ACLU Campaign Challenges Patriot Act

Nept sent in a pointer to this story about the ACLU starting a media campaign challenging the PATRIOT Act. Good to hear.

Comments

They've been busy.

[XorNand]

The ACLU is also challenging the involvement of the US military in the DC sniper case, as reported by CNN. The "depend the Constitution" ad campaign mentioned is $3.5M large, which includes a million dollars worth of TV ads in 10 markets

Whoot! Keep it up guys!

Re:They've been busy.

[AntiNorm]

Seems strange that they want to prevent the people who know how to stop snipers from helping. As long as the assistance is purely technical, I have no problem with it. Now if the military was setting up roadblocks and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter.

There's a reason why they are preventing these military personnel from helping, and a good one too: the Posse Comitatus act. Basically, it prevents military personnel from doing most civilian law enforcement tasks except when authorized by Congress. Congress would essentially have to declare martial law in order for these people to be able to help out, and as scary as it may be, the current situation there does not warrant martial law.

Re:They've been busy.

[mesocyclone]

Too bad you didn't read the very article you referenced. It directly refutes your argument in this case.

Here is the relevant portion:

Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).

Re:They've been busy.

[mskfisher]

they did question a recently-discharged Marine who'd had sniper training...

but keep in mind that the shots that have been made so far aren't terribly difficult - it doesn't require formalized training. i'd say that most anyone could learn to hit a man-sized target at 100-150 yards with a few hours' practice.
this most recent shooting was a head shot, sure - but from 30-40 yards. that's practically point-blank, when dealing with a scoped weapon.
sure, there are techniques that are most easily picked up through directed training... but most people give this guy too much credit.
if the shots were 500+ yards on a windy day, then i'd start to assume the guy had some serious training under his belt.
urban sniping isn't that difficult. we're fortunate that not many people have undertaken it thus far.

Uppercase?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the name is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", it should be called the USAPATRIOT act.

All uppercase, no space (because "U SAP AT RIOT" is just as good a decomposition).

Re:Yes!

[ztc]

That quote is taken a bit out of context. Depending on how you read into it, he may actually be saying that he believes its his job to ensure freedoms such as free speech endure (which the ACLU is exercising.)

The whole quote is:

"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."

Rep.'s against the (un)Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Props to these representatives for voting against the Patriot Act.

Re:gun ownership privacy

[srmalloy]

So, where exactly in the second amendment does it say that "people could have armed militias?" Where does it say that the militia is there to "check" the government? The oh so short second amendment reads as follows.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. - Ammendment II of the Constitution

Notice the "well regulated" part? Also, notice that "Arms" is a proper noun? That means that WE can decide what regulations to place upon gun ownership and militias and WE can decide what the definition of "Arms" is. Do fully-automatic machine guns and rocket-launchers count as "Arms?" They most certainly are, but them being prohibited doesn't counter the 2nd Am. because "Arms" is defined by the individual States and by Congress itself.

Unfortunately for your premise, you are misinterpreting the term 'regulate' as 'controlled, restricted, or governed by law or rule'. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1. To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2. To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3. To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4. To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The third definition is also inappropriate, because regulation for accuracy or function is somethiing that is done to the arms, not the militia.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 29, described clearly what a well-regulated militia entailed:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?