Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Appeals court reinstates terror charges (9th Circuit)
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 12/20/04 | David Kravets - AP

Posted on 12/20/2004 7:21:17 PM PST by NormsRevenge

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court Monday reinstated indictments against seven defendants accused of raising money for a terror organization with links to ousted Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein.

In a victory for the Bush administration's war on terror, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Los Angeles federal judge who declared the 1996 terror financing law unconstitutional.

The law makes it illegal to funnel money - "material support" - to organizations the State Department says are linked to terrorism, about 30 groups in all.

Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government rarely used the terror law. The administration has since used it to win dozens of terror convictions nationwide, from Lackawanna, N.Y., to Seattle and Portland, Ore.

One legal expert criticized the decision.

"This is a troubling result for a nation that believes in freedom of association," said David Cole, an expert on the law in question at the Georgetown University Law Center.

The case stems from a 2001 indictment against the seven Los Angeles defendants for allegedly providing several hundred thousand dollars to the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which the appeals court said "participated in various terrorist activities against the Iranian regime" and "carried out terrorist activities with the support" of Saddam's regime.

U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi invalidated the law, saying it did not provide the groups a proper forum to contest their terror designations. His ruling had no immediate effect beyond the Los Angeles case.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court overruled the judge - and went a step further, saying individuals accused of supporting the listed groups cannot challenge whether the groups should be listed.

The government, the court said, must prove only "that a particular organization was designated at the time the material support was given, not whether the government made a correct designation."

The decision mirrors a ruling this year by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upholding the conviction of a man who funneled money to the militant Hezbollah organization while insisting he had a right to challenge that group's listing.

"The Justice Department is pleased that yet another court has upheld the constitutionality of the material support statute, a key weapon in our arsenal of legal remedies in the war on terror," spokesman John Nowacki said.

The seven Los Angeles defendants said it was a violation of their First Amendment rights to be prohibited from contributing money to groups they say are not terror organizations, and they should have the right to prove the group in question should not be on the State Department's list. No trial date has been set in their case.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; appeals; california; charges; court; reinstates; terror; terroristfunding

1 posted on 12/20/2004 7:21:17 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Would seem the 9th Circuit has some doubts about the wisdom of Judge Robert Takasugi.

Must be they have information that has persuaded them that going along with this guy could end up being very bad for them.

2 posted on 12/20/2004 7:28:31 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

9th Circuit?

(rubbing eyes, in disbelief)


3 posted on 12/20/2004 7:28:47 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"This is a troubling result for a nation that believes in freedom of association,"

Really? We believe in Freedom of Association? So I guess there's no such thing as guilty by association.

I was under the impression that people were charged all the time for crimes relating to "guilt by association."

With this reasoning Charles Manson should be freed. He never actually killed anyone, you know.
4 posted on 12/20/2004 7:30:04 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (Support our troops.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Freedom of association? >p> Yeah, their freedom to associate with terrorist, no strings attached. What idiots. Thank God it was over-turned.


5 posted on 12/20/2004 8:03:55 PM PST by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Shhh.... Don't go giving them any ideas.


6 posted on 12/20/2004 8:12:06 PM PST by BykrBayb (5 minutes of prayer for Terri, every day at 11 am EDT, until she's safe. http://www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

It must have been a three-judge panel that happened to draw a handful of the few decent judges from the full court.


7 posted on 12/20/2004 9:17:09 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Actually two of these judges are Clinton appointees: Kim McLane Wardlaw and William Fletcher. The opinion, which was unanimous, was authored by judge Andrew Kleinfeld (Reagan appointee).


8 posted on 12/21/2004 12:21:44 PM PST by JackTom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson