DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Judge: Bush can?t designate groups as terrorists

Executive order establishing power was unconstitutional, ruling says

LOS ANGELES - 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, 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."

Justice Department reviewing options
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.

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.

?Services? section of order still stands
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.

? 2006 The Associated Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15941646/

Geesh...nothing like making people think- takes the fun out of everything.

Which is why we're going to lose the war on terror with this type of thinking. The only way you're going to "catch" a terrorist is with guilt by association. Terrorism isn't a "repeat offender" type of occupation, and if you wait around for some to commit the crime first, your suspect is already dead and so is everyone else around him. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

The ruling was still considered a victory, Cole said.

A victory for who ?

Why a victory for the Liberation Tigers and the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan of course... <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

That is not why we're going to 'lose the war' on terrorism. If you label everyone who is associated with someone who's associated with someone eventually you're gonna label everybody. Terrorism will only be brought to an end by a total change of human nature. Not saying we can't try to cut groups off from their money sources or make it difficult for them to do 'business' but, I don't see this as a winnable war.

The terrorists. Why do you think they wanted the Dems to win over the country?

Soup,
How do you know who the terrorist really wanted to win?

It was stated before the last election AND simple logic of the parties shows that Democrats forgive everyone (except white people) are scared to offend everyone. Republicans care about themselves, will go the extra mile to protect themselves. Democrats are Christians that were fed to lions and didn't complain. Republicans did the feeding.

Hmmm.....perhaps soup should be designated a terrorist...... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Well he wouldn't be able to have a lawyer if that is the case. No lawyer, no jury, basically disappear.

Maybe they just want to see somebody who has a grasp on the word "diplomacy"?

Hard to prevent wars and solve problems when you refuse to talk to your possible future enemies. The only option that leaves is war.

And you know what's really funny? When the "terrorists" which is what I guess you are now calling the citizens of Iraq engaged in a civil war,say things you don't agree with,you call them thugs and liars. But then,when it fits your agenda,we're supposed to believe what they say?

Make up your mind man! Are they telling the truth or lying? Or are you just going to flip flop on that one depending on what they are saying at the time?

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Then you'd be guilty by association <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I'm in sales, I' a Republican - it should be obvious - I flip flop when it benefits me. Didn't we already go over this? Republicans care about themselves. IF it were up to me, the Muslim religion would be banned in the US until terrorism is gone. They don't like it, they can go back to the middle East and fix it themselves.

So your saying that your comments about "listen to what the terrorists said" only applies to it being to your personal advantage and the same goes for when you say "don't listen to them"?

That your mind changes to suit your agenda? If they say something you agree with "listen" but when they say something you disagree with you say "don't listen"?

Doesn't that pose the same credability problem we're seeing in the White House now?

If there were no Democrats, the terrorists would already be gone. They'd have been beaten to a pulp long ago. Fried in the electric chair. The "credability problems" stems from the fact that if we really said what was going on that terrorism would win. There is no way they tell us every thwarted attack or plan, it would cause panic. At one point they said they wanted to hit us in the wallet, the Dow and Nasdaq are higher than they've been in yars - the Dow has broken records recently - yet Democrats have scared everyone so bad about the economy that no one spends money - odd how the Dems propoganda works in the terrorists favor isn't it?

That's funny there was 8 years under Nixon,well almost.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Eight years under Reagan and now eight years under Bush.

Verses,four for Cater and eight for Clinton. Now who is responsible again? Sounds like you just spouted your own propeganda to me. But I almost forgot,you already said you did that. So you expect to place the blame on the Dems? I guess if that suits your agenda. Which I know it does.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Heck Clinton was great at diplomacy.. he never struck back or made any real stink at all when Americans were blown up all over the world.. he negotiated and he shook hands and made deals and didn't enforce them... so by your logic, the terrorists would have loved us then... except they were planning 9/11 while he was doing that....

Got another strategy?

One man with 20 accomplices planned and executed 9/11.
None if them were in Iraq.
Now we have 3000 dead soldiers becqause of this boner move.

Which is the lesser of the two evils?

And diplomacy can work if you stick to your guns and expect accountability for those agreements. That was Clintons failing.

But you seem to think that diplomacy makes no sense because one man didn't do a good job of it.

You know as well as I do,without dip;omacy,we would have had at least three times as many wars on this earth than we have had already. Ditching diplomacy is begging for WW3.

Do you have any better suggestions?

Who said anything about Iraq? I don't think I did... and we probably have 3,000 dead civilians because of failed diplomacy.... and that was just because of a boner.

No Pit, the problem is that there is nobody to have diplomacy with... think Bin Laden would attend a summit? Sure, we can have diplomacy with Pakistan and Syria and Iran... they'll shake our hands and sign whatever in the hell we want them to sign just so we'll go away... think that means they'll stop funding and harboring terrorists?

No Pit, I think diplomacy makes sense when you have a couple of very simple conditions met.. first and foremost is a leader on the other side with the authority to make and keep deals and a generally law abiding populace who will respect that diplomacy... and second when you are having diplomacy with another party who actually cares about peace and safety and civility for his people.... Does the other side meet either of those criteria? No..

Why is everything all or nothing with you any more Pit? Did I say we should "ditch diplomacy"? No.. I said there are no other partys to use diplomacy with... we're using diplomacy in Sudan right now, as we speak.. the UN has issued about 40 resolutions against the violence and genocide there.... hows that working out?

