Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge strikes president's authority to designate terrorist groups
AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 11/28/06 | Linda Deutsch - ap

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."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: authority; bushhaterswin; cinobackstabbers; collins; cutandruncinos; iraqbackstabbers; kurdistan; lbackstabbers; losertarians; pkk; sanfranciscovalues; sdgt; srilanka; tamil; terroristgroups
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-279 last
To: nopardons
Since you seem to have nothing but insults for anyone postulating any position other than the one you agree with, then maybe you should change your screen name to 'nobrains'.

It seems to fit better since 'civility' is obviously not your 'forte'.
261 posted on 11/29/2006 3:53:25 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Your projection complex can be helped; get some.


262 posted on 11/29/2006 5:40:28 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

After 911 you would think that people would know better... Oh well maybe after 50,000 dead in the next failure. But by then it will be a Democrat that gets the glory and believe me when Democrats converge to wage war they will trample all over the Constitution and guess what... MSM & Liberals won't bat an eyelash... The programming in America is blame Bush... Blame Bush.... Blame the only true hero after 911 who's policies kept this country from falling into the abyss. Everyone forgets 911...
As I Remember the attacks were geared at crushing our economy and sending the country into depression... Terrorists failed and only put us on the offensive thanks to a gutsy President that cares more about taking care of the people in this country then he does about what people say about him... If I remember right that is the definiation of a true Hero!!


263 posted on 11/29/2006 6:10:13 PM PST by tomnbeverly (Ted Kennedy used the KGB to undermine Reagan. Who used Al-Qaeda to undermine Bush?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
"so called purist conservatives failed to support the party and became RINOS by default"

Excellent point. Astute!

Way to strip away the bs perspectives and reveal the stark truth.


264 posted on 11/29/2006 10:28:25 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

"Crap like this is going to put all of us in danger, even those of you who think Bush is a RINO."

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and follows a policy of never confronting its political enemies head on, its a duck. Even Ali couldn't rope-a-dope all the time.


265 posted on 11/30/2006 6:34:41 AM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #266 Removed by Moderator

To: FastCoyote
Proving my point. Bush just stood up to the press, the democrats, and the "cut and runners" of his own party at a press conference in Jordan this morning.

It isn't the President's job to give you sound bites where you can high five your pals over an insult he gave to a democrat. That is how Bill CLinton governed. It is undignified and accomplishes nothing.

So, I will simply point out that the point of this article was the judge's abysmal decision, and all YOU are concerned about is calling Bush a RINO.

267 posted on 11/30/2006 6:38:33 AM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

"nd all YOU are concerned about is calling Bush a RINO."

No, what I'm concerned with is assuring we don't repeat the mistakes that lead to our being ousted into the wilderness. Prime reason for our defeat was RINOs, who by not confronting Dems head on gutted the resolve of our party and it's ability to persuade the populace of conservative positions.

Why don't you go cry along with Chafee, he was Bush's boy, and yours too apparently.


268 posted on 11/30/2006 7:15:32 AM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

So it's against the law defend America.
Head for the gun stores folks. It's each man for himself.


269 posted on 11/30/2006 7:19:28 AM PST by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

In the words of Andrew Jackson, "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it". If the court (any court) makes stupid decisions, they should be ignored.


270 posted on 11/30/2006 10:45:33 AM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
You continue to demonstrate one of the reasons why we lost those swing voters. Do you think your belligerent attitude is going to win converts?

Pfft. Swagger around with your "principles" all you want. We lost the election and I doubt that you will ever realize why. (Hint: it wasn't the conservatives and it wasn't the liberals. Chew on that for a while.)

271 posted on 11/30/2006 2:11:39 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
Vagueness seems to be a good reason. The judge may actually not be a monster, and it might just be easily corrected.

Maybe so. Still, I shudder at the ease with which our anointed blackrobed druid class have become accustomed to overturning laws hammered out in the give and take of Congress, the representatives of a nominally free people.

272 posted on 11/30/2006 2:14:05 PM PST by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Agreed...we should be careful who we allow to set the guidelines for determining terrorist groups.
I'd opine that if the empirical data available suggests the group has been involved with terrorist type activities, then it's a terrorist group.
If it walks like a duck, it ain't a frog.

Hmmm, what a minute, that's bordering on common sense.
OMG, what was I thinking. Sorry, I must have been caught up in the moment.

It won't happen again.

273 posted on 11/30/2006 7:30:56 PM PST by concretebob (Those that insist we can just feed the alligator will be eaten last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

Neither is the Executive branch supposed to legislate.

I'm with you you in this. The same people defending this now will scream bloody mudrer when a dem president designates the NRA or some such as a terrorist group. I remember seeing a FBI flier during the clinton administration saying one of the signs to watch for a terrorist was carrying a copy of the constitution around. So i'm guessing these so called conservatives defending this will find themselves singing a different toon when a designation is something they don't agree with

274 posted on 11/30/2006 9:22:22 PM PST by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Impeach, indict, try, convict, imprison.
275 posted on 11/30/2006 11:36:47 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Jusdge impeachment - where do we begin?


276 posted on 12/01/2006 1:11:55 PM PST by Sword_Svalbardt (Sword Svalbardt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

"Neither is the Executive branch supposed to legislate."

The Executive Order that is the subject of this article is within the pervue of the duties of Commander in Chief. This is not a legislative matter, it is a lead the war matter and, therefore, is part of the job description of the President of the US, not a part of the job description of Congress.

I noted on an earlier reply that you said Congress approves and funds plans. If that is the case, you can enumerate the plans that they have passed and the plans they have declined to pass. You will not be able to do that, because Congress does not pass plans, they fund the military programs or do not fund the military programs.

It is true they are given updates every 60 days, but they do not vote on individual plans.


277 posted on 12/02/2006 10:26:20 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

This is talking about money. It is not talking about leading a war. That is the job of the President and is explicitly spelled out in Article II Section 2.


278 posted on 12/02/2006 10:37:44 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

"Ignorance of the Constitution is a requirement to get a judgeship under Dem presidents."

Obviously.


279 posted on 12/02/2006 10:57:38 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-279 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson