Slashdot Mirror
Part Of The Patriot Act Shot Down
jtwJGuevara writes "In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume) the section of the Patriot Act which gives power to the FBI to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorist investigations has been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. Victor Marreo, the District Judge who made this ruling, states that the provision of the Patriot Act in question 'effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge.'"
Sounds like a defense of CORPORATIONS rights, which are more and more behind the scenes, creating laws and running the country. We have separation of church and state - we need separation of business and state as well.
I'd be willing to be that this one will see the Supreme Court. Hopefully they'll not overturn this extrordinarily wise decision.
I moderate Mr. Marreo +1 : Liberty.
Its an uphill battle against bureaucracy, against the thirst for more power and its fought by decent civil libertarians amidst others who are running the risk of being labeled as unpatriotic girly men by Fox news and the Republican party.
ACLU has been moderately successful in chipping away provisions of the Patriot Act, desperately trying to limit its broad sweeping powers acquired during the aftermath of Sept 11, when the notion of security drew a shadowy veil over our eyes and across measures of oversight and provided us with the promise of a secure land but taking away our freedom in its place. The people behind it were clever enough to threaten us with more attacks and a terrible outcome if these measures were not passed, but put nothing in place to provide oversight, nothing in place to limit its ever stretching arm, reaching out to our private lives.
Now, the Republican party is getting ready with "Patriot Act II" in response to the findings of the Sept 11 commission, but in stark contrast to what's required, has granted far greater power and reach to the security agencies while dramatically eroding constitutional protections and providing a fraction of added security.
Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.
Rapid Nirvana
I know that Kerry wrote some of the "financial crime" parts of the Patriot Act. I wonder if this was his? Does anyone know?
That's interesting, could you explain why? I was under the impression that the lower courts order would be binding unless the supreme court chose to override it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It should be pointed out that the FBI can still demand confidential financial records without this provision of the "Patriot" Act. Basically, without this provision the FBI just needs to provide a reason WHY to a judge to get similar access to the same records. (Previously, it was all hush-hush.)
ACLU's site is getting hammered; the decision has also been posted on EFF's site:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/ PATRIOT/20040929_NSL_Decision.pdf
(EFF's press release is here.)
If you are a lawyer, then you should know that if this gets upheld on appeals and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, then it stands...
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
IAALT (I Am A Lawyer Too), and this judgement is binding in his federal court's jurisdiction. It might just be his part of district two (which I think covers NY), or it might be all of district two (which I think covers NY and some surrounding states). It is good law there, until either overruled by the Supremes, or made the Law of the Land by the Supremes.
Hopefully on appeal the Supreme Court accepts this case.
More than just that, hope that someone else wins in November and appoints some less conservative individuals to take their seat among the other justices.
This is slashdot, call somebody a fascist or a pirate, roll around in it a while.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
Please remind me of all the Dems that voted against the patriot act.
Thanks in advance.
darn activist judges, the laws name has word Patriot in it! Doesn't that in itself make it immune to judicial review? I mean it not like it's name is communist act or something.
Music today is so uninspiring it would make Martin Luther King want to watch Friends. The patriotic act is merely protecting shitty music, shitty movies, and other contemporary shit designed to make money. Who cares.
This is the Patriot act; not the DMCA.
I think you might have meant to say that they used guerrilla warfare, which is true. But its a little different than "terrorism"...
Only within the appeals court's jurisdiction. For example, when the 9th Circuit Court rules that "Under God" is unconstitional, the precedent in that ruling only affects courts WITHIN the 9th circuit.
The loser needs to appeal it to the supreme court for it to affect the entire US.
This particular case only applies within the district court's jurisdiction. It hasn't been to an appeals court yet.
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
I think that George Tennet gave the most damning testimony against the PATRIOT Act during the 9/11 commission, and he didn't even realize it. In his closing arguments, he said that the US knew everything it needed to know to stop the 9/11 attacks, but everyone held a different piece of the puzzle but didn't want to share that piece with anyone else. The government doesn't need any more power to stop terrorism, they just need to get rid of the bureacracy, which is why this new intelligence office is total BS: they are trying to fight the problem of too much bureacracy with.....MORE bureacracy(yeah, I can't spell). Unfortunately both major political candidates think this the real way to reform intelligence......
Monstar L
Awww.... come on
You act as if the ACLU has an agenda that they are trying to disguise under the ploy of "Civil Liberties."
Oh, wait. They do.
Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.
You had something going there until this last bit of dribble.
I hardly think you can blame Republicans when 98 senators and 337 Representatives voted for the bill. Those senators of course included your beloved John Kerry.
I work in an academic library that's also a federal depository. I've had to deal first hand with the implications of this POS raping of our rights
I also live in a city where provisions of this act were (mis)used not to go after terrorists, but after "garden variety" criminals.
In making purchases off of the internet or at a store, I had to pick and choose what I wanted to buy with a CC. Afterall, in the hands of an overzealous prosecutor with an axe to grind, my purchase of the book/film for Lolita and The Tin Drum could be turned into "evidence" of my pedophilla or some other such rot. "Would it play well in Peoria" became my yardstick for all CC purchases. No really. I deal with a government that would inflict such craplaw as the Patriot Act on us with extreme paranoia.
(But, one part of me has a tiny twinge of sorrow at watching this act of justice delayed. It's mightily hard to be fiscally irresponsible when you've switched to a "cash diet" to make all your major purchases. It's going to be a little harder for me to be "good" now.)
OS X:*nix for the real world.
Yes. The difference (I believe) being that they will now need to convince a judge that they need to, and can be held accountable. No "fishing" in other words.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
There is a fine line to be found between protecting the rights of individuals and protecting the right of the People to be secure. The Patriot Act sought to define the line, giving the Executive more power to track these financial transactions, without scrutiny of the individual being investigated, and with limited oversight.
We need some kind of oversight, because the Executive may abuse the power. Not every executive will be as trustworthy as others in regard to protecting the rights of individuals.
One thing to consider, however, is that with judicial oversight, you can have another form of tyrany, where an overzealous judge prevents an Executive from doing his job to protect the People. We only have an appeals process for this, which hopefully results in a well-reasoned balance of rights. However, as the judicial confirmation process becomes more and more politicized, you can expect more and more partisans being placed in lifetime-tenured posts.
No judge is ever going to rule less power for the Judicial branch. I, for one, do not welcome our judicial overlords. Lex Rex.
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
I don't see how the 2 issues contradict each other. Both viewpoints seem to adhere to the idea of separation of church and state. With regards to abortion, the ACLU believes the legality of abortion should not be threatened by an individual or groups religious beliefes interefering with the state's law making decisions. The same argument holds for the school voucher issue, just in reverse. The state's law making abilities should not favor a religious belief.
They're both consistent. Keep religion out of public legislation, whether it's laws that potentially support a religion (school vouchers) or laws that run afoul of some people's religious sensibilities (abortion.)
Like the old saying - you gave him an inch, he will ask for a foot, it does apply to both ways though.
I don't think this is a good explanation of why PATRIOT act is bad. I reject is because it violates the Popperian criterion of good law (not to be mistaken by the more famous Popperian criterion of what is and what isn't scientific). Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It's not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don't ask yourself the question "how this law can be used in good hands". Ask the question "how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)". Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. Now, PATRIOT act could maybe be a good idea in the hands of pure angels. Even if you think Bush and Cheney are as good as angels, you can't seriously think they will rule forever, can you? And just imagine what a malevolent ruler can do with this act...
I seriously doubt you're a lawyer, because no lawyer I know would be so reckless as to make this statement. It's just plain wrong, and I hope anyone reading this thread will remember how dangerous it is to get a legal education on Slashdot.
This judge's ruling is binding within his jurisdiction. That means it's a settled issue within that district. This will undoubtedly be appealed to an appellate court, and once it hits the appellate level, the appeals court will re-examine the conclusions of law. The conclusions of fact, though, are supreme and cannot be re-examined by any court unless they are "as offensive to the senses as a three day old mackerel". (For non-lawyers, yes, that is the legal standard used. The precedent in question is a funny read.)
Once the appellate court rules on it, the judgement is binding within the appellate court's entire jurisdiction. At this point, the law is effectively dead. Other appellate courts will refer to this first appellate court in their own decisions, and it's overwhelmingly likely all Federal circuits will come to the exact same decision.
The Supreme Court accepts less than one percent of the cases appealed to it from the appellate court level. The cases it accepts tends, overwhelmingly, to be cases which have been handled in different ways by different appellate courts (a rare occurrence), or cases which it feels to possess unusual relevance to Constitutional law.
Russ Feingold. Wisconsin. The only one with enough balls in the whole Senate to vote against that hurtling turd.
Seriously, whenever I hear about any of the freedom-reducing provisions of the Patriot act, I can't help but ask myself, "What exactly do these people like about America? As for myself, I always felt very proud of our freedom, but these jokers keep taking it away bit by bit, and don't even appear to feel bad about it."
Bush calls the terrorists "freedom-haters", but ironically I see his administration as one of the biggest "freedom-reducers" in the past 20 years. Heck, under their own logic, by cutting our freedoms, aren't they giving the freedom-hating terrorists what they want?
Is having a free country hard? Yes. But as a country, don't we pride ourselves on doing the right thing, even if it's tough? I thought we did. Is there an alternative to the Patriot act that would preserve our safety and yet not place such restrictive burden on our freedom? I think there is, but it doesn't feel like we even tried looking for it.
P.S. Would the Patriot act have prevented 9/11? This is a guessing game, and it's hard to characterize such a giant bloated act, but most of the provisions under the Patriot act don't seem like they even begin to address the real problems that allowed 9/11 to happen. So ironically, we've given away a lot of freedom for a bunch of laws that wouldn't have made us safer.
In the house that would be:
0 1& rollnumber=398
_ li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1& vote=00313
Baldwin, Barrett, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boucher, Brown (OH),Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Dingell, Farr, Filner, Frank, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Honda, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), Miller, George, Mink, Mollohan, Nadler, Ney, Oberstar, Olver, Otter, Owens, Pastor, Paul, Payne, Peterson (MN), Rahall, Rivers, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sanders, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson (MS), Tierney, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, and Wu
and in the Senate: Feingold
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=20
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call
I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or disgusted by your existance.
I suggest the former - you can at least spell that one.
I believe this indicates a systemic problem - like the grotesque growth of spaghetti code in a legacy application. ("We don't know how the insides work anymore, so we'll keep building wrappers around everything to try and keep it from getting out of control.")
About the only thing I think the founders forgot when they tried to build a system of checks & balances was some kind of automatic expiration process for laws that aren't "maintained" anymore. There should've been some kind of mechanism that would force the legislators to keep reviewing existing laws, and to let them expire if the legislators didn't think it was worth keeping them around. If such a mechanism were required, I bet legislators would be a lot more focused on keeping the legal code "maintainable".
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source
You'll note that there is no distinction between governments or civilians. One could argue that a rebellion (and yes, the Founding Fathers were British citizens at the time) is a form of terrorism, as is destruction of property like the Boston Tea Party and other attacks on forts & munitions before the Revolution was official.
It still is a precident that can be sighted in cases outside this district. It is hardly a meaningless ruling.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Is that the government uses it against NON-TERRORISTS.
Not only that, the government has used it against non-terrorists MORE THAN it has been used against terrorists.
It's a bad law, just like the DMCA, that gives the executive branch too much power without the benefit of the checks and balances of which our government is based.
There is no such right. There cannot be, because it is impossible to provide it, as long as people continue to meet each other. At some point you have to trust your neighbor not to try to kill you; in part, you rely on people being mostly reasonable, and in part, you earn the trust by behaving in a reasonable manner towards your neighbor.
IANAL, but I did read up on this case pretty heavily (the "Under God" one).
The Supreme Court ruled on the case, and overturned the appellate's decision on a technicality. The analysis I read (not my own) was that this could likely be used in another juristiction to force the issue directly to the supreme court on merits. Hence we have the (certainly unconstitutional and probably meaningless) Pledge Protection Act which is supposed to remove the issue of the Pledge from the eye of the court.
Now, it seems to me that this case is certainly going to be one which will go before the Supreme Court just because it is an important legal controversy.
My own opinion (layman) is that the Supreme Court will rule, as they did in case of Hamdi and the Guantamamo Bay detainees, that executive power cannot be removed from judicial oversight. Of course, they could also rule as they did in Padilla that the case was improberly brought before the court and send it back on a technicality. My layman's opinion though with the Padilla case is that Hamdi represents a strong enough precident to essentially challenge the constitutionality of Padilla's classification, so the technicality doesn't really give the government much wiggle room once the Habeus petition is properly filed.
Now to the case in question. Hamdi is of particular importance because in my analysis of how the court will rule (Layman's analysis IANAL, etc) because it exposes deep divisions within the Court with regard to the level of executive and legislative authority allowed within the framework of the War on Terror. In the opinion of the Court, even the fact that Hamdi was detained in the theater of operations of an armed conflict did not deny him the right to at least a minimum due process of law and some form of judicial check under Habeus petitions. Notably, the Opinion of the Court was only endorsed by 4 justices (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Breyer) though Souter and Ginsberg's dissenting opinion eventually endorses the action of the court but under protest.
4 Justices in two dissenting oppinions in Hamdi actually held that the detention of Hamdi was in fact illegal, and that it was not enough to simply allow him to challenge his "enemy combatant" classification. The opinion of Souter and Ginsberg was that the detention was not properly endorsed by Congress and was therefore illegal. They did not, however, challenge the plurality opinion that Habeus Corpus and due process could be observed by merely giving Hamdi a chance to present an alternative view before the judiciary.
Scalia and Stevens dissented, arguing that *any* detention without charge or trial is a violation of due process and habeus corpus rights and can only be done in the event where Congress suspends Habeus.
Only Thomas suggested that the government should be able detain Hamdi indefinitely without trial.
The decision is available at the Supreme Court's Web site here. This link is included so that other laymen can read the opinions and reach their own conclusions.
If Hamdi is any indication of the court's responses to the question of judicial oversight in the war on terror, it seems that the 8-1 opinion is that the court *must* have strict oversight in such a way as to ensure that the Constitution and rights of the citizens are adequately protected. Of course, it could be vacated on a technicality, but this would still, I think, provide a powerful case for even individuals in other circuits. I don't at this time see the court doing anything differently.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume)
How about "a victory for all of the United States" ?
What?
I'd say if those who have moral reasons are also democrats (!), then they can abide by the democratic results.
As for those who have religious reasons -- what concern is that of the state? The USA is not a country that can inflict sharia, or any other religiously motivated laws, on its people.
Where's you from, bud?
Perhaps. But I do find it odd that Scalia and Rehnquist both talked a bit about retiring before September 11th and the patent disregard for the Constitution that the Bush Administration showed afterwards. Now I don't hear anything, and I wonder if they are afraid to retire...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The problem with the patriot act is that throws the intended checks and balances between the legislative and judicial branches of the govt. Finally somebody stepped up and layed that out in plain english. The patriot act does absolutely nothing to combat terrorism. Bin Laden's camel rider letter carrier is not likely to be intercepted via a FBI wiretap.
Got Code?
You were just as stupid yesterday, when you were an astrophysicist.
--
make install -not war
"In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume) the section of the Patriot Act which gives power to the FBI to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorist investigations has been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. Victor Marreo, the District Judge who made this ruling, states that the provision of the Patriot Act in question 'effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge.'"
