Posted on 01/26/2004 12:00:05 PM PST by areafiftyone
LOS ANGELES - 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.
In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.
The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.
"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," the judge said.
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
A federal judge has ruled that a portion of the USA Patriot Act which bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations is unconstitutional and the government may not enforce it.
David Cole, an attorney and Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project, said the ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.
In a 36-page ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
John Tyler, the U.S. Justice Department attorney who argued the case, said he was aware of the decision but could not comment on it. He referred calls to the Justice Department press office in Washington, D.C. A message left there was not immediately returned.
The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the suit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, non-violent means to achieve goals.
"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," the judge's ruling said.
"This is a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles," said Cole, the attorney who argued the case.
"It is the first federal decision declaring any part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional," he said.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release
January 27, 1994
PRESIDENT NAMES TEN FEDERAL JUDGES
President Clinton today nominated ten individuals to serve on the federal bench, four for the U.S. Courts of Appeals and six for the U.S. District Courts, representing the states of California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
Diana Motz of Maryland was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the President named three individuals to the Fifth Circuit: Fortunato "Pete" Benavides and Robert M. Parker of Texas, and Carl E. Stewart of Louisiana.
President Clinton also named six U.S. District Court judges: Audrey B. Collins, Central District of California; Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois; Deborah A. Batts, Southern District of New York; James G. Carr, Northern District of Ohio; Mary M. Lisi, District of Rhode Island; and Cameron M. Currie, District of South Carolina.
"These ten individuals have records of distinction and achievement in public service and the legal profession," the President said today. "I am confident that they will continue to distinguish themselves, as members of the federal judiciary."
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/archives/whitehouse-papers/1994/Jan/1994-01-27-President-Nominates-Ten-Federal-Judges
In other words, all Congress has to do is repass the relevant portion of the Act as a separate bill, using tighter language. Which is a good thing, since vague wording is always taken advantage by someone in the government sooner or later, but in the grand scheme of things (that is, "Patriot Act Good or Bad?"), it means little to nothing.
This, at least on the surface, seems like a reasonable point.
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.