FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[areafiftyone]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional. Just breaking on the ticker. Looking for more info!

[cynicom]

About time.

[over3Owithabrain]

Not starting out to be a good week - WMD, Patriot Act

[over3Owithabrain]

For W I mean...

[B Knotts]

Depends on what parts, but may be good news...

[goldstategop]

'Nother Liberal Judge Throws Up Roadblocks To The War On Terror. Film at 11.

[rhombus]

I'm still trying to find out what part of the Patriot Act. There are so many lies told about what it does and does not contain, it's hard to filter through it all.

[JLS]

This could be a well reasons opinion or it could be some crazy decision. The details will tell whether this is good or bad for the US or W.

[A Navy Vet]

Where at on their home page?

[Dog Gone]

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional
By LINDA DEUTSCH
Associated Press

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 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."

[Pikamax]

Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional


Email this Story

Jan 26, 2:52 PM (ET)

By LINDA DEUTSCH

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."

[george wythe]

LA federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that a portion of the USA Patriot Act which bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations is unconstitutional and the government may not enforce it.

David Cole, an attorney and Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project, said the ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

In a 36-page 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 to the Constitution.

John Tyler, the U.S. Justice Department attorney who argued the case, said he was aware of the decision but could not comment on it. He referred calls to the Justice Department press office in Washington, D.C. 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 suit, 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, non-violent 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's ruling said.

"This is a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles," said Cole, the attorney who argued the case.

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

[areafiftyone]

Thank you so much for posting the update. :-)

[goldstategop]

Yeah it really amounts to creating a loophole for terrorist groups to carry "legal cover" activities in the U.S and they can't be touched.

[King Black Robe]

It sounds like a very minor and easily corrected point to me.

[B Knotts]

Thanks. I don't know if I have a strong opinion one way or the other initially. I'll have to read more. I suppose giving legal advice would be included in this definition? I can see where that might cause Constitutional problems.

[KantianBurke]

Bubba Clinton: the gift which keps on giving

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release
January 27, 1994

PRESIDENT NAMES TEN FEDERAL JUDGES

President Clinton today nominated ten individuals to serve on the federal bench, four for the U.S. Courts of Appeals and six for the U.S. District Courts, representing the states of California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

Diana Motz of Maryland was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the President named three individuals to the Fifth Circuit: Fortunato "Pete" Benavides and Robert M. Parker of Texas, and Carl E. Stewart of Louisiana.

President Clinton also named six U.S. District Court judges: Audrey B. Collins, Central District of California; Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois; Deborah A. Batts, Southern District of New York; James G. Carr, Northern District of Ohio; Mary M. Lisi, District of Rhode Island; and Cameron M. Currie, District of South Carolina.

"These ten individuals have records of distinction and achievement in public service and the legal profession," the President said today. "I am confident that they will continue to distinguish themselves, as members of the federal judiciary."

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/archives/whitehouse-papers/1994/Jan/1994-01-27-President-Nominates-Ten-Federal-Judges

[Timesink]

impermissibly vague

In other words, all Congress has to do is repass the relevant portion of the Act as a separate bill, using tighter language. Which is a good thing, since vague wording is always taken advantage by someone in the government sooner or later, but in the grand scheme of things (that is, "Patriot Act Good or Bad?"), it means little to nothing.

[B Knotts]

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

This, at least on the surface, seems like a reasonable point.

[areafiftyone]

Ticker on top.

[Old Sarge]

Well Said.

The news blurb is what's "deliberately vague". What was this "Humanitarian Law Project" doing? What were they advising to be done? And how did it violate the law in the first place?

Not enough data yet.

[FairOpinion]

"About time."

==

Sure is, after all, we haven't had a good terrorist attack in over two years.

(/sarcasm)

[JohnnyZ]

Upshot: you can help terrorists all you want to, tell them how to make chemical weapons, advise them which targets they should bomb, etc, etc.

[Jaxter]

Just out of curiosity, which part of this takes away your freedom the most, providing expert advice to foreign terrorist organizations or providing assistance to them?

[Mr. Bird]

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.

I thought it was already constitutional to forbid individuals or organizations to conduct foreign policy contradictory to that of the U.S. government. The case in question appears to pertain to activities in Turkey, which in my book translates as "conducting foreign policy".

I suppose if we took a little time travel back to 1943, we could find a judge that would forbid restrictions on assistance to the Nazis? I find it hard to believe that our constitution was designed to enable its own destruction.

[cynicom]

I like an argument that is better than yours, used by many here on FR. "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That one really is a winner.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

And they didn't even have to use the Chewbacca defense.

