FOOD FOR THOUGHT
|
moon phases � |
I thought this was a nice follow up to my previous soap box entry. Now our own judicial system is questioning the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled that a section of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional, the first time any part of the sweeping 2001 anti-terrorism measure championed by the White House has been struck down.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a measure of the act that bars giving "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations is too vague, threatening First and Fifth Amendment rights.
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 was handed down late Friday and made available Monday. It was the judge's second major ruling to undercut anti-terrorist laws in recent months; she authored a decision upheld in part by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December.
David Cole, an attorney and Georgetown University law professor who argued the latest 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 and unenforceable.
The case involved groups seeking to provide advice to displaced Kurdish refugees fighting for independence from Turkey. Some of the plaintiffs also sought to help the Tamil Tigers Eelam, a rebel group seeking a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
The plaintiffs said they stopped providing help to the groups because they feared they could be imprisoned for 15 years under the USA Patriot Act.
"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.
The decision was essentially a companion piece to another one written by Collins late last year. In that case, the federal appeals court agreed with her and overturned portions of a sweeping 1996 anti-terror law which preceded the Patriot Act.
A three-judge appellate panel found the 1996 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.
That case involved the same plaintiffs, the Humanitarian Law Project and also involved aid to the Kurds. But it did not address the Patriot Act.
Collins' ruling was the first of an expected string of rulings on cases now pending in courts across the country as the result of the Patriot Act.
Emily Whitfield, American Civil Liberties Union National Media Relations director, said more than 230 communities around the country, most recently Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for the repeal of certain controversial sections of the act.
The U.S. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said in a statement from Washington, D.C., that the Patriot Act is "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.
Another challenge to the Patriot Act is pending in Detroit where the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the act gives federal agents unlimited and unconstitutional authority to secretly seize library reading lists and other personal records.
---
On the Net: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov
written at 8:29 a.m.
2004-01-27
Miss something?
- - January 26, 2009
- - May 26, 2008
- - April 09, 2008
- - January 21, 2008
- - November 24, 2007