I would dearly love for Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to sign an anti-terror agreement and actually mean it and be able to convince their people (or at least the vast majority of them) to uphold it.... Go for it Pit.. I think you and Jesse Jackson should travel to the middle east and get started on the negotiations... meanwhile tell these countries we're pulling all of our aid from the region to give our own citizens free health care... they'll love you.

To be fair, they planned 9/11 during Bush's record-setting vacation trips as well. No president paid attention to the threats. At all.

The sad part is, I think you probably actually believe that. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />



Republican propoganda works quite similar...they gave us Iraq, which is working wonderfully for the 'terrorists'.

You mean the war over oil as you Dems like to believe? It's amazing to me, the Dems yell and yell about oil and the gas prices. Then a fat loser in PA named Ed Rendell - Democrat - decided HE was going to RAISE the tax on GAS - MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!!!! Democrats plans - "steal as much money as possible from the hard workers, pocket most of it - and give the rest to lazy people."

Point taken... this is true... but by the same logic, at this point in the Clinton administration we had been attacked 4 times and we had not responded. At all. Clinton did what Clinton does, he set up a task force, he had a special unit tracking Bin Laden, he was doing all of the right things behind the scene, what he failed to do, was act. Why set up a special unit to track Bin Laden if you aren't going to take him when you have the chance?

We can agree and disagree and discuss and debate whether Bush made the RIGHT moves after 9/11.. but he did something. And I maintain to this day that if the world and this country was behind the effort, Iraq would be in significantly better shape right now....

I heard an old retired general speaking on the news the other night and he was saying that every war has a "center of gravity" toward which much of the focus is given... This is what is understood by Army brass. The "center of gravity" is something that changes and in WWII the ultimate "center of gravity" was Berlin... He said, and I believe him, that the center of gravity for the war in Iraq isn't even in Iraq, it's in Washington DC.... and as he put it.... that's why we are struggling so much.

And the Grim Reaperublicans try to convince us that everyone who isn't like 'us' is our enemy and must be killed (fried) or else we will lose everything. Fear is an effective tool, isn't it?

If by "isn't like us" you mean "religous zealots willing to blow up themselves, their families, their children and countless civilians for no apparent reason other than intimidation"... then yea, I agree with that. Other than those kinds of people, the republicans I know don't have any problem at all with people not like us.

Can you give us an example the Grim Reperublicans try to convince us to kill everybody who isn't like us? If you are talking about the terrorists, yes they are not like us and should be killed. Do you know the United States never lost a war until the Dems started playing Politics.

Let's do something,even if it's wrong? That's what you wish to give "credit" for?
<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Would it had been better if Clinton had "done something wrong"?

Appearantly so. You have no problem giving him grief for waiting but give Bush credit for a botched job? I can't quite see the logic in that.

And you can "maintain" anything you want,but the "opinion" of the world wouldn't have put more troops on the ground. It wouldn't have changed the generals decisions on the ground. It wouldn't have changed the fighting between Sunnis and Shias. It wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

Trying to deflect the guilt of the decisions made on people other than those responsible for the poor decision making on the ground in Iraq is dissapointing at best.

Me what? I hate the Democrats, bro.

DC... your posts have always made the most sense to me.... especially this one... there's just one thing that I'm curious about...



How so? I mean I can see it and really feel that with being more optimistic and behind the effort globally things would be different for the better, but how specifically?

You're nuts. This thing was destined to fail.

Pit, there are world and national events other than Iraq... not everything he did was wrong. Invading Afghanistan wasn't wrong, creating a department to try to get our intelligence agencies to tear down the Clintonian walls and share information wasn't wrong, drafting the Patriot Act in an effort to begin combatting the new enemy wasn't wrong, going after the terrorists with the military instead of a police force and lawyers wasn't wrong, getting dozens of other countries actively involved in rooting out terrorists within their own borders wasn't wrong, and somehow maintaining and even growing the economy during it all certainly wasn't wrong...... and I still maintain that going into Iraq wasn't wrong. There were mistakes made within this list, some of them big mistakes, and for those Bush should be held accountable. But to act like nothing positive was done and focus singularly on Iraq is shortsighted and narrow minded at best and is following exactly the path the democrats would have you follow.

It would have been better if he had done something, PERIOD. Then we could judge how right or wrong it was.

He wasn't "waiting" Pit. "Waiting" implys that he was being selective in his timing to act. His time to act came and went 3 or 4 times and he was still "waiting".... What exactly was he waiting FOR? A bigger and better attack to give him a reason to move? Well he got one....

I think it would have but I have a conference call in 4 minutes so I don't have time to elaborate.

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Tell gays and lots of minorities that one!

Wow, I've been a republican for 22 years and I'm yet to be invited to a gay person frying... I need to make sure they have my correct e-mail address. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Well, they don't fry em they just don't give them same rights as you and me. Besides, your statement wasn't about frying, it was about not having a problem with them....

What rights do I have that they don't?

Wasting your time........

Ok Jules, I'll get back on track here...

And your comment included all republicans.. mine only accounted for the ones I know...

Whatever DC...you know full well what I mean. You play semantics you should expect others to as well.

I know but it's Friday.