh confinement.

The attorney general "did not micromanage" the work of FBI and immigration agents, Garre said.

But a lawyer for one of the detained men said the plaintiffs deserve a chance to show that Ashcroft and Mueller were responsible for the mistreatment of their clients.

Alexander Reinhert, a lawyer from Yonkers, N.Y., said the government had pursued "an illegal policy" that targeted certain men simply because of their race or religion. He argued that if the suit went forward, the lawyers would be able to show that Ashcroft was personally involved in formulating the policy.

Reinhert was representing Javail Iqbal, a Pakistani native and cable television installer on Long Island prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The case of Ashcroft vs. Iqbal raises an important procedural question that the high court has not ruled on clearly in the past. How much evidence does a plaintiff need to proceed with a suit against high-ranking officials of the government?

The Bush administration's move to dismiss the suit against Ashcroft and Mueller appeared to have the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and possibly Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

"I don't know what's the basis for these allegations against high-level officials," Scalia commented. He said they should not be forced to undergo questioning as a part of a civil lawsuit.

The chief justice said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it was not surprising that the attorney general and the FBI director were pursuing efforts to find people who may have been involved in terrorism.

But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter questioned why a lawsuit should be thrown out before the plaintiffs have a chance to build their case. In the past, the court has not "adopted a heightened pleading standard" for civil-rights lawsuits, Souter said.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York is representing several hundred Muslim men who filed a similar suit. "The rule Ashcroft and Mueller seek would effectively bar victims of discrimination from seeking justice against those who order the discrimination," said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the center. "It's a Catch-22 that would always let high-level officials off the hook."

In the case before the court, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Iqbal had alleged unconstitutional conduct by the government, including claims he and other Muslim men were jailed, beaten and stripped searched, even though there was no evidence they had committed a crime. The appeals court said the suit could go forward, but the trial judge said Ashcroft and Mueller would not be questioned under oath until there was more evidence from lower-level officials showing direct involvement by top officials.

Iqbal was held for 150 days in a maximum security unit. He was released and then pleaded guilty to an immigration charge. He was working with a false Social Security number, and he was deported to Pakistan.

Here is a New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10wed2.html?_r=1) on the matter:

Accountability and the Court

In this country, no one is supposed to be above the law. Even the highest officials must be held accountable when they do wrong. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has spent the last eight years undermining that fundamental American ideal. The Supreme Court has a chance to redress that imbalance.

The court hears arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit against John Ashcroft, the former United States attorney general, brought by an immigrant detained after the Sept. 11 attacks. The justices should rule that Javaid Iqbal has the right to try to prove that Mr. Ashcroft and other top officials denied him his constitutional rights.

Mr. Iqbal, a Pakistani, was arrested by the F.B.I. in November 2001 and placed in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He contends that like many of the Muslim or Arab men rounded up after the attacks on New York and Washington, he was classified as being “of high interest” and was placed in a special section of the prison, based on his religion and national origin.

During his more than one year of imprisonment, Mr. Iqbal says that he was held in solitary confinement, cut off from outside contact for long periods and subjected to other mistreatment — including beatings.

Mr. Iqbal pleaded guilty to fraud relating to identification documents. After he was released, he sued, contending that his constitutional rights were infringed. He argues that his mistreatment was part of a larger pattern of abuse authorized at the highest levels of government. Numerous officials were named as defendants, including Mr. Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, as responsible for establishing the abusive policies used against him and other Arab or Muslim men.

Mr. Iqbal is now seeking discovery, which is the chance to ask the defendants limited questions, under a court’s supervision, about their role in formulating these policies. The information he would learn through discovery is likely to be critical for his claims to go forward.

The issue in the Supreme Court is whether these high-ranking officials are protected from having to answer questions of this kind. The Bush administration argues that the officials were not sufficiently involved in the detention policies to be responsible for them. It also maintains that if top government officials were required to comply with such discovery requests, it would interfere with their ability to do their jobs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, rightly disagreed. It noted that Mr. Iqbal made a plausible argument that Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller condoned the policies that led to his mistreatment. The court ruled that Mr. Iqbal has pointed to enough evidence of their possible involvement that they should have to answer discovery requests.

This case is about far more than one prisoner, or even the war on terror. When the government denies people their constitutional rights, high-ranking officials are often to blame. If courts are too willing to give them immunity, it will be difficult for the victims to learn how their rights were taken away or to stop such policies from continuing. The Supreme Court should affirm the federal appeals court’s well-reasoned decision.

Here (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1015/) and here (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1015) are summaries of the case: the first being technical but short, the second being more detailed.

For those that are really into self-punishment, here is a link to the briefs in the case (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/dec08.shtml#ashcroft) and here is a link to today's oral argument before the Supreme Court(pdf) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-1015.pdf).

Anyway, I know this involves some boring and complicated legal issues, but the basic question is whether this case should be allowed to go forward or are high-level officials immune from such suits? What say you?

EDIT: Some interesting facts. Further analysis of the pleadings in the case and the oral argument today, reveal some further details--at least one of which will delight those defending the government's actions.

1. The allegation is that the government actually detained thousands of Muslims after 9/11.

2. The 700+ number refers to those that were detained based on immigration charges, but were held for extended periods and treated differently based on being classified “of high interest” to the FBI. The government doesn't deny this occurred. Almost all of these detainees violated immigration laws, either by overstaying their visas, by entering the country illegally, or some other immigration violation. None of these detainees were ever charged with anything relating to terrorism, 9/11, being "enemy combatants," etc.

3. The lawsuit does not allege anything wrong with the plaintiff's being arrested or charged with (or convicted of) an immigration violation or being held as punishment for the immigration violation. The lawsuit alleges the special extended detention and treatment is what violated the plantiff's rights.

I will admit these facts give me some pause as to whether plaintiff actually has a case against Ashcroft and Mueller, but not as to whether such case should simply be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.

But....The terrorists were aboard planes, not working in the New York area, I don't know if that was illegal according to the laws of your Empire, but it was foolish and unneccessary. I don't get why so many people want to go to live over there.

For those of us illiterate types who post on here:
Has SCOTUS handed down a ruling stating officials are immune? Or has the argument just been heard in court?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your title than I should.

Hate to say it, but the Bush Administration's argument is full of holes. The case should proceed, evidence should be presented, if the suit is groundless, then it is best proven so in court, and if it has grounds, then certainly Mueller, Ashcroft, and others holding high office should face more than civil charges-the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, violation of it is a CRIME.

But....The terrorists were aboard planes, not working in the New York area, I don't know if that was illegal according to the laws of your Empire, but it was foolish and unneccessary. I don't get why so many people want to go to live over there.

We've found and convicted some who were US citizens or resident aliens.

I guess you don't keep up on the news.

Holy Land Foundation ring a bell? Hamid Hayat?

We've also had some leave the US, and blow themselves up overseas (the remains of one Somali who did this were recently returned to the US for burial).

BURNSVILLE, Minn. (FOX 9)—One of the five men suspected to be a suicide bomber who killed himself and 29 others last October in Somalia, was buried Wednesday at a Burnsville Cemetery.

Video: Funeral for Suspected Suicide Bomber

FOX 9 has learned DNA tests have confirmed Shirwa Ahmed was one of five suicide bombers who killed himself and 29 others last October in northern Somalia.

He is also a Minnesotan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The FBI helped return Ahmed's remains to his family.

At a Twin Cities cemetery in Burnsville Wednesday afternoon, the suspected suicide bomber was laid to rest.

Shirwa Ahmed, 27, was given a traditional Muslim burial.

Family and friends did not wish to talk about the circumstances of his death.

Community activist Omar Jamal is one of the few who will. “Honestly I look at him seriously as a victim and not as a criminal, I think of him as a young victim," says Jamal.

U.S. intelligence is investigating whether Ahmed and the other missing Minnesota Somali’s [sic] attended terrorist training camps. There, lessons are given on explosives and automatic weapons and some of the terrorists seem to speak, with American accents.

FOX 9 learned as many as a 20 young Somali men have vanished from the Twin Cities in the last year. Some of those suspicions have focused on the Abuubakar As-Sadiq Islamic Center. It's [sic] religious leader, Sheikh Abdirahman was prevented from traveling to Mecca last Saturday. He tells FOX 9, he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because of the on-going investigation.

During the funeral Wednesday, Shirwa Ahmed was neither celebrated as a martyr, nor condemned as a killer. He was buried simply as a Muslim man, who died so close, yet so far, from home.

More recently:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/12/10/georgia_terrorism_suspects.html

While I would disagree with the mistreatment (jailing without charge for a year, the beatings, etc), I do not disagree with the overwhelming monitoring of Muslims as a group, especially those who recently emigrated to the US.

To not monitor them would be utterly naive.

Sure, investigate. I would agree with Cat Tribe on that. I'm not sure if you'll find the smoking gun you're looking for, though. I get the impression that a lot of the mistreatment in the days immediately after 9/11 were pure emotion from law enforcement and prison guards at the lowest levels. That doesn't require the boogeyman of a top-down conspiracy.

I actually recall this, as it's basically local news.

All in all, I'd vote yes, they should be immune if all the arrests (and I believe they were) were done in a SHORT time after 9.11. If they're not immune, the next time something like this happens NO official will actually do their job.

As for the question of profiling: had the terrorists been Irish, I'm sure that the feds wouldn't be scrutinizing Asians.

I actually recall this, as it's basically local news.

All in all, I'd vote yes, they should be immune if all the arrests (and I believe they were) were done in a SHORT time after 9.11. If they're not immune, the next time something like this happens NO official will actually do their job.

As for the question of profiling: had the terrorists been Irish, I'm sure that the feds wouldn't be scrutinizing Asians.

US law you have I believe 24 hours to hold a suspect without charges. For a "short" time you're fine. Hold them for months and you're going to be beaten to death with a copy of the Constitution.

I actually recall this, as it's basically local news.

All in all, I'd vote yes, they should be immune if all the arrests (and I believe they were) were done in a SHORT time after 9.11. If they're not immune, the next time something like this happens NO official will actually do their job.

As for the question of profiling: had the terrorists been Irish, I'm sure that the feds wouldn't be scrutinizing Asians.

I have zero problem with profiling.

But...Why the muslims in the New York area? The terrorists were aboard planes, that was my point.

For example, the suicide bomber was minnesotan. No wonder why he escaped the round up

But...Why the muslims in the New York area? The terrorists were aboard planes, that was my point.

For example, the suicide bomber was minnesotan. No wonder why he escaped the round up

We rounded them up all over the country, and still do.

Of course, nowadays we have more probable cause than in the days immediately after 9/11.

And we convict. We conduct constant surveillance on mosques. We track their money exchanges to overseas banks. We track their international travel in and out of the US.

It gets results.

US law you have I believe 24 hours to hold a suspect without charges. For a "short" time you're fine. Hold them for months and you're going to be beaten to death with a copy of the Constitution.

In extra-ordinary times, habeas corpus has been suspended. To me 9.11 should most certainly be considered such a time. Perhaps as long as six months afterwards.

For those of us illiterate types who post on here:
Has SCOTUS handed down a ruling stating officials are immune? Or has the argument just been heard in court?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your title than I should.

I apologize if my title was confusing, but I thought the OP was pretty clear: oral argument in the case has just been heard by SCOTUS. No SCOTUS decision has been made yet.

There is a body of law, of course, related to qualified immunity for public officials and to the requirements of pleading a cause of action in one's complaint. The government here is seeking to extend that law to pre-empt this lawsuit at the very beginning. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled on the case and said it could go forward, but the government has appealed to SCOTUS.

In extra-ordinary times, habeas corpus has been suspended. To me 9.11 should most certainly be considered such a time. Perhaps as long as six months afterwards.

There's no excuse for a detention without charge that long. A week, two maybe I'd agree with, no more.

I actually recall this, as it's basically local news.

All in all, I'd vote yes, they should be immune if all the arrests (and I believe they were) were done in a SHORT time after 9.11. If they're not immune, the next time something like this happens NO official will actually do their job.

As for the question of profiling: had the terrorists been Irish, I'm sure that the feds wouldn't be scrutinizing Asians.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that, regardless of the facts of what may have occurred, all officials across the board are immune from a case even being filed against them for post-9/11 activities?

