A Tamil-American physician and the Center for Constitutional Rights have filed a lawsuit against the US Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law that was enacted just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The lawsuit, filed in a Los Angeles Court on August 5, challenges a section of the law that criminalises the provision of 'expert advice and assistance' to proscribed organisations.

The Patriot Act is being widely criticised for infringing on civil liberties.

"In its rush to pass the Patriot Act just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congress overlooked one of our most fundamental rights (the right to express our political beliefs), especially those that are controversial," says CCR senior attorney Nancy Chang. 

"Now it is up to the judiciary to correct Congress' excesses."

CCR's motion was filed in a pending lawsuit, Humanitarian Law Project. It challenges a Patriot Act amendment to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a law that makes it a crime to provide material support to any group designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organisation. 

The law, rarely enforced before September 11, has become the lynchpin of the Justice Department's domestic criminal war on terrorism -- virtually every anti-terrorism prosecution filed since September 11 has included a charge under this statute.

The Patriot Act amends the definition of material support to include 'expert advice and assistance', and makes it a crime to provide such advice or assistance no matter what its intent and purpose, and even where it has nothing whatsoever to do with furthering terrorism.

In March 2000, a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court barred enforcement of criminal bans on providing 'personnel' and 'training' to proscribed groups, finding that these prohibitions are unconstitutionally vague and could criminalise a wide range of First Amendment-protected speech, from writing an op-ed to lobbying or teaching human rights advocacy. In October 2001, the district court made that injunction permanent.

In its filing earlier this week, CCR argues that the ban on 'expert advice and assistance' added by the Patriot Act covers essentially the same activities as, and is as unconstitutionally vague as, the ban on 'training' and 'personnel', and should also be struck down.

It said plaintiff Dr Jeyalangim is a Tamil-American physician who is deeply concerned for the welfare of the Tamils in Sri Lanka as members of his family were forced to flee that country as refugees.

He would like to alleviate the shortage of trained physicians in the Tamil Eelam region of northeast Sri Lanka by providing his medical services. 

However, because some of the hospitals in the region are run by the LTTE, Jeyalangim is afraid to do so because he fears prosecution for providing material support.