Posted on 11/28/2006 7:37:21 PM PST by Pikamax
Judge strikes down Bush on terror groups By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent 41 minutes ago
A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.
The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
The case 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.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups.
Both groups consider the Nov. 21 ruling a victory; both had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.
Cole said the judge's ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of other designated terrorist groups on the list but "calls them into question."
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."
A White House spokeswoman declined to immediately comment. At the time of his order creating the list, Bush declared that the "grave acts of terrorism" and the "continuing and immediate threat of future attacks" constituted a national emergency.
The judge's 45-page 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.
She also struck down the provision in which Bush had authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who "assists, sponsors or provides services to" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated group.
However, she let stand sections of the order that 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.
The Humanitarian Law Project planned to appeal that part of the ruling, Cole said.
"We are pleased the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs, including their challenge to the government's ban on providing services to terrorist organizations," Miller said Tuesday. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional."
The ruling was still considered a victory, Cole said.
"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," Cole said.
Another Clinton appointee, of course. Central District of California, in L.A.
Here's an article from the Washington Times concerning another decision striking down anti-terrorist laws in 2004.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040127-121306-2279r.htm
Don't give up! Just count the number of mosques in your neighbourhood, then stay well armed and safe!................FRegards
Imagine having judges like this when we were fighting WWII.
We'd all be saying "Sieg Heil" to Hitler's successor, and the Jews would have been pretty much exterminated.
.
DANG! I have my own 'terrorist' list. It was because of the vague language, I felt eliminating them was going to be legal per declared, War on Terror. Dang! /s
Just what I figured,....the LIBERAL RDDBs Judge-Shopped.
I guess the judge thinks that the US cannot legitimately fight a war -- any war.
"Imagine having judges like this when we were fighting WWII"
They would have been jailed, or hanged, or shot. The greatest generation knew how to deal with enemies.
Amen. The sedition act should have been among the first steps.
What in the hell would a moronic pervert in a black robe know about terrorists? These unicycle riding buffoons have definitely overstepped their limits.
To a Democrat judge the Tamil Tigers are not a terrorist group.
"Another Clinton appointee, of course."
The Clintons aren't serious about fighting terrorism. Many forget that WJC pardoned 16 Marxist cop-killing FALN terrorists to help his wife appeal to Puerto Ricans in New York.
And many here are willing to hand these guys back the executive branch again.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Yet another reason why I wish they were still around today.
As far as I'm concerned, the only people who are using unconstitutional powers are dem appointed judges, who seem to think that the Judicial system has suddenly changed and given them the power to play God. We better pray the dems don't ever get a total majority on the Supreme Court, otherwise we'll be seeing crap like this on a grander, and more dangerous, scale.
Too late, the "brilliant" voters decided to hand over judges to the liberal Dems in the Congress.
It's called "sending a message".
Ruling that portions of the Patriot Act were too vague this same "whack job" established a right for a person of average person intelligence to understand the law.
So on this basis the Income Tax statutes are unconstitutional not to mention Campaign Finance and most of the other laws written recently (say since 1920?).
We want this one committed to a mental institution, not impeached!
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.