Well, I guess the [groups who may have committed acts of violence and fear against the United States] have already won.

I think this differentiation is an important civil liberties issue. There are many people trying to further their agendas by labeling other groups as "terrorist", at least in rhetoric. With the passage of the USA POLICE STATE, errrrr, PATRIOT ACT the door has been opened to invetigate organizations based upon a very vague definition of terrorism. Its about time the judiciary has stepped up to bat to rein in some of the more onerous provisions of this abomination.

And Bill O`Reilly can just slob my knob.

I was just stating the obvious, that people will put others they don't approve of into a group, instead of just saying 'you suck'. I think that is what GreenBlood was after.

Good one, puckhead. For shame, I hadn't even thought of that one.

Hayduke: Thanks for saying what I was thinking!

See? That's the upshot of that Pledge controversy; the intent is to condition the public so calling anything unconstitutional, ANYTHING, will be a laughingstock. It's creeping up on us, beware!

If you read the damn article, you'll see it's not calling someone a terrorist that is wrong, it's doing it to people who you haven't shown to BE terrorists. Yes the groups in question are but if you let the govenrment just run around declaring whoever they want terrorists without showing some sort of proof than who's to say some otehr minority group wont be next?

Do you honestly trust the government to not be asscracks and run rampant with their power? Before you answer look back through history at just how honest the government is.

How is this any different from calling someone a "murderer" if they haven't been convicted of actually killing someone?

On the other hand, I'd be interested in knowing if they consider PETA a terrorist group.

I think the State Department usually has a damn good reason to label certain groups as terrorist groups, and I don't see why this red tape is necassary. Do we need to issue a court summons for Osama Bin Laden and let him defend his organization in court? Fark it, if this ruling goes into effect, I hope every single one of those organizations that support terrorists are convicted in absentia. That's what we did with Osama Bin Ladin, although sometimes I long for the good old days of a vigilante lynch mob like those boys that tore up Joseph Smith.

Course thats not due process, not even legal, and would probably do more harm than good, but I can have my fantasies, can't I?

the judge is right. All terrorists should not be called terrorists, they should only be called ONE thing. DEAD ! Let's get it right from now on. The police should have an ACCIDENT when they pick up any "terrorist", and run over his/her head a few times with a garbage truck until we can call them as correct and proper... DEAD

ElwoodCuse, PETA is only a terrorist organization if you don't agree with them. Just like Greenpeace, or jocks, or Libertarians.

I don't care, but when groups get treated different based on an arbitrary label, (I am not saying all labels), it sucks. Like certain religious exclusions, like tax breaks.

This isn't about political correctness, it's about denying rights based on mere suspicion.

I have the same fantasy at times, Bbcrackmonkey.

This judge has seen fit to restrict my right to free speech, as allowed under Amendment I. As a result, I feel very threatened by him.

Doesn't that make him fit the criteria for being a terrorist? And if so, I am within my rights to label him as such, correct?

PhaetonGrim Hayduke: Thanks for saying what I was thinking!

Which part? About O'Reilly slobbing knob?

Kjack: Especially Fox, because they're run by a darn dirty foreign national! Rupert Murdoch, bloody australian!

How is this any different from calling someone a "murderer" if they haven't been convicted of actually killing someone?

Because you don't freeze/seize the assets of someone you've called a murderer. OJ, for example, can still raise money for the charities of his choice.

Bbcrackmonkey: The rules are put in place to protect us from when the government doesn't have a good reason. What? The government might be wrong? They might have ulterior motives? Groups might be put on the list, or kept off for political reasons (Sinn Fein, IRA, anyone)? Say it isn't so!

Hayduke: Err, no....

Bill O'Reilly is a doody-head.

... farking terrorist judges ...



oops

There are a lot of people on here who must have failed their SAT reading proficiency test (if they've gotten that far). It doesn't say that Al Qaeda can't be called a terrorist organization. It says that the government can't go around calling every organization with turbin wearing members a terrorist organization, at least not without backing it up. BIG difference!

