Obama Administration Defending John Ashcroft's "absolute immunity"

[FreakyLocz14]

I've asked multiple times where there's a law that says he's immune. I'm not saying there isn't one; I'm saying I'd like to see one. Could you please provide that? I don't know why you'd consider it immature to ask for a citation.

Now, I'm sure you can debate the legal side of this, but when you start defending his actions at face value, that's when I must object. There was nothing to benefit from his actions, both in this case and with many other useless things he did (Operation Pipe Dreams).



Now, if you're telling me that he never actually committed a crime, that's a different story. The semantics of the defense states that he is immune, which implies he DID do something wrong, but could not be held accountable. Those are two very different things.

I never said the Patriot Act wasn't a valid law. I was merely comparing it to Watergate, something that a politician might have actually gotten prosecuted for, which I believe is much less harmful than John Ashcroft did.

A court of law will have to decided whether Ashcroft indeed has immunity, and how much immunity he has. Even if he doesn't have immunity, he did not commit a crime. You cannot apply criminal law ex post facto. This means the legislature or the courts cannot change the law to punish someone for an action they did before the law is changed.

Now what I believe the Obama administration is seeking to have Ashcroft declared immune from a civil lawsuit.

 

[BrandonE]

Now what I believe the Obama administration is seeking to have Ashcroft declared immune from a civil lawsuit.

You mean, now they're saying he can't even be brought to court? On what grounds?

 

[Livewire]

You mean, now they're saying he can't even be brought to court? On what grounds?

Technically, one could argue that what he did was lawful under the executive powers granted by the Patriot Act.

 

[BrandonE]

Technically, one could argue that what he did was lawful under the executive powers granted by the Patriot Act.

Again, I'm asking about the immunity from being sued, not whether or not he'd actually be jailed for it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Again, I'm asking about the immunity from being sued, not whether or not he'd actually be jailed for it.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity when acting within their official capacity
And he was a federal prosecutor.

 

[Netto Azure]

Like the other two have said, it ties into politics. His hands are tied until at least until after midterms, and the present Supreme Court will not convict one of their contemporaries because our courts aren't immune to partisan politics in any way, shape, or form, so, even then, he cannot do anything.

^ This essentially.

Especially after the Mid-Terms, with the composition of Congress expected to be more...different shall we say. The chances of any Judicial nor Congressional inquiry into any past abuses of the Bush Administration has effectively been lost anyways during this Congress anyway since the economy has been at the forefront of everything. Plus the Administration wanted to have "bi-partisanship" in the first year, so yep highly unlikely.

It's more likely we'll have Congressional inquiries into the supposed "Constitutional abuses" of the Obama Administration or effective governmental gridlock in the next Congressional session.