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."

Comments

And???

[DarkHelmet]

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.

Re:And???

[neilcSD]

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.

Re:And???

[Selecter]

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.

Re:And???

[Spazmasta]

then they have, in a way, won

More than "in a way"... they will have won, period. It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that, terrorists have been attacking other american territory and other countries for a long time. Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate. Exactly what they want is for the US to waste millions on extra metal detectors or anti-anthrax machines, or to give up our freedoms. By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand. Fighting back is not trying to guess their next move and save a few peoples lives, but to continue normally, not wasting our money on anti-terrorist measures, and instead spend that money to prevent the deahts of the thousands that might die from poverty, that might become victim to an underfunded education system, the thousands that will die because our great country doesn't want to provide the money for a working free health care program like even Canada has, just because we need to invade a country like iraq in case they attack us first. Terrorists aren't the real threat. Our own irrational fear is what we should be worrying about.

Re:And???

[Golias]

I call this ruling proof that the system works.

When the PATRIOT act was signed into law, I didn't like a lot of it, but I was one of the people saying "don't get your panties in a wad. Congress and the President are doing their best at legally stepping up enforcement, and due to the urgency they're doing so by re-treading RICO laws. Anything which turns out to be unconstitutional will get struck down by the courts, and life will go on."

Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Bravo for American government!

There's still a few more elements I would like to see struck down, but some of the enforcement powers in PATRIOT have also made a difference in our ability to avert another attack on the scale of what we saw in 2001. Our democratic system of checks and balances is not perfect, and certainly not efficient, but it seems to work better than anything else that I've seen.

Re:And???

[acroyear]

Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system.

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.

Passing something with so many bluntly unconstitutional clauses, just to say "we're doing *something* (even if for now its the wrong thing)" is just plain poor leadership.

Re:And???

[Golias]

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.

Re:And???

[Anonymous Coward]

If no one 'got their panties in a wad' do you think we would be seeing any of this act declared unconstitutional?? Don't kid yourself. Our system of government works because people get mad about this type of b.s.

If Congress and the President were 'doing their best' and temporarily doing a power grab to defend us poor Americans from the evil terrorist infidels, then why didn't they include a sundown measure in the act where by it would expire after x,y,z number of years? This would give the president and the other branches the power they 'need' while making sure that our civil liberties aren't permanently eroded. If the powers granted in the act turned out to be necessary- then congress could vote on the act when it came up. Congress would have had the time to review the act and maybe read the thing. PATRIOT was pushed through congress in how many days?

The whole act should be repealed- not just parts. I do not believe it has made a difference in our ability to 'avert' another attack. It has been widely known for some time that agents had identified and reported the 9/11 senario as a vulnerability- those reports and warnings were ignored. I am not convinced that the PATRIOT act has helped us do anything but tighten the grip our government holds on us.

Our government is not perfect, and this is a great example of why it must change. No act should be hurried through Congress because our President wants to go to war and his opposition is being called unpatriotic. We shouldn't have to be going through the act and fighting to get parts of it stricken three years after it was passed. This act should never have been there in the first place.

This is a failure of our government not a triumph. It took freedom away and we are now fighting to get it back.

"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin

Re:And???

[monk]

"When you want to catch a wolf, do you send a sheep? No, you send another wolf."

Seems to me you would end up with a whole pack of wolves...

When you want to catch a wolf, you use a human. If you want to wipe out wolves you change the habitat in such a way that it does not support wolves. I'm afraid the climate lately has been very friendly to wolves.

Patriot Act is Unpatriotic

[Trejkaz]

News at 10.

What The World Has Been Waiting For

[ackthpt]

...has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Finally, I'm freed to give this advise!

"Darl, what you are doing is wrong, stop it."

Maybe now he'll listen.

A Small Victory

[andyrut]

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.

Re:A Small Victory

[0WaitState]

It was the 9th Circuit Federal court, who usually do the right thing and then get overturned on appeal by Scalia and the Supremes. So, this is about as effective as singing folk songs and waving placards in the designated "protest" space at least one mile distant from wherever Bush is fundraising today.

