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.'"
I, for one, welcome our newly Constitutionally-conscious judicial overlords.
At least someone still has some sense and remembers about those quaint old "rights" and "warrants" and "due process".
Where is the "nodamnkidding" tag when you need it?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
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.
This act is contrary to everything that makes America who it is. At least they had the marginally good sense to put a sunset on it. I think they knew it would be kicked out at some point anyway. Good riddance. Patriot Act supporters are whats wrong in America.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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...
If you appreciate what the ACLU does, it's worth noting that they could always use your support.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
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 ACLU challenged this law, and hence brought about this ruling. Hopefully, they will be successful in challenging similar laws in the future.
You benefit from their work.
They need to eat.
Donate.
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.
WTF kind of translation is that? English to AOL?
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
In completely unrelated news, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero has been arrested as an enemy combatant who hates freedom as is currently on an airplane in transit to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he will be held indefinitely. Ironically, it is unlikely that this judge will ever see his own day in court.
President Bush has issued a signing statement declaring that the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers is unConstitutional, since "Clearly the executive branch of government is over the other two, or else they wouldn't have called it the 'executive' branch." Dick Cheney couldn't be reached for comment to see which branch of government he is part of today.
Don't you mean, "Their taking are jobs!!!!"
No, wait.....
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.
OCO is Loco
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
The Government can prevent this kind of challenge by simply declaring that the existence of such NSLs is a State Secret, denying any prospective plaintiffs proof that they have standing. That's exactly what the USSC ruled in the secret-wiretap ruling recently and the Administration is sure to have pointed that out (I don't have a copy of the pleadings here, but given the Administration's fondness for that tactic I can't imagine that they would have missed that one.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Read the actual decision. (PDF) What the court ruled was that the "gag rule" associated with "National Security Letters" was fundamentally unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation. The issue is that the FBI can't impose a "gag order" on someone without court approval.
The previous issue, issuance of National Security Letters without court approval as a Fourth Amendment violation, was dealt with when Congress revised the Patriot Act last year to allow recipients of a National Security Letter to challenge them in court, like a subpoena.
As a classic rule of First Amendment jurisprudence, when the Court finds a First Amendment violation, they strike down the entire statute, rather than trying to patch it. That's what the court did here. The court also stayed the execution of the order pending an appeal, which is likely.
It's a narrow holding. The FBI can still issue National Security Letters without going to court first, but anyone who receives one is now in a much stronger position to argue about it. As a practical matter, if you work for an ISP or telco and get a National Security Letter, your response is "This has to go through our lawyers."
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. It's all a matter of perspective.
Who let Ann Coulter on
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
insight
-noun 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding
People here have been rolling out that tired quote for the past six years. Posting it verbatim no longer qualifies as "insightful" IMO.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
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.
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?
Don't let him remain an inconsequential voice, spread the word, get involved in your politics, because you don't take charge of politics, politics will take charge of you.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You didn't pay attention in civics. The executive is charged with enforcing laws, the legislative with making laws, and the judiciary with ensuring the legality of laws.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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...
I'll agree that churches shouldn't receive government funding. However if you are simply equating their tax-exempt status as a government subsidy, you are simply wrong.
Ah but as part of hie White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Bush does give churches taxpayer money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ever stop and think of where all the medicines that are saving people are coming from? If you guess "The Government," you're wrong. Nope, it is from creativity that is motivated by reward. So yeah, pharmaceutical companies are making bank off of medicine, but where would we be otherwise (answer: we wouldn't have the medicine anyways)
If you think the government does no research into drugs and that pharmaceutical companies do all the research in the US you are dead wrong. A very good example I know is with Taxol. A group of researchers with the National Cancer Institute, NCI, a government organization, spend $183 million US taxpayer dollars to develop Taxol as a cancer treatment. What does the NCI do with it? It sells all of the rights to the data, needed for FDA approval, to Bristol Myers Sqibb, BMS, for $43 million, $140 million less than the government paid to develop it. BMS was brought in on it in 1989 and in 2000 BMS made $1.6 Billion, with a "B" not an "m". US taxpayer were ripped off. I wouldn't be surprised if BMS has made more than 10 Billion on it.
Don't tell me pharmaceutical companies spend all of the money and develop all of the drugs. If I had had my way either everything that was needed so anyone could manufacture and sale Taxol would be released, or BMS would of had to pay the government royalties on the money they made on the sale of Taxol. Said royalties could then be put into a fund to fund more research.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What happens when government pays healthcare cost for those who can't afford it? One, it takes money out of taxpayers pockets. Two, healthcare providers don't get as much from government as they would from private insurance. This means providers will raise prices for everyone else.
FACT: Americans spend substantially more per-capita on healthcare than Europeans.
One can argue about the reasons why our private health insurance system has failed to provide efficiency, but it's hard to ague that it is indeed efficient. Modern economics recognizes many situations in which the free market fails to provide a good solution, perhaps healthcare is one of them.
Ah, why is the US the most advanced? Because the government doesn't control as much of the market as other countries do. It allows more businesses, organizations, and people to do more research without constantly getting in the way.
First, the US government pours about $100bn a year into R&D expenditures, more than a third of the total R&D expenditures in the country. Major industries (aerospace, military technology) in which the US is the world leader are funded partly or largely by the government, directly and indirectly. This is not including all the money poured by states and the federal government into academia. Our universities are still the best in the world, and also a major source of our innovation.
Second, I'm not arguing that in general lesser government intervention is a good thing. I'm arguing that limited government involvement is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for a good solution.
I may be wrong but I sense an unwavering belief socialized medicine will fix everything. My beliefs on this aren't solid so if there is a better system I'm all ears, however I have yet to be offered anything that will improve the situation. Do yo have one?
This is not a deep, unwavering belief. I have, in general, a libertarian bent. But ultimately I'm a pragmatist. I'm convinced the present system isn't very good (and have spoken to people who work in public health who agree with me), and I can see that the Europeans have a proven, working solution. The engineer in me says: "why not just copy the solution we know to work?"
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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!
It's not 'unpossible', it's in place. Know what a telephone switch is? A computer. Know how easy it is to divert and filter packets going through a computer? Trivial. Know how hard it is to have those packets analysed by the switch, or optionally, another computer the packets are forwarded to? Also trivial. Where it gets human-intensive is the second order analysis, when the computer flags stuff for human eyes to look over. That takes a bit of programming to get right. Now, Fed programmers may not be the brightest of the bright, but there's a lot of them. Given enough time, I have zero doubt they can write filtering programs. And sometimes, they might even get one that works. You're simply not thinking in large enough terms. The Feds have trillions of dollars to play with. Diverting a couple billion to handle the task is no big thing for them.
Again, look at the big picture. Throw enough money at a problem, you'll come up with something.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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?
It does NOT enumerate any rights for non-citizens. If a foreign national visited the US, the government could imprison and execute him without trial, without once violating the Constitution.
I think you're missing something or are misinterpreting the Constitution of the USA and Bill of Rights. In the Constitution itself "citizen" is used a number of tymes, such as in the requirements to run federal office. However when enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights not once is "citizen" used, "people" is what's used. the first use of "citizen in the amendments is Amendment 11 when it says:
Falcon"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Again "citizen is in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. I'd say it's pretty obvious the Founding Fathers meant all people when they said people have these rights. And you can't say they were written at widely different tymes, the Bill of Right was ratified December 15, 1791 and the 11th was ratified February 7, 1795. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was elected president in 1801, after the ratifications.
Should there be a Law?