Silly Doc_Nice, thinkin' people read the articles...

Medfly--

"O'Really" ain't a spinnin' fast enough!

Hogans: Are people reading the article? Or just the headline. The state department can't designate an organization as a terrorist group without due process. That's what he ruled. You can call anyone anything you want. As long as you don't say it in an airport.

This is an utterly boring decision that has to do with bureaucratic protocol and almost nothing else. Move along, kids.. nothing flame-worthy here.

Here I was, just trying to be funny, and Gman69 hurt my feelings and spoiled my fun.



In all honesty, I tried to read the article, but the transcript bored the hell out of me. I shouldn't be forced to think on Fridays.

O'Reilly: Limbaugh on a diet.

Worthless piece of sh!t, I want my air back, scumsucker!!!

So how about using the term "alleged terrorist" or "suspected terrorist" or just "asshat scum"?

People, check you libel laws. If I call someone a "fag" (not to insult any homosexual farkers; just an example) with the intent to discredit him, ruin his reputation, and have no credible proof that he is a homosexual, then I'll have my day in court fighting off a massive lawsuit (emotion damages, lost income, blah blah blah).

Same with the government. Unless they have credible evidence that the groups that they are labeling as terrorists are actually terrorists, then it's libel and those groups should sue. Especially when the government has shown that it is willing to unilaterally strip away the rights of US citizens that are thought to be terrorists --> "enemy combatant".

Suck my left nut, A$$croft.

Gman69
You bring up a good point. However, the state department (or other governmental entities) isn't just some guy on the street. It is an official organization with official communications, not just some guy talking to his buddies on the street. Therefore, you still run into the questions of libel and slander. Although that's not what this article was addressing, it's still a point of contention, or will be if the government continues.

I, for one, want the federal government to be completely in control. I would also prefer that no one question their motives or methods. I will do as they say, and believe what they say. That's how the framers of the Constitution envisioned it, right?

The sentiment behind this ruling is completely reasonable. If you run a business or a charity that the government doesn't particularly like, it can be branded as a terrorist organization without any sort of due process. There should be a mitigating factor in the ruling which says that if the organization has declared responsibility for an act of terrorism, then it automatically voids any sort of hearing. The criteria being used now is not transparent, and that hurts everyone.

Ya know, they ought to consider making HTML unconstitutional with all the labels and tags in there. And come to think of it, supermarkets and shoping malls- all those labels! Not to mention envelopes and stuff. Plus, those damn things you have to wear when you go to a reunion or convention. DAMN labels!

Although I think there is a due process requirement when the state department calls a group a terrorist organization, I think they've met there burden and so the judge is incorrect in his ruling.

All of the designations are subject to judicial review, meaning if State calls your group a terrorist supporter, you simply take them to court to have your name removed.

Anyway, I think it'll be overturned on appeal, but I can't do a great job explaining it, because it's Friday.

Here's a list of the organizations that were so designated as of October, 2001.

Ok people, look beyond the Fox spin to the story and actually do some thinking for yourself.

In the Unresolved Problems segment tonight, the Justice Department has labeled some fundraising groups in the United States as terrorist enablers because they funnel money to organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

But now, U.S. Judge Robert Tagasugi (ph) has ruled that the designation "terrorist group" is unconstitutional without the group being able to reply.

If you actually look at what the ruling does, you would realize it isn't about terrorist groups. It's about all these organizations that had their assests seized without any trial, right to appeal, or any real evidence presented against them because the government believed that they were supporting terrorists. I remember a story on NPR about how one of these companies was begging the US to allow them to present their accounting records and appeal the decision. The US refused to even consider the matter.

We've got an executive branch which is out of control right now. They want to be able to act without any accountability or questions to their actions. All it's going to take is for them to decide to "widen" the definition of terrorist and we're all going to be screwed.

Actually, I would argue that Farkers who post images of disgusting naked fatties are terrorists. I feel mighty frightened when I see those images, and they HAVE to be taking away one or more of my civil liberties. Check the Constitution or Bible or something; I'm sure it says in there that posting naked fatties is unconstitutional.