Realize this is just at the pleading stage. The government is saying -- no matter whether what you allege is true or not -- you can't even file a lawsuit against these officials.

There's no excuse for a detention without charge that long. A week, two maybe I'd agree with, no more.

Of course as some posters here are implying, it's justified if you're doing it to Arab Muslims.

Of course as some posters here are implying, it's justified if you're doing it to Arab Muslims.

You obviously can't read English.

Look back in my posts. I said the detention in the OP was too long.

As long as you have probable cause, and can go to trial and convict, it's OK by me to detain someone.

There's no excuse for a detention without charge that long. A week, two maybe I'd agree with, no more.

I certainly agree in normal circumstances. In a circumstance where Wall Street was shut down for a week, most of downtown is even more questionable for your health than normal, and the first attack on US soil on US civilians since... Pancho Villa. Yeah, things get challenging.

Hell, the NYC command center was down because it was IN the WTC. Just sharing information (classified and otherwise) was a MAJOR headache for weeks after 9.11.

In extra-ordinary times, habeas corpus has been suspended. To me 9.11 should most certainly be considered such a time. Perhaps as long as six months afterwards.

Although we've danced the habeas corpus dance before and I think your position is contrary to the notions of liberty and justice on which not just this nation, but most western civilizations are, built, that isn't particularly relevant here.

Are you saying that not just habeas corpus, but all constitutional rights were suspended for six months after 9/11?

And, even if that is what you are saying, what about those that were held without charges for more than six months?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that, regardless of the facts of what may have occurred, all officials across the board are immune from a case even being filed against them for post-9/11 activities?

Realize this is just at the pleading stage. The government is saying -- no matter whether what you allege is true or not -- you can't even file a lawsuit against these officials.

Yep. Wholeheartedly. The same way that police officers are not guilty of speeding when chasing down a speeder. These officials had to make judgement calls in time critical situations. They didn't jail entire populations (ala the Japanese Internment). They SELECTIVELY went after possible threats.

John Stuart Mill would have approved. So do I.

Yep. Wholeheartedly. The same way that police officers are not guilty of speeding when chasing down a speeder. These officials had to make judgement calls in time critical situations. They didn't jail entire populations (ala the Japanese Internment). They SELECTIVELY went after possible threats.

John Stuart Mill would have approved. So do I.

So did Abraham Lincoln, for several years.

Although we've danced the habeas corpus dance before and I think your position is contrary to the notions of liberty and justice on which not just this nation, but most western civilizations are, built, that isn't particularly relevant here.

Are you saying that not just habeas corpus, but all constitutional rights were suspended for six months after 9/11?

And, even if that is what you are saying, what about those that were held without charges for more than six months?

Yes we have. And I think you coddle the marginal cases, but that isn't particularly relevant here either.

Heck no, and why do you ask?

Then for THOSE cases (and I do NOT mean those of enemy combatants in GitMo), court cases should be allowed. I don't know what the right time limit is, but six months seems more than enough in my mind for the government to come up with a case against people arrested off the street.

Heck no, and why do you ask?

Because the lawsuit at issue here has to do with numerous constitutional violations and not with denial of habeas corpus. So your view that habeas corpus was suspended doesn't logically support your conclusion that the defendants in this case are all automatically immune to suit regardless of what they may have done.

Either the U.S. Constitution remained a restriction on what these officials could do or it doesn't. In the latter case, why have a constitution?

Yep. Wholeheartedly. The same way that police officers are not guilty of speeding when chasing down a speeder. These officials had to make judgement calls in time critical situations. They didn't jail entire populations (ala the Japanese Internment). They SELECTIVELY went after possible threats.

John Stuart Mill would have approved. So do I.

I think you would have a hard time getting anyone to argue that a time critical situation lasted six months during which Americans were detained without charge. We don't charge police with speeding when they're after a speeder, nor do we give them carte blanche to speed at will.

Yep. Wholeheartedly. The same way that police officers are not guilty of speeding when chasing down a speeder. These officials had to make judgement calls in time critical situations. They didn't jail entire populations (ala the Japanese Internment). They SELECTIVELY went after possible threats.

John Stuart Mill would have approved. So do I.

So did Abraham Lincoln, for several years.

Although Hotwife has indicated he agrees the case should be allowed to go forward, I think you are both a bit confused about what is alleged here. Not just unlawful detainment, but mistreatment -- beatings, etc-- in violation of multiple constitutional rights.

That you think it is OK to round-up Muslims willy-nilly is a relevant point on which we disagree, but it doesn't answer the whole lawsuit.

I am curious on what grounds you claim John Stuart Mill or Abraham Lincoln would have sided with the government in this case.

Because the lawsuit at issue here has to do with numerous constitutional violations and not with denial of habeas corpus. So your view that habeas corpus was suspended doesn't logically support your conclusion that the defendants in this case are all automatically immune to suit regardless of what they may have done.

Either the U.S. Constitution remained a restriction on what these officials could do or it doesn't. In the latter case, why have a constitution?

Ask Abraham Lincoln.

It's even in various executive orders meant to be used during contingencies such as nuclear attack on the US - the President claims (several have) the right to suspend the Constitution for the "duration of the emergency".

No one has ever filed suit to claim that these standing orders are illegal.

No one.

Would it have made you happier if Bush had made it very clear that the Constitution was suspended for 180 days?

Would it have made you happier if Bush had made it very clear that the Constitution was suspended for 180 days?

Happier yes, happy no. At the very least we'd know when to expect him to stop trampling our rights.

I think you would have a hard time getting anyone to argue that a time critical situation lasted six months during which Americans were detained without charge. We don't charge police with speeding when they're after a speeder, nor do we give them carte blanche to speed at will.

Um... the Japanese Internment comes to mind. So does Lincoln and Grant's suspensions of H.C. There is prescedent.

You just try to give a ticket to a cop going 85 without his lights on then.

Ask Abraham Lincoln.

Ask him what? Why? Are the actions of "Honest Abe" the end-all of constitutional arguments? Is 9/11 really comparable to the U.S. Civil War?

It's even in various executive orders meant to be used during contingencies such as nuclear attack on the US - the President claims (several have) the right to suspend the Constitution for the "duration of the emergency".

No one has ever filed suit to claim that these standing orders are illegal.

No one.

Um. Let's assume this is all true. You draw the wrong conclusion. Who would have standing to challenge such orders unless and until they are implemented?

Would it have made you happier if Bush had made it very clear that the Constitution was suspended for 180 days?

Happier than if the Constitution was secretly suspened for 180 days, yes.

Would I think such a suspension would be acceptable? No.

Um... the Japanese Internment comes to mind.You'd almost have a point if anyone had attempted to defend that.

So does Lincoln and Grant's suspensions of H.C. There is prescedent.

You just try to give a ticket to a cop going 85 without his lights on then.

Just because there's a precedent doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Um... the Japanese Internment comes to mind.

Which was wrong and unconsitutional, regardless of what SCOTUS said.

So does Lincoln and Grant's suspensions of H.C. There is prescedent.

Which was wrong and unconstitutional, as SCOTUS said.

I do find it amusing how blithely you compare 9/11 to World War II and the U.S. Civil War.

You just try to give a ticket to a cop going 85 without his lights on then.

And if that cop runs someone over, the cop should be immune from suit -- regardless of why the cop was driving 85 or what harm the cop causes?

Although Hotwife has indicated he agrees the case should be allowed to go forward, I think you are both a bit confused about what is alleged here. Not just unlawful detainment, but mistreatment -- beatings, etc-- in violation of multiple constitutional rights.

That you think it is OK to round-up Muslims willy-nilly is a relevant point on which we disagree, but it doesn't answer the whole lawsuit.

I am curious on what grounds you claim John Stuart Mill or Abraham Lincoln would have sided with the government in this case.

Ah yes... ALLEGED abuses. Which is what is put into actual Al-Qaeda training materials: to make up cases of abuse to divide the infidel enemy with. Flushed Korans anyone?

That you think it is NOT OK to enforce laws (ie: Immigration) is a relevant point on which we disagree, but it doesn't answer the whole lawsuit.

I'm curious on what grounds you think that these men need to be arraned, and not every FBI, CIA, NYPD or anyone else related to the case?
As for Lincoln: Why did Lincoln supsend H.C. in Maryland? For the safety of the general populace in dealing with an enemy that was not obviously determinable (in this case, WHITE southerners). QED.
As for Mill: The greatest good for the greatest number. The safety of millions > the rights of several hundred, many of whom are in the country illegally in the first place.

You'd almost have a point if anyone had attempted to defend that.



Just because there's a precedent doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Does this count as anyone? http://mediamatters.org/items/200408110001

Didn't say it was a good thing. Neither was having four jetliners hijacked and crashed, three of them into targets with thousands of people working in them. I'd never condone these actions in a normal situation. In this one? Heck yes.

Which was wrong and unconsitutional, regardless of what SCOTUS said.



Which was wrong and unconstitutional, as SCOTUS said.

I do find it amusing how blithely you compare 9/11 to World War II and the U.S. Civil War.



And if that cop runs someone over, the cop should be immune from suit -- regardless of why the cop was driving 85 or what harm the cop causes?

Wrong and unconstititional, yes. Seen as necessary by the people in charge at the time? yes. That's the problem with any system: it has to be run by PEOPLE. This is why Communism can never succeed, and why we have problems like this.

And I do find it amusing how blithely you dismiss large scale threats to the Republic and public safety.

Ask Rodney King. Were the cops guilty, or was the video out of context? Either way, LA burned. As I keep saying: you have to give the law SOME variance in out of the ordinary situations. 9.11 was most certainly one of those times.

Ask him what? Why? Are the actions of "Honest Abe" the end-all of constitutional arguments? Is 9/11 really comparable to the U.S. Civil War?

Depends on who you ask. National emergency? Sure. Most at the time would have bought that for 180 days.

President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office.

Anyone remember Executive Order 9835? It had to do with Loyalty. The executive order declared: "maximum protection must be afforded the United States against infiltration of disloyal persons into the ranks of its employees, and equal protection from unfounded accusations of disloyalty must be afforded the loyal employees." But those protections were deemed inadequate, as objections surfaced regarding the lack of due process protections resulting from the departmental loyalty board procedures. One complaint concerned the lack of opportunity to confront those anonymous tipsters that EO 9835 protected from being outed to the accused. Initially, both the D.C. Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the law, the Supreme Court on a tie vote.

Executive Order 12170 should have been viewed as an unlawful taking - but it never was. By simple declaration, Jimmy Carter said, "that's ours now".

In a sense, Bush merely followed in Carter's footsteps in saying "your stuff is ours when I say so". Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq is an executive order signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 17, 2007 in a stated attempt to reduce the flow of material support for insurgents and terrorists in the Iraq war.

I keep thinking that you believe that somehow, Bush is the only President, and this is the only time in history, when the US Government has reneged on our Constitutional rights.

The government is saying -- no matter whether what you allege is true or not -- you can't even file a lawsuit against these officials.
Actually, they're saying that you need to have some minimal amount of evidence already, before you are allowed to have discovery and try and find more.

Ah yes... ALLEGED abuses. Which is what is put into actual Al-Qaeda training materials: to make up cases of abuse to divide the infidel enemy with. Flushed Korans anyone?

Um. We are talking about whether you can even ALLEGE abuses against such officials. Your argument is that no one can ever allege such abuses, because such allegations could be false?

Not to get technical on you, but summary judgment or a Rule 11 motion are more than adequate remedies for allegations that are false. No need for a blanket rule against any lawsuit no matter what.

That you think it is NOT OK to enforce laws (ie: Immigration) is a relevant point on which we disagree, but it doesn't answer the whole lawsuit.

WTF? What does immigration law have to do with this?

I'm curious on what grounds you think that these men need to be arraned, and not every FBI, CIA, NYPD or anyone else related to the case?

Um. Your assumption is mistaken. A wide range of officials related to the case have been named in the complaint. Although all claim qualified immunity and failure to state a claim, the government has alleged that allegations against the cabinet-level officials should be treated specially and SCOTUS is hearing that question.


As for Lincoln: Why did Lincoln supsend H.C. in Maryland? For the safety of the general populace in dealing with an enemy that was not obviously determinable (in this case, WHITE southerners). QED.

