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

Skip to comments.

Judge Strikes Down Part Of Anti-Terror Law
Reuters ^

Posted on 11/29/2006 3:39:41 AM PST by chessplayer

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "A federal judge in Los Angeles, who previously struck down sections of the Patriot Act, has ruled that provisions of an anti-terrorism order issued by President George W. Bush after September 11 are unconstitutional."

"U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins found that part of the law, signed by Bush on September 23, 2001 and used to freeze the assets of terrorist organizations, violated the Constitution because it put no apparent limit on the president's powers to place groups on that list."

"Ruling in a lawsuit brought against the Treasury Department in 2005 by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Collins also threw out a portion of Bush's order which applied the law to those who associate with the designated organizations."

"The lawsuit was brought on behalf of five organizations, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, which wants to create a separate state for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, which represents Kurds in Turkey."

"Both groups had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations."

(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/29/2006 3:39:44 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Well, ol' Audrey apparently wants more terrorists to get into the country and then kill thousands of more people so that we can all be "victims" again and feel good about it.

I doubt her ruling will stand up on appeal, but it is really annoying and makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration at these idiots.

2 posted on 11/29/2006 3:49:26 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

SSDD

Flashback to 'American Muslims welcome ruling against part of Patriot Act'[for 2004]

Info on Judge, by Judge

3 posted on 11/29/2006 3:50:33 AM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

This Clinton appointee needs to be removed. She is personally trying to dismantle the Bush Anti-Terror policy.


4 posted on 11/29/2006 3:51:59 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Collins, Audrey B.

Born 1945 in Chester, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1994, to a seat vacated by Robert C. Bonner; Confirmed by the Senate on May 6, 1994, and received commission on May 9, 1994.

Education:
Howard University, B.A., 1967

American University, M.A., 1969

University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D., 1977

Professional Career:
Assistant attorney, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, California, 1977
Deputy district attorney, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, California, 1978-1994
Head deputy, Torrance Branch Office, 1987-1988
Assistant director, Bureaus of Central and Special Operations, 1988-1992
Assistant district attorney, 1992-1994
Deputy general counsel, Office of the Special Advisor to the L.A.P.D. Board of Commissioners, California, 1992

Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Female


5 posted on 11/29/2006 3:53:43 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Terror Strikes Down Part Of Anti-Law Judge

This is the headline I'd like to see...

6 posted on 11/29/2006 3:57:10 AM PST by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale


7 posted on 11/29/2006 4:07:05 AM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

"I doubt her ruling will stand up on appeal, but it is really annoying and makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration at these idiots."

I`m not sure, but I think the appealing court may be the 9th Circuit.


8 posted on 11/29/2006 4:12:42 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Thanks I looked and could not find a bio on the district site. As expected how ever.


9 posted on 11/29/2006 4:13:35 AM PST by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doodad

She sounds like a Maxine Waters.


10 posted on 11/29/2006 4:15:16 AM PST by TommyDale (Iran President Ahmadinejad is shorter than Tom Daschle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

This is not her first ruling on these lines either.


11 posted on 11/29/2006 4:15:54 AM PST by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Correct, but afterward, it will end up in the Supreme Court, where (hopefully) some semblance of common sense will prevail from Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and perhaps one or two of the libs there.


12 posted on 11/29/2006 4:18:14 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

"Well, ol' Audrey apparently wants more terrorists to get into the country . . . "

My thoughts exactly.


13 posted on 11/29/2006 4:30:00 AM PST by Old Grumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Exactly - isn't it amazing how many Cinton-appointed judges have been in the news in the last several years with ultra-liberal decisions that undermine both our security and the Constitution.

The Clinton Legacy lives on.


14 posted on 11/29/2006 5:01:16 AM PST by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The 9th Circuit Court strikes again. This means the decision stands less than a 20% chance of standing.


