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."
"...the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, P.L. 95-223, Title II, 91 Stat. 1626 (Dec. 28, 1977) (“IEEPA”). Pursuant to IEEPA, President Bush declared a national emergency in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and has by executive order prohibited any contributions of services to hundreds of “Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” including among them the PKK and LTTE. "
There seems to be a desire by the judiciary to create for Americans a constitutional right to interfere in the affairs of other countries.
I can understand some amount of complaint about the vagueness, but constitutionally it doesn't matter since we have no constitutional right to give money to anyone- whether a terrorist or a saint- in another country.
vague
One entry found for vague.
Main Entry: vague
Pronunciation: 'vAg
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): vagu·er; vagu·est
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin vagus, literally, wandering
1 a : not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms (vague accusations) b : not having a precise meaning (a vague term of abuse)
2 a : not clearly defined, grasped, or understood : INDISTINCT (only a vague notion of what's needed); also : SLIGHT (a vague hint of a thickening waistline) (hasn't the vaguest idea) b : not clearly felt or sensed : somewhat subconscious (a vague longing)
3 : not thinking or expressing one's thoughts clearly or precisely (vague about dates and places)
4 : lacking expression : VACANT (vague eyes) (a vague stare)
5 : not sharply outlined : HAZY (met by vague figures with shaded torchlights -- Earle Birney)
synonym see OBSCURE
- vague·ly adverb
- vague·ness noun
:o)
No thanks on the lasagna, I just ate. :-)
green beer?
Go find a nice quite chat thread to invade; dear. ;^)
You are spot on in that assessment.
Not really. Congress has the inherent power to declare a state of war and regulate the military - NOT the President. The president's war-making powers are more emergency in nature; anything beyond that is generally delegated from Congress.
Bookmark because I am too disgusted to read this right now. Liberals give me a headache.
Sorry. I'm on dialup and sometimes just post before reading whole thread :)
President Andy Jackson knew how to deal with judges.
"They made their decision, now let them enforce it."
The power of enforcement lies with the Executive....hahahahaha
Another dimocommie terrorist win. Thanks to all who stayed home to teach em a lesson.
The Vatican's Swiss Guards.
Just continue what you are doing President Bush. If she wants it done different she can come and try to make you. Witch in a black robe. Ignore them.
Great picture, but USELESS on this thread.
There's also the massiver SS tax increase.
As the CinC the president is charged with immediate action against immediate enemies and enemy targets of opportunity and/or security.
This is no different than the SAME responsibility for force protection that is granted to ANY military commander.
If you recall, the commander of the USS Cole was chastised for NOT properly responding to an enemy who should have been engaged in an otherwise "friendly" (as designated by the State Deptmt) port.
Every commander has that authority of force protection.
This judges wishes to take it from the President.
This judge is insane. I predict she'll be quickly overturned, but I'm no lawyer nor the son of one. I'm just a dumb old country preacher.
There is no need for a declaration of war in order for the president to identify and engage enemies and enemy targets of opportunity/security.
Incidentally, you would find the MILITARY/Strategy/Leadership/Command classes a lot of fun were you ever to enroll in them at a local Rotc.
Thanks, I forgot about that one. Did Reagan even try for private accounts? I don't remember.
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.