[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Appeals court strikes down parts of anti-terrorism law 12/12/07 "AP" -- -- SAN FRANCISCOA federal appeals court has struck down portions of a law that makes it a crime to provide "material support or resources" to organizations classified as terrorist by the State Department. Parts of the 1996 anti-terrorism law and its 2004 amendments are unconstitutionally vague, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday. The San Francisco-based panel said that the ban on "material support or resources" to designated terrorists could be used to prosecute those who train members of such groups on how to peacefully resolve ongoing disputes or how to lobby the United Nations for disaster relief. Violations of the law are punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed on behalf of groups and individuals seeking to provide political and financial aid to two groups on the State Department terrorist list: the Kurdish Workers Party in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Shayana Kadidal, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients want to, for instance, train members of both organizations in peaceful conflict resolution and advocacy before the United Nations. Monday's ruling struck down portions of the anti-terrorism law that would outlaw "humanitarian aid of the sort that we would want to encourage," Kadidal said. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the department was reviewing the ruling. A federal judge and the appeals court blocked enforcement of similar portions of the 1996 law in 2003. Congress amended it in 2004 to specify that the ban applied only to those who knew a group was on the terrorist list and provided instruction in specialized skills or knowledge. The appeals court panel said Monday that the law was still too vague. "We find it highly unlikely that a person of ordinary intelligence would know whether, when teaching someone to petition international bodies for tsunami-related aid, one is imparting a 'specific skill' or 'general knowledge,'" Judge Harry Pregerson said in the 3-0 ruling.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|