Detainments after 911 challenged - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 05:21 PM

This decision gives me some renewed confidence that our constitution remains our guiding principle, even under "special circumstances." It is my sincere hope that this is just the beginning in correcting some of the decisions made since 911.

Do you believe this to be a move in the right direction, or not?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092905Y.shtml

Quote:

Top Officials Told to Testify in Muslims' Suit
By Nina Bernstein
The New York Times

Thursday 29 September 2005

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other top government officials will have to answer questions under oath in a lawsuit that accuses them of personally conspiring to violate the rights of Muslim immigrants held in a federal detention center in Brooklyn after 9/11.

The officials had sought to have the lawsuit dismissed without testimony, arguing in part that they had governmental immunity from its claims, that the court lacked jurisdiction because they live outside New York State, and that the Sept. 11 attacks created "special factors" outweighing the plaintiffs' right to sue for damages for constitutional violations.

But the judge, John Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, rejected those arguments, allowing the case to proceed - and opening the door to depositions of Mr. Ashcroft and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, by lawyers for the two plaintiffs: Ehab Elmaghraby, an Egyptian immigrant who ran a restaurant in Times Square, and Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani immigrant whose Long Island customers knew him as "the cable guy."

The lawsuit charges that, solely because of their race, religion or national origin, the two men were physically abused and deprived of due process while being detained for more than eight months in the harsh maximum-security unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

The men, who eventually pleaded guilty to minor criminal charges unrelated to terrorism and were deported, charged that they were repeatedly slammed into walls and dragged across the floor while shackled and manacled.

They said they were kicked and punched until they bled, cursed as "terrorists" and "Muslim bastards," and subjected to multiple unnecessary body-cavity searches, including one in which correction officers inserted a flashlight into Mr. Elmaghraby's rectum, making him bleed.

"Our nation's unique and complex law enforcement and security challenges in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not warrant the elimination of remedies for the constitutional violations alleged here," Judge Gleeson wrote in his decision.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States Attorney's office, said the ruling was under review. "The government has made no determination yet as to what the government's next step will be," he said.

The decision was hailed as significant by the plaintiffs' lawyers, Alexander A. Reinert, of Koob & Magoolaghan, and Haeyoung Yoon, of the Urban Justice Center.

It was also celebrated by lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought a companion lawsuit as a class action on behalf of other immigrant detainees in 2002. The government's motion to dismiss that suit, using many of the same arguments, is pending before the same judge.

"The fact that Judge Gleeson ruled that this case can keep Ashcroft on the hook -that would never happen in a regular prison-abuse case," said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. "The judge understood that this isn't just a case about individuals being abused in detention. These are people who were singled out according to a policy created on the highest levels of government."

Judge Gleeson cited a scathing 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general that found widespread abuse of detainees at the Brooklyn center.

The report said that Mr. Ashcroft's policy was to hold detainees on any legal pretext until the F.B.I. cleared them, even though such clearances took months and many had been picked up by chance, not because they were legitimate terrorism suspects.

"The post-Sept. 11 context provides support for the plaintiffs' assertions that defendants were involved in creating and/or implementing the detention policy under which plaintiffs were confined without due process," the judge wrote.

In effect, the judge gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to try to establish the personal involvement of Mr. Ashcroft and other high-ranking defendants through discovery, rather than simply accepting the defense's argument of immunity at this early stage of the litigation.

The "qualified immunity" that shields government officials "will not allow the attorney general to carry out his national security functions wholly free from concern for his personal liability," Judge Gleeson wrote, quoting a Supreme Court decision that involved then-Attorney General John N. Mitchell's unauthorized wiretap of a radical group. "He may on occasion have to pause to consider whether a proposed course of action can be squared with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

j8ear · 09-29-2005, 05:34 PM

I agree...but caution that this is but a very small step in the right direction.

This really peaked my attention:

[quote:]Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States Attorney's office, said the ruling was under review. "The government has made no determination yet as to what the government's next step will be," he said./[quote]

And frankly I call bullshit. I see one of two things happening:

1. Judge shopping for an appropriate appeal venue
or
2. Damn I can't find the link! It involved shutting down a lawsuit under the guise of preventing national security. Apparently a 'priveledge available to the executive.

Either way I don't see Ashcroft or Muller answering a damn thing.

I hope I'm wrong.

-bear

j8ear · 09-29-2005, 05:41 PM

Here it is:

I know it's an ACLU press release but that's the first google 'news' link that came up.

Any way the 'privledge' (closing quote omitted above) is called the "state secrets" privilege:

Here's the meat of article:

Quote:

Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish-American woman, was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds retaliation case, citing the government's “states secrets privilege.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, and on August 4, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Edmonds' case.

If my one above fails to produce results...keep on eye on this option.

-b

ObieX · 09-29-2005, 06:03 PM

It may change, but as of right now if i ever run into Judge Gleeson I'm going to buy him a coke.

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 06:21 PM

There is so much wiggle room in claiming executive priviledge, that Bear's question about how much further this challenge will go is well founded.

My hope is that Bush knows he has squandered his "political capital" and he may not wish to go further into debt for Ashford's sake. We shall see.

pan6467 · 09-29-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There is so much wiggle room in claiming executive priviledge, that Bear's question about how much further this challenge will go is well founded.

My hope is that Bush knows he has squandered his "political capital" and he may not wish to go further into debt for Ashford's sake. We shall see.

Bush doesn't need "political capital" he's a lame duck. As we see with how he has been handling his job, he doesn't give a damn about what's best for the country, it's what's best for him and his puppet masters. I think that's why you see divisions in the GOP and it will only get greater.

Bush is very loyal to his friends and only gives them up to fry if they start looking weak and like they may crack, like Brown. But if they stay strong and solid and don't show the crack no matter how poorly they do the job or how corrupt they are he rewards them.... example = Rove.

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 07:06 PM

Pan, Bush had a major agenda to push through in this term, such as social security privatization. Had all remained well, his lame duck status would have taken longer. But, I completely agree with you that Bush will remain in damage control throughout the remainder of this term.

I'm curious about the main stream press and their newly found recognition that they are a "free press." My cynical self sees buzzards smelling carion.

09-29-2005, 05:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I agree...but caution that this is but a very small step in the right direction. This really peaked my attention: [quote:]Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States Attorney's office, said the ruling was under review. "The government has made no determination yet as to what the government's next step will be," he said./[quote] And frankly I call bullshit. I see one of two things happening: 1. Judge shopping for an appropriate appeal venue or 2. Damn I can't find the link! It involved shutting down a lawsuit under the guise of preventing national security. Apparently a 'priveledge available to the executive. Either way I don't see Ashcroft or Muller answering a damn thing. I hope I'm wrong. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

09-29-2005, 06:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	It may change, but as of right now if i ever run into Judge Gleeson I'm going to buy him a coke. __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-29-2005, 06:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There is so much wiggle room in claiming executive priviledge, that Bear's question about how much further this challenge will go is well founded. My hope is that Bush knows he has squandered his "political capital" and he may not wish to go further into debt for Ashford's sake. We shall see.

09-29-2005, 07:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Pan, Bush had a major agenda to push through in this term, such as social security privatization. Had all remained well, his lame duck status would have taken longer. But, I completely agree with you that Bush will remain in damage control throughout the remainder of this term. I'm curious about the main stream press and their newly found recognition that they are a "free press." My cynical self sees buzzards smelling carion.