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.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District
Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance"
is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no
comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A
message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking
to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish
refugees in Turkey.

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.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between
impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful,
nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"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," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on
terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

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.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S.
District
Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or
assistance"
is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no
comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A
message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens
seeking
to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish
refugees in Turkey.

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.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate
between
impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful,
nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"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," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on
terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

Probably 9th Circuit... they're overrulled a lot, especially by the neo-nazi
Supreme Court.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:37:25 GMT, "Bobsprit" said:

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA
Patriot
Act

Which circuit is she in?

Which circuit is reversed more often than all the others by a wide wide
margin?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:37:25 GMT, "Bobsprit" said:


A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot
Act


Which circuit is she in?

Which circuit is reversed more often than all the others by a wide wide
margin?


That on a DC motor.

Cheers

On 27 Jan 2004, Dave wrote:

"Bobsprit" said:

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional
a portion of the USA Patriot Act

[She is in the 9th Circuit. Guess w]hich circuit
is reversed more often than all the others by
a wide wide margin?

This charge is as oft stated as it is incorrect in fact. As 9th Cir.
Judge Hawkins wrote in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal,

"The actual numbers are available for the rate at which
the Supreme Court 'slapped down' the lower courts in
the last Term. The average reversal rate was 74%. The
rate for the Ninth Circuit was 75% (same as the Sixth);
four circuits had 100% reversal rates (Second, Fourth,
Fifth & Tenth); and state supreme courts were reversed
81% of the time."

Numerous studies confirm this position. Even so, some folks claim
otherswise, although mostly because there are different ways to
measure federal court of appeals reversal rates. Indeed, there isn't
even agreement how to account for different ways different circuits
account for the differing kinds of cases they each take and dispose of
(e.g., by so-called "summary" reversals or affirmances of their lower
courts' rulings). Also, the nature of cases litigated in each of the
geographically disparate and, relatedly, often politially/culturally
very different circuits makes any method of just relying on statistics
dubious even if (for some circumstances) helpful.

One element of the lawsuit referred to is how terribly vague the
provision in question was and yet the great pains that Ashcroft and
his colleagues in the U.S. DOJ went to raise every possible
technical/procedural argument they could think of to try to convince
the court not to rule on the merits itself of the First Amendment free
speech and right to associate issues actually presented.

Why/how any of this is appropriate for a sailing-related newsgroup
meanwhile remains a so far unanswered question . . . .

you can play your semantic games all night, but that doesn't change the
facts.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:01:07 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Probably 9th Circuit... they're overrulled a lot, especially by the
neo-nazi
Supreme Court.

Surely you jest.

In that vein, Linda Greenhouse led off her front page editorial today by
explaining that the Supremes were going to decide whether a national
consensus had been reached on applying the death penalty to defendants who
were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes. Some of us think deciding
whether there is a national consensus is what elections are for, not what
court cases are for.

BTW, the 9th Circuit is never "overruled" by the Supremes. But it's
regularly reversed. A case is overruled when a court changes its mind and
thinks it finally got the answer right. It's reversed when the folks who
know better tell the court it hasn't gotten the answer right yet.



Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

On 27 Jan 20040, Dave wrote:

said:

This charge is as oft stated as it is incorrect in fact.
As 9th Cir. Judge Hawkins wrote in a letter published
in the Wall Street Journal,

"The actual numbers are available for the rate at which
the Supreme Court 'slapped down' the lower courts in
the last Term. The average reversal rate was 74%. The
rate for the Ninth Circuit was 75% (same as the Sixth);
four circuits had 100% reversal rates (Second, Fourth,
Fifth & Tenth); and state supreme courts were reversed
81% of the time."

So according to Judge Hawkins the 2nd Circuit is always wrong.

He did not say (or even imply) that. Instead, he said that, for the
periods to which he was referring, correctly, the 9th circuit's
reversal (or, in the parlance of some ideologically-riven bloviator's,
"sla[p] down") rate was notably less than in the 2nd circuit.

If you define an appellate court's being "wrong" as having been
reversed, the numbers are what they are. (Note, again, however, that
there remain numerous but not always well-disclosed different ways to
assign and to calculate the numbers and also sometimes substantial
questions whether focus just or even primarily on reversal rates as
such compared with other modes of measurment [whether in the 9th or in
the 2nd or other circuits] is a fair and accurate assessment of
judicial performance.) What meanwhile has been "wrong" in these
rspects have been many mispreresentations of the numbers especially by
politically-influenced ideologues.

And you accept that analysis without
raising an eyebrow?

I accept the numbers referred to by Judge Hawkins in the manner he
referred to them because I have verified that they are correct.

(For non-lawyers in the crowd, the 2nd Circuit has
historically been perhaps the most well-respected
in the country year in and year out.)

I agree (except that reasonable knowledgeable persons might quibble
whether the above parenthetical "the" might have been better expressed
as "among the two or three" and that the 2nd circuit has occasionally
made some really dumb decisions).

I hesitate to make this posting because, as previously noted, none of
this Stuff appears to have anything to do with sailing.

You're the one who's playing semantic games. I never made the claim that
calling them neo-nazis was more than my opinion. I don't think you had
any comment about my use of that phrase until just now. As far as I can
tell, I'm not a simple minded liberal. As far as I can tell, the Bush
administration
is very, very far out of the mainstream thinking in this country.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:16 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

you can play your semantic games all night, but that doesn't change the
facts.

Calling someone on words like "neo-nazi" isn't semantic games. It's simply
insisting that intellectual honesty is preferable to simple-minded labels.

I agree that the Supremes have gone astray, beginning perhaps with the
reapportionment cases. But they've gone astray in substituting for honest
analysis, constitutional text and principle their collective notions of
what
happens to be a good idea today, by dreaming up penumbrae and what they
call
"fundamental notions of fairness" for the words those folks sat down and
wrote, and the States voted on, back in 1789.
Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

There are idiots, and then there is Congress, but I repeat myself.
Sure thing.

I've already put down my money to two people. Bush is outahere.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:45:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

As far as I can
tell, I'm not a simple minded liberal.

That is a proposition on which reasonable men may differ.

As far as I can tell, the Bush
administration
is very, very far out of the mainstream thinking in this country.

Well, that's why we have elections. We'll find out.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

That would be bob...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:52:53 GMT, said:

So according to Judge Hawkins the 2nd Circuit is always wrong.

He did not say (or even imply) that. Instead, he said that, for the
periods to which he was referring, correctly, the 9th circuit's
reversal (or, in the parlance of some ideologically-riven bloviator's,
"sla[p] down") rate was notably less than in the 2nd circuit.

Ah, so the judge was simply acting as a blind scrivener and didn't intend
the reader to draw any conclusions from the numbers. Excuse me, I have to
look out the window and see if any pigs are flying by.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27