Given that the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland was unconstitutional, not a great example. Nor do I buy your comparison of the exigent circumstances after 9/11 to be the same as those raised by the Civil War.

As for Mill: The greatest good for the greatest number. The safety of millions > the rights of several hundred, many of whom are in the country illegally in the first place.

Perhaps you should read On Liberty again, as Mill rather firmly concludes that individual liberty does serve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Your conceit that being in a country illegally deprives one of all rights is noted and dismissed for the nonsense it is.

Actually, they're saying that you need to have some minimal amount of evidence already, before you are allowed to have discovery and try and find more.

Probable cause.

I don't see the plaintiff's probable cause. Sounds more like a fishing expedition to me.

Would it have made you happier if Bush had made it very clear that the Constitution was suspended for 180 days?
As opposed to just making people "disappear"? Certainly. The people detained appear to have been selected rather randomly, aside from being Muslim of course, without any "probable cause" to suspect them of having any connection to 9/11 or anything else; and it was particularly troubling that the government would not even confirm that it was holding them, leaving their families to wonder if they were even alive.

I keep thinking that you believe that somehow, Bush is the only President, and this is the only time in history, when the US Government has reneged on our Constitutional rights.

I have never said or even implied such a thing.

Of course the government has violated the Constitution many, many, many, many times -- and sometimes it has even gotten away with it with SCOTUS's approval.

None of that makes any of those violations, any recent violations, or any future violations any more acceptable. "Johnny did it too" is an even worse excuse on the Constitutional level than it is on the playground.

Probable cause.

I don't see the plaintiff's probable cause. Sounds more like a fishing expedition to me.

"probable cause" has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.

Regardless, the place for challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence is via summary judgment or Rule 11, not on a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is purely supposed to be a question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations.

Actually, they're saying that you need to have some minimal amount of evidence already, before you are allowed to have discovery and try and find more.

Sort of. They are claiming that you have to have a greater particularity in pleading in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

One of the reasons that is objectionable is that it requires one know more facts before one conducts any discovery.

Wrong and unconstititional, yes. Seen as necessary by the people in charge at the time? yes. That's the problem with any system: it has to be run by PEOPLE. This is why Communism can never succeed, and why we have problems like this.

Um. We have a Constitution precisely because human beings are fallible. See, e.g., Federalist #51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) (emphasis added):

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The judiciary is one of the checks on the power of the executive. Holding the executive immune from consequences for any violation of the Constitution is contrary to the notion of checks and balances, as well as the ideal of individual liberties.

And I do find it amusing how blithely you dismiss large scale threats to the Republic and public safety.

Define and identify this "large scale threat to the Republic and public safety" that existed for 180 days after 9/11, but didn't exist before or after that time period.

Explain how this threat was sufficient to justify wholesale suspension of the Constitution, when not even WWII or the Civil War required such measures.

Ask Rodney King. Were the cops guilty, or was the video out of context? Either way, LA burned.

And this is relevant how?

As I keep saying: you have to give the law SOME variance in out of the ordinary situations. 9.11 was most certainly one of those times.

Actually, I agree that the law must be afforded SOME variance. Hence, I fully believe in qualified immunity. I just don't agree with the sweeping statements you have made that government officials can disregard the Constitution with impunity and may not even face allegations for having done so.

I actually recall this, as it's basically local news.

All in all, I'd vote yes, they should be immune if all the arrests (and I believe they were) were done in a SHORT time after 9.11. If they're not immune, the next time something like this happens NO official will actually do their job.

Because their job entails arresting any random person who happens to be the same ethnicity or religion as someone who has committed a great crime and we can thus assume that they should be jailed?

Um. We have a Constitution precisely because human beings are fallible. See, e.g., Federalist #51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) (emphasis added):

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The judiciary is one of the checks on the power of the executive. Holding the executive immune from consequences for any violation of the Constitution is contrary to the notion of checks and balances, as well as the ideal of individual liberties.



Define and identify this "large scale threat to the Republic and public safety" that existed for 180 days after 9/11, but didn't exist before or after that time period.

Explain how this threat was sufficient to justify wholesale suspension of the Constitution, when not even WWII or the Civil War required such measures.



And this is relevant how?



Actually, I agree that the law must be afforded SOME variance. Hence, I fully believe in qualified immunity. I just don't agree with the sweeping statements you have made that government officials can disregard the Constitution with impunity and may not even face allegations for having done so.


Then you make the same case: men are not angels, and therefore we need a government. The government's Constitution runs under normal circumstances, but you yourself have countlessly pointed out that laws modify rights. For example, the famous "yelling fire" in a crowded threatre or the denial of Second Amendment rights in Washington DC for decades or California in many circumstances.
It therefore follows that H.C. is suspendable and even mutable by law.

Oh REALLY? And the reason why the President cannot be sued for actions while in office is? :)

Another terrorist attack. (Gee, was that such a leap?). Those of us that worked in "probable targets" (for me, the Chrysler Building) were on edge for well longer than that. Do you have a little bag of survival gear at your desk at work? We all STILL DO.

What wholesale suspension? I don't see it. I see 700 men arrested, most of whom were criminals, some of which were held for a long time. That doesn't martial law make.
Oh? And I suppose that the US Government shutting down German, Italian and Japanese newspapers in WW2 wasn't an abridgement on the First Amendment?

If you cannot see the relevance, you wouldn't understand the explaination.
(Read: responding like that won't get you anywhere...)

Good! And I don't believe that all government officials are free of lawsuits at all times, nor that these are necessarily free of them now. But I think that the bar IN THIS situation needs to be a LOT higher than normal for any case to be taken up.

Because their job entails arresting any random person who happens to be the same ethnicity or religion as someone who has committed a great crime and we can thus assume that they should be jailed?

Feel free to cite what fraction 700 persons is of the number of Arab-Americans living in New York. And then remove the number that weren't breaking ANY laws. I think you'll find that random isn't a word you can use here.

Feel free to cite what fraction 700 persons is of the number of Arab-Americans living in New York. And then remove the number that weren't breaking ANY laws. I think you'll find that random isn't a word you can use here.

You could round up just about anyone and if you investigate them for months, you'll find some law they've broken. I don't see that as any justification for rounding up people based on ethnicity in the off-chance that they might possibly maybe have broken a law or two.

And the fact that some of them were found guilty of breaking immigration laws does not even come close to justifying solitary confinement or any abuses (not to mention being held without charge for a long period of time).

Um. We are talking about whether you can even ALLEGE abuses against such officials. Your argument is that no one can ever allege such abuses, because such allegations could be false?

Not to get technical on you, but summary judgment or a Rule 11 motion are more than adequate remedies for allegations that are false. No need for a blanket rule against any lawsuit no matter what.



WTF? What does immigration law have to do with this?



Um. Your assumption is mistaken. A wide range of officials related to the case have been named in the complaint. Although all claim qualified immunity and failure to state a claim, the government has alleged that allegations against the cabinet-level officials should be treated specially and SCOTUS is hearing that question.



Given that the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland was unconstitutional, not a great example. Nor do I buy your comparison of the exigent circumstances after 9/11 to be the same as those raised by the Civil War.



Perhaps you should read On Liberty again, as Mill rather firmly concludes that individual liberty does serve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Your conceit that being in a country illegally deprives one of all rights is noted and dismissed for the nonsense it is.


My arguement is that the government needs to be able to defend itself above all else, and in extra-ordinary events, extra-ordinary latitude has, should, and IS given.
I'm 100% against the actions taken IF they were made in a normal situation. 9.11, like Pearl Harbor, or the Civil War are extra-ordinary.

Did you read the article you posted? Exactly how many of the men arrested were here illegally? The government has the right and the duty to defend its borders.

So: is NYPD Sgt. Jones being given immunity or not? None of the articles was clear on this point from the scanning I gave them.

I disagree: it's the PERFECT example. The Constitution in (yes, I'm saying it again) EXTRA-ORDINARY times is ignored. You'll note that SCOTUS didn't do anything about it until after the war was over.
As for you're not buying it, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if the events happened in the big city you live near. Seriously. I knew two people in WTC that worked for my firm. We went to Stamford to our disaster recovery site for nearly three months. People were SCARED, and to some extent still are. When that steam pipe blew almost in front of our building last year EVERYONE ran like hell because we thought at first it might have been terrorist related.
Sorry if you see 9.11 as some overhyped news story.

Mill also concluded that the rights of the one must not trump the rights of the many.

Your conceit that being in a country illegally gives one the right to break the law is noted and dismissed for the nonsense it is.

You could round up just about anyone and if you investigate them for months, you'll find some law they've broken. I don't see that as any justification for rounding up people based on ethnicity in the off-chance that they might possibly maybe have broken a law or two.

And the fact that some of them were found guilty of breaking immigration laws does not even come close to justifying solitary confinement or any abuses (not to mention being held without charge for a long period of time).

Are you against the police investigating/arresting known KKK members when crosses are burned on front yards, or is that profiling too?

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

Your conceit that being in a country illegally gives one the right to break the law is noted and dismissed for the nonsense it is.

I'll leave it to TCT to disembowel the rest of your post, but that's an absurd strawman you're trying there. Saying that you're not deprived of all your rights because you're an illegal immigrant is nowhere near saying you're given the right to break that law.

Are you against the police investigating/arresting known KKK members when crosses are burned on front yards, or is that profiling too?

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

Fallacious. The case at hand is more similar to police holding a random selection of white males for 180 days afters some crosses are burned, before releasing most of them.

And then remove the number that weren't breaking ANY laws.
Hardly any of them were found guilty of anything.
I think you'll find that random isn't a word you can use here.
It seems like the perfect word for it to me.

Are you against the police investigating/arresting known KKK members when crosses are burned on front yards, or is that profiling too?

Known KKK members? Absolutely. White guys who might possibly maybe be in the KKK since they happen to be white? No.

Sort of like how you might investigate known members of a predominantly black gang if a gang-related crime had been committed. You would not, on the other hand, just round up a bunch of black guys who you had no reason to believe were in the gang other than their ethnicity and then try to find something or other to pin on them.

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

The record on how long they were held without charge is going to be pretty easy to demonstrate, don't you think?

As for Mill: The greatest good for the greatest number. The safety of millions > the rights of several hundred, many of whom are in the country illegally in the first place.

Mill was a rule utilitarian. Violating the rules that guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number would be against his thought.

It was wrong, but I don't see any positive benefit to investigating the high ranking officials for this, other than soothing some liberal agenda. I doubt they had very much input into the detainments at all.

I doubt they had very much input into the detainments at all.
Why would you say so? This was a nationwide sweep, clearly ordered from the very top.

It was wrong, but I don't see any positive benefit to investigating the high ranking officials for this, other than soothing some liberal agenda. I doubt they had very much input into the detainments at all.

That rather begs the question. The allegation is that they had sufficient input into the detainments to make them liable for violations of the plaintiff's rights. Much like the government, you wish for there to be some presumption that the allegations are untrue without actually testing them.

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

Again, you misunderstand the legal issue here and the stage of the proceedings.

One brings a complaint by making allegations that support a cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8.

Defendants can seek dismissal of that complaint on the grounds that the allegations, if true, still don't state a cognizable cause of action. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).

Defendants can also seek to require that plaintiff has a reasonable good faith basis for the allegations in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11. Defendants can also seek more detail on the allegations in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(e).

If defendants wish to argue that plaintiff has insufficient evidence to support the allegations, the proper motion is a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Here, the defendants are essentially asking the Court to require heightened pleadings/specific evidence at the motion to dismiss stage. That is highly unusual.

Regardless, beyond the word of the plaintiff, there is evidence to support many of the plaintiff's allegations. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a special report in 2003 that found merit in September 11 Detainees' Allegations of Abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0312/index.htm)

There seems to be some confusion here that this case somehow relates to the right to habeas corpus and whether the government legitimately suspended that right. The case doesn't involve the right to habeas corpus.

Here are the alleged causes of action by the plaintiff that detail what rights were allegedly violated:

1. The conditions of confinement in the ADMAX SHU, and the failure to take measures to remedy those conditions, violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs assert this claim against the Wardens and other MDC defen dants.25

2. The policy of assigning plaintiffs to the ADMAX SHU without affording them the opportunity to chal lenge their continued administrative detention vio lated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs assert this claim against Ashcroft, the FBI Defendants, the BOP Defendants, the Wardens, and other MDC defendants.

