For those of you interested in seeing public officials being held personally liable for acts conducted in their capacity as a public official, this is for you:

quote:

Supreme Court accepts 9/11 detainee case From Bill Mears CNN Supreme Court Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether top government officials can be held personally liable for allegedly knowing of or condoning mistreatment of people detained after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Oral arguments will be held in the fall. The decision comes just days after the justices ruled accused terrorists and foreign fighters held overseas by the U.S. military can contest their detentions in civilian courts. The current appeal deals with Javaid Iqbal, a 40-year-old Pakistani man, who was arrested in New York two months after the 9/11 attacks. He was never charged with any terrorism offenses, although he was convicted of fraud for having false papers and eventually deported. He later filed a series of lawsuits against top Bush officials, alleging he was beaten by guards during his yearlong detention and that officials personally condoned isolating Muslim and Arab immigrants in a Brooklyn prison wing. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and current FBI Director Robert Mueller were among those personally sued. They have denied holding and segregating anyone after the terror attacks because of their religious beliefs or ethnicity. Iqbal's suit was rejected by the federal District Court in New York, but a federal appeals court ruled the lawsuit could continue. Ashcroft and Mueller appealed that decision, saying their shouldn't be held liable for alleged actions by their subordinates. If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the case can go ahead, it would likely be sent back to the original court for a decision. The case is Ashcroft v. Iqbal (07-1015).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06...eref=rss_latest


My guess is that the court will reaffirm extensive immunity for the highest ranking public officials, except perhaps in cases of gross misconduct, which imo knowing of torture would clearly fall within. However, i wish the plaitiff good luck in proving that the AG/director of FBI knew of the misconduct, especially considering there are executive privileges on this information. Bottom line, ashcroft and mueller win the case.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Jun-16-2008 at 18:04

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 except perhaps in cases of gross misconduct, which imo knowing of torture would clearly fall within.

So all of them?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On OOKA-OOKA ME NACHOS ME PRESS KEYS ON COMPUTER GOOD

More accountability and holding people responsible for high level decisions that affect many = good thing imo.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis More accountability and holding people responsible for high level decisions that affect many = good thing imo.

it also means that a person in high level positions will be less likely to take necessary measures considering every decision that person makes could have adverse consequences to someone. If the FBI director had to be concerned with being held liable nothing in his capacity could be accomplished. His hands would be severely tied as he would want to take no action that could harm anyone. Unfortunately, actions of officials always adversely affect someone.

In the case which those actions lead to the United States effectively using torturous methods to get information out of people, I think it is fair.

quote:

If the FBI director had to be concerned with being held liable nothing in his capacity could be accomplished.

This makes it seem like he currently isn't liable for anything.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis In the case which those actions lead to the United States effectively using torturous methods to get information out of people, I think it is fair.

i agree. i was only offering a counter argument why a very broad liability is not necessarily a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis This makes it seem like he currently isn't liable for anything.

I know the FBI director has a broad immunity, although i'm not a constitutional law guru, so i have no idea how broad it is. However, i know that if someone has a constitutional claim agains the US, they can sue a public official. I do not know how that translates into personal liability for the officials own conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i agree. i was only offering a counter argument why a very broad liability is not necessarily a good thing.

This I agree with, though there does need to be some degree of accountability and there has been absolutely none.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul