Judge Strikes Down Bush on Terror Groups

[Evermore]

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:43 AM EST
The Associated Press
By LINDA DEUTSCH

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.

Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said.

The order gave the president "unfettered discretion" to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday.

The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush's Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups.

However, she let stand sections 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.

The ruling was praised by David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented the plaintiff Humanitarian Law Project.

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," Cole said.

He said the Humanitarian Law Project will appeal those portions of the executive order which were allowed to stand.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman had a mixed reaction to the judge's ruling.

"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," Justice spokesman Charles Miller said Tuesday. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional."

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.

[Narrock]

Oh look... another liberal judge legislating from the bench.

[Evermore]

Oh look... another liberal judge legislating from the bench.

should actually read,


"Look finally someone putting this asshole in his place"

[Narrock]

Oh look... another liberal judge legislating from the bench.

should actually read,


"Look finally someone putting this asshole in his place"

Um, no... it's yet another classic example of a partisan-leftist-activist judge with an agenda. That's ok Evermore. Judges like that really enjoy the support they get from sheep like you.

[Zanchief]

What about the partisan rightwing judges?

[Narrock]

What about the partisan rightwing judges?

There are none.

[Evermore]

Oh look... another liberal judge legislating from the bench.

should actually read,


"Look finally someone putting this asshole in his place"

Um, no... it's yet another classic example of a partisan-leftist-activist judge with an agenda. That's ok Evermore. Judges like that really enjoy the support they get from sheep like you.

and asshole, think they can do whatever they want, piss money and people's lives away on a whim, lying dumb fuck presidents love the support you blind ass rush limbaugh tow the party line at all cost types give them. It what allows him to say fuck you to about whatever he wants.

its like all your balls are leashed together. He tugs you follow.

[Narrock]

When was the last time you heard me giving praise and adoration for Bush? And I don't even listen to Rush. You're making blind assumptions again.

[Arlos]

Mindia, that's the point of the judicial branch: To reign in either of the other 2 branches when they enact policy and/or law that infringes upon the Constitution. That's been their task and purpose for over a couple hundred years, whether you like it or not. Simply because they ruled that this particular executive order is unconstitutional doesn't in any way necessitate them being liberal OR that they're legislating from the bench, have an agenda, etc. They could, and likely are, merely deciding the case based on the facts presented before them, and their interpretation of the Constitution.

Furthermore, your statement that there are no conservative judges is patently ridiculous. At least as many judges have been appointed by conservative lawmakers as were appointed by liberal ones, probably moreso. You think hard-right-wing lawmakers would appoint radical liberal judges? I think not.

Again, though, protecting the constitution from the other two branches of government IS THEIR JOB. For example, were the courts in the 60s that struck down the Jim Crowe laws "Liberal activist judges legislating from the bench"? After all, those laws were enacted no differently than any other laws, yes? The simple fact is that sometimes other areas of government, be they states, congress, OR the President overstep the powers granted to them by the Constitution, and as such, need to be stopped, if the Constitution is to have any meaning. Thus, the judicial brnch, and rulings such as we had today.

I, for one, applaud the ruling. The unfettered ability to declare ANY group, regardless of evidence or recourse, to be a "terrorist group" is absolutely too much power. There are no checks or balances involved there. What if tomorrow he decided to declare the Freemasons to be a "terrorist group"? What if a liberal president declared the John Birch society to be one? No, no, it cannot be allowed, and it was good that it was struck down.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I, for one, applaud the ruling

I already knew that before you stated it.

[Ginzburgh]

Nice retort

[Arlos]

I already knew that before you stated it.

I figured as much. Care to respond to the rest of my comment, though?

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Nice retort

It's not a "retort."

[Evermore]

I didnt say you listen to Rush, really i couldnt care less. I said you tow the line like he does. as for praise and admiration, i also never said you praise him but what ever he does you back him on. the guy could take a shit and wipe his ass with the consititution ( not that he hasn't already ) and you would find a way to make it ok.

remember the religious agenda? i'll post a link as soon as i locate the thread

[Narrock]

I didnt say you listen to Rush, really i couldnt care less. I said you tow the line like he does. as for praise and admiration, i also never said you praise him but what ever he does you back him on. the guy could take a shit and wipe his ass with the consititution ( not that he hasn't already ) and you would find a way to make it ok.

remember the religious agenda? i'll post a link as soon as i locate the thread

You're talking smack again.

[Arlos]

To be fair, Evermore, Mindia has been disagreeing with Bush quite a bit more these days than he once did. 2-3 years ago, you would've been a lot more accurate than now. Of course, don't mistake this for me agreeing with Mindia on too many issues, heh, we still disagree, but I gotta be honest about what I see, even if it's from someone I disagree with.

Of course, Mindia, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the rest of my post... *grin*

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Yea hes not totally down with the clown anymore but he still is and towing the line.

[brinstar]

if a judge pwns the right, he's an activist judge legislating from the bench

if a judge pwns the left, he's doing what's right



subjective people speaking in objective terms, gotta love it

[Narrock]

Mindia, that's the point of the judicial branch: To reign in either of the other 2 branches when they enact policy and/or law that infringes upon the Constitution. That's been their task and purpose for over a couple hundred years, whether you like it or not. Simply because they ruled that this particular executive order is unconstitutional doesn't in any way necessitate them being liberal OR that they're legislating from the bench, have an agenda, etc. They could, and likely are, merely deciding the case based on the facts presented before them, and their interpretation of the Constitution.

Furthermore, your statement that there are no conservative judges is patently ridiculous. At least as many judges have been appointed by conservative lawmakers as were appointed by liberal ones, probably moreso. You think hard-right-wing lawmakers would appoint radical liberal judges? I think not.

Again, though, protecting the constitution from the other two branches of government IS THEIR JOB. For example, were the courts in the 60s that struck down the Jim Crowe laws "Liberal activist judges legislating from the bench"? After all, those laws were enacted no differently than any other laws, yes? The simple fact is that sometimes other areas of government, be they states, congress, OR the President overstep the powers granted to them by the Constitution, and as such, need to be stopped, if the Constitution is to have any meaning. Thus, the judicial brnch, and rulings such as we had today.

I, for one, applaud the ruling. The unfettered ability to declare ANY group, regardless of evidence or recourse, to be a "terrorist group" is absolutely too much power. There are no checks or balances involved there. What if tomorrow he decided to declare the Freemasons to be a "terrorist group"? What if a liberal president declared the John Birch society to be one? No, no, it cannot be allowed, and it was good that it was struck down.

-Arlos

Arlos, I'm all for checks and balances in any governmental body, otherwise it would be a dictatorship, so I agree with you on the importance of that. I just don't think this should have been struck down given the ever increasing worldwide terrorist activity and plots against the United States. So our disagreement lies with whether or not Bush is overstepping his power with this particular piece of legislature. I don't think he is, and you do. I have to wonder at this point if this judge is a Muslim and has a soft spot for them.

[Spazz]

[Burgy99]

Some day Mindia, president Bush will declare all truck drivers to be terrorist, and there will be no one left to defend you.

[Markarado]

Mindia you really have no clue do you? I'm all for the federal government having broad powers to smack down on terrorists, but in no way was this ruling a bad thing. We can't allow the federal government to have unlimited unchecked powers in any area of the law. We must protect the rights of all human beings whether they are American or not.

[Harrison]

Mindia you really have no clue do you? I'm all for the federal government having broad powers to smack down on terrorists, but in no way was this ruling a bad thing. We can't allow the federal government to have unlimited unchecked powers in any area of the law. We must protect the rights of all human beings whether they are American or not.

I disagree.

I hate Asians, Canadians, and the French. Everyone else can have rights.

Continue with the useless political banter and nut-groping.

[Lueyen]

Mindia you really have no clue do you? I'm all for the federal government having broad powers to smack down on terrorists, but in no way was this ruling a bad thing. We can't allow the federal government to have unlimited unchecked powers in any area of the law. We must protect the rights of all human beings whether they are American or not.

You want to argue that there should be a process of checks an balances, fine I'm all for it. With the two principal subjects of this case, it looks as if they were named terrorist organizations to garner support from two countries for the war on terror, with the exception of allegations of contact with known and generally accepted terrorist organizations, there isn't much more to them then localized anti current government resistances (Yes they employ similar methods to terrorists, but their targets are not from what I've seen civilian in nature, nor are they using attacks on citizens, they are going after military and political officials). At the very least the validity of listing these organizations does need to be reviewed for balance purposes, however allowing our courts an unchallengeable final say is perilious.

Government powers keeping each other in balance is one thing. Giving a declared enemy of this country the "right" to appeal that decision by our elected officials presumably through OUR courts, is ludicrous on one hand, and an attempted power grab by the judicial system to dictate foreign affairs by being able to declare who is not our enemy on the other.

Arlos and I have discussed to some detail the validity of extending constitutional rights to foreign entities surrounding the issue of military tribunals. While I have conceded the prudence of extending basic human rights and due process to those under any form of US judicial system, I'll still argue that the rights of our citizens are not automatically extended to foreign entities.

Make no mistake, the enemy ideology is not only to attack us via terrorist acts in broad day light, but also attempt to pervert our political, justice and social systems to expose exploitable weaknesses. I'm sorry but we don't need to have groups like Al Qaeda challenging our listing them as a terrorist organization in our courts, and the ability to challenge our governments decisions on who is and who is not a terrorist organization by those very same organizations in our own courts is what this judge is advocating.

One only need look at the incident last week involving the six imams at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to see just how bold our enemies and those who are sympathetic to them are willing to go in trying to use our own political correctness and fear of acting in prejudice against us.

Edit: the six were removed from a flight in Minneapolis, not Reagan Washington where a protest of the event was later staged.

[Arlos]

Leuyen, the issue I have isn't so much with who has been declared a Terrorist organization at present, but the POTENTIAL for abuse that an unfettered statute would create.

I meant it with my examples. If the president has unlimited power to unilaterally declare ANY group or organization a "terrorist threat", regardless of need of evidence, support, etc, and if that group has no recourse... What happens when some future president declares, say, Amnesty International to be a terrorist organization? How about Greenpeace? Hell, The Sierra Club?

I'm not saying Bush WOULD declare any such thing, but with the statute as it existed, he COULD, and that's what needed to be stopped.

As for the 6 imams, WTF are you talking about? They didn't do anything other than get kicked off of a flight for nothing more serious than "making unamerican statements" while being muslim. Would they have been kicked off if they'd been white? I doubt it.

-Arlos