Suing Ashcroft

This is the headline from a Washington Post article:
Court Allows Lawsuit Against Ashcroft
Former Official's Bid for Immunity In Ex-Detainee's Case Is Rejected
And here are a few clips from the article:

A Muslim man who was detained for weeks as a material witness in a terrorism case can sue former attorney general John D. Ashcroft, a federal appeals court in California ruled Friday as it rejected a bid for absolute legal immunity by the onetime Cabinet official.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit gave a green light to the case filed by Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen who was taken into custody at a ticket counter at Washington Dulles International Airport in 2003, while he was on his way to Saudi Arabia to study Islamic law and Arabic.
...
Al-Kidd and his attorneys argued that Ashcroft knew or should have known that the material witness statute was being used in a sweeping and abusive manner. Ashcroft, who is being defended by the Justice Department, maintained that the case should be dismissed because he had no personal involvement in al-Kidd's detention. He also argued that as the nation's chief law enforcement officer at the time, he enjoyed broad protection from lawsuits.

But Judges Milan D. Smith Jr. and David R. Thompson disagreed, writing that Ashcroft was not entitled to absolute legal immunity and that authorities had detained al-Kidd in part to conduct an investigation of his activities, without probable cause. Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote a partial dissent. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

Al-Kidd, a Muslim convert who had been a standout running back on the University of Idaho football team, was confined in a high-security cell lit 24 hours a day, according to the opinion. He was strip-searched and transported, in shackles, across three states for 16 days before a court ordered his release. Authorities could not offer evidence of criminal wrongdoing by al-Kidd, and he never testified in a court proceeding.

For more than 15 months after his release, al-Kidd was forced to live with his parents-in-law in Nevada, curtail his travel and report to a probation officer. Al-Kidd lost his job with a government contractor after being denied a security clearance. Since his arrest, he has separated from his wife, suffered emotional trauma and been unable to hold a steady job, the judges wrote.

You can read the whole article here.

I never did like the preemptive pardoning of President Nixon by President Ford back in the 1970s.. always thought that he never had to answer for his crime. In hindsight I think that it was probably "good for" the country.. of course who really knows what the impact of a presidential prosecution would have had on the nation.

So I wonder about this law suit against the former attorney general. Is Ashcroft, or for that matter any governmental official, above the law? I am reminded of what Nixon said in his interview with David Frost:

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

So.. Ashcroft aside.. I wonder.. would our leaders in DC think twice about what they do if they no longer felt that they are immune from prosecution for their administrative or legislative actions? What do you think?