3-4. The intentional beatings to which plaintiffs were subjected, and the failure to take measures to prevent these beatings, violated plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs assert these claim against Hasty and other MDC defendants.

5. The policy of interfering with plaintiffs' access to counsel violated plaintiffs' right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Plaintiffs assert this claim against Hasty and other MDC defendants.

6-7. The denial of adequate medical examination and care violated plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs assert these claims against Lorenzo and other MDC defendants.

8. The conditions of confinement that plaintiffs were subjected to in the ADMAX SHU, and the failure to take measures to remedy those conditions, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Plaintiffs assert this claim against the Wardens and other MDC defendants.

9. The policy of subjecting plaintiffs to unreason able strip and body-cavity searches, and the failure to remedy such a policy, violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. Plaintiffs assert this claim against Hawk Sawyer, the Wardens, and other MDC defendants.

10. The policy of interfering with plaintiffs' religious practices, and the failure to remedy such a policy, violated plaintiffs' free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs assert this claim ag ainst the Wardens, and other MDC defendants.

11. The policy of subjecting plaintiffs to harsher conditions of confinement because of their religious beliefs, and the failure to remedy such a policy, violated plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs assert this claim against Ashcroft, the FBI Defendants, the BOP Defendants, the Wardens, and other MDC defendants.

12. The policy of subjecting plaintiffs to harsher conditions of confinement because of their race, and the failure to remedy such a policy, violated plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the Fifth Am endment. Plaintiffs assert this claim against all defendants.

13. The policy of subjecting plaintiffs to harsher conditions of confinement because of their religious beliefs, and the failure to remedy such a policy, substantially burdened their religious exercise, in violation of RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. Plaintiffs assert this claim against all defendants.

14. The policy of confiscating plaintiffs' religious materials, regularly interrupting their daily prayers, and denying them access to Friday communal prayers, and the failure to remedy such a policy, substantially burdened plaintiffs' religious exercise and belief, in violation of RFRA. Plaintiffs assert this claim against the Wardens, and other MDC defendants.

15. By brutally beating and verbally abusing plain tiffs because of their religious beliefs, and by failing to take measures to remedy such abuse, defendants imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise, in violation of RFRA. Plaintiffs assert this claim against Hasty and other MDC defendants

16-17. The agreements among various defendants to deprive plaintiffs of the equal protection and equal privileges and immunities of the laws because of their religious beliefs, race, and national origin vio lated the civil rights conspiracy statute, 42 U.S .C. § 1985(3). Plaintiffs assert that (1) Ashcroft, Mueller, the BOP Defendants and the Wardens, among oth ers, agreed to subject plaintiffs to unnecessarily harsh conditions of confinement without due process; (2) the BOP Defendants and the Wardens, among others, agreed to subject plaintiffs to unnecessary and extreme strip and body-cavity searches as a matter of policy; and (3) the Wardens and other MDC defendants agreed to substantially burden Elma ghraby's religious practice while he was housed in the ADMAX SHU.

18-20. The beatings of Iqbal and the failure to pre vent those beatings; the negligent medical care Iqbal received; and the brutal conduct that caused him to suffer extreme and lasting emotional distress constitute torts for which Iqbal seeks compensatory damages from the United States pursuant to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.

21. The cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment plaintiffs were subjected to violated international law. Plaintiffs assert a claim for this violation under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, against all defendants.


Here is a link to the defendant's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/7pet/2007-1015.pet.aa.html). At the bottom of that linked document, you will find Appendices that include:

(A) the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowing the case to go forward,

(B) the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (which I am quoting above),

(C) denial of petition for rehearing by the United States Court of Ap peals for the Second Circuit,

(D) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

Are you against the police investigating/arresting known KKK members when crosses are burned on front yards, or is that profiling too?

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

You're honestly comparing racial profiling... and membership of the KKK?

Anyway, I know this involves some boring and complicated legal issues, but the basic question is whether this case should be allowed to go forward or are high-level officials immune from such suits? What say you?

He may have been bugshit crazy by that point, but the character of Bartleby in Dogma was right about one thing. To paraphrase his quote - The lesson must be taught. All are accountable... even high-level officials.

US law you have I believe 24 hours to hold a suspect without charges. For a "short" time you're fine. Hold them for months and you're going to be beaten to death with a copy of the Constitution.

That would be rather nasty considering that it's covered in shit lately (what with the current administration having used it for toilet paper since 9/11).

Of course as some posters here are implying, it's justified if you're doing it to Arab Muslims.

Silly person, DK doesn't care if they're Arabic.

"probable cause" has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.

Regardless, the place for challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence is via summary judgment or Rule 11, not on a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is purely supposed to be a question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations.

We've had people sue the government before, and because the information the government held was classified Top Secret, the courts have held that they can't fish for the information. With no information to discover legally, they have no standing.

SCOTUS upheld this. If there is an official policy to abuse Muslims, it's very likely Top Secret (see Cheney's authoring of the Bush executive order that details how the President and Vice President are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, a slight modification of the Clinton policy).

Since SCOTUS has held that you can't fish for information that's top secret, where does that leave the suit? Nowhere.

Then you make the same case: men are not angels, and therefore we need a government. The government's Constitution runs under normal circumstances,

ALL circumstances, normal or otherwise.

Are you against the police investigating/arresting known KKK members when crosses are burned on front yards, or is that profiling too?

Question them yes. Arrest them without sufficient evidence? No. Even those shits have rights.

We've had people sue the government before, and because the information the government held was classified Top Secret, the courts have held that they can't fish for the information. With no information to discover legally, they have no standing.

SCOTUS upheld this. If there is an official policy to abuse Muslims, it's very likely Top Secret (see Cheney's authoring of the Bush executive order that details how the President and Vice President are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, a slight modification of the Clinton policy).

Since SCOTUS has held that you can't fish for information that's top secret, where does that leave the suit? Nowhere.

Nice bit of speculation without any support. First, I'd like to read this SCOTUS decision. Second, we aren't dealing with a discovery dispute yet. Third, no one has even hinted that the discovery would be impermissible due to government secrecy. Finally, if all it takes to shut down a lawsuit against the government is for the government to claim the lawsuit involves top secret information and there is no review of that, then kiss your Constitutional rights goodbye.

If there is an official policy to abuse Muslims, it's very likely Top Secret (see Cheney's authoring of the Bush executive order that details how the President and Vice President are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, a slight modification of the Clinton policy).
By the time this comes to trial, the President and Vice President will no longer be named Bush and Cheney.

Further analysis of the pleadings in the case and the oral argument today, reveal some further details--at least one of which will delight those defending the government's actions.

1. The allegation is that the government actually detained thousands of Muslims after 9/11.

2. The 700+ number refers to those that were detained based on immigration charges, but were held for extended periods and treated differently based on being classified “of high interest” to the FBI. The government doesn't deny this occurred. Almost all of these detainees violated immigration laws, either by overstaying their visas, by entering the country illegally, or some other immigration violation. None of these detainees were ever charged with anything relating to terrorism, 9/11, being "enemy combatants," etc.

3. The lawsuit does not allege anything wrong with the plaintiff's being arrested or charged with (or convicted of) an immigration violation or being held as punishment for the immigration violation. The lawsuit alleges the special extended detention and treatment is what violated the plantiff's rights.

I will admit these facts give me some pause as to whether plaintiff actually has a case against Ashcroft and Mueller, but not as to whether such case should simply be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.

I'll leave it to TCT to disembowel the rest of your post, but that's an absurd strawman you're trying there. Saying that you're not deprived of all your rights because you're an illegal immigrant is nowhere near saying you're given the right to break that law.

ROTFLMAO. I was pointing out that Cat's own ruler doesn't fit his own POV. It's called comparison. Oh, and btw: just because you don't agree with someone does not a strawman make.

Fallacious. The case at hand is more similar to police holding a random selection of white males for 180 days afters some crosses are burned, before releasing most of them.

Gee, that'd be true IF the guys rounded up were random! But they weren't -- these people were KNOWN to have been criminals or criminal links. How many Imams were rounded up? How many regular family men that have been here for 20 years? How many mosques raided?
I think you'll find the answers to be ZERO.

Ive heard of the president issuing blanket pardons. Ive never heard of SCOTUS issuing blanket pardons.

Known KKK members? Absolutely. White guys who might possibly maybe be in the KKK since they happen to be white? No.

Sort of like how you might investigate known members of a predominantly black gang if a gang-related crime had been committed. You would not, on the other hand, just round up a bunch of black guys who you had no reason to believe were in the gang other than their ethnicity and then try to find something or other to pin on them.

The record on how long they were held without charge is going to be pretty easy to demonstrate, don't you think?

So you agree that if there is a reason to pick them up (and not random people off the street), it's fine.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. Unless a group solely consisting of black men went and blew up (say) the Capitol, and the government had the names of other probable like-minded individuals. In that EXTRA-ORDINARY circumstance, round 'em up!

How long? Pretty easy. If they were mistreated? Kind of tough.

OK I have to admit when I read round-up of Muslims; the Rawhide song popped into my head....

Mill was a rule utilitarian. Violating the rules that guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number would be against his thought.

Exactly so. And he also postulated that life is the highest form of liberty. Ergo, what keeps people alive is of the greatest good.

1) I don't think this particular suit will go anywhere. It seems shaky and I don't think the will is there to prosecute any members of the Bush administration, even for clear crimes, let alone ones that might not be so clear.

2) I wish it was a stronger suit with greater will behind it, because I believe that the US government has to be reminded -- as do some posters in this thread -- that NO ONE is above the law, including members of the government. No one. Nixon was wrong.

Again, you misunderstand the legal issue here and the stage of the proceedings.

One brings a complaint by making allegations that support a cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8.

Defendants can seek dismissal of that complaint on the grounds that the allegations, if true, still don't state a cognizable cause of action. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).

Defendants can also seek to require that plaintiff has a reasonable good faith basis for the allegations in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11. Defendants can also seek more detail on the allegations in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(e).

If defendants wish to argue that plaintiff has insufficient evidence to support the allegations, the proper motion is a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Here, the defendants are essentially asking the Court to require heightened pleadings/specific evidence at the motion to dismiss stage. That is highly unusual.

Regardless, beyond the word of the plaintiff, there is evidence to support many of the plaintiff's allegations. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a special report in 2003 that found merit in September 11 Detainees' Allegations of Abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0312/index.htm)

Again, you misunderstand that I understand exactly what the legal issue is.
I'm STILL argueing that following a catostrophic loss of life during what is basically an act of war, any group opposing the Republic is bound to have its members overly scrutinized. Sad, but true.
That the prisoners may or may not have been mistreated is a seperate issue! We are debating if two officials can be tried for it, and the obvious answer is NO, as I've been pointing out for pages.

You're honestly comparing racial profiling... and membership of the KKK?

Nope. I'm asking Demip. if his indignation of the men being rounded up was because they were Muslims, or if it was because it was only one group.

Question them yes. Arrest them without sufficient evidence? No. Even those shits have rights.

Arrested without evidence, or held without being charged? There is a difference.

Again, you misunderstand that I understand exactly what the legal issue is.
I'm STILL argueing that following a catostrophic loss of life during what is basically an act of war, any group opposing the Republic is bound to have its members overly scrutinized. Sad, but true.
That the prisoners may or may not have been mistreated is a seperate issue! We are debating if two officials can be tried for it, and the obvious answer is NO, as I've been pointing out for pages.
You've been pointing it out very clearly, but not proving your point. All you've told is that you think it should be this way because of the circumstances, but you have not given any reason why anyone else should agree with you.

You've been pointing it out very clearly, but not proving your point. All you've told is that you think it should be this way because of the circumstances, but you have not given any reason why anyone else should agree with you.

Neither has anyone else. ;) I'd hazard that as usual there's little in the way one can do to effect the thinkings of others on the forums. This is why I post so infrequently these days.

Oh? Historical prescendent is one reason. The defense of the state against attack is another (you might find Article II, Section 2 of note here!).

Historical prescendent is one reason.

Your argument from "historical precedent" seems to be little more than "we've violated the Constitution sometimes before so we can do it again with impunity." Not very compelling.

