When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.

Do not intrude into their homes.

Do not harass them at work.

If you do not interfere, they will not weary of you.

Therefore the sage knows himself, but makes no show.

Has self-respect but is not arrogant

He lets go of that and chooses this.

Tao Te Ching (Ch-72)

Let us live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.

Mark Twain

Abdullah al-Kidd was a United States Citizen. He even had a birth certificate. The original certificate carried a different name because al-Kidd changed it when he converted to the Muslim Faith. He was at the airport ready to go to Saudi Arabia to study law when...well he kind of got caught up in things. He was sort of mustered by Ashcroft and his gang. Taken off the streets based upon a 'material witness' warrant, was held for 16 days in solitary confinement, transported across the country lost his job, lost his wife...lost everything. By the by, al-Kidd had been a rather fine running back at the University of Idaho football team.

And, since he was a citizen and all without any birthers after him, al-Kidd decided he had had enough and sued the whole lot of them. Besides the Government, he sued many of our fascist overlords individually for destroying his life.

You see... At the heart of the lawsuit is a strategy launched by the Justice Department and the FBI after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time, asserted that authorities would take "suspected terrorists off the street" and engage in "aggressive detention of lawbreakers and material witnesses" to disrupt possible al-Qaeda plots. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III cited al-Kidd's detention in testimony to Congress about the bureau's success in protecting national security.

The matter has been held up in the courts for years but finally a three-judge appellate panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the green light to the suit.  All three judges were appointed by repubs. There were several issues to be determined upon appeal. One of the judges wrote a partial dissent.  Now the 9th Circuit might hear this appeal all over again, en banc. There will be an appeal from that panel to the U. S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, a district court judge in California allowed a detainee's lawsuit against former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo to go forward. The suit accused Woo of violating the detainee's constitutional rights by drafting memos that blessed harsh interrogation tactics. The case is being appealed.

Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the al-Kidd ruling is "an enormous decision" that could help advocates finally understand how many Muslims were rounded up using material witness warrants.

. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090403567.html?hpid=topnews

Now this article is more than interesting on a number of levels.

 

Governmental Immunity:  n. The doctrine from English Common Law that no governmental body can be sued unless it gives permission. This protection resulted in terrible injustices, since public hospitals, government drivers and other employees could be negligent with impunity (free) from judgment. The Federal Tort Claims Act and state waivers of immunity (with specific claims systems) have negated this rule, which stemmed from the days when kings set prerogatives.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/governmental+immunity

That is the first hurdle to overcome if you wish to sue the government. If a postal truck runs a red light and hits your car, you can sue the Postal Service. But how?  Well you simply go to the Federal Tort Claims Act.  The statute give you PERMISSION  to sue for damages.

Remember, you can supposedly sue the government because the government gave you permission to sue them. But there is something in the Constitution that gives you rights in this area anyway; our Forefathers already gave us permissions that could not be summarily taken away from us by legislative fiat:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fourth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  Fifth Amendment

Taken together with the 14th Amendment, it would seem to me that an individual has certain rights and should be able to seek 'just compensation' when his life, liberty or property has been taken away from him or her anyway. But always go to the Federal Tort Claims Act first when attempting to redress one's personal grievances against the government.

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...

I won't say there's any wistfulness on the part of Rumsfeld there, it just looks like a candid assessment, but didn't it occur to him there may be a relation between the lack of an attack and the actual level of the threat? Also, President Bush will be called a lot of things in the coming years, but "a victim of success" surely ain't one of them.  h

Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2008)

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/Castaneda.htm

Immunity is what the members of the oligarchy all want. They wish to be free of individual responsibility in both the criminal courts and the civil courts. That is the Holy Grail of the government gravy train. I mean how are you going to turn your 150g/yr position in government into an eight million dollar windfall without immunity? 

Ashcroft, w, cheney, faith, Bolton, Yoo,....they all worked real hard to take away all your fourth and fifth amendment rights. Then they had the front man, w, esplain that his administration did not perform warrantless searches or arrests on Americans on American soil. He lied. Then when the NYT found out, w attempted to stop them from publishing the truth and when the truth was published, he went on national TV to call the reporters traitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

And in the Al-Kidd case, by abusing its ability to procure warrants under false pretenses, there are at least some judges out there who believe that Al-Kidd should have his day in court. Al-Kidd and his attorneys argued that Ashcroft knew or should have known that the material witness statute was being used in a sweeping and abusive manner.

Just as a side note, this is THE CORPORATE MODEL followed by all members of the oligarchy that controls this country economically and otherwise.  How can we escape individual responsibility? Hell, how can we best benefit from our own incompetence or even our felonious conduct?

GOVERNMENTAL SECRECY: The second point from the HuffPo article that strikes me is the issue of secrecy. Besides the fine job performed by the ACLU  http://www.aclu.org/accountability/released.html  and others to get information under the Freedom of Information Act, these civil suits are getting us information. I mean, I would like to know:

1.    How many people have we detained around the world?
2.    How many people have we detained in our own country?
3.    How many citizens have we detained in our own country?
4.    Where are all these people now?
5.    What obscenities have been perpetrated upon these citizens?
6.    What losses did these people sustain?
7.    What pain and suffering did these people endure?
What really gripes me is the time factor. Rummy and Cheney will be dead before we get most of the information. Ha!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CdW-4TRcDQ

Any plaintiff's attorney would love to quote this rummy statement in a closing argument.

THE VICTIM OF SUCCESS

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/v/victim_of_success.asp