A press release by the law firm of Ramsey Clark, former attorney general of the United States, and Lawrence W Schilling said that the LTTE on Monday filed a petition for ``rehearing and suggestion for rehearing'' en banc

with the United States Court of Appeals for the district of Columbia.

On June 25, the Court of Appeals denied a petition by the LTTE, challenging US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright branding it as terrorist, on the ground that the court has no authority to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State in the matter.

LTTE argues in its fresh petition for rehearing that the Secretary of State may well have acted on false allegations of the Sri Lankan government or inaccurate press accounts or other completely unreliable hearsay.

``LTTE has had no opportunity to profess its innocence, much less to prove itsinnocence. The judicial review provision of the statute promises protection of rights in accordance with fairness, Justice and truth in the grand and generous tradition of American jurisprudence. But the court's decision in the instant matter has rendered the judicial review provision a nullity,'' the rebels say in the petition.

It further argues in the petition for rehearing that if the courts are forbidden to reach a judgment themselves regarding the truth of the secretary's finding, ``Where then is the judiciary's independence? The legitimacy of the judiciary ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality. That reputation may not be borrowed by the political branches to cloak their work in the neutral colours of judicial action.''

The rebels said that the ``anti-terrorist and effective death penalty act as construed, injects the federal judiciary into the midst of the most emotional, potentially violent misinformation and propaganda-laden international political issue with the sole effect ofplacing a non-discretionary judicial imprimatur on an executive action.''

On July 25 the court had concluded, ``We have no way of judging'' the LTTE's claim that it is a de facto government and not ``a foreign organisation'', a requirement for the designation.

The court said that it is a political question and non-reviewable. With respect to the key question whether LTTE's activities threaten the security of the United States or its nationals, the court in its opinion stated, ``for all we know, the designation may be improper because the secretary's judgment that the organisation threatens our national security is completely irrational, and devoid of any support.

``Or her (Albright's) finding about national security maybe exactly correct. We are forbidden from saying. That we cannot pronounce on the question does not mean that we must assume the secretary was right. It means that we cannot make any assumption, one way or the other,'' the court said.

In its original petition challenging the Secretaryof State's designation, LTTE identified itself as ``the de facto government of the Tamil nation in Sri Lanka''.

The rebels also stated that it is engaged in an armed campaign due to the failure of peaceful means and the absence of a forum to realise the Tamils' right to self- determination and that its actions are not intended as, and in fact are not, a threat to US interests.