Skip to comments.Judge Strikes Down Part Of Anti-Terror Law
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 ...
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.
This Clinton appointee needs to be removed. She is personally trying to dismantle the Bush Anti-Terror policy.
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.
Howard University, B.A., 1967
American University, M.A., 1969
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D., 1977
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
This is the headline I'd like to see...
"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.
Thanks I looked and could not find a bio on the district site. As expected how ever.
She sounds like a Maxine Waters.
This is not her first ruling on these lines either.
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.
"Well, ol' Audrey apparently wants more terrorists to get into the country . . . "
My thoughts exactly.
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.
The 9th Circuit Court strikes again. This means the decision stands less than a 20% chance of standing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, thanks for clearing that up. I stand corrected. :)