Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted by simoniker on from the much-controversy dept.

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. And??? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:And??? by neilcSD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's a good thing that this has happened. After all, if we allow terrorists to change our society in a significant way (i.e., turning the United States into a police state), then they have, in a way, won. However, I am not against giving up some personal freedom to make sure that our nation as a whole survives and hunts these fuggers down - When you want to catch a wolf, do you send a sheep? No, you send another wolf. However, they need to make DAMN sure they don't persecute the innocent.

    2. Re:And??? by Selecter · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Yeah, that was a shitty deal for Mr. Ahar, who has never been charged with any crime ( at least in a non-kangaroo court fashion. )

      BTW, The RCMP ( the Mounties ) just searched a reporters notes, computer, sources for the Toronto Star for information about his case.

      From the Star:

      Prime Minister Paul Martin has blasted the RCMP for raiding an Ottawa journalist's house in search of leaked information in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian who was detained by the Americans and later deported to Syria. Martin says the RCMP's focus should be on who leaked the information, not who reported it.

      They have a Canadian version of the Patriot Act, you see.

    3. Re:And??? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hope that Maher Arar sues the pants off of the US Government.

      I consider myself to be loyal to American ideals, but the treatment of Mr. Arar is enough to inspire someone to become a terrorist.

      Imagine being this man's child. Your father disappears for nearly a year and when he is returned to you, he is a shadow of his former self. 40 pounds lighter, limping and unable to get a peaceful night's sleep.

      This is unacceptable. I didn't donate a cent to and of the "9-11" charities, but if Mr. Arar was to set up some kind of fund I think I would contribute to pay his lawyers to sue my government.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:And??? by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting
      On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.

      Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. That's why we have more than one Supreme Court justice. You will notice that a 9-0 decision does not happen often on the big issues. It's also why we have more than one political party.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:And??? by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      but failing to pass something in that session would have been political suicide for everybody involved.


      And that's the problem... the impulse to DO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!! is often a bad one.

      Perhaps part of the Hippocratic Oath should become part of the Congressional oath of office... you know, that part which goes, "First, do no harm"...
      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    6. Re:And??? by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm speaking of actual would-be mass-murderers who have been caught and stopped because of our improved enforcement efforts.

      Could you elaborate on that? Do you have any names or other references to back that statement up? I don't mean names of just any terrorists who we've captured, like Abu Zubaida. I mean names of guys who's capture was actually aided by provisions of the Patriot Act.

      Bush emphasised his sucess in protecting us by pointing out that "twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001--over two years without an attack on American soil." But, the same can be said for the period before 9/11 too, can't it? Aside from that one horrific day, the US was never really under seige by terrorists.

      All I see is lots of innocent foreigners and legal immigrants being treated in unacceptable ways with no justification. Maybe american citizens too. I don't really know of any American citizens for sure, and that shouldn't make a difference. However, some people incorrectly believe that what side of the border you were born on should make a difference when we are talking about human rights.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  2. A Small Victory by andyrut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Meanwhile, Howard Dean wants to ID you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. why would interagency cooperation be killed? by rbird76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.