Slashdot Mirror
Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.
... until now.
Most other politicians voted for it without reading it, or were swept up in panic and kneejerk reactions, and now tiptoe around the issue. Ron Paul is adamant in requiring habeas corpus, warrants, and everything else that America has stood for
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k
Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF
So cynical...while it has limited utility, the decision is not useless. Police tend to use surveillance techniques and police procedures which procure evidence that can be used to obtain a conviction; if the Act is unconstitutional, evidence obtained under its provisions is inadmissible in court. Knowing that, police agencies will be less likely to use powers in accord with those provisions, since anything that they gather using it will be useless in a court of law.
Yes I know police do go off the rails--"Don't taze me, bro!"--but at least a ruling of this sort curbs one of the worst abuses that can emanate from inappropriate police investigative conduct, namely convictions in a court of law.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Agreed. They were so afraid of getting attacked that they ignored the constitution they swore to uphold. So they are, specifically: cowards, traitors, and oath-breakers.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Actually, PATRIOT Act is also wrong. It's the USAPATRIOT Act, or The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
If you look at his voting record, you'll see that his record on supporting the war is mixed at best, and that he has supported the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
The Bill of Rights was drafted by Madison in 1789. The French Revolution began that year, but the Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. It seems a little odd that Jefferson could have foreseen how the Revolution overseas would turn out and been influenced to push for a Bill of Rights because of it, rather than arguments which had begun well before the French stormed the Bastille.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Let's see if I can actually get the formatting right . . . sorry!
Background:
The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance.
Facts of the Case:
This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures.
Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc):
The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face.
The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage.
"T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state."
1. Bill of Rights---1789 (drafted by Madison).[1]
2. French Revolution's Reign of Terror---1792.[2]
3. Jefferson's role in the Constitution---None, he was in France. [3]
Based on the three facts above, I don't see how your statement stands. The Bill of Rights was not to prevent terrorism, but to prevent the Federal government from becoming bloated and repressive. The Courts have misconstrued the 14th Amendment to allow leveraging the BoR against states as well.[4]
The Bill of Rights states that searches cannot be _unreasonable_, which the Courts have defined. You can be searched in airports by federal officers (TSA) when traveling because the extreme risk of a bomb makes searching everybody reasonable. Allowing another 9/11 carries a high risk; which makes an otherwise unreasonable search _more_ reasonable. Probable cause twists with the risk of not searching.
This is also a Federal District judge making a ruling. There will likely be an appeal to the 9th Circuit and perhaps also to SCOTUS. This is only a shot across the bow of the PATRIOT Act.
----
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ("[The Bill of Rights were initially] drafted by James Madison in 1789...")
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution (The Revolution began in 1789)
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson ("Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a Bill of Rights...")
[4] Amend XIV, Sec. 5 gives Congress sole enforcement authority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). However, SCOTUS and the state courts have applied it. This is itself unconstitutional in light of Section 5.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.