But please tell us what the historical precedent is for suspending the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments -- all of which are at issue here.

The defense of the state against attack is another (you might find Article II, Section 2 of note here!).

Care to explain how (and what part of) Article II, Section 2 is even vaguely relevant:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Again, you misunderstand that I understand exactly what the legal issue is.
I'm STILL argueing that following a catostrophic loss of life during what is basically an act of war, any group opposing the Republic is bound to have its members overly scrutinized. Sad, but true.
That the prisoners may or may not have been mistreated is a seperate issue! We are debating if two officials can be tried for it, and the obvious answer is NO, as I've been pointing out for pages.

Apparently you don't understand the legal issue or you wouldn't have made the comment about the claims lacking evidence to support them.

Muslims as a group are opposed to the Republic? Arabs as a group are opposed to the Republic?

Again, you have yet to adequately explain why, if violations of the rights of the plaintiff occurred, these two officials should be completely immune from prosecution regardless of the facts.

Neither has anyone else. ;) I'd hazard that as usual there's little in the way one can do to effect the thinkings of others on the forums. This is why I post so infrequently these days.
You don't have to win by affecting the thinking of others. I'd be satisfied with just any real support or defense of your assertions. Or else I'd be satisified with, instead of saying such and such is "obviously" so, you said that such and such was just your personal opinion (which we know, but at least you wouldn't then be wrong).

Oh? Historical prescendent is one reason. The defense of the state against attack is another (you might find Article II, Section 2 of note here!).
Except that I and other disagree with your interpretation of both the law and the history. We do not think that it supports your argument. You keep pointing to historical precedents that TCT, for one, has argued (1) are not actually relevant to the 9/11 situation and (2) were wrong actions to begin with. So on the grounds of (1), you cannot use those examples to support you argument, and on the grounds of (2) they do not support your argument because two wrongs don't make a right. If it was wrong when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, it is wrong when Bush does it, too.

Also, there is dispute as to whether Bush's actions do actually rise to the level of defense of the state against an attack, and unless you can show how it does, then your mere opinionated assertions won't carry the point for you.

Then you make the same case: men are not angels, and therefore we need a government. The government's Constitution runs under normal circumstances,

Where in the Constitution do you find this "does not apply under extraordinary circumstances" clause?

but you yourself have countlessly pointed out that laws modify rights.

I have? WTF?

For example, the famous "yelling fire" in a crowded threatre or the denial of Second Amendment rights in Washington DC for decades or California in many circumstances.
It therefore follows that H.C. is suspendable and even mutable by law.

1. Habeas corpus isn't at issue here.

2. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not an example of laws modifying rights, but an example of how freedom of speech is not absolute.

3. You've got me on the wrong side of Second Amendment debate, but no matter: the fact that the government has sometimes violated the Constitution is not a justification for government violations of the Constitution.

Oh REALLY? And the reason why the President cannot be sued for actions while in office is? :)

*sigh*

Do you really want to debate the 5-4 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=731), 457 U.S. 731 (1982)? Let alone how it is distinguished and/or undermined by/fromClinton v. Jones (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853), 520 U.S. 681 (1997) and United States v. Nixon (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/418/683.html), 418 U.S. 683 (1974)?

Regardless, the rationale of Nixon v. Fitzgerald was the President is a unique entity. The Court made clear the immunity did not apply to other executive branch officials. See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra; Butz v. Economou (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=438&invol=478), 438 U.S. 478 (1978)

Another terrorist attack. (Gee, was that such a leap?). Those of us that worked in "probable targets" (for me, the Chrysler Building) were on edge for well longer than that. Do you have a little bag of survival gear at your desk at work? We all STILL DO.

You not only failed to answer the question, but actually illustrated that the 6 months after 9/11 pose no greater risk of another terrorist attack than any other time period.

What wholesale suspension? I don't see it. I see 700 men arrested, most of whom were criminals, some of which were held for a long time. That doesn't martial law make.

1. You've been saying it doesn't matter what rights were violated, the authorities should be immune.

2. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments were all allegedly violated here. Saying none of those are enforceable post-9/11 is pretty close to martial law.

3. You still seem to think this is habeas corpus issue. The issue isn't the detention of the plaintiff as such, but the conditions of that detention.

Oh? And I suppose that the US Government shutting down German, Italian and Japanese newspapers in WW2 wasn't an abridgement on the First Amendment?

Again, how does a past violation of the Constitution justify future violations?

If you cannot see the relevance, you wouldn't understand the explaination.
(Read: responding like that won't get you anywhere...)

Read: I won't explain the relevance because there is none. :p

Good! And I don't believe that all government officials are free of lawsuits at all times, nor that these are necessarily free of them now. But I think that the bar IN THIS situation needs to be a LOT higher than normal for any case to be taken up.

Why are the doctrines of qualified immunity not sufficient protection for these officials? Why do they need extra pleading protections?

My arguement is that the government needs to be able to defend itself above all else, and in extra-ordinary events, extra-ordinary latitude has, should, and IS given.
I'm 100% against the actions taken IF they were made in a normal situation. 9.11, like Pearl Harbor, or the Civil War are extra-ordinary.

Define the threshold for an "extra-ordindary" event that suspends the Constitution.

Did you read the article you posted? Exactly how many of the men arrested were here illegally? The government has the right and the duty to defend its borders.

Yep. And that is totally irrelevant. The government can detain, convict, punish, and deport people that are here illegally. The government has no license to violate such person's human or constitutional rights, however.

So: is NYPD Sgt. Jones being given immunity or not? None of the articles was clear on this point from the scanning I gave them.

So far, the case goes forward against all the defendants. All the defendants are still entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity.

I disagree: it's the PERFECT example. The Constitution in (yes, I'm saying it again) EXTRA-ORDINARY times is ignored. You'll note that SCOTUS didn't do anything about it until after the war was over.

We've discussed this before. You read something into the time it takes for a Supreme Court case to be decided that just isn't there. What evidence do you have that SCOTUS deliberately waited until the war was over to declare the suspension of habeas corpus illegal?

And, again, how does a past violation of the Constitution -- whether corrected by SCOTUS or not -- justify future violations?

Mill also concluded that the rights of the one must not trump the rights of the many.

You appear to have confused Mill with Mr. Spock. :wink:

Your conceit that being in a country illegally gives one the right to break the law is noted and dismissed for the nonsense it is.

You've claimed the legal/illegal status of the plaintiff and other detainees is somehow relevant to whether their rights were violated, so my point was relevant.

Your riposite misses the mark because neither I nor the plaintiff objects to the detention/punishment/deportation of an illegal alien in this case.

Im sickened by some posters implying that high ranking officials should be immune from civil suits when rights are blatantly violated.

Of course, I shouldnt be suprised.

Im sickened by some posters implying that high ranking officials should be immune from civil suits when rights are blatantly violated.

Of course, I shouldnt be suprised.

Don't be surprised either to hear these same people scream "IMPEACHMENT!!" if by some fucked up chance Obama ends up doing something identical.

Apparently you don't understand the legal issue or you wouldn't have made the comment about the claims lacking evidence to support them.

Muslims as a group are opposed to the Republic? Arabs as a group are opposed to the Republic?

Again, you have yet to adequately explain why, if violations of the rights of the plaintiff occurred, these two officials should be completely immune from prosecution regardless of the facts.

Apparently you don't understand that I didnt -- I made the comment that the evidence must be incontravertable. Good luck with that.

Nope, CERTAIN people opposed to the Republic that happen to be Muslims. I think you recall that ALL of the hijackers were indeed Muslim? As I recall, we didn't round up EVERY Japanese in WW2, either.

Again, you have yet to adequately explain why, if the violantions of the rights of the plaintiff occured, that these two officials should be held to accountability for trying to perform their primary duty of keeping the general populace safe in the face of an extraordinary event. Or why people with criminal records shouldn't be rounded up at any time.

You don't have to win by affecting the thinking of others. I'd be satisfied with just any real support or defense of your assertions. Or else I'd be satisified with, instead of saying such and such is "obviously" so, you said that such and such was just your personal opinion (which we know, but at least you wouldn't then be wrong).


Except that I and other disagree with your interpretation of both the law and the history. We do not think that it supports your argument. You keep pointing to historical precedents that TCT, for one, has argued (1) are not actually relevant to the 9/11 situation and (2) were wrong actions to begin with. So on the grounds of (1), you cannot use those examples to support you argument, and on the grounds of (2) they do not support your argument because two wrongs don't make a right. If it was wrong when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, it is wrong when Bush does it, too.

Also, there is dispute as to whether Bush's actions do actually rise to the level of defense of the state against an attack, and unless you can show how it does, then your mere opinionated assertions won't carry the point for you.

If you don't see that by now, then there's no amount of words I can post in any sequence that would give you that POV.
And I ask you to reconsider that the other side has passed that bar as well. Because so far as I can see, ALL of this is just personal POV since we're NOT on the case and are just debating.

Exactly: and because of that disagreement we have different views. The difference is that I agree that the views of those that aren't mine aren't
"OMG, you're a fascist PC machine", just that they're wrong in this particular event.
As for your numbered points, because of said disagreement on historical interpretation all we're going to do is keep writing pages on the back and forth. Just you blanket saying "they're not relevant" is about as useful as me saying the same. You've not given (nor has anyone else) an IOTA of rationale as to WHY they are not valid comparisons.
Two wrongs don't make a right? PLEASE! We're talking about GOVERNMENT here!

Um, right. I'll take not having my city attacked over that. 7 years of that not happening IMO is a pretty good record, though I do conceed that it took about that long between the first WTC attack and the second.
And your opinion don't carry it for you, either. Nice.

Summation: Griping that you don't think I'm making my point beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't get you anywhere. Look in the mirror.

Don't be surprised either to hear these same people scream "IMPEACHMENT!!" if by some fucked up chance Obama ends up doing something identical.

Thankfully, I think the American people are sick and tired of this sort of politicial theatre. I'm REALLY hoping that with Bush gone the "Moveon" crowd's vitriol will not seem quite so sweet to the left. I'm also REALLY hoping that the GOP's re-org will do the same for the right.

Im sickened by some posters implying that high ranking officials should be immune from civil suits when rights are blatantly violated.

Of course, I shouldnt be suprised.

Funny, I'm sick of people accusing some posters of things which they're NOT saying.

Of cource, I shouldnt be surprised.

Where in the Constitution do you find this "does not apply under extraordinary circumstances" clause?



I have? WTF?



1. Habeas corpus isn't at issue here.

2. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not an example of laws modifying rights, but an example of how freedom of speech is not absolute.

3. You've got me on the wrong side of Second Amendment debate, but no matter: the fact that the government has sometimes violated the Constitution is not a justification for government violations of the Constitution.



*sigh*

Do you really want to debate the 5-4 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=731), 457 U.S. 731 (1982)? Let alone how it is distinguished and/or undermined by/fromClinton v. Jones (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853), 520 U.S. 681 (1997) and United States v. Nixon (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/418/683.html), 418 U.S. 683 (1974)?

Regardless, the rationale of Nixon v. Fitzgerald was the President is a unique entity. The Court made clear the immunity did not apply to other executive branch officials. See, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra; Butz v. Economou (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=438&invol=478), 438 U.S. 478 (1978)



You not only failed to answer the question, but actually illustrated that the 6 months after 9/11 pose no greater risk of another terrorist attack than any other time period.



1. You've been saying it doesn't matter what rights were violated, the authorities should be immune.

2. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments were all allegedly violated here. Saying none of those are enforceable post-9/11 is pretty close to martial law.

3. You still seem to think this is habeas corpus issue. The issue isn't the detention of the plaintiff as such, but the conditions of that detention.



Again, how does a past violation of the Constitution justify future violations?



Read: I won't explain the relevance because there is none. :p



Why are the doctrines of qualified immunity not sufficient protection for these officials? Why do they need extra pleading protections?



Define the threshold for an "extra-ordindary" event that suspends the Constitution.



Yep. And that is totally irrelevant. The government can detain, convict, punish, and deport people that are here illegally. The government has no license to violate such person's human or constitutional rights, however.



So far, the case goes forward against all the defendants. All the defendants are still entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity.



