Monday, February 21, 2011

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd No. 10-98 - “Supreme Court to Hear Material Witness Case” By ADAM LIPTAK, New York Times, Published: February 20, 2011

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
No. 10-98
"We can't win the future with a government of the past."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.

This is not about the USA Patriot Act or the federal material witness law.  This is about accountability.  Mr. John Ashcroft, who was President George W. Bush’s first attorney general, had no reason to detain Mr. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  Even though he may have been able to buffalo, intimidate and or LIE to a Federal Judge.
Mr. John Ashcroft was scrambling to show progress in “identifying and dismantling terrorist networks.”  He did this without regard to Mr. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  In the end, Mr. Kidd was neither charged with a crime nor asked to testify against anyone else. He was released after 11 days of humiliation and unlawful detention. 
Abdullah al-Kidd has settled lawsuits against his jailers based on the conditions of his confinement, but one of his lawyers, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that that was not enough.
“It is clear that the material witness statute was used as a tool for preventive detention and investigation, resulting in abuse and significant human hardship,” he said. “The question now is whether lower-level officials will be forced to take all of the blame for following a policy adopted at the highest levels of the Justice Department.”
The government says Mr. Ashcroft is entitled to the absolute immunity from lawsuits that officials receive when they are carrying out prosecutorial duties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, rejected that argument, ruling that the immediate purpose of Mr. Kidd’s arrest was not prosecution but detention and investigation.
The government also argues that Mr. Ashcroft is entitled to a qualified immunity that can be overcome only with proof that he violated a clearly established constitutional right. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, too.[1]
Why did “We the People” write our Constitution if not to preclude Government’s at will “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws?”  Why did “We the People” write the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?" Why did the Government of the People, by the People and for the People democratically enact Civil and Criminal statute Laws Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Criminal Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law?

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (

[1]Supreme Court to Hear Material Witness Case” By ADAM LIPTAK, New York Times, Published: February 20, 2011
Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
“Agere sequitur esse”
“Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep
E-mail is preferred,
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

Post a Comment