Now half you people actually shouldn't be posting in this thread, given how you've been incessantly bitching on how this is the Patriot Act was the beginning of Imperial America, how the system is broken beyond repair, etc, etc, etc. I know it's hard to swallow, but here's a lesson made painfully obvious by this story: THE SYSTEM WORKS. Here's another fact for you-- The founding fathers were obviously more itelligent than you give them credit for. The specifically designed a government around the concept of paranoia, a thought that is ofter lost among the blithering on how their ideas are too antiquated for our time when the first hint of turbulent weather blows our way. Because they were wiser than most of you, extremes such as these always manage to even out; see McCarthyism, Japanese camps in WW2, and any number of other "the sky is falling!" events that this country has somehow survived.
If I could reach past my last 25 posts, you'd be in for a nice, ripe "I told you so."
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Yeah, and we all know that it wasn't necessary to save hundreds of thousands of lives during a period of world war.
And that is why we will be targets for terrorism. They have declared war against us. Jihad; look it up. So, since they are trying to save lives in the goal to wipe out the infidels, why would it be a problem if they set off a 50 megaton device in the center of NY, LA, or Chicago? If they win, they can justify it later as saving total lives, and someone else will target them for being so conceited and pretentious.
The only way to "win" the war on terrorism is to identify why we are targets, and eliminate the reasons. I'll give you a hint, invading a country with very little international support isn't helping. In fact, terrorist organizations control more territory in Iraq than before the war. Look at all the "do not go" zones for American military. They are listed as such because terrorists control them. Terrorists that wouldn't exist if we hadn't invaded their homeland.
When the only country to have used nuclear weapons keeps lecturing others not to do it, it looks pretty bad. Do as we say, not as we do.
Learn to love Alaska
(Poster then continues on to educate Slashdot readers on the "real" legal facts...)
Thanks for your legal advice!
Some cats swing, and others don't. Don't you be the kind that won't.
... if the goal of the terrorists was to uphold the Constitution, then I don't think that'd be so bad.
Something makes me think 'the terrorists' and Ashcroft have frighteningly similar opinions on -that-, though. Both would rather live in a theocracy...
The enemies of Democracy are
I will tell you what scares me, and it is not arbitrary imprisonment (I figure that is so unconstitutional that they won't dare do that one again without at a minimum Congressional authorization or better yet a full suspension of Habeus but if that happens, we might as well leave the country).
What scares me is the fact that the Bush administration is putting mechanisms in place which can be used to arbitrarily make your life miserable for whatever reasons the executive sees fit. These include no-fly lists, among other things. It scares me that these mechanisms could be used in ways which could effectively silence certain forms of political discourse.
I am not afraid that I might become the next Jose Padilla. I am afraid that I might become punished for talking about airport security, etc. and that I might be forbidden to fly or have other arbitrary sanctions put on my activities which may be difficult to challenge in court.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As for laws against murder, one could reasonably design that amendment in such a way that makes an exemption for certain explicitly-listed laws. Such an amendment should also prescribe a set time frame in whcih all laws must be updated to include a sunset provision and should limit the maximum duration of that period to no more than... say ten years. This would forcibly reduce the number of federal laws significantly, which would be a very good thing. 90% of laws amount to "this other law is hereby altered such that it doesn't apply in cases of foo". Those laws should not exist. They should be part of an amended form of the original law. That's a big part of why our legal system is such an utter mess....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You whelps knock it off? I'm trying to... uh...
What was I saying?
Doesn't matter, I'm going to sleeee......zzzzzzzzzzz
The Penguin Producer
If you're looking only at the body count, which let me first say is a skewed way of examining things, the US occupation so far probably was not any less bloody than Saddam's reign.
So it occured to me that the fundimental failing of our political process is fairly simple. It became obvious some time back that you cannot successfully legislate morals, so the people in power pandered and began legislating what I call "moralisim".
The legislation of Moralisim is what happens when you cannot pass a ban on a book, so you establish a "community standards" test to allow each community to decide to ban the book because it would be bad to "force them to accept the book." In Moralisim, if you can not achieve the ban, you ban banning the ban...
