Skip to comments.
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
MSNBC ^
| 1/26/04
Posted on 01/26/2004 12:00:05 PM PST by areafiftyone
Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional. Just breaking on the ticker. Looking for more info!
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; patriotact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-191 next last
To: Don Joe
Exactly right.
41
posted on
01/26/2004 12:29:57 PM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: FairOpinion
Well, I guess that proves that the Patriot Act is working!
Does that mean the garlic I keep on my dashboard is doing a good job of keeping away vampires?
42
posted on
01/26/2004 12:32:35 PM PST
by
Quick1
To: Don Joe
Great post!
43
posted on
01/26/2004 12:33:34 PM PST
by
Quick1
To: areafiftyone
So sad... DIMRATS win again...
44
posted on
01/26/2004 12:33:57 PM PST
by
TexasGunLover
("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
To: areafiftyone
I'm glad a federal judge somewhere finally stood up for the constitution. All you have to do is claim that some new law will protect us from terrorists these days and half the people in the country are willing to tear up the constitution and throw away free speech (which most people don't really value very much anyway, especially when they hear other people saying something they don't want to hear).
45
posted on
01/26/2004 12:34:41 PM PST
by
Benjo
To: cynicom
About time. Great breaking news. JR should open a section called "good news" for articles like this.
46
posted on
01/26/2004 12:36:12 PM PST
by
AAABEST
To: areafiftyone
Could it be the 9th circus?
To: KantianBurke
President Clinton also named six U.S. District Court judges: Audrey B. Collins, Central District of California;A dubious connection at the very least.
48
posted on
01/26/2004 12:43:20 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The choice is clear. Reelect BUSH-CHENEY in 2004)
To: Dog Gone
If the basis for overturning it is that this is unconstitutionally vague:
giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations
it should be rewritted as
giving any advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.
Comment #50 Removed by Moderator
To: Pikamax
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles." A valid point, missed in all the noise. We don't want to burn down the village in order to save it.
51
posted on
01/26/2004 12:46:52 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: cynicom
Show us where one person's constitutional rights have been taken away.
You can't.
52
posted on
01/26/2004 12:48:28 PM PST
by
petercooper
(Dean is done!)
To: William McKinley
giving any advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. How about adding the word "knowingly" in front of this definition? Plus, you need to more narrowly define "advice" and "assistance" so that it doesn't emcompass legal advice etc.
53
posted on
01/26/2004 12:49:07 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: All
You psychos applauding this are applauding the destruction of a provision that outlaws aiding terrorist organizations by giving expert assistance.
You should be a ashamed of yourselves.
54
posted on
01/26/2004 12:51:04 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: Modernman
Fine. Insert the word knowingly, provide an exception for legal advice given by an attorney to a client.
Straightforward.
To: William McKinley
You do understand that giving expert advice would extend to a computer consultant who had worked on their computer systems, even if he didn't know they where terrorists.
It is a vaguely written law and it should have been written more clearly.
56
posted on
01/26/2004 12:53:07 PM PST
by
DMCA
(TITLE 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107 (HI PRBC !!!))
To: rwfromkansas
Isn't it amazing?
To: B Knotts
No expert would be called upon by terrorist groups to explain the greatness of non-violence.
This female judge doesn't know what she's doing.
58
posted on
01/26/2004 12:53:18 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: cynicom
It's that pesky Constitution getting in the way again,...
(sarcasm)
59
posted on
01/26/2004 12:54:51 PM PST
by
Merdoug
To: rwfromkansas
You psychos applauding this are applauding the destruction of a provision that outlaws aiding terrorist organizations by giving expert assistance. Read the thread. The definition is so broad, it could be used to prosecute you if you unwittingly gave street directions to a member of a terrorist group.
Nobody is saying people should be free to help terrorist groups. We're saying the definition of "help" should be better defined.
60
posted on
01/26/2004 12:54:52 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-191 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson