|
Home > Human
Rights & Humanitarian Law >
Armed
Conflict & the Law >
What is Terrorism? - Law & Practise >
Terrorism: International
Law & Practise >
Terrorism: Australian Law & Practise >
Terrorism: Canadian Law &
Practise > Terrorism: European Union
Law & Practise >
Terrorism: Indian Law & Practise >
Terrorism: Sri
Lankan Law & Practise >
Terrorism: United Kingdom Law &
Practise > Terrorism: United States Law & Practise
Terrorism: United States Law & Practise
the Laws -
Practise - LTTE
Proscription |
|
|
|
LTTE Proscription
[see also United States & the Tamil
Eelam Struggle for Freedom] |
"Resolved, that the Massachusetts House of
Representatives hereby urges the President and the Congress of the United
States to support the Struggle for Freedom
by the Tamil Nation for the
Restoration and Reconstitution of the
separate sovereign state
of Tamil Eelam and to recognise publicly the
right
of self determination by the Tamil people of Tamil Eelam"
House of Representatives Resolution, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA, 18 June 1981
|
|
8 October 1997 |
US Bans Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, |
|
10
October 1997 |
Response by LTTE to US 'terrorist' categorisation
|
|
6 November 1997 |
LTTE Authorisation of Appeal Against Ban to
US Federal Court, |
|
7 November 1997 |
Christian World Service Appeal to US on
Categorisation of LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation |
|
20 March 1998 |
US Antiterrorism Law challenged in courts |
|
9 June 1998 |
US Court rules on First Amendment case |
|
3
March 2000 |
Judgment of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
|
10 March 2001 |
On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on
Anti-Terrorism Law and Tamil Activism in the US
|
|
24 December 2000 |
Petition against Antiterrorism Law ruling filed in US Supreme
Court |
|
27 April 2001 |
US Patterns of Global Terrorism
Report, Excerpts related to Sri Lanka & LTTE |
|
5 May 2001 |
Dr.Rajan
Sriskandarajah writes to US Secretary of State, Colin Powell on Global
Terrorism Report |
|
30 May 2001 |
US
Department of State responds to Dr.Rajan Sriskandarajah on Global Terrorism Report |
|
5 October 2003 |
US Tamils launch
Constitutional challenge to US Patriot Act |
|
15 October 2003 |
Cole, Chang lead US Patriot Act challenge by Tamils |
|
27 January 2004 |
U.S Court declares Patriot Act provision Unconstitutional |
|
4 March 2004 |
Amended US court ruling protects WTCC, FeTNA |
|
18 March 2004 |
Judgment on constitutionality of
USA PATRIOT Act and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the
“AEDPA”) which prohibit the provision of material support, including “expert
advice or assistance,” to designated foreign terrorist organizations |
|
30 September 2004 |
U.S Court curbs FBI powers granted in Patriot Act |
|
10 May 2005 |
Tsunami & 'Material
Support' for 'Terrorist' Organisations ' Testimony by
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California |
|
11 May 2005 |
Civil Group advocates changes to US Terrorism Laws |
|
30 July 2005 |
Key provisions in US Patriot Act struck down |
|
2 August 2005 |
Judgment on Constitutionality of
prohibition on providing material support or resources, including
“training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “personnel,” and “service,” to
designated foreign terrorist organizations. |
|
18 October 2005 |
Constitutionality of Economic Powers Act challenged |
|
21 November 2006 |
Law on "Terror Finances" Ruled Unconstitutional
|
|
20 April 2007 |
Federal Judge
Withdraws Ruling Against Bush Terror Designations |
|
25 April 2007 |
World Tamil
Coordinating Committee representative arrested in New York says U.S.
Justice Department |
|
10 July 2007 |
The Current Status of U.S. "Material Support" Laws
- Viswanathan Rudrakumaran |
|
15 October 2007 |
US to freeze TRO Assets |
|
10 December 2007 |
Humanitarian Law Project v.
Mukasey
A statute "must be sufficiently clear to put a person
of ordinary intelligence on notice that his or her contemplated conduct
is unlawful." The language covered by the ruling remained
unconstitutionally vague despite congressional amendments to the Patriot
Act meant to remedy the problems, the appeals court ruled.
|
