Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

[Edan]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance...

The problem is that the law is vague, meaning that, in this case, it could be used on those wishing to provide "provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey."

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo
Err.. wait, what am I thinking? Eden, why do you say that this is the relevant clause being declared unconstitutional? I seem to recall that the Patriot Act has punishments for people who belong to/aid groups Ashcroft considers terrorists.

How is that any different from a "comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations.""

Sounds the same to me (more or less), and just as potentially vague.

[Ramo]

http://lark.phoblacht.net/actofconscience.html

"It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)

Note the "expert advice or assistance" phrase - the same one used in the AP article.

Yeah, it's certainly the Patriot Act.

Sounds the same to me (minus your Ashcroft jab)

The Justice Dept. IIRC makes the list. Why's it a jab?

[civman2000]

How does it help the security of the US to not let people the government decides to call terrorists argue their defense effectively?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo
http://lark.phoblacht.net/actofconscience.html

"It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)

Note the "expert advice or assistance" phrase - the same one used in the AP article.

Yeah, it's certainly the Patriot Act.

Ahem. Fine, instead of

As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."

We'll insert the definition:

As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."

Again, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

The Justice Dept. IIRC makes the list. Why's it a jab?

Yeah, but Ashcroft, does not make the list in a vacuum, which was the impression, probably wrongly, that I got. ("Hmm, today I'll declare Burger King to be a terrorist organization" )

[Ramo]

We'll insert the definition:

The definition is part of the Patriot Act. Laws don't work that way.

In any case,
1. The Patriot Act has such a provision.
2. Just about every reputable source is reporting about it, and they're all saying it's the Patriot Act (NYT, Newshour, etc.).

Thus, it's almost certainly the Patriot Act unless this is some crazy Matrix-thing.

Besides, the 9th Circuit had struck down that provision in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act a little while ago (see the thread Dino linked), so this can't be it (the only people who can look at it again are SCOTUS after Ashcroft tries to appeal their decision.).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion.

I don't agree with your position, but I do agree that your opponents in debate have been totally out of line. Don't worry about it, bud. Just keep plugging away.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo
In any case,
1. The Patriot Act has such a provision.
2. Just about every reputable source is reporting about it, and they're all saying it's the Patriot Act (NYT, Newshour, etc.).

Thus, it's almost certainly the Patriot Act.

Besides, the 9th Circuit had struck down that provision in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act a little while ago (see the thread Dino linked), so this can't be it (the only people who can look at it again are SCOTUS after Ashcroft tries to appeal their decision.).

You're right, it probably is. But what my point was was that the "unconstitutionality" of it is not inherent to the Patriot Act. The precursor to this law - created before 9/11 - has the exact same problem of vagueness.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread scares me - I found myself in agreement with Odin!

[Odin]

Originally posted by skywalker
This thread scares me - I found myself in agreement with Odin!

[Ramo]

You're right, it probably is. But what my point was was that the "unconstitutionality" of it is not inherent to the Patriot Act. The precursor to this law - created before 9/11 - has the exact same problem of vagueness.

Except that the Patriot Act is much more extreme than the '96 Antiterror Act (and of course Ashcroft is quite a bit more of a nutjob than Reno). The biggest problem I see with the Patriot Act's section concerning aiding terrorist groups is not the description of aiding, but the definition of terrorist groups.

[Ramo]

I don't agree with your position, but I do agree that your opponents in debate have been totally out of line. Don't worry about it, bud. Just keep plugging away.

You've got to be kidding. I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?

Yes... PC McCarthyism exists in your crap comments. I may have been too easy on you.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ramo


Except that the Patriot Act is much more extreme than the '96 Antiterror Act (and of course Ashcroft is quite a bit more of a nutjob than Reno). The biggest problem I see with the Patriot Act's section concerning aiding terrorist groups is not the description of aiding, but the definition of terrorist groups.

[GRAMMER NAZI]
how was Reno a nutjob?
[/GRAMMER NAZI]

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?

Yes... PC McCarthyism exists in your crap comments. I may have been too easy on you.

[Bosh]

Obviously, you have never been stabbed by a junkie for a few items of cash.

Nope, over here you can get a couple years for pot possession. But I've had to dodge all the vomit on the sidewalks and deal with plenty of drunk people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Keep rolling your eyes, Odin. If anyone thinks his comments on the Kurds v. Turks is 'racist' then they are wallowing in the pit of PC McCarthyism.

