ACLU & The Patriot Act

Posted on October 4, 2006

Crossposted from Revealing the ACLU: It has taken 3 years, but a Detroit judge finally came back on a Patriot Act challenge filed by the ACLU back in 2003. The following from the Washington Post / Associated Press:

Nearly three years after hearing arguments in the case, a federal judge has ruled that an American Civil Liberties Union challenge to the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act may proceed.

[…]

The lawsuit was filed in July 2003 on behalf of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and five other nonprofit groups. The ACLU said its clients had been hurt by the Patriot Act because fear of the law has kept many people from attending religious services and making charitable donations.

The ACLU contended Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the FBI access to any “tangible things” such as books and documents through an order from a secret court, does not require investigators to show probable cause.

The group wants the judge to declare Section 215 unconstitutional, and block the Justice Department from using that part of the Patriot Act.

[…]

Kary Moss, Michigan director of the ACLU, told the Detroit Free Press she would consult with her clients before deciding whether to proceed with the lawsuit.

Here is a link to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, in case you would like to review. This section was one of the sections which were previously adjusted by Congress due to some concerns over the constitutionality of the content. I am unsure if the ACLU’s concerns were addressed by the change and, from the ACLU reply, I think they are not so sure either. Section 215 dose require judicial approval and discretion, and has carve outs to avoid violation of first amendment rights.

I would note that the Judge is allowing the complaint to move forward, not making a ruling on the validity of the complaint with respect to the current section 215 of the act. Furthermore Judge Hood has given the ACLU 30 days to update its filing in line with the changes to Section 215 which occurred after the original filing, but before this ruling.

One odd discrepancy of note, is that the ACLU press release on this subject seems at odds with the AP data, and information provided by other news sources. The ACLU press release, entitled “Detroit Judge Finds Patriot Act Provision Threatens Free Speech Rights” seems to indicate that the judge ruled on the validity of the claim rather than permitting the claim to be updated and proceed for a future ruling. From the ACLU press release:

blockquote>DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed a federal court ruling that the Patriot Act threatens the free speech and religious freedom rights of groups who have reason to believe they are targeted by the law.
“Today’s ruling confirms what we have said all along - that our clients are suffering concrete harm as a result of the Patriot Act,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson.

The release is quite a spin on the truth, and perhaps an outright exaggeration. The ACLU goes on to be a bit more factual in its statement further into the release.

blockquote>In her ruling issued on Monday, Judge Denise Page Hood rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case and granted the ACLU 30 days to decide whether to file an amended complaint in light of changes to the law. She also noted that Section 215 was amended by Congress “while the matter was under advisement,” and therefore her ruling does not apply to the current, reauthorized version of the Patriot Act.

I am probably going to shock everyone when I say I support the ACLU’s push on the Patriot act. I see the Patriot act as a necessary and critical thing in the war on terror, but one that could easily be taken too far – to the detriment of law abiding Americans. I do think the act, where it sits today, is a comfortable middle ground between privacy and security, and I am happy with it. However, we need to avoid a situation where the Justice Department becomes complacent and seeks to extend the act beyond its intention. The only way I can see to avoid that complacency is for organizations, like the ACLU, to poke and prod and critique the use of the act. It is a two edged sword, and we must watch that the ACLU doesn’t push to far, as is there want, to protect those who would destroy us.

I am less enthused at the ACLU client base for this case. The original brief included 6 plaintiffs, 5 of which are Islamic specific organizations. The following is the list of plaintiffs in the original case:

Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR): An organization with strong ties to known terrorist organizations, and known to employ staff who have participated in or supported terrorism. See the Anti-Cair page for more detail.

Muslim Community Center of Ann Arbor: A local Muslim Community Center and school. There is very little information available on this group, which I could find.

American-Arab Discrimination Committee: A strong Arab lobby and part of the Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Advisory Council. This organization is not without scandal. In November of 2003 the leader of this organization, an Imad Hamad threatened the president of a local school board in attempts to have the school officially recognize a Muslim holiday. The threat was later retracted. Full story here. This group also officially opposes US aid to Israel, opposes the war on terror, and officially support the Palestinian Martyrdom (homicide bombing) campaign in Israel.

Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services: Founded in the 1970, and built the Arab American National Museum, this group has been linked to terrorist individuals. ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons, and licenses to carry hazardous materials for two men latter convicted as part of a Michigan based Al-Qaeda cell. In 2002 ACCESS sponsored and funded the Second Annual Palestinian Students Divestment Conference at the University of Michigan; a conference which included a now indicted Jihad terror group leader. The group also has opposed various laws which preclude the funding known terrorist groups. This article is an interesting read on ACCESS and its founder.

Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber: This organization had links to the famed Portland Seven, one of which was a prayer leader at the mosque; and has links to the Madrid bombings. In addition this group is linked to the Islamic charity Global Relief Fund which has been accused of links to Al Qaeda. More info here.

Bridge Refugee & Sponsorship Services: This is the only group that is not Arab / Muslim focused group on the plaintiff list. Though the group is known for assisting Middle Eastern refugees, it has no known links to terrorist organizations.

In short, 4 of 6 or 2/3rds of the organizations the ACLU has chosen to represent in this case have or have had terrorist ties – the very thing that the Patriot act was intended to fight against. That is unconscionable.

There has been a known and proven link between many Islamic Charities and terrorist funding; a few keystrokes at the search engine of your choice will turn up news article after news article on this subject.

While the Patriot Act needs consistent review and even criticism to keep it balanced on that fine line between security and tyranny, it cannot simply be struck down. To aid those organizations who mean us harm in tearing down the laws intended to keep them in check is as sure a path to disaster as any I can imagine.

» Filed Under ACLU, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

5 Responses to “ACLU & The Patriot Act”

Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:49 pm

I’m pleasantly surprised, davef. Thank you for a unbiased an informative account.

I was especially pleased to read this:

The only way I can see to avoid that complacency is for organizations, like the ACLU, to poke and prod and critique the use of the act.

I think that is a perfect characterization. The Feds are always going to push for more power. Organizations like the ACLU are always going to pull back, sometimes too far. It’s the job of the courts to keep the country in a happy medium.

However, I’m curious as to why you don’t apply this same logic to other issues?

The release is quite a spin on the truth, and perhaps an outright exaggeration. The ACLU goes on to be a bit more factual in its statement further into the release.

Yeah, they put a healthy dose of spin in it. As with any organization, take their press releases with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Jay on October 4th, 2006 2:51 pm

The ACLU are always overboard with their fighting against the government’s attempts to protect its citizens.
Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:54 pm

The ACLU are always overboard

You’re welcome to that opinion, of course, but why does that make them dangerous or evil? They can’t pass laws or set policy. All they can do is file lawsuits. It’s up to the courts to find the proper balance.
davef on October 4th, 2006 4:10 pm

Jeff:
I do try to be fair on everything I pen, yet blogs are, by nature, opinion columns and I do find my self much more often in the roll of push back against the ACLU as opposed to the flip side.

I think the inherent goal of the ACLU, should they succeed in their ultimate agenda, is very un-American and not in the best interests in our country.

Thanks for the note.
kerwin_brown on October 5th, 2006 3:07 am

This is a security issue and in cases of invasion or rebellion, Congress has the right to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus. If you can seize a person without giving a reason, then it seems that you can seize property without giving a reason. I do not believe the 9/11 attack is sufficient justification, but the potentiality of an attack by a nuke or some other weapon that can cause mass death and devastation, could be.