Slashdot Mirror
Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
Shining Celebi writes "U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the ACLU and struck down a portion of the revised USA PATRIOT Act this morning, forcing investigators to go through the courts to obtain approval before ordering ISPs to give up information on customers, instead of just sending them a National Security Letter. In the words of Judge Marrero, this use of National Security Letters 'offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.'"
At least someone still has some sense and remembers about those quaint old "rights" and "warrants" and "due process".
Now we just have to get the rest struck down.
B5 71 ED FB 55 D6 4E 68 07 25 E2 FA CA 93 F0 2F, is mine! All mine!
If the members of Congress had any sort of backbone, we wouldn't have needed to bring checks and balances into play.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
this use of National Security Letters "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."
This entire administration offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
The game.
Anyone want to guess how long it'll be before Victor finds himself out of a job?... Unfortunately...
Next on the todo list: throw out the rest of that abomination of a document that is the Patriot Act. It seems more and more often that document is affecting reach of life that go far beyond "national security". I recently had to provide multiple forms of documentation to open a Health Savings Account because of a Patriot Act provision.
Good work, Congress. Protecting our freedoms by removing our freedoms.
I'm an anti-voter, anti-voting in all elections that I can vote in. Many people are surprised that I said I would actually vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, since this vote doesn't actually give any of my rights up to another individual. But even with so many RP supporters online (and now offline), I still think the only way to reduce tyranny in this country is to get judges back into reading the Constitution, and understanding that the document is not flexible, living, breathing and adapting.
Since the U.S. was born, it was understood by all, even detractors, that the Constitution had one purpose: the keep Federal government small and let the individual States be big for those who wanted a big State, and small for those who wanted a small State. People afraid of a North American Union forget that the U.S. was designed this way: a union of States (governments) that agree to one thing: personal rights and responsibilities (these are one thing because they go hand-in-hand).
I'm SHOCKED that we today forget that freedom comes from a lack of government intrusion, NOT from government intrusion. The PATRIOT Act is a simple proof that citizens today have no clue that the Federal government is restrained by the Constitution exactly as it was written. No laws restricting speech, no laws restricting arms, no laws restricting Habeus Corpus, no laws restricting travel or transport, no laws restricting trade, no laws restricting the People's rights beyond what limited powers the central body has. In fact, the only thing the Feds really can do is to make sure the individual States don't trample on the individual's rights to act non-violently how they want to act.
I'm glad to see SOME judges admire SOME parts of the Constitution, but I can only dream of a day when judges understand the non-breathing, non-adapting Constitutional limits on the Feds. When that happens, nothing Congress or a power-hungry President do would become law.
A US District Court is a fairly low-level court. As a result, this is but the first step in the process. You can be assured that the Feds are going to appeal this vigorously to the highest levels...
Federal judges have life tenure unless impeached by Congress for misconduct, and while this Congress has no backbone to hold The Sprout's (thanks, Molly Ivins!) feet to the fire in terms of obeying the Constitution, neither does it have the degree of nutball monomania required to impeach a judge for such evident Constitutional common sense. I doubt there's a single Representative crazy enough to ... belay that, there aren't enough crazies there to make it a serious possibility.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The Bush admin wll just use their next atty general to prevent these cases from getting reviewed, appealing it all the way to the now-biased supreme court. This is a long fight.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
http://www.gao.gov/
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. GAO's work includes oversight of federal programs; insight into ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical and equitable; and foresight of long-term trends and challenges. GAO's reports, testimonies, legal decisions and opinions make a difference for Congress and the Nation.I see the ACLU and EFF serving the same purpose, except they're the investigative/defensive arm of the general citizenry.
I'm tired of activist judges who ignore basic law principles
Basic law principles... like the 4th Amendment. Oh, wait, that's what Congress and the President ignored. Good thing someone is actually about enforcing the law. Too bad there are so many who would throw out our most basic of law -- the Constitution -- the second it inconveniences them.
The enemies of Democracy are
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the intentions of the ACLU and suggest you read a bit of political and philosophical theory before jumping to such a disheartening conclusion, considering they are the thin pink line preventing complete fascism in the face of overwhelming military and police power. Granted, there are numerous other groups doing the similar things, the ACLU as an organization (the members of which not necessarily withstanding) has consistently and logically supported the fundamental rights and liberties all people should be granted and have protected. So instead of criticizing the organization as a whole, criticize the individual cases in the organization you disagree with, because the ACLU, if any other group, would be willing to learn from mistakes and make things better. Of course I say this in potential ignorance of something the organization has done that should make me feel otherwise, so if that is the case, by all means let me know.
