Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/AP, 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."

EFF Patriot Act Analysis

[Eyah....TIMMY]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very good speech last year at DefCon about the dangers of the Patriot Act.
They have an analysis [eff.org] on their site about the Patriot Act and what it means for us.
Here's also another article [eff.org] about why we should be concerned about it.

NOT the USSC!

[DAldredge]

It wasn't the USSC, it was a Federal District judge.

Re:A Small Victory

[acroyear]

As far as i know, unless there are political reasons to not do it, like their boss (i.e., Ashcroft) says don't do it, they have no choice BUT to appeal.

It is the policy of the Justice Department to support the implementation and preservation of all laws in the book. If an appeal rules one defunct, then they must appeal to preserve it until told its "not a priority".

Trust me, to Ashcroft and Ridge, Patriot IS a priority.

bout time

[knodi]

I went around cube to cube (hey, I was on break) sharing the gist of the headline, and I got a unanimous [pardon the french] "about fucking time" from EVERY SINGLE person, except one guy who just clapped slowly. He's an odd one...

Read the Ruling carefully?

[Tarwn]

I read through the article and it seems like the judge is asking for it to be reworded rather than stricken, and the piece in quesiton is only the expert advice portion, not the pre-existing portion concerning materials/resources.

So while the people who are jumping up and down for joy about pieces being over-ruled may have to wait for a while, I'm personally happy that we are looking at suggested corrections. I don't by any means think the patriot act is perfect, but I much prefer people trying to improve on it rather than just throw it aay all together.

Re:Where's the ACLU?

[kitzilla]

Actually, the ACLU has been fighting the Patriot Act and Patriot II since before most people knew it was going to be a problem:

ACLU and the Patriot act [aclu.org]

Hopefully, that will cure your rant. You can stop foaming now.

Re:hmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Aparently someone didn't see the news.
U.S. Productivity Best In 20 Years [cbsnews.com]
2003 home building best in 25 years [suntimes.com]
2004 Economic Forecast Best in 20 Years, Conference Board Reports [business-journal.com]
I first heard this news on CNN which isn't exactly pro-Bush.

Kucinich too

[Anonymous Coward]

Dennis Kucinich [kucinich.us] too voted against this monstrocity. We somehow need to encourage other presidential candidates to vote against this. Like, say, a pledge to vote for any presidential candidate that would repel PATRIOT Act.

PATRIOT, not Patriot

[brauwerman]

"PATRIOT ACT" It's an acronym, not a word.
"Patriot" is no better spelling than PatRiot.

for what it's worth.

Re:Just Remember

[Pave Low]

Here's mine, where's yours?

Here's a couple:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=105613989048 1 [law.com]

http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/nhs/gthomson.class/artic les/judicial/9circut.htm [k12.az.us]

Excerpt:
Over the last 20 years, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a reputation for being wrong more often than any other federal appeals court.

By both measures, the 9th Circuit was wrong more often than any other circuit in the dozen years Posner surveyed, though 1997

Re:Just Remember

[dwillden]

The facts you need to check are that it is not a ruling by the 9th circuit (yet). This was a ruling by a Federal District court in LA.

If/when it gets appealed, then it will go to the 9th, who I'm guessing will uphold the ruling on the initial review, and if appealed the full panel of the court will probably also uphold it. The full panel doesn't get overturned nearly as often as the initial three judge panels.

In fact the full panel is often the group that does the overturning. A prime example is the Pledge of Allegience case.

Re:Syria

[Mistlefoot]

The US government is responsible because they sent him to a country that was not his. Mr. Arar WAS and IS a Canadian citizen.

The US government CHOSE to threaten Arar with deportation to a country that it knew would torture him if "he didn't talk"....and then made true on this threat.

This would be like England sending an American citizen, who was wrongly accused of being a spy for Israel, to Iran......and than claiming that they had no idea Iran might torture him.

"He was detained" by the US, and sent not to his home country, but by the US to be "tortured by Syria".

