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."
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.
I thought it was already constitutional to forbid individuals or organizations to conduct foreign policy contradictory to that of the U.S. government. The case in question appears to pertain to activities in Turkey, which in my book translates as "conducting foreign policy".
I suppose if we took a little time travel back to 1943, we could find a judge that would forbid restrictions on assistance to the Nazis? I find it hard to believe that our constitution was designed to enable its own destruction.
United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, California
Judge Collins was appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 9, 1994 by President Clinton.
Born: Chester, Pennsylvania-June 12, 1945 Education: Howard University (B.A. 1967); American University (M.A. 1969); University of California at Los Angeles (J.D. 1977).
"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.
Perhaps Congress decided to make no distinction and wanted to outlaw any and all help to such organizations. After all, that concept seems to mirror the one used by the founders in the First Amendment where they prohibited any limitation on the right of free speech, without defining whether they meant the audible type of speech, or the behavior, flag-burning type or the defiant sit-in style. Perhaps Judge Audrey should look at the First Amendment with the same vigor she used on the Patriot Act.
giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizationsit should be rewritted as
giving any 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
Isn't this how the terrorists were able to raise money for their causes .. like killing us??