Actually that would be a terrible idea. You can't have effective oversight if your funding is controlled by the party you are overseeing.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Congress made such a law, and by virtue of checks and balances, we're able to get rid of it. Try again coward.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
1. Any agency funded by the government, works for the government. For the ACLU to protect the rights of the people, it has to be voluntarily funded by the people directly. The government funding the ACLU is like the Mafia funding the FBI.
2. While the ACLU does do a good job protecting certain rights, the ACLU does a shitty job protecting other rights. When was the last time the ACLU defended people's 2nd Amendment Rights? Or do you want the NRA to be government funded as well?
Hence why we need the ACLU and EFF instead of just the GAO in the first place!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Uh, I have a number of complaints with the ACLU, but being racist for acknowledging the existence of race and the important issues revolving around it? Sorry, I can't agree. Racism still exists, and if you're going to protect the rights of everyone given the social reality of today then you have to acknowledge that attacks against freedom are often race-based and hence so must the defense. To treat everything as if it only involves an individual when the fundamental issue is that someone doesn't like the group that individual is a part of is to be ineffectual -- just like any time you try to solve a problem without properly identifying what it is. Failing to do so because your personal sense of egalitarianism requires not just judging people based on themselves instead of race, but to ignore that they belong to a race entirely, is foolish in my opinion.
But, uh, I'm making an assumption about what you meant there.
The enemies of Democracy are
It takes less than two years to vote out a Representative who votes for an unconstitutional law. The founding fathers were relying on the people, not SCOTUS, to defend their constitution.
You can't take the sky from me...
Actually the Patriot Act is a mixed bag of some stuff that is pretty bad, and other stuff that seems reasonable but isn't a solution to the situation we faced on 9/11.
If you go through the provisions, most of them seem to be aimed at the proverbial "ticking time bomb" scenario. This wouldn't have helped on 9/11, because the first inkling we had the operation was going on was when the plane was hijacked. At that point the time it would take to get a warrant in Boston vs. Washington DC wasn't an issue. Other provisions pierce the Chinese wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Again that wasn't an issue in 9/11. Had we taken the steps available to us under the old rules, it would have made a difference. Having the same attitude, the new rules would not have made a difference.
If we had done everything we should have in the lead up to 9/11, it is conceivable although not certain that the provisions in the Patriot Act might have made a difference. That is saying something for the Patriot Act in my opinion.
The main problem with the Patriot Act is not what it contains, but what it fails to contain: any provision to hold the executive branch accountable for its use of its new powers. And therein lies the opportunity for a tool of security to become a tool of tyranny. As President Reagan said: trust, but verify. Which means you can trust somebody when any cheating would be made obvious.
The police have the ability to do all kinds of things to you that you wouldn't want them to do, up to and including shooting you dead. This doesn't mean we live in some kind of police haunted dystopia, for the simple reason that there are rules that govern the police use of their powers, and when they exercise those powers they have to answer to the courts as to whether they were using those powers within their lawful limits. That's accountability: it's a philosophy that works.
This by the way is the problem with the administration's wiretapping programs. I'm happy to let them have such programs for the purposes they claim so long as somebody independent verifies they are using it for that alone. If there is no such mechanism, it doesn't matter if the program is being run by Jesus Himself. It's a bad program.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...Oddly enough, the signing statement was signed onto a bill related to protecting oyster beds in Western Florida. When asked about the link between the two, President Bush said, "Marrero was a strong opponent of oyster farmers of Florida and I support oyster farmers." President Bush then dismissed the press and returned to clearing brush with a 9 iron.
"Ironically, socialized medicine takes healthcare decisions out of individuals' hands..."
So do HMO's.
Clean air act means more air pollution.
No child left behind means all children held back.
Healthy forest initiative means clear cutting...
See a pattern yet?
You can't take the sky from me...
EXCELLENT. Mod Parent UP.
If you want better, you pay more for it. Do you think people who send kids to private school should get a tax rebate because they don't use the service?
If so...
I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back.
I have my own weapon and I'll defend my property myself, I don't want to pay for police services that others use.
Blar.