We've discussed this before. You read something into the time it takes for a Supreme Court case to be decided that just isn't there. What evidence do you have that SCOTUS deliberately waited until the war was over to declare the suspension of habeas corpus illegal?

And, again, how does a past violation of the Constitution -- whether corrected by SCOTUS or not -- justify future violations?



You appear to have confused Mill with Mr. Spock. :wink:



You've claimed the legal/illegal status of the plaintiff and other detainees is somehow relevant to whether their rights were violated, so my point was relevant.

Your riposite misses the mark because neither I nor the plaintiff objects to the detention/punishment/deportation of an illegal alien in this case.

Since when did you become a strict constructionist? :) As I recall, (and I've posted before) that the laws of the land can and do modify the Consititution.

Yes, you have. In past threads you've argued that (and, notably, I agree with you) that laws made by the Congress/ local legislature and judgements rendered by the courts are indeed interpretations of the Consitution and remain so until overturned by SCOTUS. (Or not overturned, as the case may be.)
This is how DC, Chicago and California can "Constitutionally" curtail the right to bear arms, for example.
I believe you made this point most recently in our debate over the 9th circuit.

AHA! And if freedom of speech is not absolute, how can you argue that ANY part of the Constitution is?

I have you on the wrong side of the Second Amendment debate? News to me in face of years of you saying otherwise!

The fact that the law needed to modify the Constutition is needed but not yet existant does not make it wrong to try to keep the citizenry safe.

Nope, I don't want you to debate it, just realize what I'm saying. And yes, the court did make that clear -- it also was Nixon's crime being discussed, not executives suddenly having to carry out a president's (presumed) orders in a war situation where they don't have the ability to actually SEE what their underlings are doing, either!

ROTFLAMO. I failed? Good lord, HOW? You think we had survival bags BEFORE 9.11?

1. I'm saying they should be immune IF they were within a reasonable period after 9.11, IF they were on probable criminals, and IF the alleged abuse was not ordered.

2. Compare this to martial law Poland and get back to me. It's nowhere near it.

3. So the length of being held doesn't matter now? GREAT!


Because AS I KEEP POINTING OUT: The government's first responsibility is to "provide for the common defense".

Read: I can't use words small enough to explain it to you. :p

Because AS I KEEP POINTING OUT: The government's first responsibility is to "provide for the common defense". Locking down suspected terrorists (AGAIN: they didn't just create a giant Arab ghetto!) is more important during and immediately after an attack than anything else.

Defined: an attack on the US by a specific group of persons with widespread death and destruction. I can't believe you actually asked for that. And I still maintain that the Constitution is not suspended, but that the rights of SOME may be withheld.

ALLEGEDLY violate a person's human or constitutional rights.

What evidence? Please. If Lincoln suspending H.C. in Maryland wasn't a major issue in the day, then it isn't a major issue EVER. How long was H.C. suspended? FOUR YEARS.
Presidential wartime powers tend to rise, and then fall when hostilities are over. That SCOTUS didn't table everything to tell Lincoln he couldn't do it IS the point.

Because of the situation that they were in. We don't hold a President responsible when there is collateral damage during a US bombing mission. We don't hold soldiers or officers responsible for the men they arrest in war zones, either.

Getting bored repeating myself. Done.

Cat-Tribe is only a strict constructionist when it comes to certain Amendments.

Like the ACLU, when he counts to 10, he can't say "2".

Cat-Tribe is only a strict constructionist when it comes to certain Amendments.

Like the ACLU, when he counts to 10, he can't say "2".

Care to prove that statement?

Sorry to nit pick but...

As for Lincoln: Why did Lincoln supsend H.C. in Maryland? For the safety of the general populace in dealing with an enemy that was not obviously determinable (in this case, WHITE southerners).

The Canadians, despite their position on slavery, supported the *south* during the War. They didn't actually get involved in it but I'm sure that Lincoln was afraid that they might. The sympathies in the parliament were leaning more towards the south... If they had it would have been a big mess since in actuality there were Canadians fighting on *both* sides already!

Would it have been allright for the government to go out and seize everyone's private guns after 9/11?

Cat-Tribe is only a strict constructionist when it comes to certain Amendments.

Like the ACLU, when he counts to 10, he can't say "2".

In other words, you can no longer address the subject at hand.

Care to prove that statement?

Considering that Jolt has scrubbed the old stuff out of the posts, it would be difficult.

But he's held the same position on the 2nd Amendment that the ACLU holds, which the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with. The Supreme Court was pretty constructionist on that amendment, while the ACLU is not.

ROTFLAMO. I failed? Good lord, HOW? You think we had survival bags BEFORE 9.11?


You failed by still having them.

Considering that Jolt has scrubbed the old stuff out of the posts, it would be difficult.

But he's held the same position on the 2nd Amendment that the ACLU holds, which the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with. The Supreme Court was pretty constructionist on that amendment, while the ACLU is not.

This is all irrelevant. This isn't about who is a "strict Constitutionalist." Cat-Tribe asked you in post 66 of this very thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14293796&postcount=66) to support some of your claims ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

You didn't. You didn't even reply. You just ignored it and then started babbling about how Cat-Tribe isn't a strict constitutionalist. That's an ad hominem fallacy, and it's pathetic.

Either back your shit up or admit you can't.

Cat-Tribe is only a strict constructionist when it comes to certain Amendments.

Like the ACLU, when he counts to 10, he can't say "2".

Considering that Jolt has scrubbed the old stuff out of the posts, it would be difficult.

But he's held the same position on the 2nd Amendment that the ACLU holds, which the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with. The Supreme Court was pretty constructionist on that amendment, while the ACLU is not.

Um. First of all, you entirely mangle the concept of "strict construction." I am not a strict constructionist on most (if not all) constitutional issues.

Second, I used to hold the same position as the federal courts that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right. (I can go back to posts of Whispering Legs (isn't that you?) agreeing with that position from a strictly legal standpoint, but believe in a natural right to bear arms.)

While Cat-tribe has pointed out before (and I agree) that the Second Amendment (at least as far as the courts are concerned) has little to do with the individual right to bear arms, there are state constitutions (such as Vermont) that enshrine it as an individual right.

Third, long before District of Columbia v. Heller (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290), 554 U.S. ___ (2008), I publicly changed my view of the Second Amendment in these forums.

Meh. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

See also link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9185957&postcount=8), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13264016&highlight=heller#post13264016), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13263943&highlight=heller#post13263943)

Fourth, since Heller, I have made clear I agree with the majority in that case. See, e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14142143&highlight=heller#post14142143).

But he's held the same position on the 2nd Amendment that the ACLU holds

I thought the ACLU position on the 2nd amendment was that it has the NRA to look after it, so they don't bother.

This is all irrelevant. This isn't about who is a "strict Constitutionalist." Cat-Tribe asked you in post 66 of this very thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14293796&postcount=66) to support some of your claims ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

You didn't. You didn't even reply. You just ignored it and then started babbling about how Cat-Tribe isn't a strict constitutionalist. That's an ad hominem fallacy, and it's pathetic.

Either back your shit up or admit you can't.

Apparently Cat-Tribe changed his mind on the 2nd Amendment and I missed the day he posted about it.

However, the matter at hand is the Classified Information Procedures Act.

The tool with which the proper protection of classified information may be ensured in indicted cases is the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). See Title 18, U.S.C. App III.

CIPA is a procedural statute; it neither adds to nor detracts from the substantive rights of the defendant or the discovery obligations of the government. Rather, the procedure for making these determinations is different in that it balances the right of a criminal defendant with the right of the sovereign to know in advance of a potential threat from a criminal prosecution to its national security. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 872 F.2d 1508, 1514 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Collins, 720 F.2d 1195, 1197 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Lopez-Lima, 738 F. Supp. 1404, 1407 (S.D.Fla. 1990). Each of CIPA's provisions is designed to achieve those dual goals: preventing unnecessary or inadvertent disclosures of classified information and advising the government of the national security "cost" of going forward.

The statute provides for the government to be able, by simple declaration, to stop the defendant or plaintiff from obtaining any classified information, simply by saying so:

CIPA Section 3 requires the court, upon the request of the government, to issue an order "to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case."

As an added bonus, the defendant and his lawyer have to know of the exact document to be "discovered" in advance. Otherwise, you can't follow CIPA procedure and go through the review process of deciding whether or not the document in question can be seen. CIPA is not a license for someone to say, "show me all the documents that are related to..."

See:

The linchpin of CIPA is section 5(a), which requires a defendant who reasonably intends to disclose (or cause the disclosure of) classified information to provide timely pretrial written notice of his intention to the Court and the Government. Section 5(a) expressly requires that such notice "include a brief description of the classified information," and the leading case under section 5(a) holds that such notice

must be particularized, setting forth specifically the classified information which the defendant reasonably believes to be necessary to his defense.

United States v. Collins, 720 F.2d 1195, 1199 (11th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added) See also United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1105 (4th Cir. 1985) (en banc). This requirement applies both to documentary exhibits and to oral testimony, whether it is anticipated to be brought out on direct or on cross-examination. See, e.g., United States v. Collins, supra, (testimony); United States v. Wilson, 750 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1984) (same).

If a defendant fails to provide a sufficiently detailed notice far enough in advance of trial to permit the implementation of CIPA procedures, section 5(b) provides for preclusion. See United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458, 1465 (11th Cir. 1987). Similarly, if the defendant attempts to disclose at trial classified information which is not described in his/her section 5(a) notice, preclusion is the appropriate remedy prescribed by section 5(b) of the statute. SeeUnited States v. Smith, supra, 780 F.2d at 1105 ("A defendant is forbidden from disclosing any such information absent the giving of notice").

Essentially, you have to have "particularized" which classified documents you're going to ask for, and given notice in advance. Short of that, you're never going to see them, because you're forbidden to.

See also Executive Order 13292

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

where Bush and Cheney are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, and what is not.

Where have we seen CIPA recently? Remember when Libby wanted to fish around in the Bush Administration's papers to find what he was looking for concerning Valerie Plame? He didn't get to fish around. And neither would any of the Muslims held after 9/11 - the same would apply to them. Name the document in particular, or get fucking lost.

Under the Classified Information Procedure Act (CIPA), if the government decides that it will not permit the disclosure of national security information that it is directed to provide to the defendant, then one remedy is the court can dismiss the indictment. Section 6(e)(2) of CIPA provides:

(2) Whenever a defendant is prevented by an order under paragraph (1) from disclosing or causing the disclosure of classified information, the court shall dismiss the indictment or information; except that, when the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal of the indictment or information, the court shall order such other action, in lieu of dismissing the indictment or information, as the court determines is appropriate. Such action may include, but need not be limited to -

(A) dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information;

(B) finding against the United States on any issue as to which the excluded classified information relates; or

(C) striking or precluding all or part of the testimony of a witness.

An order under this paragraph shall not take effect until the court has afforded the United States an opportunity to appeal such order under section 7, and thereafter to withdraw its objection to the disclosure of the classified information at issue.

Did the courts find for Libby? Eh?

Bush didn't have to reveal ANYTHING to Libby. Period.

Do you honestly think that these Muslims would fare any better?

Arrested without evidence, or held without being charged? There is a difference.

No one should be held without charge, period. Not even for the 24 hours that is currently legal.

Exactly so. And he also postulated that life is the highest form of liberty. Ergo, what keeps people alive is of the greatest good.

A: It has not been proven that any of these actions kept people alive. B: It has not been shown how one would make these actions into general rules(ie for rule utilitarianism). C: You haven't shown that Mill would approve of various violations of both civil rights and his own Harm Principle.

Funny, I'm sick of people accusing some posters of things which they're NOT saying.


Why did you assume I was directing that at you? Defensive much?

Funny, I'm sick of people accusing some posters of things which they're NOT saying.

Of cource, I shouldnt be surprised.
You would be the expert on that.

For example, referring to your last response to me, I never called you a "fascist" anything, nor did I complain that you weren't making your point "beyond a shadow of a doubt." All I asked for was a reasoned argument that would show us how you got to your point of view.

If you are going to frame your arguments as assertions of fact (which you did), then links to the facts that you have in mind would be helpful. Or if you are just expressing your opinion, then an acknowledgement of that would be appreciated. And if you want to present your opinion as more correct than others, then you should clearly lay out the reasoning by which you arrived at that opinion.

