TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional
Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional
| quote: |
| Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 6, 2007; 3:36 PM A federal judge today struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional, ordering the FBI to stop issuing "national security letters" that secretly demand customer information from Internet service providers and other businesses. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution's separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process. Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values." The decision has the potential to eliminate one of the FBI's most widely used investigative tactics. It comes amid widespread concern on Capitol Hill over reported abuses in the way the FBI has used its NSL powers. NSLs allow agents in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations to secretly gather Americans' phone, bank and Internet records without a court order or a grand jury subpoena. Although the FBI has had such power for many years, the Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly expanded its ability to issue the letters. But Marrero wrote that "in light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association--particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies--a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes." He ruled that only some of the NSL provisions were unconstitutional, but found that it was impossible to separate those provisions from other parts of the law. He therefore struck down the FBI's ability to issue NSLs altogether. Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal. Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said the department is "reviewing the decision and considering our options." The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified only as John Doe, an Internet service provider prohibited under the law from publicly revealing the receipt of an NSL. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said the ruling "is yet another setback in the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional." The ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down the Patriot Act's NSL provisions. In 2004, the judge found the law unconstitutional because it silenced NSL recipients and gave them no recourse through the courts. As the government was appealing that ruling, Congress passed new legislation in 2005 that was aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the judge, responding to an amended complaint by the ACLU, ruled today that "several aspects of the revised nondisclosure provision of the NSL statute violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers." An internal FBI audit earlier this year found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while using NSLs to collect data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years. Those findings followed an earlier audit by the Justice Department's inspector general, which found a much smaller number of violations in a narrow sampling. More than 19,000 NSLs were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces of information, mostly from telecommunications companies, according to the government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7090601438.html |
THANK YOU.
It doesn't fix anything, but it means that the "secret services" gathering "confidental national security information" (IE: your sister's naked web cam exploits xD), while it will never cease, will now have to go through the same due process of law as any other investigation if it ever wants to see the light of day.
Liberty - 1
Gestapo - 19569726
more good news
| quote: |
| U.S. judge knocks down part of Patriot Act Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:31am BST SEATTLE (Reuters) - An Oregon judge on Wednesday ruled that two provisions of the Patriot Act violated the U.S. Constitution's protection against unlawful searches and seizures. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favour of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer wrongly arrested by the FBI in 2004 for possible ties to the Madrid train bombings, who challenged the secret searches of his home and office. The judge said the amendments made by the Patriot Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to conduct searches and monitor American citizens without probable cause, which is typically required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "The defendant here is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so," Aiken wrote in her ruling. In Washington, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said, "We are reviewing the decision, and while we have no further comment, we are reviewing all our options." Aiken's ruling is the second legal blow delivered to the Patriot Act in less than a month. A district judge in New York said a provision in the Patriot Act that requires people who are formally contacted by the FBI for information to keep it a secret is unconstitutional. The anti-terror Patriot Act, enacted by Congress after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, expanded the rights of law enforcement agencies and eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNew...629311820070927 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 more good news |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Shibby Awesome. Now why didn't they do this years ago? |
The agenda remains strong.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.