FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[areafiftyone]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional. Just breaking on the ticker. Looking for more info!

[B Knotts]

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?

[rwfromkansas]

They need to be locked up on in the looney bin.

[William McKinley]

Fine. Insert the word knowingly, provide an exception for legal advice given by an attorney to a client.

Straightforward.

[Modernman]

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.

[Quick1]

See post #39.

[rwfromkansas]

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.

[DMCA]

True. But that doesn't change the fact that the judge in this case was correct.

:->

[William McKinley]

Agreed. Much ado over nothing. It strikes me as a reasonable ruling that can be readily fixed.

[rwfromkansas]

Any proof that these fears have come true?

didn't think so.

[William McKinley]

I have no problem with the ruling. I just don't see it as a particularly difficult matter to rectify in the law.

[Quick1]

Why do we have to wait for something to actually happen?

[Modernman]

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.

[templar]

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.

[B Knotts]

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.

[Jaxter]

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?

[templar]

. 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.

[DMCA]

Then we agree. :->

[jpl]

It's perfectly OK to restrict people's freedom of speech in the name of "campaign finance reform" though.

[mrsmith]

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!