Murphy's Law: Terrorists in the Courtroom

Strategypage ^ | 12/3/06 | Harold C. Hutchison

[Valin]

December 3, 2006: In the United States, a federal judge has ruled that the President does not have the authority to designate certain organizations as terrorist groups. This ruling is the latest round of lawfare against the war on terror. In this case, two foreign terrorist organizations, the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elan (LTTE), were the beneficiaries of this suit. Why is this case, filed on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project, important? After all, a number of human rights groups have still been waging lawfare, largely on behalf of al Qaeda. This suit is different because it is a sign that additional lawfare is on the way – and its scope is expanding to include more terrorists of all stripes.

Increasingly, opponents of the war on terror – or merely certain courses of action in the war on terror – are relying on lawsuits to overturn Presidential decisions. The most notable of these cases were those involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay – many of whom were captured in the course of military operations in Afghanistan. This recent suit expands the number of terrorist groups that benefit from this phenomenon. The Kurdistan Worker's Party, known by its Kurdish initials (PKK), is a separatist group that has carried out operations against Turkey in an effort to get an independent Kurdistan. They have gone by a number of other names, including KADEK, and Kongra-Gel. The Treasury Department has been trying to freeze this organizations assets. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elan (LTTE) are one of the more notorious terrorist organizations not associated with radical Islam. The Tamil Tigers have been known to kidnap children and use them as soldiers, as well as for suicide attacks. A major source of LTTE financing is fund raising among expatriate Tamils in Europe and North America. Often, the money is obtained by what amounts to extortion and threats of force.

This lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the same organization that has filed the suits involving detainees, military tribunals, and which has asked Germany to open a war crimes investigation of American officials over both Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. This organization supported Lynne Stewart, the attorney convicted of aiding an Egyptian cleric who was convicted of planning attacks. It also has called for the impeachment of President Bush.

The object of the suit was to allow another organization to support "non-terrorism" projects of both organizations. These efforts usually included schools, hospitals, and other social services. Hamas and Hezbollah are two other groups that have used this approach to gain a degree of popularity among people in their area. Donations to these "non-terrorism" efforts, though, have the effect of freeing up funds for carrying out terrorist attacks, buying weapons and explosives, or training new terrorists. This is why their assets are often frozen.

It also has the effect of giving terrorist groups a chance to contest their designations. This would arguably require some sort of hearing, in which evidence would be presented. Naturally, those groups threatened with a terrorist designation, would be given the chance to rebut it. The presentation of the evidence is a potential recipe for disaster, since it could tell these groups a lot about how information is gathered – and who provides it. Once the informants have been identified, the terrorists can kill them, or intimidate them into silence.

While the ruling is being appealed, one thing for sure – terrorists of all flavors seem to have friends at the Center for Constitutional Rights. As for the constitutional rights of the potential victims of terrorists, that is being left up to the courts. – Harold C. Hutchison

[muawiyah]

Courts of law are not to be trusted during time of war. Some judges are clearly enemy agents.

It is up to the Commander in Chief to round them up.

"W" should have acted long ago.

[newfreep]

I agree 110%; however, we no longer can count on bush to defend America from illegal invaders and terrorists. Sigh.

[300winmag]

December 3, 2006: In the United States, a federal judge has ruled that the President does not have the authority to designate certain organizations as terrorist groups.

So who does? The judge? How did he come to that conclusion?

Judges, of all people, should know that they do not have legislative, executive, or military functions. But not the judicial elite, who happen to be liberals. Their interpretation is that everything is subject to their unlimited powers, which come from their lifetime appointments from RAT presidents.

[Valin]

What should he have done?