A federal judge barred the Bush administration from specifying organizations that support terrorism for the purpose of freezing their assets and keeping funds from terrorists. US District Court Judge Audrey Collins blocked the administration from freezing the assets of the PKK and the Tamil Tigers, two rather obvious terrorist groups:
A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.
The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."
The case 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 Kurds in Turkey.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups.
The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.
The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.
Collins, a Clinton appointee, gained notoriety two years ago when she became the first federal judge to strike down provisions of the Patriot Act. Interestingly, she found that act, passed by Congress, also to be too vague to be constitutional. In that case, one of the plaintiffs was -- the PKK again, which got its terrorist designation not from the Bush administration under the Patriot Act or this executive order, but by Madeline Albright's State Department in 1997.
Nor was that the first time Collins has had a problem with anti-terrorist legislation. During the Clinton administration, she struck down the 1996 anti-terrorism law passed by Congress in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Collins seems to have trouble reading the law, finding all counterterrorism legislation too vague to be understood. Perhaps the problem lies with Collins more than the laws themselves.
John Stephenson wrote about this ruling at Collins' cheerleaders earlier today:
I should really just stop right there. The ruling is praised by a lawyer for terrorist sympathizing, Center For Constitutional Rights! The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR. The granddaughter of the executed Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg works there! At its 2004 annual convention, the CCR honored attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism, indicted by the Justice Department for abetting the terrorist activities of her client, the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman.
A lawyer from this organization praising this decision says just about all we need to know about the ruling.
As the song says, you can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses. This pig needs to get up and quickly run to the Court of Appeals, where we can hope for a few jurists who don't have terrorists' interests at heart.
#1
..Y'know, if I hear 'McCarthyism' one more freaking time, I'm going to get seriously bent.
1. There WERE no blacklists created by the government - they were created and ENFORCED by the industry and academic leaders who were every bit as lefty as the people blacklisted, but had no inetntion of going down with their more outspoken friends.
2. Those same people (for reasons listed above) never spoke up, never publicly fought back. They waited for Edward R. Murrow to stick HIS neck out and pull off the first real counterattack against McCarthy, followed by McCarthy's public humiliation at the Army hearings - then and only then, once he was defanged, did those brave souls come out and start the legend of the resistance.
3. Last of all - and you'll NEVER hear this brought up - McCarthy wasn't that far off the mark. Soviet and KGB archives (detailed in Sword and Shield and The Haunted Tree ) document beyond any possible doubt that the State Department was riddled with Soviet spies - not sympathisers, not fellow travelers, but SPIES - at mid and higher levels. Haunted Tree is especially forward on this, and it's all the more powerful for its scholarly and emotionless examination and detail. I urge anyone interested in the subject to read it, especially the chapters concerning Alger Hiss. Had he not been exposed through his own arrogance, he would have stood a very good chance of becoming SecState in a Stevenson or Kennedy/Johnson administration.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/29/2006 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
This judge has apparently never heard of the role COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
And this stupid bitch has not realized there is a WAR on. I think she needs a trip to Baghdad to wake her ass up. Or maybe wintess the hangings in IRan, or the mass death in Darfur to wake her ass up.
#4
Send her ass to see for her self the Tamil Tigers or the PKK, don't send security, they are not terrorists. She will come back a changed woman, if she comes back at all.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/29/2006 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I agree with Mike & have read the 2 books he cites. I think their story is quite relevant in the current WOT. Every Rantburger should read these, for the background information on the US track record with respect to espionage and infiltration of our own diplomatic and defense organizations. We're still hopelessly naive: Richard Feynmann told about innocently lending his car to Klaus Fuchs. Fuchs drove from Los Alamos to Santa Fe or Albuquerque to meet his Soviet contact during the Manhattan project.
--- Nowadays, McCarthy is used as a bogeyman, a rhetorical device, to divert the electorate's attention.
#2
Austin Bay's take: Iraqs War of Perception: Who is Jamil Hussein? I contacted CENTCOMs Baghdad press office and received an email confirming that Hussein is not a policeman nor does he work for Iraqs Ministry of the Interior (MOI).
Posted by: ed ||
11/29/2006 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OK, so they are operating as an unhchecked outlet for enemy propaganda. Just don't question their patriotism! And remember that facts - or the lack thereof - do not detract from the truthiness of The Narrative.