And you should also not bitch so much if you post your views on a debate forum and then -- gasp! -- other people debate it.

Now, looking back on what you have posted so far:

1) You have suggested without supporting facts or explanation of your reasoning that there is a connection between what the Bush administration did with detainees and the absence of another terrorist attack on US soil.

2) You have stated your opinion presented as fact that officials of the federal government should be immune from civil liability for rights violation as long as the violations were done under emergency situations.

3) You have failed to define what constitutes an emergency situation, but have stated your opinion presented as fact that 9/11 qualifies, without explaining how it qualifies except to refer back to the suggestion described in item (1).

4) When challenged on your assertions, you did not explain that you were merely expressing a personal opinion, but attempted to defend your statements as if they were facts by citing other facts that TCT showed were not actually relevant or supportive of you. So that, essentially, leaves you with no support for your argument, which you wouldn't need if you had just stated that you were expressing your personal opinion about what you think should be, instead of claiming that you were stating "obvious" facts about what is.

5) So, when we try to analyze what you have actually said in its essence, without all the confusing nonsense about Lincoln and whatnot, what it boils down to is just that you, personally, believe that it isn't illegal if the president does it. We reach that conclusion because that is, basically, what Bush said and you have not said anything of more substance than what he said.

And you're both wrong.

Alleged. Unless a minimum of proof is brought up, the cases are spurious.

Apparently you don't understand the legal issue or you wouldn't have made the comment about the claims lacking evidence to support them.

Apparently you don't understand that I didnt -- I made the comment that the evidence must be incontravertable. Good luck with that.

1. See the exchange above. You said what I said you said. 'nuff said.

2. Incontravertible? Really? Even forgetting that we are just at the pleadings stage so the amount of evidence is irrelevant only the substance of the allegations, the standard of proof for the plaintiff must be even greater than beyond a reasonable doubt?

I'm STILL argueing that following a catostrophic loss of life during what is basically an act of war, any group opposing the Republic is bound to have its members overly scrutinized. (emphasis addded)

Muslims as a group are opposed to the Republic? Arabs as a group are opposed to the Republic?


Nope, CERTAIN people opposed to the Republic that happen to be Muslims. I think you recall that ALL of the hijackers were indeed Muslim? As I recall, we didn't round up EVERY Japanese in WW2, either.

1. The above exchange shows you moving the goalposts.

2. Regardless the among the allegations of this lawsuit is that plaintiff and other detainees were subjected to "harsher conditions of confinement because of their race [and/or religious beliefs]" pursuant to a policy created by the defendants.

3. The internment of the Japanese during WWII was wrong. You might note that Congress and President Reagan signed into law official findings that the rights of the interned were violated, an apology for the treatment of those of Japanese ancestry (including the internment), and payment of reparations. See link (http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00055&search_id=19269&pagenum=1).

Again, you have yet to adequately explain why, if the violantions of the rights of the plaintiff occured, that these two officials should be held to accountability for trying to perform their primary duty of keeping the general populace safe in the face of an extraordinary event.

Because, if the allegations of the plaintiff are true (which they are presumed to be at this stage of the proceedings), the these two officials directly approved of a policy that violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Although they may be able to allege sufficient facts to defeat these allegations OR to support an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, it is pretty fucking basic to our system of government that officials may be held accountable for violating the Constitution. See, e.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/388.html), 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (holding that "violation of [the Constitution] by a federal agent acting under color of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his unconstitutional conduct" and stating "'The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.' Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)").

Or why people with criminal records shouldn't be rounded up at any time.

A complete red herring. I'm sorry if my title misled you or anyone else, but, as I've tried to explain, the arrest and detention of the plaintiff (and other similar detainees) on immigration charges IS NOT THE BASIS OF THIS LAWSUIT AND IS NOT BEING OBJECTED TO BY ME OR THE PLAINTIFF.

Would it have been allright for the government to go out and seize everyone's private guns after 9/11?

An excellent question - one I'd love Markreich to answer.

An excellent question - one I'd love Markreich to answer.

While we're answering, you're straight on CIPA now?

Apparently Cat-Tribe changed his mind on the 2nd Amendment and I missed the day he posted about it.

First, as Trostia correctly noted, your whole point about my view of the Second Amendment was, even if true, an ad hominem.

Second, perhaps you shouldn't have made allegations based on posts of mine that were several years ago, when I have made other posts on the topic over the last few years.

We've had people sue the government before, and because the information the government held was classified Top Secret, the courts have held that they can't fish for the information. With no information to discover legally, they have no standing.

SCOTUS upheld this. If there is an official policy to abuse Muslims, it's very likely Top Secret (see Cheney's authoring of the Bush executive order that details how the President and Vice President are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, a slight modification of the Clinton policy).

Since SCOTUS has held that you can't fish for information that's top secret, where does that leave the suit? Nowhere.

Nice bit of speculation without any support. First, I'd like to read this SCOTUS decision. Second, we aren't dealing with a discovery dispute yet. Third, no one has even hinted that the discovery would be impermissible due to government secrecy. Finally, if all it takes to shut down a lawsuit against the government is for the government to claim the lawsuit involves top secret information and there is no review of that, then kiss your Constitutional rights goodbye.

Quoted to note what it was you originally alleged and how I challenged it.

However, the matter at hand is the Classified Information Procedures Act.

The statute provides for the government to be able, by simple declaration, to stop the defendant or plaintiff from obtaining any classified information, simply by saying so:

As an added bonus, the defendant and his lawyer have to know of the exact document to be "discovered" in advance. Otherwise, you can't follow CIPA procedure and go through the review process of deciding whether or not the document in question can be seen. CIPA is not a license for someone to say, "show me all the documents that are related to..."

See:

Essentially, you have to have "particularized" which classified documents you're going to ask for, and given notice in advance. Short of that, you're never going to see them, because you're forbidden to.

See also Executive Order 13292

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

where Bush and Cheney are the ultimate arbiters of what is classified, and what is not.

Where have we seen CIPA recently? Remember when Libby wanted to fish around in the Bush Administration's papers to find what he was looking for concerning Valerie Plame? He didn't get to fish around. And neither would any of the Muslims held after 9/11 - the same would apply to them. Name the document in particular, or get fucking lost.

Under the Classified Information Procedure Act (CIPA), if the government decides that it will not permit the disclosure of national security information that it is directed to provide to the defendant, then one remedy is the court can dismiss the indictment. Section 6(e)(2) of CIPA provides:

(2) Whenever a defendant is prevented by an order under paragraph (1) from disclosing or causing the disclosure of classified information, the court shall dismiss the indictment or information; except that, when the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal of the indictment or information, the court shall order such other action, in lieu of dismissing the indictment or information, as the court determines is appropriate. Such action may include, but need not be limited to -

(A) dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information;

(B) finding against the United States on any issue as to which the excluded classified information relates; or

(C) striking or precluding all or part of the testimony of a witness.

An order under this paragraph shall not take effect until the court has afforded the United States an opportunity to appeal such order under section 7, and thereafter to withdraw its objection to the disclosure of the classified information at issue.

Did the courts find for Libby? Eh?

Bush didn't have to reveal ANYTHING to Libby. Period.

Do you honestly think that these Muslims would fare any better?

First, link to your quoted source (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02054.htm). It's a basic nicety in these forums.

Second, CIPA -- if you read it or what you linked -- applies to the access of defendants in criminal cases to classified documents. It has no bearing here, whatsoever. There may be a similar law regarding civil lawsuits, but it is up to you to find it.

Third, directly contrary to your conclusions, CIPA expressly provides for mechanisms by which defendant can access and use classified information.

Fourth, as to Executive Order 13292 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html), you clearly either haven't read it or haven't understood it. It simply doesn't say what you allege.

Fifth, the courts can and have ordered the disclosure of classified information. See, e.g., link (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07.htm), link (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVI_2/page4.htm)

Nope. I'm asking Demip. if his indignation of the men being rounded up was because they were Muslims, or if it was because it was only one group.

By making comparison to a white-power hate group?

Freedom of religion gives you the right to pursue any religious path, it doesn't give you the right to burn negroes.

It's a small distinction in your head, perhaps.

First, as Trostia correctly noted, your whole point about my view of the Second Amendment was, even if true, an ad hominem.

Second, perhaps you shouldn't have made allegations based on posts of mine that were several years ago, when I have made other posts on the topic over the last few years.

Quoted to note what it was you originally alleged and how I challenged it.

First, link to your quoted source (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02054.htm). It's a basic nicety in these forums.

Second, CIPA -- if you read it or what you linked -- applies to the access of defendants in criminal cases to classified documents. It has no bearing here, whatsoever. There may be a similar law regarding civil lawsuits, but it is up to you to find it.

Third, directly contrary to your conclusions, CIPA expressly provides for mechanisms by which defendant can access and use classified information.

Fourth, as to Executive Order 13292 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html), you clearly either haven't read it or haven't understood it. It simply doesn't say what you allege.

Fifth, the courts can and have ordered the disclosure of classified information. See, e.g., link (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07.htm), link (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVI_2/page4.htm)

CIPA covers all handling of classified information. A court can order it, but the classifying authority can always appeal, and it is often upheld.

Above all, no judge has ever allowed unspecified fishing. You have to name the document you want, or you won't be allowed to see it.

So, where does that leave our Muslims? Go ahead, name the document.

We have forever.

CIPA covers all handling of classified information. A court can order it, but the classifying authority can always appeal, and it is often upheld.

Above all, no judge has ever allowed unspecified fishing. You have to name the document you want, or you won't be allowed to see it.

So, where does that leave our Muslims? Go ahead, name the document.

We have forever.

We do have forever it seems. Your stamina for ignoring it when your dumb-ass arguments and claims are shot down and moving on to the next is high indeed. You don't ever concede, don't ever admit to being wrong, because to do so might not be as effective a trolling tactic.

We do have forever it seems. Your stamina for ignoring it when your dumb-ass arguments and claims are shot down and moving on to the next is high indeed. You don't ever concede, don't ever admit to being wrong, because to do so might not be as effective a trolling tactic.

CIPA applies in civil cases. And I'm right when I say you're not allowed to fish for your evidence in classified documents.

Haven't seen any evidence from Cat-Tribe to the contrary.

CIPA covers all handling of classified information. A court can order it, but the classifying authority can always appeal, and it is often upheld.

Above all, no judge has ever allowed unspecified fishing. You have to name the document you want, or you won't be allowed to see it.

So, where does that leave our Muslims? Go ahead, name the document.

We have forever.

1. Again, CIPA (http://intelligence.senate.gov/classifiedinformationprocedures.htm) is specifically about criminal cases only. Read it yourself. Your own quoted source talks only about criminal prosecutions.

2. Read your source again as you have completely misunderstood it. The Section 5(a) notice requirement DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION, but rather to the defendant's intent to use/disclose information in that is classified in connection with any trial or pretrial proceeding.

Fail. Try again.

1. Again, CIPA is specifically about criminal cases only.

2. Read your source again as you have completely misunderstood it. The Section 5(a) notice requirement DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION, but rather to the defendant's intent to use/disclose information in that is classified in connection with any trial or pretrial proceeding.

Fail. Try again.

Fail. CIPA applies to any court case.

If you look at the whole CIPA, it says you have to "particularize" your request for classified information in advance.

You haven't read it, have you.

If you don't particularize, that is, specifically name a document, you can't get the document.

Just saying, "I want to see all policy documents related to Muslims after 9/11" will get you a fat "Nope".

Damn it! Everytime I see the word Scotus, I think about Duns Scotus, the philosopher. >_<

Fail. CIPA applies to any court case.

If you look at the whole CIPA, it says you have to "particularize" your request for classified information in advance.

You haven't read it, have you.

If you don't particularize, that is, specifically name a document, you can't get the document.

Just saying, "I want to see all policy documents related to Muslims after 9/11" will get you a fat "Nope".

Bullshit. But feel free to quote the relevant provisions of CIPA that show me wrong.

We have forever.

EDIT: Also, your whole argument assumes that all information relevant to this lawsuit is classified -- which the government has not alleged.

And I'm right when I say

No no no. I didn't say you had a problem admitting when you're right.

Sigh.

