Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional 661
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."
And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's great that this is the first blow towards stamping out parts of the Patriot Act, but it's not winning the whole war.
I hope that Maher Arar [sfgate.com] sues the pants off of the US Government. To quote the article:
The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months.
I hope that this man gets compensation for what he had to endure. I'm crossing my fingers that in the process of him doing so that most of these police-state laws that have gone into effect go the way of the dinosaur.
This isn't 1943 [utah.edu], and this isn't 1984 [online-literature.com]. The law should reflect that.
A Small Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
What Slashdot readers and other techies should be particularly concerned with is that, under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism now encompasses many computer crimes which have nothing to do with terrorism. Deface a web site? You're a terrorist. It also allows wiretaps and other intrusions without the hard-nosed rules that usually come with warrants, as long as it's placed under the crime of terrorism -- which now includes even minor computer crimes. The EFF has posted its detailed analysis of the Patriot Act, and how it affects people concerned with electronic freedoms here [eff.org].
While this is a minor victory, hopefully this is the first of many parts ruled unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean wants to ID you (Score:5, Interesting)
unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Moderators: parent not insightful (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, The RCMP ( the Mounties ) just searched a reporters notes, computer, sources for the Toronto Star for information about his case.
From the Star:
Prime Minister Paul Martin has blasted the RCMP for raiding an Ottawa journalist's house in search of leaked information in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian who was detained by the Americans and later deported to Syria. Martin says the RCMP's focus should be on who leaked the information, not who reported it.
They have a Canadian version of the Patriot Act, you see.
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this only halfway in jest. Mention the President and you'll get a score of rants explaining in rabid detail why he's the second coming of Joe McCarthy, but worse. Listen, Slashdotters, and listen carefully: neither party has a monopoly on boneheads. If you hate one of them because you think they love everything you detest, you'd better darn well make sure your own guys aren't rooting for the same thing.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Interesting)
The standard for issuing a search warrant does not change - there must be "probable cause" for such a search, meaning that a crime does not necessarily have to have been committed before such a search would be authorized. The rules under the PATRIOT Act are the same rules that would be applied to any other criminal case in that a judge would have to be consulted and a warrant issued. The only difference is that the PATRIOT Act makes this process swifter and allows for such searches to occur without the knowledge of the suspect.
This is only logical, as trying to uncover information about a terrorist cell doesn't exactly work when that terrorist cell knows they're being hunted.
Sure there is (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorist: A non-government actor seeking political change through violence directed intentionally against civilian populations.
I don't think that governments engage in terrorism, but that's just semantics. Doesn't mean I don't think they do bad things, though.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I consider myself to be loyal to American ideals, but the treatment of Mr. Arar is enough to inspire someone to become a terrorist.
Imagine being this man's child. Your father disappears for nearly a year and when he is returned to you, he is a shadow of his former self. 40 pounds lighter, limping and unable to get a peaceful night's sleep.
This is unacceptable. I didn't donate a cent to and of the "9-11" charities, but if Mr. Arar was to set up some kind of fund I think I would contribute to pay his lawyers to sue my government.
LK
why would interagency cooperation be killed? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) How does the PA ameliorate this?
2) How does killing the PA mean that the interagency cooperation provisions cannot be passed separately (what makes it unconstitutional on its own?)
I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.
The admission (I don't have the pointer right now) that the PA is being used primarily to go after nonterrorist criminal activity doesn't give me any reason to accept the promise that the PA will not be misused with anything other than a large bag of rock salt. The evasion and doublespeak on the PA's support website doesn't make me trust the people responsible for enforcing it any better. The attempts to add powers to the PA under cover of secrecy do not amplify my (already miniscule) faith in the ability of the PA to achieve its designed goals.
Giving trustworthy people the sort of power embodied in the PA is questionable - eventually power corrupts (although absolute power is "pretty neat" (Clancy, from somewhere else). Giving that power to someone many consider untrustworthy is a mistake. The words, evasion, and untruthfulness of the current administration do not lead me to trust them with the power the PA invests in them. I trusted WJC more than I trust GWB, and I wouldn't trust either of them with the PA.
Re:Patriot Act is Unpatriotic (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.infosecwest.com/cryptome/pixel-net.h
URL courtesy of www.cryptome.org
FBI WARNING: "Information on the CDs [archive of Cryptome] could be used to harm the United States."
Those who most want to spy on others fear most their own secrets will be bared.
Aid & Comfort to the Enemy (Score:3, Interesting)
Chip H.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. That's why we have more than one Supreme Court justice. You will notice that a 9-0 decision does not happen often on the big issues. It's also why we have more than one political party.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.
So, Mr. Bush... *you* do not have these powers.
