Supreme Court rules John Ashcroft did not misuse power to arrest terror witness

Source: Raw Story
By Eric W. Dolan

The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously threw out a lawsuit accusing former Attorney General John Ashcroft of misusing his power by jailing a supposed terrorism witness in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In the case Ashcroft v. al Kidd, the highest court in the nation ruled (PDF) 8 to 0 that Ashcroft did not clearly violate the 4th Amendment's right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the jailing of a U.S. citizen as a potential witness.

"The Court has unfortunately let Attorney General Ashcroft off the hook, but half of the justices who participated in today’s decision expressed real questions about how the government used the material witness statute in al-Kidd’s case," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "Our hope is that those questions will lead to a serious examination moving forward of the use of the statute as a tool for preventive detention.”

Abdullah al Kidd, a former University of Idaho football player, was arrested at Dulles Airport as he was boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia. Federal officials had obtained a warrant to arrest al Kidd by telling a judge that information "crucial" to a suspected terrorist's prosecution would be lost if al Kidd boarded his flight.

More at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/31/supreme-court-rules-john-ashcroft-did-not-misuse-power-to-arrest-terror-witness/

.

to shed some light on raw's interpretation. They blocked a suit over the use of the 'material witness' law:

'The court’s unanimity on whether Mr. Ashcroft could be said to have violated clearly established law masked deep divisions. Five justices went further, saying that Mr. Kidd’s arrest was lawful because the requirements of the material witness law had been satisfied and because the motives of Mr. Ashcroft and his subordinates were irrelevant.

“We hold that an objectively reasonable arrest and detention of a material witness pursuant to a validly obtained warrant cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of allegations that the arresting authority had an improper motive,” Justice Scalia wrote. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/01scotus.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1306873996-LuMlgFMg3tp9D2Vcck0Rgg

well, that's just lovely.

that the policy Mr. Kidd described did not violate clearly established law, so Mr. Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

“At the time of al-Kidd’s arrest,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “not a single judicial opinion had held that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional.”

“Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions,” Justice Scalia went on. “When properly applied, it protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ Ashcroft deserves neither label.”'

With corrupt scumbags at the highest levels of government who openly despise We, the People, who needs enemies abroad?