Judge Rejects a Key Tactic in Terror Cases - NYTimes.com

New York Times by Eric Lichtblau | Aug. 20, 2009 (News Report)

WASHINGTON — In a ruling that threw into doubt one of the government’s main counterterrorism tools, a federal judge said the Treasury Department acted unconstitutionally three years ago when it froze the assets of an Ohio charity suspected of aiding terrorists.

The ruling challenged a key tactic used by the government under an emergency executive order signed by President George W. Bush two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. If upheld, the ... Full Story »

Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Politics, Business
Topics: Terrorism, Bush Administration, Obama Administration, Finance
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Aug 20, 2009 - 9:54 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Samuel W. Velsor IV (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Samuel W. Velsor IV - Aug 20, 2009 - 9:54 PM PDT
Related Comments: Obama Administration (3)

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Samuel W. Velsor IV
4.2
 by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Aug. 20, 2009

What could turn into being a major court item that has started in the lower court the the New York TImes added to its terrorism email alert. Knowing of the little things is why news is important. Thanks for Email Alerts.

At the least this has lit a fuse on the none use of warrants to make seizures by the administrations. Further is that the justice used the specific word unconstitutional.

The ruling was issued late Tuesday by James G. Carr, the chief federal judge in northern Ohio. Judge Carr set a hearing in September to determine how to correct what he ... More »

Samuel posted this story.
See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

not enough reviews
from 1 review (11% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Facts
5.0
Fairness
4.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
5.0
Context
3.0
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
4.8
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
5.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!