Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

[Jeff White]

Well good old GW has quite a penchant for supporting unconstitutional laws....At least he failed to call this one unconstitutional before he signed it.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=US
Jan 26, 2:57 PM EST

Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague...

Unlike so-called "campaign finance reform."

 

[Kinsman]

That's one small step for liberty;
one giant leap for the Federal judiciary.

 

[w4rma]

Awesome news! But, there is *alot* more in that bill that needs to go!

A note for the liberal-haters on this board: The court that ruled is the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. It is my understanding that this court is considered one of the most liberal courts in the nation.

The Bush administration will appeal it through the 9th circuit Court of Appeals which is also considered liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the rulling may or may not be watered down, reversed or allowed to stand.

 

[BigG]

From the original post:

the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

Since when is a US court interested in being consistent with the constitution? I can't remember the last time.

 

[rock jock]

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department (news - web sites) attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

Imagine that, the system actually worked. I guess the sky isn't falling after all.

 

[Dave R]

I hope a lot more of it is found unconstitutional. Are there any other active challenges?

 

[romulus]

Amazing that folks still pin their hopes for the survival of the constitutional order on the US Courts, and the 9th District at that...

 

[jimpeel]

This from FOXNews

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109541,00.html

Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Monday, January 26, 2004

LOS ANGELES — For the first time, a federal judge has thrown out a section of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban is impermissibly vague in its wording.

The U.S. Justice Department is reviewing the ruling, spokesman Mark Corallo said in a statement from Washington.

• Order (Humanitarian Law Project, et al. v. Ashcroft)

• USA Patriot Act

Corallo called the Patriot Act — the federal anti-terrorism statute passed in the aftermath of Sept. 11 — "an essential tool in the war on terror" and asserted that the portion at issue in the ruling was only a modest amendment to a pre-existing anti-terrorism law.

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project, declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

"It is the first federal court decision declaring any part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional," he said.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Los Angeles-based Humanitarian Law Project said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.

The ruling specified that the plaintiffs seek to provide support to "the lawful, nonviolent activities" of the Kurdistan Workers' Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an advocate group for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Both groups are on a list issued by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 1997 of "foreign terrorist organizations."

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger rebels have been engaged in a two-decade civil war that has killed more than 65,000 people. Turkey's military has been battling Kurdish rebels seeking autonomy since 1984, a fight that has left some 37,000 people dead.

Under the Patriot Act, the U.S. prohibition on providing "material support" or "resources" to terrorist groups was expanded to include "expert advice or assistance."

The ruling follows a December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn portions of a sweeping 1996 anti-terror law which preceded the Patriot Act. A three-judge panel found the law's reference to financial assistance or "material support" to terrorist organizations was overbroad.

The government has asked for a rehearing of the three-judge decision by the entire circuit court.

Another challenge to the Patriot Act is pending in Detroit. In that case, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the law gives federal agents unlimited and unconstitutional authority to secretly seize library reading lists and other personal records.

 

[Preacherman]

Duplicate threads merged.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Back in the Civil War, the U.S. government did, under crisis conditions, a lot of unconstitutional things. When the Supreme Court overruled some act of government (writ of habeus corpus) and ordered a person freed, Lincoln (an attorney) responded, if the Chief Justice wants him freed, he can go all the way to Ohio to get him. After the war, it was bizness as ususal.

During World War II, the U.S. government was very effective in rounding up enemy aliens and especially alien agents. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people got sent away too (Japanese Americans, Italian and some German Americans too). After the war, it was bizness as ususal.

What's the difference today from ago? We don't trust gubmint. Should we? Heck no! The era of the enligthened statesman has given away to the career politician whose goal is to stay in office at whatever cost - including our rights & liberties.

 

[VNgo]

Of course, the liberals only took out the part about terrorist groups not getting lawyers...the one part of the Patriot Act I really don't mind that much.

 

[romulus]

Back in the Civil War, the U.S. government did, under crisis conditions, a lot of unconstitutional things. When the Supreme Court overruled some act of government (writ of habeus corpus) and ordered a person freed, Lincoln (an attorney) responded, if the Chief Justice wants him freed, he can go all the way to Ohio to get him. After the war, it was bizness as ususal.

Actually there was nothing unconstitutional about the suspension of habeas corpus, per Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, where "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." As far as I can tell, the Civil War was a pretty obvious act of rebellion...

 

[fallingblock]

Right you are, w4rma....

"the 9th circuit Court of Appeals which is also considered liberal....."
************************************************************
This is the most reversed circuit court in the U.S.....with good reason.

This is also the court that insists that the Second Amendment does NOT confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The 9th circuit court is largely composed of judicial activist liberal blissninnies.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

4v50Gary

What's the difference today from ago? We don't trust gubmint. Should we? Heck no! The era of the enligthened statesman has given away to the career politician whose goal is to stay in office at whatever cost - including our rights & liberties.

In addition to that, the "War on Terror" may in fact never end. There is no clearly defined enemy to be vanquished on the battlefield.
As long as there are people in the world, their will be terrorists.
As long as there is a United States of America, we will probably be a target.

 

[BigG]

What was it Jesus said, "Oh you lawyers. You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." Think he knew what he was talking about?

 

[bountyhunter]

What was it Jesus said, "Oh you lawyers. You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." Think he knew what he was talking about?

I believe Christ was speaking to the Pharisees who were the elders of the church. You are correct that He had a very low tolerance for BS. I often challenge people to read the gospels (first four books of the NT) and count how many times Christ said:

HYPOCRITES!

Christ was pretty clear in what He wanted to say. People who held themselves up as righteous and claimed to be above others are going to be in the front seat on the express bus to hell.

 

[bountyhunter]

Imagine that, the system actually worked. I guess the sky isn't falling after all.

Don't be complacent. The "system" is exactly one (very old) heartbeat away from failing. reagan fell exactly one chair short of being able to pack enough right-wingers onto the supreme court to switch it's direction. Look at all the rulings running 5-4 on major issues and understand why the Democrats are so desperately trying to keep another knee-jerk reactionary off the high court. When and if Bush turns the SC into his rubber stamp, the sky will not be falling, it will be lying on the ground in shattered pieces. We will be screwed and freedom will be a distant memory.

 

[fallingblock]

gee, bountyhunter.....

I just don't agree:

************************************************************
"reagan fell exactly one chair short of being able to pack enough right-wingers onto the supreme court to switch it's direction."
************************************************************

Now that was a pity!



************************************************************
"Look at all the rulings running 5-4 on major issues and understand why the Democrats are so desperately trying to keep another knee-jerk reactionary off the high court."
************************************************************

For the sake of our Second Amendment rights, I certainly hope the democ-rats fail in their obstuctionism.


************************************************************
" When and if Bush turns the SC into his rubber stamp, the sky will not be falling, it will be lying on the ground in shattered pieces. We will be screwed and freedom will be a distant memory."
************************************************************

The Supreme Court has suffered the repeated 'packing' by the left with activist judges....nothing "W" can do will damage it to that extent.