Yes. Because the government is always wrong. Government is created out of the simple necessity of a society to have some rules and protection but through out history governments have taken their simple power and blown it continually out of scope. If people/society/the rich/the poor were not so fucking evil then we wouldn't need government - however it appears mankind cannot peacefully coexist in some magical commune.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Don't you realize that if you start taxing churches, you legitimize their stake in government?? I'd think that's the last thing you'd want.
Dude, what?!?
They already have a special privileged status due to their tax exemption. This tax free money is increasingly being used for political campaigning.
Making them pay their share would remove the ability to use churches as an end run around the laws on that.
Where do you get the idea that *removing* their privileged status would grant them greater privilege?
2. While the ACLU does do a good job protecting certain rights, the ACLU does a shitty job protecting other rights. When was the last time the ACLU defended people's 2nd Amendment Rights?
The problem I have with this argument is that the NRA is bigger and wealthier than the ACLU. The NRA is way on top of 2nd amendment issues. With a smaller budget, the ACLU is guarding the other 9... well maybe 7 or so amendments in the bill of rights.
Given that there is already a bigger more powerful organization tasked strictly with defense of the 2nd don't you think it's reasonable that the ACLU would leave those fights to the NRA and concentrate their limited resources on the larger problem space they're tasked with?
I remember saying on 09/11/2001 that the government will use the fear generated by the crashes to ram the Patriot Act down our throats. It's sad that our country gives up personal freedom so willingly. While any reverse of any part of the Act is good, I won't be happy until it's abolished in its entirety. But, now that its there, it will be tough to eradicate. I wish people would think before they act in fear. Anyway, my $0.02.
It's certainly true that some of the provisions "might have" prevented a 9/11 attack, but hindsight is 20/20. Granted I've only just started reading his work, but Sun Tzu clearly indicated that in order to successfully wage war when your force is smaller, you have to attack where your enemy does not expect you. That is the problem with this kind of war; you can defend against one tactic, but they'll simply adapt and do something else. Look at internet security--it doesn't matter how much Microsoft patches the operating system; they're still going to find a new way to get in. All these provisions will do is direct terrorists to other unknown avenues, at the cost of billions of dollars, our freedoms (which is what we are trying to protect), and our very way of life.
That, however, is only an argument for the futility of the Patriot Act. I would argue that the biggest problem, however, is its scope. Again, why would the Patriot Act dictate what documentation I need in order to open an HSA? Where is the sense in that? Do terrorists use the tax-free medical funds to finance terrorism? I didn't need any of that to open a bank account, or get a credit card, so why an HSA? The problem is that the Patriot Act seems to cover any kind of wild scenario that maybe someone could somehow, in some crazy unlikely scenario, use to even indirectly benefit terrorism. Hey, maybe the terrorists are getting $34/year extra on tax benefits by using an HSA (which, by the way, also requires them to have a HDHP)!
And that even says nothing about why we need to get really, really wound up over terrorist attacks on the US that have killed only a small fraction of number of people who have died of more troublesome causes, such as cancer, or the flu, or armed robbery, or drowning in backyard pools. If we look at it in terms of how much we're giving up in terms of dollars and freedoms per life saved, we're probably spending millions of times on terrorism what we spend on anything else.
Now if we can just get the Executive branch to listen to... oh I dunno... ANYBODY else, this might mean something. Is it me, or is the Legislative and Judicial branches a bunch of big fat pussies? No wonder the Executives are running away with all the marbles.
Yes, he's a troll, but here's an important thing for everyone to remember: the phrase "activist judge" is a synonym for "a judge who made a ruling I don't like."
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
ok, so the US government must get a court order to get customer info from ISP's but the record companies dont?
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
It's a mediocre idea, but one that's better than the idea we're running with now. My dad's been working in public health for about 35 years, all over the world. He was telling me the other day that there are ex Soviet-bloc countries that have better child and maternal health statistics than major US cities. That's just plain _broken_.
Best would be for government to get out of the way. Socialized medicine drives up healthcare costs and or rations healthcare. Some say look at Canada's system, but I hear a lot of Canadians come to the US to get healthcare if they can afford it. US healthcare quality may be the best in the world but unfortunately not everyone has insurance and can afford it out of pocket. Because the government drives up the prices though, if it were to get out of the way healthcare prices would be lower.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Congratulations, you just spouted off a bunch of nonsense without backing it up.
