|
|
 | | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
| (...) statute: TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1983. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
| (...) Yeah, really. It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows anything useful. I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her sister do things? Not likely... Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
| (...) I didn't get from the article what the specific and direct role played by Ashcroft was. Is he only guilty for setting a cavalier tone within the federal law enforcement machine, or was it something more clear cut? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
| I found this interesting: (URL) see how far it gets. I expect he'll be removed from the suit, after all, can't have our government officials held personally liable for what they do, now can we? (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
| (...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