Re:Just Remember

[jjohnson]

Here's one: http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/re versal_rates.pdf

Upshot: the 9th in 2002, at 75%, was marginally worse than the 2nd, 7th and 6th (67%, 67%, and 71%, respectively), and much better than the 4th, 5th and 8th (100%, all). It was also noticeably better than state courts (81%). Only the 11th, D.C., and the federal circuit were noticeably better at 50% each.

The 'heavily reversed and overly liberal 9th' is one of those memes that has an ounce of truth to it obscured by a ton of partisan bravado.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[craw]

The problem with 215 is that it greatly expands the governments ability to obtain practically every conceivable pieces of information about anybody. Not foreign spies, anybody. And who grants this authority? The highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, who meet in secret, and extremely rarely release any infor about what they ruled on.

Before the Patriot Act, one could be investigated if one was a spy suspect. Now, the provision is that there is an ongoing investigation related to espionage or terrorist activity. This is a big web to spin and the FBI spins it without oversight.

Then there is the gag order that can be unilaterally applied by the FBI. Those that handed over info the FBI can be restricted from ever telling you that this info was given to the FBI.

However, 215 is not the main problem, the expansion of the National Security Letters (NSL) in the Patriot Act is the real problem. The FBI can issue a NSL without a Federal Court order if there is an on-going investigation that is taking place. Before, NSLs could be issued if it was believed that you were a foreign spy. And without any court oversight, the FBI has a "free-hand" to issue NSLs whenever they want. This is a big legal loophole in the Patriot Act.

What can one do with a NSL? The FBI can get info from your phone, ISP, banks, and credit card companies. Remember, all this without a court order. Additionally, a gag order can be issue to those companies to not disclose that they gave the FBI the information about you.

Re:So what?

[sadomikeyism]

Article III

Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That good enough fer ya???

Re:Syria

[mindstrm]

One thing you left out.. he was also a Syrian citizen.

I am as outraged as the next guy, probably more actually... what was done was 100% totally wrong.

Your scenario would be more accurate if the person was someone who lives in America, but has joint American/Iranian citizenship being deported to Iran, despite not having lived there for 30 years.

Re:Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT

[nomadic]

That is simply incorrect. From Section 215: (Each application under this section shall be made to)`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court;

Magistrates aren't judges, and their powers are limited compared to real judges; they don't even necessarily have to have a law degree. They generally do stuff like sign search warrants.

I'm not sure why the law references 28 USCA 43; that section simply states the makeup of courts of appeal, and no reference is made to magistrates.

Re:WHAT THE???

[Qzukk]

Meaningful and somewhat beneficial? Are you smoking something?

Lets say that you work the helpdesk at WhizzyFast ISP. Someone calls you up, and asks you how to connect. You explain how the dialup process works, and step him through the settings he needs on his computer.

Three days later the men in black put you in a cell and leave you there for a month or so without even telling you what you did (if you haven't been paying attention, this is Bush's favorite tactic).

So what happened? Well, after the person called you, they successfully connected to the internet and pwn3d three fbi.gov servers in quick succession. Naturally, the FBI was pissed, so they moved quickly and issued a subpoena for the phone records. The next day, they subpoena WhizzyFast ISP records to see who handles which calls. And the third day, you're in a cell with very plain walls, rather bewildered.

Oh, and don't forget, "cyberterrorism" is a terrorism offense, so by helping the script kiddie, you aided a terrorist. You could claim that you had no way of knowing that the person on the other end of the line was a terrorist, but I suspect "Bubba" who you're sharing the cell with doesn't care much. Without a trial you don't even get the benefit of "guilty until proven innocent".

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[ssstraub]

ince when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.

Since when has Osama Bin Laden been hiding in Iraq?

Maybe you'd rather hear it from the President himself:
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." [washingtonpost.com]

Re:And???

[Threni]

> These people really believe that they can destroy us,

Look up an interview with Bin Laden by Robert Fisk. Bin Laden is ignorant of world politics. He just wants the US out of the middle east.

Re:And???

[Threni]

Some info (sorry, I was busy earlier):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/understanding_enemy.h tm
which links to:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/fisk_interview3.ht m

And, to even things up, here is 5 minutes in the company of George W Bush, immediately after he learnt his country was under attack:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm