Court Rules On Aiding Terrorist Groups (Bush Loses!)

[Khephra]

Court Rules On Aiding Terrorist Groups
Knowledge of Activity Must Be Proved For Conviction
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A12


A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the government cannot convict groups or individuals of violating a federal law against "material support" for terrorist organizations unless it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew the organizations were involved in terrorist activity.

The 2 to 1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit would make it more difficult for the government to win guilty pleas and jury verdicts under a 1996 statute that federal authorities have recently invoked to convict some U.S. citizens of aiding al Qaeda.

more..........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33176-2003Dec3.html

[Melinda]

1. Well, we all know how this will play out.......

Appeal for full panel review and if upheld, it's off to SCOTUS.
Let's savor while we can.

*On edit - nice to *see* you again kephra... missed your eye. :)

[truthisfreedom]

2. i don't think anything is going to make it past SCOTUS. i have a funny

feeling about SCOTUS... i think they feel REAL bad about putting bushco in charge of the country. i think they see this as real trouble for the validity of the Court in the long run, and they are doing everything now to preserve what's left of the Court and the Constitution.

i think if they could take back the decision about bush, they would.

[Melinda]

4. From your lips to God's ear!

Let it be so!!

[Khephra]

3. Nice to "see" you too!

It seems a lot of people missed my "eye".

:hi:

[Melinda]

5. Funny thing about your eye, kheph....

You and that eye were here when I joined DU 2+ years ago. It's almost symbolic, it feels representational (to me) of all that DU used to be... so I'm glad you brought your icon back, and I'm sure it brings back good memories for many of us... and thanks for that - its almost as good as a :hug:

[The Stranger]

6. Arch-Bigot Ashcroft has been up all night thinking about this . . .

. . . and I had anticipated this in a previous post. They are trying to preempt any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and make its consideration of the case moot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/national/04DETA.html?hp

Sudden Shift on Detainee

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — When the Pentagon said this week that it would let an American being held as an enemy combatant meet a lawyer, which it had refused to do for months, it appeared on the surface to be a major concession to the critics of the policy of detaining terrorism suspects.

snip

"They are trying to change at least the perception of unfairness that existed and show that they are giving this U.S. citizen some kind of rights," Pamela S. Falk, a professor of international law at the City University of New York, said. "This is clearly an attempt to defuse some of the reasonable fear among the public that the government was seeking extraordinary new powers to detain citizens in the war against terrorism."

. . . .


Nonetheless, the permission may help the government's case in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case involves not only the issue of whether an enemy combatant may consult with a lawyer, but also whether the combatant may be detained solely on the assertion of the president and the executive branch with no recourse to judicial review.