|
US Supreme Court to decide case on terror suspects ability to sue public officials
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
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. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| 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? |
|
|
| Clovis |
| More accountability and holding people responsible for high level decisions that affect many = good thing imo. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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.
| 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. :conf: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
