WAR: Federal Judge Rules Some Portions of U.S. Patriot Act Unconstitutional

A U.S. District Court judge ruled Thursday that portions of the U.S. Patriot Act that had been previously ruled unconstituional in 2004 had not been corrected by Congress. As a result, the judge enjoined the government from enforcing the disputed sections - but only for the plantiffs named in the lawsuit.



The disputed sections appear to revolve around the way the government defines a terrorist group. In this specific case, the plantiffs were the Liberation Tigers and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan. If the government had evidence that these are indeed terrorist organizations, they apparently didn't convince the judge.

I support the principle behind the Patriot Act - expanding the governments ability to pursue and prosecute terrorist organizations. The actual legislation has been clearly shown to be lacking on numerous occasions. Chalk one up for judicial review.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
New Patriot Act Could Include Administrative Subpoenas
Which will you choose? Freedom or Security??


[edit on 7/29/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

The judge's ruling will not endear her to the Turks who consider the PKK to be a terrorist group and have said they may go into Iraq after them if necessary.

...too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence...

If there was any doubt, this should prove that your POTUS don't know what's going on in his own government.

Anyway, my problem with much of recent legislation is that it's to vague. If you pass a new law, it should be clear to everyone what the law actually is.

Good call by the judge.

They can't pass a law that's "clear". Thats the whole point. The law must be ambiguous and flexible. This way the government can go after whomever it wants (think COINTELPRO) without having to answer to the public.



Nothing happens by accident.



There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse

Congratulations to this Judge. She will most likely be termed an activist judge with an agenda to bring down the right. I would like to think she is working for her employers (the U.S public) and not the administration, or the Turks for that matter.

She is doing her job, and she's doing it well to boot

I might be inclined to put this ruling into a "conspiracy" class. Notice how narrow the ruling is and then realize that the U.S. has a great deal of sympathy for the Kurds, but has committments to the Turks to reign in the PKK to preclude PKK actions inside Turkey. This ruling allows the U.S. to tell the Turks they are trying to live up to their committments but have been prohibited by the court from really taking any actions--which effectively lets the PKK do whatever it is they want to do. It's kind of like having your cake and eating it to.

the whole patriot act is extremely vague and due to the incredible length and newly created rules that effect everyone, it would've been a great idea to have some kind of campaign to inform the public of exactly how it works.

make it clear as day, inform the public so they won't be caught by surprise if some of their actions are 'terroristic' under the patriot act. this would've put many American's nerves somewhat stable and at least show that this is intended for the best of the public.

but that sure isn't happening and it's clear they don't have the public's interest in the forefront.

i bet it is very vague.its like the return of darth vader lol.really dont like the laws coming out of all this 911 stuff.they seem to have nothing to do with the problems at hand.just the government tryin to control persons privacy.walk on other countires laws and impose there agenda.it took me a few to see clearly but we see whats going on in the news and why british can get there man when usa seems slow to get theres.....if i was a u.s person i would demand a better government.not one that is finger pointing everyone shame.....

[edit on 30-7-2005 by flukemol]

Congress is a large number of representatives elected by people of this country. It doesn't make anyone take pause that one unelected individual can undo that which a large number of elected official have created?

This is judicial activism and is representative of the judical hedgmony that exists in this country. You think you live in a democracy? You are wrong. Your representaives have been castrated by a judicial branch that has totally usurped power that the constitution never gave them. Yea it sounds all good when the judge agrees with your particular point of view at the time. What happens when that judge doesn't? Who do you want making laws? Those who you can vote for or those who are appointed and unaccountable to the populace?

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Apoc]

Apoc that doesn't bother me personally a bit. Someone had to bring suit concerning the law before the judge ever hear the case. Now if the losing side wants to appeal the decision, they can--all the way to the Supreme Court. The fact that no appeal was filed (yet) leads me to believe that both sides probably got what they wanted from the ruling. In any case, the procedure is in place to challenge the ruling through the appeals process.

Like the "elected" guys actually represent the citizens! hahahaha good one.

More like he who spends the most dollars wins- and most often it is the incumbant!

I cannot for a second believe the California voters actually re-elect that Fienstein witch.