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.
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
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!
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?
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.
"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...
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.
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!