The Patriot Act has come under fire since it was enacted following 9/11. There are some provisions in the act that I do not agree with, however overall I see this as needed for national security. Some provisions are to help erase a wall between intelligence agencies constructed during the 1990s and in my view this deconstruction is past due.

In a case in California between supporters of two Department of State designated terrorist groups, Kurdistan Workers Party and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Patriot Act took center stage as supporters wanted to send these two groups aid for the tsunami but did not want to be prosecuted. Ruling in favor of the Patriot Act on most fronts, the judge in the case did however say one provision is “unconstitutionally vague.”

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins found language in the 2001 law — making it illegal to give “expert advice” or “training” to foreign terrorist organizations — is impermissibly imprecise. The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday the judge’s order was made public Friday.

The judge ruled in favor of the government by upholding a provision of the law making it illegal to give “material support” to terrorist organizations, the newspaper said. Collins said her order — enjoining the U.S. Justice Department from enforcing unconstitutional features of the law — applies only to plaintiffs in the legal challenge her court is considering.

This is a big win for the Patriot Act and in my view, the correct decision. The parts of the Patriot Act which I have read at times are vague and should be more specific, however the larger bill is to ensure safety of Americans which is the primary function of government.