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."
Seriously, why did this take so long?
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html
That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.
That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?
For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.
Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!
This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)
True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.
I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I'm a Paul supporter, also, and I'm sure you're trying to help. But, seriously, support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.