Re:Syria (Score:1, Interesting)
"So, they put Arar on a private plane and flew him to Washington, D.C. There, a new team, presumably from the CIA, took over and delivered him, by way of Jordan, to Syrian interrogators."
Learn how to read, moron.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's the problem... the impulse to DO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!! is often a bad one.
Perhaps part of the Hippocratic Oath should become part of the Congressional oath of office... you know, that part which goes, "First, do no harm"...
Re:Sure there is (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose all the little children of nobles that lost their heads weren't civilians?
>> Founding Fathers
Did the British government own that tea we tossed overboard? Destruction of civilian property to support political goals is terrorist activity, whether it's blowing up a house or chunking tea overboard.
Re:And??? (Score:2, Interesting)
We do? Last I looked we have 1 party with 2 faces, that only disagree on very superficial things.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
A lawyer comes. Offers to help us lobby for reduced taxes. Shows us the ways to legally get around the taxes. Shows us how to roll our own to save money.
We see, after all our violence doesn't do squat, that peaceful means can actually work. We'd stop bothering with all the weapons stockpiles, and take public speaking classes and talk to lobbyists when we have problems with a law.
Under the Patriot act before this ruling, that lawyer would be banned from helping us, and if he chose to follow the law, our reign of terror would go on and on. We wouldn't learn, and more people would die.
How is it unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Good job 9th!
Re:And??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could you elaborate on that? Do you have any names or other references to back that statement up? I don't mean names of just any terrorists who we've captured, like Abu Zubaida. I mean names of guys who's capture was actually aided by provisions of the Patriot Act.
Bush emphasised his sucess in protecting us by pointing out that "twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001--over two years without an attack on American soil." But, the same can be said for the period before 9/11 too, can't it? Aside from that one horrific day, the US was never really under seige by terrorists.
All I see is lots of innocent foreigners and legal immigrants being treated in unacceptable ways with no justification. Maybe american citizens too. I don't really know of any American citizens for sure, and that shouldn't make a difference. However, some people incorrectly believe that what side of the border you were born on should make a difference when we are talking about human rights.
Re:And??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Partially true. But not entirelly. I have seen Al-Quaeda documents that have a picture of the globe with a sword through it. I have read parts of an Al-Quaeda training manual that says:
"The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime."
And the methods listed for accomplishing that mission are horrendous.
These people really believe that they can destroy us, and that is their goal. I do not believe in giving up my basic freedoms, but I do believe in taking action to make sure the world is free of these terrorists. We need to go on with our lives, but we need to do so in caution. We cannot let down our guard and allow these people to continue training and plotting against us. We need to do exactly what we are doing in the Middle East right now.
And no, I do not believe they want us to fight back. They just want us to cower in fear and leave ourselves venerable to more attacks. They do not want us to defeat them on their own ground. Their plan doesnt work if they are all dead or in prison, nor does it work when they have no organization. Do you think the Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan can spend much time planning for an attack on American soil if they are too busy worried about trying to lash out at our bases in Afghanistan? I dont.
Re:And??? (Score:3, Interesting)
- The Secret Service insists they are for the President's security though anyone who is a pro Bush supporter gets close to the President which completely undermines the security argument.
- Thanks to the careful positioning of the anti Bush pens the President never sees protestors, and always sees the pro Bush supporters, so if he is the naive idiot many think he is must think the whole world loves him, thanks to the rose colored glasses.
- The media chasing the President doesn't see protestors so they never cover the protestors. Of course the new patriotic, corporate media doesn't much want to cover dissent these days anyway. Its unpatriotic.
- The protestors soon realize they are wasting their time so they give up which ensures no critical mass ever builds which would make someone take notice. So it looks like there is no serious dissent. Its a simple fact of life protests like those at the Democratic convention against Vietnam in 1968 couldn't happen today because it would be crushed to ensure "security".
- The Secret Service, in the process of sorting people between the pro Bush people and the anti Bush people, can thouroughly catalog and brand all the potential troublemakers and ensure they are hassled at every future opportunity. Its really quite orderly.
Wouldn't it be cool if a bunch of anti Bush protestors dressed up like good Republicans, with pro Bush signs. The Secret Service quickly ushers them up close to the President. When the President pulls up they rip away the pro bush signs to show anti Bush signs. The Secret Service would freak, though I assume they must look for and gaurd against fakers. Maybe good Republicans have a secret code word. To successfully pull this off the protestors would have to be people who hadn't previously been cataloged as anti Bush protestors, a.k.a. terrorists and a threat to the nation.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously a follower of the old testament...
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:2, Interesting)
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials [snopes.com]
How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.
If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.
Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.