Posted on 10/20/2005 8:47:21 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The United States can designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups and bar Americans from financially backing them, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
"Leaving the determination of whether a group is a 'foreign terrorist organization' to the executive branch ... is both a reasonable and a constitutional way to make such determinations," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote for a three-judge panel.
"The Constitution does not forbid Congress from requiring individuals, whether they agree with the executive branch determination or not, to refrain from furnishing material assistance to designated terrorist organizations."
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was made in a case involving people who raised money in California for Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 1997.
The defendants argued the MEK was not a terrorist group and they had First Amendment rights to contribute to the group.
The court disagreed, saying contributing money was not the same as exercising a right to free speech. "Guns and bombs are not speech," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.
The 9th Circuit ruling was a rehearing of the same panel's decision in June. Both 9th Circuit decisions overturned a district court's dismissal of the indictment in the case.
The "Committee for Human Rights" had solicited contributions at the Los Angeles International Airport and sent them to the MEK in Turkey.
The Iranian group was formed in the 1960s to overthrow the Iranian government and was involved in taking U.S. Embassy staff in Tehran hostage in 1979. Its members, dissatisfied with the clerical government, later fled Iran, and resettled in Iraq, carrying out attacks with the backing of Saddam Hussein.
The ruling acknowledged geopolitical changes could change the perception about the MEK, but said the U.S. government should be the entity that decides.
"Defendants could be right about the MEK. But that is not for us, or for a jury in defendants' case, to say," the decision read.
"The sometimes subtle analysis of a foreign organization's political program to determine whether it is indeed a terrorist threat to the United States is particularly within the expertise of the State Department and the executive branch."
it is a ridiculous waste of time that the court had to DECIDE that. All they had to do was go to the State Dept. webpage
but...what does it mean? CAIR is supported by Hamas...why are they allowed?
Yes it was, but be grateful the Ninth Circus got it right.
Just wait until a Dim is in office and they'll designate the Heritage foundation as a terrorist organization.
The question isn't what the Constitution forbids Congress from doing. The question is what the Constitution empowers Congress to do. And the Constitution does not empower Congress to criminalize providing donations, financial backing or other aid to anyone. In fact, any such prohibition targeted at specific individials or groups is a Bill of Attainder--and is explicitly forbidded by the Constitution.
Until such time as this court's ruling is commonly understood to be diametrically opposed to Constitutional government, the US is for all intents and purposes a tyranny.
CAIR is supported by Hamas
Source please. I know they get the majority of their funding from Saudi Arabia, but this is the first I've heard about Hamas.
may be CAIR supports HAMAS! ;-)
Have you read the book INFILTRATION...by Paul Sperry? CAIR has gotten money from and given money to Hamas.
It will not stop the millions of dollars funneled through US mosques, small denomination "wire" transfers, or even cash through US mail.
Contributing money is no longer free speech? This follows McCain/Feingold, in that by limiting contributions to political campaigns, there is no violation of free speech according to that mutant of a law either.
Our liberal courts are now abridging the First Amendment on a regular basis.
MEK contributions should have been limited under Article 3 Sec. 3: Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
All terrorist groups, and the people who support them, should be engaged this way- but why start following the Constitution now?
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
You're right, of course, but we are talking about the 9th Circuit.
Nice try, but very wrong. First of all, your invokation of Bill of Attainder doesn't apply to the case at hand (the logic involved would be torturous at best), and secondly, engaing in aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States is most certainly an area that Congress can regulate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.