THE BLUEST COURT HANDS BUSH A VICTORY
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–yes, that one–gave President Bush an important win in the War on Terror today by reinstating indictments against seven defendants accused of raising money for a terror organization with links to ousted Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. USA Today reports:
In a victory for the Bush administration’s war on terror, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Los Angeles federal judge who declared the 1996 terror financing law unconstitutional. The law makes it illegal to funnel money — “material support” — to organizations the State Department says are linked to terrorism, about 30 groups in all. Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government rarely used the terror law. The administration has since used it to win dozens of terror convictions nationwide, from Lackawanna, N.Y., to Seattle and Portland, Ore…
…The case stems from a 2001 indictment against the seven Los Angeles defendants for allegedly providing several hundred thousand dollars to the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which the appeals court said “participated in various terrorist activities against the Iranian regime” and “carried out terrorist activities with the support” of Saddam’s regime. U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi invalidated the law, saying it did not provide the groups a proper forum to contest their terror designations. His ruling had no immediate effect beyond the Los Angeles case.
On Monday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court overruled the judge — and went a step further, saying individuals accused of supporting the listed groups cannot challenge whether the groups should be listed.
The government, the court said, must prove only “that a particular organization was designated at the time the material support was given, not whether the government made a correct designation.”
Liberals had little problem with the material support provisions–signed into law by former President Clinton–until President Bush actually started to use them in wartime. Since 9/11, civil liberties absolutists and human rights activists have sought to sabotage the statute in the name of terrorist free speech.
It’s nice to see at least three jurists in blue America who have woken up to post-Sept. 11 reality.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bill Clinton asked to help shore up one of those super PACs Dems don’t believe should exist
April 22, 2012 03:30 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsProposal Would Re-Name Airport After Bill and Hillary
March 19, 2012 03:14 PM by Doug Powers
110 CommentsBill Clinton: Presidents Should Be Able to Serve More Than 2 Terms
November 8, 2011 04:31 PM by Doug Powers
40 CommentsBill Clinton: How Giving Me a Little Credit for a Couple of Things?
October 1, 2011 12:16 PM by Doug Powers
65 Comments‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Says… Bill Clinton?
March 12, 2011 03:18 PM by Doug Powers
102 CommentsBill Clinton and George HW Bush Chair New ‘National Institute for Civil Discourse’
February 21, 2011 03:32 PM by Doug Powers
206 CommentsMSNBC’s ‘President of the World’
February 3, 2011 09:30 AM by Doug Powers
54 CommentsClinton Takes Charge; Obama Takes a Powder — Update: Clinton Stance on ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ Changed From 2004
December 10, 2010 10:19 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments‘And the Host Country for the 2022 World Cup Will Be…’; Update: Obama Says ‘Wrong Decision’
December 2, 2010 01:20 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
Categories: Bill Clinton

Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's dilemma


Twitchy
» Politico: since we know everything about Obama, how ’bout we vet this random guy in a Romney ad?


Hot Air
» Hot Air interview with Mitt Romney










See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.