Slashdot Mirror


Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/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."

10 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's unbelievable... by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, far inferior to an attorney general who actively seeks out and kills American citizens, but that could never happen. Could it?

    Oh wait, it did. And we know how that re-election bid went.

    As soon as a candidate better than W comes forward I will consider them, but the clowns the Dems are producing this year don't leave much choice. But then, Im in California so I'll probably do what I do every election (since the state only elects Democrats or actors) and vote for the third party candidate most likely to attract 5% of the vote.

  2. Re:Where's the ACLU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Does anyone care to say why the ACLU (apparently) wasn't fighting this case?

    They're too busy fighting for the rights of grown men who rape young boys

  3. Re:Just Remember by jjohnson · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Actually, it's neither. Check your facts.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  4. Re:For the Dean Supporters. by blixel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For the Dean Supporters.

    Dean has supporters?

  5. Bush by Richard+Allen · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    and his Patriot Act chronies are just pure evil. They are destroying America and it's time for a regime change!!!

    {I don't really believe any of that, but I could use some free Slashdot Karma}

  6. Re:And??? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While the treatment of Arar is appalling, it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

  7. Re:Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Because the US has the obligation to fix everyone's problems when they're not minding their own fucking business.

    Next time, Mr. Ahar, might want to consider attempting to make more secure travel arrangements when traveling to unfriendly parts of the world. Maybe even going so far as to double check things, or avoid helping people, who are wary, to misinterpret his comings and goings. As for the torture, one has to wonder how much of a role his mouth played in it.

  8. Go ahead, mod me down. by Alan+Hicks · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that...

    Then praytell me why are there terrorists attacking our troops in Iraq? During a presidential election year? With a host of democrats saying we should pull out of the country? You are quite simply wrong. The terrorists are seeing a weakness in American resolve to see this through to a democratic Iraq. They see an opportunity to demoralize Americans, and elect a democrat to the Presidency. Then of course, said democrat would pull the troops out of Iraq. That's at least their plan.

    Note that I am not saying we should stop criticizing the war because that's what the terrorists want us to do. If that were to happen, then they have won, IMO. Like the war or not, we live in a country where a presidential hopeful can criticize the current administration. That's a good thing. The terrorists have us in what I liken to the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't tic-tac-toe game, where one player can win two ways, and there's nothing the other can do to stop it. They want Americans to either A) criticize these democrats for criticizing the war, and thus damage our right to free speech, or B) exert enough stress that the American people elect Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark, and the new president pull the troops out of Iraq. That is why they are attacking us, at least in Iraq. There are of course, other goals, such as spreading their radical Islam. (Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in.)

    By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand.

    I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.

    --
    Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
  9. you fucking liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers...

    Did you even read his definition of terrorism? The part about violence against civilians? This was not an m.o. of the founding fathers, you fucking idiot. Go whine to your Democrat overseers.

  10. Re:And??? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    "Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin
    I do wish people would pay attention to the key word in that quote -- essential freedoms. Is it essential to your freedom that you are allowed to assist foreign terrorists? No? Then why do you object to a law that forbids you from doing so?