Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

D

Derius_T

New member
Sep 6, 12:25 PM EDT

Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law, complaining that it allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court order required for other government searches.

The ACLU said it was improper to issue so-called national security letters, or NSLs - investigative tools used by the FBI to compel businesses to turn over customer information - without a judge's order or grand jury subpoena. Examples of such businesses include Internet service providers, telephone companies and public libraries.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, said prosecutors had no immediate comment.

Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the revised law had wrongly given the FBI sweeping authority to control speech because the agency was allowed to decide on its own - without court review - whether a company receiving an NSL had to remain silent or whether it could reveal to its customers that it was turning over records.

In 2004, ruling on the initial version of the Patriot Act, the judge said the letters violate the Constitution because they amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement - under which an Internet service provider, for instance, would not be allowed to tell customers that it was turning over their records to the government - violated free speech.

After he ruled, Congress revised the Patriot Act in 2005, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed that Marrero review the law's constitutionality a second time.

The ACLU complained that Congress' revision of the law didn't go far enough to protect people because the government could still order companies to turn over their records and remain silent about it, if the FBI determined that the case involved national security.

The law was written "reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the judiciary's designated role under the Constitution," Marrero wrote.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT_LAWSUIT?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 
So if someone wanted records from a corporation or some business all they would need to do is label it under "homeland security" and it goes through? Or am I misunderstanding this again? :confused:
 
Nope, you've got it pretty much right. They'd probably also wave a shiny badge - ka-chow! - in order to underscore their authoritah to secretly investigate someone's papers and effects without a warrant.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us – we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.
Click to expand...
 
I used to reveal the dark side of the government, especially about the law enforcement. I suffered continuous harassment from the Feds cyberspace team.
Click to expand...

028.gif


Q: Do you work at a mall as part of a rapid security strike team? Just wondering...
 
Since my posting were all of political opinion, there was no reason to ban me accessing the site. The ban is so thorough that I couldn't complain nor read. I allege it was from surveillance team not from the web site. I think it was done when Feds (FBI, DEA) has been inspired and encouraged by the would passing new surveillance law.
Click to expand...

:eek::rolleyes:

WildtheyareoutthereyesssirtheyareoutthereAlaska TM

PS go check out the "allies" on the gentlemans signature website :)

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...aign_KEY=12293
 
Terrorists everywhere are celebrating!
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Rhetoric like that endangers our sacred freedoms. Imagine this law in place with someone you don't like for president - say Hillary Clinton. All she would have to do is say that your records fall under "Homeland Security" and she could bypass the Constitution. He who would give up a little liberty to gain temporary security will lose both and deserve neither! Cowards run and hide from terrorists believing that the nanny state will take care of them in emergencies, but history teaches us a different lesson. That's why we have the Second Amendment. If we had abided as a nation by the Second Amendment citizens would have been able to bear arms on September 11th and the terrorists wouldn't have had an Islamic prayer when they attempted to hijack the four airplanes. Think about it and be your own man! If you think overpaid bureaucrats in faraway Capitol buildings can protect you, think again.
 
All she would have to do is say that your records fall under "Homeland Security" and she could bypass the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Only if a Court lets her.

Lesson 1 from this thread: They system works. Lesson 2...see Lesson 1

WildcouldhavewouldhaveshouldhaveAlaska TM
 
Only if a Court lets her.
Click to expand...

And we all know that cops never, ever lie or shade the truth, and all judges are motivated by the highest ideals of fairness and justice, and are never lazy, corrupt, or incompetent.
 
And we all know that cops never, ever lie or shade the truth, and all judges are motivated by the highest ideals of fairness and justice, and are never lazy, corrupt, or incompetent.
Click to expand...

Well in this case I reckon thats wrong huh

Don't the courts come into play after the damage is done? Good luck trying to recoup damages LOL LOL
Click to expand...

Wah wah sob sob..they got a bunch of phone numbers.

Here ya go

De minimus non jurat lex

WildomygodthegovernmentmightknowsomethingaboutsomebodyheavenforbidAlaska TM
 
All she would have to do is say that your records fall under "Homeland Security" and she could bypass the Constitution.
Click to expand...

F on Conlaw 101.

You have no expectation of privacy (and therefore no requirement for a warrant) for anything you handed over to another person or anything in the hands of another person (ie banks or other companies). The law has always been this way. The only protections for these records are created by statute, not the constitution.

This will be reversed quite swiftly. There are idiots who get F's on Conlaw 101 on the bench. Most likely a Clintonista or Carter appointment.

Edit: this judge is a Clintonista with no real law experience. He was a city planner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top