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 the basis and idea behind the Patriot Act is very good and very necessary, but I also see how some in the Gov't could and would pervert this act for some benefit.
USA Patriot Act Author Supports Some Modifications of Controversial Law.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A54874DF-FFF9-4610-ADF507C199FA6027#
The main author of the controversial USA Patriot Act, the post-September 11, 2001 legislation expanding U.S. government powers to combat terrorism, says he supports some modifications of the law.
A panel of supporters and critics of the USA Patriot Act debated the legislation after the Justice Department said Tuesday it had found no incidents in which the law had been invoked to abuse civil rights.
Earlier, a federal judge in California tossed out parts of the Patriot Act which prohibit attorneys from providing expert advice to groups that may have ties to terrorist organizations. The judge's ruling indicated that the section was constitutionally "vague."
President Bush has called on Congress to renew the counter-terrorism law which expires in 2005. The former Justice Department official, who wrote much of the Patriot Act, Viet Dinh, says the courts and Congress may have to clarify some aspects of the legislation, such as parts that deal with material support for terrorists and the use of evidence.
But Mr. Dinh also defended the legislation, which was passed by Congress soon after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, to expand law enforcement officials' ability to fight terrorism, increase surveillance, and encourage intelligence-sharing between agencies.
Mr. Dinh, currently a Georgetown University professor in Washington D.C., joined the New York panel discussion by telephone. He warned against diluting the Patriot Act. "I think that we can all agree that there are certain core activities that constitute material support for terrorists, which should be prohibited, and others which would not be prohibited," he said. "Congress needs to take a hard look and draw the lines very clearly to make sure that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water."
Still, critics argue that some aspects of the USA Patriot Act have led to an infringement on individuals' civil rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller on behalf of Arab and Islamic groups that say their Constitutional rights were violated when they were investigated by the government.
ACLU President Nadine Strossen says the group is calling for changes, such as requiring the government to demonstrate its suspicion of terrorist activity before obtaining personal records. "Indeed, none of us is calling for a repeal of a single provision in the USA Patriot Act," she said. "What we are calling for are amendments to particular provisions in the USA Patriot Act, amendments which we maintain are completely consistent with the legitimate, indeed compelling security needs that the government has set forward and would also protect constitutional rights and civil liberties."
During the debate sponsored by the New York Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of lawyers, opponents also argued that the USA Patriot Act has been used unfairly to investigate activity unrelated to terrorism. But supporters say the legislation has succeeded in removing some of the administrative obstacles to investigating suspected terrorists.
cl-Libraone

The lack of a "show cause clause" bothers me most. When people are frightened they freely give away the rights of "the other", e.g. the internment camps of WWII. Also, I am uncomfortable about access to my reading materials bothers me because I am one of those who follow my curiosity.
Thanks for posting the article.
I agree that some laws and regulations need to be tweaked, but I'm not sold on the Patriot Act by any means.
Pages