Something that should concern us all
There was a news story that came out today which did not receive much press, but yet it's the kind of new story that should be front page news. This story is related to a court case brought against our government by a US citizen.
This citizen, let's call him Dave, a married man with two children,
was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter.
He was handcuffed, taken to the airport’s police substation,
and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined
in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia,
Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip
searched on multiple occasions. Each time Dave was transferred
to a different facility, he was handcuffed and shackled
about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released
from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live
with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to
Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents,
regularly report to a probation officer, and consent to home
visits throughout the period of supervision. Dave was NEVER charged with a crime.
By the time Dave's confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months
after his arrest, he had been fired from his job as an
employee of a government contractor because he was denied
a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from
his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment
since his arrest.
Dave was arrested under the Federal "material witness" statute. This law allows our government to arrest people that are important to some criminal investigation they are conducting. The Feds were investigating another guy, we'll call him Steve, for some crimes. The Feds told a judge that Dave had important information related to Steve's crimes, that Dave was a flight risk, and therefore Dave needed to be arrested. This pretense that the Feds used is only valid IF they could not get Dave to voluntarily testify against Steve. The judge signed a warrant, and the Feds nabbed Dave at the airport.
There are a lot of problems with this scenario, but the biggest one is that Dave was never called to testify against Steve. Dave was harassed, held for over 2 weeks, never charged with anything, and the Feds never "used" Dave as a material witness against Steve, which was their ENTIRE justification for arresting Dave in the first place. Arguably, Dave lost his wife and his job as a result of being harassed by our government. Dave is a bit irritated.
Dave wants to sue a bunch of people, including John Ashcroft, because Ashcroft was the Attorney General whose office was leading the investigation against Steve. Dave argues, in part, that the Feds never intended to use him as a witness against Steve, that they knew Dave was not a flight risk, and that the only reason they really arrested him was because they wanted to investigate Dave himself. John Ashcroft asked a Federal court to dismiss the charges against him specifically, claiming that because he was a federal official he is immune from any and all civil charges that Dave wishes to file.
Today, an appeals court told John Ashcroft that he is not immune from being sued by Dave. In the opinion written by the court, they characterize Ashcroft's actions as "repugnant to the Constitution." The judges who issued this decision were all appointed by Republican Presidents. You can read a good summary of the decision here. If you read the full opinion (here), you'll see exactly how far Ashcroft and the FBI "bent" the material witness statute to serve their own interests in the aftermath of September 11th.
Sure, if you're not Arab you probably don't have to worry about being falsely detained, but that's not the point. The Constitution is supposed to protect all of us, especially in times of national crisis. Dave was a US citizen, our government violated his Constitutional rights, they knew it, and they should be held accountable for their actions. That's one of the things that makes this the best country on the planet - no one is above the law.
This citizen, let's call him Dave, a married man with two children,
was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter.
He was handcuffed, taken to the airport’s police substation,
and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined
in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia,
Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip
searched on multiple occasions. Each time Dave was transferred
to a different facility, he was handcuffed and shackled
about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released
from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live
with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to
Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents,
regularly report to a probation officer, and consent to home
visits throughout the period of supervision. Dave was NEVER charged with a crime.
By the time Dave's confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months
after his arrest, he had been fired from his job as an
employee of a government contractor because he was denied
a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from
his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment
since his arrest.
Dave was arrested under the Federal "material witness" statute. This law allows our government to arrest people that are important to some criminal investigation they are conducting. The Feds were investigating another guy, we'll call him Steve, for some crimes. The Feds told a judge that Dave had important information related to Steve's crimes, that Dave was a flight risk, and therefore Dave needed to be arrested. This pretense that the Feds used is only valid IF they could not get Dave to voluntarily testify against Steve. The judge signed a warrant, and the Feds nabbed Dave at the airport.
There are a lot of problems with this scenario, but the biggest one is that Dave was never called to testify against Steve. Dave was harassed, held for over 2 weeks, never charged with anything, and the Feds never "used" Dave as a material witness against Steve, which was their ENTIRE justification for arresting Dave in the first place. Arguably, Dave lost his wife and his job as a result of being harassed by our government. Dave is a bit irritated.
Dave wants to sue a bunch of people, including John Ashcroft, because Ashcroft was the Attorney General whose office was leading the investigation against Steve. Dave argues, in part, that the Feds never intended to use him as a witness against Steve, that they knew Dave was not a flight risk, and that the only reason they really arrested him was because they wanted to investigate Dave himself. John Ashcroft asked a Federal court to dismiss the charges against him specifically, claiming that because he was a federal official he is immune from any and all civil charges that Dave wishes to file.
Today, an appeals court told John Ashcroft that he is not immune from being sued by Dave. In the opinion written by the court, they characterize Ashcroft's actions as "repugnant to the Constitution." The judges who issued this decision were all appointed by Republican Presidents. You can read a good summary of the decision here. If you read the full opinion (here), you'll see exactly how far Ashcroft and the FBI "bent" the material witness statute to serve their own interests in the aftermath of September 11th.
Sure, if you're not Arab you probably don't have to worry about being falsely detained, but that's not the point. The Constitution is supposed to protect all of us, especially in times of national crisis. Dave was a US citizen, our government violated his Constitutional rights, they knew it, and they should be held accountable for their actions. That's one of the things that makes this the best country on the planet - no one is above the law.
Comments
Post a Comment