Judge rejects part of Patriot Act
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 01-27-2004 - 11:48am |
Judge rejects part of Patriot Act
She says ban is too vague, may run amok of First Amendment
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON -- For the first time, a federal judge has struck down part of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act, joining other courts that have challenged integral parts of the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism.
In Los Angeles, the judge, Audrey Collins of U.S. District Court, said in a decision made public yesterday that a provision in the law banning certain types of support for terrorist groups was so vague that it risked running afoul of the First Amendment.
Civil liberties advocates hailed the decision as a victory in efforts to rein in what they regard as legal abuses in the government's anti-terrorism initiatives. The Justice Department defended the law as a crucial tool in the fight against terrorists and promised to review the ruling.
At issue was a provision in the act, passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, that expanded previous anti-terrorism law to prohibit anyone from providing "expert advice or assistance" to known terrorist groups. The measure is part of a broader set of prohibitions that the Bush administration has relied on in prosecuting people in Lackawana, N.Y., Portland, Ore., Detroit and elsewhere accused of providing money, training, Internet services and other "material support" to terrorist groups.
In Los Angeles, humanitarian groups that work with Kurdish refugees in Turkey and Tamil residents of Sri Lanka had sued the government, arguing that the measure was so ill-defined that they have stopped writing political material and helping organize peace conferences for fear they would be prosecuted.
Collins agreed that the ban on providing advice and assistance to terrorists was "impermissibly vague" and blocked the Justice Department from enforcing it against the plaintiffs. "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," Collins, wrote in a ruling issued late Friday.
As a result, the law could be construed to include "unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment," wrote the judge, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton.
At the same time, however, Collins sided with the government in rejecting some of the plaintiffs' legal arguments, and she declined to grant a nationwide injunction against the Justice Department.
In recent months, other courts have also challenged the Bush administration's designation of enemy combatants and other aspects of the campaign against terrorism, but the Los Angeles decision was the first by a federal judge to strike down any portion of the Patriot Act.
The Justice Department, which had already sought a review of last month's related decision, plans to review Collins' decision as well to determine whether it should be appealed, officials said.
© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
cl-nwtreehugger
Co-cl: In The News http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/listsf.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&nav=start
Community Leader - Sports Talk http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/listsf.asp?webtag=iv-elsportstalk&nav=start

Pages
I think that breathing is unconstitutional to many of those judges.
LOL
No, actually it looks like she sits for the US District Court for the
I just caught the headlines in the news, and immediately thought it to be the 9th circuit, which to me is a joke as far as a court is concerned. If they wanted to legislate, then the judges should have run for public office.
That's dismaying.
If any citizen knowingly gives any kind of aid to a known terrorist or terrorist group, they should be investigated, and if found guilty, perhaps put in jail depending on what the violation was.
My problem is that the wording is vague enough that it can be misused/misapplied.
Pages