As for Canada: so what if some Canadians who can afford it come to the US for treatment? The US is the most technologically advanced nation in the country --- is it surprising that you can get some stuff here (if you have the _money_) that you can't get in Canada?
The question isn't how the system handles the rich guy with brain cancer who needs American technology to save his life. He can get top-flight care wherever he is. The question is how the system handles the hundred other people who have mundane things like work-related injuries or childhood illnesses. And our system just falls down there.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Or in the words of Hermann Goering: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
To make people willing to go to war, or willing to give up their civil liberties, the basic principle is the same. Denounce the opponents for their "lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger", and the people will comply. As long as you can make people think that protection by the government and protection from the government is mutually exlcusive, then the tyrants and terrorists have won.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm not as quick to let the Feds off the hook. I don't mind if the government has my data as long as they follow due process of law. That means warrants issued by judicial approval after showing probable cause, habeas corpus, and open trials as much as humanly possible. The govermnent may or may not need to know as much about me as they do (I think they don't), but the real problem here is lack of oversight. Intelligence services follow the principle of need-to-know. I think we need to follow that with the government. They should know only the little bit about me that they absolutely need to know. The only way to determine that is openness in the laws and in judicial process.
You stated that it isn't likely that the Feds will be knocking down your door, so it isn't a concern. The problem is: the Feds can knock down your door while, ostensibly, Equifax can't. The government needs to be under greater scrutiny than the private sector because they have the power to deprive you of your liberty. With the PATRIOT Act and National Security Letters we don't know exactly why the Feds are knocking down your door and you can't tell us why. It might be for a good reason or it might not be. And if someone can abuse the power for a bad reason, they will abuse the power. And they have! The GAO has reported many abuses of the PATRIOT Act by the FBI since it was passed and nothing gets done about it.
In every generation, outside threats have always triggered a response to "increase security" while eliminating civil liberties and those responses have always been proven wrong by history. Japanese-American internment camps and the McCarthy-era black lists are the most recent examples. Ben Franklin's quote about liberty and temporary safety may be a cliche now, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
OK, I have a question about the stores you go to having you on film... So did you willing go in the store? Or did they tape you in your home while having private conversations?
Kenneth Lay - neocon - unethical thief.
Donald Rumsfeld - neocon - unabashed murderer.
Ted Haggard - neocon - homosexual, drug-using hypocrite.
Dick Cheney - neocon - war profiteer.
Your claims of your ideology aren't those of a neocon though.
The neocons started out as mostly Jewish liberals in the 1970's who wanted the USA to strengthen its defense and spread the reach of US industry. They became republicans in the 1970's and spread their hegemony through the guise of christian values.
Really, you are just fooled into following. Sad for you that you don't understand the truth.
a short timeline for you.
1973 US abandons "gold standard" for oil.
1974 OPEC sharply raises prices for oil to US. Oil shortage causes neocons to emerge.
1970's-ish Democratic Senator Henry Jackson's aides design new world order (middle east must be democratized to lessen threat to US through oil)
1978 USSR invades Afghanistan (we hate soviets more than afghanis so we help the afghanis)
1980 neocons convert to republican to use Ronald Reagan as the tool for their goals. (forcing either conflict or concord with the Soviet Union)
1980-1988 iran-iraq war (we hate iran so we help iraq)
1992 neocons miss opportunity to oust Saddam Hussein (Cheney publicly says it would be a quagmire. the power vacuum would destabilize the region)
2000 neocons stroll out Dubya. (His platform is against "Nation building" and military interference)
2001 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 neocons get excuse to invade iraq (something they've been planning since the 1970's)
2003 Dubya makes a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, HQ for the neocon policy goblins. (directly going against his platform)
2003 Dubya violates the NSA's single directive (don't spy on Americans)
2005 Halliburton begins building prison camps in America's heartland (dissenters beware)
2007 you wrote this post about your religious beliefs (not realizing the sweeping plan set under your own feet)
I hope you learned something new. Maybe you should re-evaluate your political philosophy.
If Jesus were alive today, he'd be a Left-Wing Hippie. (blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor, blessed are the generous)
You, Erik Martin, are an unthinking follower. You apparently haven't read your own bible. You're not following your own religious beliefs.
Me? I'm an American. I want to wear blue jeans and eat cheese burgers and listen to Rock music.
I also want to work for a living and take care of my family.
I believe We Americans can do this without causing harm, poverty, sickness, or suffering to other people in this country and others.
They're using their grammar skills there.