Judge strikes president's authority to designate terrorist groups

AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 11/28/06 | Linda Deutsch - ap

[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."

[teletech]

This is all about POWER. The leftists have it now and they are going to make make Bush look as bad as they can, COUNTRY BE DAMNED! This is unbridled power hungry hatred of Bush at its peak.

[jamesrichards]

Thank the republicans in virginia and montana who voted dem so now ted kennedy can make sure conservatives aren't on the bench.

All conservative judges will now be tied up in committee.

[B4Ranch]

I didn't think it was necessary to say that I have always considered most of the elected Dems as traitors working for Communism who wear a business suit or a nice dress to work.

[Borges]

Actually President Jackson saying that is probably apocryphal.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

"I guess Judge Collins thinks she's the President."

Why should she accept that demotion? She's already acting like she considers herself royalty.

[cblue55]

Yet another form of domestic terrorism - activist judges proclamation of jihad against the Executive Branch.

[top 2 toe red]

However, my point had to do with Alberto Gonzales, not his boss. So, your comment is misplaced.

IMO, it very much sounded like a direct criticism of President Bush, pointing out the error of his ways in 'selecting' these two...perhaps, that is not the way you meant it. {{shrug}}

[top 2 toe red]

Already being done, voluntarily - part of his "new tone in Washington" policy of inaction and appeasement.

Where the hell is this appeasement all you Bush-haters keep railing about? Just because he doesn't come out of the WH with a double barrel shotgun slung over his shoulder, cursing out every Dim he encounters, then he is appeasing them?!?

[top 2 toe red]

If your or anyone's brother in law is playing poker with terrorists, then he should be busted. Simple.

[top 2 toe red]

I nominate your post...post of the day!

Truer truth never spoken!

[savedbygrace]

I'll try to be charitable here. Your connotation of 'direct criticism' must be, um, flexible and expansive. Yeah, that's the ticket.

To you, 'direct' must mean 'not mentioned at all', and 'criticism' must mean 'what I think he might have meant, but never said'.

[top 2 toe red]

I'll return your charity...you were trying to be clever in your original post, you weren't.

Once more, I will again state, this is JMO.

Of course, I guess I should say, it 'appears' you were trying to be clever, it 'appears' you were not.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks E.

David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights... 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."

"Know your enemy" ping.

[randog]

Oh well, play like a Rino, die like a Rino.

Hehehe...

[Paul_N_Lakeside]

Amen!

[babygene]

"If your or anyone's brother in law is playing poker with terrorists, then he should be busted"

Maybe not, it might be at a casino where you don't get to choose who you play with.

That's the problem with the wording "Otherwise associated". It is too broad. And him being my brother in law, am I "Otherwise associated" too. "Otherwise associated" can mean anything one wants it to mean.

What about the Muslim coworker at work that you sometimes have lunch with. You don't know anything about him, does that count?

A prosecutor could interpret that any way he or she wanted to. It could be interpreted to mean if you rode on the same buss or stayed at the same hotel.

[longtermmemmory]

It must be embarassing to be a clinton appointee these days.

[savedbygrace]

OK, I've had a chance to read the EO in question now (at #157), and it sure looks like it's specific and narrowly drawn, the opposite of vague.

So, if AG or HM contributed to it, IMO they did a good job.

So there!

[nopardons]

I never said they were; oh clueless one.

[LibLieSlayer]

You are as tiring as rangel!

LLS