Because AS I KEEP POINTING OUT: The government's first responsibility is to "provide for the common defense". Locking down suspected terrorists (AGAIN: they didn't just create a giant Arab ghetto!)
AS WE KEEP POINTING OUT: yes, "creating a giant Arab ghetto" is essentially what they did. Nobody was arrested as a "suspected terrorist"; not a single person among those in the roundup had any evidence against them of involvement in terrorism, except for being Arabic. You appear to be inventing facts based on your imagination of how things ought to have been.

Bullshit. But feel free to quote the relevant provisions of CIPA that show me wrong.

We have forever.

At any time after the filing of the indictment or information,


So, not just criminal indictment.

This usually comes up with CIA personnel who want to write books, and sue to make it happen. Their attempts to get anything other than specific documents always fails.

So, not just criminal indictment.

This usually comes up with CIA personnel who want to write books, and sue to make it happen. Their attempts to get anything other than specific documents always fails.

1. Read the full sentence (emphasis added):

At any time after the filing of the indictment or information, any party may move for a pretrial conference to consider matters relating to classified information that may arise in connection with the prosecution.

2. You still haven't responded regarding your misreading of the 5(a) notice requirement.

EDIT: This pissing match about CIPA aside, I've already said there are undoubtedly similar limits on civil litigation -- you've just misindentified what statute is relevant, exaggerated the limitations placed on discovery, and created a false scenario where government can just classify away a legitimate lawsuit.

EDIT2: I've done your homework for you. What you are looking for is the common law "state secrets" (or "military and state secrets") privilege, but it still doesn't work the way you claimed. See, e.g., Wikipedia re State Secrets Privilege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege); “Practical Guidelines for Invoking the State Secrets Privilege” (3p pdf) (http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/army-ssp.pdf); United States v. Reynolds (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=345&page=1), 345 U.S. 1 (1953).

Damn it! Everytime I see the word Scotus, I think about Duns Scotus, the philosopher. >_<
Everytime I think of SCOTUS, I always think of dunces.

Damn it! Everytime I see the word Scotus, I think about Duns Scotus, the philosopher. >_<

Everytime I think of SCOTUS, I always think of dunces.

Dun Scotus in fact inspired the term 'Dunce'.

Everytime I think of SCOTUS, I always think of dunces.

I think of scones.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/11/scone_narrowweb__300x458,0.jpg

Kinda like Scones R Us.

It's clear that something wrong happened, at least to some of the detainees, but there is no resolution here that is any good if an ivestigation is pursued for these reasons:

1) The investigation would be highly politicized and would most likely be suborned by liberal media as a "beating stick" against the already embattled outbound administration.
2) All attempts to right the wrongs would end up causing further injustice to innocent parties...

a) reparations to the parties would be paid out of someone's tax dollars
b) OR people would make claims against the highest, most connected officials, despite their probable innocence, in order to get at the deepest pocketbook
c) OR some poor law enforcement shmucks would be singled out and scapegoated for alleged civil rights violations, despite having to perform under threat of further terrorist activity (doesn't make their actions right, but there's no way the right people get disciplined in a politicized investigation.)
d) OR possibly, and this would arguably be one of the better possible outcomes, a couple of mid-level authorities do perp walks for implementing a racial profiling scheme.

I think the important thing to remember, which is being glossed over a bit, is that these people who were detained were here illegally. They might have been here for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, but that doesn't really matter when you break into someplace you don't belong.

If someone broke into my house in order to clean my bathroom or otherwise gainfully employ themselves for money, I would appreciate their intentions, but if I caught them doing it and didn't know that their reasons were legitimate, there would be hell to pay. And it might not involve detainment. So if you accept that green cards and immigration papers are like keys to a very big house, than the plaintiffs have no case.

But personally I think it was wrong if any civil rights violations occurred and I personally would not want to be held against my will either. Deportation would have been a much more balanced action if it was practical, because at least they could go to another country and seek employment instead of losing time out of their lives.

I think the important thing to remember, which is being glossed over a bit, is that A FEW OF these people who were detained were here illegally.
Fixed

Fixed

I think that, before blithely modifying my statement, you should provide some research to back up this claim. I don't think it is outside the realm of likelihood that 700 people in this region were picked up on legitimate immigrations violations.

I think that, before blithely modifying my statement, you should provide some research to back up this claim. I don't think it is outside the realm of likelihood that 700 people in this region were picked up on legitimate immigrations violations.

Why dont you support that they were here illegally. You stated it originally, after all.

It's clear that something wrong happened, at least to some of the detainees, but there is no resolution here that is any good if an ivestigation is pursued for these reasons:

1) The investigation would be highly politicized and would most likely be suborned by liberal media as a "beating stick" against the already embattled outbound administration.
2) All attempts to right the wrongs would end up causing further injustice to innocent parties...

a) reparations to the parties would be paid out of someone's tax dollars
b) OR people would make claims against the highest, most connected officials, despite their probable innocence, in order to get at the deepest pocketbook
c) OR some poor law enforcement shmucks would be singled out and scapegoated for alleged civil rights violations, despite having to perform under threat of further terrorist activity (doesn't make their actions right, but there's no way the right people get disciplined in a politicized investigation.)
d) OR possibly, and this would arguably be one of the better possible outcomes, a couple of mid-level authorities do perp walks for implementing a racial profiling scheme.

I think the important thing to remember, which is being glossed over a bit, is that these people who were detained were here illegally. They might have been here for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, but that doesn't really matter when you break into someplace you don't belong.

If someone broke into my house in order to clean my bathroom or otherwise gainfully employ themselves for money, I would appreciate their intentions, but if I caught them doing it and didn't know that their reasons were legitimate, there would be hell to pay. And it might not involve detainment. So if you accept that green cards and immigration papers are like keys to a very big house, than the plaintiffs have no case.

But personally I think it was wrong if any civil rights violations occurred and I personally would not want to be held against my will either. Deportation would have been a much more balanced action if it was practical, because at least they could go to another country and seek employment instead of losing time out of their lives.

Fixed

I think that, before blithely modifying my statement, you should provide some research to back up this claim. I don't think it is outside the realm of likelihood that 700 people in this region were picked up on legitimate immigrations violations.

Why dont you support that they were here illegally. You stated it originally, after all.

All three of you get an award for either not reading the thread or not paying attention. Check the updated OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14292998&postcount=1), this post detailing the plaintiff's claims (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14293674&postcount=58), and this:


Further analysis of the pleadings in the case and the oral argument today, reveal some further details--at least one of which will delight those defending the government's actions.

1. The allegation is that the government actually detained thousands of Muslims after 9/11.

2. The 700+ number refers to those that were detained based on immigration charges, but were held for extended periods and treated differently based on being classified “of high interest” to the FBI. The government doesn't deny this occurred. Almost all of these detainees violated immigration laws, either by overstaying their visas, by entering the country illegally, or some other immigration violation. None of these detainees were ever charged with anything relating to terrorism, 9/11, being "enemy combatants," etc.

3. The lawsuit does not allege anything wrong with the plaintiff's being arrested or charged with (or convicted of) an immigration violation or being held as punishment for the immigration violation. The lawsuit alleges the special extended detention and treatment is what violated the plantiff's rights.

I will admit these facts give me some pause as to whether plaintiff actually has a case against Ashcroft and Mueller, but not as to whether such case should simply be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.

Regardless, the issue is not the initial arrest or detention, but the treatment (and discriminatory treatment) of the plaintiff.

That the plaintiff was here illegally justifies arresting him, punishing him with some confinement, and deporting him. It doesn't justify beating him and otherwise violating his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights.

Everytime I think of SCOTUS, I always think of dunces.

http://whitecoatrants.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/istockphoto_1778141-dunce-cap.jpg

It's clear that something wrong happened, at least to some of the detainees, but there is no resolution here that is any good if an ivestigation is pursued for these reasons:

1) The investigation would be highly politicized and would most likely be suborned by liberal media as a "beating stick" against the already embattled outbound administration.
2) All attempts to right the wrongs would end up causing further injustice to innocent parties...

a) reparations to the parties would be paid out of someone's tax dollars
b) OR people would make claims against the highest, most connected officials, despite their probable innocence, in order to get at the deepest pocketbook
c) OR some poor law enforcement shmucks would be singled out and scapegoated for alleged civil rights violations, despite having to perform under threat of further terrorist activity (doesn't make their actions right, but there's no way the right people get disciplined in a politicized investigation.)
d) OR possibly, and this would arguably be one of the better possible outcomes, a couple of mid-level authorities do perp walks for implementing a racial profiling scheme.


Your lack of faith in our judicial system's ability to distinquish between meritorious claims against guilty parties and frivilous claims against "deepest pocketbooks" is noted. As is your assumption that anyone accused of liability is probably innocent. I'm sure OJ Simpson will be glad to hear he still has some supporters that don't believe in his conviction. :eek::wink:

I think that, before blithely modifying my statement, you should provide some research to back up this claim. I don't think it is outside the realm of likelihood that 700 people in this region were picked up on legitimate immigrations violations.Shouldn't you support your own argument first?

I have zero problem with profiling.

So presumably you've no problem with some Arab states blanket actions against and towards Jews, as they're presumably all equally liable to be agents of Israel. Great world you live in.

Because AS I KEEP POINTING OUT: The government's first responsibility is to "provide for the common defense". Locking down suspected terrorists (AGAIN: they didn't just create a giant Arab ghetto!) is more important during and immediately after an attack than anything else.

And the fact that none of these men were ever charged with or convicted of any crimes even vaguely relating to terrorism doesn't tell you anything?

If not even a single one of them was actually involved in terrorism, that's a pretty clear indication that there was no reason to suspect them of being terrorists in the first place. Oh, except for the fact that they just happened to share a religion or ethnicity with the hijackers.

So presumably you've no problem with some Arab states blanket actions against and towards Jews, as they're presumably all equally liable to be agents of Israel. Great world you live in.

Of course he would. That would be Dirty Moslems going on a pogrom.

Markreich, it is a very rare event in the history of this board when Nodinia, Gauthier, and Tmutarakhan are in agreement.

So presumably you've no problem with some Arab states blanket actions against and towards Jews, as they're presumably all equally liable to be agents of Israel. Great world you live in.He might get all "molon laveh" about profiling of gun owners after every shootout, hypocritically enough though.

Markreich, it is a very rare event in the history of this board when Nodinia, Gauthier, and Tmutarakhan are in agreement.

Indeed.

He might get all "molon laveh" about profiling of gun owners after every shootout, hypocritically enough though. .

...to the extent he'll go back to WorldNetDaily for his OP's, I'd wager. ('Obama Orders Black Muslim Gay Militia To Seize Guns And White Women')

Since when did you become a strict constructionist? :) As I recall, (and I've posted before) that the laws of the land can and do modify the Consititution.

Yes, you have. In past threads you've argued that (and, notably, I agree with you) that laws made by the Congress/ local legislature and judgements rendered by the courts are indeed interpretations of the Consitution and remain so until overturned by SCOTUS. (Or not overturned, as the case may be.)
This is how DC, Chicago and California can "Constitutionally" curtail the right to bear arms, for example.
I believe you made this point most recently in our debate over the 9th circuit.

This is utter nonsense showing your ignorance on several levels.

1. Strict or loose construction has nothing to do with our disagreement.

2. No, laws made by Congress/local authorities do NOT modify or interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

3. Court interpretations of the Constitution are valid until overturned. This doesn't mean they are right, merely that they have legal effect unless and until corrected. That is pretty basic civics.

4. You ignore my main points which were:


Where in the Constitution do you find this "does not apply under extraordinary circumstances" clause?


How do past government violations of the Constitution justify present or future violations of the Constitution?



The fact that the law needed to modify the Constutition is needed but not yet existant does not make it wrong to try to keep the citizenry safe.

Thank you for admitting your view does violate the Constitution unless and until it is "modified."

Denying civil liberties doesn't make us more safe, it does make us less free.


1. I'm saying they should be immune IF they were within a reasonable period after 9.11, IF they were on probable criminals, and IF the alleged abuse was not ordered.

Because it IS alleged that the alleged abuse was ordered, your entire argument is rendered moot. If that allegation lacks sufficient evidence, then the case can be thrown out at the proper point in the proceedings.