Enemies of the United States

ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES
"Never hate your enemies. It will cloud your thinking." (Michael Corleon)

The annual report is important, not only as a political document providing insight as to who the US defines as a terrorist, but countries on the list are prohibited from receiving U.S. economic aid and are subject to controls on items that could be used for military or terrorist purposes. Recent reports since 9/11 have been more detailed. Access to all the yearly reports is available at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/. Prior to creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), the State Department relied upon information provided by the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, but now, information comes to the State Department in many ways, including internal methods. The following are some lists regarding key aspects of terrorist counting by these methods.

Three Effects of Designation

Three Criteria for Designation

The classic case regarding validity of designating organizations as terrorists is People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Department of State and Colin Powell (sometimes abbreviated as Organ of Iran v. Powell 2003). The case is so important, the following brief is presented for understanding, as follows:

Organ of Iran v. Powell (327 F.3d 1238, 356 U.S.App.D.C. 101) 2003

     FACTS IN THE CASE
     An Iranian dissident organization (PMOI) petitioned for review of its designation as an FTO ("foreign terrorist organization") under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) on constitutional grounds as well as the fact it was an organization dedicated to overthrowing the same despotic regime in Iran that the US government was opposed to. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the Secretary of State's consideration of classified material in making designation did not violate the due process clause; (2) any due process violation was harmless; and (3) the claim that the organization's actions could not be construed as terrorism because the organization itself was formed to fight other State Department-designated sponsors of terrorism was nonjusticiable. Petition was denied.
     ISSUES IN THE CASE
     1. Did the exercise of the Secretary of State's war and national emergency powers involve any possible due process violations from non-disclosure of classified information and in making a terrorist designation?
     2. Are the Executive Branch powers to determine who is a terrorist and who is a terrorist supporter, and vice-versa, a matter of nonjusticiable foreign policy, open to dispute, and/or subject to adequate judicial review?
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
     The Court noted that this was the third time PMOI attempted to seek review, irrespective of any urgency associated with blocking of funds via enforcement of AEDPA. It was further noted that AEDPA expressly states that the Secretary of State is to consider classified information in making a designation and that such classified information is not subject to disclosure, except to a reviewing court ex parte and in camera per 8 U.S.C. § 1189(a)(3)(B). A designation under the Act persists for two years, and the Secretary may re-designate a foreign organization for succeeding two-year periods, affording plenty of time for discretionary review. In order to be so designated, three findings must be based on the administrative record, that:
A. the organization is a foreign organization;
B. the organization engages in terrorist activity ...; and
C. the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
   The Appeals Court of DC is further empowered under § 1189(b) to hold unlawful and set aside designations found to be:
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation, or short of statutory right;
(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative record taken as a whole or in classified information submitted to the court under paragraph (2), or
(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
     The constitutional claim that designation procedures violated due process rights to notice and hearing can be easily disposed of, holding that any foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause. There is no dispute as to whether the foreign organization was a foreign organization; it was. Whether or not its terrorist activity threatened the national security of the US was held at present to be a nonjusticiable question, best left to Executive Branch judgment since such judgments represent "decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither the aptitude, facilities, nor responsibilities, and has long been held to belong to the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry" [citing Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Steamship Corp 1948]. Left solely with the question of the sufficiency of administrative record to support the determination that "the organization engages in terrorist activity," the Court found the Secretary of State's record sufficient.
     EXCERPTS FROM THE CASE
     Colorful arguments [stemming from Abourezk v. Reagan 1986 claims to due process rights] will not carry the day. The non-disclosure of ex parte and in camera information [occurs in conjunction with] required notice that the designation is impending and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, which the Secretary of State complied with.
     Even if the record [here] supported a finding of violation of due process, such a violation would be harmless as the unaffected portion of the record is ample to support the determination made. The public, unclassified administrative record contains more than enough evidence to support the determination that the petitioner engaged or engages in terrorist activity. The government followed the required procedures as set down in Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir.2001).

Sometimes called "proximity crime," direct material support to a designated terrorist organization is illegal under 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B (the "material support" laws). These laws have been challenged in court and amended by the legislature, but the basic idea stands -- that designation of a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) places everyone on notice that mere support of any such organization is unlawful. Most experts think the main civil liberties issue (beyond the "guilt by association" problem) is a due process one, which is obviously relevant since there is little or no opportunity for an organization being considered for FTO designation to be heard in advance, opportunities for judicial review are seriously limited, and a defendant in a criminal action under 2339B is normally precluded from raising any question about the validity of an organization's designation, except when according to reasoning in People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Department of State (2003) and National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State (2004), such FTOs have entered the territory of the United States and established substantial connections with the U.S. to be entitled to Fifth Amendment due process rather than administrative law treatment as non-sovereign foreign entities under international law.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Try googling any of the names of any of the above highlighted groups to get Background Information, or see Annual Reports by the State Dept, particularly reports entitled, Patterns of Global Terrorism. If none of your research works, try www.globalsecurity.org which lists all of these with good descriptions. Even more interesting may be listings of terrorist groups (still off the radar) which the U.S. hasn't designated yet, but states like Russia do think of as "Other Terrorist Groups." For example, this site in Russia provides such a list.

2000	2001	2002	2003
Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf GIA Aum Shinriykyo Basque ETA Islamic Group HAMAS HUM Hizballah Islamic Jihad Japanese Red Army Kach Kahane Chai PKK Tamil Tigers Mujahedin-e Khalq ELN PIJ PLF PFLP PFLP-GC al-Qa'ida FARC 17 November Dev Sol ELA Shining Path Tupac Amaru	Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf GIA Aum Shinrikyo Basque ETA Islamic Group HAMAS HUM Hizballah IMU Islamic Jihad Kahane Chai PKK Tamil Tigers Mujahedin-e Khalq ELN PIJ PLF PFLP PFLP-GC al-Qa'ida Real IRA FARC Revolutionary Nuclei 17 November Dev Sol Shining Path Columbian paramilitaries	Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf al-Aqsa GIA Asbat al-Ansar Aum Shinrikyo Basque ETA Islamic Group HAMAS HUM Hizballah IMU Army of Mohammed Islamic Jihad Kahane Chai PKK Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Tamil Tigers Mujahedin-e Khalq ELN PIJ PLF PFLP PFLP-GC al-Qa'ida Real IRA FARC Revolutionary Nuclei 17 November Dev Sol Salafist Group Shining Path Columbian paramilitaries	Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf Al-Aqsa Ansar al-Islam Armed Islamic Group Asbat al-Ansar Aum Supreme Truth Basque (ETA) Communist Party of Philippines Islamic Group HAMAS Harakat ul Mujahidin Hizballah Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Jaish-e-Mohammed Jemaah Islamiya Egyptian Islamic Jihad Kahane Chai Kongra-Gel (former PKK) Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Lashkar I Jhangvi Liberation Tigers Mujahedin-e Khalq (ELN) Colombia Palestine Islamic Jihad Palestine Liberation Front PFLP PFLP–General Command Al-Qaida Real IRA (FARC) Colombia Revolutionary Nuclei 17 November Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front Salafist Group Sendero Luminoso Colombian paramilitaries
2004	2005
Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf Al-Aqsa Ansar al-Islam Armed Islamic Group Asbat al-Ansar Aum Shinrikyo Basque (ETA) Communist Party of the Philippines Continuity IRA Islamic Group HAMAS Harakat ul-Mujahidin Hizballah Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Jaish-e-Mohammed Jama'at al-Tawhid Jemaah Islamiya Egyptian Islamic Jihad Kahane Chai Kongra-Gel Lashkar-e Tayyiba Lashkar i Jhangvi Liberation Tigers Mujahedin-e Khalq ELN Colombia Palestinian Islamic Jihad PLF Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PFLP-GC al-Qa’ida Real IRA FARC Colombia Revolutionary Nuclei 17 November Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front Salafist Group Shining Path Colombian paramilitaries	Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf Al-Aqsa Ansar al-Islam Armed Islamic Group Asbat al-Ansar Aum Shinrikyo Basque ETA Communist Party of the Philippines Continuity IRA Islamic Group HAMAS Harakat ul-Mujahidin Hizballah Islamic Jihad Group Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Jaish-e-Mohammed Jemaah Islamiya Egyptian Islamic Jihad Kahane Chai Kongra-Gel Lashkar-e Tayyiba Lashkar i Jhangvi Liberation Tigers Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group Mujahedin-e Khalq ELN Colombia PLF Palestinian Islamic Jihad Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PFLP-GC al-Qa’ida al-Qa'ida in Iraq Real IRA FARC Colombia Revolutionary Nuclei 17 November Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front Salafist Group Shining Path Colombian paramilitaries

Three Effects of Designation

Three Criteria for Designation

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Sources and Resources