Posted on 07/26/2006 7:02:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES
A federal judge who previously invalidated a portion of the USA Patriot Act as too vague delayed a decision on a similar challenge to a post-Sept. 11 executive order Wednesday but indicated in a tentative ruling she was inclined to uphold wide powers asserted by President Bush under an anti-terror-financing law.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins heard more than an hour of arguments from a lawyer for the Washington- based Center for Constitutional Rights and from a Department of Justice lawyer before delaying her final ruling to allow more briefs to be filed.
In her tentative 41-page ruling, she urged lawyers not to confuse her prior rulings in a related case with the issue now at hand. She said this was the first time that the plaintiffs had directly challenged Executive Order 13224 signed by the president on Sept. 23, 2001, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Center attorney David Cole, representing the Humanitarian Law Project, objected to the section of law that allows the president to designate persons or groups as providing "services" to or being "otherwise associated" with designated terrorist groups. He said it does not require that any reason be given for putting a group or person on the list, freezing their assets and prosecuting them.
"This is saying we're going to give the president a blank check to designate anyone he wants," said Cole. "... He has the power to designate anyone as a global terrorist without finding they're engaged in terrorism or supporting it."
He maintained that thousands of people have been added to the list without explanation by Bush and the U.S. secretary of the treasury.
"You can be designated in a secret process on secret evidence you never see," he said.
Department of Justice Senior Trial Counsel John Tyler argued that the executive order portion of the act has never been used in the manner that Cole suggested.
"It's a hypothetical possibility that it's a law that might be used," he said. "... You have to come forward with fact, not just speculation."
The judge pointed out that when the order was first enacted, Bush designated 27 groups as terrorist organizations.
"Are you saying that did not occur?" asked the judge.
"It did occur," said Tyler, "but Mr. Cole does not represent those 27 entities.... This is not before the court."
Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, said the Humanitarian Law Project seeks to clear the way for U.S. groups and individuals to assist political organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka without subjecting themselves to prosecution or having their assets frozen.
The long-running litigation has centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of the Kurds in Turkey. The plaintiffs say that in the wake of a devastating tsunami, Sri Lanka is in need of assistance.
Both groups have been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.
In 2004, Collins ruled that portions of the Patriot Act were too vague and, even after Congress amended the Patriot Act in 2005, she ruled that the provisions remained too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence and were therefore unconstitutional.
This time, in the tentative ruling, she rejected the vagueness argument saying it was clear what activities were being barred by the executive order.
Tyler argued Wednesday that Cole's group does not have standing to challenge the executive order portion of the law because they have presented no solid facts. And the judge indicated the issue of standing was her greatest concern.
Cole said he had been denied discovery in the case on national security grounds and had been unable to find out facts to support his argument and win standing.
It was on that issue that the judge ordered new legal briefs.
The judge said that the plaintiffs had not proven that the challenged provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act had been enforced despite their being in effect for a substantial period of time
"This fact, coupled with the lack of a specific or even a general threat of prosecution, precludes any credible threat of enforcement," she said in the tentative ruling.
She added, "This should not, however, be taken as an endorsement of the government's view that the court should decline review whenever the president invokes national security."
David Cole is a known far left agitator.
He had his law students turn their back in the classroom when the Attorney General Gonzalez did a presentation there.....
I think it was when Gonzales presented the arguments that the NSA monitoring was legal.
I agree until I pause to think that someday some President may decide that the NRA or the GOA is a terrorist group.
I don't believe the 2nd protects the existence of the NRA or the GOA. These are associations where a persons membership in them might just be 'cause' to be declared as a terrorist.
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.