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."
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's great that this is the first blow towards stamping out parts of the Patriot Act, but it's not winning the whole war.
I hope that Maher Arar sues the pants off of the US Government. To quote the article:
The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months.
I hope that this man gets compensation for what he had to endure. I'm crossing my fingers that in the process of him doing so that most of these police-state laws that have gone into effect go the way of the dinosaur.
This isn't 1943, and this isn't 1984. The law should reflect that.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
It's awesome that the Supreme Court has finally examined and ruled this part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. However, this particular section of PATRIOT is only the tip of the iceberg that denies constitutional rights to individuals.
What Slashdot readers and other techies should be particularly concerned with is that, under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism now encompasses many computer crimes which have nothing to do with terrorism. Deface a web site? You're a terrorist. It also allows wiretaps and other intrusions without the hard-nosed rules that usually come with warrants, as long as it's placed under the crime of terrorism -- which now includes even minor computer crimes. The EFF has posted its detailed analysis of the Patriot Act, and how it affects people concerned with electronic freedoms here.
While this is a minor victory, hopefully this is the first of many parts ruled unconstitutional.
Howard Dean wants a federally mandated identification chip (linked to your state id) and id readers in EVERY computer. You'd even need it to access the internet, with limits on your access based on your information! Talk about big brother.
It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a person's or organization's part to lend support to groups that are engaged in terrorist activities. How can you truly know if you're being a good humanitarian, and helping out those who are being repressed within the terrorist group, or if you're just furthering their goals by helping out people within their group?
This was a low court ruling, not the US Supreme Court. The ruling can be appealed by the US government.
I say this only halfway in jest. Mention the President and you'll get a score of rants explaining in rabid detail why he's the second coming of Joe McCarthy, but worse. Listen, Slashdotters, and listen carefully: neither party has a monopoly on boneheads. If you hate one of them because you think they love everything you detest, you'd better darn well make sure your own guys aren't rooting for the same thing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The standard for issuing a search warrant does not change - there must be "probable cause" for such a search, meaning that a crime does not necessarily have to have been committed before such a search would be authorized. The rules under the PATRIOT Act are the same rules that would be applied to any other criminal case in that a judge would have to be consulted and a warrant issued. The only difference is that the PATRIOT Act makes this process swifter and allows for such searches to occur without the knowledge of the suspect.
This is only logical, as trying to uncover information about a terrorist cell doesn't exactly work when that terrorist cell knows they're being hunted.
Terrorist: A non-government actor seeking political change through violence directed intentionally against civilian populations.
I don't think that governments engage in terrorism, but that's just semantics. Doesn't mean I don't think they do bad things, though.
as far as I know, interagency cooperation has always problematic because agencies compete for funding; agencies thus hoard information because it will help them get funding.
1) How does the PA ameliorate this?
2) How does killing the PA mean that the interagency cooperation provisions cannot be passed separately (what makes it unconstitutional on its own?)
I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.
The admission (I don't have the pointer right now) that the PA is being used primarily to go after nonterrorist criminal activity doesn't give me any reason to accept the promise that the PA will not be misused with anything other than a large bag of rock salt. The evasion and doublespeak on the PA's support website doesn't make me trust the people responsible for enforcing it any better. The attempts to add powers to the PA under cover of secrecy do not amplify my (already miniscule) faith in the ability of the PA to achieve its designed goals.
Giving trustworthy people the sort of power embodied in the PA is questionable - eventually power corrupts (although absolute power is "pretty neat" (Clancy, from somewhere else). Giving that power to someone many consider untrustworthy is a mistake. The words, evasion, and untruthfulness of the current administration do not lead me to trust them with the power the PA invests in them. I trusted WJC more than I trust GWB, and I wouldn't trust either of them with the PA.
Website at 11:
t m
http://www.infosecwest.com/cryptome/pixel-net.h
URL courtesy of www.cryptome.org
FBI WARNING: "Information on the CDs [archive of Cryptome] could be used to harm the United States."
Those who most want to spy on others fear most their own secrets will be bared.
My guess is the original PATRIOT Act writers wanted something like the "Giving Aid & Comfort to the Enemy" laws, but couldn't quite figure out how to get around the provision that they only applied during wartime (since Congress hasn't declared war on them, it can't apply).
Chip H.
See... the thing is... only congress can designate someone as an "enemy".
I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.
So, Mr. Bush... *you* do not have these powers.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
"On Sept. 26, 2002, U.S. immigration officials seized a Syrian-born Canadian at Kennedy International Airport"
"So, they put Arar on a private plane and flew him to Washington, D.C. There, a new team, presumably from the CIA, took over and delivered him, by way of Jordan, to Syrian interrogators."
Learn how to read, moron.
OK, so maybe there are sections of the Patriot Act that are truly unconstitutional, but I do not think this is one of them.
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Good job 9th!
Obviously a follower of the old testament...
This comment does not exist.
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.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.
If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.
Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.