英语论文网

from providing aid to the two groups “for fear of facing criminal sanctions” as a result of the PATRIOT Act. After making their case, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared 805 unconstitutional because it “violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague.” The judge argued that this vagueness could let parts of the section be applied to areas protected by the First Amendment. [xxxix] In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, also involving the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act—an act amended in parts and used by the PATRIOT Act—was constitutional. Section 303 of the AEDPA forbids giving “‘material support or resources’” to terrorist organizations. [xl]

American Civil Liberties Union & Doe v. Ashcroft marked another win for PATRIOT Act critics. The case was overseen by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of southern Manhattan and concerned 505. According to the PATRIOT Act, anyone served with a National Security Letter “is forever gagged against disclosing its [the letter’s] existence ‘to any person.’” The court ruled that this section violated the First Amendment and prevented the FBI from invoking it in the future. [xli]

Later, on September 26, 2007, an Oregon court’s ruling in Mayfield v. United States further weakened the PATRIOT Act. Mayfield, later found to be not guilty, was deemed guilty by the FBI in an investigation into the Madrid train bombings of 2004. He was one of twenty suspects in the investigation. Using provisions in the PATRIOT Act, the FBI put him and his family under surveillance. Upon his release after being imprisoned for two weeks, Mayfield sued the federal government. In November of 2006, Mayfield agreed to a settlement. One “unusual condition” of the settlement “freed the government from future liability with one exception. Mr. Mayfield was allowed to continue a suit seeking to overturn parts of the PATRIOT Act.” After hearing the case, Judge Aiken of the Federal District Court in Portland ruled that the part of the PATRIOT Act allowing for surveillance and searches (213 and 218) violated the Fourth Amendment’s provision against unreasonable searches and seizures. [xlii] The government appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The higher court “validated” the lower court’s decision. [xliii]

With the PATRIOT Act set to expire on May 29, 2011, its future seems uncertain. Fifty-six percent of Americans polled in a survey by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation “think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses and immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” The group that identified least with this position was the Democrats and the party that identified with it the most was the GOP; independents fell in between the two. [xliv] On the other hand, the House of Representatives wants to put a ten month extension on the bill and the Senate and White House prefer to extend to PATRIOT Act to 2013. The White House states that the reason for this stance is so that government agencies can plan for any possible changes, although the likely reason is that Obama intends to incorporate the PATRIOT Act into his platform for the 2012 presidential elections. [xlv] Regardless of what happens on May 29, it seems