It's a back-handed logical trick, like arguing to authority, where you open up patchwork of recursively nested micro-fifes. Consider "Dry" neighborhoods in "Wet" cities in "Dry" counties. You get to a place where you can't ban the book, so you ban yourself from controlling the ban on books and leave it up your political constituents to "decide for themselves".
It produces little political kingdoms where vocal extremests and idealogues can stake out parts of the landscape for various dogmatic purposes.
It also "levels the playing field" in a way that isnt right, but that "sounds fair" to those who are not paying proper heed. This ersatz seeming fairness can then be used as "authority" unilaterally. It rases a cloud of uncertainty where any stupid thing becomes possible as an "act of the people" because all "rights" become beasts of equal prescidence.
Consider: I have the right to keep and bare arms, you have the right not to be gunned down at the Circle-K. These two rights do *not* hold equal precidence, the right not to be gunned down is ever-so-more significant. This does *NOT* however mean that the right to keep and bare arms is somehow "punctured" and suddenly goes away. The fact is that these two rights are not really in conflict because the responsable exercise of one doesn't lead enexorably to the violation of the other.
Compare this then to "smoking", you have the right to smoke and I have the right not to. Here the right not to smoke trounces the right to smoke. You are asked to step out side. It didn't have to be that way, if the smokers had always "smoked responsibly" by observing other peoples right to smoke, they would have stepped out side all along and there woudn't have to be bans. (They probably wouldn't throw polyester butts on the gound either were responsibility the watchword in smokers... 8-) But the refrain of "why do I have to leave, I have the right to somke" with the hidden codicil "anywhere I damn well please no matter what the consequences."
See, the responsibility has gone, along with most of the burden of dilligence and accountability, and so "rights" rule supreme.
This is the inevetable result of Moralist policies. Moralisim is the proverbial washing-of-hands. "We didn't rule on this, it is the will of our populous and our populous has that right." Nudge nudge, wink wink...
The PATRIOT Act is a natural outgrowth of the Moralist agenda. It supports a vacation of responsibility and accountability in the name of preserving the "right to safety." The penetration and disapation of the "right to privacy and due process", it says, must be spent as the inferior right because in the moralist realm whenever two rights come into conflict one must be supreme, a "true right" and one must be defeated utterly as not having really been a right at all.
What's actually kind of funny is that Moralisim is a revival of the old Might makes Right paradigm. We set our ideals up against one another to see which one will beat the other to death in a court of public spectacle.
So there is a hierarchy of rights, but only in the presence of responsibilities and accountabilities.
But it really _isn't_ any kind of balancing act. You are not supposed to pay for one right, like safety, by betraying another, like due process.
You are supposed to pay for rights with the currency of responsibility.
We harvest today the fruits of terrorisim becau
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Jihad; look it up.
How's this?
Note especially this definition:
This term has never been translated by Muslims to mean holy war. Instead, it means to struggle or exert oneself to his or her utmost potential. In Islam, there are two levels of jihad. The greater jihad most often refers to the inner struggle against evil within oneself with the goal of self-improvement for the betterment of one's community and the world as a whole. The lesser jihad refers to the struggle on the battlefield in self-defense if Muslims have been attacked and their right to practice their faith has been aggressively taken away. " Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love the transgressors" (Qur'an 2:190). This is an unequivocal statement that only self-defense makes war permissible for Muslims and the goals of war cannot be worldly gain.
Mind you, I agree that a war against "terrorism" is impossible to win, and that addressing injustice in Iraq without addressing injustices we ourselves perpetrate is not going to be especially effective.
But please, don't use that bad definition of jihad, and don't claim that the Islamic world has declared war on us. It's not nearly that simple.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
President Bush routinely tacks the following paragraph onto the end of almost every executive order, to attempt to evade judicial oversight of that order.
- This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity
by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,
entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
That appears at the end of every executive order issued this year, except the ones raising pay for senior politically appointed officials. Other presidents would do this occasionally for minor administrative matters, but Bush does it every time.