[Ramo]

It's more like Kurds vs. Americans. He's saying that the freedom of the Kurds are totally inconsequential as compared to whatever goodwill we'd get from the Turkish gov't from locking up people who help Kurds. I don't see how this is not racist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's more like Kurds vs. Americans. He's saying that the freedom of the Kurds are totally inconsequential as compared to whatever goodwill we'd get from the Turks from locking up people who help Kurds.

And this is racist because? Sorry, not racist at all. Mostly smart politics... and I don't think he's wrong either. Turkey is much more important to keep on our side than the Kurds.

[Ben Kenobi]

are people who have something to hide,

And you don't?

[Ramo]

And this is racist because?

Because he's saying Kurdish lives aren't valuable.

Mostly smart politics...

Towards what goal? Honestly, how would locking up pro-Kurdish people change Turkey's stance in the war on terror. It's not like radical Islamists would start loving the most secular Islamic country in the world if they break with us. Folks like Qutb considered Ataturk's revolution the ultimate sin.

and I don't think he's wrong either. Turkey is much more important to keep on our side than the Kurds.

It's evil! It's not a question of keeping people on our side (and this ain't gonna change anything at all), but draconian repression just because such actions might make an ally a little bit confortable (though in the long term more stable).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because he's saying Kurdish lives aren't valuable.

He is saying they are less valuable than American interests. Nothing wrong for an American to say.

Honestly, how would locking up pro-Kurdish people change Turkey's stance in the war on terror.

Letting a Kurdistan form would have disasterous effects on the US's relationship with Turkey, who has been a very good ally to us since the 50s.

It's not a question of keeping people on our side (and this ain't gonna change anything at all), but draconian repression just because such actions might make an ally a little bit confortable (though in the long term more stable).

Yes, so? It's keeping our allies happy by locking up those backing terrorist groups (ie, PKK).

I still haven't seen any sign of racism. Chickle Little PC Princess strikes again .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

[And this is racist because? Sorry, not racist at all. Mostly smart politics... and I don't think he's wrong either. Turkey is much more important to keep on our side than the Kurds.

Realpolitik is morally disgusting, and that is an example why.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Realpolitik is morally disgusting, and that is an example why

And this is why morals are not useful in international politics, they get in the way .

[Ramo]

He is saying they are less valuable than American interests. Nothing wrong for an American to say.

Which American interests, exactly, would be secured by locking these guys up?

Letting a Kurdistan form would have disasterous effects on the US's relationship with Turkey, who has been a very good ally to us since the 50s.

What are you talking about? Letting Kurdistan form out of Iraq might, but this clearly isn't related to that. Letting Kurdistan form out of Turkey isn't something that some dudes can force on Turkey, and that would hardly worsen relations between us and Turkey.

Yes, so? It's keeping our allies happy by locking up those backing terrorist groups (ie, PKK).

They were trying to make peace between Kurdish militants and the Turks. There's absolutely no reason to imprison them for 15 years unless you think that Kurdish lives have no value.

[Ramo]

And this is why morals are not useful in international politics, they get in the way .

Only if you're an evil capitalist.

[Ned]

Just so everyone understands what this case is about, I will quote the most pertinent passage from the opinion below:

"Furthermore, Defendants' contradictory arguments on the scope of the prohibition underscore the vagueness of the prohibition. The "expert advice or assistance" Plaintiffs seek to offer includes advocacy and associational activities protected by the First Amendment, which Defendants concede are not protected under the USA PATRIOT Act. Despite this, 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. Thus, like the terms "personnel" and "training," "expert advice or assistance" "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment" or to "encompass First Amendment protected activities." 2003 US App. Lexis 24305 and * 60-61 (9th Cir. December 3, 2003)."

The expert assistance must be to a terrorist organization listed as such by the Secretary of State. It is clear that the court had some significant difficulty with labeling me PKK a terrorist organization. It was labeled a terrorist organization by Madeleine Albright in 1997.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which American interests, exactly, would be secured by locking these guys up?

Greater allied friendship with Turkey.

They were trying to make peace between Kurdish militants and the Turks.

You mean like giving money to Ocelan?

[Ramo]

Greater allied friendship with Turkey.

Exactly by how much? What would the Turks offer? How could this be more valuable than greater Kurdish liberties.

You mean like giving money to Ocelan?

No.
"The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey."

[Imran Siddiqui]

How could this be more valuable than greater Kurdish liberties.

Easily. Giving Kurdish freedoms decreases Turkish friendship (potentially greatly). The Turks are a close ally and militarilary powerful. They are also friendly to Israel and a secular Islamic state. Allowing people to go and talk to a organization which has organized terrorist attacks against that state is just not going to go over well.

And besides you have YET to prove the claim was racist, which was the point.