This is for Atomic Conspiracy, lol. If he sees it, he'll do justice to ripping the underlying insanity to shreds. What strikes me, beyond he fact that nothing factual is actually presented to support the notion, is that this Loonie's "case" is composed exclusively of media bullshit and spin... as if that "proves" something - other than how shallow and banal the demented can be.
And it supports my theory that for leftists like the author of that groaning load, their emotional alienation is primary and all of their political philosopy is merely an intellectual rationalization for being a smacked ass.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/29/2006 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Even a cursory reading of the comments section is shining, vivid proof that in our post-postmodern era rational human adults cannot afford to trust anyone whose politics are left of center even once, ever, because if you do you face oblivion at the hands of the likes of these.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/29/2006 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Fascist takeover of AmeriKKKa? Do I need new jackboots for this?
#5
Same old commie shit. What a whiner - he sounds just like my 4-year old. All that's missing is sticking out his tongue.
(Note that he says slavery was BS, but later that the founders tried to leave us a great country - like they had nothing to do with that.)
#9
Just read and viewed the Kos Kiddie Meltdown. I've seen the same critique coming from high school sophmores. Strike that. I've seen the same critque only done better because it was accompanied by music from the late 60's and early 70's. Such a feature might burn more bandwidth but we'd really appreciate in context how much the old leftie wants to return to his glory days.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/29/2006 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"One Pissed Off Liberal" must have been changing meds this week. It's a bitch when one of them is wearing off, the other one hasn't kicked in yet, and you're fresh outta booze to take the edge off.
I'm surprised he missed so much, though. I mean, the Spanish-American war, Millard Fillmore, the interstate highway system, the Academy Awards hosts for the past ten years, the Space Shuttle, the Camp Fire girls, the Yellow Pages, the Village People, Jimmy Carter....all bullshit.
(I'm not joking about Carter, though. He's bullshit personified.)
#14
Having now read the site I'd like to take my previous comment back. That was simply a vapid little bit that I've heard over and over again. Embarrassingly pathetic.
#15
This is one pissed off guy. He probably thinks the Civil War and the Gulf of Tonkin, Global Warming, killer asteroids, ya da ya da ya da. Up the meds. Probably doesn't like Christmas either. I say to him, check out the picture you posted of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan.
#17
Best pic I saw on the leftie punk's website was Prince Bandar giving the television crowd the bird. Perfect on so many levels. That's got to be a keeper for the library.
The pic of the young lady in #6 provided by .com could be used as a replacemnet for Grace from the rangerup.com blogad. What happened to Grace?
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/29/2006 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
.com's posting was O.K. but not close to Grace. What did happen to Grace. Grace has class and elan. The lady above is just kind of petulant and pouty and conveys a "screw you" kind of attitude.
#21
Knock it all we want, but we just lost an election to these people. It would be better to understand just what voters found accurate or appealing about these sentiments.
#22
John Q: your assessment of Grace is correct. I was wrong to use the word "replacement". Grace can't be replaced, merely "substituted for..."
Anyway, does anyone know what did happen to rangerup.com? Have they run out of funds for blogads? Word at Instapundit is they're giving away tons of money in Washington to promote abstinence for young adults ages 20-29. Perhaps someone needs to apply to DC for a grant? Grace could be the poster child for abstinence. Mmmmmm...
Yeah, that'll work.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/29/2006 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I'm confused. Was that guy serious, or is he a parody?
/It's getting so hard to tell these days
Al
Posted by: frozen Al ||
11/29/2006 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Regarding another civil war in America. I haven't read Card's novel but speaking from behind the lines in a Blue State I think strong feelings of wrongdoing are not enough for the moonbats to convince the rest of the Blue staters that suicide is a good option.
If these people hate what America is or what they believe it is and what they think it has become, why the hell don't they move somewhere, anywhere else?
I mean honestly, if you really hate it that much ither do something about it or get the fuck out already!
With a host of promised congressional investigations on Iraq, intelligence and homeland security, it's worth noting the relative Democratic silence on espionage by Communist China. The latter's spying successes on the Bush administration's watch are indisputable. Will Democrats pursue this evident national-security threat as aggressively as headline-grabbers like Iraq? Color us skeptical.
