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
News at 10.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Finally, I'm freed to give this advise!
"Darl, what you are doing is wrong, stop it."
Maybe now he'll listen.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very good speech last year at DefCon about the dangers of the Patriot Act.
They have an analysis on their site about the Patriot Act and what it means for us.
Here's also another article about why we should be concerned about it.
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
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 wasn't the USSC, it was a Federal District judge.
Basically they wanted to advise a group of people on how to peacefully resolve a dispute.
This was a case of a super-vague law that prohibits someone from engaging in speech that basically no ordinary person would even find to be controversial speech. I'm surprised that the DOJ even threatened them with enforcement of this in this case. It should have been obvious to them that pursuing some white hat like this would just bust their pet law.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Does this mean I can smoke weed again without supporting terrorists?!?!?!? :P
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.
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.
phew... now I can safely continue to consult for microsoft...
G-Force music visualization
is that you become that which you fight against. Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them? Sounds like they win, in that case.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Seriously, a ruling of this type not only rectifies a bad law but serves to remind people that bad laws can be changed. Lord knows I needed some good news like that.
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I'm glad it's that part, and not the part that says the PATRIOT Act will expire. It'd suck if that part got ruled unconstitutional.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I'd merely like to point out that this "Part" of the Patriot act is just that, a part of it. This still isn't dealing with any of the true hard issues, such as eavesdropping without a warrant/court order, forcing libraries disclosure of a persons activities, and so on. This is not trully a victory for anyone who really cares about Pravacy, or rather "Your Rights Online." Merely a victory for everyone trying to take a quick shot at this administration.
What's another word for Thesaurus?
-Steve Wright
Immediately after 9/11 opposition to just about anything labeled "anti terrorism" was practically nil. Only now are common citizens who have been in the dark starting to realize that not everything being sold under the label is really good for them. Court decisions are just the beginning; hopefully the taboo of challenging anti terrorism measures wears off for politicians and the public too. If the general public was aware of what is really in PATRIOT the pressure for politicians to repeal it would be pretty huge.
was declared an enemy combatant and relocated by the Ashcroft Ministry of Truth to sunny Guantanamo Bay.
I'm sure that I'm distinctely in the minority here, but I think the criticisms of the PATRIOT Act are entirely blown out of proportion. I've actually read the PATRIOT Act, and I see very little that matches the wild claims that have been levied against it.
Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.
Most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act specifically extend already existing powers specifically to fight terrorism. Most of them were already codified in law under earlier racketeering statutes such as RICO. Yet no one seemed to question those moves then.
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft. No-knock warrants are far more suspect as far as civil rights are concerned than extending provisions of RICO to terrorism. I fail to see the logic of a system that gives greater protections to Mohammad Atta than it does to Tony Soprano.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning. Another event like that is simply intolerable.
The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it, but in a country where partisanship overwhelms common sense on both sides rational discussion about the best way to protect this country from the clear and present danger of terrorism is difficult to find.
Yeah that is the argument however if you look at the "new" definition of terrorism...."any person or group that seeks to question the US government" something like that. Well dont we as citizens have the DUTY to keep our government in check? How is that going to happen with this law on the books. Worrysome and knee-jerk from our leaders in washington. they seem to have done it just so they can say look at what we did we are trying to protect you and the CHILDREN. Bah
According to the State of the Union address the Patriot Act is essential to the fight against terrorism! What are Americans to do?! We had all better start stocking up on plastic sheets and duct tape again. Good thing none of them stinking Democrats have been able to successfully attack the 2nd amendment under Bush's watch. I'd hate to lose those vital rights. How else could we defend ourselves?</angry sarcasm>
In all seriousness, this won't have much of an effect on personal privacy for average Joe and I imagine the powers that be will do everything in their power to keep the steamroller running, but a good swift kick in the nuts to the Patriot Act can only be a good thing for those of us that appreciate civil liberties.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Define Terrorist.
There's not really a good way to define it that doesn't lump US in that category.
For those that say "you just know", that's not good enough.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
> 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.
Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
I went around cube to cube (hey, I was on break) sharing the gist of the headline, and I got a unanimous [pardon the french] "about fucking time" from EVERY SINGLE person, except one guy who just clapped slowly. He's an odd one...
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
Just for the record, MY senator - Russ Feingold - was the ONLY one to vote against the Patriot Act. And, from what I've heard, getting a Republican lapdog into his seat has become Karl Rove's pet project.
(At least that's what Russ keeps saying in the campaign contribution letters I keep getting...)
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
I try not to trust Declan's relatively yellow journalism any farther than I can throw it, but assuming his article IS accurate, it's entirely possible that Dean's views have changed in the last two years. Keep in mind that he's referring to a speech Dean made in March of 2002.
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Remember:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
I read through the article and it seems like the judge is asking for it to be reworded rather than stricken, and the piece in quesiton is only the expert advice portion, not the pre-existing portion concerning materials/resources.
So while the people who are jumping up and down for joy about pieces being over-ruled may have to wait for a while, I'm personally happy that we are looking at suggested corrections. I don't by any means think the patriot act is perfect, but I much prefer people trying to improve on it rather than just throw it aay all together.
Whee signature.
ACLU and the Patriot act
Hopefully, that will cure your rant. You can stop foaming now.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I wonder if people will finally get the idea to stop voting for Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld when they outlaw porn.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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.
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.
Imagine, for a moment if you will, that some group X is labelled as a terrorist group by the government, and this group's members happen to think they're not terrorists and don't support terrorism. There are two groups of professionals they might desperately like to hire, lawyers to plead their case, and public relations experts to present their case clearly. It's only fair in a free society that the accused be afforded a chance to defend themselves in this manner.
