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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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