Making the World Safe (for terror)
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."
Did Mc Carthy ever have to deal with 3,000 dead in one day on US soil? Just wondering.
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.
This case leaves an important question unanswered, if the Commander in Chief, with the aproval of Congress can't identify the enemy, then who will?
Michelle Malkin ""This same judge ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional that barred giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations in 2004.""
Captain's Quarters ""Nor was that the first time Collins has had a problem with anti-terrorist legislation. During the Clinton administration, she struck down the 1996 anti-terrorism law passed by Congress in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Collins seems to have trouble reading the law, finding all counterterrorism legislation too vague to be understood. Perhaps the problem lies with Collins more than the laws themselves.""
Say Anything suppiles us with a list of terror attacks commited by one of the groups in question, the Tamil Tigers, and it's a pretty long list... now add the list of assassinations... The list of assassinations includes 11 activists, 12 government servants, 5 journalists, 3 writers, 12 rival militants, and 22 politicians.
I'm thinking they might be terrorists. Send a copy to Judge Collins, to help her work out the vagueness of it all.
Stop the ACLU has more. The Jawa Report has a copy of Judge Collins' order here.








Gosh maybe because declaring all muslims terrorists is just as stupid as calling all christians white supremacist, bomb throwing, religious zealots.
The courts are there to make sure the laws protect innocent people and whether you believe it or not many muslims are not terrorists!
Or maybe after OK city we should of locked up all white ex-army members?
Posted by:madmatt | November 29, 2006 at 06:40 AM
The world will never be "safe" enough for pee-pee-pants conservative cowards. Eugene McCarthy never had to deal with 3,000 dead on U.S. soil because HIS president knew how to defend the country.
If the U.S. had been attacked by Saudi's from Afghanistan, Eisenhower sure as hell wouldn't have invaded IRAQ.
Cheers,
Winston
Posted by:Winston Smith | November 29, 2006 at 07:07 AM
For everyone who's complaining that Bush's powers to designate entire groups as terrorists have been struck down, I have three words:
President Hillary Clinton
There's a good chance that all the powers you gave to Bush will be inherited by this woman. Do you really want this to happen? This badly-written, badly-conceived law could easily be turned against the very same people who now most enthusiastically support it.
Posted by:Madame Defarge | November 29, 2006 at 07:40 AM
Winston - "pee-pee pants"??
Is that the best trolling flame you got. Sheesh. And right time wrong McCarthy - they're talking about Uncle Joe not Clean Gene. Your heart's in the right place - you just need to get with the program.
Anyhoo - the USofA has done alright for more than 200 years without a unitary president. I don't think Bush has been a very good president but I don't think he wants to be a tyrant - he thinks what he is doing is right.
Bush and his acolytes are wrong because there will be future presidents who may be a bit less benevolent. The precedents and take-no-prisoners approach established by the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal assume the same rosey scenario for future admins that they saw in Iraq.
Millions of Americans have died protecting and defending the Consitution. Bush et.al. strip Constitution safeguards to buy a bit of security, mocking those who have bled to preserve the City on the Hill. Those who sacrifice liberty for security will have neither.
Posted by:sami | November 29, 2006 at 07:54 AM
the credibiity of any post with a michelle malkin quote is absolutely zero. only bill and sean and ann are bigger nut jobs.
that said...it's nice to see these so-called radical judges protecting the constitution from conservatives looking to undermine it. and i'm damn glad we didn't have freedom surrendering patriots like bush and his merry band of neo-cons at lexington and concord.
Posted by:jay k. | November 29, 2006 at 09:19 AM
mad matt said ""Gosh maybe because declaring all muslims terrorists is just as stupid as calling all christians white supremacist, bomb throwing, religious zealots.""
Did you even read the story? The case deals with just two groups, Tamil Tigers and PKK. the links provided give dozens of reasons why LTTE are terrorists. It wasn't a case of "all those Muslims", As far as I know The Tamil Tigers are a communist oranization, not a religious one.
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Winston Smith,
FDR suffered the attack of Pearl Harbor, the White House was burned to the ground by the British in the war of 1812, 9/11 was a national tragedy that has become politicised.
Eisenhower wouldn't have approved of Saddam any more than the Democrats in Congress did when they voted to invade Iraq.
If Bush had invaded Saudi Arabia, would he then be your favorite President?
Oh and btw, George Orwell would've nailed the terrorist groups in question, he turned over Commie writers that he knew to the British gov't. You can look it up, he hated socialism. 1984 is about what would happen to world if socialism as he knew it in the 50's had taken hold in the West. The evil group that was torturing Winston was called Engsoc...English Socialism.
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 01:08 PM
Sami,
Niether of the groups in question are American. LTTE is Sri Lankan and PKK is in Turkey. You and the others commenting here advocating the same rights for these groups as you would an ordinary citizen?
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Jay what freedom of your's (assuming your an American)has been surrendered?
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 01:18 PM
Madame Defarge asks,
""There's a good chance that all the powers you gave to Bush will be inherited by this woman. Do you really want this to happen?""
Yes.unlike some, my greatest concern is not the opposing party.
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 01:49 PM
Bush's legal advisors are just idiots. In their quest to build the unitary executive and ignore well known legal parameters, they run the risk of getting smacked down by the courts.
Simple as that.
Posted by:jpe | November 29, 2006 at 06:42 PM
Jay what freedom of your's (assuming your an American)has been surrendered?
If I have an organization that speaks loudly in favor of Kurdish rights, that organization is in jeopardy of having its assets frozen.
You may think the First Amendment is passe in this post-9/11 world, but many of us still think it somewhat valuable.
Posted by:jpe | November 29, 2006 at 06:44 PM
jpe,
Are you saying that PKK isn't a terrorist organization? And it's your first ammendment right to give money to them? What about LTTE? aren't they terrorists?
Posted by:kevin | November 29, 2006 at 09:30 PM
1984 is about what would happen to the world if socialism as he knew it in the 50's had taken hold in the West. Yeah and Big Brother is still what you got, Go figure.
What scares you guys with free education and medical care? Is it the taxes? You don't pay much so why worry.
Posted by:Dr Zhivago | November 30, 2006 at 03:43 AM
""Big Brother is still what you got, Go figure.""
If we live in a Big Brother enviroment, they why are we allowed to disagree? Why this article about the court case, why would Big Brother bother with courts that might oppose him? How can nut jobs like Kevin Barret (9/11 conspriracist) get away with the crap he's spewing in a totaly controlled Big Brother government? No, my little paranoid friend, if we were truly living in a Orwellian dictatorship, we would even be having this conversation. There are governments that regulate opinion ans execute dissidents and they all just happen to be sworn enemies of the good ole USA.
Posted by:kevin | December 01, 2006 at 03:47 PM