Meanwhile, the much-worse provisions of Patriot II were tucked into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week. So, if you want to make a difference, call up your congresscritter and mention how relieved you are at this temporary reversal of Patriot I and how you really don't want to see more of these unamerican laws passed. You could also donate money or time to interest groups: EFF, EPIC, ACLU, whoever's most likely to throw Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney out of office, etc.

EFF Patriot Act Analysis

[Eyah....TIMMY]

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.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean wants to ID you

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

NOT the USSC!

[DAldredge]

It wasn't the USSC, it was a Federal District judge.

Sweet!

[scosol]

Does this mean I can smoke weed again without supporting terrorists?!?!?!? :P

phew....

[andy55]

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...

YES!!

[Irvu]

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.

Yay!

[Junior J. Junior III]

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.

Major Victory

[zelurxunil]

"a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

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.

Just the start

[Neppy]

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.

Defending PATRIOT

[WombatControl]

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.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. 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.

And what divine power do you possess that no other human on the face of the planet possesses that allows you to make such a claim as fact? Most of the 9/11 conspirators were here legally on visas issued by our own beloved State Department which already had access to such vital information but failed to research the applications adequately.

The crux of the matter is that most of the provisions of the PATRIOT act are unneccessary and law enforcement and courts have proven time and time again that they are capable of handling terrorism cases using their existing laws and powers.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[geomon]

Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched..

Which is why it should be expunged.

If it isn't needed, then why put it in?

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.

While I agree that the WOD is much more threatening to civil liberties than PATRIOT, why do you support putting more power into the hands of the government when they obviously don't need it (by your own admission, re:librarians)?

Also, the Reno-Ashcroft remark is pure trollbait. I haven't seen Ashcroft sprinting out to repeal any of the WOD provisions, so they stand in full force as they were under Reno. And the laws were passed by the Congress, not the USAG.

If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well.

Good!

Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened.

Your crystal ball is scratched, scuffed, and otherwise translucent.

The fact remains that, despite the passage of PATRIOT, information sharing between agencies remains spotty. And the reason for the lack of exchange is not due to fuzzy-headed liberals blocking the governments efforts. It is due to the time honored tradition of 'empire building' in government agencies.

That behavior will not end with the expansion or the repeal of PATRIOT.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[Aidtopia]

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.

Let me say up front that I'm not a lawyer. But the biggest problem I see here is that there is very little if any oversight. Traditional search warrants are (or become) public record, making it possible for people to check for abuse. For example, in California, after a wiretap is completed, law enforcement must contact every party that was heard on the line to let them know they had been recorded. With the gag rules in the PATRIOT ACT, there's no after-the-fact oversight to make sure the judge who granted the request was doing the right thing and that the enforcement agencies aren't routinely asking for wide-reaching powers. You say that, "no library records have ever been searched," but you don't know that because of the gag rules.

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[gerardrj]

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.

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[ChrisKnight]

> 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

Read the Ruling carefully?

[Tarwn]

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.

But who labels the terrorists?

[zCyl]

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.

Re:Sure there is

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The problem of fighting violence with violence

[NMerriam]

Wars, including the fight against terrorism, aren't about fighting "violence". They are about one side defeating the other side.

Yes, but the point of defeating the "other side" is to take their land, destroy their factories, etc. There is no way to defeat the "other side" in a war on drugs/terrorism/poverty. You can't stomp out a social ill or political disagreement with force, because there is no physical necessity belonging to the other side that may be destroyed or usurped.

Calling a political policy a "war" doesn't make it so.

Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional

[NMerriam]

I love liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, they were used as tools by terrorists.

Indeed it is unfortunate.

Free speech is used by the ignorant to challenge the educated, freedom of assembly is used by Nazis and the KKK to rally support and intimidate others, the 5th amendment is used by the guilty to avoid self-incrimination, and the 4th is used by criminals to conceal evidence of their crimes.

All of this is, indeed, unfortunate -- and exactly as it was meant to be in a free nation.

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Osama and the WTC

[Draknor]

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!