15 posted on 11/29/2006 5:42:19 AM PST by Jeff Gordon (History convinces me that bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
If we didn't need a Patriot Act to defend ourselves against communist terrorist nuclear suitcases when we knew they had hundreds of them, then why do we need it for protection against Islamic nut cases who as far as we know have none.

I guess the American people have become timid and more fearful then they were in the cold war. They so easily buy into the fear peddled by those who see the Constitution and Bill of Rights as something to "get around." What powers we were so quick to give the Executive under Bush will be there in the law just waiting for an Chief Executive to use against its domestic enemies...enemies like the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Americans usually do not buy into fear mongering and in the past our leaders like Reagan and JFK spoke of courage under the threat of thousands of communist nuclear weapons.

LOL at the new feminized American Male.

Bunch of p*s*ies.

16 posted on 11/29/2006 5:59:38 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Well, ol' Audrey apparently wants more terrorists to get into the country and then kill thousands of more people so that we can all be "victims" again and feel good about it.

Bush Seeks to Ease Visa Requirement(I guess W forgot about 9/11!)

Case in point...people are buying into a false bill of goods. The Patriot Act is about control of American citizens...not about protecting against foreign terrorists. Wake up people. Supporting an albatross like the USA PA is a stain on the honor and sacrifice of generations of Americans who fought and died to defend the American values of freedom.

17 posted on 11/29/2006 6:38:18 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Grumpy

These terrorist enablers should be made aware that the American people will hold them personably accountable for their actions if and when American is attacked again, and no amount of ACLU lawyers will do much good in protecting their sorry butts.


18 posted on 11/29/2006 7:49:01 AM PST by newcthem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
I doubt her ruling will stand up on appeal, but it is really annoying and makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration at these idiots.

It won't be appealed because Bush didn't lose. If anyone appeals, it will be the plaintiffs.

Here's the deal. The Executive Order at issue concerns designating or listing various terrorists and terrorist groups for purposes of sanctions or asset seizures and whatnot. When Bush signed the E.O., he kick-started the list himself via an annex to the E.O. That annex listed 27 persons or groups: Al Qaida, Osama, al-Zawahiri, Abu Sayyaf, etc.--all totally obvious without-a-doubt terrorists.

Since the E.O. was signed, about 350 more names have been added to the list based on determinations by the Sec. of State, the Sec. of the Treasury, and the A.G. Those 350 designations were all authorized by the E.O. and based on particular criteria mentioned in the E.O. Bush himself hasn't put any names on the list since his original 27 in the E.O. annex.

What the judge is saying is that Bush selected those first 27 names without any findings or explanation of the criteria used to make the selection and without giving the designees any opportunity to challenge being listed. That *manner* in which the original 27 were listed is what the judge says is unconstitutional, the reasoning being that some innocent group or person could theoretically be put on the list and the President wouldn't even have to justify the designation. Essentially the judge is telling Bush he can't do something that he hasn't even been doing, at least not in over 5 years. All Bush has to do now is relist the original 27 (using the procedures that have been used for every other designation since the E.O. was signed).

The plaintiffs lost. They wanted the judge to either rewrite the E.O. or throw it out completely. That didn't happen, not by a longshot. The judge rejected the plaintiffs' *main* arguments completely. Bottom line, the groups which the plaintiffs want to aid and abet--the Kurdistan Workers' Party and the Liberation Tigers (or whatever it's called)--were legally designated as terror groups and remain so designated today. Meaning, the plaintiffs *still* can't legally consort with them. They lost. Really. This news article is either deliberate bullspin or just plain ignorance.

Anyway, you can read the decision here: Humanitarian Law Project v US Dept of Treasury.

And here's the E.O. at issue: Executive Order 13224.

19 posted on 11/30/2006 4:41:43 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Hey, thanks for clearing that up. I stand corrected. :)


20 posted on 12/01/2006 6:13:11 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Hitlery picked the judges for hubby and she-queen had only one requirement: Judges must be a baby-killer.

And 'ol Audrey fit the bill!
21 posted on 12/01/2006 6:19:07 AM PST by TRY ONE (NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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