Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

One of my least favorite abuses of power is the government’s use of material witness warrants as all-purpose excuses for detaining people when they have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing.  So I’m very pleased to hear that the 9th Circuit Court has not only ruled that such behavior is reprehensible and obviously unconstitutional, but that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held personally responsible for it:

Members of the panel, all appointees of Republican presidents, characterized Ashcroft’s detention policy as “repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history.”

….[Abdullah] Kidd, a former University of Idaho running back…was handcuffed, strip-searched and shuttled among interrogations in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho before being released 16 days later and ordered to surrender his passport and live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada.  The arrest led to Kidd being denied a security clearance and losing his job with a government contractor.

….Georgetown Law professor David Cole said that Ashcroft adopted an aggressive “preventive paradigm” after Sept. 11 designed “to incapacitate people who government officials thought suspicious but lacked evidence of any wrongdoing. They were locked up and then investigated, rather than the other way around.” Virtually all of the targets had nothing to do with terrorism, Cole said.

….The judges, alluding to the George W. Bush administration, said that although “some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain” suspects without evidence of wrongdoing, the panel considered such preemptive detentions “an engine of political tyranny.”

Yep, boys and girls, that’s what the seeds of real political tyranny look like.  Somebody please tell Glenn Beck and the rest of the fever swamp crowd.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate