|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision 
#3196425 - 09/29/04 04:30 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Finally some common sense....
Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision
Email this story
Sep 29, 12:07 PM (ET)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.
The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.
The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."
Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
web page
And......
Judge Blocks U.S. From Doing Secret Searches
NewsMax Wires
Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004
NEW YORK -- Declaring that personal security is as important as national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling a ``landmark victory'' against the Justice Department's post-Sept. 11 law enforcement powers.
Story Continues Below
``Today's ruling is a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power,'' said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.
In his ruling, the judge called national security of ``paramount value'' and said the government ``must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively'' to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and ``especially prized in our system of justice.''
Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision ``in this or any other case.'' But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.
Megan L. Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, said the government was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.
The judge said the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.
He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a ``state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.''
``Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good,'' Marrero wrote.
Marrero issued his decision in favor of an Internet access firm identified in his 120-page ruling as ``John Doe.'' He had agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.
Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.
The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.
In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply ``particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency.''
``The Sept. 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do Sept. 11 justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that define the best Sept. 11 brought out of the rest of American society.'' ? 2000 The Associated Press
web page
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (09/29/04 04:32 PM)
|
 zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3196432 - 09/29/04 04:32 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah I read that just now myself but the article is so hideously written that you can't even tell what the issue was.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: zappaisgod]
#3196623 - 09/29/04 05:26 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Exactly. What section of the act was being challenged? Where is the wording of the section in question?
What useless reporting. Sadly, that seems par for the course in what passes for "journalism" these days.
pinky
--------------------
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Phred]
#3196674 - 09/29/04 05:42 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16603&c=282
(History is written by the victors after all  )
Section 505 was struck down.
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3196684 - 09/29/04 05:44 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Wow, the ACLU actually making itself useful.
Fucking Ashcroft.
If Bush announced he was gonna shake up his cabinet, I might actually begin to consider the possiblity of voting for him.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Tao]
#3196698 - 09/29/04 05:46 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
That was a better article. Thanks.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3196893 - 09/29/04 06:29 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Great link. It sent me to the text of the decision, which I read the introduction of and which explained most of the points. The crux of the decision seemed to hinge most crucially on the secrecy aspect of these letters and the extra judicial nature of them, i.e. no recourse to appeal. Not that much to get excited about. It just means they have to judge shop to get a subpoena and the people being served can complain. On second thought, that is a big deal.
--------------------
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God 
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3196912 - 09/29/04 06:34 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Not surprising at all... the Judicial Branch hates it when they're left out of the loop.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada 
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3196917 - 09/29/04 06:36 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
now they should drop sec. 802, if not the whole initiative
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: ekomstop]
#3196928 - 09/29/04 06:39 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0205-08.htm
New York City Wants Easing of Patriot Act
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON -- New York, the city most affected by the 9/11 attacks almost two and a half years ago, has become the latest U.S. municipality to formally urge major reforms to the USA PATRIOT Act to eliminate threats to basic civil rights and due-process protections.
The New York City Council voted Wednesday to urge local agencies not to subject New Yorkers to secret detentions without access to counsel and the New York Police Department (NYPD), in particular, to protect the free-speech rights of individuals and refrain from enforcing federal immigration laws or engage in racial or ethnic profiling.
The measure, known as Resolution 60, was approved by voice vote and also calls upon the New York delegation in Congress to "actively work for the repeal of those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) and related federal actions that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties."
"The city of New York--perhaps more than any city in America--is keenly aware of why we are engaged in a war on terror," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "With its diverse population, it is fitting and proper that the nation's largest city has joined millions across the country in demanding that America can, and must, be both safe AND free," she added.
Passage of the resolution came two weeks after the Los Angeles City Council passed a similar resolution by a 9-2 margin. The Jan 21 vote was depicted as a direct rebuff to President Bush, who had called for extending and expanding the Patrioet Act during his State of the Union Address the night before.
In so doing, Los Angeles, the country's third largest city, and now New York have joined a growing list of 250 municipalities, counties and states encompassing nearly 50 million people across the country that have approved measures over the past two years that urge far-reaching reform of the USAPA to ensure basic rights and due process.
Other jurisdictions that have approved such resolutions include Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, and Chicago, the nation's second largest city, as well as small communities from Alaska to North Carolina and Maine. The state legislatures of Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont have also approved similar measures.
The main focus of their objections includes the sweeping powers given to the Justice Department to round up, detain, and summarily deport immigrants without filing charges or providing them with access to attorneys, or, in some cases, even to their family members; the use of racial and ethnic profiling by federal agencies in targeting suspects; and the granting of unprecedented powers to the FBI to secretly obtain information with little or no judicial review about individuals, ranging from their financial records to their book-borrowing patterns from local libraries.
Late last year, the Bush administration indicated it will seek a further expansion of those powers in a new act, as well as an extension of the USAPA beyond its December, 2005, expiration date. At the same time, the administration managed to push through new powers for the FBI enabling it to search and seize business records without court approval from securities dealers, currency exchanges, travel agencies, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other business that, in the government's eyes, has a "high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Under the 2001 USAPA, such powers were limited to business records held by banks, credit unions and similar financial institutions.
The ACLU, a leader in national and grassroots efforts to oppose the USAPA's more far-reaching provisions and related legislation, has been joined by a wide coalition of other groups from across the political spectrum. Indeed, some of the strongest opposition to USAPA has come from the political right, including Americans for Tax Reform and the Eagle Forum, among others.