The latest news is the apparent compromise of highly classified stealth technology used on B-2 bomber engines. As Bill Gertz of The Washington Times reported Thanksgiving Day, federal authorities accuse former defense contractor Noshir S. Gowadia, an Indian-born American citizen, of passing highly classified stealth technology to China for at least $110,000 and possibly as much as $2 million as he traveled secretly to China six times over the period 2002-2005. A Hawaii resident, he also allegedly helped China modify cruise missiles to intercept U.S. air-to-air missiles, helped the Communist government make other technical improvements to other systems and exposed secret and top-secret information pertaining to U.S. stealth technology by e-mail to recipients in Israel, Germany and Switzerland. The first offense allegedly occurring in a lecture attended by foreign nationals of as many as eight countries in 1999.
Mr. Gowadia, who pleads innocent, says he "wanted to help these countries further their self aircraft protection systems" and drum up customers for future business. If federal authorities are right, the Chinese have scored a huge success on a key U.S. weapons system thanks to the efforts of a single businessman and his alleged conspirators, at least one of whom is employed overtly by the Chinese government.
This follows a string of espionage scores by Communist China over the last several years. Earlier this year, two Chinese-born brothers were arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly passing along Navy warship and submarine weapons secrets. Then there was the shocking case of Los Angeles businesswoman and triple agent Katrina Leung, who turned out to be the purveyor of secret details of highly sensitive U.S. intelligence operations against China. She had been sexually involved with two of the FBI's most senior counterintelligence officers. The long march of Chinese espionage undergirds that country's long-term effort to maximize its military power and become Asia's regional hegemon.
The biggest scandal, as Mr. Gertz writes in "Enemies: How America's Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets -- And How We Let It Happen," is that "U.S. officials still have done almost nothing to correct the ineptness and poor leadership that have brought us two decades of spy scandals." Mr. Gertz contends that in the five years since September 11, government agencies have actually made counterintelligence less of a priority -- a fact which cries out for national-security investigation.
Of course, Chinese espionage simmers whereas Iraq lights up debate and grabs headlines. Thus, and for no reason pertaining to its actual dangers, Chinese espionage is likely to be overlooked by the incoming Democratic congressional leadership.
Against Iran.
In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.
One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.
Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.
Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.
Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.
What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.
There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.
In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.
To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.
#1
Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.
And Saddam and his boys would have brought an end to sanctions, taken Oil-for-Food public, and be rivaling the Saudis in pumping cash to jihadis .
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/29/2006 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I still like that crazy idea of allowing Sadam to conquer Saudi Arabia as long as he was nice to the Kurds and kept a lid on the fundamentalists.
This whole article hinges on the questionable comment that Iraq is on the brink of civil war and distintegration. Considering a bunch of the stories that created that impression were invented by an AP stringer I'm not sure the arguements hold water anymore.
#3
r: This whole article hinges on the questionable comment that Iraq is on the brink of civil war and distintegration.
You may want to actually read the article. It hinges on the indubitable premise that the Democrats want to leave Iraq and were previously able to extract defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. They can do it again in Iraq. The Saudis would much prefer Uncle Sam to stay in Iraq, since this will both protect the Iraqi Sunnis and prevent Iraq from becoming a threat to Saudi Arabia, much as the Allied occupation of Germany kept Germany down as a military power for over 50 years. If Uncle Sam will not attend to some of Saudi Arabia's interests in Iraq, the Saudis will make the best they can of the situation on the ground.
What's the bottom line for Uncle Sam? Can't really say. But the irony is that a departure could actually mean *lower oil prices*, as the Saudis try to lower the boom on the Iranian economy. The Saudis know the Iraqi Shiites are in no position to overrun Saudi Arabia, and that Iran understands Uncle Sam would not stand for an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia. So the oil weapon isn't an idle threat.
#5
Still, it's an interesting variable in the Democratic equation for defeat.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/29/2006 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The President took one occasion last Fall to mention the Ayatollah's threat to future generations. The fact that he only said that once - in context of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive war - causes me to believe that a move against Iran will be made. Then there is the increase of US troops in the Iraq theater.
An invasion of Iran is unworkable without destruction of their entire government structure. That won't be done in Winter. When Iran falls, so will: Hezbollah, al-Sadrites, Syrian Shiites. Then Sunnis will turn on each other.
