Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

[Imran Siddiqui]

But it comes down to the lack of value in the lives of others, and it isn't "PC McCarthyism" someone on it

When you accuse people of racism for it, then yes, it is.

But the prosecution didn't even say that they suspected anything more.

Cause they CAN'T! That would be grounds for mistrial.

I wouldn't put that much faith in the Justice Dept.

And I wouldn't believe the Justice Dept is persuing it if something else wasn't involved.

[Ned]

Ramo, et al., the court did not rule that act was unconstitutional because the experts wanted to support only peaceful activities of terrorist groups, but because it believed that "advocacy" before the UN, etc., which is protected activity under the 1st Amendment, is "epert" "advice and assistance" TO the terrorist group.

To me, the court is being highly disengenous and has engaged in bootstrapping.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


No, much worse. I am a Republican.

But that was a good argument.

I'm a Republican, too.

The Patriot Act went overboard, more than I initially realized. this is a good decision.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


I'm a Republican, too.

The Patriot Act went overboard, more than I initially realized. this is a good decision.

May I ask why this decision is right?

[Ramo]

When you accuse people of racism for it, then yes, it is.

Might as well be. It's ultimately some form of bigotry, and it's "PC McCarthyism" to whine that someone might not be referring to the right kind of bigotry.

And I wouldn't believe the Justice Dept is persuing it if something else wasn't involved.

The current Just Dept. has had more than its fair share of inane prosecutions.

And I don't buy it. If the prosecution can prove that the defendents were giving advice to some Kurdish militants, why can't they prove that the advice was, for instance, involvement in planning new terrorist acts? Surely, they'd have to have some idea of what these people were giving advice on to prove that they were giving advice.

Ramo, et al., the court did not rule that act was unconstitutional because the experts wanted to support only peaceful activities of terrorist groups, but because it believed that "advocacy" before the UN, etc., which is protected activity under the 1st Amendment, is "epert" "advice and assistance" TO the terrorist group.

To me, the court is being highly disengenous and has engaged in bootstrapping.

No, the court is saying that this particular clause in the Patriot Act is far too vague, and it could be easily used in unreasonabe situations, such as this particular case. Which is an absolutely correct analysis of the law.

[Ned]

Ramo, could you amplify you thought process here. How is advocating the PKK's cause to the UN rendering expert advice or assistance TO the PKK.

[Ramo]

That's expert assistance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's expert assistance.

"TO" the PKK?

Ramo, I must respectfully disagree. I hardly believe anyone would think that arguing the PKK's case to the UN would comprise illegal expert assistance to the terrorist group. It simply defines both common sense and the ordinary meaning of words.

Bootstrapping.

I predict that this ruling will not survive even the liberal 9th Cir.

[Ramo]

They could be experts (which could refer to any number of things: humanitarian groups, intelligence agencies, etc.), and they would be assisting the the PKK. What don't you understand?

BTW, the 9th Circuit, as I've mentioned earlier, struck down a very similar portion of the '96 Antiterrorism Act (and in fact, went further than this court in protecting our liberties).

[Ned]

Ramo, the court did seem to be following that 9th Cir. opinion.

We shall see. Undoubtedly the Supremes will have a say.