Antiterror law takes blow (Liberal California Federal Court Rules against America yet Again!)

The Boston Globe ^ | 7/9/2002 | By Associated Press

[vannrox]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - On the very day last month that Mohamad Hammoud became the first person convicted under a 1996 law that bans aid to terrorist groups, a federal judge in California declared the statute unconstitutional.

Though federal prosecutors expect Hammoud's conviction to stand, questions surround the future of the law as the government plans to use it against two major defendants: the alleged ''20th hijacker,'' Zacarias Moussaoui, and John Walker Lindh, the American accused of taking up arms for the Taliban.

[vannrox]

This is the same court that called the Pledge of Allegance as unconstitutional.

[Dimensio]

The same court? The article says that it was a District judge who made the ruling, not a Circuit Court judge.

[WyldKard]

As long as Congress refuses to declare a legal state of war, this sort of thing is going to continue to happen. They need to grow some balls and do it already.

[HalfIrish]

Takasugi said the law violates foreign organizations' due process rights because it gives them no opportunity to contest their terrorist designation.

I wasn't aware that foreign organizations HAD any due process rights. I worry more about the next left-wing administration (or maybe even the present one) designating domestic groups as terrorist then suspending the Constitution on people tangentially associated with them as well.

[vannrox]

Whoops. You are correct. My mistake. However, I can see it being appealed to the Federal Court. I wonder how they would rule?

[Michael.SF.]

'As long as Congress refuses to declare a legal state of war, this sort of thing is going to continue to happen. They need to grow some balls and do it already.

Although Congress is empowered to declare war, I believe it is the President who must ask that they do so, as FDR did in his "Day of Infamy" speech.

I thought that Pres. Bush missed a golden opportunity by not asking for a declaration of War against the terrorists/terrorism. Had he done so he would have been demonstrating more leadership then he has and he would have silenced some issues for many of his critics

[Paleo Conservative]

Although Congress is empowered to declare war, I believe it is the President who must ask that they do so, as FDR did in his "Day of Infamy" speech.

There is no constitutional requirement for the president to request a declaration of war.

Section 8 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;

..........

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[habaes corpussel]

This is the problem with the new Patriot Act and other 911 Legislation. We have charted new ground. The Constitution was designed to protect individual rights. Unfortunately you do not need to be a citizen to enjoy some of these rights as well. We cannot subvert these clauses even in a time of war. There is only three ways to do this the right way. Either pursue the Constitution as painfully as it may be. Suspend Habeas Corpus, which is extremely dangerous. Or as provided in EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) allow Military Tribunals to try both foreigners and Americans suspected of lawful and or unlawful combat or belligerency against America equally.

As far as the DOS Terrorist List is concerned the same can apply unfortunately. If the Government can unilaterally decide what group posses a threat and can take legal action without due process almost any group can be designated an unfavorable label if politically pushed. Now saying that it is my belief this can be reasonably settled by a Presidential Executive Order or seek out an indictment against the group in question.

Our biggest hindrance in this battle is our own Constitution and laws. Moreover this needs to be fast tracked to the USSS for final decision. Our protection and freedom depends on this.

[habaes corpussel]

"Our biggest hindrance in this battle is our own Constitution and laws. Moreover this needs to be fast tracked to the USSS for final decision. Our protection and freedom depends on this."

USSS = USSC. Sorry for the typo.

[aristeides]

The district court that issued this ruling is not the same as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the court that issued the pledge ruling.) However, the Ninth Circuit is the court that will have to take any appeal from the district court's ruling. It'll be interesting to see how they handle an appeal. If they agree with the district court, they will almost certainly be reversed again by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[WyldKard]

Certainly a declaration of war would have made me feel a lot better. Wars should have beginnings, middles, and endings. Either we win or the terrorists do. Suspend rights during wartime, yes, but at least lets have a legal state of war declared. Otherwise, we run into one of these socialist "wars without end" and all of the sudden it reads like we're living in "1984" :(

[Michael.SF.]

"There is no constitutional requirement for the president to request a declaration of war."

Yes, technically you are correct, there is no such requirement specifically stated in the Constitution.

I was referring not just to the specifics of the consitution though, I was extending the discussion beyond that. There is no specific requirement in the Consitution that the President be a bold, decisive leader either. But that is what we expect (or hope) him to be, especially at times of national emergencies.

Under Clinton we had a President who made decisions based on the latest poll data. There is no such provision in the Constitution for this either.

The President as the Commander-in-Chief is the appropriate person to face Congress and ask that a declaration of War be made.

Could you imagine, for a moment the following situation: Congress declares a War that the president does not support? The President then refuses to commit troops, or does so in a fashion similar to Bill Clinton's style in Somalia?

Impeachment certainly would result. But what if the war was declared based on a 51% margin. With 67% being required for impeachment, we could have a real consitutional crisis on our hands.

Yes, technically you are correct, but realistically, the President should ask for such a declaration.