You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist. Anyway you left out the part about whether or not you agree with their cause. That's the key that distinguishes between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/rebel group.
now if we can get rid of the statute that enables "law enforcement" less checks and balances and the portion that enables indefinite confinement without lawyer or family visitation/contact of those classified as "combatants" (even US citizens). So much for due-process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the Patriot act is one of the most unPatriotic pieces of legistature known to man, especially since it defies the very spirit of the Constitution, the common foundation of our society.
You know...the more I think about it, I get the feeling that both Ashcroft and Bush failed their history classes.
The worst part is that I also get the feeling that Stalin/Lenin won without a fight.
The US government is responsible because they sent him to a country that was not his. Mr. Arar WAS and IS a Canadian citizen.
The US government CHOSE to threaten Arar with deportation to a country that it knew would torture him if "he didn't talk"....and then made true on this threat.
This would be like England sending an American citizen, who was wrongly accused of being a spy for Israel, to Iran......and than claiming that they had no idea Iran might torture him.
"He was detained" by the US, and sent not to his home country, but by the US to be "tortured by Syria".
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The PATRIOT act is very dangerous. It is a wonderful relief to see it challenged. Even if enacted with good intentions (a dubious claim at best), there is no organization that would not abuse such power. If you think otherwise you are terribly naive. Do not trust the government blindly.
My grandfather was kidnapped and interrogated for five years by the Polish secret police because they were absolutely sure he was a spy. He wrote a book about it. It's an excellent read for anyone who wonders about the dark side of "national security".
That all seemed, at the time, to be a failing of communism. But recent events remind me that it can happen any time and place that the people pledge thier uncritical allegiance to their leaders.
I love this country and want it to be the best it can. With that in mind I keep a close eye on those in charge to be sure they don't run amok. I wish more people did. I hope enough do. The leaders have certainly been running amok in the past few years.
Cheers.
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?
They're not terrorists (attacking an invading military force is not terrorism, whether or not it professes to be a liberating force) and neither are the majority of them supporters of the old regeime, if this is synonomous with terrorist in your eyes. Get your facts straight.
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.)
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East. They don't give a damn about how much freedom of speech you have, and I doubt all that many of them really care which God(s) you choose to believe in.
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.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?) Anti-war people are not suggesting we go on as before; rather, this is what pro-war people are suggesting. America is attacked by crazy fundamentalists with marginally legitimate greivances. Does it (a) attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances, or (b) invade a few more countries and piss off a few more million people?
They're different guys. The Iraqi Resistance is an entirely different kettle of fish from Al-Qaeda. The Iraqi Resistance is fighting for various reasons like loyalty to Sadaam or distake towards an American government, which are different from Al-Qaeda's reasoning.
Anyway, sometimes people die. Sometimes in large quanities. Yes, we should punish Al-Qaeda and put them in jail, no question about it, but geez, people overreacted to September 11th. You can't get too emotional about how deal out punishment. You have to look at it calmly.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance". They are fighting against our occupation of their country. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be attacking us.
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches."
-and-
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."
Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.
"I am a God fearing Christian" ...
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"
I hate to point this out to you but you are a case study in what is wrong with modern, institutionalized Christianity, especially in the U.S.
If you were really a follower of the teachings of Christ and really understood his teachings you would realize Christ was the ultimate "pussy" to use your derogatory term. He was most certainly the most committed pacifist you could ever find.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5.38-41
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26.51-52
If Christ were alive to see people like our President or the officers in our military, tell you about what devoted Christians they are and then rush out to kill people in his name he would be devastated. No matter how justified they think they are, they are committing a hypocrisy of immense proportions.
There are only two paths, you are truly Christian in which case you would be a pacifist, a pussy to use your term, and you wouldn't kill people, no matter how much you were provoked.
Or you are using Christ's name out of political and social convenience because you have to be a good Christian to be elected President or rise in the ranks of the military or in many respects to be an accepted member of yout community especially in the U.S., one of the most fanaticly "Christian" countries. I'm pretty sure the later is the case for 90+% of the Christians in this country. People like the Quakers seem to be the only people who really understand Christ's teachings. Most of the supposedly Christian churches are institutions Christ would have abhored. They are social institutions worshiping him as an idol, regurgatating his teachings but never really listening to them, and certainly not understanding the most basic tenents of his teachings.
Most of our politicians and military officers should admit it. They are Machiavellians or Nietscheans to whom power is the true religion. Christianity is a badly worn facade of social convenience. Deep in their hearts they don't subscribe to it because it is a "pussy's" religion. George W. Bush no doubt found Christ about the same time he realized he and his family wanted him to be President.
@de_machina
If the US wasn't dependent upon foreign oil, we wouldn't have been over there in the first place, and there would have been no reason (however twisted) for attacking us.
You don't see many Africans bombing buildings over here.
Why?
We aren't occupying any African countries, that's why.
(And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have. George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements." Why don't Americans understand this??? This country (US) has such an aversion to taking responsibility for its actions it is sickening! <mode=whine>It can't be my fault, I'm a victim! He/she/it/they/the dog MADE me do it!</mode> Hmmm, let's see, we mettle in the affairs of the Middle East for a couple of decades, support coups and terrorists in the "war" on Communism, and then look around and wonder why we just got slapped by the pawns we've been manipulating? 9/11 was a terrible event - I don't argue that, and I pray for the people who lost their lives. But the US has displayed nothing but cowardice-in-bully's-clothing, feigning ignorance & innocence, in its handling of the aftermath. We (Americans) all just need to grow up!