[Young Rhino]

It is time for the executive branch to suggest that the legislative branch removes funding for the lower courts in the federal judiciary until the no-talent @ss clowns appointed by Clinton and Carter decide to quit legislating from the bench. While we're at it, the executive branch shouldn't invite left-wing members of the Supreme Court to any function whatsoever...stop propping up these crackpots with an air of respectability on the Washington cocktail circuit.

[FairOpinion]

Audrey B. Collins

United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, California

Judge Collins was appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 9, 1994 by President Clinton.

Born: Chester, Pennsylvania-June 12, 1945 Education: Howard University (B.A. 1967); American University (M.A. 1969); University of California at Los Angeles (J.D. 1977).

[Sgt_Schultze]

Thanks for the clarification...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.

Perhaps Congress decided to make no distinction and wanted to outlaw any and all help to such organizations. After all, that concept seems to mirror the one used by the founders in the First Amendment where they prohibited any limitation on the right of free speech, without defining whether they meant the audible type of speech, or the behavior, flag-burning type or the defiant sit-in style. Perhaps Judge Audrey should look at the First Amendment with the same vigor she used on the Patriot Act.

[Solson]

Yeah...about time they create loopholes in a pretty good, and often misunderstood law....

[KantianBurke]

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I see my subversive plot to hijack this thread has already taken root. Over under on South Park/Chewbacca images is 11.

[not-alone]

no wonder MSNBC etc are not explaining this -just PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Young Rhino]

And they didn't even have to use the Chewbacca defense.

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! None of this makes sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then you must find the Patriot Act unconstitutional! The defense rests. :-)

[mabelkitty]

One question - would this legal advice extend to Treasonous activities? Fine. Let's just go straight to a firing squad.

Or, is this extra protection for folks who broke immigration rules and other illegals who otherwise would have been deported but now face treason charges?

Either way, looks like activist judges for sure....

[B Knotts]

Nah. I think what is going on here is simply that any restriction on speech is going to have to be "narrowly drawn." What this judge is saying is that by not making a distinction between aid or advice to terrorist organizations in the furtherance of violent actions, as defined by the government, and aid or advice in an effort to get such organizations to turn to peaceful methods, the government is failing to "narrowly draw" the restriction.

Probably just an oversight, that I don't imagine will raise a great deal of objection, and it will be rewritten/refined.

[Don Joe]

Upshot: you can help terrorists all you want to, tell them how to make chemical weapons, advise them which targets they should bomb, etc, etc.

Well, no. Try this:

Upshot: you can no longer be prosecuted for saying, "Fries with that, sir?" when it's Abdulla talking into the happy clown face at the drive-through, or saying, "Here's the change for your fill-up" at the gas station, or saying, "That'll be eleven fifty two for your groceries, m'am."

I believe it's already illegal to give aid and comfort to the enemy. This law, as it reads, would appear to give a free pass to go after anyone who's engaged in even the most casual of transactions. They could probably even go after the State of New York for accepting toll fees from Moustafa if he drives over the Tappan Zee Bridge.

[oceanview]

exactly right. they will have to appeal this, or tighten up the law.

the judiciary is the most corrupt branch of government we have, accountable to no onw, often with lifetime appointment. to entrust any aspect of the war on terror to them, is to surrender. the left owns the judiciary.

[B Knotts]

Exactly right.

[Quick1]

Well, I guess that proves that the Patriot Act is working!

Does that mean the garlic I keep on my dashboard is doing a good job of keeping away vampires?

[Quick1]

Great post!

[TexasGunLover]

So sad... DIMRATS win again...

[Benjo]

I'm glad a federal judge somewhere finally stood up for the constitution. All you have to do is claim that some new law will protect us from terrorists these days and half the people in the country are willing to tear up the constitution and throw away free speech (which most people don't really value very much anyway, especially when they hear other people saying something they don't want to hear).

[AAABEST]

About time.

Great breaking news. JR should open a section called "good news" for articles like this.

[b4its2late]

Could it be the 9th circus?

[Reagan Man]

President Clinton also named six U.S. District Court judges: Audrey B. Collins, Central District of California;

A dubious connection at the very least.

[William McKinley]

If the basis for overturning it is that this is unconstitutionally vague:

giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations

it should be rewritted as

giving any advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

[Yehuda]

" This, at least on the surface, seems like a reasonable point."

It may be, but the plaintiffs are leftwing scum sucking terr supporters.

Humanitarian Law Project:

http://hlp.home.igc.org/

Their home page has a link right at the top to:

http://iraqjournal.org

which proudly announces on the top of their home page that they get their source material from:

http://www.democracynow.org/

which is the left wing propaganda tool of pacifica radio/cable tv, hosted by amy goodman, the christine imawhore wannabe, also buddy with Ramsey Clark...

COMMUNISTS AND TERR LOVERS ALL.