Right??

I don't like it when people ABUSE the word "Terrorism," like Iraq saying "The U.S. uses state terrorism, waaah waah waaaaaahh..." but this is just funny. ;)

"This judge has seen fit to restrict my right to free speech, as allowed under Amendment I. As a result, I feel very threatened by him."

Grow up and read the article again. It's not restricting your freespeech, you can call people whatever you want. It's the government taht can't classify groups as terrorists without proof.

Caiteach: Gman69's link seems to say otherwise (that groups labeled as "terrorist" are entitled to their day in court).

The 1st amendment is unconstitutional?

Thanks for the link Gman69. Since O'Rielly doesn't provide any information in his rants, we've gotta provide it ourselves...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39362-2002Jul8.html

So is O'Rielly a fool or a loney?

Oh

I posted this in the thread about Rumsfeld complaining about the media, but it was right at the end I don't think anyone saw it.

It's turning into an episode of Babylon 5 down there. Next thing you know, Shrub will declare the formation of the Ministry of Truth and summarily execute Bruce Boxleitner.

Doesn't PETA fund the Earth First! and Animal Liberationn Front type groups that burn down houses and laboratories? Sounds pretty rotten to me.

To that asshat judge: fark you, Your simply a terrorist's biatch.

To Adolf Ashcroft. Your make me ashamed to be a missourian.

Weinerschnitzel
Excellent link. Finally, we're getting to the real story here. Sounds like this is a flaw in the law that needs to be fixed before we can properly prosecute these scumbags. Procedure sucks sometimes. Sometimes it lets off bad people. But without procedures, we might as well be in China or someplace where the police can do anything they want.

Caiteach:

Gman69's right. You can get out of the designation, and I believe that the State Department has to show proof of terrorist activities before designating a group as terorists, so it's not like they can do whatever they want to those they don't like.

The main problem with this ruling is that it applies to foreign and domestic groups alike. Getting people from suspected domestic terrorist groups (either voluntarily or after indictment on legitimate charges of illegal activity) into a courtroom is not a problem. Foreign groups, however, can simply back off and refuse to come to this country's courts. Thus, if the judge had his way, it would be impossible to ever designate them as terrorists.

Here are the major points from Weinerschnitzel's article link:

Takasugi said the law violates foreign organizations' due process rights because it gives them no opportunity to contest their terrorist designation.
...
"Since Hezbollah claims to have no presence in the United States, in our opinion they would have no due process rights to contest the designation" as a terrorist organization, [Federal prosecutor Ken] Bell said.
...
As the law is written, he said, "unless Hezbollah is willing to show up in a U.S. court and challenge its designation, the designation is going to stand."

See, they can challenge the designation in court, and this applies to domestic groups, too; they just have to take the initiative. If they were innocent, they could do it tomorrow. But if you changed the law so that they would have to come to the US in order to be designated in the first place, they'd never do it, because the international laws provide no incentive.

What we have here is a system of designating terrorists where the mantra is, "Innocent until we can show proof that they're most likely guilty." I know this kinda sucks, but "Innocent until proven guilty," as suggested by the judge, doesn't work here, especially when time is of the essence, as in a war situation.

I hereby sentence you to kiss my ass.

Less terrorists, more boobies.

I wonder what the rack on that judge looks like?

I love this quote:

They're not trusting the federal government in the war on terror. They're saying that the federal government is trying to wage this war, it's not constitutional what they're doing, and they're leaving us vulnerable to more attack.

Errr... I didn't think judges were meant to trust governments. They were meant to trust the constitution.

And I'm going to get flamed for this.. but the US is not at war with anyone. The British in Northern Ireland suffered 30 years of attacks from terrorists, and they never called it war. This is a police action - the government calls it war to give themselves excuses for putting the whole country on a war footing (civil liberties out the window) and giving themselves the right to bomb whoever they like. But that's just my opinion, and I'll say it while they still let me.