Posted on 11/28/2006 4:32:42 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, in a Nov. 21 ruling released Tuesday, struck down the provision and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups which were placed on the list.
The ruling was praised by David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," he said. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "We are currently reviewing the decision and we have made no determination what the government's next step will be."
The judge's ruling was a reversal of her own tentative findings last July in which she indicated she would uphold wide powers asserted by Bush under an anti-terror financing law. She delayed her ruling then to allow more legal briefs to be filed.
The long-running litigation has centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey.
Both groups have been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.
The judge's 45-page ruling granted in part and denied in part a legal challenge brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, which seeks to provide training to the groups in human rights advocacy and provide them with humanitarian aid.
The judge outlined the history of Bush's Executive Order 13224 issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He declared then that the "grave acts of terrorism" and the "continuing and immediate threat of future attacks" constituted a national emergency.
He blocked all property and interests in property of 27 groups or individuals named as "specially designated global terrorists (SDGT)." Bush also authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who "assists, sponsors or provides services to" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated group.
Collins found that Bush's authority to designate SDGTs is "unconstitutionally vague on its face." She also found that the provision involving those "otherwise associated with" the groups is vague and overbroad and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association. She struck down both provisions.
However, she let stand sections of the order that would penalize those who provide "services" to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.
Cole said the Humanitarian Law Project will appeal those portions of the executive order which were allowed to stand. He said the judge's ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of SDGT designations already made but "calls them into question."
Cole said the value of the decision is it "says that even in fighting terrorism the president cannot be given a blank check to blacklist anyone he considers a bad guy or a bad group and you can't imply guilt by association."
Sure, here are the Founders discussing it at the Convention:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/817.htm
"...[FN24] "To make war"
Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in [FN25] Senate, so as to give no advantage to [FN25] large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.
Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in [FN26] great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.
Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks..."
There's not much more but it's worth reading the rest of their discussion. Note Elseworth's and King's colloquy:
"...FN29 On the remark by Mr. King that "make" war might be understood to "conduct" it which was an Executive function, Mr. Elseworth gave up his objection, and the vote of Cont. [FN30] was changed to-ay. "
The good judge has ruled before using the vague argument, and the American Muslim Voice liked it:
"January 27, 2004 – The American Muslim Voice is delighted to know that LA District Judge Audrey Collins has declared a provision of the USA Patriot Act, which bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations, as unconstitutional.
In a 36-page ruling handed down on Jan. 23 and made available on Jan. 26, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution."
http://www.civilrights.ghazali.net/html/body_ruling_on_pact.html
Who here thinks the system in place can/will correct itself?
Well let me rephrase this - what is your prediction for what the US will be like 20 years from now?
My black robe is in the cleaners..
Thanks for skipping answering the question.
Yep. Bush has upset me in some areas, but in terms of the WoT (excluding Iraq) he has been better than any previous President that I can remember. He also refused to meet with Arafat. He appointed Bolton to the UN...
The power of the Executive to repel sudden attacks and to conduct wars (as the Commander In Chief) was not the subject of this judicial decision. The power to assign the status and designation of terrorists and terrorist organizations, as well as the criteria and procedures involved was the subject.
Since the Senate is involved in ratifying treaties with foreign nations, it would make sense to at least have some advice and consent of the Senate.
I am not cheering this decision by any means. Hopefully the AG will get some advice on getting the proper verbiage and procedures in place. Or there should be a joint session called by the President (which he does have the power to do!) to demand that legislation be enacted regarding the designations of terrorists, terrorist organizations, state sponsors of terrorism, AND punitive actions, including military force.
But then the Congress would not be able to blame the Executive. And the beat goes on.
1994 was the year of judicial horror. So many bad judges.
And I want to thank the protest voters oh, so much for giving us a minority in the Senate.
Wrong. That is subservient to the clause relating to taxes- showing what taxes are to be used for: defending the country. NOT that Congress is the CiC.
That's a good point, the EO should be more specific. However that doesn't make it "unconstitutionally" vague.
The EO should be construed by the judge to be constitutional if that can be reasonably done, IE: to mean "otherwise associate with in a way not protected by the Constitution".
Which is what it means since the Constitution cannot be amended by mere law or fiat.
But note these are foreign terrorist organizations and individual Americans (and individual states too) have no right to interfere in other countries' affairs at all! With the ratification of the Constitution we granted the Federal government that power and placed it mostly in the President.
Vagueness seems to be a good reason. The judge may actually not be a monster, and it might just be easily corrected.
Are you old enough to remember Reagan's last 2 years in office? Your post would fit Reagan, far better than this president.
Ronald Reagan signed the Brady Bill, illegal immigration amnesty, a campaign finance law, and Federal Budgets that spent a higher percentage of GDP than what we have now.
Add to that Reagan's appointment of the liberal Sandra Day O'Connor to the SC, Reagan signing tax increases, and minimum wage increases (I could go on) and what we have are worse compromises than what we have now.
This all has been pointed out many times here on FR.
Your cognitive dissonance isn't funny.
Thanks for posting this! The info needs to be shouted from the roof tops.
Source.
Prove it. Just because you (or the judge) are too stupid to understand it, doesn't mean it's "vague".
Why the ability to nominate judges is so important and so terrible. Look at what Carter and Clinton judges haves done to this nation in the past several decades!
Welcome to that ever growing club.
Gonzales was the President's Counsel at the time.
Oh yoooooooooooooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooooooooo...presidents are NOT emperors/kings/dictators who can do whatever they damn please.
It is way past time, but there should be a test to pass, on politics and how government REALLY works, on FR, in order to post. And this test should be for members and wannabes alike.
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.