U.S. officials can be sued in Sept 11 abuse case (Mueller & Ashcroft)

[IChing]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Pakistani man who says he was abused in detention after the September 11 attacks can name the FBI director and a former U.S. attorney general in his lawsuit against the government, an appeals court ruled on Thursday.

Javaid Iqbal, a Muslim, was held for more than a year at a Brooklyn detention center after the September 11 attacks. He, along with hundreds of Muslims and Arabs sued the U.S. government, claiming they were abused and held for no legitimate reason.

Iqbal says he was subjected to repeated strip searches, beaten, dragged across the floor and that the lights in his cell were kept on 24 hours a day.

The defendants, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, had appealed a lower court decision that allowed Iqbal's lawyers to seek information on what the officials knew about the abuse.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1419916420070615

[Kagemusha]

1. Very hard how to see how this'll be sustained on supreme court appeal.

I don't get it, they didn't successfully argue that holding a trial would improperly threaten national security?

[youngdem]

2. I'm no lawyer, but doesn't ordering illegal and intentional harm on someone

destroy your immunity and open you up to personal litigation?

(I bet I am disappointed in the real answer)

[IChing]

4. I think that is what the court ruled in this case.

This could open a can of worms that this administration might have to eat.

[Kagemusha]

5. The grounds I'm citing (which were used for Arar, the Canadian)...

aren't there to protect the individual, they're there to protect the country and override the possible guilt or innocence of the individual. The argument cited here that "what they did seemed reasonable after 9/11" is weak, weak stuff. The US government got other suits tossed by saying that even if the officials were guilty as sin - which they weren't conceding - the trial would reveal intelligence sources and methods, for instance.

So I naturally wondered why they couldn't weasel such an argument up here. That they did not do so (in any way that mattered at least) is a bit stunning. Because this stuff about "it's not illegal if we think it's justified because we were attacked" is just weak.

[IChing]

3. Agreed since the court is packed with rightwing judges.

I still think it is good news at least this court of appeals agreed on basic constitutional rights..


"The panel also disagreed with lawyers for Mueller and Ashcroft who argued their actions were reasonable "in the post-9/11 context" and that Iqbal received proper treatment.

The court said while they recognized "the gravity of the situation that confronted investigative officials of the United States as a consequence of the 9/11 attack," Iqbal still had the right to not be harshly treated or discriminated against.

"The exigent circumstances of the post-9/11 context do not diminish the plaintiff's right not to be needlessly harassed and mistreated in the confines of a prison cell by repeated strip and body-cavity searches," the court said.