1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Federal Court strikes down Presidential terrorist designation powers

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by geeimsobored, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    3,389
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_us/terrorist_designation

    Judge strikes down Bush on terror groups

    By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent 43 minutes ago

    LOS ANGELES - 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. The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.

    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.

    In 2004, Collins ruled that portions of the Patriot Act were too vague and, even after Congress amended the act in 2005, she ruled the provisions remained too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence and were therefore unconstitutional.
     
  2. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    I love it.
     
  3. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,216
    Likes Received:
    39,715
    Finally standing up to that tyrant !!

    DD
     
  4. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,172
    Likes Received:
    2,823
    Who would have ever thought the Tamil Tigers or the PKK were terrorist organizations; other than, you know, everyone?
     
  5. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,390
    Likes Received:
    9,308
    that's far too nuanced for the average american cough, democrat, cough to understand.
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,854
    Likes Received:
    41,363
    Too bad that's not what the court case decided.

    It decided that the language of the executive order was unconstitutional, not the validity of the finding on the merits.


    And apparently the distinction above was too nuanced for you to understand...
     
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,206
    I think you missed the point.
     

Share This Page