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!

[John Beresford Tipton]

Yes, and another example is X organization is named to the "Terorist List"

The head of X organization goes to a lawyer about how to get removed from the list, and proves they are all Quakers and their only activities are aiding fellow Quaker barn raisers in Kansas, and their being named to the terrorist list is a case of mistaken identity.

For the lawyer to help them would, under that law, be criminally giving aid to a terrorist orgainization.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not opposed to tightening up the language. Hopefully they will do so.

But, I don't like some judge acting all superior.

The fact is, rarely do these fears about laws come true. There may be vague language at the time, but the spirit of the law means a lot. Just because they technically "could" do something because of vague language doesn't mean they would or even try to do so.

[rwfromkansas]

They could, but there would be a greater chance of an asteroid hitting than the govt. actually charging the attorney for trying to encourage a surrender...

[verity]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional.

Meaningless if appealed.

[Boot Hill]

AP reports:   "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."

But the idiot judge says:   "The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature."

Such a ban is well within the power of Congress. If this were a violation of the 1st Amendment, then the communications the Rosenbergs made to the Soviets regarding the atomic bomb would have been protected communications under the 1st Amendment too. Nor could any communication to an enemy in time of war ever be considered treason, rather than a communication protected by the 1st Amendment.

The judge is an idiot, but then she is a Clinton appointee.

--Boot Hill

[DMCA]

You have made one fatal mistake. You assume that our court system is sane and has common sense. I think that the record shows our court system is insane...

[justshutupandtakeit]

Free speech in support of an Enemy has never been constitutional.

This is just another goofy judge from the ninth district who will be overturned as based on nothing but gas.

[mrsmith]

Really? What a strange way to read a law!

You think legal representation is forbidden during all this?

"Section 1189. Designation of foreign terrorist organizations ...
(b) Judicial review of designation
(1) In general Not later than 30 days after publication of the designation in the Federal Register, an organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(2) Basis of review Review under this subsection shall be based solely upon the administrative record, except that the Government may submit, for ex parte and in camera review, classified information used in making the designation. (3) Scope of review
The Court shall hold unlawful and set aside a designation the court finds to be -
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation, or short of statutory right;
(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative record taken as a whole or in classified information submitted to the court under paragraph (2),
( (E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
(4) Judicial review invoked The pendency of an action for judicial review of a designation shall not affect the application of this section, unless the court issues a final order setting aside the designation."

[Eastbound]

If Chewbacca don't spit, then you must aquit. Drool doesn't count.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"You think legal representation is forbidden during all this?"

Some could well be. That provision speaks only about judicial review. But that is only one way in which a lawyer in that circumstance would seek to help his client. I see no provision allowing the lawyer to lobby congress, or the state department on behalf of the his client, organisation X.

[Eastbound]

Judge: "Nonsense! I don't see anything in the Patriot Act that is unconstitutional. Now go play golf or something."

(Clerk whispers to judge): 'But Judge! The dems brought this up!')

Judge: " . . . and to be pefectly clear, let me repeat that. It makes no sense not to call this unconstitutional. Now let's go play golf."

[Mo1]

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

Isn't this how the terrorists were able to raise money for their causes .. like killing us??

[FBD]

"This law, as it reads, would appear to give a free pass to go after anyone who's engaged in even the most casual of transactions."

What? Can you cite an example where this has happened? What part of the Patriot Act are you referring to?

[mrsmith]

By statute the designation may be revoked by congress (how could that be if lobbying were forbidden?).

It's not neccessary to interpret the law to forbid petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
So it should not be interpreted that way.

At least I hope it's clear that the designation is subject to judicial review.

[brityank]

Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission!

Right! Tell me again. I supported the forfeiture provisions of the War on Drugs, as they said it will only be used against the big dealers. Then they took a widows home, because unbeknownst to her, her teenage son was selling MJ while she was at work. Tell me again. Right!!

If you won't stand for the constitution, you will eventually get run over by the bureaucrats wanting to solidify their power and prestige. Then who will you cry to?

[steveegg]

Could it be the 9th circus?

Right area, wrong court (the appeal would go to the Circus).

[PureSolace]

I'm still trying to find out what part of the Patriot Act. There are so many lies told about what it does and does not contain, it's hard to filter through it all.

I hear ya. 've ben trying to make sense of it for a while now. The official government site blows. and All the info I see ont he web is spun either for it or against it. Why the hell doesn't our gov't just post a simple point by point memo on what it can and can't do and get it over with.... or is it one of those "open to interpretation things"? Any help will be hott, both for and against... Just leave your spin at the door or I'll have to zot you. I just want the facts.

[God is good]

Well good.

[ZAKJAN]

Probably just an oversight, that I don't imagine will raise a great deal of objection, and it will be rewritten/refined

I agree with you there...LOL just another attempt by liberal media to make a mountain outta a mole hill!!
Nice try....

Jan