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."
David Cole is William Kunstler's protege' and don't let anyone tell you differently. Cole comes out of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which was set up by the Communist Party front, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) (probably with cooperation from another key CPUSA legal front, the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee).
The NLG, ECLC and CCR have overlapping memberships.
Among the creators of the CCR were Kunstler, old-line CPUSA legal workhorse, Arthur Kinoy (who tried to create his own communist party in the 1970's known as NCIPA), Morton Stavis, an identified member of the CPUSA, and other longtime identified/documented CPUSA supporters.
Leaders of the CCR include Michael Ratner, who was a registered lobbyist for Castro and has about the longest record of any non-identified CP member/supporter for their legal support of anything communist, marxist, socialist or Islamofascist. His record is as long, in this area, if not longer, than that of Comrade Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), NLG, and that of the late Rep. George Crockett Jr (D-Mich), a real CPUSA member.
Ramsay Clark was a CCR supporter while also supporting the Stalinist Workers World Party.
In CCR, you have the heart of the communist/Islamofascist legal support network in the US. Check their background and you will see what I mean (www.frontpagemagazine.com, DiscoverTheNetwork, the book "Covert Cadre" S.Stephen Powell, Mike Waller's "The Revolution Lobby", and the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga), in the 1970's and early 80's. CR articles are protected from libel suits because of the "congressional immunity" clause concerning official publications of Congress.
Cole teaches law at the radical Georgetown Un. School of Law, along with former Rep./Rev. Robert Drinan (D-Mass), who worked with the CPUSA fronts the National Committee to Abolish HUAC/House Internal Security Committee and the ECLC in their lawsuits to stop us aid to Cambodia, in the l970's. Besides that, he is a nut!
There is another radical lawyer at GT but I can't think of his name right now, but my old CPUSA instructor (WEB DuBois School of Marxist Studies), Maurice Jackson, is now teaching Afro-American garbage/history at GTU. Jackson was the head of the DC CPUSA for about 20 years. Boy did he pull a con on GT or GT is actively recruiting reds for its staff. You choose which one.
PS: American Un and its law school is almost as bad. AU, my old grad school, has more reds as regular teachers than does GT, but the most dangerous are the law teachers at either.
Constitutionally the president has authority to defend the country without any further authorization by the congress.
The Founders insisted upon this at the Constitutional Convention.
The congress previously had authority to "make war" under the articles of Confederation, this was changed to "declare war" in the Constitution.
The Founders said the idea was to keep the president from starting wars, but not to make him wait upon congress to defend against attacks.
Very sensible, like all the Constitution.
You obviously didn't notice that these are foreign terrorist groups not domestic terrorist groups involved in this idiotic ruling.
Ignorance of the Constitution is a requirement to get a judgeship under Dem presidents.
So, now you think the terrorists are ambassadors or other public ministers and consuls. I'm done with you. Appease the terrorists all you want.
Ashroft was AG back then when these designations came out, if I'm not mistaken.
They call them "emanations" and "penumbras."
Isn't it funny, that the two Republicans (Nixon and Bush) the liberals hate the most are the ones who compromised to their demands & tried to work with them.
Isn't it funny, that the two Republicans (Nixon and Bush) the liberals hate the most are the ones who compromised to their demands & tried to work with them.
I do not doubt your statement, yet would like a link. I do not find any such power granted under Article II, section 2 or 3.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Unconstitutionally vague is often another way of saying they can find no specific reason to toss out the law or order, so they say it's to vague.
Bush should simply reissue the executive order worded in a different way that is "less vague".
Then they get the justice department, the terrorists, and the judge can go through the whole process again, and if the Judge still thinks it's too vague Bush might even be able to do it yet another time before he leaves office.
After that it's in the hands of the next President. Hopefully voters will choose well.
Bush is no RINO. He is, however, his father's son, which is less than what this nation needs right now.
Spoken like a true commie lover.
No, I do not. You asked what the Legislative had to do with the Judicial. The Judicial is checked in power by the Congress (the legislative). That is why the bolded words and sentence. The only other mention with respect to the Legislative and Judicial is in Article I, section 8 To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Have it your way.
Who keeps getting zotted?
You are the one quoting the constitution.
There is absolutely nothing unConstitutional about calling a terrorist a terrorist, and protecting America in the process.
You're so cute.
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.