The coalition's common denominator has been the fear that USAPA has upset the delicate balance between security and liberty and now threatens individuals' privacy and constitutional freedoms.
More than 90 organizations had endorsed the New York resolution, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the New York Public Library Guild, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. At the council's hearings held earlier, a number of family members of NYPD and NYFD officers who died on 9/11 testified in support of the resolution.
"The fact that the resolution passed in New York City, site of the devastating 9/11 attacks, sends a resounding message that New Yorkers are now willing to trade their freedom for policies that do not make them any more safe," said Laura Murphy, head of the ACLU's Legislative office here. "The City of New York paid a higher cost than most cities, but New Yorkers are standing up and refusing to sacrifice their fundamental freedoms."
Among the 34 co-sponsors of the resolution was Council Member Alan Gerson, whose district includes the site of the World Trade Center.
The impact of the City Council's vote on security is likely to be put to a major test when the Republican National Convention meets in New York Aug. 30 to Sep 2. Large-scale protests are expected.
BTW...Guess who originally opened up Austin's city council to the idea of finally re-evaluating their positions on the patriot act where by it eventually spread to about 400 other cities??? ALEX MOTHERFUCKING JONES!
You guys should be kissing his sweaty ass.
Edited by ekomstop (09/29/04 07:06 PM)
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3198259 - 09/29/04 11:31 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
The terrorists have infultrated the judicial system. 
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3198277 - 09/29/04 11:36 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
nice to see some judicial sanity prevailing, although I'm not at all surprised really. Most of the PA is clearly unconstitutional.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Tao]
#3201147 - 09/30/04 06:35 PM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Well, well, well. I thought there was something fishy about the way this was being reported -- or more accurately, misreported. Turns out the ACLU was lying, and once again the mainstream media swallowed it hook line and sinker.
The case they were talking about is not a Patriot Act case at all, and does not invalidate section 505 of the Act. The case was actually known as Doe v. Ashcroft, and was brought before District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York. Marrero issued a 122 page opinion invalidating 18 U.S.C. 2709, the "national security letter" provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed in 1986, on Fourth and First Amendment grounds.
Unless his decision is reversed on appeal, this does impact the Patriot Act, but only in that it might require heavily increased reliance on the controversial Section 215 powers of the Act.
There are several related commentaries at http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_28.shtml#1096517139 which analyze the ruling in detail. Fascinating reading for those of a legal bent.
Sorry it took me so long to catch this, but since the articles provided were so ineptly written (and in the case of the ACLU release, blatantly lying) it took me a while to dig up the relevant particulars of exactly which law was being challenged. Sorry for the delay. I'll try to be faster next time.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Phred]
#3206834 - 10/02/04 01:19 PM (20 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
bumped for phi1618
--------------------
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Phred]
#3206936 - 10/02/04 02:09 PM (20 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
From the US patriot act:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
SEC. 505. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.
(a) TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS- Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and
(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and
(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.
So, PATRIOT act section 505(a) was struck down by this ruling - until apeal, at least.
Was the ACLU coverage complete and detailed? No - they concentrated on the PATRIOT act, which is well-known and about which many people have a strong, negative oppinion, and didn't mention 18 U.S.C. 2709, which isn't well-known or exciting. The media coverage followed their lead.
Was the coverage wonderful? No - but it was good enough for most people who don't care about the details of esoteric 100+ page legal decisions, and it was essentially accurate.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: phi1618]
#3206978 - 10/02/04 02:29 PM (20 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
So sorry, you are incorrect. The ruling wasn't against section 505(a) of the Patriot Act. The ruling was against the 1986 statute which section 505(a) amended.
It was lazy and inaccurate reporting, pure and simple.
And, as the link I provided points out, with Section 2709(b) title 18 out of the picture until appeal, authorities will now be relying on the much more notorious (and constitutionally dubious) Section 215 of the Patriot Act rather than the relatively innocuous amendments of 505(a). Yet the ACLU trumpets the decision as a "victory".
pinky
--------------------
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision [Re: Phred]
#3207029 - 10/02/04 02:55 PM (20 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
So sorry, I am correct. (edit: or, if I'm not, you're going to have to do more to convince me than unqualified contradiction or semantic quibbling)
Although the ruling refers to Section 2709(b) of title 18, Section 505(a) of the patriot act was also nullified by the ruling, because it did nothing but extend the circumstances under which the earlier statute could be applied.
What did sec. 505 do? It allowed the writing of "national security letters"* in a wider variety of sercumstances than perviously allowed. Previously, these letters could only be used to gather information on people reasonably suspected of espionage; under 505, they could be used against any person, citizen or not, even if they were not themselves suspected of criminal activity, as long as the information sought was, in the view of an FBI field office, "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities".
With the statute that allowed the issuance of these letters under certain circumstances eliminated, 505(a) of the patriot act is also gone. Would the more limited previous version of the law be unconstitutional in the eyes of this judge? 
As far as 215 goes (a provision which also extends the circumstances under which a pervious statute may be applied, one pertaining to secret searches) - if they use it more, there will be more opportunities to find it unconstitutional.
* edit: "national security letters" is a euphamism for an administrative subpoena, not subject to judicial review - hardly innocuous from a civil liberties or checks-and-ballances viewpoint.
Edited by phi1618 (10/02/04 02:59 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
Rono
Sclorch
shogun221
ekomstop
Lana
Ellis Dee
wingnutx
KingOftheThing