#7
I don't see the Saudi's as capable of significant increases in oil output. If they have threatened the US, it would be with a cutback of oil production, which they are quite capable of doing,and which would hurt the US and world economy to the degree of the cutback. The US population eats and heats with imported oil, and makes turns this oil into its cash income one way or another.
We are, as the saying goes, between Iraq and a hard place. Unfortunately, events this week seem likely to drive us inexorably closer to the hard place one that is going to be a lot worse than what we have seen in Iraq so far.
These events include a two-day trip to the woodshed in Amman, Jordan with President Bush for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. They will be considering ways in which al-Maliki can prevent the collapse of his government and his countrys slide into full-scale civil war. Presumably, the two leaders will be factoring in the results of Vice President Cheneys three-hour visit to Riyadh to appeal to the Saudi king, Abdullah, for help with Iraq.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani will be meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran to discuss bilateral relations. Presumably, among the topics for discussion will be the success Irans regime is having in its efforts to destroy a Free Iraq.
Finally, there will be two days of deliberations by the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. This panel, which was commissioned by Congress to examine alternatives to the present approach in Iraq, is reportedly considering a proposed report drafted largely at Mr. Bakers direction.
What all these events have in common is the notion that the solution to Iraq lies in a regional approach. The leitmotif is that U.S. unilateralism is dead, long live multilateralism. A chastened America will be brought to its senses by the collective wisdom of Jim Baker, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kings Abdullah of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
#1
Years ago > Saving The Dems, Lefties, Euros, Socialists, Commies, Enviros, + Radical Muslims, etc. .....................@ from themselves, THUS OUR GLORIOUS REWARD. WE'RE THE FIRST ONES THAT HAS TO CONCEDE, SURRENDER ANDOR DIE.
#2
The problem is this simple: if the US moves out, the Ayatollahs move in. We have to play the Sunni Card while we can, but we can't do it by remote control.
#3
Ain't gonna happen. Not much gonna happen. The groupthink is limited to groups that have no decision-making power. Check out Bush's speech in Riga today. Same as before. I say it's 50/50 that there isn't even a pro forma head-fake at a sham conference - but it's more like 99/1 that nothing substantive will change.
Meanwhile, the "no worse enemy" part of the Marine formula has long since been discarded by our forces in Iraq. If you're AQ, you're in trouble. If you are the far more important quiet collaborator with AQ - can we dig you a well? do you have a job? did we offend you?
Seems unlikely the "commission" will have even a single sentence worth reading, as they'll of course not go anywhere near the subject of how to actually fight in Iraq.
#5
The State of the Union address will turn into a repudiation of the ISG Surrender Dorothy Iraq strategy and a put up or shut up challenge to Pelosi & Co.
Bush's strategy is to time his public statements carefully, not to try to flood the zone every week. Remember Roosevelt made only 30 Fireside Chats in 12 years as president. That's less than 3 per year. Bush spent a lot of public statement chips leading up to the election. Speaking out now would do no good. So he's letting the other side have its head for a while. Then he will deflate them all in one night from the bulliest pulpit of them all.
#8
When people that care (patriots)don't have the power to do anything other than verbally spout off, it's all over...
Put your heads between your legs and kiss yur asses "Goodbye!
Political interests have the Country hog-tied. Thanks to the Pols; were fucked! Please advise. a DOD rantburger drone.
Posted by: as ||
11/29/2006 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Is Baker still a registered agent of the Saudis?
Hard to say. I'm a little bleery-eyed: searching through Google brought me page after page of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory links and similar Left and Lefter claptrap.
I finally found the FARA page of the DOJ, but the latest semiannual report I could find was for the first half of 2005.
How long is the registration good for? Or is it one of those things that once you have it, you have it until you explicitly de-register?
#10
Take a deep breath, as. Enough of those here who are (or aren't) talking are in places where they can do what's necessary, as well. It'll be ok, I promise. ;-) You just make sure your bit goes as it ought, too, 'k? Remember, President Bush long ago promised that this would be a long war, and most of it would take place in the shadows out of our sight... even out of yours. But historically the covert stuff hasn't changed all that much regardless which party was in power, and when it's all over we'll sit down for a nice cup of tea and exchange those tales that can be told. I intend to find it all fascinating, and I'll even make the scones that BA is so very fond of.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
