SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Thursday December 17 2015, @08:42AM
from the wheels-of-justice-turn-VERY-slowly dept.
from the wheels-of-justice-turn-VERY-slowly dept.
In a six-six vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has declined to review en banc its June ruling in Turkmen v. Ashcroft. In June, the court had said that people held by the federal government in connection with the 9-11 attacks can sue federal officials for Bivens damages resulting from violations of the detainees' constitutional rights.
The case was originally filed in 2002 and may next be brought to the Supreme Court. The Center for Constitutional Rights is representing the plaintiffs. The order denying rehearing, and other documents about the case, are available on its site.
news reports:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: 9-11 Detainees Can Sue Federal Officials
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 19 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday December 17 2015, @05:59PM
Why? It is far more likely that they will say your rights are violated, but that you suffered no real harm, therefore, you get a token payment to shut up and go away.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:15PM
Go back and re-read Bevins. You are missing the point here...
Per Bevins, It is EXACTLY because you don't have to prove HARM that Bevins is interesting.
The mere act of having a constitutional right violated is harm enough. Bevins puts the teeth in the constitution that the founders forgot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday December 17 2015, @07:49PM
Personally I'd love to see any government official who knowingly violates the constitution to be charged with treason, on the theory that a democracy's authority stems from the people, and therefore any violation of the contract that bestows that authority is a direct assault on the integrity of the nation.
But hey, baby steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 18 2015, @02:42AM
Treason, in this country, has a constitutionally based definition, which requires a state of war to exist.
Just about NO Penalties are defined in the Constitution. The death penalty is recognized as existing, and but the constitution only mentions it while limiting it.
I don't recall if I've ever heard the arguments about why punishments were not put into the constitution itself. But it always designed as just a framework.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday December 18 2015, @07:17PM
No problem, we've been constantly at war with*someone* for what, a century or so now?
In all seriousness though, if we can seriously talk about charging Snowden and others in that vein with treason, there should be no conceptual problem in charging corrupt officials. Class warfare is far more real and the enemies far more powerful and well organized than those in the farcically named "war on drugs" or "war on terror"