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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-191 next last
To: Yehuda
It may be, but the plaintiffs are leftwing scum sucking terr supporters. I'm sure they are. The questions we have to ask with all these things is: how will these laws be used under Democrat administrations? how can the laws be written to protect everyone from any kind of political abuse?
61
posted on
01/26/2004 12:55:07 PM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: William McKinley
They need to be locked up on in the looney bin.
62
posted on
01/26/2004 12:55:26 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: DMCA
Fine. Insert the word knowingly, provide an exception for legal advice given by an attorney to a client.
Straightforward.
To: William McKinley
Fine. Insert the word knowingly, provide an exception for legal advice given by an attorney to a client. Yup. This ruling is no big deal- it's just telling the government to re-draft this provision. I don't know why people are so excited by this.
64
posted on
01/26/2004 12:56:16 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: rwfromkansas
See post #39.
65
posted on
01/26/2004 12:56:38 PM PST
by
Quick1
To: Modernman
You claim it is so broad (and agree with the Clinton appointee). Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission!
Give me a damn break.
66
posted on
01/26/2004 12:56:50 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: William McKinley
True. But that doesn't change the fact that the judge in this case was correct.
:->
67
posted on
01/26/2004 12:57:04 PM PST
by
DMCA
(TITLE 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107 (HI PRBC !!!))
To: Modernman
Agreed. Much ado over nothing. It strikes me as a reasonable ruling that can be readily fixed.
To: Don Joe
Any proof that these fears have come true?
didn't think so.
69
posted on
01/26/2004 12:57:46 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: DMCA
I have no problem with the ruling. I just don't see it as a particularly difficult matter to rectify in the law.
To: rwfromkansas
Why do we have to wait for something to actually happen?
71
posted on
01/26/2004 12:59:19 PM PST
by
Quick1
To: rwfromkansas
Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission! The way the provision is written now, they COULD prosecute you for giving directions to a terrorist. If the government has no intention of using the Patriot Act in this way, then it should have no problem with tightening the language.
72
posted on
01/26/2004 12:59:59 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: B Knotts
I suppose giving legal advice would be included in this definition?As I read it: Prior to this decision If Osamma were to come to an Attorney and seek advice on how to disband Al Queda and surrender, the Attorney could be put in prison for advising him on how do it.
73
posted on
01/26/2004 1:02:03 PM PST
by
templar
To: templar
Yes...I was thinking along the same lines. There is no big rebuke here; she's just saying that they need to rewrite it to be a bit more specific.
74
posted on
01/26/2004 1:03:26 PM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: cynicom
You never answered my question:
Which part of this takes away your freedom the most, providing expert advice to foreign terrorist organizations or providing assistance to them?
75
posted on
01/26/2004 1:04:08 PM PST
by
Jaxter
("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
To: Modernman
. If the government has no intention of using the Patriot Act in this way, then it should have no problem with tightening the language.While the government may have no intention to do this at the present, they would certainly like to keep the option open in case they want to someday.
76
posted on
01/26/2004 1:04:09 PM PST
by
templar
To: William McKinley
Then we agree. :->
77
posted on
01/26/2004 1:05:17 PM PST
by
DMCA
(TITLE 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107 (HI PRBC !!!))
To: areafiftyone
It's perfectly OK to restrict people's freedom of speech in the name of "campaign finance reform" though.
78
posted on
01/26/2004 1:07:16 PM PST
by
jpl
To: William McKinley
This is a foreign organization.
The problem with the ruling is that it forbids the Congress from totally restricting citizens' interference in the affairs of foreign states.
What restrictions may be put on citizens' intereference in foreign affairs has been a political determination since Logan went to France!
79
posted on
01/26/2004 1:13:05 PM PST
by
mrsmith
Comment #80 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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